Witterings of a Weegiewarbler

International Woman’s Day.

2012-03-10T17:05:00.000-04:00

March 8th, was International Woman’s Day and it seems appropriate to look at the issue of UK gender equality reasonably closely in an independence referendum run in. Details in the polls show women rather more likely to support the status quo, Union, than men. As a group women are perhaps more inclined to be conservative – with a small “c” – than men.

The politicians of a Union persuasion are constantly telling us that the UK is a shining beacon, a land of milk and honey that others aspire to. From a woman’s perspective it is worth examining where London rule has positioned some 50% of the Scots population with respect to our counterparts in other nations.

With the exception of childbirth and pregnancy, which is obviously gender specific and can at times be a rather deadly occupation e.g. globally, 1000 women die daily participating, other issues like right to choose, being a mother or other inherently female items are not included here, except to state that no area investigated showed being a woman in the UK was ranked in the global top 10. That’s a shameful state of affairs in a land proclaimed as a “shining light”.

In times of uncertainty it’s good to know there are high paying high skilled jobs available, and that in the UK women have an opportunity to compete for them. Sadly in the UK, women rank well down the world table in their chances of landing one of these jobs, in breaking through the corporate glass gender ceiling. The UK is in fact some 35 spots below even Jamaica.

There was much ado about nothing recently, though much ado was made of it. This was the number of women in prominence in the Labour party, gained largely through affirmative action. Most women will tell you bluntly they don’t want affirmative action, just the chance to get the job if they’re the best candidate. Thailand had the most women in senior political positions; the UK after its discriminatory policies didn’t even make the top 20 list.

Continuing with the subject of women in politics, even after the campaign to promote women in the UK, politics in the British sphere still lagged even the Central African Republic of Rwanda by some 45 places in the world table. Predominantly Muslim countries like the United Arab Emirates or Pakistan have had better female political representation.

The best place for a woman with respect to economic participation is the Bahamas, basically this just asks how simple is it for women to get a job and contribute to the economy, again the UK as a whole didn’t even make the top 20.

Women desiring a career in literacy aren’t very well served by the UK and its inglorious institutions either. Lesotho was number one for female literacy according to the Gaurdian, 95% of women can competently read and write, a significantly higher percentage than the men. The UK didn’t even make it into the top 20 again. In point of fact overall literacy the UK is in 39th place according to the CIA fact-book, behind even central Caribbean nations like Barbados or the predominantly Inuit nation of Greenland. We must do better.

Education is closely tied to literacy rates; it comes as no surprise that a woman who dreams of attending University in the UK stands some 35 places in the world table below her equal in Qatar.

One surprising fact, the recognised best place to be a woman is a tiny nation so belittled and disparaged by the UK establishment that it was actually placed on a list of terrorist nations. Iceland came in at number 1 for overall gender equality with the London centric UK at a disgraceful 16th position on a downwards trend.

Sweden favoured women in artistic fields, going so far as to require film grants to be divided evenly between men and women, the Swedes even introduced a quota system. This does raise humorous issues of meeting the gender balance in the adaption of books like “Little Women”. The UK averages a 91% to 9% disparity between male and female screenwriters and directors which appears severe in the creative arts given that male minds are generally accepted as more technical and female minds as more creative.

According to the World Health Organisation's Maternal Mortality study, safest place in the world for completing a pregnancy, in spite of its economic woes, is Italy where 4 women will die in childbirth for every 100,000 live births. Once again, the United Kingdom didn’t have the ability to even boast it was in the top ten with twice that number. In fact, the UK sits at 23; below Albania at 22, Slovakia at 14 and the Czech Republic at 12.

The overall area of the globe with the highest percentage of women working in journalism is the Caribbean, which is nudging towards 50%. Europe has over 1/3 of its mainstream media positions female filled with the UK again in the region of a 91% to 9% disparity.

The list appears to extend almost ad infinitum, simple labour participation has the UK over 40 places below the sub Saharan Republic of Burundi. If earning money is a topic to be discussed then Luxembourg or Norway with smaller or similar populations in a European frame should be considered. Women in the UK are over 20 global places behind both these progressive nations.

Women in Scotland still appear to be one of the largest demographics supporting the continuation of London rule, yet it is self evidently a rule that has not been kind to the gender. Finding Scots women in the top ten lists doesn’t happen until examining such areas as heart disease, certain cancers, or limiting the search to Europe, life expectancy.

The question women in Scotland must ask themselves is why? Why do women want to vote for a future of deprivation for both themselves and their daughters?

Lamontable leadership: is Cowardice the best the Union can offer?

2012-02-28T12:04:00.002-04:00

Johann Lamont was elected in December 2011, not even three months ago, and she’s now averaging in excess of at least one example of cowardice per month. Cowardice is the primary verb one would use to indicate failure to take a stand, accept responsibility or act on a situation through apparent fear of consequences.

We have been informed that Ms. Lamont is the Labour leader, that she has responsibility for all Labour in Scotland. Ms. Lamont therefore has the duty to lead her party; it is a duty that so far she has shirked.

The lack of backbone exhibited by Labour leadership in Scotland makes it clear; the Union in Scotland is in utter disarray.

It is credible that the largest of the Union parties should lead the way in the upcoming fight over independence, but based on current performance who will lead that party, because at the present time, London influence excluded, it is most definitely leaderless.

Leadership is about traits and attributes, a state of being, Johann Lamont to date has been prominent by her lack of leadership traits, by her silence, rather than exemplifying characteristics we should admire, support and wish to emulate or follow.

With Labour being the recognized opposition to the governing party, this is representative of an extremely worrying situation. An opposition party is supposed to provide a check and balance, it should offer alternatives, it should be constructive in debate and it should contribute to policy development.

Under the reported leadership of Johann Lamont, rapidly fading beyond gray, it has demonstrably exhibited none of those characteristics.

In the case of Stirling Council the Labour party joined forces with the Tory’s to defeat the minority SNP budget. In so doing they voted against their own Labour amendments and scuppered a national Labour party policy of standing against council tax cuts. There was no response from Ms. Lamont. Silence is not a mark of leadership. Silence when faced with promotion of a policy that is inconsistent with your stated goals is simply incomprehensible. Stirling Labour just ridiculed Scottish Labour.

In the case of Falkirk MP Eric Joyce, now awaiting disposition of charges for assault, in addition to being the first MP to claim over 1,000,000 in expenses the lack of leadership action is stupefying. Ms. Lamont was officially given responsibility for all Labour in Scotland. Mr. Joyce is a representative of Labour in Scotland. Mr. Joyce is Ms. Lamont’s responsibility. That Ed Miliband had to take matters into his own hands regarding a Scottish MP is deplorable. That the Labour leader in Scotland took no action and made no statement relegates her position to sham puppetry, fear or cowardice, not leadership.

There was a recently reported comment in national media, attributed to the Labour party, from a senior party official that Labour would rather have a “nutter than a Nat” in the Falkirk seat, and therefore strongly inferred that there would be no by-election. A leader, a real leader, would get help for the individual concerned before events reached the stage they are at, allowing that the local party attempted de-selection because of “concerns”. Leadership in the political arena would acknowledge the constituents desires come before any party.

In failing to act prior to the situation exploding leadership can still be effective, it can offer support, treatment and counseling for one who has lost their way. In a public case it should do so publically, and acknowledge the errors made in leadership. It cannot force the individual to accept help, but it must be offered as the organization demonstrates what procedures are being put in place to stop a repeat performance. That these measures are not being announced are additional examples of less than poor leadership.

Glasgow council is in meltdown; any stand Johanna Lamont was considering there has melted away. There has been no response from Labour’s non entity, for such is the only realistic way to describe one appointed to lead and who then does so by absence. Glasgow needs leadership until the Council elections, not just after them.

Referencing Glasgow once more, there has been an allegation of bullying and improper pressure against specific council members, yet the member making alleged threats is remains a candidate when others do not, all without any inkling of an enquiry. This only lends credence to the allegations that the Scots Labour leader is but a puppet, with strings being jerked in London. This is not leadership in Scotland; it appears simple cowardice, a fear of the potential issues that might be uncovered in a well executed investigation. Cowardice is not a generally accepted leadership quality.

There was an instance regarding rape allegations made in the chamber at Holyrood, allegations that appear to be contrived, aged, prior to the administration presently in office and fundamentally misdirected. As Alex Salmond showed when quoting erroneously supplied data in the same chamber, mistakes can happen but true leadership is about acknowledging these issues at the earliest possible opportunity and offering apology with acceptance. That is a cost of leadership. Scotland is still waiting for the apology in the above case; Scotland is still waiting for that acknowledgement of leadership. We are not waiting for more silence.

Scotland has asked the Labour leader for her position on Trident, again silence.

Our government has asked the Labour leader for her support in its budget, a budget amended at her organisation’s request, we still failed to see that support.

The Edinburgh legislature has requested input on legislation, bills like the upcoming or soon to be discarded Scotland bill, Scotland gets refusal, abstention, obstruction or obfuscation.

Silence, refusal, obfuscation, obstruction, cowardice, these are not leadership qualities we either need or want in Scotland. We saw a prime time example of cowardice last year, involving another Labour leader hiding in a sandwich shop, Ms. Lamont has had so many allegorical examples it’s barely worth keeping score.

Our nation needs a voice that supports her, that defends her, that will fight for her. It needs that voice; it needs that clarity of purpose in far more than one political party.

Examining the above with respect to the upcoming referendum it is hardly surprising the Union parties, fronted by Labour in Scotland have so far failed to promote a positive case for the Union. Before they can present any positive case on an ideal they reportedly hold dear to their hearts, they must first be able to present a positive case for themselves and their leadership.

Labour needs to decide, does the leader change, does the leadership change, does the party change or do they simply continue an apparently inexorable march to electoral oblivion.

The other Union parties should consider well Labour’s plight, it is also theirs.

Everything Is Connected – to London.

2012-02-27T20:24:00.000-04:00

Everything’s connected, especially when it comes to the Crown Estates, Westminster and Ofgem. These entities recently announced that they view the feasibility of a new subsea “around Britain” interconnector to be used for the transmission of electrical energy, as self evident.

The Crown Estates report, “East Coast Transmission Network: Technical Feasibility Study” confirmed the practicality of an offshore transmission system to move energy from as far north as Shetland to London, from where it could be sold on to European states.

With peak oil having arrived and global economies under strain under of diminishing resources, we can increasingly expect more items to switch from fossil fuel to electricity as their base energy unit. This will apply to everything from home heating to transportation. Electricity will become the primary lifeblood of tomorrow’s economies.

The cost of this Crown Estate’s proposed transmission line alone would be just shy of £5 billion by 2020. It would have a capacity to transmit up to 10 giga-watts, or about ¼ of the total UK electrical requirement down the East coast alone. This is only 1/6th of Scotland’s potential renewable output.

Potential Inter-Connector Route - Destination London

The Crown Estate findings are largely concurrent and consistent with Ofgem’s workshop report of May 6th 2011, but not with Ofgem’s policies which heavily discriminate against peripheral generation of electricity. Ofgem provides significant subsidies to power producers in London and the South East; subsidies that are paid for by penalties imposed upon generators in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales.

The first item of note is that Ofgem’s policy would require alteration if the lines are to become financially viable, a review is currently underway. Ofgem’s current discriminatory policies were largely implemented during the last period of UK Labour government.

There is also a proposed East-West interconnector from Ireland, through Wales to the South East. According to Deloitte this part of the project already has several hundred millions in investment funds committed.

The West coast offshore wind grid currently under consideration may easily be tied to the East-West interconnector. The West coast grid is primarily in Scottish territory.

The potential ring could eventually carry over 75% of the UK electrical requirements directly to a distribution point just outside London.

The only logical conclusion, supported by Ofgem’s data is that London is preparing the way for itself to become a major European power hub; a hub from which it will derive substantial revenues and royalties.

Essentially the UK government gives every appearance of positioning itself to tax Scottish and Irish resources while having something of a stranglehold over EU power supplies.

It would be an effective method of ensuring future influence. Energy does largely equate to power in many different ways. What we have seen in Scotland as a result of oil is largely insignificant when viewed alongside our renewables potential – and that will not run out.

The aspect that previously cast a shadow on the entire issue was the UK Governments lack of commitment to renewables. Recently Westminster was forced to backtrack on reductions in solar power subsidies, and currently other aspects of the renewables industry are waiting on Westminster to end their regulatory uncertainty so they can get either get to work, or go elsewhere.

To have one arm of government effectively walking away from renewables while the other is investigating new grid ties and transmission lines seemed at cross purposes. The voracious pit of energy demand that is the SE needs fed. Scottish renewables appear fit for supply purpose.

One certainty arising from these proposals is London expects energy generated in Scotland to be available for her use; the method of generation is largely irrelevant. Scotland needs less than 5 giga-watts, leaving up to 60 giga-watts of her abundant green energy for export.

However, the proposed transmission lines can hardly carry 20% of Scotland's potential green energy output; it would seem a classic case of under investment.

There was a meeting last week during which London and Paris reached agreement on future defense spending; this included a small section where London would become a co-op to French nuclear power technology, for implementation in the UK.

The message can only be interpreted in one logical way. Westminster can use the future transmission links to supply energy to the SE for sale on to Europe. That energy can just as easily be nuclear energy as it could be green energy. The current UK administration, as with past administrations in London shows a decided preference for nuclear. The nuclear lobby is potent indeed in Whitehall.

If Scotland should vote No in the independence referendum, it appears not unrealistically that she can expect imposed changes in the constitutional settlement to require new nuclear power plants to be built in Scottish territory. Anticipate green energy being put on the compost pile.

Then again, irrespective of how Scotland votes, it is Westminster’s intent to have a stranglehold over what will be one of Scotland’s main exports, energy. It will be no different than Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian gas supplies from reaching Western Europe.

In other words, Westminster is readying itself to profit from Scotland’s resources whichever way Scotland votes.

It is appropriate for Edinburgh to be able to sell our surplus energy to London, or wherever else it may be both required and profitable. What is not required is a London stranglehold on Scotland’s ability to perform even after she votes “YES”.

If the proposed grids go ahead without any alternative to allow Scottish renewable energy production to be independently exported, London could literally hold the balance of power over not only Scotland but much of Western Europe.

News International’s hold over Cameron.

2012-02-21T11:13:00.000-04:00

What we have been waiting for has finally happened, Rupert Murdoch as a policy director of main stream media, has broken ranks and tweeted support for Scots independence.

The media mogul is currently facing difficult legal inquisitions into his affairs on both sides of the Atlantic. Under such circumstances a lessening of pressure from any area would be a welcome reprieve.

For a man like Rupert Murdoch it all comes down, historically, to applied or implied pressure. Applied pressure is what politicians fear from the media, it causes anything from mild consternation around Westminster’s water coolers through to resignations and even jail time.

Political leaders do not like applied pressure, from wherever source, that is why they so avidly court those with the ability to quickly spin a story into harmlessness or extend it to being a saber stroke through the heart.

Rupert Murdoch, his family and friends have been under extreme pressure from the UK government. He has lost a title, News of the World and its revenues. He has also lost a takeover, for now, and his media have been rabidly anti independence, until now.

The Sun carried the infamous noose picture on Election Day, 2007, and although supporting the SNP in 2011 it did so under the banner of it being the best option on the table while stating it firmly opposed independence.

What has changed is Westminster’s actions; it’s lifting the carpet on Fleet Street through the Leveson inquiry. There’s a feeling abroad that the investigation is still only grabbing one corner of the rug, and if it ever takes it outdoors into the sunshine for a good beating there’s no telling what might drop out.

The head of NI has now finally realised Westminster’s open goal that’s been staring him in the face for years, Scotland.

Rupert Murdoch knows that David Cameron will do anything short of sell his soul to keep the UK together, and even that hasn’t formally been taken from the table.

This media mogul knows that he personally holds the fate of the Union in his hands. He can ensure that Alex Salmond’s probable 2014 “YES” becomes a landslide of monumental proportions.

NI is well aware that all they need do is run a weekly set of stories that tell the true, unvarnished, un-spun facts and the un-decided will jump to the “Yes” camp, that many of the “No’s” will jump in large part to the un-decided. The rump-UK vote will be but a shadow.

Rupert Murdoch also knows that David Cameron is aware of this, and that once the Genie is out the bottle, there’s no putting it back.

The only question remaining from the UK PM’s viewpoint was would Murdoch’s enterprise actually use this most potent of weapons in its arsenal, this Scotland of ours.

That question was answered with a tweet from Murdoch himself, and reports in the Scotsman Newspaper and on the BBC, one praised First Minister Alex Salmond, and the other told Westminster to “Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win”.

There’s only one viable interpretation, it’s a message from Rupert Murdoch to David Cameron, “you’re attacking my family, you’re trying to destroy my family, and I care about my family. Stop, or watch the same being done to what you claim is yours, for I can, and I will see you go down in history as the last Prime Minister”.

These are tweets the media has ignored, even as they give voice to so many others that are comparatively irrelevant. None except NNS even thought it worthy of comment, this is almost unheard of. When someone as significant as Rupert Murdoch speaks out on any constitution it is often viewed as a “game changer”. Instead we get media silence, even from his own tabloids.

The stakes have been quietly raised, but the endgame has not yet started. These tweets can be viewed as a personal opinion; News International’s empire can still continue to support the UK juggernaut. Everything is now on the board and its Cameron’s move.

We will know the outcome of the game, even if the very existence of the game is denied. Leveson will be neutered, the NI empire will go on and no executive of significance to Rupert Murdoch will be impeached. None of significance in the NI world will get more than a knuckle rapping, quickly forgotten after much sensationalism to “show” the wheels of justice have turned.

Or we will see the NI media empire turn its focus fully on support for independence. This would have a secondary benefit for Murdoch’s organisation in that it should also see its sales increase. In this circumstance truth will win, Scotland will win.

The only question still needing answered before the game properly begins, will David Cameron blink, and will he capitulate before the action really starts.

Expect him to; in either scenario we will have our answer as events unfold.

Ultimate Trolls.

2012-02-19T17:12:00.000-04:00

What is a Troll? In the classical sense it is the big bogie man from the frozen past of Norse mythology, a mythology we in Scotland also partly share thanks to the internationalist aspect of our mutual histories.

In more modern mythologies is the version of the troll as portrayed in the recent Harry Potter films and books. This took the thought process a step further. Who stuffed the metaphorical wand up the nose of our latest itineration of a Troll, the Unionist? Who, or what, has irritated it enough to make it venture forth?

The version of troll now being referred to is described by the urban dictionary as “One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark off such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks ... with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue”.

The origin of the word also can refer to a corruption of “Trawling” where a boat somewhat randomly fishes the ocean, hoping for a catch of anything productive and marketable in its nets, often directed to appropriate “grounds” either by knowledge or electronics. “Trolling the internet” has in some ways replaced random wanderings in cyberspace as a preference to “surfing”, although trolling has a decidedly more nefarious undertone to it.

On Sunday the 19th February 2012, there was a tweet at 12:16pm from one George Foulkes, Lord, currently resident at Westminster. The good laird tweeted “CyberNat myth that devolution was forced on the Labour Govt.by EU or Council of Europe (stories vary) is akin to Holocaust denial”.

The essence of the message was simple – Tony Blair just decided to let the Scots “go for it”.

Not required in the tweet was the flagrant and rather ubiquitous reference to the Holocaust – that was trolling for reaction.

Not required in the tweet was the phrase “CyberNat myth”, this is, again, trolling for reaction.

Lairdy Foulkes got his reaction on both counts as the “twittesphere” briefly lit in localized areas responding to this outrageous provocation.

The troll got his reaction, he was fed. Job done!

The troll aspect is additionally re-enforced as the tweet under discussion came about less than forty eight hours after a Newsnet Scotland article on the forces behind devolution. Coincidence? That is a possibility, but then again there is that old Scots double affirmative, “Aye, right!”

This is not the Labour Peer’s first foray into the realm of the internet and social media utelising inflammatory comments and oblique references to actual events. He’s also a frequent user of the coin “CyberNat”. In this turn of phrase he’s been ably aided and abetted by one Tom Harris MP, also a denizen of the halls of Westminster, and some would say erstwhile troll.

Lord Foulkes is in an envious position; he can stir the cauldron at Westminster with no fear of electoral consequences. He has his face firmly in the trough for life, getting more in a day’s allowance than he expects many others to live on for a month. We can’t kick him out. Nor can we get rid of Lord Forsyth even though in 1997 Scots gave the biggest ever electoral thumbs down to the man, he has now been “elevated” without a “by your leave” after we rejected him and also gets to sup at our expense.

Lords Foulkes and Forsyth are the chief Scots trolls in the House of Lords, although they do appear to have their hands full keeping just a nose further ahead than either Tankerness or Sutherland. In case any of the front runners start to slack in their trolling at the trough, Hamilton is pushing from up behind as he reminds us his ancestors were unjustly vilified simply because they found themselves bankrupt after Darien and chose to become a member of the group no known as the “Parcel ‘O Rogues”.

Trolling through legislation at Westminster is no different than trolling the internet. Acting as a Troll at Westminster, where like Hogwarts there are halls and bathrooms through which to prowl, is no different than entering chat rooms or social media sites when your primary result is to cause consternation, upset and strong reaction without a meaningful contribution to the debate.

This is just as obvious at Westminster as it is in cyberspace; the various amendments dragged to the legislative table after being dredged from Westminster’s trough by relevant snouts have no hope of becoming law. They will never be part of any finalized Scotland Bill, as the bill requires assent through both parliaments. That is a political reality.

These amendments, sham protests at vilification, infantile attention seeking and media grandstanding are therefore designed only to produce a reaction without adding to the matter surrounding the constitutional debate. What they achieve instead is muddying the waters and confusing the issues. That is troll work.

The allocation of the term “Cybernat” is one to be worn proudly; it is a badge of honour and pride. The “Cybernat” of which the lifelong benefits claimants of the Lords live in fear, actually represents the nemesis of those benefits.

The “Cybernat” disseminates and refutes the stories of trolling, of deceit, of obfuscation, of betrayal, and these “Lords” no matter their elevated station in life, no matter how rightly or wrongly they attained such station, no matter the fawners, the lobbyists or sycophants that swarm around them, they acknowledge every day they voice their opposition, that they are no match for the truths espoused by the Cybernat.

The Cybernat appears to be a Scots phenomenon, but they’re everywhere, they’re found in every corner of the world, they’re the expats and pats, they’re the average Scot who will no longer be lied to or deceived. At day’s end the Cybernat is a simple phenomenon, it is a representation of Scotland’s voice, muffled for centuries, at last having an avenue of expression.

London’s ignorance of the Cybernat is ignorance of Scotland. This lack of engagement with credible message is the same treatment Scotland has seen for three centuries. Ability to talk, to be open, to be honest and to engage; these are just some of the deficiencies that Westminster and her denizens exhibit when it comes to dealing with the Cybernat. These are the same issues that have made it necessary to gag Scotland since the inception of the Union.

Fundamentally, Scotland and the Cybernat are one and the same; they are proud, independent, loyal, caring and compassionate. When Westminster understands these qualities and puts them before avarice, dominion and gluttony, then its inhabitants will not just have a means to speak as equals to the Cybernat, they will have found a way to treat properly with Scotland herself.

There is an exception, Scotland and the rabid Cybernat are at distinct odds. Our vision of a future land of opportunity and equality has no room for such bigotry. In fact, it appears at such odds to the goal of independence one could be forgiven if caught wondering, do we have modern day Daniel Defoe's amongst us?

Until that time comes when London finally understands our aspirations and goals, we should continue in our attempts to minimize the impact of this Troll breeding ground we seem to have disturbed, as if we had poked a hornet’s nest with a stick. The great echoing halls of Westminster seem to be such a den. The near incessant rumblings of Lords Foulkes, Forsyth and others give blunt testimony to this fact.

Today we can recognize this and stop feeding the trolls. In 2014, we can even remove the trough.

Union Jam on sale 2015 - at Tesco’s

2012-02-17T15:42:00.000-04:00

David Cameron visited Alex Salmond in Edinburgh this week; pro-union national media trumpeted a softening of the rhetoric, heralded by a promise of more powers if Scotland votes down her natural right to self determination.

This is the “Jam Tomorrow” promise of Alex Douglas Home in 1979. Jam? Scotland even had the toast hidden from her for umpteen years and more by the Tories.

The first question this proposal for more powers sparks is “why should we believe you this time?” The answer, just as clearly and from David Cameron’s own mouth was, “You shouldn’t”.

There was no other interpretation because Cameron didn’t actually promise anything; he said “consider”. We might as well ask the local bank if they’d consider putting a few million extra in that Super Saver Account we all have. You know, just so it might actually resemble the name. The bank will also consider the deposit you’re asking for, most likely for about a nano-second before kicking you out the front door. The bank pondered your request and pondered it well.

Nothing tells us Cameron’s period of contemplation will be any longer, or deeper than the Bank’s. This is because nothing stops him putting his proposals forward now. Let us consider what flavour of jam is on offer, and then we can decide if we like the taste.

It’s not Jam Tomorrow; it’s not even a promise of Jam Tomorrow. It’s a promise of a consideration of a proposal of a little Jam Tomorrow - after we gift him sufficient ingredients, consisting of the keys to our nation, which will supply him enough to ensure we can all eat cake. But then we know where Scotland’s choice ingredients are destined, the same place they already go in large part, to London and the South East.

Let’s consider that David Cameron was to keep his word, turn his considerations over a while and solidify them into promises, and that the promises actually make their way through Westminster’s echoing halls and into the legislative books.

What flavour of Jam might we expect?

The sensible money would be on soor ploom, made somehow without sugar.

We will buy it and we will consume it even as it makes our jowls hollow and our eyes water, our bellies cramp as we head with haste for the commode. We’ll do this because we’ll have no other immediate option. We’ll do this because we will have voluntarily voted away our own recipe book.

It will taste so bad for we’ll be supping knowing it could have been so much better had we not been so insufferably obstinate, stupid and voluntarily blind to uncovering the arguments we will afterwards wish we had not turned a deaf ear to. Arguments that would have made us aware the YES vote was our only option.

We will get Extra Powers, which might become a reality, but it is semantics. We might get the power to set our own speed limits or regulate air-guns. These will be our Extra Powers. However, expect to lose control over University funding, over our NHS and over much of our budget. But we will still have Extra Powers.

Also expect Holyrood to be completely neutered in some peculiar fashion, and the media will spin this in an effort to make it acceptable to the international audience, while at the ballot box we will be rendered powerless to impact our future, our children’s future or our national destiny. Yet we will still have Extra Powers.

We can expect this because Westminster has had the fright to end all frights, and Westminster does not like frights. Those in power in London have demonstrated time and again they will react ruthlessly to anything that causes them fright. For a recent example, just look at the sentences against the rioters last summer. With the Olympics approaching riots gave Westminster a fright and Westminster struck back - hard.

We can expect our welfare system, our community values and national sense of compassion to be obliterated. Social programs stand to be decimated as each cut in England transfers to a respective cut in Scotland. This is allowing that even Barnett survives the reprisals to come.

Our soor ploom jam will be on the shelf at Tesco’s, and as we put it out to be scanned at the checkout we might find ourselves looking into our mothers’ eyes, eyes that can hardly remain open after her last bout of chemotherapy. Mother may not even be able to stand properly, or may be incontinent, but she’ll be on that checkout or lose her right to sustenance - unless we can prove she’ll really be dead in a few weeks. It won’t matter that these inhumane policies will be what kills her – she’ll be scanning our soor ploom jam.

Before you get to the checkout you might walk past your child stocking shelves. She’s got a degree, she worked hard for it, but now she’s forced to work for her benefits because Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a city, means there are no jobs. You might pass her in the aisle knowing that your spouse, the only one still working in your family, is paying her wages through their taxes, because Tesco aren’t. Tesco are just giving her the bus fare to get to work.

Part of the recipe for tomorrows soor ploom jam appears to be making certain that big business makes more money as we subsidise them through our benefits system. It is Westminster passing these inhumane laws; it is often the result of these businesses lobbying London.

The recipe also seems to include protections for the City, the bankers, bonus schemes and more light touch regulation. It also includes isolation in Europe, more wage freezes, austerity, lower living standards, higher fuel bills and the weakest in our society being targeted and vilified. This soor ploom jam which London’s offering has a recipe most sensible folk might want to steer clear of.

In 2014 it appears there’s an alternative on offer, if we like Westminster’s soor ploom jam we can fire up the toaster. However, if we think our own recipe has even a chance of being a wee bit tastier we should dig through our ingredients and perhaps throw a few raspberries at London for its bigger jar.

Then, we will get busy making something fit for a real nation to enjoy.

If you want Independence; plan to take a neighbour.

2012-02-04T18:44:00.000-04:00

There was a rather interesting tweet from Humza Yousaf on the 31st of January, “presenter tells me Peter Robinson urging Ulster Scots get to Scotland for no vote” presumably referring to the lead person in Northern Ireland’s assembly instructing Northern Irish unionists to travel to Scotland and make sure they were eligible to cast a “No” vote in 2014.

This attempt to subvert democracy has a potential to call into question any possible outcome involving a vote against the Scottish government’s proposed question.

If the comment is factual, and we’ve no reason to believe it isn’t, why are the supporters of the Union giving Holyrood a cast iron reason to call down any failure to pass their primary motion; independence. What has unionists panicking at this very early stage and how is it that they appear to be already expecting to lose?

We understand that David Cameron basically threw in the towel last weekend with his “in or out” ultimatum; with the appetite for increased enfranchisement and democracy that’s self-evident in Scotland, the UK PM’s action has no other interpretation. This followed by the blatant slight of Alex Salmond by the BBC over an appearance before the Calcutta Cup, the Union is destroying its own cause.

Let us be very clear, “Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country” is a question being asked by a sitting government of its electorate and it’s there because we asked for it. Democracy in action has been a rarity in this Scotland, and the taste is rather pleasing when a democratic deficit has been the norm.

Incidentally, another interesting point for those who argue semantics about Holyrood being a Scottish Executive is the wording of the 1997 poll “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. A Scottish parliament is what was voted on by the electorate. It was the will of the people, it was democracy; anything else is confabulation.

The 1997 referendum also used the word “agree”, to find fault with that terminology now would be ludicrous. It is Westminster’s nit picking its own electoral commission’s approved phraseology, period.

The thoughts engendered by the tweet and Cameron’s actions required looking at the polls again, but looking at them in a different light. It’s been an interesting 2012 so far. Barely a month in and the polls for the independence referendum are showing a reasonable surge for the yes campaign.

It’s not the surge that’s so important, or the polls, but who will actually turn out and vote. Who will that 60% to 70% of the populace represent? For if they’re primarily independence supporters, Westminster’s position is justifiably in trouble.

This may be what lies behind Salmond’s confident smile.

Polling for independence around the time of last year’s Holyrood elections had support for a full restoration of Scotland’s rights in the low 30% area. From there it took a little spike after the election and has now settled into a slow upwards creep.

January 2012 saw the anticipated flurry of polls around the time of the announcement of the consultation document. While most show independence neck and neck with unionism, in some cases it is actually nudging slightly ahead for the first time in years.

Since the advent of approval for a parliament at Holyrood there has been a significant fluctuation in independence support, a Scotsman ICM poll on June 5th 1998 showed 52% in favour with only 41% against and 7% undecided. These heady heights were balanced by another poll, the Telegraph’s Yougov survey on March 1st 2010 showing support for Holyrood’s motion down to 27%.

The low support poll was a potential aberration, it was taken in the middle of a Westminster election and it was done by Yougov who have a distinct track record of inaccuracy in Scots polling numbers, so much so, that they’ve actually had to acknowledge their errors themselves.

Working on the fact that the low Yougov result in 2010 is a reasonably pessimistic estimate of the bottom end of hard core independence support and that hard core support will walk through Hades itself to cast a ballot, the Scottish government can conservatively expect some 25% of the electorate to endorse its motion for independence.

We know there are about 4 million voters in Scotland.

It’s reasonable to estimate using polling and prior referendum results, which about 25% or 1 million are hard core nationalists upon whom Scotland can count to actually vote for her march to restoration.

In 1997 we know that 74.3% believed there should be a Scottish parliament and that 63.5% of those who turned out thought it should have tax raising powers. Both are almost 10% above where many polls had the numbers. We also know that almost 26% didn’t like the idea of a Scottish parliament at all, let’s call these 26% the hard core unionists of 1997.

An interesting poll that’s not been done, perhaps because our mainstream media wouldn’t like the result, is one asking the 1997 referendum questions of those who have become eligible to vote since then. It would certainly help identify the hard core “no” vote.

It is a reasonable hypothesis based upon polling demographics, that if the same questions were to be posed today the relative numbers would be over 80/20. With many of our younger generation who have known nothing other than Holyrood shaping their lives not being able to conceive of life without a Scottish parliament. We may therefore have a hard core 20% no vote.

In 1997 there was a turnout approaching 2.4 million, it’s reasonable to postulate we’ll see the same again, perhaps a hundred thousand more with our population increase.

Based upon 1997 data, on a referendum taken before the SNP had fully begun embrace social media and wrap its arms around the most comprehensive voter demographic identification system in these islands, quite possibly anywhere, those favouring home rule still managed to swing a 3:1 victory.

3:1 is a quite incredible result in any democracy for any question.

2014 will see Scotland in a potentially simpler place for nationalist aspirations as the party holding the core tenet of Scotland’s restoration is now the democratically elected party of government. Couple this to Westminster’s knowledge that it lost heavily in 1997 under a several month old popular Labour administration that Scots had voted for in substantial numbers. Consider next that 2014 will see a vote taken after four years of Con-Dem austerity forced upon Scots by a party with a severe democratic deficit and the convergence of fault lines appears nearly complete for destruction of the Union cause.

Round off the argument with the knowledge that Holyrood and Westminster are now diametrically opposed governments with fundamentally different core values. The first is socially democratic and the latter is capitalistic, avaricious and appears determined to undermine the social structures of these islands.

The government of Scotland is still very much aware that 2014 will be a harder sell because now its autonomy and not devolution that is sought. None are presently proposing Westminster’s hard sell of a perceived UK safety blanket be maintained after any “yes” vote.

Conversely 2014 will also see an easier sell by the Scottish government due to the utter lack of any political mandate in Scotland by the present UK government and the four years plus of austerity. Between the two areas it’s reasonable to expect a near balance with what happened in 1997.

Holyrood has a right to be optimistic, and to project that optimism. Based upon historical trends the cause of Scotland restoring her rightful place in the world is a simple game of numbers. That numbers game was only helped by a recent poll which did something other’s had not. It asked if Scots, knowing that they’d be better off would then vote for independence.

The significance of this wasn’t what was portrayed by the media, that of mean spirited, penny pinching rapacious Scots. It was far more reasonable to view it as another type of question, one which asked “If you knew the financial scare stories were rubbish, would you vote for independence”. The “ayes” had it by almost 2:1.

2:1, oddly that’s about the same as 1997’s vote for tax raising powers. The same percentages still wish to reap our own harvest and ring our own till.

In the last year or so Westminster has finally been acknowledging that Scotland isn’t “too poor”, although that argument still gets regularly trotted out. By referendum time it should be well buried. It will take the full two years to deprogram many Scots and for some, sadly, a lifetime may not be enough.

If our elected government’s motion is to pass, it must have somewhere above 1.2 million Scots endorsing it. At a low estimate there are already 1 million plus who will literally crawl to the polls to give that affirmation. Even when allowing for a population rise since 1997 that puts the proposal only 250,000 votes shy of passing.

Working with these numbers it’s possible to acknowledge that the hard core unionists now account for some 20% of the vote, the vast majority of them will show up to the poll. Effectively this means there may be somewhere over 750,000 “no” votes are in Cameron’s swag bag.

These union focused minds can be considered closed to argument; they can also be taken as already having been identified by the “yes” campaign. It can be acknowledged resources are unlikely to be wasted trying to convert them.

This means there are some 2.2 million “open” votes. The Holyrood has only to get 12% of these to the poll as a “Yes” vote and it should see its motion passed. It will take work to achieve the desired result but careful consideration says it really must be Edinburgh’s referendum to lose, not Westminster’s referendum to win.

It’s important to realise that it is not 12% of the electorate which the Scottish government needs to convert from a “no”, just 12% that need to show up, most if not all who might be inclined to vote yes anyway. Expect double or triple number that to be duly identified and ferried to the poll if required.

Add to these numbers the typical demographic where the highest support for independence is found. These are the more moderate earners who typically don’t see the high pay/bonus culture union rewards that those with elevated incomes do. Consider also they are often not hard targets of the pollsters, and the real situation may be even more skewed towards supporting the Scottish government motion than it first appears.

Westminster’s present policies are also dramatically enlarging the demographic from which independence is drawing much of its support; no change is expected in that trend before the poll.

Nothing is certain, and even a week can be a long time in politics, but Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the incumbents at Holyrood certainly seem to have good reason for the optimism being evidenced.

Now, well now it’s our turn to support the government we elected in realizing one of its key policies. If only half of the individuals convinced of the benefits of their government’s motion converts or firms up just one additional vote, and if just half of them make it to the poll then Holyrood has every reason to be confident.

Take a neighbour.

Politics of Fear

2012-02-02T11:46:00.000-04:00

“I’m a feartie.

And I’m going to project that fear onto you, people of Scotland.”

This is Westminster’s foundation towards winning a referendum and binding a sovereign people.

Fear.

The Westminster fear is that there aren’t enough gullible Scots to bite; there never have been as the Home Rule petition with its 2 million signatures in 1952 showed and the “Yes” responses in the 1979 and 1997 referendums confirmed.

This is why fear is now palpable in Westminster, fear for its very existence, its authority and its standing in our world. Fear that it will become the global laughing stock which that babbling cauldron so richly deserves to be.

Fear is based either in ignorance or as a result of real danger, often mortal. Fear frequently causes acts of irrationality or real desperation. The fear emanating from Westminster since May 5th 2011 has been quite palpable – not acute point of causing paralysis, but well into the realm where we have observed several acts of desperation.

The latest of these acts was another attempt to disenfranchise the Scots yet again, an attempt by George Foulkes to “outlaw” a devo max question. All informed individuals are aware that as the debate about our nation’s future progresses the potential need for this question may well reduce to the point of irrelevance, but just in case it doesn’t that door of democracy shouldn’t be closed.

January’s affirmation of the claim of right in Holyrood certainly appears to have altered the dynamics of the devo max question. Within 48 hours of the declaration David Cameron took the option off the table. Cameron probably did this because he then knew that it was also now a vote for independence, although only fiscal independence. He also knew, and truly may have feared, that the Scots might wake up to the fact that devo max was no longer “his gift”, but Scotland’s right.

Westminster believes it will lose a devo max option. This creates fear of imminent demise, and that fear begets rash acts. The removal of devo max from the ballot was such a rash act, because David Cameron is gambling that he still has enough time to recover from this blatant disrespect and perhaps squeeze a “no” vote from the Scottish electorate. Confabulation, scaremongering and disinformation will be the Westminster stance for the next two years.

George Foulkes backing up Cameron was a rash act, engendered by the now very real fear of loss of a place at Westminster’s cash laden trough, cash laden because we’re forced to fill it.

In the final analysis the questions, manner, wording and number are now up to the Scots. We will decide. Cameron acknowledged this with his “in or out”; he didn’t say there couldn’t be extra questions, just that he wouldn’t agree to them. The difference in tone was noteworthy. The essence of the UK announcement was “without Scotland’s resources, we don’t want Scotland”.

If we as a nation choose to have a third question or a thirtieth on the ballot paper, we will put it there. We have affirmed again it is our sovereign right to act as we will. The only thing that should prevent Scots from placing a third option on the ballot is our own sovereign will, or lack of need. Fear should never enter the equation.

We have a right to require an amended Union. Westminster has a right to accept or terminate the Union. We have a right to set a timeframe for Westminster’s response.

The fundamental logic is as linear as it is simple.

In 1707 a treaty was created where two sovereign nations unified their parliaments. This was done by what was at the time recognized as the representative will of the respective peoples.

Article three of that treaty created a single parliament. It effectively robbed the Scots and the English of a sovereign parliamentary voice. That newly created parliament had no authority over the Union Treaty unless given leave to amend it in certain specific articles. In other specific articles it was banned from amendment options. Some sections were left open.

With the independent parliaments of Scotland and England suspended, or adjourned, the majority of the treaty could not be changed. This situation lasted for almost three centuries; it was why Westminster lived in fear of Scotland ever having a functional democratic voice, a parliament, because it would have control over the Treaty of Union where Westminster did not.

In 1997 there was a referendum in Scotland; almost 75% of Scots supported the question “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. It was not an executive, it was a parliament, and it should have tax raising powers.

Westminster’s politicians and the Union machine went into overdrive to convince Scots again that they were too “wee, stupid and poor” to achieve this. The fear campaign failed. It took two years to bring forward a relatively toothless legislative body with a voting system designed to keep Westminster parties, the proponents of Union, firmly in charge.

Proportional voting, with three London based parties combining to split Scotland’s vote and prevent any parliamentary declaration of sovereignty seemed designed for Westminster success. This system would take a perfect storm of political mishaps to converge, simultaneously, for there to be any upset to Westminster’s status quo.

“Reserved powers” became an illusory reality. Westminster couldn’t stop the annulment of article three of the treaty of Union at the option of the Scots in 1997. Article three read simply “III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same parliament, to be stiled the parliament of Great Britain”.

The illusory reality aspect, we’re no longer under the Parliament of Great Britain, but a successor, that’s notable as it inherited the powers, however there’s now no longer one parliament, there’s two of significance to this issue. Westminster’s problem is that one has control over the Treaty of Union where the other doesn’t. The hard reality is that Holyrood as a Scots parliament has control over the aspects of the Union treaty which Westminster does not.

The second aspect to the illusion is that “reserved” only had meaning as long as Holyrood allowed it, as we’re now so ably demonstrating. In reality there is no reserved because Holyrood now controls the 1707 treaty. London knew this in 1997. It was the reason for the shenanigans whereby Westminster forced a voting system on Scotland that she herself would and will not accept.

Since 1999 and Winnie Ewing’s carefully chosen opening address we have had our destiny in our own hands. Since that date we have had control of the Treaty of Union again, with all the fear engendering aspects of reality this situation holds for Westminster.

Since May 5th 2011 we have had a government who might be willing to use these powers. That is why Alex Salmond rightly informed London that its days of diktat were over. He chose his words carefully and came from a position of knowledge and strength. Salmond was right to a point, because Westminster can still dictate if we go to a poll and give it the authority, but he’s effectively stopped it grabbing back power without a poll.

This means that because “reserved” is now a useless illusion Scots can impose a new reality. If we choose to place devo max, FFA or any other verbiage on the ballot, and it passes for implementation, then that is how we choose to amend the Treaty of Union.

It is no longer Westminster’s gift, it is Westminster’s choice to accept or reject Scotland’s terms.

Should Westminster reject the terms Scotland places before her, and she will if it is anything less than an incorporating monetary union where London keeps control of Scotland’s wealth, its independence anyway. In this case it is simply independence created by reaction rather than chosen by action.

Holyrood doesn’t, and can’t simply declare a unilateral position on the constitution; because that’s not the premise we elected our government on. We elected them to play by the rules as they exist until we have our say in a referendum as promised.

The affirmation of the Claim of Right puts that shackle as firmly around Holyrood as it does around Westminster. That affirmation puts everything back into the domain of the individual Scot, a domain it should never have been removed from in the first place.

In a basic sense, we’ve been marching towards a point since 1952 where anything except a “no” vote means the marriage is over. Devo max in any incarnation is an offer of a new marriage but with a “pre-nup” on Scotland’s terms. As these yet unspecified terms have already been summarily dismissed as unacceptable by Westminster, there will be no new marriage.

As we walk to that poll we should remember that the future is never certain, and that if our choices on the day are limited, we will understand those limits are engineered by Westminster’s fears.

We also know that we should not fear, because that will influence our decision. We should not fear because our adversary wishes us to. We should not fear from a position of ignorance or lack of knowledge. We should not fear because it will give another the opportunity to exploit us.

We should not fear, we should walk forward with knowledge, for in knowledge lies the certainty of the right decision, not the panic or haste of the wrong one.

As we walk to the poll in 2014, we will leave the fear behind; we will leave the fear in London.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, or what Mr. Ed really said in Glasgow.

2012-01-30T23:08:00.000-04:00

Ed Miliband was in Glasgow on the 30th of January, supposedly outlining the Labour case for keeping Scotland in the Union. Between Ed currently being in charge of Labour party policy at UK level, and this event being the first major case made for the Union by a UK party leader since the referendum announcement, we waited with bated breath for the Positive Case.

Finally, Labour UK with its presentation of The Positive Case. Furthermore, what tantalising details could Labour Scotland add? The tension across the nation was (almost) palpable.

Mr. Miliband started out with calls over curbing executive pay. You know, employees sitting on company boards and deciding their managers or owners compensation packages. This policy could only be described as a relocation incentive package for any business owner. To be able to know who should be paid what, those employees would require full access to the books in order to know what can be afforded, and which company is going to reveal this sort of ammunition to mere plebeians? This is an unenforceable waffle-policy that is designed to make the uneducated feel good. The original Mr. Ed at least had horse-sense.

The Glasgow speech then rolled over into the area of more responsible capitalism. Since it was Labour, his party, who were the major driving-force behind dismantling protective legislation, subverting the monopolies commission in order to create super-banks, and were the proponents of “light touch regulation”, it was most interesting to hear Mr. Miliband try this overtly hypocritical angle. Significantly, the detail on how "responsible capitalism" was to be achieved was missing. That’d be more waffling then.

Red Ed then marched into the Union, pounding the message that we stand or fall by our ability to work together. That is why he is making the case for Scotland to stay in the UK, he says. After centuries of failure from Westminster, what was specifically lacking in his oratory was precisely how this would suddenly change, and how Scotland would now surprisingly benefit by remaining within this malfunctioning union and “working together”.

Ms. Lamont’s boss did say he came to Scotland with "humility" because of Labour's performance in the Scottish elections last year. He showed his humility alright, by attempting to legitimise his right to be involved in Scotland’s referendum debate because of his father’s military record during WWII, claiming “He fought in the Navy and served off the Forth of Firth. He did not come to England; he came to Britain”.

Whether the error was by Ed or The Guardian is immaterial. Either way it was another anecdotal example of Londoner’s just not bothering to learn or understand the nuances of Scotland's language.

However, what Ed didn’t reveal was what his father, a refugee from Nazism in Europe, really thought of the England. An excerpt from his diary dated 1940 states, “The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world .... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.” Prophetic words from Mr M snr.? Link

It is certainly arguable we Scots are almost the last bastion of that now dead empire, and that our inclusive Scottish nationalism may well be utter anathema to its relation south of the Tweed.

The next thundering statement from Mr. Ed was stunning, only because it was so blatantly obvious, “If Scotland separates, all people living in the four nations of the UK will be affected”. What wasn’t clarified for any listener was how it would impact the individuals concerned – or if indeed, the impact might be more limited to the political classes. The tone and context of delivery inferred England, Wales and Northern Ireland couldn’t make it without Scotland, and consequently we should voluntarily submit our nation to ongoing exploitation.

Subsequent to Thursday’s affirmation of the Claim of Right at Holyrood, there was little option available to him but to agree that the people of Scotland should decide the timing of the referendum. He didn’t disappoint. Whilst he is now singing from the same hymn sheet as his arch ally David Cameron, he was a little more diplomatic about the referendum question(s) saying simply, it “should” and not “must” be based upon "one clear question". This One Clear Question approach affirms and confirms that without unfettered control of Scotland’s resources, Westminster simply doesn’t want to deal with the Scots.

Ed confirmed the basis of that argument as he continued by stating he does not want Scotland to stay in the UK because he thinks it is too weak to flourish on its own.

At last. Something of substance from the Labour leader; Scotland is a strong country and will, in his opinion, succeed as an independent nation. Perhaps the Positive Case for the Union was about to begin to unfold.

However, what followed was a bit of a let-down: “I support Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, not because I think Scotland is too poor or too weak to break away. But for a profoundly different reason: Because I believe that Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is better for the working people of Scotland, and better for the working people of the United Kingdom as a whole”.

Oh, dear, what we have here is totally contradictory hogwash. Scotland is acknowledged as being in surplus. Ed Miliband even acknowledges we’re strong enough to succeed, yet he says Scots and then English, Welsh and N. Irish are better together, especially the working class. Definitely something is missing in this argument, because the working class create the wealth of a nation. And here is the Labour leader telling us that Scotland’s working class will be better off if they give a ton of their hard earned wealth away to support the folks in other countries.

It is undoubted that Scotland will help her neighbours after independence, as we have done in the past. It’s just that in future it will be called what it really is, “foreign aid”. However, we’ll decide when, what or how much we can afford, although it is likely to be more limited than in the past. That is, until our own areas of incredible child poverty and deprivation, which were engineered under the Union, are cared for.

Continuing his speech, the Labour leader said, “The real divide in the UK is not between Scotland and England but between the haves and the have-nots. Here Mr. Miliband appears to miss the fact that it was under Labour that this great gulf, which had been narrowing, saw a very dramatic re-opening. It also appeared to create no embarrassment to the erstwhile champion of the red rose that here was a “have” being utterly condescending to the “have nots” whose support he was bent on gathering. Irony obviously escapes Mr. Ed.

Ms. Lamont’s star import then proceeded to wax lyrical about the history of “social justice” in “this country”. Again the irony was lost that he, one of the elite, was speaking of social justice in a city where the life expectancy can often be less than that of the Palestinian West Bank population. He also chose to blissfully ignore the fact that during the last decade his party had set in motion the dismantling of “social Britain”. Not the Tories, they are merely continuing the process begun by Labour.

He then reminded us it was a Scotsman, Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party one hundred and twelve years ago. Importantly, Ed omitted to inform us that one of Hardie’s main goals was home rule for Scotland.

Going on to reference the Equal Pay Act and the minimum wage as “British achievements”, he appeared to be implying that an independent Scotland couldn’t implement its own “living wage” policy. However, the “British Achievement” of the current minimum wage which doesn’t allow the recipient any escape from the poverty trap, can’t in reality be expected solve many of society’s woes.

As leader of the party who dismantled much of the UK legal safeguards to prevent rampant capitalism running amok, Ed Miliband espoused that building responsible capitalism is "the true project for social justice in our United Kingdom". He may be incapable of recognising it, but this was irony incarnate, and he appears to have a talent for it.

The remainder of Ed’s speech continued in waffle feel-good mode without any single item of hard backed verifiable substance. Tackling climate change was one aspect where he did refer to a need for cooperation. All that sprang to mind was “fine Ed, catch up”.

One interesting and fairly important question from an individual in the audience came later, “Is there any economic data about what might happen to Scotland post-independence?” It’s an unambiguous question, fairly asked. You would expect Miliband being leader of a Whitehall party to be in the perfect position to know exactly what Scotland contributes, i.e. her net balance sheet. In spite of this, it was answered by Johann Lamont, saying the question illustrated an important issue. Her response continued in a stunning fashion stating that when people pose questions like this they are accused of "talking down Scotland". Ms. Lamont, how is asking about Scotland’s accounts “talking down” the nation? Or was this a question too far? Would the truth have proven to be so utterly harmful to the Unionist cause as to be fatal?

The only word that can describe today’s Glasgow utterances from one of Westminster’s key politicians is – vacuous.

From his Scottish leader, it was far, far worse.

January 28th 2012 – Cameron tacitly acknowledges the Union is dead.

2012-01-29T19:58:00.001-04:00

At least the Union he was elected to lead is dead. Furthermore, it was only one day after any assertion of Westminster’s sovereignty over the people of Scotland was essentially vetoed by the fully representative parliament of Scotland - Holyrood.

Thursday the 26th of January, at around five past three in the afternoon, heralded what was potentially the most masterful stroke of politics ever seen in these Islands, and almost nobody noticed. Nobody except perhaps Holyrood and Westminster, and neither was sending out the town criers, although for completely different reasons. While Alex Salmond was in Edinburgh Castle, Nicola Sturgeon changed the face of the independence debate.

Most of us were too enthralled by the ongoing “busy wee period” in Scots politics. Between Tankerness tanking on the Beeb, Nicola giving a strong showing, no identifiable positive case for the Union and Alex Salmond delivering masterly oratories at the Hugo Young, in Holyrood and in the great hall of Edinburgh castle, our attention was diverted.

Amid these speeches, the First Minister had an “audience” with Jeremy Paxman which couldn’t have gone better as an independence recruiting tool if had it been stage managed by Angus Robertson. Discussing other interviews, there was also Willy Hague tossing out nonsense about the usage of British Embassies. We later discovered that charges for Embassy services are levelled against Scots organisations, but not UK/English ones.

A short re-cap of the week had the Sovereign Scots leading the Westminster Wastrels by at least 6-0 before the masterful stroke at Holyrood. It took place as daylight waned on Burns' Night. In its rawest form, that Holyrood parliamentary home run requested all MSP’s to pledge to uphold the centuries old Claim of Right.

The Claim of Right fundamentally declares that ordinary Scots citizens are sovereign; not their representatives, parliament or any monarchy. Either each individual MSP goes on record acknowledging they are simply the voice of the electorate, or they state quite publically that the voice of those they represent isn’t worth squat.

The lead in to passing the motion was significant: “All we ask today is that other members of this chamber affirm or reaffirm a principle that many of them, or their fellow party members, were proud to uphold when Scotland’s Claim of Right was then signed in 1989.

“The Declaration of Arbroath famously states that if a Scots ruler were to act against the nation’s interests, the people would “drive him out as.. a subverter of his own rights and ours.”

“Presiding Officer, that basic principle of democracy and popular sovereignty is far more true today. The best guarantee of the integrity of this referendum is the certain knowledge that the people of Scotland, using the ballot box, would be merciless in driving out anyone who tried to conduct it unfairly”.

As the motion passed it formed a chain from 1320 to 2012. It also encompassed the previous parliamentary affirmation in 1689 and the unofficial but no less poignant voice of a disenfranchised people in 1989.

The claim of right is fundamentally entrenched in Scotland. On Thursday the reconvened parliament of Scotland at Holyrood effectively affirmed and averred that Westminster has no binding sovereignty over the Scots.

Such a parliamentary reaffirmation of sovereignty has uncountable and highly interesting future ramifications. Basically, it’s Holyrood exercising its democratic right and informing all and sundry that the only power they have over Scots is what Scots elect to lend through the ballot box and it’s only a loan.

This was Holyrood informing Westminster it must now essentially trample democracy to illegitamise the referendum. Holyrood effectively ensured the field of play will now focus upon Edinburgh, not London. The timing was impeccable in that it was fundamentally an unspoken yet de-facto expression of independence; after three centuries the Scottish people will not be denied due process in expressing their sovereign wishes.

The UN charter is very clear on sovereign rights, it’s a fundamental tenet.

We know The Claim of Right is now re-entrenched, but how Westminster would view the action and where the “legitimacy” discussions on the referendum would go from here were anyone’s guess. The SNP preference would have simultaneous acts putting it beyond doubt, but don’t regard it as a requirement.

We know that constitutional specialist Prof. David Walker opined that Holyrood, irrespective of the means of creation, as a reconvened Scots parliament would have a substantial authority in law to alter, amend or strike the Treaty of Union in total, or by article as it saw fit. This is a power that the Union parliament in Westminster apparently lacks as such authority was not delegated to it except by name in certain articles of the Union Treaty. In effect it will be a largely one sided negotiation.

The Telegraph’s article citing “MoD sources” that Royal Navy chiefs have decided Westminster’s nuclear “deterrent” will stay on the Clyde, regardless of any referendum was something of an anti-climax after the Holyrood motion. It made it initially appear that Westminster would attempt to ignore the Claim of Right.

The nuclear deterrent issue did make it at least 8-0 for the Sovereign Scots in just one week.

The devo max debate then began to get underway with “Civic Scotland” setting forth its intentions, with Monday, 30th of January being mooted as the kick-off day.

David Cameron was faced with Hobson’s choice. Kill the devo max debate and formally proclaim Westminster’s position, or be seen to endorse it through lack of opposition. After the euro-veto Holyrood was close to betting on a sure thing as to which way the UK PM would eventually jump, and he didn’t fail the Scottish government.

Within hours of the Civic Scotland announcement, David Cameron had told Scotland “No” – it’s a take it or leave it offer, “in or out” as far as Westminster’s concerned.

Score keeping became rather irrelevant with that press release.

What was most pertinent in the Cameron statement and what bypassed many was that for the first time the message was a simple one, "Nobody is pretending that we can make people stay in the Union.”

The legality aspect wasn’t mentioned after the restatement of sovereignty, it’s now a simple “in or out” and it’s Scotland’s choice.

Fundamentally the battle is now being joined for Scotland’s resources.

Do not expect Alex Salmond to acquiesce and rule out devo max or FFA, there is still substantial advantage to be had from that argument. A principle benefit for the SNP is that it will move the opposition to fighting two fronts. It will also make the Scots themselves look much more closely at the arguments with the strong probability that when they are examined in light of day the short steps from “No” to “FFA” then “Yes” will allow many more Scots to embrace the bright future that beckons.

As a strategy it can only be argued as masterful on the nationalist part – drop a few hints, let the Unionists grab the ball and run for touch just to have the captain of the team tell them they’re not allowed to play.

Westminster has now reaffirmed on several occasions that she doesn’t want devo-max or FFA on the ballot because they are only too well aware that without a controlling fiscal union, there is no union at all. This is the first time they’ve acknowledged it plainly, and without strings.

In essence David Cameron has told Scotland, simply, clearly, succinctly and almost in words of one syllable “you contribute mightily to Westminster’s balance sheet, and without that unfettered contribution we have no need for you”

There really is no other clear interpretation.

That the PM has drawn the line in the sand at such an early stage may be the only thing that caught Alex Salmond by surprise. Moreover, judging by Ruth Davidson’s reaction she was also certainly blindsided.

Scotland’s first minister could be in no doubt whatsoever that this announcement would come eventually. He’s a canny enough political operator to know that no matter what Cameron’s own preferences, he’d never be able to sell devo max or FFA to Westminster’s back benchers.

The euro rebellion would have been but a fleabite for Cameron. Accepting FFA in Scotland would require re-writing the constitution, or perhaps more actually just writing a constitution for the UK, as now we’d be in a Union that is unarguably voluntary and federal in global eyes. Wales, Northern Ireland and England would rightly also demand the status Scotland is accorded in such a Union.

Westminster as it now exists will be an anachronism.

No matter how the issue is viewed, history is likely to recognise Saturday, January 28th 2012 as the day the UK died. It is the day the Prime Minister of the now dis-United Kingdom acknowledged by his actions a federal solution wasn’t a winnable situation for Westminster and fragmentation was preferable. By ruling out additional powers beyond the anaemic Scotland Bill, fragmentation is virtually assured.

Cameron also killed Devo max or FFA because it has an aspect about which there is a myth requiring dispelled; the myth that it is Westminster’s gift. It can be that, but only if we Scots choose to make it so. David Cameron could not take the chance that Alex Salmond would remove devo max from his control.

Devo-max becomes a viable option for any constituent nation in the current UK governmental union, as long as all who vote in that manner are aware that it is a demand and not a request of Westminster.

It is no different than accepting a marriage with a cast iron pre-nuptial agreement. Either the agreement is accepted or there is no marriage. The proposal would then be for Westminster to accept in a given timeframe.

Devo max or FFA must mean “We’re going with our own fiscal policy, but we’d like a federal union on defense and foreign policy, where we both have right of veto”. Scotland puts in a default response time for agreement, or its goodbye anyway.

For anyone who was looking, the First Minister gave the Prime Minister his default timeframe: sometime before the 2016 Holyrood elections, about a year after the referendum vote it needs to be all ironed out. The Con-Dems must agree to Scotland’s requirements for ongoing Union before the deadline, or the vote will simply default to independence.

Perhaps Alex Salmond wasn’t that surprised by David Cameron’s reaction, after all he did put him into a place where options are severely limited and the only action is reaction.

Sovereignty of the people, check and mate to Holyrood.

A United Kingdom and Northern Ireland wide referendum.

2012-01-28T12:20:00.000-04:00

An issue raising its head again, but being somewhat downplayed in the media, was a proposal for a fully UK wide independence referendum. A referendum across four nations instead of just being limited to Scotland is being mooted at both Westminster and elsewhere.

Commons backbenchers are threatening action while lords are tabling Scotland Bill amendments; all appear clamouring for this franchise expansion.

Although inconceivable it will be allowed, any advocate of democracy must accept this as a superlative suggestion.

England, Wales and Northern Ireland all deserve to have their individual voices heard as to their preference of the status of this current Union and their places within it. Do they want out, more devolution or in England’s case any devolution, or are they simply content with the status quo.

The question of “Englishness” is in part achieving a higher profile recently after Westminster was warned by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) that it faces a backlash in its Home Counties and shires because it is ignoring “Englishness”.

The IPPR report simply confirms the findings in other polls taken over the last few years that “Englishness” now far outstrips “Britishness” in the way our cousins south of the border view themselves.

THE UK government dilemma from the expanded franchise referendum is basic; until now Westminster has successfully denied the English a representative democracy at national level but is now seeing that perceived right of denial in jeopardy. This arises from both media fed perceptions and Union scaremongering emanating as a consequence of the debate about Scotland’s, and thereby the UK’s, constitutional future.

When this is coupled to Cameron’s own Euro sceptic back benchers, a group flushed with success after forcing the PM to play their veto card, the tide of English democracy may ultimately be hard to deny.

Scots should encourage this voice which we can be certain Westminster will try to silence.

We can work towards and hope for an expansion of democracy in England. It is to everyone’s benefit that Westminster’s suppressive tendencies fail.

A rebel group led by Stone MP Bill Cash and reportedly supported by fellow euro sceptics John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, appear to be readying to launch an all-party group on “preserving the United Kingdom”. This focus group is reportedly arising from widespread anger, particularly on the Tory back-benches, that the referendum will be limited to people living north of the Border.

What’s interesting is that the United Kingdom itself is under no present threat, just the Union of Parliaments, something we might all do well to remember.

Mr Cash said the new group at Westminster aiming to save the Union would look in detail at issues such as defence, the economy, North Sea oil and energy, as well as international treaties. The principle point in this statement is that Westminster is now beginning to either understand or perhaps simply acknowledge it is in actuality dealing with international treaty law.

These backbenchers have already been somewhat pre-empted by the House of Lords where efforts like that of former Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton, born in Motherwell, inserted an amendment to the Scotland Bill calling for expat Scots to get the vote. She is not the first and will undoubtedly not be last to seek to expand the enfranchisement of the referendum.

International law and Scots opinion is reasonably clear on this point, she doesn’t have a hope. At least she won’t be able to expand the franchise with regard to Scotland’s vote, but she can certainly call for one in England.

Then there was the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who had to publicly slap down his own party’s deputy leader at the time of the IPPR report entitled “The Dog that Finally Barked”, after Simon Hughes also called for English devolution.

Possibly the most significant yet underreported aspect of the IPPR paper is that support in England for the constitutional status quo has fallen to just one in four of the electorate.

That figure needs highlighted; just one in four in England want the status quo, but 75% are being denied any input whatsoever. David Cameron is effectively disenfranchising 75% of our English neighbours; over 30 million voters are being denied democracy.

Why are we Scots not seeking to engage this massive suppressed support for constitutional change?

The upper level concern over the possibility of a divided Union tactic by the SNP was additionally highlighted when Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Scottish Secretary and Edinburgh Pentlands MP dismissed the idea of a UK-wide vote as “absurd” confirming “it should be a vote for people in Scotland only.”

Former Liberal leader and Holyrood presiding officer Lord Steel is also on record that Westminster politicians should keep out of the independence debate. Cameron and the Scottish Office are others singing from the “Scotland only” hymn sheet.

There’s a very clear division at Westminster, primarily between party leaders and backbenchers with backbenchers appearing to have the backing of the electorate. Scotland should exploit this in an attempt to benefit the English people.

Party leaders at Westminster are certainly trying to walk the only narrow path that gives them any possible hope at all in maintenance of the status quo. However, as Richard Wyn Jones, professor of politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the IPPR report argued, attempts to promote Britishness by former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as well as by Mr Cameron, had failed.

With self-evident failure of the “Britishness” experiment, the current Holyrood stance can appear to be somewhat baffling to an unbiased external observer. While the Scottish government’s view that it is “Scotland’s referendum” is completely accurate it appears rather inappropriate for Holyrood to be setting aside the fact that three other nations also have a stake in the UK government.

It may be of far greater benefit to the Scottish Government, which has full autonomy and complete restoration of sovereign rights as its primary goal, to also at least peripherally engage an area that Westminster’s leadership is determined to avoid. Especially as Holyrood already appears to have willing foot-soldiers amongst Cameron’s back benchers, go for an expansion of the referendum franchise.

Let Scotland have her poll, but let England also have one, independent of the Scots. Perhaps Westminster would expand the franchise to the other nations who were not signatories to article 3 of the 1707 treaty but who will be undeniably impacted by events.

That each impacted nation should vote is without doubt the right and proper thing to do. It is called democracy.

Holyrood should argue for all those impacted to have a voice, to be enfranchised. Each nation should be given the options, autonomy, devolution max (constitutionally define) or the status quo. Let the entire peoples of these islands who are presently bound to Westminster make a choice.

Each land should decide for its own nation – again, it’s called democracy.

Westminster will be firm in its determination to prevent this; the powers in London are very well aware they can’t fight and win four simultaneous battles in four nations, all of which have every appearance of requiring separate and frequently contradictory messages from the current establishment.

Westminster politicians knows they can’t broadcast “subsidy junkie” to one populace while hoping the other so-called subsiding nation won’t hear it and will still vote to keep up fictitious subsidies. Human nature is simply not that benevolent, such contradictory message will fail.

With four nations involved perhaps each one will have a reasonable opportunity for a fairer, less biased debate.

Westminster knows the individual peoples may just wake up and smell the coffee, and all it would take is another scandal at just the wrong moment to make any one nation decide that enough is enough. London is well aware it will take only one nation to demand change through democratic means to end its perceived right of diktat.

It would mean 2015 dawning with only those preferring London rule voting for a new parliamentary union, under probably new federal rules. Westminster knows even the English regions might start demanding devolution after that.

London is rightly terrified of an expanded franchise.

In defence of the [Scottish] realm.

2012-01-20T15:27:00.006-04:00

There has been much hysteria and scaremongering in the mainstream media the over future “defense” of Scotland recently. Combine that with the waffling utterances emanating from Westminster about who pays to relocate various military establishments, principally Trident, and the strong rhetoric from Holyrood about who pays for clean up after MOD abuses of our land and there are some potentially interesting situations brewing.

It is interesting because the division of assets between diverging nation states is now reasonably clearly laid out in international law. This is a fact which is also is clearly being ignored by Scotland’s mainstream media, who seem to prefer scare tactic headlines.

The disintegration of totalitarian USSR and the restoration of the peripheral states gave us some relatively clear examples of how the process should work. Scotland’s mainstream media again obtains a failing grade for not even bothering to look into such situations.

In simple plain English, and although there can be literally thousands of articles in a final treaty of settlement it fundamentally works like this. Assets of the original nation state devolve to becoming assets of the new states.

Who then gets what is generally determined by the geographical location of the asset. So in its most basic terms Scotland keeps Holyrood and England keeps Westminster, they’re both well within the geographic boundaries of the restored states. Land boundaries remain static, sea boundaries are by agreement or international convention.

Horse trading comes into play with such items as debt and foreign held assets. It is by no means a legal or moral requirement for a nation restored to sovereignty to assume any debt; Ireland leaving the UK being but one example of this principle in action.

Although an argument exists for assets and debts to be divided up based upon territorial area, the norm is for these items to be divided up by relative population. Scotland could expect around 8.3% of extraterritorial assets to accrue to its national ledger.

The more interesting part is when an asset is in one resurrected nation state and remains the desire of the other resurrected nation state. In the present case in point, Trident.

The simplest resolution to this issue is for the UK government to move these weapons prior to the vote and effectively resolve the issue. Holyrood would rightly demand the sites restored to virgin territory, acceptable civilian or military use as required to suit Scots purposes.

That Westminster can’t afford to either move Trident or buy aircraft for two new aircraft carriers is self evident, so Trident will stay where it is and Scotland can expect a massive bargaining chip in the upcoming talks. In fact Westminster projects being so broke by the time these aircraft carriers are commissioned it won’t be able to afford the diesel or the crew to run one of them, so it’s being sold.

The restoration of the aforementioned European states showed us clearly that it is incumbent on the state which wishes retention of items such as this to fund the relocation and new installation costs of any repatriated items.

Basically if Westminster wants Trident, Westminster pays for it. If Westminster were to refuse to accept such a precedent it would then be up to Holyrood to decide the disposition of the weapons.

A likely outcome in such a scenario is that Westminster will “repatriate” Trident to a newly created deepwater port in England and pay for the clean-up and value of the system as a condition of handover. Most likely that payment would be in exchange for any voluntarily assumed debt load by Scotland. Westminster could take an alternative viewpoint and scrap the idea of having an independent nuclear deterrent. Holyrood could then flog it off.

In reality Westminster scrapping its deterrent is unlikely in the extreme as that body appears to place a premium on having a reasonably permanent and often vocal stance in many of the world’s top councils.

The consequential loss of the nuclear capability and its associated expenses might substantially enhance life in England, Wales and N. Ireland, but this rarely appears to enter into London’s equations, especially when there’s pre-independence option to bill the entire replacement cost against Scotland’s budget.

It now becomes time to look at the overall UK defense budget; Whitehall data puts it at £43.6 billion in 2011.

Based upon population, Scotland should have seen around £3.62 billion in current defense spending.

Scots should clearly understand that although their nation’s defense contribution to Whitehall is about £3.62 billion, the defense spend in Scotland is reducing in both actual and real terms. According to the UK parliaments strategic defense review document, it dropped by 68% over 6 years. In 2008 it was down around £1.57 billion.

Scotland therefore effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK defense budget by over 2 billion a year.

This a situation where there is no room for argument; London the SE of England, which enjoys a massive defense overspend is certainly financially stronger, by using Scotland’s money.

This effectively means, by Westminster’s published data, an independent Scotland could maintain defense spending as it stood before the current reductions and base closures. Scots could pocket over £2 billion to invest into infrastructure, social programs or reduced taxation.

A nation of 5 million can do a lot with an extra £2 billion. In one year that could pay for the new Forth Bridge, buy out a lot of Labour’s PFI debt and build a couple of new schools or hospitals. What we’d do in year two with this independence dividend would also be up to us.

In reality there would still be a Scottish Defense Force, and the First Minister has recently intimated the SDF would likely now maintain one air base, one naval base and one land force. But what would that really mean and what’s it likely to cost our newly restored nation state?

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director at London-based Royal United Services Institute, an independent military think-tank, gave us an idea as he quoted a £2.2bn price tag for an SDF. The number is reasonably in line with other non nuclear estimates and has now seen use in national media.

Research indicates the £2.2 billion proposed budget, would get everything the First Minister referred to, and substantially more. This would be an increase in real terms on UK under-spend of £500 million each year, available for direct injection into the Scottish economy.

It also appears enough to ensure a world class rapid deployment land force with specialist divisions for highly technical missions, several air sea rescue stations, and an ability to reverse the Westminster coastguard cuts.

In addition we might choose to look at resurrecting our military shipbuilding for vessels designed to protect our oil and fishing interests, also making these ships available for export. Although we might have one central naval port, like Portsmouth in England, there would be secondary bases.

We also had a situation where Westminster’s defence secretary Desmond Hammond said, the thought of Scotland’s remaining three regiments forming the spine of a new land SDF was ”laughable” and that no one can “break off a little bit” of the UK’s armed forces and hand it to Scotland.

Actually Mr Hammond, That’s pretty much what happened right across Europe over the last two decades as states restored their sovereignty.

Professor Chalmers’s figure of £2.2 billion, as an estimated requirement for Scotland’s security needs still represents a significant under spend against what we now send to London for “defense”.

The extra £1.4 billion plus, currently going to London would also remain in Scotland in some fashion, either in our own pockets or put to the use of the common weal.

A simple summary could describe the current situation like this; in an independent Scotland to match today’s Whitehall defense contribution we could if we choose increase our national defense spending within Scotland by close to 50%.

Once we have done this and obtained better equipped, paid and trained Scottish forces we could take the remaining money that would have gone south and by using Holyrood’s published 2012 budget we could double our national spending in housing, sport, marine and fisheries, transport projects and ferry services.

After that with a somewhat nonchalant shrug we could give every person in Scotland a £100 tax rebate and spend what’s left on a heck of an independence party.

Defense, it’s a massive independence dividend.

Nae Limits

2012-01-17T18:23:00.000-04:00

Far be it for me to Blaw My AinTrumpet, but pass all the spare brass instrumentage lying around please...for here I go!

I was on Newsnet Scotland one evening last week, perusing the latest stories - don't remember which one it was - but someone had put a wee poem in the comments section. I liked it and several others commented on how good they thought it was.
It immediately struck me it would make a great wee song. So I left a message in the comments for the author to contact me via this blog if they were interested. Just proves the anonymity of these threads.. cuz right up until they contacted me, I thought SHE was a HE!
Anyway, long story short, after too-ing and fro-ing with lyrics between myself and Margaret Todd .... this is the result. I don't know if the tune's original, it is probably an amalgamation of every wee folk song we've ever heard over the years, but the lyrics are entirely original.

I hope you enjoy Nae Limits, for we are only limited by the restrictions we permit others to put upon us.

For Scotland, NAE LIMITS!

Nae limits he said, nae limits at a'
Fae the weans in their pram, tae yer canty auld Maw
We'll hae nae mair limits in this land o' oors
For when we vote AYE we'll tak a' the poo'ers

We’ll nourish oor weans in the way that we ought
An' cherish the auld wi' them wantin' for nought
Oor poorly an lame can a’ bide an no fleg
We’ll fend fur them a’, an’ they’ll no hae tae beg

Wae courage we’ll build up oor country fae scratch
Ither nations will seek oot oor standards tae match
Tae oor freins an oor kin wur hauns we'll haud wide
This land will prosper, an we’ll dae it wae pride

Weel, this is the way oor nation will be
Staunin tall oan oor feet, an’ no bent at the knee
When ower oor heids’ the Saltire she goes
They'll be mony that's greetin' or blawin their nose

Nae limits, Nae limits, Nae limits we'll shout
So them that wad swither are left in nae doubt
Wi the sweat oan oor broo an' stripped tae oor semmits
We'll shout wi' wan voice FOR SCOTLAND NAE LIMITS

The biggest con in history.

2012-01-17T14:17:00.001-04:00

Lord Wallace of Tankerness while discussing the legality or in his learned view illegality of the Scottish government applying democratic principles without Westminster’s permission, stated law should and must prevail.

Significantly his perspective was one of outlawing, or stopping democracy as being unlawful, at least with respect to a Scots poll.

For many reasons Holyrood can never allow the precedent of Westminster deciding this. It might be difficult if not impossible to undo.

We must agree with Jim Wallace, the rule of law should be paramount. In this the ermine clad Lord was undoubtedly correct, but there is a significant exception in any functional democracy.

The sovereign will of the people must take precedence over the law of the land, for in its most basic terms the law exists only to serve the sovereign will. That expressed will should also operate within international law.

This is where Scots and English exist under two entirely different systems. This difference between individual and parliamentary sovereignty is so significant, so fundamental it amounts to a square peg being bashed into a round hole.

In using the rule of law to challenge the Scottish Government’s plans Lord Tankerness gives every appearance of walking on quicksand. There are various degrees of law, with UK law decidedly subordinate to international law. Westminster has affirmed this by agreeing to multiple treaties.

Arguably UK law is subordinate to Scots law; the Union Treaty is, after all, sworn to protect it.

The question to be examined is a simple one indeed, does domestic law or international law hold force majeure or domain here and can we easily define the reasoning behind the arguments being used by either side.

International law is very clear about national territorial integrity, it’s also very clear about the rights of peoples to self determination. The Wallace and Cameron interpretation appears to be that Scotland falls under domestic territorial law, like Yorkshire or Sussex. They have failed to publish evidence for this assertion.

The Scottish government and the EU appear just as clear that the poll falls under international law.

The fact that the EU is effectively siding with the Scots government on this issue may be an indicator for Wallace and Cameron, except they seem incapable of understanding even language as direct as “an independent Scotland would need only a simple majority to enter the EU”. Europe certainly isn’t entering the fray directly yet, but it does appear to be lacing up its gloves in preparation.

The clear inference here from the EU is that Scotland’s referendum is Scotland’s right as an ancient nation. The fact it might also reveal some of the machinations of internal EU politics regarding certain vetoes is simply a happy all round coincidence, unless your name is David Cameron.

The legality aspect above also has a fundamental bearing on the upcoming referendum in the autumn of 2014, for many it’s about Independence or Union. One side is determined to have it, the other initially to stop it, now to control it.

There are stalwarts on both sides, trying very hard to sway as many to their cause as can be managed. These issues are also both tied into the domestic-international argument.

In the referendum campaign it’s relatively simple to eliminate these polarized positions and eliminate the need for a referendum on independence or union at all. It simply takes the effort of those concerned to realize that there’s only one reason a constitutional poll is upon us.

It’s because of what happened in 1707. We all agree on it, but few among us seem to understand it fully.

What happened in 1707, then again in 1999 settles the national / international aspect of the legal argument. It also clarifies the stance of adherents or antagonists to either cause.

In 1707 we had the bilateral Treaty of Union. It was between two nation states.

International law clearly acknowledges that bilateral treaties can be ended by either signatory with proper notice. If they couldn’t it’s highly unlikely any country would ever sign up to one.

The Union treaty contained twenty five articles, condensed and summarized here.

Article 1 was specifically about the name of the new kingdom, to be Great Britain. Article 1 is worth noting because the name has been changed more than once, this original amalgamated kingdom no longer exists. The Union parliament also had no clear authority to change the articles of Union, only the constituent nations could do that.

Article 2 provided for the succession of the House of Hanover; however it is void because the House of Hanover is defunct.

Article 3 provided for the creation of the one, unified, parliament of Great Britain. Article three is the crux of the matter; it must be repealed, reaffirmed or renegotiated.

Articles 4 through 15 and 17, 18 gave subjects freedom of trade and navigation as they equalized taxation and duties, if we’re both members of the EU or EFT it’s automatic.

Article 16 required the introduction of a common currency for Great Britain, subsequently realised through the 1707-1710 Scottish recoinage. Leaving article 16 in place, Osborne’s attempts at scaremongering over usage of the pound are somewhat irrelevant.

Article 19 provided for the continuation and protection of Scotland's separate legal system. Article 19 appears to be fine right where it is.

Articles 20, 22 and 23 provided for the protection of offices for life, parliamentary representation and the rights of peers of the realm. These articles certainly appear to give every indication of irrelevance without article 3, though possibly not to such as Lord Tankerness.

Article 21 simply provides for the protection of the rights of royal burghs.

Article 24 provided for the creation of a new Great Seal for Great Britain.

Article 25 provides that all laws of either kingdom that may be inconsistent with the Articles in the Treaty are to be declared void. Again it hinges on article 3.

Summing up there’s only one significant area needing attention.

Article 3.

This clarifies for us a situation which is perhaps one of the biggest con’s in history. That for almost three centuries Westminster has managed to convince many, if not most Scots that the nation, Scotland, effectively ceased to exist in May 1707.

It didn’t, Scotland simply ceased to have independent global representation. It devolved statehood, as did England. It did not relinquish nationhood.

The treaty noted above simply created one new state from two existing nation states, there is nothing in the treaty about abolishing the constituent nations. The nations therefore continued although the states were suspended.

The critical aspect is that for Scotland at least, the individual independent functioning of the state was adjourned or suspended, not ceased for all time or closed permanently.

That is the functional legal difference between Scotland and Yorkshire or Sussex.

As a nation, Scots were always at liberty to resume the condition of nation state. They simply had to discover a voice.

That was made clear when Winnie Ewing re-opened parliament in 1999 with the words “The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th day of March in the year 1707, is hereby reconvened”. These words were not contested by Westminster.

The first significant part of the restoration of Scotland to statehood arguably took place in 1999.

“Reserved” in the Scotland Act is therefore simply a word, a word that has no worth in international law. Under international law, in theory, the Scottish Government could at any time and with proper notice withdraw from such sections of the Treaty of Union as still have relevance, namely article 3.

That the Scottish government are looking to do this by additional democratic mandate is beyond fair and reasonable, that they are being threatened with prevention is a self evident contravention of international law and policy, a breach of the United Nations charter to which Westminster is a signatory and a breach of the Vienna Convention on treaty law to which Westminster is also a signatory.

The fact that the treaty was implemented prior to the convention does not remove Scotland’s ability to revoke or re-open it. It simply means any amendment must be in accordance with current international law regarding international treaties.

The Scottish Government, couching this poll in the language of an independence referendum seems ridiculous, in its most simple and basic terms it’s an international treaty renegotiation or termination.

The only beneficiary of the independence referendum terminology is Westminster; it improperly legitimizes the claim of dominion in the minds of many.

The Scottish constitutional poll should be about the 1707 treaty, specifically article 3. It should perhaps be a three option referendum; it just might be the questions now proposed are the wrong questions.

If it were to be a three part poll, it should ask if we strike, amend or affirm the current status of the Union Treaty with regards to section 3.

To strike article three of the Union Treaty would inherently restore all sovereign parliamentary powers to Edinburgh. Everything else opens for negotiation afterwards.

Such a question would force examination of the history of the Union, current benefits and detractions, but most importantly it would be clear, concise, lawful, and democratic, dealing directly with the reason Scots find themselves in the situation they do today.

NO is such a small word.

2012-01-14T12:29:00.000-04:00

But for all its diminutive stature it is very powerful indeed. It can decide the fates of nations.

It’s a word we use all too often, normally it has a set meaning, and it’s a denial – plain and simple. In many cases it’s an appropriate word to use because it has a very specific meaning.

The problem with the NO word comes when it is to be used broadly, when it will not just be a case of “no, you can’t buy that specific food”, but is changed to “no, you can’t buy any food”. NO is something that must always be looked at in context.

That brings us to the opposite of NO; YES, we know what a yes vote will get us in the upcoming referendum, it will get us independence. The campaign for Union acknowledges this but then throws out all types of questions. Defense, health, retirements, social security, the list goes on.

The campaign for Union appears unable to accept that decisions on these aspects of our lives will still have to be made irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. The campaign for Union, for using that little NO word refuses to accept that the only ultimate outcome of the referendum is simply the geographical location of the building where those decisions will be made.

Will it be Edinburgh or London?

Tied to that geography is another little bit of cartography; namely where the people making the decisions live, because where they live will influence how they vote on all these issues with regards to Scotland.

Why should anyone expect someone living in London to care deeply about what happens in Aberdeen or Arbroath? They don’t and won’t. They’re focused on their own problems. Arbroath and Aberdeen don’t even make their evening news. Most Londoner’s probably couldn’t find either on a map unless they were marked. These northerners certainly aren’t looked upon as close family. Historical actions give the fact to this.

Therefore in a time of Austerity, when there isn’t enough to go around, you protect your own – that’s simple human nature.

Accordingly, we know what yes will give us, it will give us the opportunity to make our own decisions – whatever they might be and wherever they might take us, for good or ill. Then again, what of NO?

Westminster needs to answer what NO means in the up-coming referendum.

Does NO mean more cuts to Scotland’s meager budget, meager to what flows south by all comparisons.

Does NO mean proper and fair accounting from Westminster, an accounting where items like Trident’s almost 100 billion are no longer counted billed against a Scotland that doesn’t even want it.

Does NO mean an end to free higher education, because a nation running in the black gets it pocket money cut and can no longer afford to properly educate its talented youth.

Does NO mean an end to the Scottish NHS, an NHS that isn’t presently being privatized like its English sister, because we simply can’t afford it anymore. We know that health care will be paid for privately in future if that happens, or we do without medical care?

Does NO mean there will be a loss of free travel for the elderly and infirm?

Does NO mean no more free prescriptions?

Does NO to independence mean Yes to nuclear weapons on the Clyde?

Does NO mean we will lose the right to stop new nuclear power stations being built beside our major cities?

Does NO mean no more test policies like the poll tax?

Does NO mean more stimulation for Scottish business rather than tax raids on our industrial sectors?

Does NO mean a proper allocation of the defense dividend, not just today’s perpetual billions in under spend?

Does NO mean an end to asset stripping Scots lotteries for London’s benefit?

Does NO get Scotland a guarantee of increased investment?

Does NO get Scots more devolution, more freedom, more impact – exactly how?

Does NO mean no more meddling in Scottish sports, teams or heritage?

Does NO mean that as a proud and ancient nation we have our own Olympics team?

Does NO mean no more meddling with our culture, laws and rights?

Does NO mean you will enshrine the above promises in a constitutional document before the referendum? If that is NO, we will understand it to be YES to more empty promises.

We know what yes means, it means decisions being taken by the people who live where the decisions will be made. We know it’s not a cast iron guarantee that they will be the right decisions, but we know they will be decisions taken by people with a vested interest in their own land. They will be taken by people who live in Scotland. That means there will be a far better chance they will be the right decision.

Westminster needs to answer the question before they can credibly ask any Scot to vote NO, just what, exactly are they voting for.

If Westminster can’t bind future governments to those guarantees, then they must acknowledge there is no difference other than location and vested interest between the yes vote and the no vote. As an example, if there is only money for one new school and the choice is Purley or Peterhead, where London will go for Purley, Edinburgh will choose Peterhead.

Westminster and all its supporters must give us concrete details of what a NO vote gets us or acknowledge that everything they put forward is smoke and mirrors, scaremongering and panic inducing drivel.

Given that there’s one thing we know as Scots, this present union doesn’t work. It has lurched drunkenly from scandal to scandal, crisis to crisis and war to war. We need guarantees that NO simply doesn’t get us more of the same, that NO gets a new beginning.

If Westminster can’t tell us what NO stands for, the only sane alternative is YES.

Dissecting the McCrone Report, the official secret of Westminster

2012-01-13T18:42:00.000-04:00

The McCrone report, is a document often referred to by Nationalists, or those generally in favour of restoration of Scotland’s sovereign powers is often looked upon as something of a mystic Holy Grail.

For those who have read it, it’s shocking. The reaction to its draft by Westminster is even more so. The report was buried in the Whitehall’s vaults for 30 years under the auspices of the “Official Secrets Act”.

It appears appropriate to put this report into plain English, highlight its significant areas and make it very straightforward for the average person to understand the main thrust of this “official secret”.

As we all know, the Official Secrets Act is there to protect The State form prejudicial interferences which may affect National Security. Therefore, we need to understand exactly what that is and how anything gets that designation. Was it appropriate in this instance?

Fundamentally a document can be classed as an official secret, if it contains information which is construed to be prejudicial to the State, basically the implication is the information could be used by enemies of the State, most often such classification would be seen in times of war and applied to military aspects of the State. A democracy really should not have official secrets of a civilian nature, especially during periods of peace.

Therefore, in the UK almost any official article prejudicial to the perceived security or interests of the State can be designated an officially secret document, and an individual could apparently have been prosecuted based upon character alone if it were even suspected they might have been thinking about discussing or disseminating it. Talk about character assassination.

Every appearance is that the UK government is substantially abusing its authority by invoking this heavyweight power against a peacetime document, which simply asks questions surrounding the implications of a mineral deposit discovered within one of its constituent nations.

It is clear this report was classified as an “official secret”, for to release it would have ended London rule. The pretext was it endangered the state as controlled by the UK parliament, and it had to be crushed prior to any distribution. The reason being, if it became public knowledge then attempts at suppression could easily be argued to violate UN charters on the rights of indigenous populations.

At a minimum, it could/should have lead to an entirely different Scotland today.

In reading the report it is obvious the Westminster government of the day put London before Scotland and chose, in time of peace, to enact legislation designed to protect the state against antagonistic foreign interests.

The only available interpretation here was that the London government viewed Scots knowledge of the report as an inimical foreign interest.

Reading the report it becomes clear why there was a cover up and why confusion, confabulation, lies and misdirection remain the apparent order of the day for many in the London establishment even as we head for another Scottish independence referendum – having won the first in 1979.

The report commissioned by Ted Heath in 1974, was written specifically to assess the implications for Westminster with regards to both the SNP and the EEC following the discovery of North Sea Oil. Heath lost the October general election to Harold Wilson. Both Labour and the Conservatives could have come clean and revealed this report. Neither did.

The paper began by acknowledging that “the whole framework within which the economic implications of nationalism were argued has indeed been altered”. Fundamentally the opening paragraph says it is a whole new ball game and Scotland’s just been gifted an unassailable 5-0 lead.

The document continues by highlighting the underlying causes of discontent in Scotland and acknowledges “these problems have not been overcome, nor do they look as if they will be in the foreseeable future”. McCrone is basically stating that under the political status quo, Scotland can only anticipate the status quo of poor health, deprivation and relative economic stagnation.

We can assume any government would not wish this for its electorate, no matter how small a portion. Westminster evidenced this is not the case in London. The only clearly available interpretation is that Scot’s don’t matter.

McCrone therefore concluded the opening overview with the statement “The importance of North Sea oil is that it raises just this [economic] issue in a more acute form than at any other time since the Act of Union was passed”.

In plain English – the discovery of the oil is a game changer and not one Westminster can defend against, it threatens the very existence of the British State more than anything else has in almost three centuries.

Fundamentally that statement put it into the realms of the Official Secrets Act. The report, if released, had every expectation of undermining the establishment within the British State.

The inappropriateness of burying this document was irrelevant in the eyes of the ruling government of the day; to make this an “official secret” was a fundamental requirement for Westminster. It did not matter that they were lying to an already deprived populous, who were no external threat. It had to be buried, before a strong campaign of disinformation could proceed. This led to the 1979 referendum which the Unionists still lost.

As the report progresses McCrone acknowledges that Scotland’s main impediment to national economic success is Westminster and its London-centric policies. He states it is “partly a question of the scale of the Scottish economy, but more of the extent to which it has been integrated with the rest of the UK [England] over the last 270 years”.

In his next paragraph he ties both unemployment in Scotland and migration from Scotland to the effect of the Union and its policies before stressing three ways an independent Scots government could prosper.

He recommends protection of Scotland’s existing and new industries through taxes and tariffs, but indicates that there may be repercussions from the EEC; though he describes that what may come from the EEC is likely to be insignificant in comparison to the reprisals from England.

Basically he’s saying an independent Scotland shouldn’t expect Westminster to play nice.

He then suggests a Scotland implements a self directed fiscal policy, one which benefits Scots, not London.

McCrone makes the case that this independent Scotland could afford policies that England could not match. He’s basically warning Westminster at this point that they should expect to have an economic powerhouse as a neighbour, small in relative size but wielding far more power in this present world.

He then proceeds to discuss the Kilbrandon Commission and its ramifications, where Scotland was shown to need English subsidy. However, Kilbrandon had ignored oil revenues, and consequently showed the need for a reduction in an independent Scotland’s budget, a subsidy from England or significant borrowing.

McCrone disagreed with Kilbrandon, noting even then without oil, it would be feasible for an independent Scotland to balance the books. Achieving this end primarily by no longer contributing to the extremely high UK defense budget and by implementing a modest devaluation of the Scots pound. Other potential implications were viewed by McCrone, but none were seen as “deal breakers” on the path to independence. He noted that with the advent of oil, the Kilbrandon Report was a dead duck; however, Westminster used it most effectively.

In the report, McCrone went so far as to suggest without considering the discovery of oil, that the above measures would be enough to stimulate the economy, provide jobs and growth and put the nation on a firm footing.

With the discovery of oil he noted, it might be difficult to contain the rise in value of the Scots pound.

It’s useful to understand that Scotland under UK fiscal policy has seen more than a 100% currency devaluation since the McCrone report. Under Westminster’s stewardship our current high point in Scotland is that we’re now stumbling into “Austerity”. No one can predict what might have happened had we the control of our own fiscal levers for the last thirty five years, but we can safely say it would have taken several administrations exhibiting unforeseen levels of gross incompetency to take us anywhere close to the area Westminster has us today. Effectively in the time since this report was written nothing has changed.

McCrone then concludes his opening gambit by saying that for Scotland to succeed, Scotland requires economic sovereignty.

Economic sovereignty is what our upcoming referendum is truly about.

McCrone then proceeded to discuss the oil issue in greater depth – making it clear he was simply referencing Scotland’s “traditional” industries to this point as he clearly states “the analysis in the last section is based upon the situation as it appeared before the discovery of North Sea Oil”.

McCrone begins the section on oil’s implications by stating the department of trade and industry is hiding the revenue data from the public, the values he assigned have been removed or redacted from the original report by the UK government, it was apparently done with a black marker.

The document concludes that paragraph by saying the “significance of this [omission of true value] has probably not been appreciated by the public”. Or in other words “I believe the public has no idea of how much you are lying to them by omission”.

McCrone then attacks Westminster for rubbishing SNP claims about values and mismanagement of resources without making available documentary evidence, but acknowledges the government’s case was being bought by the Scots voting public who were being led to believe the SNP figures were “pretty wild”.

He then alluded to how Norwegian policy supported the SNP claims of Westminster incompetence. He went so far as to use the phrase “This has shown the total inadequacy of government arrangements to secure revenue…” before concluding the section with the clear and unambiguous statement “all that is wrong with the SNP estimate now is that it is far too low”.

So, the SNP grossly underestimated the oil revenues, Westminster used the media with all its might, convinced the Scots that the SNP estimate was “pretty wild” on the high side and that it would “run out soon” while all along, London was fully aware that the SNP was grossly underestimating as only Whitehall had the real data.

That’s on top of the fact Scotland already had a viable economy even without the oil.

The report then advanced into the realm of oil revenues on Scotland’s balance sheet, concluding that she could fundamentally be in better position than Norway presently discovers herself, with the statement “What is quite clear is that the balance of payments from North Sea Oil would easily …. transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus”.

This is worth repeating. Scotland would have no deficit, Scotland would have no debt.

McCrone went on to state that these numbers and statements were based on estimates that were already very conservative and consequently, the true picture for Scotland was much brighter than that painted above.

Interestingly the document then goes on to discuss the ability of England to claim a proportional level of North Sea Oil based upon a UK asset claim and demand disbursion based upon population ratio, effectively giving England over 90% of North Sea Oil reserves. The report threw this assertion out with both the baby and the bathwater. It stated “Dispute on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but 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.”

McCrone concludes this section of his report with the following summary, a summary as accurate today as it was over thirty five years ago.

“lt must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps are taken either by carried interest or taxation to secure the government ‘take’.

“Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to quite an embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe with the exception of perhaps the Norwegian kroner”.

McCrone hypothesized that a Scots pound would be worth 20% more than Bank of England issue within two years, with little to no downside in the Scots economy.

“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”.

Effectively this can be taken to read that there would have been no banking collapse or credit crises in an independent Scotland, whereas what happened under Westminster’s guiding gauntlet is now a matter for the historians.

The McCrone report concludes with a reasonably detailed examination of steps the Scottish Government could take to ensure Scotland’s prosperity over the longer term; there were surprisingly few negatives or cautionary aspects.

If this 1707 Union were a private contract, Scotland would carry none of the UK debt and in the upcoming negotiation for independence, Westminster would be open to severe penalties for fraud and deception.

George Osborne – It’s the money, stupid.

2012-01-13T09:43:00.000-04:00

The Union Scaremongering has started. We knew it would, and amongst the predictable opening salvoes is the money aspect.

It was certainly foreseeable this would be a base chosen scare area from the Union, after almost 2/3 of Scots recently said they’d dump the UK for around a tenner a week. Not much British loyalty there then.

Mr. Osborne went on record saying that a future independent Scotland might find itself forced into the Euro. With the current negatives surrounding that monetary system, it’s hardly surprising the inferences were used in a fashion amounting to what could easily be construed as a veiled threat.

The UK’s Chancellor also strongly implied that Scotland may find itself unable to use Sterling after a yes vote in the upcoming poll. The inference was that this is Westminster’s decision.

No, it’s not. It is, and will be, a mutual decision or unilateral decision by Scotland.

In its most fundamental terms, the only present way Westminster could stop Scotland using Sterling would be if Whitehall and the bank of England voided the currency themselves. If the Bank of England abandons the pound it could lead to a position where Scotland has issues with using that particular currency.

That’s not such a far-fetched scenario as it at first appears, they almost did it to join the Euro and right now they’re looking at the potential of national bankruptcy as the pound plummets on the international exchange tables, having lost over ¼ of its value in the last four years alone.

Referencing the chancellor’s comments, there were rather substantive issues underlying these words that were apparently ignored by both number 11’s current resident and the mainstream media.

The first, and most fundamental is that without Scotland there is no UK. UK in the media appears to be largely interchangeable with “England” or “Westminster” – it isn’t. Most fundamentally the UK came about through the unification of two separate kingdoms into one, by treaty, therefore the term, United Kingdom.

Wales and Northern Ireland were never independent kingdoms, therefore if one of the two original kingdoms ends the 1707 treaty, irrespective of which kingdom chooses to do so, semantically and legally there is no more UK.

This is not just ancient history, it impacts our daily lives and creates severe issues with governmental utterances such as Mr. Osborne’s.

Part of that 1707 treaty of Union was the creation of a single currency; it was very like the Euro of its day. We jointly agreed to create a single monetary system. Article 16 of the treaty specifically reads:

“That from and after the Union the Coin shall be of the same standard and value, throughout the United Kingdom, as now in England, And a Mint shall be continued in Scotland under the same Rules as the Mint in England And the present Officers of the Mint continued subject to such Regulations and Alterations as Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors, or the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit”.

It is worthwhile noting it was not England’s currency that was to be used, but an entirely new currency, although it would have the same standard and value as that then used in England. One might also wonder where the Scottish mint is located these days; after all we’d minted coins in over twenty five towns until the Union stopped it in the 1830’s.

The currency therefore belongs to both realms, absent a legal ruling otherwise which is highly unlikely.

This gives a similar situation to the Euro, and for England to require Scotland to cease and desist use of Sterling is as likely to hold ground in international law as Greece telling Germany it’s got a problem so would they kindly quit the Euro.

Scotland could, and well may withdraw from Sterling, for no sane nation would wish to be tied to such a poorly performing fiat system.

Scots might elect to go for the Euro, which is still a far better relative value than the pound in this last decade, but those are not the only choices. Any sovereign nation can elect to enter into a mutual treaty agreement to share or use any other nation’s currency, or they can develop their own.

A second issue which is integral to the first and shows value to the pro-monarchist stance of Holyrood is the agreement, wish or declaration to retain the monarch – at least for now.

Retention of the monarch means simply that the clock is wound back to 1603. Although there was never a formal treaty as such then and therefore no legal Union of the Crowns as is often taught, it was a de-facto union of the crowns.

As there is no present proposal to end the monarchy the clock isn’t being turned back to 1600, it’s being rewound to 1700, when there was a de-facto United Kingdom with two nations, two parliaments, each reportedly acting in the best interest and common weal of the individual nations, and doing so under one monarch.

The United Kingdom will still exist until either Scotland or England elects to remove the monarchy.

As the United Kingdom will still exist, all aspects of the 1707 treaty will continue in force until negotiated out. This includes the monetary system in both nations.

We will not suddenly wake up the day after a “YES” vote and find ourselves living in a different country under a different set of rules with everything from border posts to money magically appearing or disappearing at the stroke of midnight.

There will be a period of some years, as in the original monetary union from 1707 to 1710 where things will be negotiated, aligned and re-distributed to the best benefit of both nations.

Apart from scaremongering to retain an outdated, one sided, colonial style dominion this is undeniably the only sensible path for both nations to take.

It is sensible because it is what Scotland wishes, and Westminster is aware that Scotland is far better placed in resources, industry and tangible exports to withstand brutal upheaval than England.

If there is a sincere wish to preserve this union by Westminster then it’s time to stop the Scaremongering and engage their best case, a case so far apparently well hidden, and to do so in fair, reasonable and balanced debate.

Fair, reasonable and balanced debate does not equate to politicks shows or media coverage involving one person from each major party putting a case again the full restoration of Scotland’s sovereign rights and only one individual submitting the case for it.

This Union and media tactic is no different than putting a single boxer in the ring to face against his opponent, his seconds and his manager, all of whom are allowed to trade punches with him.

Referendums, who can call them.

2012-01-10T10:50:00.000-04:00

There is ongoing confusion for many over the legality of the upcoming independence referendum, who can hold it, when, what the question(s) should be and will it be binding or advisory. This confusion is perpetrated by widespread dis-reporting in the mainstream media without full verification of all the underlying facts.

There is certainly an issue now that Westminster claims it has the “legal authority” to grant Scotland a referendum, with David Cameron speaking of ‘legally binding”, control of content and “sunset clauses”. The only definite thing that can be said of the last week is that the Union and its supporters have elevated the rhetoric.

Being clear, Westminster certainly has the authority to call a referendum in Scotland; it has done so in the past. Holyrood also has the authority to call a referendum. In theory, anyone can call for a poll in a populous, it's called Democracy.

Stepping back one can understand where Cameron is getting his legal input. The Union case for interference comes from sources such as professor Tomkins, an expert on constitutional law at Glasgow University, who largely echoed Aiden O’Neil’s earlier comments by informing the Scottish affairs committee in Westminster that “any referendum should be run by the Electoral Commission and, for it to be acceptable, the questions, their meaning and effects should be "crystal clear".

The only part of the statement which is unarguable is that “the questions, their meaning and effects should be crystal clear”. As to the remainder it’s quite normal for an independence referendum, or in Scotland’s case a restoration or repatriation referendum to be the province of international or external authorities.

Professor Tomkins is described as a leading academic in the field of constitutional law; therefore his views certainly deserve merit as does his warning that there is a "very strong" argument in constitutional law that the Scottish Government will be exceeding its statutory powers by staging an independence referendum.

The Scottish affairs committee at Westminster is certainly exceeding its remit, as it is limited to commenting and examining the affairs of the Scottish Office, not Holyrood, but is Holyrood also exceeding its remit as the good professor would infer and have us believe.

Alex Salmond has rejected this and all previous claims that the Scottish Government lacks the powers to hold an independence referendum. David Cameron who previously referred to the referendum as being for Scotland to decide has now apparently changed his views.

Immediate indications are that the proposed poll is legal from the standpoint of both leaders and that what is proposed by the Scottish affairs committee and its quoted expert is without basis. Professor Tomkins does throw out credible arguments, similar to those used by others before him as they try to deny Scotland a voice.

In his paper as submitted to Westminster's Scottish affairs committee, Professor Adam Tomkins put forward the argument that there was a "strong constitutional case" for the UK Government, and not Holyrood, to legislate for the referendum. He stated "If the question is 'Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom?' that is a question on a reserved matter and should therefore be asked (if at all) by HM Government under the authority of an Act of Parliament”.

The use of his wording, “if at all” gives an exceedingly strong indication as to Adam Tomkins personal leanings with regards to dependency or self determination.

The submission to the committee continued "Were the Scottish ministers to seek to ask such a question in a referendum held under the authority of an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP), there is (at the least) a very strong argument the ASP would be outwith competence and, therefore, 'not law' under section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, and that the Scottish ministers would be acting outwith their devolved competence if they sought to exercise powers in pursuit of such an ASP.

"If the question is 'Should the Scottish Government seek to renegotiate with HM Government the terms of the Union?', my view would be the same: this is a reserved matter, even if the referendum question somehow made clear that the renegotiation was not intended to end the Union and that the proposal was not that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom."

Professor Tomkins views are therefore crystal clear; Holyrood doesn’t have the power under the UK constitution to hold a referendum. This is only under an alleged UK constitution, uncodified, unwritten, never voted upon.

Offsetting the opinion of this constitutional law expert appears the previously mentioned views of both Alex Salmond and David Cameron with the Scottish government also firm in its commitment and belief that it both has the legal remit and authority to bring forward a referendum bill followed by a constitutional poll in the second half of the current Scottish Parliament.

Who’s correct and who’s obfuscating?

A spokesman for Alex Salmond previously said "Professor Tomkins needs to catch up", before adding: "Everyone else, including the Prime Minister, accepts the right of the Scottish Government and Parliament to hold the referendum - we are entirely confident of our legal position."

Professor Tomkins and his predecessors apparently chose their words most carefully; under UK law Holyrood doesn’t have the authority to legislate for a constitutional referendum. UK law is very clear on this in that “the constitution” is a reserved matter, per Westminster.

The professor therefore hangs his hat on a peg by stating “it would be preferable for the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate on the matter”.

Interestingly Professor Tomkins doesn’t say “Only Westminster can legislate on this subject”, simply that it would be “preferable”. The issue again is why the use of the word “preferable” and preferable for whom?

In his statement the professor calls for any referendum to be held as quickly as possible, another voice to the constant Union generated bedlam. The use of his word “preferable” is not so quickly explained and as the trails are unravelled it’s clearly demonstrated that it is only preferable from a Union perspective.

Tomkins is apparently viewing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single country, which it is not. The “UK” in its present form is a state, not a nation, and has only existed under its current name and verifiably compound status since 1926. Constitutional rights in Scotland are different from those in England; therefore that “constitutional argument” is on a shoogly peg indeed.

The original Treaty of Union of 1707 was between two independent nation states, setting aside the legality questions surrounding that agreement there is an indisputable fact that Scotland and England are not “one country” but two nations co-existing as one state with a presently unified “supreme” government.

Effectively under that treaty both Scotland and England devolved their government to Westminster. The Union treaty made no mention of suspending Scotland’s constitution or laws – in fact it promised to “forever uphold” them.

To suggest that Scotland can never withdraw from such a treaty is ludicrous under international law. Even the Foreign office has Scotland listed as a nation with whom it can conduct treaties.

This brings the Vienna Convention on Treaty law into play, with the UK being a signatory. Any bi-lateral treaty can be ended unilaterally with appropriate notification by either party. Scotland in lacking a recognized parliament for some centuries could arguably have been said to have been without the voice that allowed it make such a declaration, absent a declared will of the people.

That situation where Scotland lacked self government has now been rectified, and as Westminster is in agreement that international law trumps national law they are effectively bound by the Scottish Government’s decision in this matter. This could be diluted to state only as long as such decision follows the expressed will of the people. The referendum will give a clear expression of will.

The second player in the referendum arena that Westminster must be mindful of is the United Nations. The UK is a principle member of the UN and signatory to almost every treaty of relevance within its sphere of influence at the UN. The UN position is clear.

The UN charter reads, quite specifically, and was re-affirmed on 10th November 2011 as

“..the Assembly reaffirmed that the universal realisation of the right of all peoples — including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination — to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee, observance, preservation and promotion of human rights.

The Assembly also declares its firm Opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world”.

In effect, if the Scottish government were to poll the Scottish people on independence they might contravene Westminster’s interpretation of what’s legal internal to the UK but they should anticipate the backing of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention, both of which the UK is signatory to and bound by under international law.

Fundamentally both Holyrood and London are correct in their assertions.

London is using what it describes as “UK Constitutional Law”, apparently forgetting that we are separate nations bound only by an ancient treaty, many times violated and often effectively amended, most recently in 1926 to include Northern Ireland.

Holyrood is apparently using international law, the Vienna Convention and the stance of the United Nations. In an ideal world Holyrood would therefore set out all aspects of the referendum and Westminster would agree and support – that is democracy at work.

As Westminster is signatory to both the Vienna Convention and the UN charter, and supported the November 10th reaffirmation, with international law usurping national law there is every present appearance of Alex Salmond holding the better hand.

The best that London could hope for is a delaying tactic, which with incessant screams of “referendum now” and a demand for the referendum to be in 2013 would appear to go against current Westminster policy. Any legal delaying tactic by Westminster would also have a strong potential of driving a mass of undecided voters to the pro-independence side of the argument as the SNP would rightfully clamour deprivation of democracy.

Should Westminster choose it can ignore any referendum result as “advisory”, however “the mother of parliaments” would then be in a position of arguing before the UN that the democratic will of a people in its most basic sense, isn’t worth squat.

That is not an argument Westminster will win, meantime one could expect Scotland to chart her own course – hold her referendum on her own schedule and implement the will of the people of Scotland irrespective of Westminster’s wishes.

For the UN to fail to support this would be a most basic, undesirable alteration to international law.

The international community would fundamentally enshrine a precedent in law that the will of a people has no value and that powers once gifted by any state may never be repatriated by that state alone, through peaceful means.

UPDATED@17.17 local time:

Following the announcement by Alex Salmond of the Autumn 2014 date for the referendum, it will be interesting to watch David Cameron's reaction.

Will he indeed remove any possibility of challenge for this and ALL FUTURE Holyrood polls, or will he continue to try to impose conditions, qualifications, addenda or limits?

In the interim, will Westminster work towards a better path for Scotland?

A game of cards for 2012; the Union’s hand.

2011-12-28T15:55:00.002-04:00

A new year is here, Hogmanay once again, and when the dust settles on the festivities perhaps it’s time to remember just how far Scotland has come in the last year as strategies are planned for the path to the referendum.

A referendum that was politically impossible just 12 short months ago, indeed until May 5th 2011 the Unionists consistently acted as a single party to block Scots aspirations. May 5th was when the Scots themselves saw and acted upon the need to remove that impediment to democracy.

With part of Scotland’s democratic deficit removed the next big issue faced by all who wish to see an independent Scotland once again, is structuring the independence debate.

2012 must be the year that the SNP and its supporters take charge of that issue or face the possibility, perhaps the probability, of a loss in the referendum.

Alex Salmond and his team must find a way to take charge of framing the debate.

The polls have shown us that words are powerful; simply the structure and content of the question in the referendum can produce as much as 20 point variation in the outcome. No team should ever be so foolish as to gift their opponents a 20% advantage.

The Union is fundamentally aware of this power of phraseology, it is Westminster’s ace in hand, and that legislature has been allowed to play it almost unchallenged. That must stop.

For the potential of a cohesive Scottish nation walking forward in a liberated and more truly democratic state, such a potential for propaganda and rhetoric in the hands of the opposition is quite literally allowing them the Ace of Spades.

Absent any presently unforeseeable circumstance, it is London’s only remaining ace unless another were to be magic’d up by such an event as an opportune second Falkland’s war at just the right time. Even such a colonialist style conflict could backfire in remarkable fashion in present day Scotland.

2012 must mark the year that we in Scotland counter certain words, for they have undeniable power. Ideally, we need a single word to refute all the negative connotations of Unionist propaganda. It’s time to get the last Union ace out of their hand.

A single easily repeatable word is required to counter Unionist cries of separation, break up, divorce, end, and the host of others that are deployed so effectively against humanity’s most basic aspirations in Scotland, that of free choice and true democracy.

When that word is found we must use it consistently, we must bury it into the psyche of our fellow Scots. Our countrymen and women must understand to the core of their beings that they are not stepping into the abyss but bringing back something that worked here for centuries and is enjoyed by countless other millions the world over.

RESTORATION could well be that word. It might just trump the Union ace; it works in almost every situation, there are no known negatives and it’s simply understood. Even Westminster argues for restoration – one word that is a unionist’s cleft stick.

The next strongest card that can be played in 2012 by the Union is the king. In the present UK the king is effectively the prime minister. That king is toxic to the Union’s case in 2012 and will remain so through to the referendum. The Union has no choice but to play its major face card or throw it out. The Union has a no-win situation in its king.

Scotland having more pandas than Tory MP’s leaves David Cameron in a position one might generously describe as “democratic deficit”. He is responsible for less than 2% of our elected MP’s.

The UK Prime Minister’s party is as welcome to most Scots as a nasty sweat rash.

In spite of this, the PM must head up the opposition to the referendum or he tacitly accepts defeat no matter the poll result.

If the PM turns over the reins of the no campaign to another he’s effectively saying the top minister of the United Kingdom shouldn’t worry about defending it – that the Union is fundamentally indefensible by the UK’s top elected official.

That puts David Cameron into one of two camps, he’s a coward and won’t fight, or he’s a realist and can’t fight. He acknowledges there is only a disunited Kingdom where he holds no fundamental democratic right of the Scots people to impose any policy.

Effectively, from the view of the referendum the Union king is part of a busted flush.

A queen is a different matter; Elizabeth II is a queen card in the union hand. She played a prominent part in the 1970’s, arguing consistently and strongly against Scotland’s voice in a referendum, a poll the Union still lost.

Elizabeth is no longer the force for Union she was decades ago. Scotland has moved on since then. Alex Salmond also largely stripped the Union of the ability to play its queen when he told her publically, in Scotland, that she would still be “Scotland’s Queen”. The Union queen was politely, but effectively removed from the deck on that day.

As we move down the pack we encounter problems, for who in the Union camp could represent the Jack. There is no potent individual that springs immediately to mind. There’s not even a political party. There is only a vacuum in Westminster.

However, there is an organization: the BBC. The BBC is apparently tasked to be the Union Jack, with the responsibility of playing the ace card to its best advantage. The BBC operates largely at the direction of its culture as defined by its name, and under the tacit puppeteering of the London establishment.

Under the direction of its culture and its master’s voice, its impact is as insidious as it is relentless. Without the one eyed Jack tucked amongst the spades the Union’s debilitating cause would have died many years ago.

This Union Jack is a card losing its potency with time, but without a single consistent useable ace word to neutralize it, it may not lose its impact quite quickly enough.

The Internet, social networking and independent news, radio and television are diluting its effectiveness. As 2012 opens this Union Jack remains very much the elephant in the corner of the room of real Scottish democratic aspirations.

With truly Scots news portrayed from a Scots first aspect, the referendum would be a 90/10 shoe in.

The rest of the cards in the Union suit are varied and specifically unidentifiable.

The mainstream media in Scotland may have been a ten, but that’s changing. The media have appeared more democratically open in recent months. They have not been doing this from any altruistic sense of supporting fundamental democracy, more from an apparent stance of attempted self preservation due to falling audience or circulation numbers. What is relevant is that the change is happening now, two or three years before the referendum.

If this media realignment continues, BBC excepted, then a semblance of balanced argument might just be possible in the final run up to the constitutional poll. If this continues we will certainly be closer to 90/10 than fighting for 51/49 in favour.

So the ten might be worth a three or four in a few years, and there’s no visible nine to move up in the Union suit. The nine might have once been a sense of “Britishness”.

Polls now show most in the individual nations don’t give a hoot for “Britishness” and a large majority in Scotland would salute the concept with a single digit for just a tenner a week. “Britishness” is effectively a non starter at the poll – and the starting gun is still to be fired.

With the numbered cards being largely unidentifiable and interchangeable, the only remaining question lies around the Union’s Joker. Presently there’s three chief candidates all trying to lord it over the position.

Messer’s Forsythe, Foulkes and Wallace, although it’s most likely to be a presently unlooked for dark horse that will get the position. The reasoning being: these are three lords who seem most adept at blowing off their own feet, and jesters that can’t caper are of little use to any king.

Entering 2012, it would therefore appear that the Union campaign is bereft of even a useable fool.

The Union party leaders in Scotland simply don’t even make it into the pack. Ruth Davidson is acknowledged as both a Tory and David Cameron’s favourite, doubly toxic to the voters and without credible experience in parliament. At least her message will be consistent – London first. Expect that message to get as much traction with the Scots electorate as a well greased ferret on a length of elastic.

Johann Lamont lost the popular vote of her party members, was “elected” by undemocratic means, has therefore no popular mandate and her replacement is already being discussed in London. Every appearance has it that Ms. Lamont and her new deputy’s role should have been reversed, and would have been if it was possible by Labour UK.

Ms. Lamont has been described as by others Iain Gray after a charisma extraction. With a political compass now decidedly to right of center, she leads a party as out of touch with its roots as a month old bleach job.

To give Willie Rennie credit, he almost made the jester card. After all his apparent policy spins and contortions in so many areas, he should be horizontal. Sadly, fool of the pack is a lofty aspiration for a person whose camp followers can fit into a London taxi, but then London taxis do belong in London.

The Unionist backed Scotland bill now resembles the Titanic three hours after she hit the iceberg. Following Holyrood’s rejection, the House of Lords and its ongoing amendments leaves us with the appearance they’re still yelling for more deckchairs as everybody else is paddling away in lifeboats.

That rejection was strictly along Union / Scots lines. This proved conclusively that if the SNP had no overall majority, the Union cabal would prevail. It was not a good bill for Scotland.

On the Scots independence side the Nationalists appear to be holding the other three aces of financial viability, energy resources and leadership. When it comes to face cards the story simply continues as Holyrood maintains the sense it’s got a viable, credible and talented governmental team working for Scotland’s best interest with a far higher degree of integrity than Westminster has ever credibly managed.

In fact, Scots ministers give the impression they’re doing it deliberately, and not just on some fools errand.

The ECB is tacitly acknowledging the euro is on life support. (Part 2)

2011-12-26T09:58:00.002-04:00

Go to Part 1

A very strong statement by the European Central Bank [ECB], even if not made bluntly and directly on Wednesday is that it sees little hope for the euro, but it will prop it up until the bitter end.

In the short term it’s likely to have little impact in Scotland, but as Europe’s our largest trading partner it will alter dynamics substantially in the medium to longer term.

The immediate good news is that this effective quantitative easing [QE] in the EU puts Europe on a similar monetary devaluation slide as the UK. This helps to maintain equilibrium of sorts in relative monetary values and reduces the potential shock of either the cost of our imports becoming much greater adding to the deficit, or exports becoming more expensive.

The big loser is the average EU citizen, ourselves included, as rapid devaluation lowers the buying power of any resources we have, be it savings, salaries or benefits.

It has happened because this week the ECB effectively “caved” and announced QE in Europe. Not directly, but by the back door through mid to long term banking loans. 250 billion euro’s worth of loans was expected. These are loans with money its member states simply don’t have – they had to print it and loan it to the ECB so the ECB can lend it to the banks that will, hopefully, buy sovereign debt and lend it back the nations that printed it in the first place.

It is QE by the back door, as long as the bankers play ball.

The reaction in the financial world was surprising; the massive Societe Generale in France fundamentally blew off the announcement, stating "banks can't save the sovereigns." In essence they are telling the ECB that the banks have issues and that borrowing from the EU is borrowing from an entity they no longer consider creditworthy. Fundamentally, the banks and nations are both in a bind.

There is no guarantee the banks will do what the EU requires, even if they do decide to borrow the money made available. No nation has the authority to force private banking to do this and that led to Societe Generale concluding its statement that even with 250 billion euro being “made available” “the potential to repair the sovereign bond market is dubious”.

This will put 2011 down as the year that closed with the European snake eating its own tail.

Other banks and economies were also eying the total size of the loan package, too much indicated almost panic in the ECB, too little, pointless, the anticipated number was 250 billion, give or take the odd 50 billion.

There’s a need to put that into real numbers, that’s the equivalent of every Scot, man, woman and child giving Europe’s banks over £40,000 for Christmas.

In effect we in Europe are loaning fundamentally insolvent banks the money to re-finance or buy back our own debt, and to do so at a better interest rate, thereby paying us less for the privilege, while we ourselves are collectively broke and can only do so by mortgaging futures already so indebted as to be literally worthless.

In spite of this the Guardian quoted analysts reactions as “Given the ongoing stresses in the banking system, we expect there to be high demand for these loans”. The interpretation is simple – the banks have such a crisis of liquidity that they have no choice except to take near worthless bond issues from over-mortgaged peoples. They’re kicking the immediate need for a real solution somewhere past Christmas.

Jane Foley, senior currency strategist at Rabobank International held the view, “Eurozone governments will be hoping that a lot of the ECB's cheap money will be used by banks to buy sovereign debt. This remains to be seen”.

“However, banks in the core are likely to be understandably reluctant to stock up on peripheral debt given fears that this could affect their reputations and their ability to fund themselves”. In summing up she could only say “The euro remains a very vulnerable currency”.

In simplistic terms this means that banks substantially rely on interbank lending, and much of these assets they obtain in this auction may not eventually be saleable or under writable. They’re buying a lemon, but they’ve no option.

If Ms. Foley’s was a lone voice this week it might be ignored or just put on note, it wasn’t, it was typical. Michael Hewson at CMC Markets raises similar concerns on how much of the money will be used to buy sovereign debt:

“Nobody is able to predict how much of the funding will be utilised to buy up sovereign debt and there is a strong possibility that banks will for the most part take the cheap money as replacement for maturing existing funding”.

Mr. Hewson expects the banks will do the smart thing; they’ll take the funds and use them to refinance what they already owe each other. That will cause a rapid implosion of the euro as the nations of the euro will no longer be able to get loans to finance their ongoing deficits.

Mr. Hewson concluded “the main stickler is that the 'solution' is assuming a liquidity problem, while the real issue of solvency and the lack of growth remains unaddressed once again”. Simply put, it’s a delaying tactic, and not likely to create a long delay. The world’s economies need growth, growth takes energy, and global energy supplies are currently contracting.

The Royal Bank of Canada has also weighed in with an opinion, “our rates strategists point out the range around the €250bn median estimate is €50bn to €450bn. Just where the "goldilocks" number is remains difficult to determine; a much larger than expected number in light of recent movements in short end peripheral yields would seemingly confirm that the carry in trade is in full flight (and that the European financial sector is taking on risk at a time when it is being guided to do the opposite). Our rates strategists therefore think anything up to their €250bn estimate would be positive in that rollover concerns should abate somewhat whilst providing limited sign that no unreasonable risks have been taken”.

The final number was 500bn euro, in excess of RBC’s high end estimate. It is a short term delay on a long term catastrophe in waiting, or in terms we all understand about £80,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland, that’s what we have underwritten high finance in this week alone.

Any who think it’s just Europe should think twice, because we’re all interconnected and the UK is in worse shape than most of Europe, Westminster is simply a sick and tired old man that hasn’t made it to the hospice yet, the last rights are imminent with credit ratings anticipated to be lowered soon.

No nation will be immune from the tsunami that’s coming as a result of rampant unbridled capitalism, but those who can best implement damage control and limitation will be smaller agile nations that operate with a close to neutral or positive balance of payments.

We can be such a nation, the UK cannot.

Europe is failing because it lacks the energy to sustain itself. (Part 1)

2011-12-18T11:47:00.001-04:00

Go to Part 2

Two decades past we effectively saw the common market die with Maastricht, given a rude coup de grace by its child the EU. We should be grateful a form of the old common market has lingered on in the European Free Trade zone [EFT].

2012 has the strong potential to see the death of the EU, its demise being shaped at conception, the final gestation now well under way. Expect a future history of the common individual not to lament its passing. However, high finance will certainly have cause for regret euros end.

2011 has been unique; we’ve seen much, from the Arab Spring half a world away to a situation where a Scot betting a couple thousand pounds on an SNP overall majority in January could have retired in May. The year then progressed into Europe’s greatest ever potential catastrophe, the demise of the euro. Everything’s connected.

It’s the situation in Europe that is of significant overall interest to Scots, as we watch the EU commence its imminent death throes with no present hope of resuscitation. Economic and societal upheaval was inevitable with the contraction of the carbon economy, Maastricht saw to it being pan-European and Lisbon delivered the knife across the collective EU throat.

To understand the sequence of events it’s necessary to look back to the formation of modern Europe, emerging from two world wars by mid 20th century.

A proposal for a “common market” arose, a trading zone across nations where cooperation would be much more advantageous than war and everybody would benefit. It was a great idea. It should have stopped there.

The EEC was successful simply because it was a cooperative society of relative equals, it dropped barriers between the comparatively prosperous northern European nations involved and allowed free movement of goods through a common market.

To expand the EEC would have been acceptable and desirable, as long as new nations fitted the socio economic demographic of existing countries. Freedom of human movement was also an acceptable enhancement.

There was no significant worth in the original EEC to a manufacturer moving from Germany to France or Denmark, but if Albania was admitted then labour rates could be quartered by crossing borders. That’s the short sighted American/City perspective, i.e. focus on the quarterly result and ignore the human impact.

The problem with such short term focus is when it occurs en-masse there’s few left in the original country earning enough to buy even the cheaper goods. Two nations fail instead of one just struggling. This is the China-US situation today, it may be a decade in processing but it will happen. It is the UK situation today, it has happened here.

Manufacturing and materials standards in a free trade community must be similar, so that part of sovereignty has to be relinquished in favour of overarching manufacturing standards legislation. That’s where central control of legislation should cease. The EFT to most appearances remains viable without the EU’s later additions and severely burdensome bureaucracy.

The big issue of our time came when the EEC evolved as national governments within it devolved. Nations devolved as more national sovereignty was gifted to or grabbed by Brussels.

The EU evolved and with it the inherent requirement of the euro. The nations of Europe were centuries behind the UK in this, but they had a model here if only they’d cared to look.

Only two things make any nation relinquish hard won sovereignty – they are conquered militarily or they are sold out from within by “a parcel of rogues”.

The EU, whatever its lofty declared goals is about nothing other than peaceful conquest of national sovereignty, and as the people of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Belarus, Spain, Portugal and other’s can now attest – it’s not necessarily good for their citizens either. The wealth of these nations is being siphoned elsewhere as they are being forced into a “one solution fits all” approach.

As we enter 2012 we can state, categorically, that the EU has benefitted the bankers.

Transposition from trading community to super-state may have functioned if it had been substantially limited to the original members, all with equal voting rights.

The evolution to superpower status was fast tracked to be completed within thirty years. The USA took three centuries and started with a common federal framework. The USA still struggles.

Even the Franco-German alliance driving the formation of the “new Europe” isn’t an alliance of equals; economically by almost all measurable standards France is substantially inferior to Germany.

The formation of a super-state is almost unthinkable without a single “super-currency”. A super-state with fundamentally differing economies between the constituents hadn’t ever been tried except through military conquest, all of which ultimately failed for the same reasons the EU was doomed at the outset.

It was increasingly clear as the millennia dawned that there would be three main central banks on the planet within 50 years if the carbon energy economy supported them, a European, an American and a probable Asian cartel. Sadly few governments are choosing to highlight what they will do as our “carbon age” draws down, Holyrood being a notable exception.

Two fundamentals are making the European super-state project come unglued. The super-state was pre-destined to fail through both the unsustainability of 20th century carbon economy driven consumerism, and the inclusion of nations that were not even close to having socio economic parity with the existing trading block.

The EU super state was predicated on constantly expanding economies. No economist has ever guaranteed constantly expanding economies.

The “credit crisis” that is being used as a pretext to force through undemocratic reforms within the EU simply doesn’t exist. It’s a liquidity crisis. The forcing is akin to the euro/EU being frog-marched to the guillotine. Then again the guillotine was always in the wings for the EU.

Credit means there’s money available and if you qualify and are trustworthy, you can get a loan. There is still money available; therefore there is no “credit crisis”. The money supply may now be super concentrated and credit restricted, but these individuals and organizations holding it still have a need to invest to increase their already considerable wealth.

If you can’t qualify for a loan it is only because you are not creditworthy, due to a liquidity or credibility crisis. That’s where today’s governments and interbank lenders find themselves. They are in a crisis of liquidity and creditworthiness.

The backdrop to the crisis appears a reluctance to acknowledge “Peak Oil” has come and gone, the perpetual expansion of markets and economies that took place under that system and sustained that system is now slowly contracting. The contraction will accelerate.

Throwing money at the dwindling sustainability of a carbon economy will not fix it. The tripling of population the carbon economy supported during the 20th century will need to contract without new energy sources being available.

Rising real energy costs and a congruent forced contraction of population equate to one thing, contracting markets. The EU isn’t so much running out of money; it’s running out of energy, and on several fronts.

Contracting markets equal ongoing devaluation, depression and recession.

It is no longer possible without new energy sources to grow our way out of recession or depression. The nations with the highest potential of new energy sources will be the countries best placed to ensure prosperity for their people. Nations in such a position can look for substantial economic boosts. Nations such as that can shrug off today’s curse of high finance because they operate in the black.

Scotland is such a nation.

As we understand crude oil consumption has outstripped discovery in every year since 1980, we comprehend the fundamental reason living standards in the industrialized world’s carbon economy are in decline. A perhaps simplistic verification is that the “credit crisis” of 2008 was tied to one thing above all, the energy markets.

Fuel in the USA went from $1.75 to $4+ inside a year. People were already stretched. They stopped buying discretionary items, the economy tanked. Layoffs followed and mortgages were no longer paid, house prices fell, banks failed and with a resultant depression temporarily lowered fuel prices. Bad lending practice certainly had its part, but it would have been largely masked without the energy crunch.

With the US being the planetary consumerism powerhouse the knock on effects as lenders turned upon themselves were rapid and global, it was a portent of things to come.

Between these two aspects and the EU’s refusal to recognize the same issues are here for the long term, the euro can’t survive and to a large extent the backers of the EU rely upon the euro.

Fundamentally the EU admitted far too many nations whose economies were simply not ready into an exclusive euro currency club, and it did so in a time of contracting global energy availability. For some odd reason the EU broke its own rules, possibly at the urging of the fiscal “technocrats”. It seems odd that one of the main technocrats who submitted allegedly inaccurate data to show Greece as viable nation for the euro is now a principle in running Greece.

With the demise of the euro, probably in 2012, the EU will have difficulty in surviving in its present format. The implosion of the single currency will be dramatic when it takes place. The only thing that might act to save it is that high finance can’t afford the euro to collapse. The euro is already arguably vastly overvalued after so many fruitless “save the euro” summits, and yet it remains relatively stable on apparent perpetual life support.

The constituents of many member nations will ask why the euro seemed like a good idea, the reality is that it was never a good idea and that the populaces of those nations were psychologically railroaded into it by vested interest.

This brings thoughts full circle as we return to the “Arab Spring”, contented and well fed people do not rebel or rise up, they grumble and squawk. These people had no option, the failure of the carbon economy and international speculation moved them to a position of near starvation. That situation is now spreading to Greece and the ripples can only be expected to continue at the present time.

Greeks are now being deprived of food and electricity as they see their safety nets removed; Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal are already in line for similar “Austerity”. As Europe runs out of both ideas and energy, one can only leave the future open to conjecture.

In Scotland we can take back our future after 300 years, we should retain it, and we should enter only trading agreements. For as we already know, and as Europe will demonstrate shortly, shared sovereignty will normally only benefit the dominant player.

The only EU answer still clouded is the true identity of the dominant player, Germany or international banking.

Europe is failing because it lacks the energy to sustain itself.

2011-12-18T11:27:00.001-04:00

Two decades past we effectively saw the common market die with Maastricht, given a rude coup de grace by its child the EU. We should be grateful a form of the old common market has lingered on in the European Free Trade zone [EFT].

2012 has the strong potential to see the death of the EU, its demise being shaped at conception, the final gestation now well under way. Expect a future history of the common individual not to lament its passing. However, high finance will certainly have cause for regret euros end.

2011 has been unique; we’ve seen much, from the Arab Spring half a world away to a situation where a Scot betting a couple thousand pounds on an SNP overall majority in January could have retired in May. The year then progressed into Europe’s greatest ever potential catastrophe, the demise of the euro. Everything’s connected.

It’s the situation in Europe that is of significant overall interest to Scots, as we watch the EU commence its imminent death throes with no present hope of resuscitation. Economic and societal upheaval was inevitable with the contraction of the carbon economy, Maastricht saw to it being pan-European and Lisbon delivered the knife across the collective EU throat.

To understand the sequence of events it’s necessary to look back to the formation of modern Europe, emerging from two world wars by mid 20th century.

A proposal for a “common market” arose, a trading zone across nations where cooperation would be much more advantageous than war and everybody would benefit. It was a great idea. It should have stopped there.

The EEC was successful simply because it was a cooperative society of relative equals, it dropped barriers between the comparatively prosperous northern European nations involved and allowed free movement of goods through a common market.

To expand the EEC would have been acceptable and desirable, as long as new nations fitted the socio economic demographic of existing countries. Freedom of human movement was also an acceptable enhancement.

There was no significant worth in the original EEC to a manufacturer moving from Germany to France or Denmark, but if Albania was admitted then labour rates could be quartered by crossing borders. That’s the short sighted American/City perspective, i.e. focus on the quarterly result and ignore the human impact.

The problem with such short term focus is when it occurs en-masse there’s few left in the original country earning enough to buy even the cheaper goods. Two nations fail instead of one just struggling. This is the China-US situation today, it may be a decade in processing but it will happen. It is the UK situation today, it has happened here.

Manufacturing and materials standards in a free trade community must be similar, so that part of sovereignty has to be relinquished in favour of overarching manufacturing standards legislation. That’s where central control of legislation should cease. The EFT to most appearances remains viable without the EU’s later additions and severely burdensome bureaucracy.

The big issue of our time came when the EEC evolved as national governments within it devolved. Nations devolved as more national sovereignty was gifted to or grabbed by Brussels.

The EU evolved and with it the inherent requirement of the euro. The nations of Europe were centuries behind the UK in this, but they had a model here if only they’d cared to look.

Only two things make any nation relinquish hard won sovereignty – they are conquered militarily or they are sold out from within by “a parcel of rogues”.

The EU, whatever its lofty declared goals is about nothing other than peaceful conquest of national sovereignty, and as the people of Greece, Italy, Ireland, Belarus, Spain, Portugal and other’s can now attest – it’s not necessarily good for their citizens either. The wealth of these nations is being siphoned elsewhere as they are being forced into a “one solution fits all” approach.

As we enter 2012 we can state, categorically, that the EU has benefitted the bankers.

Transposition from trading community to super-state may have functioned if it had been substantially limited to the original members, all with equal voting rights.

The evolution to superpower status was fast tracked to be completed within thirty years. The USA took three centuries and started with a common federal framework. The USA still struggles.

Even the Franco-German alliance driving the formation of the “new Europe” isn’t an alliance of equals; economically by almost all measurable standards France is substantially inferior to Germany.

The formation of a super-state is almost unthinkable without a single “super-currency”. A super-state with fundamentally differing economies between the constituents hadn’t ever been tried except through military conquest, all of which ultimately failed for the same reasons the EU was doomed at the outset.

It was increasingly clear as the millennia dawned that there would be three main central banks on the planet within 50 years if the carbon energy economy supported them, a European, an American and a probable Asian cartel. Sadly few governments are choosing to highlight what they will do as our “carbon age” draws down, Holyrood being a notable exception.

Two fundamentals are making the European super-state project come unglued. The super-state was pre-destined to fail through both the unsustainability of 20th century carbon economy driven consumerism, and the inclusion of nations that were not even close to having socio economic parity with the existing trading block.

The EU super state was predicated on constantly expanding economies. No economist has ever guaranteed constantly expanding economies.

The “credit crisis” that is being used as a pretext to force through undemocratic reforms within the EU simply doesn’t exist. It’s a liquidity crisis. The forcing is akin to the euro/EU being frog-marched to the guillotine. Then again the guillotine was always in the wings for the EU.

Credit means there’s money available and if you qualify and are trustworthy, you can get a loan. There is still money available; therefore there is no “credit crisis”. The money supply may now be super concentrated and credit restricted, but these individuals and organizations holding it still have a need to invest to increase their already considerable wealth.

If you can’t qualify for a loan it is only because you are not creditworthy, due to a liquidity or credibility crisis. That’s where today’s governments and interbank lenders find themselves. They are in a crisis of liquidity and creditworthiness.

The backdrop to the crisis appears a reluctance to acknowledge “Peak Oil” has come and gone, the perpetual expansion of markets and economies that took place under that system and sustained that system is now slowly contracting. The contraction will accelerate.

Throwing money at the dwindling sustainability of a carbon economy will not fix it. The tripling of population the carbon economy supported during the 20th century will need to contract without new energy sources being available.

Rising real energy costs and a congruent forced contraction of population equate to one thing, contracting markets. The EU isn’t so much running out of money; it’s running out of energy, and on several fronts.

Contracting markets equal ongoing devaluation, depression and recession.

It is no longer possible without new energy sources to grow our way out of recession or depression. The nations with the highest potential of new energy sources will be the countries best placed to ensure prosperity for their people. Nations in such a position can look for substantial economic boosts. Nations such as that can shrug off today’s curse of high finance because they operate in the black.

Scotland is such a nation.

As we understand crude oil consumption has outstripped discovery in every year since 1980, we comprehend the fundamental reason living standards in the industrialized world’s carbon economy are in decline. A perhaps simplistic verification is that the “credit crisis” of 2008 was tied to one thing above all, the energy markets.

Fuel in the USA went from $1.75 to $4+ inside a year. People were already stretched. They stopped buying discretionary items, the economy tanked. Layoffs followed and mortgages were no longer paid, house prices fell, banks failed and with a resultant depression temporarily lowered fuel prices. Bad lending practice certainly had its part, but it would have been largely masked without the energy crunch.

With the US being the planetary consumerism powerhouse the knock on effects as lenders turned upon themselves were rapid and global, it was a portent of things to come.

Between these two aspects and the EU’s refusal to recognize the same issues are here for the long term, the euro can’t survive and to a large extent the backers of the EU rely upon the euro.

Fundamentally the EU admitted far too many nations whose economies were simply not ready into an exclusive euro currency club, and it did so in a time of contracting global energy availability. For some odd reason the EU broke its own rules, possibly at the urging of the fiscal “technocrats”. It seems odd that one of the main technocrats who submitted allegedly inaccurate data to show Greece as viable nation for the euro is now a principle in running Greece.

With the demise of the euro, probably in 2012, the EU will have difficulty in surviving in its present format. The implosion of the single currency will be dramatic when it takes place. The only thing that might act to save it is that high finance can’t afford the euro to collapse. The euro is already arguably vastly overvalued after so many fruitless “save the euro” summits, and yet it remains relatively stable on apparent perpetual life support.

The constituents of many member nations will ask why the euro seemed like a good idea, the reality is that it was never a good idea and that the populaces of those nations were psychologically railroaded into it by vested interest.

This brings thoughts full circle as we return to the “Arab Spring”, contented and well fed people do not rebel or rise up, they grumble and squawk. These people had no option, the failure of the carbon economy and international speculation moved them to a position of near starvation. That situation is now spreading to Greece and the ripples can only be expected to continue at the present time.

Greeks are now being deprived of food and electricity as they see their safety nets removed; Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal are already in line for similar “Austerity”. As Europe runs out of both ideas and energy, one can only leave the future open to conjecture.

In Scotland we can take back our future after 300 years, we should retain it, and we should enter only trading agreements. For as we already know, and as Europe will demonstrate shortly, shared sovereignty will normally only benefit the dominant player.

The only EU answer still clouded is the true identity of the dominant player, Germany or international banking.

Cameron starts and loses the second Battle of Britain, Brussels sprouts a new EU.

2011-12-09T12:55:00.000-04:00

In following the ongoing euro / EU crisis it is clear there are several basic issues that are not being resolved.

The EU like the UK has a fundamental problem; it has too much money in circulation that isn’t underwritten by anything tangible. The governments standard solution has just been to print more money, effectively devaluing what’s already out there by the percentage of “new money” they print.

More printing will be in the pipeline as this week saw an apparent contradiction with most banks stating they’re now operating in the black. However, the banks are in worse shape as a group, by almost 10 billion euros since October. They claim they’re in profit, pay bonuses and yet lost billions in stress tests. It’s all down to how they are allowed to crunch numbers.

More immediately important is quantitative easing or QE, where more money is printed without more wealth being created. Put simply if the wealth backing the euro is valued at 100 billion, but they print 10 billion additional euros or 10% extra to “aid the banks” then very quickly the price of everything an individual buys will increase by 10%. The same amount of wealth backs more currency so the currency devalues.

The City and the banks get bailed, the average individual gets butchered.

This is the background that led to the Brussels summit this week, with Merkel and Sarkozy, now known as “Merkozy” in much of the EU, proposing massive changes to the Lisbon Treaty without any relevant fundamental democratic representation.

In its purest form the proposals were for an unelected body of European technocrats to be in charge of every national EU budget, starting with the 17 common currency nations, or soon to be former nations, but almost without doubt expanding to the entire EU in a relatively short time.

The need at the summit, driven by “Merkozy” was for a quick agreement to “save the euro”. They needed unanimous agreement to alter the Lisbon Treaty and fundamentally allow the EU to grab national sovereignty across the euro-zone. That is not too strong a statement because they who control the currency supply and spending ability control the nation.

Against this overwhelming need by mainland Europe’s euro zone nations to resolve an impending fiscal Armageddon, stood the apparently lone voice of David Cameron.

The UK PM went to the summit sworn to protect his paymasters, the City of London’s financial institutions, from more EU incursions. The inhabitants of “The City” are often the Conservative party’s largest donor’s year on year.

Cameron’s major promise to the City of London was to exempt it from the “Robin Hood Tax”, a proposed EU levy that will tax large interbank or financial transactions.

He also had to deal with his back-benchers ongoing rebellion against EU incursions into Westminster sovereignty; he would “repatriate” powers to Westminster. This is a rather hypocritical stance for someone sworn to prevent the same at Holyrood.

Cameron also said his first loyalty was to the survival of the euro, an obvious internal conflict of interest; and with unknown consequences at the time as no individual or national leader can have two masters. It would be interesting to watch whether unfolding events declare the PM was the City’s poodle, or leaned towards the EU.

Europe was on the verge of an agreement in Brussels on Thursday and Friday.

David Cameron then fought and lost for “The City”, his backbenchers, the euro and the UK.

This was a man who’d earlier described what was to take place as a chess match with 27 opponents and him not being very good at chess.

No other result should have been expected under these circumstances. As events emerged, they showed Cameron clearly lacks the ability to separate or prioritize national and international requirements from those of special interest groups in a world changing crisis situation.

This lack of leadership caused Cameron to dig in his heels, wield his veto and put concessions to the City of London ahead of the fate of the euro.

It was better to protect one business sector in one town against the common weal of an entire continent; this was how our European neighbours clearly interpreted the PM’s actions.

David Cameron lost, and he lost big. There was no other foreseeable outcome.

For most of the rest of Europe the UK’s actions are unforgivable. The EU's worst ever crisis and its perceived resolution were held to ransom so Cameron could please the City and his euro-phobic backbenchers.

David Cameron single handedly stopped the EU from following the German-inspired route of renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty to impose a decade of austerity on the euro-zone. The UK isn’t even in the euro-zone.

This also means the United Kingdom lost big because most of the 27 EU nations - the 17 euro-zone countries with at least another six joining them - are ignoring Cameron's objections and set to strike out on a separate treaty anyway.

There will be a two tier Europe, and the UK will be firmly on the lower level. This is an absurd national result from an individual who puts such an emphasis on “having a voice and being able to influence policy at the top table”.

The immediate downside of all this for the EU is that it will result in a weaker fiscal union in today’s euro-zone, there is no immediate treaty. The summit will underwhelm the markets, and fail to substantially shore up the currency. Much will depend on what happens before the new treaty between euro-zone and its allies is ready in March, a treaty the UK will not be party to.

Expect treaty exclusion to be only a part of the retribution for Cameron’s intransigence.

These were actions which were so un-required.

Cameron could have ratified rather than vetoed the proposals and made it pending a referendum on EU membership within the UK. We vote to stay in the EU the vote is ratified, we vote to leave and the vote remains ratified. The PM’s EU upheaval can only be viewed as a failed horse trading exercise on behalf of “The City” undertaken by an amateur poker player. Europe did not blink.

Despite playing his ultimate card, the veto, Cameron won nothing. He did not get his financial regulation exemptions and concessions. He repatriated no powers.

He has literally made a pariah of himself and all on this island, failed to achieve any of his key aims and shut the UK out of the negotiations on the future shape of Europe all in the name of the Great British national interest, or more specifically the City of London and her bankers.

Whether or not this summit has saved the euro remains to be seen, without David Cameron it might have, irrespective the summit in Brussels looks set to go down as a defining event. It will be remembered as the night the second battle of Britain was initiated and lost by a single man, signaling the end for the UK in Europe.

The Guardian quotes “There are senior experienced UK officials who believe this is a disaster for the British national interest”.

Michael Farage of UKIP was decidedly upbeat on the impending demise of the UK-EU relationship, making reference to probable repercussions.

How does the world view our supposedly top diplomat? The responses were typical but possibly the best response echoing many others was from “Der Spiegel” who took the position “Bye-bye Britain” and followed up in the article with “Europe Can Work Fine without the British”

When a pound simply isn’t anymore.

2011-12-05T20:02:00.000-04:00

A pound hasn’t been a pound for almost 80 years. It provides another reason we need a referendum, a YES vote, then a decision on our future currency. We live in a time of “Austerity”, the present pound in our pocket devalues daily, real wages are falling and society’s living standards appear ready to drop off a cliff.

It’s against this background that we have the likes of Mark Tenant of Scottish Financial Enterprise [SFE] adding his voice to the Unionist backed clamour that “uncertainties” over the future currency and constitution of Scotland are inhibiting investment, specifically that it might be bad for his sector at least.

His was simply the latest voice added to the already discredited Atherton of Citibank and others. Mr. Tenant does however appear correct that the uncertainties may be bad for his sector. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t good for the rest of us.

With the devastation financial services have wrought, that industry’s proponents would do well to remember an old adage: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt,” or indeed invite analysis of your sectors achievements.

The reality of our current situation is that Scotland would require a cataclysm of near biblical proportions in order to achieve the same dysfunctional levels Westminster and the financial industry have engineered.

The Union and its fiscal bedfellows have failed so disastrously, it’s easily arguable they have effectively devalued the pound in our pockets by a factor of 252 since the 1930’s. Not 252%, but to 1/252nd. The facts speak clearly.

When the 1930’s began one UK pound was tied to the purchasing power of 12 troy ounces of silver, almost a pound of silver. Effectively a pound was a pound of “sterling” silver, hence the name. It was an ancient bond.

The pound was no empty promise, but a tangible thing and in theory any individual or market body could exchange paper pounds for a like weight of silver. With today’s price of silver hovering around £21 per troy ounce that makes 12 ounces of silver worth around £252, not £1. The value of the pound would have tracked the value of silver.

Less than eighty years ago decoupling and devaluation of the pound in our pockets by Westminster was required to make up for the Union parliament’s mismanagement of our money.

House prices are a relevant area to demonstrate Westminster’s fiscal ineptitude. An average house cost about £600 in 1930, when paper cash was tied to silver bullion. If a Scot had invested that £600 in Bank of England notes and stuck it under the mattress it would hardly buy the mattress today. If they had swapped it for silver and put that under the mattress it would be worth £150,000 – one could still purchase a house.

The inflation adjusted price of silver has been reasonably stable. 12 troy ounces of silver today buys largely what 12 troy ounces of silver did in 1930. What a pound of silver can be exchanged for hasn’t altered much in 80 years; the same cannot be said for the Bank of England’s notes. Examining relative worth, the contrasts are damning.

The Unionists of our society are arguing that we continue with this failed model. They argue that we put our faith in Westminster which has devalued our currency, since decoupling, to such an extent that it is almost without any comparative worth. They fundamentally argue that although we now have a world where the richest 225 individuals on our planet have a wealth equal to the poorest 4 billion, we should perpetuate it.

The other £149,000 plus pounds of value or worth also went somewhere; an official accounting would be appreciated.

London couldn’t easily manipulate the value of the currency if it was tied to bullion. Currency manipulation principally benefits two entities. It benefits bankers or traders and it benefits incompetent governments. It can make big Capitol wealthier with additional room for market fluctuations and speculation and mask the catastrophe’s of poor government policy.

This simplified perspective of London’s policies clarifies the reason for these nonsensical statements by financiers and those Unionists with vested interest in the status quo. That otherwise stable wealth didn’t go away, it became severely concentrated in a system these individuals and organizations benefit from perpetuating.

With currency tied to commodity it’s difficult to create massive value swings. Severe instability is harder to engineer; and instability is where profit, or masking it, is to be had. It is difficult to gamble and win big when the odds on offer are moderate.

With promissory notes gambling is much simpler, especially when the gambler can significantly influence the real value of that note.

This same system has the Euro teetering in a crisis of liquidity, if the Euro was tied to a commodity there would be little issue as each nation would have been required to maintain its own reserves. This same system now has Greeks seeing their property taxes soar and their tax bills being legally coupled to their electricity supply.

Greeks are not only disenfranchised, they are being removed from the electricity grid in their scores of thousands to pay for the mismanagement and excesses of the government and banks. Greeks must now pay their electricity and their increased taxes on the same utility bill. Greeks are close to complete civil unrest.

The Italians have also just been informed general taxes are to increase; it will be interesting to watch the collection method unfold as we ponder the next nation to fall to the technocrats.

The Scot’s – English situation with a common currency is similar to, but not quite as pronounced as that of Germany and Greece within the Euro. Unless we decouple from Bank of England issue we will exchange our bright future for a blighted one, because we are tied to another Greece.

The reality is that a Scots currency would, by Westminster’s own commissioned reports, be amongst the hardest in the world, one of the least volatile, one of the safest.

A hard currency, unlike the Bank of England’s increasingly worthless paper, is not open to much speculation. It is therefore arguably less valuable to “financial services”. A hard currency is most often linked to economic stability, to prosperity, to stable and consistent wealth generation.

Scotland already has its own currency, the pound, linked to Bank of England issue. Our fiscal coupling took place in 1707 as part of the Union Treaty. All Scotland requires is to simply de-couple her currency from the Bank of England and tie it to Scotland, a natural process with treaty termination. No different to any Euro-zone nation walking away from the Euro, a concept few seem to be having difficulty envisaging - until it applies to Scots.

There’s an issue with de-coupling which Westminster is keen to hide. The Scots pound is likely to rise in value even more quickly than the English pound will fall; and the English pound will fall.

De-coupling Scotland’s currency and net worth is to be fought at all costs by Westminster because that sudden loss of value in Bank of England issue can lead to a situation where governments topple and markets crash. Money is the fundamental cause of the Westminster fight against Scotland having her own voice.

“The City” and Westminster fear Scotland’s currency will be welcomed in the larger world. They know it will be stronger, McCrone told them so over thirty years ago, and the balance since has only improved in Scotland’s favour. Having to buy one pound Scots with two pounds English is unthinkable to London, it must be avoided.

By their actions it is the self evident opinion of the financial services industry and many within Westminster that the prosperity of countless future generations of both nations must therefore be set aside when weighed against the vested interest of today’s political and fiscal power brokers.

This is why Holyrood would have Scotland’s currency tied to Sterling for a little while after the referendum, just long enough to permit a measured adjustment rather than severe upheaval. It is a good approach. It is an olive branch for our neighbour, a perhaps undeserved demonstration of intergovernmental friendship, not hardship.

Another fear of individuals like Misters Tenant or Atherton, both in financial services, is that this new Central Reserve of Scotland will not be on any stock market, that it will be the property of the realm.

The unvoiced fear in the financial services world is that with a competent new Scots government operating in the black there is a strong possibility that Holyrood will pass a bill enacting this Scots Reserve. We might even pass balanced budget amendments and, lord forbid, permit financial institutions to fail. The “sovereign fund” proposal is a potential precursor to such a move.

The days of public underwriting of private gambling in Scotland would come to an end, a perceived “right” of the financial services industry that took many long years, substantial cash and significant lobbying to win, will be gone overnight.

For financial services, a Central Reserve of Scotland operated for and on behalf of the people of Scotland whose revenues and profits directly benefit the people of Scotland is not to be contemplated. It would set a precedent that other nations might follow.

The news of recovery in Iceland after debunking the bankers has been effectively muffled, the resurgence in Scotland will not be so easily quelled and the ripples would be much harder to contain.

Ultimately the Euro and the Pound Sterling are both examples of the same failed model; the Pound Scots once decoupled can herald a new template for national finances.

Only a YES vote in the upcoming poll gives Scots an opportunity to stop the perpetuation of a failed financial model, YES is opportunity to change an otherwise bleak financial future.

We are almost unique among nations in our ability to achieve this because we already operate at a national surplus, and the energy boom underwriting it might change, but its potential isn’t going away.

It’s our choice, it’s our future, and it’s our potential. We can make it a bright one.

Connecting with the “lost generation” – will take a referendum.

2011-11-29T23:58:00.001-04:00

Reading a recent article by Gerry Hassan, where he asked how a nation can reconnect with a lost generation; the answer appeared blatantly obvious. It can’t.

Deep scrutiny of the article also explains why any Scot voting NO in the upcoming referendum is likely to be derided worldwide in the years to come for squandering an opportunity absolutely unique among the family of nations.

Reconnecting with the “Lost Generation” can’t be done when Mr. Hassan’s “nation” under discussion is the unitary state presently referred to as the United Kingdom.

It quite simply can’t be fixed because Holyrood is tied to Westminster, as Westminster is tied to Washington. The ties must be broken, and the easiest tie to sever for Scots is the Holyrood/Westminster connection.

Backtracking slightly, the first question that must be asked is this. Why is there a perceived “Lost Generation” requiring re-connection to mainstream society? In his article Mr. Hassan points to youth unemployment rising around 2004 and leading us thereafter to the present debacle of what’s described by him as a “Lost Generation”.

When the facts are examined, it is fundamentally obvious that there is no lost generation; what we have now is approaching a lost society. At least it is in England and possibly in Scotland, as austerity truly bites.

The problem didn’t happen in 2004 and accelerate since that time, the problem began in 1939. Although, no one realized it then. There were slightly more immediate pressures that year.

The Big Event in 1939 was of course the advent of World War 2, possibly the only just war of the last three centuries in which Scotland has had a part.

This was the war that brought an end to US isolationism and woke her up to the fact that there was a whole new, relatively untapped market for her industrial goods.

Following WW2 there was a period of social upheaval from which many good public policy issues were brought kicking and screaming into UK public life. The welfare state and the NHS being two excellent examples of governmental policies remaining with us today.

This period also brought post war austerity, as the UK had to make payments primarily to the USA, on the massive war debts accumulated. Rationing in the UK didn’t end until almost ten years after hostilities ceased, i.e. almost a decade after it ended in the USA.

Effectively in the decades after WW2 the UK was paying substantial funds to the US which its government and companies utilized to “invest” directly back into Europe. The “Marshall Plan” was very good for US business and certainly had a part in engineering the US post war boom years.

Boom in the USA while rationing remained in the UK. That rationing officially ended on the 4th July 1954, and was indeed indicative of that “special relationship”.

By fifteen years after WW2 things were apparently improving; there had begun to be a steady and incremental upswing in living standards, coupled to better rich-poor differentials. The 1960’s were the decade that also saw the first real incursions of foreign industry into the UK, again primarily from the US in the form of corporations as vast and varied as IBM and Yale Locks.

Then in the early 1970’s, Nixon was pressured to ignore US human rights policy and negotiate free trade deals with China, accessing that vast cheap labour market and spelling doom not only for US internal manufacturing but much of UK manufacturing as well.

American companies first trickled, and then flooded into China; the high paying manufacturing jobs in the UK and the US were quite rapidly lost to the Far East even as global production and demand increased.

If we require an example we need only look to television manufacturing. Appropriately, a device invented by Scot, John Logie Baird.

The last domestic mass production of television took place in the UK in 2009, although it was by then a sole stubborn survivor of a once great industry. This was about the same time that self same industry saw its demise in the USA.

Those great manufacturing names of the past such as Baird, Echo, Fergusson, English Electric, Hayes, Invicta, Phelco, Pye and Westminster are snuggling together in history’s bin. Their workforces are gone together with their ability, and society’s ability to train and engage future productive generations.

No modern televisions are mass made in either the UK or US, both states are suffering a cataclysmic shortage of viable employment, both having pursued the same fundamental policies. This, like shipbuilding and others are not industries that died; they simply migrated because government policy encouraged them to. Both the US and UK economies are now primarily service based.

These manufacturing industries are still in existence and exceptionally vibrant in Developing Nations, in large part because both countries preferred to simply “encourage financial services”.

The problem with financial services is that they are only enablers. They produce nothing and drain much from any economy. Financial services can only hold power when an individual or a nation is indebted, or prepares to become so. Debtors must agree to the debt holders demands both at the outset of the agreement and again should they ever be unable to meet the terms of their original obligation.

The alternative is to play a form of Russian roulette with the banks, i.e. refuse to pay unless renegotiations are on your terms. Let’s see who blinks first.

It is relatively simple to predict who will win, or who’ll blink first. If the nation concerned is in the black or alternatively, has no predictable future hope of repayment at the time of the agreement, it will win. As the bank simply can’t get what doesn’t exist, or realises there is no future need for its services.

If that country is continuing to run a “sustainable” deficit it will lose, for the bankers and bondholders know it still requires more of their money – the nation needs them. The main grounds for banks to refuse funding or become embroiled in negotiating favourable terms with a borrower, is when they categorically see no hope of recovery.

As a consequence of perpetually operating in the red, Westminster is compelled to have a revolving door to the City of London. It is this perpetual need that has created the fiscal elite. It is this requirement that has installed a virtual “red telephone” for emergencies between the money men of “The City” and the political select few of Westminster.

This situation is a direct consequence of the exportation of manufacturing jobs.

This ongoing red ink on the balance sheet was the main reason Labour bailed out the banks and thereby destroyed the concept of private industry, capitalism, free markets and risk within the financial sector.

For the time being, banking is fundamentally an industry guaranteed not to fail.

Both in the UK and across much of the developed world, a banking system has been created that has a virtual guarantee of success. The cost of underwriting this guarantee is the high probability of individual and societal penury.

Disturbingly, this can only last so long before the illusory wealth upon which it is built, i.e. “electronic money” evaporates, causing that house of cards to crash to the ground.

In the real world, where the Bank of England recently issued another “electronic” £75b of quantitative easing, the markets promptly reduced Sterling’s exchange rate against the dollar from about $1.65 to about $1.55. Production of “Electronic” money led to a direct devaluation of “real money” as the total “money” was still backed by the same total assets, which never changed.

This is where we find ourselves today, not with simply a “lost generation”, but a generation that has no apparent future, and where riots are the tip of a shimmering iceberg of discontent.

We are beginning to live in a society where the political elite, rather than representing the electorate, begin to live in fear of them. A society where it’s permissible to not only contemplate but propose pan-European ALEO’s that are above the law of any nation and answerable to no electorate.

We are fast approaching a nexus, evident by the increased usage of words like “obfuscation” or “spin” in news or reporting circles. Couple this with a need for “official secrets” in peacetime, and we have testimony to a mentality where the political elite live in fear of the unadulterated truth reaching the populace.

This combination of de-industrialisation and debt policy organisation has created our fiscal system, one that has required us being informed Capital is “too big to fail”. The consequences would be disastrous we’re told, and yet previously, society put in place laws, policies and procedures to prevent this happening; organizations such as the Monopolies Commission.

It was subversion of these social protections by the likes of Gordon Brown that have brought us to our current position.

In a vain attempt to make good on these debts encumbered upon us by Westminster, the entire UK is facing post WW2 austerity once again.

This austerity is yet again the result of a war, no less real, no less fraught with casualties, but for the most part absent of bullets. Power brokers want power, they will utelise bullets or ballots, claymores or cash, the end justifying the means.

The present conflict is quite simply between big capitalism and big society. Society is presently losing. Society in the industrialised world is definitely on the ropes.

David Cameron’s actions are at cross purposes to his words, he is very much for big capitalism; as is Ed Miliband in refusing to support those protesting further erosion of big society.

Big society is one where we all pay in a little bit, we all share in the burdens of our fellows and we all have an opportunity to enjoy life to the best extent possible. It is a society where we care for our elderly and sick, our distressed and disabled, and it is a society where opportunity exists at all levels.

The proposals for pension’s reform, welfare reform, retirement age increases, extra taxation and NHS privatisation are all designed to bleed resources from those who can least afford it.

It is these policies that are creating our lost society.

It began with de-industrialisation. It is the dismantling of “big society”. Since without the wealth that primarily manufacturing generates, nothing else can be paid for.

In America, every winter they collect the frozen corpses from the underpasses and alleys; society’s detritus eking its meager existence. They’re often only a stone’s throw from the parties and bright lights, music and dancing of the wealthy celebrating the festive season. I have witnessed this, it is a lost society. Furthermore, I have witnessed the pensioner on oxygen working at Wal-Mart so she can afford her medication. This is a lost society. It is the society of big capital in its purest form.

It is coming to a city near you.

England has no choice; for Westminster has backed England into an untenable position. There can be no “UK” without Scotland. As the understanding of their position clarifies, then Wales and N. Ireland may reconsider their situation. Cornwall might even follow.

The future for England is therefore rather bleak without a rapid and substantial re-industrialisation to create true wealth generation. This is a fundamental driver behind Westminster’s unending negativity towards Scotland and her bright future.

In Scotland we have a referendum coming up.

In this referendum the only sensible, the only intelligent vote is a YES vote.

It has nothing to do with history; it has nothing to do with patriotism. It has nothing to do with political parties or affiliations.

It has everything to do with our culture, the preservation and ongoing resurrection of our society. It is the only way to the development of a future Scots nation in which our children will have far better opportunities to excel.

It has everything to do with the realisation that to preserve our society and way of life, we’re in a “war” that is as dire as any that Bruce or Wallace ever fought, the outcome of which will have the same profound influence for Scotland’s future generations.

A YES vote has only one aim in the upcoming referendum, it is to prevent Scotland becoming yet another lost society, another England, America, Greece, Italy or Spain.

The one thing that makes a YES vote paramount in this referendum is a single SNP pledge, re-industrialisation.

Re-industrialisation, especially in a green economy is a world class masterstroke from what will be a world leading nation with a society envied across the globe.

The green part of the re-industrialisation process can’t be exported elsewhere, except as a finished product. The technology and expertise united with pro-active political leadership will be increasingly Scots based. University funding and research will likewise increase.

In the lottery of life we can make certain future generations of Scots hit the jackpot simply by the accident of their birth being here.

We can do this because Scotland already operates in the black, ensuring the ball is at our feet, not the bankers or “The City”. We will not blink as we put our nation on the path to prosperity.

We will not hesitate to engage with all our generations.

Re-industrialisation is the only viable hope for our future, for our presently “lost generation” and for our soon to be otherwise, lost society.

Green and conventional re-industrialization isn’t possible within the Treaty of Union, Westminster’s fundamental fear of Scots confidence and her own loss of dominion ensure that.

Re-industrialisation and societal salvage are the reasons why there must be a YES vote; why there can only be a YES vote from any thinking Scot at the referendum.

Scotland’s Europe – What price democracy?

2011-11-29T09:27:00.001-04:00

There has been the almost universal cry from Westminster of late; the world is falling apart and the SNP is responsible. Everything seems to be Alex Salmond’s fault simply because he won’t publicize either the referendum date or the questions.

There we have it – investors are shunning Scotland, Amazon didn’t just open up, there isn’t a new wind-farm proposed for the Moray firth, and we don’t have four of the five world leading turbine manufacturers with a significant presence in Scotland. The mainstream media is also largely ignoring the fact that Westminster is being lobbied by the north of England, apparently jealous of Scotland’s ongoing success.

Oddly Westminster and its denizens of power are ignoring the much more significant and radically dangerous European issues as many of these individuals appear to be focused on preventing success for Scotland.

Scotland’s current success can now be argued as better than Europe’s powerhouse, Germany. For a start we legitimately can claim to have no national debt, massive per-capita natural resources and plenty of ongoing investment. In reality the debt aspect might change if we elect to assume partial responsibility for current UK obligations. This argument may still be rather tongue in cheek, but in an independent Scotland that could soon be a serious stance to take.

This week marked a first in recent European history when Germany tried to sell €6bn of 10-year bunds - the kind of debt that investors have been continually rushing to buy. It only managed to sell €3.64bn worth - leaving more than a third of the bonds unsold. Germany herself may be facing significant borrowing problems as her debt to GDP is now past 80% and marching strongly to the 100% level nations prefer not to contemplate.

German banks are noted to be in significant turmoil and her closest ally on the Euro stage, France, is staring at a potential credit downgrade.

Although it remains unlikely at present that Germany will see the same fundamental takeover of government as Greece and Italy, who have basically lost democracy by default and are now governed by technocrats, it is no longer something that should be considered impossible. This was re-enforced strongly by this week’s EU statements.

Lost democracy is the only description that can be applied to a situation exemplified by Greece’s opposition leader, Mr. Samaras, being informed by the euro technocrats that the next round of money to keep his nation afloat will be withheld until he also agrees to implement what the technocrats want. Basically the EU wants a guarantee that whoever Greeks vote for EU policies will be paramount. Italy is being treated with a bit more tact and diplomacy but the resultant requirements are little different.

This begs the question, why bother with elections if one will only elect a puppet?

Lost democracy indeed, when it doesn’t matter who you vote for as those finally elected are bound to do what Brussels or a group of unelected technocrats tell them to do. National sovereignty for Italy and Greece has substantially been consigned to the historical bin; the respective populations just haven’t realized it yet.

Italy and Greece are the first to suffer such ignominy in our present day, but by all appearances they will not be last.

After all this was the week that EC president José Manuel Barroso presented his plan to improve financial stability in the EU. He started off by outlining why he wants the European Commission to have more control over national budgets stating:

“Measures for tighter euro-zone oversight are needed for growth, financial stability, and budget discipline”.

The EU proposals fundamentally resolve themselves into six points:

1. All 17 euro area countries would send their draft budget plans to the Commission by 15 October each year.
Clarification: The EU approves your budget. Period. No approval = no budget = no spending.

2. This unelected European Commission shall be able to request [demand] a new draft budget if the original shows serious divergences with commitments made by member states.
Clarification: If we don’t think you can afford what you think you can afford then you have to resubmit your budget again and again until we say it’s OK.

3. The unelected European Commission will carry out closer monitoring of Member States under its 'Excessive Deficit Procedure.'
Clarification: In time, and probably not a long time, expect our technocrats, which you will pay for, to be resident in your nations with power of life and death over your budgets/economies. We will be watching, very, very closely.

4. The unelected European Commission will have the right to decide on enhanced surveillance of member states when financial stability is threatened.
Clarification: If we get suspicious of what you’re doing, we’ll watch you even more closely, and we will be no toothless dog.

5. The unelected European Council could recommend to a Member State that it requests financial assistance.
Clarification: We will not wait for issues to become critical in future – it will be our right to tell you you’re heading for trouble and make sure you turn over the reins and trappings of power to us so that we can fix things for you.

6. All euro area Member States would be required to set up independent fiscal councils, and prepare budgets based on independent forecasts. Clarification: extrapolated to its logical conclusion each euro member state will eventually have an unelected, appointed fiscal council. These fiscal councils will control monetary policy. As money basically underwrites everything in our society, that will give veto power on all aspects of our society to these fiscal councils. Effectively this equals an unelected financial dictatorship.

That’s it, that’s the substantive outline for the next stage of the EU story. It will require treaty modification. As Rothschild once said, it doesn’t matter who’s president, just give him control of the money.

Europe has been in this situation before, where a small group of “bankers” controlled much of the revenues of most of Europe – it didn’t end well for the Templers and history has a tendency towards repetition.

In the midst of this mayhem David Cameron wants to repatriate powers from the EU, yet sees an issue with Scotland repatriating powers from Westminster.

In both cases Cameron has no bargaining chip, he’s not part of the Euro and has no veto. No bargaining chip in Europe means a strong likelihood of no repatriation of power unless Merkel agrees. He’s also got to accept Scotland’s right of choice as ratified by the UN charter the UK is party to.

The above proposals will fundamentally make for a two tier EU, those in the Euro and those not. Expect those not in the Euro to have to tag along on many items of EU legislation that those simply in the European Free Trade zone don’t have to bother with. In time they may be forced into the choice, into the Euro or out of the EU.

All of the above, ultimately enacted or not, equate to Scotland being required to have a substantive debate on EU membership followed by a referendum.

It will be another three choice referendum, in, out or EFT. The single currency must be reserved as a separate question for another time.

Just like the upcoming independence referendum all three questions must be asked, because to fail in the asking is to disenfranchise substantial portions of our own electorate. It appears this is a position currently favoured by Westminster.

The EU referendum must come after the independence referendum; it would be followed by a currency referendum. The Scottish Government must make clear soon that these options will be available for vote by Scotland after the independence referendum, thereafter the subject will be closed until a yes vote is attained.

The currency referendum would be the final stage in Scotland’s long walk back to sovereignty, and it simply can’t be offered until the nation decides on the status of its EU membership, and Scotland, unlike England will be the decider of the status of her membership for she has power and resources that Europe requires whereas England does not.

The fears over Europe and Westminster’s scare tactics can be demonstrably more applicable to London than Edinburgh in a post independence referendum world. As a continent on the brink of fiscal and energy calamity which would you welcome with open arms – the net debtor or the net contributor in both areas?

Make no mistake, both resulting state entities, Scotland and the rump of this dis-United Kingdom will have to renegotiate their EU status. South of the border it just may not be quite so automatic, north of the border we just might decide that it isn’t worth the bother.

As an adendum to this article, it might be worthwhile watching this short video.

Devo-Max and Full Fiscal Autonomy are very different animals.

2011-11-28T14:54:00.000-04:00

There is a substantial and strong argument that Alex Salmond and Scotland’s SNP government should back the Devo-Max option which presently appears the preferred choice of Scots voters. Salmond himself has indicated it may be a third option on the ballot. It is an argument that Nationalists as a whole tend to reject wanting a simple yes/no.

Examination of Devo-Max and Full Fiscal Autonomy, FFA, indicates that while campaigning hard for an outright yes vote, independence supporters should also sing the praises of the third option. Any vote removed from the NO campaign has to instinctively be a good result for the Yes campaign, and in view of Westminster’s tactics many in the NO camp may find it substantially easier to slide to “maybe” than all the way to YES in the time allowed.

The middle choice, Devo-Max or FFA, are apparently halfway houses that neither Unionists nor Nationalists appear to want. This third choice is also an option that Salmond recognizes must be on offer if much of the Scots electorate is not to be disenfranchised.

The SNP acknowledgment of the need for a third question at the recent Inverness party conference is testimony to a belief in democracy. Although Alex Salmond declared he personally doesn’t want it and has promised he will not campaign for it, he acknowledged its need because of that indicated grass roots policy support.

The major problem for all political parties is that a compromise between the perceived extremes does have such widespread support, a fundamental reason it enjoys such popularity is due to the inherently conservative nature of the average Scot coupled to Westminster tactics and mainstream media reporting bias.

Many Scots have yet to realize that Devo-Max is the one option that it’s not in Alex Salmond’s power to give, nor is it in the Scots' electorate’s power to demand. We can accept the status quo. We can demand and take independence we can dictate FFA, but Devo-Max is Westminster’s gift. It is, however, a gift that cannot be left to Westminster to define.

As a fundamental difference it bears repeating, Scotland can dictate FFA, but Devo-Max is Westminster’s gift - or not - as Westminster alone chooses.

Unlike Devo-Max, FFA is is a declaration by the people of Scotland that they will control all decisions regarding their own finances. Fundamentally Scotland will be informing Westminster that the Treaty of Union is now formally over and invite Westminster to co-operate on measures for common benefit that Scotland wishes to support.

In a simpler manner, the Scots would authorize Holyrood to repatriate all fiscal powers from Westminster. It’s not that substantially different in concept than the repatriation of powers Cameron talks about from the EU to Westminster.

FFA would appear from Scotland’s perspective to be the better option if there must be a third choice. Unless public opinion alters dramatically, if we are to have even pretence of democracy in our new Scotland, that third option must be present.

If the Scots are given a referendum option of FFA and endorse it then Edinburgh will simply kick the ball to London on a set timescale and wait to see what London sends back.

Westminster quite simply has two options, they can either accept an ongoing union of truly equal partners with both Scotland and England having a veto on any policy, or it can reject it and accept the resultant fully independent nation on its northern border. This is why, politically, FFA is being played down and Devo-Max talked up by many Unionists.

FFA will directly result in a federal UK or the end of the Union, there is no other possible outcome to such a vote. Devo-Max could simply be another long step in an already overlong process. As evidenced by the Unionists attempts to derail autonomy within the current Scotland Bill it could easily end up “not fit for purpose” if the details are left until after the referendum.

From a Scots perspective FFA would be preferable; it retains the decision making process within Scotland.

Scotland will effectively tell London we’re going to “reap our own harvest and ring our own till” then wait for London’s negotiators to agree a new constitutional settlement, or not.

Effectively an FFA vote will turn back the Scots constitutional clock to 1705/1706. Scotland votes for Union but only under a union of true financial equals. These are terms England cannot foreseeably accept.

England should not be expected to accept these terms, a country with 10% of the economy and population having a veto on the decisions of a land ten times its own would be inappropriate. Just as it would be as inappropriate as any nation dictating to any other nation.

The FFA vote would also require the UN to stand behind Scotland’s democratic right to self determination, effectively removing the UK constitutional arguments. It is arguable that there is no UK constitution, as immediately Scotland decides to repatriate powers the Westminster government should be required to comply. We co-exist under a treaty, not by right of conquest.

With the fiscal veto authority that would inherently lie within Holyrood after an FFA vote being anathema to Westminster, the establishment therefore presently perceives its best interests to lie in Devo-Max.

There will be a considerable amount of both Unionist and Nationalist political maneuvering around the Devo-Max stance, defining what Devo-Max will really mean and what it accurately entails. There will be resolutions to be reached on taxation, foreign policy, defense, health, social security, welfare, the unemployment system and more.

Each area impacted by Devo-Max will have far reaching and presently uninvestigated consequences. Confusion in issues must be anticipated as far as possible, and statutes amended to avoid those confusions. Issues of potential conflict like the status of power generation [reserved] and planning permission [devolved] should be avoided or a process for resolution put in place.

Each area must be investigated as thoroughly as possible before the question is put into the referendum. The process should start early in the new year to allow a reasonable period of investigation and debate.

The only foreseeable method of doing this in the timeframe available before the referendum is for Alex Salmond to announce the convening of a cross party panel of MSP’s who will frame the fundamentals of the Devo-Max question. There should be members of every party invited and the roll, with party affiliations, acceptances and refusals must be publicized prominently.

It is the biggest question of our generation and will carry an impact for countless years.

If any of the Unionist party’s decline to participate then the panel would comprise those that remain. The panel would be tasked with deriving a set of constitutional adjustments in a defined timeframe that should be passed as a bill by the Scottish Government.

The bill as passed by Holyrood would also have a defined implementation timetable; it would go to Westminster for ratification well before the referendum. Westminster can then either ratify or reject the legislation.

Ultimately Westminster shall be the entity to easily enfranchise or make the attempt to disenfranchise this presently vast swathe of Scots, and those self same Scots will be very aware of Westminster’s actions, reasoning and underlying motives.

If Westminster refuses to ratify Devo-Max prior to the referendum, Holyrood can simply state that to avoid disenfranchising such a greater part of Scotland’s voters they will put forward the option of FFA as the third choice instead.

Independence, FFA or Devo-Max and the Status Quo are the options presently facing Scots.

The benefits of advanced constitutional debate at Holyrood and Westminster are clear. Scots will know who and what they are voting for at referendum time should they choose the Devo-Max/FFA option. They will know why they have which of the center options. There will be no confusion as they either vote to get the blue turbocharged sports car of independence, the nice conservative white minibus of Devo-Max or the nimble sedan of FFA.

Unless the Devo-Max minibus has the wheels removed by Westminster, as could be anticipated by the content of present comments from London. Scots will then know both who to blame for the attempted disenfranchisement and the true value of Westminster’s “respect agenda” – a fact which will be re-enforced on the ballot paper as they actually cast their vote.

Referendums, legality and usurpation.

2011-11-27T21:45:00.000-04:00

There is ongoing confusion for many over the legality of the upcoming independence referendum, who can hold it, when, what the questions should be and will it be binding or advisory. This confusion is perpetrated by widespread reporting in the mainstream media without full verification of all the underlying facts.

Most recently we have one Professor Tomkins, an expert on constitutional law at Glasgow University, who largely echoed Aiden O’Neil’s earlier comments by informing the Scottish affairs committee in Westminster that “any referendum should be run by the Electoral Commission and, for it to be acceptable, the questions and their meaning and effects should be "crystal clear".

Professor Tomkins is described as a leading academic in the field of constitutional law; therefore his views certainly deserve merit as does his warning that there is a "very strong" argument in constitutional law that the Scottish Government will be exceeding its statutory powers by staging an independence referendum.

The Scottish affairs committee at Westminster is certainly exceeding its remit, as it is limited to commenting and examining the affairs of the Scottish Office, not Holyrood, but is Holyrood also exceeding its remit as the good professor would infer and have us believe.

Alex Salmond has rejected this and all previous claims that the Scottish Government lacks the powers to hold an independence referendum. While David Cameron in referring to the referendum as being for Scotland to decide, apparently agrees with this stance.

Immediate indications are that the proposed poll is legal from the standpoint of both leaders and that what is proposed by the Scottish affairs committee and its quoted expert is without basis. Professor Tomkins does throw out the same credible arguments, similar to those used by others before him as they try to deny Scotland a voice.

In his paper as submitted to Westminster's Scottish affairs committee, Professor Adam Tomkins put forward the argument that there was a "strong constitutional case" for the UK Government, and not Holyrood, to legislate for the referendum. He stated "If the question is 'Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom?' that is a question on a reserved matter and should therefore be asked (if at all) by HM Government under the authority of an Act of Parliament”.

His use of the wording, “if at all” gives an exceedingly strong indication as to Adam Tomkins personal leanings with regards to dependency or self determination.

The submission to the committee continued, "Were the Scottish ministers to seek to ask such a question in a referendum held under the authority of an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP), there is (at the least) a very strong argument the ASP would be outwith competence and, therefore, 'not law' under section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, and that the Scottish ministers would be acting outwith their devolved competence if they sought to exercise powers in pursuit of such an ASP.

"If the question is 'Should the Scottish Government seek to renegotiate with HM Government the terms of the Union?', my view would be the same: this is a reserved matter, even if the referendum question somehow made clear that the renegotiation was not intended to end the Union and that the proposal was not that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom."

Professor Tomkins views are therefore crystal clear; Holyrood doesn’t have the power under the UK constitution to hold a referendum.

Offsetting the opinion of this constitutional law expert appears the previously mentioned views of both Alex Salmond and David Cameron with the Scottish government also firm in its commitment and belief that it both has the legal remit and authority to bring forward a referendum bill followed by a constitutional poll in the second half of the current Scottish Parliament.

Who’s correct and who’s obfuscating, is it Prof Tomkins who appears to know what he’s speaking about with respect to UK constitutional law, or is it Holyrood who have certainly set out their stall on this issue.

One aspect both sides agree upon, as voiced in Professor Tomkins’ submission is that "For a referendum to be constitutionally acceptable, the questions to be asked must be crystal clear as to their meaning and their effects. That is to say, the options must be clearly defined and it must be clear what the consequences are of voting in any particular way."

A spokesman for Alex Salmond said "Professor Tomkins needs to catch up", before adding: "Everyone else, including the Prime Minister, accepts the right of the Scottish Government and Parliament to hold the referendum - we are entirely confident of the legal position and will bring forward a Referendum Bill for the vote on Scotland's future to take place in the second half of this parliament."

Professor Tomkins apparently has the crux of the matter; under UK law Holyrood doesn’t have the legislative authority to legislate for a constitutional referendum. UK law is very clear on this in that “the constitution” is a reserved matter. This gives a notional meaning that if Holyrood wanted a referendum on prescription charges or university fees then such is within its competence, but on the constitution the parliament in Edinburgh would be exceeding its remit – per Westminster.

The professor therefore hangs his hat on a peg by stating “it would be preferable for the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate on the matter”.

Interestingly Professor Tomkins doesn’t say “Only Westminster can legislate on this subject”, simply that it would be “preferable”. The issue again is why the use of the word “preferable” and preferable for whom?

For whom it is preferable is indicated in his statement. As he calls for any referendum to be held as quickly as possible, his is another voice to the constant Union generated bedlam. The use of his word “preferable” is not so quickly explained, and as the trails are unravelled it’s clearly demonstrated that it is preferable from a Union perspective only.

Professor Tomkins is apparently viewing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single country, which it is not. The “UK” in its present form is a state, not a nation, and has only existed under its current name and verifiably compound status since 1926. Constitutional rights in Scotland are different from those in England; therefore that “constitutional argument” is on a shoogly peg indeed.

The original Treaty of Union of 1707 was between two independent nation states, setting aside the legality questions surrounding that agreement there is an indisputable fact that Scotland and England are not “one country” but two nations co-existing with a unified government under a potentially worthless treaty. Effectively under that treaty both Scotland and England devolved their government to Westminster. The Union treaty made no mention of suspending Scotland’s constitution or laws – in fact it promised to “forever uphold” Scotland’s laws. In effect it promised to uphold Scotland’s constitution.

This brings the Vienna Convention on Treaty law into play, with the UK being a signatory. Interestingly one country that Whitehall has authority to enter into treaties with is Scotland. Wales and N. Ireland are notable for their absence. Any bi-lateral treaty can be ended unilaterally with appropriate notification by either party. Scotland, in lacking a recognized parliament for some centuries, could arguably have been said to have been without the voice that allowed it make such a declaration.

That situation where Scotland lacked self government has now been rectified, and as Westminster is in agreement that international law trumps national law they are effectively bound by the Scottish Government’s decision in this matter. Had Scotland been taken by right of conquest and not entered into a treaty this fact might not hold true.

The second player in the referendum arena that Westminster must be mindful of is the United Nations. The UK is a principle member of the UN and signatory to almost every treaty of relevance within its sphere of influence at the UN. The UN position is clear.

The UN charter reads, quite specifically, and was reportedly re-affirmed on 10th November 2011 as:

“..the Assembly reaffirmed that the universal realisation of the right of all peoples — including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination — to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee, observance, preservation and promotion of human rights.

The Assembly also declared its firm Opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world”.

In effect, if the Scottish government were to poll the Scottish people on independence they might contravene Westminster’s interpretation of what’s legal internal to the UK but they should anticipate the backing of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention, both of which the UK is signatory to and bound by under international law.

The best that London could hope for is a delaying tactic, which with incessant screams of “referendum now” would appear to go against current Westminster policy. Any legal delaying tactic by Westminster would also have a strong potential of driving a mass of undecided voters to the pro-independence side of the argument as the SNP would rightfully clamour deprivation of democracy.

Should Westminster choose it can ignore the referendum result as “advisory”, however “the mother of parliaments” would then be in a position of arguing before the UN that the democratic will of a people in its most basic sense, isn’t worth squat. Alex Salmond would also have an irrefutable mandate for UDI under such a scenario; the only question is will he use it?

At day’s end David Cameron will decide the path Westminster walks after the Scottish referendum, however he may yet choose to dictate the path that our nation will follow up to that point, but in so doing he must tread with great care of he is to avoid his personal Rhodesia moment. Although none in the Scots government at Holyrood openly talks UDI, it would be foolish to think there aren’t contingency plans for almost every foreseeable eventuality.

The CyberNat Song Video and Lyrics

2011-11-15T14:06:00.000-04:00

CyberNat Song Lyrics.

I'm a Nat, I'm a Nat, I'm a CyberNat that's the name ye gie’d tae me,
I'll speak fur masel an ma pals as well, aboot ma land that will be free.
I'm no’ the kind o' Nat that listens tae a Brat, sayin the union hus tae stay
Naw, I'm the kind o' Nat that’ll tell yon Brat, we will go our own sweet way.

I roam aroon the old chat rooms, the forums and the threads,
The unionists are feart ae me, they all take tae their beds.
Fur they cannae convince us ony mair that the UK's the only way,
We've a’ seen the light, and it’s shining really bright, we're gonnae be free one day

Well one fine day no so long ago, they tried tae moderate
My comments on a newspaper site, all aboot the unionist debate
It simply went tae show them up, for the cowards we know they are
Ah tore them a’ tae shreds, on the forums and the threads, cuz I wullnae let them get too far

Noo, Labour hud been in power here, for fifty years or more
But Scotland never seemed tae thrive, like the great big country right next door
So why do we gie them aw oor dosh, oor oil an' oor whisky tae?
Cuz, they hivnae got a clue, an don’t ken whit tae do, wi the hunners o the money we pay.

Oh they spend a’ oor cash, in the far South East, for roads an' nice railways.

While we sit freezing tae death in the north, wae the bills we can’t afford tae pay

Despite the grafting that we’ve a’ done, they buggers have frittered it away

Aye their future's looking bleak an they’ve started tae feel seek, doon the London union way

Weel, you'll hear them say doon Shettleston way, "Whit’s happened tae the big union wigs?
We got them on the run an we had a bit of fun, wae them dancing tae oor highland jigs.
But noo we’re on the loose, I only hope that yous, can see the changes comin' ower me
I know it sounds absurd, but be sure n take my word, that Scotland IS gonnae be free.

Glossary:

Brat .... contraction of BritNat ... jist saying!

Who is Peter Atherton and why do we care?

2011-11-02T14:18:00.001-04:00

Peter Atherton could be described as a prime mover at Citi-Bank in London, his portfolio includes energy investment.

Mainstream Scottish media and political opponents of the Scottish government pounced on his pronunciations that “Renewable investors risk seeing their assets stranded in a newly independent Scotland”.

Michael Moore jumped on the bandwagon calling for immediate referendum timetables, stating “It is vital that we maximise the potential of Scotland’s renewables sector by providing the stable environment in which that can happen.”

Tom Greatrex, Labour MP added: “This is an astounding warning and shows the grave flaws in the SNP’s energy policy.”

The background to this issue is that Scotland’s ministers have set a goal of 100% of Scotland’s energy needs to be met from renewables by 2020. That’s a goal, not a requirement and nothing was ever achieved by not trying. Not trying is what Unionism and Mr. Atherton appear to suggest, or at least that we shouldn’t try quite so hard.

Holyrood says the move to a green and re-industrialized economy would create investment and jobs and although ministers have described present targets as “ambitious” they believe them “achievable”.

Critics have described the target as impossible and questioned how many new positions would actually be created. Westminster has proven itself comprehensively anti-Scots and pro-nuclear when it comes to energy. The green generation “connection fees” in Scotland and London’s insistence on ongoing nuclear testify to that.

Citigroup analyst Peter Atherton has now warned that hitting the 100% target would cost around £46bn, because of the need to build more onshore and offshore wind turbines. His inference was obvious; funding might not be there – at least from Citibank. He and our mainstream media don’t seem to worry that this £46bn isn’t public money either – it’s a big scary number so “fit for use”, fit for propaganda.

Mr. Atherton based his statements on the fact that even beyond the size of the capitol investment, the green energy sector would still need another £4bn a year of public subsidy, probably by way of increased billing because he believes Scotland’s consumer base is “far too small” to support this industry. He’s ignoring exports.

Mr. Atherton’s stance is that England and Wales will have to subsidise Scotland’s green energy drive. “But Scotland seceding from the UK would clearly place this subsidy stream at grave risk,” he added. This seems another posturing on the “too poor, too wee, too stupid” stance often thrown up by the Union. It requires examination as to merit.

He also warned utilities and other investors, particularly Perth-based SSE and Scottish Power, to exercise extreme caution in committing further capital to Scotland with the bombshell statement that they “may already be over exposed to these risks.”

Mr Atherton concludes that Mr Salmond’s twin flagship policies, independence and providing 100% of energy from renewables by 2020 are incompatible. His perspective was validated for him because the referendum will create uncertainty during investment periods; therefore the potential for Scotland to hit its targets was “remote”. Independence – referendum – uncertainty, a trifecta of words that appear to be sounded too often from London to not require additional investigation. It almost sounds like a Union press release.

Professor Tony Mackay also described the 100% target as “impossible”, suggesting that 40% would be more achievable. We’re close to 40% already and there’s 8 plus years to go.

Looking to London’s Mr. Atherton we find he does not actually speak for Citibank, as he told a recent commons select committee “I am Peter Atherton from Citigroup. For the lawyers, my usual proviso is that I speak for myself and not for Citigroup”.

In examining the brief of Mr. Atherton’s day job, he’s there to maximize investment return for Citibank and its investors. His concern is only for their profit, that’s his job.

Mr. Atherton’s input on carbon capture and green energy proposals together with an energy mix and funding package were solicited by the UK government in February of this year, his response: “My answer is that I have no idea; it is way too early to tell. These are very big, complex reforms, interacting with a whole series of other, very big and complex policies”.

Citibank’s energy representative clearly stated recently that he “has no idea” how issues surrounding energy will work out on a UK basis, yet he feels qualified to comment on Scotland, based as he is in London.

Peter Atherton did go on to tell the UK government that things might be workable but what “investors have to be able to imagine is a situation where, in 2018 or 2019, the Secretary of State is standing up to the media and Parliament and saying, "It is a really good thing that your bills have just gone up by 15%, and will be going up 15% next year, the year after and the year after. And it’s a really good thing that SSE and the other utilities have just reported record profits, and will be reporting record profits for the next 10 years." He appears to then feel confident of energy funding.

Digging more deeply into Mr. Atherton’s history on issues indicates satisfaction with any situation that produces maximum returns for ideally no risk to his investors. Anything with guaranteed returns like PPI and PFI would appear to be an ideal situation for him.

In short, he wants guarantees his investors will profit and profit substantially.

Speaking on the energy mix, specifically referencing the “green deal” under consideration by the UK government, Mr. Atherton referenced “Scottish and Southern Energy last year did 105p of post-tax earnings, so I thought I’d run through my model how much profit they would be making by the end of the decade if they were to do their proportional amount of this investment-around £4 billion a year”.

“In 2015, their profits would have risen to 155p, but by 2020 they would be at 225p. Therefore, their profits are going up 15% or 20% a year at the end of the decade, just as bills are rising”.

Notably Mr. Atherton completed that section of his oratory with the statement that “The Green Deal is not a grant; it’s a loan. You are paying for the loan. Your overall energy bill may fall, but when you add the loan price back in, the cost doesn’t actually fall for the consumer”.

Based upon Peter Atherton’s figures above, the price of a green energy mix may not fall for the consumer, but the power companies more than double their profits.

The last noteworthy statement from Mr. Atherton to the committee was “The current systems struggle where you have big construction risk and big technological risk, such as with offshore wind and, even more so, with new nuclear. In our view, new nuclear is un-investable for private equity investors. Under the current mechanisms there is too much construction risk and too much power price risk. Offshore wind is in a borderline area, but onshore wind, for example, would be fine”.

Balancing Mr. Atherton’s comments about investment and viability, investments by major international corporations, such as Mitsubishi, Doosan and Repsol, as well as domestic firms, are providing jobs and growth for the future in Scotland’s world leading renewables industry. This process has not appreciably changed since the Scottish government confirmed plans for an independence referendum in the latter half of the parliamentary term. Four of the five world leading turbine manufacturers now have a significant presence in the country.

The Scottish government issued a statement saying “The analysis also fails to understand that much of the renewable energy which will be produced in Scotland will be for export.”

What does “generate 100% of Scotland’s energy from renewables” mean, when much of it will be “exported”. Scotland is energy rich, we already export energy. We will generate our basic needs from renewables if the goals are met, then export our excess capacity when available to England or other markets. If the goals are not met, we in an independent Scotland will simply have less to export, our lights will not “go out”. We will maintain a mix of renewable and fossil energy.

Scotland will phase out nuclear as those facilities age and reach the end of their life. Mr. Atherton agrees with this as he clearly states “new nuclear is un-investable”. Clearly something other than nuclear must replace our current nuclear plants. In or out of the UK/EU that simple fact doesn’t change.

Scotland is in energy surplus, England is in energy deficit. England imports energy from Scotland and forces Scotland to pay for the privilege of exporting it. Out of the Union we get market rates, inside the Union we get exploited. Ofgem has shown no eagerness to change therefore that looks like it will be an ongoing situation, absent independence.

Our nation has invested £750 million in renewable energy in the last year alone, our government at Holyrood realises that fossil fuel will continue to increase in price and pollute our planet. Wind and wave, solar and tidal energies with emerging green technology don’t increase their fuel costs over time. If we wish to prevent the children of our nation from living in perpetual fuel poverty there is only one viable way forward at present.

Our investment in renewables like our nations size in comparison to China is minute. Last year china promoted £37b investment in solar alone. In spite of Peter Atherton’s obvious fears, much of green energy is now largely mainstream and proven technology.

As stated in Wikki – Scotland’s future is truly bright on renewables “The natural resource base for renewables [in Scotland] is extraordinary by European and even global standards”.

With control of the Crown Estates much of the direct profit from these advances could go straight to our own communities rather than pad treasury coffers in London.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/c742-iv/c74201.htm

Is this Willie Rennie's "Subway" moment?

2011-10-31T23:04:00.007-04:00

It would appear that the Scottish Libdems and Willie Rennie have shot themselves in the foot. With a very large canon.

Earlier this afternoon I was doing my normal rambling around the interwebs and blogisphere, when there began a few disgruntled stirrings about the "Scottish" Libdems Twitter account. Naturally, being a nosey wee besom at times, I had a look. And there for all to see was a "photo-shopped" poster of Alex Salmond. He had apparently acquired a fine suntan and was bedecked in traditional Keffiyeh and thawb with an arm swung casually over a camel's neck. Not that shocking - until you read the text which accompanied the picture.

The "artist" had taken a quote made by Mr Salmond today, that Scotland and Qatar shared "remarkable similarities". However, the bullet points beside the picture severely contort the imagery into rather ugly and unedifying contortions.

They read as follows:

Absolute monarchy, controls all aspects of life.
Gay rights suppressed and no legal recognition of same sex marriage.
Death penalty used for crimes against the state.

With "Mr Salmond's "independent Scotland" emblazened across the bottom.

While each of these things on their own don't add up to much, when put together in this fashion, it all of a sudden becomes quite disturbing and shocking. It also elicited from me a bit of a gasp and a WTF?

Initially I thought, this was a set-up, you know, some group is trying to illicit a reaction from SNP supporters. I also thought that perhaps it was a result of account hacking. Therefore, I surfed around to see where the tweet had come from, and sure enough, it appears to be directly from the Scottish Libdems official Twitter account.

Well, as you can imagine, by this stage I was as incredulous as the next Tweeter as to the potential of this rather obscene tweet. Not only did it portray a narrow-minded Western ideal of an Arab in a rather stereotypical camel hugging fashion, it uttered three rather unambiguous lies about Scotland and her people, Scottish politics and Alex Salmond.

The fact that the people of Scotland had DEMOCRATICALLY elected Mr Salmond into office in a landslide victory in May seemed to have escaped the poster-maker's memory. Perhaps they were still banging their head on the wall wondering how it happened in a system designed specifically to prevent this. However, that's not the point. This poster alleges that Mr Salmond has somehow rigged the electoral system to his own ends for the forseeable future. It also alleges the Scottish people were too dim-witted to have noticed this.

It also claims that gay rights are in danger of being dismissed in Scotland, when it has been shown that this isn't the case. Especially as Mr Salmond has gone on the record in support of marriage equality. Furthermore, there was a recent poll in Scotland showing a majority of the public were also in support of legitimising gay marriage. This particular bullet point alone is one huge dirty lie, perpetrated by the Libdems to do no more than fear-monger among folks who feel vulnerable to start with. Nice one.

As for the reference to the death penalty? Need I really comment? I am completely unable to wriggle into the psyche that set this to paper as being something which is connected to Scotland and/or Mr Salmond. I'm actually speechless, bereft of words, and as of right now unable to formulate an opinion on that particular part of the picture content. I'm sure I'll think of something... eventually.

Then, this tweet appeared. Not only was the first one deliberate. They were proud of it. It was starting to look like "attention for attention's sake".

By mid- late afternoon I was tweeting and posting to Facebook and was deep in discussions with various folks online, all of whom were voicing their outrage and disgust and the dirty tactics, when someone mentioned Facebook.

One of Willie Rennie's Facebook pages to be precise. He apparently has two. Again, my immediate thought was - naawwwww! So I toddled over and looked and... Ayyye... there it was.

Over and again I kept asking myself, "What" and "Why"?

What makes the leader of a political party do such an incredibly stupid thing, such as this?

Why does he think that using such negative imagery and blatant lies is something he can do without any sort of sanctions being brought against him. Or why and how does he think this will enhance his standing with the electorate in Scotland and the members of his own party?

What seam of angry, peurile hopelessness runs through the man's - or the party's - veins to allow this to happen on his watch? Where are the checks and balances on the side of common sense which would have screamed -THIS IS WRONG?

Why can't he and his party engine channel all this energy into consrtucting, positive and effective opposition to the SNP, rather than dissolving into gutter diplomacy, the likes of which we see here.

As the afternoon passed into early evening, it had become increasingly obviously that he didn't disapprove of the picture and its content, because after hours and hours of speculation and questions asked, there was nothing eminating from the "Scottish" Libdems's camp.

The Facebook page is unchanged nor has the tweet been withdrawn, and certainly no comments are forthcoming from Libdem central or Willie Rennie. Business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.


Even Libdems were disgusted.

However this is, in my opinion, one mega-sized shot in the foot. And may well be the final nail in the coffin which contains the decomposing remains of the Liberal Democratic representation in Scotland.

On my last veiwing of a few minutes ago, there are 98 comments and 29 have "shared" the photo on Willie Rennie's page. Almost to the number, every one of them condemns the the publication and its content. There are one or two that have chosen not to see the nastiness therein.

Among those who commented, there are several Libdem supporters who are beyond angry. In fact they are rightly outraged and these include at least one who has now signed up and joined the SNP.

It has been said on several occassion recently, the Unionist aligned parties in Scotland are in total disarray. They are contributing to the cause of independence day and daily. I say more power to them. However, it would be far preferable if they left their nasty, racist and narrow-minded ideas out of the Scottish political picture. This type of unseemly behaviour is really uncalled for.

UPDATE 1: Willie Rennie apologises on BBC Scotland

UPDATE 2: Despite the apology, I think Rennie's credibility is now in the gutter and will be very hard to ressurect to any position of respectibility.

Sorry Willie, "Run wae the craws, get shot wae the craws". This is the best example in Scottish politics for quite sometime (well, April and a sandwich shop incident with some other guy) which reflects the axiom, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and only seconds to destroy it. The worst of it being of course, by his own hand.

UPDATE 3: There has been talk there are two Facebook pages for Mr Rennie. Indeed there are. The first one had reached its friend subscription limit and a second one was started. Both were his pages and both appear to be affiliated to the Libdems.


The announcement where Mr Rennie guides followers and friends to new page.

As you can see, it was the most recent FB page on which the picture appeared.

Political party funding reform

2011-10-31T13:29:00.000-04:00

Just emerging from the committee-enquiry stage after a 17 month deliberation, is a proposal for political party funding reform. The working committee which had representatives of the Lib-Dem, Tory and Labour parties as well as six independents was chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly.

Reform is long overdue as it has been the ability of single large donors to influence party policy that has been a fundamental flaw in the Westminster political system almost since its inception.

Democracy has many costs, the financial one must be borne from the public purse to ensure we limit as much as possible the destruction or subversion of democracy by vested interests or greed.

The proposal currently being mooted is worth about £100 million to the parties from the public purse and is being proposed as a method to make up a shortfall created by the donation cap system. £100 million over 5 years is less than £2 a person, or less than 1p per week – cheap democracy.

The initial draft proposals had individual contributions limited to £10,000 until the Tories tabled an amendment to increase that fivefold, claiming discrimination.

Discrimination is a valid claim, but not in the way the Conservatives would have us believe by way of Lord Feldman of Elstree the Tory co-chairman. £50,000 donations will still command substantial allegiance, especially as there is no organizational or familial cap apparent in the recommendations.

Without a familial or organizational cap there is nothing to prevent an individual such as Rupert Murdoch donating £50,000, then giving the same again to a dozen or more friends, family or colleagues to do likewise.

There also must be a proof of source of funds, this would ensure that frauds like that perpetrated when the Liberal-Democrats received some £2.4 million from rogue trader, Mr. Brown, who then fled to and is currently living in the Dominican Republic would not re-occur. The Lib-Dem’s have stubbornly refused to return the funds to the individuals defrauded.

The proposed original £10,000 or even a lesser cap could therefore be viewed as more appropriate with parties raising additional funds through individual party membership and allocated vote share.

The proposals call for the funding to be shared out on a per-vote basis with a suggested value of £3 a tick.

It would be better and fairer to allocate the funding to all registered political parties, minor parties must also obtain a share if they are to have an opportunity to establish and flourish. There should be perhaps some 20% of the pot set aside for equitable distribution between all registered political parties with the remainder going on vote share. Safeguards require to be built in to ensure funds are only spent on a limited range of political activities. Penalties must be severe.

The current recommendations are certainly drafted towards maintenance of the status quo.

One of the most substantial arguments for the “per vote” funding is it will encourage parties to get their voters out to the polls with parties now having a strong fiscal incentive.

The driving force behind these changes is the Liberal-Democrats who, basing figures on the 2010 GE would have reason to believe they stand to gain most from the proposals, however all parties are acknowledging the need for reform. That the Lib-Dems are in dire need of ongoing cash infusions is testified to by the layoffs at party HQ and the sale of their party headquarters. If current polls are an indication Nick Clegg’s party might end up worse off than before.

Interestingly, the Conservatives are pushing for an opt-in system for Labour’s union donations rather than the present opt-out, anticipate this to be just one area of acrimony as when this system was adopted in N. Ireland it saw the Labour party union contributions drop by over 60%. Any donation system should always be opt-in.

There’s also proposed modifications to the electoral spending caps at all levels.

The proposals don’t contain an obvious clear methodology for dealing with devolved parliaments, and highlighting the adequacies or inadequacies of those systems.

Electoral funding reform has been tried before at Westminster, each time it’s failed, primarily because privileged and vested interests have wished to retain a status quo that works for them rather than the electorate at large. Most recently Gordon Brown’s attempt sank without trace after accusations of bias and bad faith.

Speaking to the present commission’s findings Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude was of the opinion there was little public appetite for this type of reform at present, mainly due to the recriminations and perceptions lingering in the public consciousness from the expenses scandal.

Mr. Maude is entitled to his opinions, but nothing endangers true democracy more than purchased political privilege. The system as suggested for comment is an improvement on what presently exists but is woefully inadequate when compared to the simplest of public electoral funding systems.

A system is needed where each party raises its own membership donations with an indexed linked individual donation cap. That cap would perhaps be 5% of the median wage. It would apply annually. The only other donation source permitted should be public funding on an even basis for a set percentage of the total and a proportional basis for the remainder. Funded lobbying would be illegal.

If Westminster or Holyrood enacted such legislation it would truly be setting its feet on the path to real democracy, a democracy far less impacted by vested interest than what exists today.

A Hobson’s choice for “the feartie” PM.

2011-10-23T15:53:00.000-04:00

The SNP conference draws to a close amid polls that continue to demonstrate accelerating trends towards their primary goal - Scots autonomy. One significant question waiting in the wings is the final destination of this Scottish march, full sovereignty or just a little less.

With You-Gov’s acknowledgement that it’s loading factors for internal polls were wrong, pollsters are in broad agreement. The trend to a new constitutional settlement within the British Isles is imminent.

Current polling indicates full fiscal autonomy [FFA] or Devo-Max remains the preferred destination of many Scots, as it has for several years.

Paddy power’s astute political betting machine has Scotland almost at evens’ for full sovereignty. The status quo is swiftly being ruled out, the odds are consistently trending one way now.

Against this background a plethora of Westminster’s ministers are reported to be going North in an attempt to “force the Poll and end the uncertainty”. Some have already arrived as Alexander’s recent vacuous witterings in Stirling demonstrated.

These fruitless Union junkets are a wasted taxpayer expense; the referendum Unionism wants “forced” can’t be held until either Unionism, specifically Cameron frames or discounts part of the debate or the Scottish government forces his Hobson’s choice on the UK PM.

This doesn’t stop prominent Unionists strongly beating the Devo-Max drum, most recently Malcolm Chisholm. These Unionists are aware it may be their best hope of avoiding unemployment.

Chisholm like all before him is simply grabbing empty headlines until Cameron makes a decision.

David Cameron appears “a big feartie” when it comes to doing just that. In fact Cameron gives every appearance of hiding behind Scottish Office skirts.

Cameron must make his statements on Devo-Max soon or be forced to it by Salmond. It is still within the PM’s power to agree to the last significant compromise upon which Scots might vote. The evidence so far is that he’s afraid to voice an opinion. That is not a mark of leadership.

Before Holyrood, through a Scots poll, agrees to one last try inside the Union with Devo-Max it will be up to Westminster to state acceptance of the results of the referendum. The Scots can’t vote on the option until they know what it means, what Westminster will accept. Cameron is steadfastly refusing the responsibilities of leadership by saying nothing on the subject.

Cameron is not only failing Scotland, he’s failing all nations of the UK, because the Scots settlement will have profound implications for everyone in our polity.

Will Cameron accept and work with Devo-Max in a final attempt to save his cherished Union, or will he force a single choice referendum? By his response, he could confirm that a future Tory England is a good alter upon which to sacrifice his espoused principles of unity.

David Cameron and his Union cohorts must give an unqualified assurance that such a fundamental leap in perspective as Devo-Max is something which can exist within their collective psyche.

He and they must cease with the belligerent attitude and enter into full and open cooperation with Holyrood to work out an acceptable settlement we can all be comfortable seeing on the ballot. It may even attract some votes, but we can expect the number to dwindle as time passes.

Indicators are strong that the battlefield will be between Devo-Max and full sovereignty. The status quo is no longer an option for the vast majority. The fight to continually advance the status quo is now more about adjusting the Scots mindset to additional Holyrood autonomy.

It is clear in international law that Scotland can reassert independence at any time a majority of her citizens express the will to do so. Witness the international delegations to the SNP conference that Scotland’s media gave scant coverage to.

It is just as clear that Westminster will be happy to enforce the present or lesser level of devolution. The gray area appears the presently preferred option. Devo-Max requires Westminster agreement.

Before the interim option of Devo-Max is put to the electorate in a poll there are at least six key areas on which Alex Salmond and our nation must have clarity. David Cameron is the only individual who can credibly give such clarity to both the Scottish government and its electorate. Cameron must both frame that debate and prove his sincerity or deny the discussion entirely.

Cameron must do this in the very near term.

Lacking clarity from Cameron an official communication must be issued by Bute House to Number 10 that requires replies within a set time, and it must be made public. The responses also need full disclosure.

Cameron’s answers may severely test his respect agenda; any commitments should also bind future administrations. These responses will be a referendum litmus test. Scots will conclusively know what to expect of Cameron and his lackeys as the poll approaches, there will be no spinning these retorts.

1. Revenues; will Westminster support a Devo-Max option where it includes Scotland retaining 100% of its own tax base, including that now allocated to “The City”.

2. Civil Service; will Westminster immediately and actively engage with Holyrood to resurrect HMRC Scotland, removed under Margaret Thatcher, and all other branches of government required to administer the revenues collected or services Scotland requires.

3. Intergovernmental relations; will the UK government agree to a cooperative rather than dictatorial relationship with Holyrood, the path of equality being one which the UK government could initiate immediately. As an act of good faith it could begin by following previous pledges at Westminster and eliminate the Scottish office.

4. Reserved Issues; As a result of the ‘90s devolution settlement there are areas which Westminster perceives as “reserved”, will the UK parliament agree to the removal of such?

5. Fiscal Policy; both nations would remain sharing Sterling under a Devo-Max poll. Will David Cameron agree to both nations having equal say in all fiscal policy?

6. Foreign policy; would remain jointly funded, with embassies and consuls having a proportionate cost sharing allocation between the nations. Will Westminster agree that Holyrood is to have full consultation and veto power on present and future foreign policy including all military placement, expenditure and campaigns? Do they also agree that there should never again be a situation where a UK PM denigrates Scotland as Cameron did in Washington last year over the Megrahi release and has done several times since?

These are the primary issues that stand before “Devo-Max”, but they are not the only issues.

Should he refuse to agree to Devo-Max David Cameron will simply free up the minds of those among us that were seeking compromise.

Based upon current trends the vast majority of Scots will simply convert over time to independence. Cameron has sworn to oppose that with every fiber of his being, therefore he has a conundrum. That conundrum and his refusal to even acknowledge these questions are what clearly demonstrate the real “big feartie” of politics in these British Isles.

If Cameron’s cowardice forces Salmond to ask the above then the UK PM will gift himself his own Hobson’s choice. Failure to give a clear answer will be another sign of weakness or cowardice. Yet an answer acceptable to Scotland is unlikely to be such for Westminster. Meanwhile refusing the option point blank will place old Britannia in front of the firing squad with the blindfold already applied.

David Cameron, dammed if he does, dammed if he doesn’t and dammed if he dithers.