That’s really the only two words I can use to sum up either the Tory or Labour party manifestos.
If you’d rather, ‘In Yer Dreams Mate’ might work as well.
Look at what being offered, count the cost, and note the current account deficit.
There’s no money.
Where will the ability to pay for these pledges come from?
The poor can’t pay, the rich won’t pay (their lobbyists will see to that) and the middle class are about broke.
That leaves another round of demonization followed by sweeping benefit cuts, or cuts to basic services. Either way, it’ll do nothing to halt the swiftly rising tide of need for things like food banks.
This is not my kind of society.
Both parties could pre-identify savings; it’s really not that hard. There is a huge one in Trident for starters. There are two more in a couple of aircraft carriers that this island state, with its four constituent nations, can’t even afford the aircraft for. Sell those ships and put the cash in the coffers, and yes, we’ll take a loss, but then we did vote in the idiots that ordered them in their imperial pretentiousness. However, that loss will be a one-time loss, not an ongoing drain and we as a nation won’t be paying to support America’s military industrial complex rather than our own.
I thought the Greens might offer England’s voters a credible alternative to the big two or UKIP, sadly, policy credibility is conclusively hidden somewhere in ‘Fantasy Land’ for them. What the Greens propose would be economic suicide. It is not that it can’t be done, it just shouldn't be done.
The issue is that England needs a credible alternative home for its popular vote, because right now it really does not have any viable home at all.
Imagine a Green party, or a new English party like the SNP that stood on a simple platform ‘We’re not going to change much, not right away anyway, but we will abolish the House of Lords’. Imagine them communicating that message.
The message would be enhanced by a guarantee of a real constitution, with a constitutional lock that’d guarantee a balanced budget within a decade. Throw in more constitutional locks such as the new upper chamber could only review laws or perhaps block anything the commons passed, however it’d have to be non-aligned and have equal numbers of members from each constituent nation.
Now get back to policies, just keep it simple, and explain that you really can’t give Jo and Josie public any more than what they've already got, because you’ll have to deal with the mess the other idiots left behind, and you’re certainly not going to promise something then renege when you open the treasury doors and find a note saying ‘good luck, enjoy, sorry there’s no money left!’
If you want those fuzzy green policies stuffed in there, clean up inner city air pollution, explain that it’d lower the burden on the NHS due to pollution related health issues, and then propose a phased in assessment based upon how much a vehicle pollutes. If you've got a heavily polluting vehicle you’ll pay yet another tax that’ll support green policies, and that money will go directly to local councils for that reason. Give it a ten year phase in, there’ll not be much objection, most of us will simply plump for low polluting transportation as time passes and escape the penalty.
That’s just one example to demonstrate that things really aren't that difficult to change, given time, the desire to make a positive contribution and the proper approach.
I expect I’d vote for a party proposing that sort of progressive change, especially if it also allowed me to replace my MP mid-term if they weren't serving their constituents, or promised that any MP guilty of violating the law of the land would be subject to triple the normal sentencing guidelines. They should, after all, be held to a higher standard.
It is possible to spend your way out of a recession, but you can’t do it by fulfilling election promises that will increase the current account deficit – it only works if you use the money to put folk to work, generate more taxes, get more competitive and protect the home market in some way. Do that and you can work to a balanced budget and greater wealth for us all. Maybe one day we’ll see a UK wide party and not just a national one propose something along those lines?
Perhaps, but then again there’s a reason this blog’s titled ‘Fantasy Land’.
In the United Kingdom, for as long as it exists, I’d expect it will always be ‘politics as usual’, because a balanced budget won’t make money for the bankers and financial gamblers who sit at the heart of the City of London, and therefore UK government.
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
‘You Lost – Now get over it’
The truth will out, the old saying goes. And by jings, I think we’re seeing the evidence of that now.
My-oh-my. How little they understand, it’s just that in this case, the truth will take time to permeate, to insinuate itself into the consciousness of almost every ‘NO’ voter. If the NO side or the NO voter believes there was a loser in this referendum, they are absolutely correct. The identity of the loser is very easy for them to uncover, they just require a mirror.
The cry of “You Lost - Get over it” is one I’ve seen times almost without number in the two weeks since the referendum result was announced. The truth of the matter is, although I would have been delighted with a ‘Yes’ vote, and campaigned and worked to try to gain one, I suppose deep down, I never really expected it. What I did get has exceeded almost every expectation I had. It’s a pity that those who voted ‘NO’ from either a false sense of allegiance, or I suspect more often from simple fear, will have to wait until anywhere from a day to a decade to realize it. Of course by then many who did vote ‘NO’ will no longer be among the living, but before they leave us, they’ll have been privileged to see ‘Austerity’ really bite. I just wonder if they’ll be able to admit their voting error before their personal final curtain drops.
You see, those relying on state pensions voted to perpetuate a virtually bankrupt state, as opposed to a vibrant, energised and resurrected one, one which needn’t have hamstrung their retirement, one which needn’t have continued to pay about the lowest proportional pensions in Northern Europe.
But what about those cries of ‘You Lost!’. Obviously those elderly who voted to ‘protect their pensions’ lost, because with both governments guaranteeing them, how could they not have won?
For the rest of us, here’s where those gloating, troublemaking Unionistas essentially have it backwards.
They themselves are the ones who ‘Lost’; they lost the opportunity to increase the personal value of their vote ten-fold.
They lost the opportunity for a sovereign parliament, answerable only to us, the Scots, and I include every Scot who holds nationhood dear to heart, resident, ex-pat, it’s irrelevant.
These individuals, on the face of it, have lost the opportunity for a constitution to enshrine their rights; their own personally-tailored Bill of Rights. That those self serving careerists in Westminster might be discussing a UK version is immaterial because, let’s face it, they’re even afraid of and desperate to duck the obligations of the European Human Rights court. However, I’m willing to bet their “bill” will protect both their and their bankers’ rights.
Therefore, let me examine exactly what their NO vote guarantees.
Their NO vote will guarantee more broken promises, more London centric policies.
Their NO vote will see politics as usual, Scotland and its referendum is already a footnote to Westminster’s perspective.
Their NO vote will not guarantee any significant extra powers, on the contrary, it can’t. To change things more significantly, they need an English Parliament, if they get that, the UK is over, or it becomes fully federalised with each nation demanding and having an equal say. However, when one nation controls over eighty percent of the population, they’re not going to accept that. To be in the position of having to agree with representatives of the other nations will be intolerable for them. If you doubt it, just research why ‘The West Lothian Question’ has never been resolved.
Their NO vote will guarantee increased taxes and reduced benefits as the extra income is required to pay for England’s debt. When these No voters are poorer and have seen inflation run rampant again, that’s when they will really understand what the NO vote will have won.
Their NO vote has guaranteed as part of a unitary state, the NHS in Scotland has no protection. While NHS England opens the door to privatisation, the same will come to Scotland. We simply don’t have adequate funding to protect it, unless London decides we should.
Their NO vote guaranteed you the right to have Weapons of Mass Destruction parked on your doorstep.
Their NO vote has already put your children in harms’ way again, as we walk the path back to a war in the Middle East. This time it’s the Islamic State. Last time, Iraq, before that, Aden, Palestine, Egypt; where will the next conflict drain the blood of our children into those hot unforgiving desert sands?
A NO vote lost you the immediate right to control those oil revenues, which within few days of the vote you were told had been ‘vastly underestimated’ just the week before. The only real difference, the referendum was over. Those who cared to look had known this for months or years. If that was false, you’d have seen the pound rise, not fall that week.
These are just some of the things those who voted NO have lost.
For myself, I think we won. No, we didn’t get the big prize, as a whole, nor did we bite the apple, but what else did we expect? Believe it; Westminster controls the media, that’s the one power it’ll never willingly give up (Media Bias During The Referendum). It might privatise the NHS, Education, the Mail, Water, Railways, Utilities, but it’ll never give up its propaganda machine. Think about it, the broadcast media are all beholden to Westminster for their licenses – at the minimum. Literally every paper in Scotland is either Union controlled or foreign owned. Glasgow/Sunday Herald/Evening Times Owners (Any thinking individual or Scotland's vaunted media - including the BBC - could easily have explained to the Scottish electorate that Westminster could no more keep the promises published in the Daily Record's "Vow" page than it could have produced rocking horse shit from thin air. Simply another example of how our media failed us.)
We won because we exposed that propaganda machine.
We won because we took that vote, which had been hovering sometimes in the 20’s, to over 50. It failed on the day, but it failed through lies and gullibility, not our efforts which will be re-doubled next time.
We won, because the politicians in England were forced to make promises that will destroy the status quo, the Union or both. It’s that or be proven liars. That they will keep those promises is unthinkable, that we would vote NO a second time is unimaginable.
We won because already, after just a few weeks, many ‘Noes’ would change their vote. While I have no sympathy, you can do so in perpetuity, a majority of independence MP’s elected to Westminster or Holyrood, with that proclaimed goal, can easily still deliver the result.
We won because the notion of a free, resurrected and resurgent Scotland is viable, it’s normalised, and it’s desired.
We won, most of all, because we realise that we’re in a world class boxing match, and against us we’ve a world class opponent, at least when it comes to the mechanics of holding others in thrall as it pursues its fading dreams of imperial glory. On the morning of September 19th, the announcement was clear, that in round one, Scotland had failed to deliver the knockout blow, but we know our enemy, for such is the only description of one that would take the food from your mouth and force you to rely on charity.
Round two is just starting, it’ll end with the Westminster elections; if we hold the balance of power there by returning pro-independence supporting MPs we can proclaim independence. Round three, if needed, will see us at the next Holyrood Elections, again where the stated intent of the MSPs returned will and must be independence.
We must grab the thistle, we must grab it firmly, and we must protect both ourselves and those who come after from this incredible act of what is now self-harm that we call ‘The Union’.
Quite simply, we owe it to the unborn.
My-oh-my. How little they understand, it’s just that in this case, the truth will take time to permeate, to insinuate itself into the consciousness of almost every ‘NO’ voter. If the NO side or the NO voter believes there was a loser in this referendum, they are absolutely correct. The identity of the loser is very easy for them to uncover, they just require a mirror.
The cry of “You Lost - Get over it” is one I’ve seen times almost without number in the two weeks since the referendum result was announced. The truth of the matter is, although I would have been delighted with a ‘Yes’ vote, and campaigned and worked to try to gain one, I suppose deep down, I never really expected it. What I did get has exceeded almost every expectation I had. It’s a pity that those who voted ‘NO’ from either a false sense of allegiance, or I suspect more often from simple fear, will have to wait until anywhere from a day to a decade to realize it. Of course by then many who did vote ‘NO’ will no longer be among the living, but before they leave us, they’ll have been privileged to see ‘Austerity’ really bite. I just wonder if they’ll be able to admit their voting error before their personal final curtain drops.
You see, those relying on state pensions voted to perpetuate a virtually bankrupt state, as opposed to a vibrant, energised and resurrected one, one which needn’t have hamstrung their retirement, one which needn’t have continued to pay about the lowest proportional pensions in Northern Europe.
But what about those cries of ‘You Lost!’. Obviously those elderly who voted to ‘protect their pensions’ lost, because with both governments guaranteeing them, how could they not have won?
For the rest of us, here’s where those gloating, troublemaking Unionistas essentially have it backwards.
They themselves are the ones who ‘Lost’; they lost the opportunity to increase the personal value of their vote ten-fold.
They lost the opportunity for a sovereign parliament, answerable only to us, the Scots, and I include every Scot who holds nationhood dear to heart, resident, ex-pat, it’s irrelevant.
These individuals, on the face of it, have lost the opportunity for a constitution to enshrine their rights; their own personally-tailored Bill of Rights. That those self serving careerists in Westminster might be discussing a UK version is immaterial because, let’s face it, they’re even afraid of and desperate to duck the obligations of the European Human Rights court. However, I’m willing to bet their “bill” will protect both their and their bankers’ rights.
Therefore, let me examine exactly what their NO vote guarantees.
Their NO vote will guarantee more broken promises, more London centric policies.
Their NO vote will see politics as usual, Scotland and its referendum is already a footnote to Westminster’s perspective.
Their NO vote will not guarantee any significant extra powers, on the contrary, it can’t. To change things more significantly, they need an English Parliament, if they get that, the UK is over, or it becomes fully federalised with each nation demanding and having an equal say. However, when one nation controls over eighty percent of the population, they’re not going to accept that. To be in the position of having to agree with representatives of the other nations will be intolerable for them. If you doubt it, just research why ‘The West Lothian Question’ has never been resolved.
Their NO vote will guarantee increased taxes and reduced benefits as the extra income is required to pay for England’s debt. When these No voters are poorer and have seen inflation run rampant again, that’s when they will really understand what the NO vote will have won.
Their NO vote has guaranteed as part of a unitary state, the NHS in Scotland has no protection. While NHS England opens the door to privatisation, the same will come to Scotland. We simply don’t have adequate funding to protect it, unless London decides we should.
Their NO vote guaranteed you the right to have Weapons of Mass Destruction parked on your doorstep.
Their NO vote has already put your children in harms’ way again, as we walk the path back to a war in the Middle East. This time it’s the Islamic State. Last time, Iraq, before that, Aden, Palestine, Egypt; where will the next conflict drain the blood of our children into those hot unforgiving desert sands?
A NO vote lost you the immediate right to control those oil revenues, which within few days of the vote you were told had been ‘vastly underestimated’ just the week before. The only real difference, the referendum was over. Those who cared to look had known this for months or years. If that was false, you’d have seen the pound rise, not fall that week.
These are just some of the things those who voted NO have lost.
For myself, I think we won. No, we didn’t get the big prize, as a whole, nor did we bite the apple, but what else did we expect? Believe it; Westminster controls the media, that’s the one power it’ll never willingly give up (Media Bias During The Referendum). It might privatise the NHS, Education, the Mail, Water, Railways, Utilities, but it’ll never give up its propaganda machine. Think about it, the broadcast media are all beholden to Westminster for their licenses – at the minimum. Literally every paper in Scotland is either Union controlled or foreign owned. Glasgow/Sunday Herald/Evening Times Owners (Any thinking individual or Scotland's vaunted media - including the BBC - could easily have explained to the Scottish electorate that Westminster could no more keep the promises published in the Daily Record's "Vow" page than it could have produced rocking horse shit from thin air. Simply another example of how our media failed us.)
We won because we exposed that propaganda machine.
We won because we took that vote, which had been hovering sometimes in the 20’s, to over 50. It failed on the day, but it failed through lies and gullibility, not our efforts which will be re-doubled next time.
We won, because the politicians in England were forced to make promises that will destroy the status quo, the Union or both. It’s that or be proven liars. That they will keep those promises is unthinkable, that we would vote NO a second time is unimaginable.
We won because already, after just a few weeks, many ‘Noes’ would change their vote. While I have no sympathy, you can do so in perpetuity, a majority of independence MP’s elected to Westminster or Holyrood, with that proclaimed goal, can easily still deliver the result.
We won because the notion of a free, resurrected and resurgent Scotland is viable, it’s normalised, and it’s desired.
We won, most of all, because we realise that we’re in a world class boxing match, and against us we’ve a world class opponent, at least when it comes to the mechanics of holding others in thrall as it pursues its fading dreams of imperial glory. On the morning of September 19th, the announcement was clear, that in round one, Scotland had failed to deliver the knockout blow, but we know our enemy, for such is the only description of one that would take the food from your mouth and force you to rely on charity.
Round two is just starting, it’ll end with the Westminster elections; if we hold the balance of power there by returning pro-independence supporting MPs we can proclaim independence. Round three, if needed, will see us at the next Holyrood Elections, again where the stated intent of the MSPs returned will and must be independence.
We must grab the thistle, we must grab it firmly, and we must protect both ourselves and those who come after from this incredible act of what is now self-harm that we call ‘The Union’.
Quite simply, we owe it to the unborn.
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Mr. C. Thanks For The Prompt Reply.
Honestly, I didn’t expect an answer My Questions quite so quickly, but then, the truth will out, because the truth does have a nasty habit of bobbing to the surface.
My-oh-my, it was a surprise though, to see it answered so honestly.
I asked David Cameron a question the other day; I’ve now had my reply, even if indirectly delivered through the UK media. At least in a "here’s your answer, now you go figure it all out you silly wee wummin" type of format, at any rate that’s how it was presented in the press today.
Actually, I'm not so crazy as to think it was just my reply and it was only a partial answer, but he might have just as well shouted it from the rooftops. It was the response to the NHS question and it states very, very clearly, we’re about to lose our own Scottish NHS.
I'm talking about the English backlash in all the papers today, the one where there is a demand that we get our spending cut to a UK average, or even less, if that’s what Westminster decides. They’re saying £1,400 a head. This equals around £7.2 billion – allow me to write that out in full; £7,200,000,000. That’s cuts like you've never seen before. Oh, they’ll be staged allowing time for progressive charging to creep in, health insurance to slowly become a requirement and acceptable. You know how Westminster works; the death of a thousand little cuts. Except this time there’ll be over 7 billion little cuts.
Now, let’s remember where broadcasting is reserved to, especially after seeing ‘Better Together’ ads on the BBC (as a child, I really did believe it was supposed to be neutral and impartial, a great institution. That’s just another of those young beliefs shattered I suppose, consigned to the same afterlife as the tooth fairy). Anyway, remembering that broadcasting is reserved, we know who they’re supporting, and it isn’t ordinary folks.
This ‘newly revealed’ backlash is not particularly new; in fact it’s actually been (sometimes not so) subtly covered for a number of years now. England has forever been awash with images of the drunken Scot, belligerently whingeing for a handout. Meanwhile, they studiously ignore the fact that we put in far more than they do, more than we ever see back, which absolutely can’t be said for England.
Accordingly, akin to the Indy Ref, when you give folks half-truths, half the information and facts such as ‘they get more than you, is that fair’, of course the answer’s ‘NO’. It’s the same logic they’re using to try to get a ‘NO’ vote in Scotland, and sadly, some of my fellow Scots, reliant on a diet of Westminster propaganda, will vote that way, simply because like the English population demanding our budget be cut, they simply don’t know any better. Wonderfully subtle state propaganda, isn’t it?
Now, had these same English residents been given the full facts instead of Westminster propaganda i.e., the Scots actually pay far more into the system - much more. In reality, 2010/2011 tax receipts were £10,700 per person for Scotland, as opposed to an average of £9000 per person for the rUK. Had these same residents been made aware that these excess taxes are possibly paying a percentage towards England’s PFI contracts on hospitals and schools; wouldn't they be more amenable to the idea that it is only fair the Scots receive slightly more back than residents in rUK? Would there still be this hue and cry in England?
I suspect that not. The vast majority of English are reasonable folks, they’d be reasonably happy with that arrangement, if not downright tickled pink.
Sadly though, supplying the information at this juncture won’t work, because south of the border Scotland has been demonised in both popular culture and the popular press for far too long. The BBC is largely responsible, and the BBC is a reserved arm of Westminster. I can say that, because it’s been done at all levels, from the portrayal of Scots in newsprint to even one of my favourite old Beeb comedy shows like Black Adder; cringe worthy depictions of red-headed, tartan-bobble-hatted, be-kilted savage Scot, my people. Perhaps that’s why many suffer a Scottish cringe?
Anyway, it’s largely irrelevant now. What is relevant though is that the poll on attitudes showed upwards of a three to one majority of ‘realigning’ spending, as in cutting our budget. In reality, people who have done their research know this poll is based on half truths, innuendoes and lies. However, just like the ‘NO Voter’ in the upcoming referendum, it is what they truly believe; because they base their opinion upon the information they've been spoon fed. That makes it very real.
Furthermore, this also makes it very real to the politicians in Westminster; real and actionable. They do, after all, look upon us as ‘one country’, not four countries voluntarily making up one state. So when three of four who voice an opinion tell them to act, and it’s an action they want to take anyway, they pretty much now have to be seen to be doing something. We can bet the English press will report one set of promises, their Scottish editions will report it another way.
That means if the hoodwink holds enough of our people until September 19th, then within a very short time we can expect to see an ‘adjustment in our allowance’ of some 7 billion quid. It’s not going to be an upwards adjustment either.
If the hoodwink holds, that seven billion, and by government figures would mean one of two things if applied to us; it’d mean shutting down every hospital in Scotland, with every GP Practice or making you pay for them by forcing you to buy private insurance. It means that, or finding the money some-place else.
The problem being, there isn’t any some-place else. Since any extra Holyrood extracts from us will be deducted from what Westminster gives them.
I have recently spoken with a nurse taking a position in England. I asked if her contract was with the NHS, a health board, or a private company. You’d think that’s an easy enough question. Not in England, not today. She’ll be in an NHS uniform though, for now.
So, Mr. Cameron thanks for my answer, although I know you didn’t just decide to give it to me directly. I know your methods, and how you use the media. First they ‘uncover a story’ and engender disbelief, that disbelief turns to outrage, and as with our poor, our disabled, our sick and our immigrants, outrage begets anger and demonisation, which in turn gives support for the actions you intended anyway. It’s a bit like Putin invading his neighbours.
You want me to keep a system of healthcare, the future of which is to be modelled on the US, where a simple Caesarian Section can cost up to $25,000. You’re seriously asking me to vote for that?
Well, having had your response Mr. Cameron, I’ll give you mine. I’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ on the 18th, but I’ll say ‘YES’ to trusting my neighbours and country. You see, what you've threatened if we vote yes, while worrisome, isn’t really very scary. Not when it’s put beside what you're promising to do if I say ‘No Thanks’. The consequences of No means you’ll really have the power to make it happen, and me? Well, I’ll no longer have a finger to point, will I?
My-oh-my, it was a surprise though, to see it answered so honestly.
I asked David Cameron a question the other day; I’ve now had my reply, even if indirectly delivered through the UK media. At least in a "here’s your answer, now you go figure it all out you silly wee wummin" type of format, at any rate that’s how it was presented in the press today.
Actually, I'm not so crazy as to think it was just my reply and it was only a partial answer, but he might have just as well shouted it from the rooftops. It was the response to the NHS question and it states very, very clearly, we’re about to lose our own Scottish NHS.
I'm talking about the English backlash in all the papers today, the one where there is a demand that we get our spending cut to a UK average, or even less, if that’s what Westminster decides. They’re saying £1,400 a head. This equals around £7.2 billion – allow me to write that out in full; £7,200,000,000. That’s cuts like you've never seen before. Oh, they’ll be staged allowing time for progressive charging to creep in, health insurance to slowly become a requirement and acceptable. You know how Westminster works; the death of a thousand little cuts. Except this time there’ll be over 7 billion little cuts.
Now, let’s remember where broadcasting is reserved to, especially after seeing ‘Better Together’ ads on the BBC (as a child, I really did believe it was supposed to be neutral and impartial, a great institution. That’s just another of those young beliefs shattered I suppose, consigned to the same afterlife as the tooth fairy). Anyway, remembering that broadcasting is reserved, we know who they’re supporting, and it isn’t ordinary folks.
This ‘newly revealed’ backlash is not particularly new; in fact it’s actually been (sometimes not so) subtly covered for a number of years now. England has forever been awash with images of the drunken Scot, belligerently whingeing for a handout. Meanwhile, they studiously ignore the fact that we put in far more than they do, more than we ever see back, which absolutely can’t be said for England.
Accordingly, akin to the Indy Ref, when you give folks half-truths, half the information and facts such as ‘they get more than you, is that fair’, of course the answer’s ‘NO’. It’s the same logic they’re using to try to get a ‘NO’ vote in Scotland, and sadly, some of my fellow Scots, reliant on a diet of Westminster propaganda, will vote that way, simply because like the English population demanding our budget be cut, they simply don’t know any better. Wonderfully subtle state propaganda, isn’t it?
Now, had these same English residents been given the full facts instead of Westminster propaganda i.e., the Scots actually pay far more into the system - much more. In reality, 2010/2011 tax receipts were £10,700 per person for Scotland, as opposed to an average of £9000 per person for the rUK. Had these same residents been made aware that these excess taxes are possibly paying a percentage towards England’s PFI contracts on hospitals and schools; wouldn't they be more amenable to the idea that it is only fair the Scots receive slightly more back than residents in rUK? Would there still be this hue and cry in England?
I suspect that not. The vast majority of English are reasonable folks, they’d be reasonably happy with that arrangement, if not downright tickled pink.
Sadly though, supplying the information at this juncture won’t work, because south of the border Scotland has been demonised in both popular culture and the popular press for far too long. The BBC is largely responsible, and the BBC is a reserved arm of Westminster. I can say that, because it’s been done at all levels, from the portrayal of Scots in newsprint to even one of my favourite old Beeb comedy shows like Black Adder; cringe worthy depictions of red-headed, tartan-bobble-hatted, be-kilted savage Scot, my people. Perhaps that’s why many suffer a Scottish cringe?
Anyway, it’s largely irrelevant now. What is relevant though is that the poll on attitudes showed upwards of a three to one majority of ‘realigning’ spending, as in cutting our budget. In reality, people who have done their research know this poll is based on half truths, innuendoes and lies. However, just like the ‘NO Voter’ in the upcoming referendum, it is what they truly believe; because they base their opinion upon the information they've been spoon fed. That makes it very real.
Furthermore, this also makes it very real to the politicians in Westminster; real and actionable. They do, after all, look upon us as ‘one country’, not four countries voluntarily making up one state. So when three of four who voice an opinion tell them to act, and it’s an action they want to take anyway, they pretty much now have to be seen to be doing something. We can bet the English press will report one set of promises, their Scottish editions will report it another way.
That means if the hoodwink holds enough of our people until September 19th, then within a very short time we can expect to see an ‘adjustment in our allowance’ of some 7 billion quid. It’s not going to be an upwards adjustment either.
If the hoodwink holds, that seven billion, and by government figures would mean one of two things if applied to us; it’d mean shutting down every hospital in Scotland, with every GP Practice or making you pay for them by forcing you to buy private insurance. It means that, or finding the money some-place else.
The problem being, there isn’t any some-place else. Since any extra Holyrood extracts from us will be deducted from what Westminster gives them.
I have recently spoken with a nurse taking a position in England. I asked if her contract was with the NHS, a health board, or a private company. You’d think that’s an easy enough question. Not in England, not today. She’ll be in an NHS uniform though, for now.
So, Mr. Cameron thanks for my answer, although I know you didn’t just decide to give it to me directly. I know your methods, and how you use the media. First they ‘uncover a story’ and engender disbelief, that disbelief turns to outrage, and as with our poor, our disabled, our sick and our immigrants, outrage begets anger and demonisation, which in turn gives support for the actions you intended anyway. It’s a bit like Putin invading his neighbours.
You want me to keep a system of healthcare, the future of which is to be modelled on the US, where a simple Caesarian Section can cost up to $25,000. You’re seriously asking me to vote for that?
Well, having had your response Mr. Cameron, I’ll give you mine. I’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ on the 18th, but I’ll say ‘YES’ to trusting my neighbours and country. You see, what you've threatened if we vote yes, while worrisome, isn’t really very scary. Not when it’s put beside what you're promising to do if I say ‘No Thanks’. The consequences of No means you’ll really have the power to make it happen, and me? Well, I’ll no longer have a finger to point, will I?
Tuesday, 18 February 2014
The Big Currency Bash.
Well, it's been hot news since Gideon laid his cards flatly and squarely on the table. The Scots and their Nation are second-class citizens of Planet Earth when it comes to currency sharing. And while I don't normally re-blog items, I saw this post pertaining to the stramash on "who can do what with a pound" while on Facebook today, and thought it was worth the reposting.
United Kingdom,
British Antarctic Territory,
Falkland Islands (alongside Falkland Islands pound),
Gibraltar (alongside Gibraltar pound),
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (Tristan da Cunha; alongside Saint Helena pound in Saint Helena and Ascension),
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (alongside Falkland Islands pound),
British Indian Ocean Territory (de jure, US Dollar used de facto),
Guernsey (local issue: Guernsey pound),
Isle of Man (local issue: Manx pound),
Jersey (local issue: Jersey pound).
Apart from these OFFICIAL users of the pound sterling, there are the following places using sterling unofficially:
Thanks to Mairie NicIllemhoire and Ken Potter for all the information:
"I'm not in favour of the Euro as our currency post-indy, but nonetheless, I found it very interesting to discover that there are several non-EU members who use the Euro as their currency, namely: Andorra, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, and Vatican City.
With regards to sterling, the current list of official users (plus secondary currencies, in brackets) are:
"I'm not in favour of the Euro as our currency post-indy, but nonetheless, I found it very interesting to discover that there are several non-EU members who use the Euro as their currency, namely: Andorra, Kosovo, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, and Vatican City.
With regards to sterling, the current list of official users (plus secondary currencies, in brackets) are:
United Kingdom,
British Antarctic Territory,
Falkland Islands (alongside Falkland Islands pound),
Gibraltar (alongside Gibraltar pound),
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (Tristan da Cunha; alongside Saint Helena pound in Saint Helena and Ascension),
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (alongside Falkland Islands pound),
British Indian Ocean Territory (de jure, US Dollar used de facto),
Guernsey (local issue: Guernsey pound),
Isle of Man (local issue: Manx pound),
Jersey (local issue: Jersey pound).
Apart from these OFFICIAL users of the pound sterling, there are the following places using sterling unofficially:
Uganda,
Zimbabwe,
Zambia,
Sierra Leone,
Tanzania,
Rwanda,
Malawi,
Botswana,
plus the Pakistani city of Mirpur in Kashmir.
Historically.
After becoming independent, Ireland continued to use the Saorstát pound (Irish Punt), which remained pegged with sterling until she joined the European Monetary System in 1978, whilst the UK remained out. Other areas of the, now defunct, Empire have also used sterling in the past - the gold sovereign was legal tender in Canada despite the use of the Canadian dollar.
Several colonies and dominions adopted the pound as their own currency. These included Australia, Barbados, British West Africa, Cyprus, Fiji, the Irish Free State, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. Some of these retained parity with sterling throughout their existence (e.g. the South African pound), whilst others deviated from parity after the end of the gold standard (e.g. the Australian pound).
At this point, I'm thinking that someone needs to put this to Better Together, and ask 2 salient questions:
1) Just exactly WHAT makes Scotland different from any and all of these other places?
2) Name one place that has ever been refused the use of sterling. Just one!"
Zimbabwe,
Zambia,
Sierra Leone,
Tanzania,
Rwanda,
Malawi,
Botswana,
plus the Pakistani city of Mirpur in Kashmir.
Historically.
After becoming independent, Ireland continued to use the Saorstát pound (Irish Punt), which remained pegged with sterling until she joined the European Monetary System in 1978, whilst the UK remained out. Other areas of the, now defunct, Empire have also used sterling in the past - the gold sovereign was legal tender in Canada despite the use of the Canadian dollar.
Several colonies and dominions adopted the pound as their own currency. These included Australia, Barbados, British West Africa, Cyprus, Fiji, the Irish Free State, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. Some of these retained parity with sterling throughout their existence (e.g. the South African pound), whilst others deviated from parity after the end of the gold standard (e.g. the Australian pound).
At this point, I'm thinking that someone needs to put this to Better Together, and ask 2 salient questions:
1) Just exactly WHAT makes Scotland different from any and all of these other places?
2) Name one place that has ever been refused the use of sterling. Just one!"
It will be interesting to hear if they've got an answer to either of those questions.
As we approach the referendum, the output of scaremongering dross from the Unionist side is building to a torrent . But just how much more will the people in Scotland take and how much of it is now being seen for what it truly is - utter nonsense?
I get the feeling that Westminster forgets even the humble Scot has access to the internet where any amount of information is available and these pronouncements can be checked and double-checked and seen for the misinformation they are.
I get the feeling that Westminster forgets even the humble Scot has access to the internet where any amount of information is available and these pronouncements can be checked and double-checked and seen for the misinformation they are.
Meanwhile, on the rest of the planet, the thought of an independent Scotland with a Scottish Pound appears to be perfectly acceptable. For instance, this little article - Hong Kong Markets favour a Scottish Pound - published last year on April 28th shows the money markets of the East giving a more favourable rate to the Scottish Pound than Sterling. It looks as if foreign markets think a Scottish Pound would be a safer bet than rUK Pound.
I shall await the next development, scare story, bullsh*t with baited breath. I'm sure, just like buses, several will turn up at the same time.
I shall await the next development, scare story, bullsh*t with baited breath. I'm sure, just like buses, several will turn up at the same time.
Saturday, 23 November 2013
Hidden Wealth.
It gets you that way. You find yourself in a long Facebook natter and suddenly you realise there is a fact which doesn't often get highlighted in this “debate” about Scotland’s constitutional future. Oh yes, the Unionists aren't slow to drag the “oil is volatile and will cause you no end of confusion” card, and sadly many, many people pick this one up and run with it. It defines and confines the financial deliberation within heavily bordered limits. And this is precisely where Westminster wants this discussion to be kept.
Yet, there is not so much an elephant in the room but a small herd of elephants in the room. These are all of the companies currently manufacturing and exporting from Scotland and/or selling goods to the people in Scotland, but are head-quartered in England.
Currently, the majority of goods manufactured, grown, distilled or created in Scotland are exported via ports and airports in England. All taxation receipts from the following items such as airport fees, freight charges, fuel sales, VAT, applicable export levies and associated profits from these goods are then allocated as English income at the Treasury. The exact figures are hard to break down as they appear to be intentionally difficult to search or find in any of the Westminster governmental sites. For an example of a typically Scottish product regularly exported, in 2012 Whisky exports topped £4 billion. Approximately seventy-five percent of this is exported via English ports and allocated to the Treasury as English exports and income. This is also true of beef and other farm produce grown in Scotland, yet exported via ports down south. This can only be viewed as profits and tax receipts which should be credited to Scotland lost in a system set up to confuse and obfuscate.
Then we have the interesting situation of companies that sell goods and services in Scotland, but are head-quartered south of the border. With very few exceptions, it is only chains and stores with head offices in Scotland that record profits and VAT as being income from Scotland. The majority of companies which operate central offices in England pay their taxes and are shown as making profit in England – despite it being hard earned wages which gave them those profits and VAT receipts at tills in Aberdeen or Kilbirnie or Haddington.
We all need to eat, furnish our homes and wear clothes (well most folks do!). And many of us enjoy our electronic goods or buy home improvement items – you get the picture. We go to our local supermarket, DIY store, favourite clothes shops or electrical store and pay for all those things that make our lives viable and comfortable. Except, very few of these stores have a head office in Scotland.
As a way of explanation, allow me use one chain to give a small example.
Sainsbury: They have 1,016 stores throughout mainland UK, 60 of those are in Scotland – according to 2012 figures. This is roughly 6%. Until March of this year they took £2,329 Million in VAT. Roughly 6% of that or £140 Million was taken in Scottish stores. Under the current arrangement, ALL of that money is allocated as English income to reflect where Sainsbury have their HQ.
Now, imagine in an independent Scotland, that portion of VAT generated by us busily getting on with our daily lives, equipping our bellies, families and homes, going directly to Holyrood to be spent as needed on those things that we have deemed as important to us and our society – whether it’s infrastructure or social care. Sounds great doesn't it, but it’s “only” £140 Million, I hear someone mumble. However, you need to extrapolate this small amount over every company presently operating in Scotland under the current set-up.
What we have is a pile of money heading to Westminster and not really finding its way back to help those who spent it in the first place. Not only that, because it isn’t shown as being generated within Scotland, it helps to reinforce the “Too Poor” aspect of the Unionists argument. They can throw the volatility of North Sea Oil in our faces every other day, but they deliberately miss the point of other important, yet hidden aspects of the Scottish economy (e.g. £500 million in road taxes with associated fuel duties) which isn’t being allowed to show up for us in the “Books”.
How easily they can transform Scotland’s vibrant economy, created and supported by her hard working population, from energetic to appear poor and perhaps slightly quaint and backward.
Yet, there is not so much an elephant in the room but a small herd of elephants in the room. These are all of the companies currently manufacturing and exporting from Scotland and/or selling goods to the people in Scotland, but are head-quartered in England.
Currently, the majority of goods manufactured, grown, distilled or created in Scotland are exported via ports and airports in England. All taxation receipts from the following items such as airport fees, freight charges, fuel sales, VAT, applicable export levies and associated profits from these goods are then allocated as English income at the Treasury. The exact figures are hard to break down as they appear to be intentionally difficult to search or find in any of the Westminster governmental sites. For an example of a typically Scottish product regularly exported, in 2012 Whisky exports topped £4 billion. Approximately seventy-five percent of this is exported via English ports and allocated to the Treasury as English exports and income. This is also true of beef and other farm produce grown in Scotland, yet exported via ports down south. This can only be viewed as profits and tax receipts which should be credited to Scotland lost in a system set up to confuse and obfuscate.
Then we have the interesting situation of companies that sell goods and services in Scotland, but are head-quartered south of the border. With very few exceptions, it is only chains and stores with head offices in Scotland that record profits and VAT as being income from Scotland. The majority of companies which operate central offices in England pay their taxes and are shown as making profit in England – despite it being hard earned wages which gave them those profits and VAT receipts at tills in Aberdeen or Kilbirnie or Haddington.
We all need to eat, furnish our homes and wear clothes (well most folks do!). And many of us enjoy our electronic goods or buy home improvement items – you get the picture. We go to our local supermarket, DIY store, favourite clothes shops or electrical store and pay for all those things that make our lives viable and comfortable. Except, very few of these stores have a head office in Scotland.
As a way of explanation, allow me use one chain to give a small example.
Sainsbury: They have 1,016 stores throughout mainland UK, 60 of those are in Scotland – according to 2012 figures. This is roughly 6%. Until March of this year they took £2,329 Million in VAT. Roughly 6% of that or £140 Million was taken in Scottish stores. Under the current arrangement, ALL of that money is allocated as English income to reflect where Sainsbury have their HQ.
Now, imagine in an independent Scotland, that portion of VAT generated by us busily getting on with our daily lives, equipping our bellies, families and homes, going directly to Holyrood to be spent as needed on those things that we have deemed as important to us and our society – whether it’s infrastructure or social care. Sounds great doesn't it, but it’s “only” £140 Million, I hear someone mumble. However, you need to extrapolate this small amount over every company presently operating in Scotland under the current set-up.
What we have is a pile of money heading to Westminster and not really finding its way back to help those who spent it in the first place. Not only that, because it isn’t shown as being generated within Scotland, it helps to reinforce the “Too Poor” aspect of the Unionists argument. They can throw the volatility of North Sea Oil in our faces every other day, but they deliberately miss the point of other important, yet hidden aspects of the Scottish economy (e.g. £500 million in road taxes with associated fuel duties) which isn’t being allowed to show up for us in the “Books”.
How easily they can transform Scotland’s vibrant economy, created and supported by her hard working population, from energetic to appear poor and perhaps slightly quaint and backward.
Monday, 25 February 2013
The Wrong Message
Creation of a sterling-zone as trumpeted by the SNP is decidedly the wrong message.
Scotland needs to dump the pound faster than a drowning diver needs to dump his weight belt.
The recent downgrading to Sterling brings only one question, posed by the French almost a year ago, and that is, why has it not happened long, long before now?
In the last week I saw the value of my income plummet. For argument’s sake let’s say I get £725 a month. That’s what it was last month anyway, or last time I drew it out. Today they handed me £688. This was, they said, due to the fact the £ plummeted against the $ after the downgrade.
My account said £725 had been deposited, the bank gave me £688, there’s a problem when my bills are £700. The ends no longer meet in the middle. I’m now worse than broke.
Anyone not relying on foreign exchange rates may see it as a minor thing, but with pretty much everything made overseas these days it simply means, in Scotland, when the current supplies on the shelves run out, the new ones are going to cost more. We are all two months away from losing that real money.
In about ninety days, and much less for many items, that £725 a month in every pocket will soon become £688. It will still say £725 on the statement, so we’ll fool ourselves. But at the end of the day if it doesn’t buy anyone what £725 did a month ago, how can you argue it’s still £725?
Let’s invent a little scenario. You’re selling your car, you want £5,000, but you drove it this morning and had a wee fender-bender and slightly bent the chassis – but it still looks not too bad. Hey, it’s still your £5,000 car. It has a couple of dents here and there that weren’t there yesterday, but you've still got the same sticker on the window, £5,000 it proudly declares. Think you’ll ever get that now?
That dented car of yours is Sterling. These are just the first view visible dents. The difference is it has been ready for the knackers yard for years, the rot was just hidden under the shiny exterior, but any decent mechanic would walk away from it asking if you’re insane. MOT; No chance mate, but there’s a bloke in the next village who, for fifty quid like….
We’re now at the point where even the bloke in the next village won’t touch it.
For the UK and Sterling, it means this time it won’t recover.
Expect the pound to continue to devalue. After all, it has for over eighty years. The ability to devalue the pound and thereby steal our savings is the primary reason that Westminster didn't join the Euro.
We've all heard and seen the unrest in Greece; in many instances the United Kingdom’s press have given the Greek people short shrift in terms of sympathy. The Irish have been the media’s financial whipping boy. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians have all been slated and derided by the papers. Whereas, for most of the UK’s self vaunted media, the Italian’s have always been good for a joke; the Spanish and Portuguese seem to me largely ignored.
It may take once-mighty Britannia a decade more to be in such a condition that Greece looks like a safe haven. It may only take a few months. The United Kingdom’s per capita and national debt burden is fast outstripping that of Greece. Don’t doubt it, Greece’s debt load stands at less than 70% of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP.
What about Italy, Spain and Portugal? They are likewise positioned with debt about 75% of the UK’s. Only Ireland, another favourite punching bag of the UK media, is actually worse. However, we’re entering the home stretch and the nag in green white and gold isn’t the favourite in this race anymore. With the finishing posts ahead, the cuddy in red white and blue is set to come thundering down the home stretch. That poor old Irish nag seems like it hasn't got a hope of staying in front.
Except this is a race to poverty, to national penury and isn’t a race anyone really wants to win, is it?
The reality of the situation is that no matter who is elected to Westminster, the average individual is going to get screwed.
Westminster can barely service its debts right now. If interest rates climbed just a little, say to the historical norms of five percent, then Germany’s old Weimar Republic where wheelbarrows were needed to carry the cash to buy a loaf of bread might look like a wonderful place to have lived. Our debt burden is already worse than that of the Weimar Republic.
So, why has the crash not already happened?
It has begun, but most people want to play the ostrich. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand long enough, we might fool the lion and he won’t actually bite us on the behind. Sadly, the lion has the luxury to decide when the ideal time will be to bite us. The only thing we know is that his jaws will snap shut someday soon, and when it does out collective behookie is going to hurt like hell.
Social upheaval, no jobs, riots, deprivation and hunger are possibly the nicer parts of what lies ahead, if we don’t get our act together. Mr. Osborne’s current attitude of “it’ll be alright” and Westminster’s continual “Nothing to see here folks, move along” are even bigger lies than Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” declaration in 1938. Six years of “peace” broke out the following year in September. Chamberlain’s piece of paper had as much true worth as that printed by the Bank of England today.
Consider at the time of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, still in living memory for some, that one pound of sterling bought one pound of silver. At the time of writing the value of silver is £300 per pound. Where did the other £299 go?
It was neatly pochled by Westminster, through that cunning mechanism “inflation”.
Surely, we may think, the value of silver has just risen incredibly? No, it hasn't At that time five hundred pounds, sterling or silver, bought a modestly sized family home. Five hundred pounds of silver today will still buy that £150,000 home. And what about the £1 note from 1932? Well there is not a coin small enough in the treasury’s inventory that I could now trade it for. It is worth a fraction more than one old ha’penny. They have legally devalued that £1 to nothing viable in today’s currency; only in Westminster.
Remember, in the five centuries prior to World War One, inflation was by all comparisons, nonexistent.
The only way the United Kingdom is surviving today is by borrowing. Where do the banks get the money they lend to the government? Essentially, it’s invested savings. You put your extra cash (if you are one of the lucky folks to have any) in the bank to save. The bank loans it to the government at less than 2%, sometimes less than 1%. Inflation has swung from over 5% to less than 3% in the last seventeen months. That means your bank is loaning to your government at a guaranteed loss.
There have even been instances of late when some governments have been able to borrow money at negative interest rates. Although, not Westminster, they’re not “safe enough”. Effectively, the investment firms supplying that money have been willing to guarantee their investors i.e. you, an instant loss for the so-called safe keeping of your money. In other words, well managed economies are actually being paid to borrow your money.
The United Kingdom passed the point of no return about five years ago and has been hovering around there, barely surviving, making payments, but not cancelling debt.
The problem is those interest payments, those billions upon billions paid every year are our new hospitals, schools and our infrastructure. Our future.
Westminster is bankrupt, arguably it’s fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Like the destitute old lord in the crumbling manor, it is time to sell the family silverware. Except, we are the only silverware Westminster has. Our savings, our pensions, our health service, our children’s education. Like any government in history, Westminster has only one option; its people and their pockets.
This fiscal tsunami will be released in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it won’t be released until after the 2014 referendum. If Scots vote YES, which appears to be the intelligent course of action, it could well be released with early. After all, the release of this tidal wave will only require a very modest 1.5% change in the interest rates, and we've all seen that happen on countless occasions in our adult lifetimes.
Any way you look at it, promoting a “Sterling Zone” is insanity incarnate.
The Scots Pound is already in circulation. We need to resurrect it as a world currency once more. As many economists have pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult. Let our money float, or tie it with other currencies, any currency - except Sterling.
Our choice is simple, since no nation in history has ever recovered from the UK’s debt load; we have to vote Yes to survive or we vote No for long term debt, poverty and bankruptcy.
Scotland needs to dump the pound faster than a drowning diver needs to dump his weight belt.
The recent downgrading to Sterling brings only one question, posed by the French almost a year ago, and that is, why has it not happened long, long before now?
In the last week I saw the value of my income plummet. For argument’s sake let’s say I get £725 a month. That’s what it was last month anyway, or last time I drew it out. Today they handed me £688. This was, they said, due to the fact the £ plummeted against the $ after the downgrade.
My account said £725 had been deposited, the bank gave me £688, there’s a problem when my bills are £700. The ends no longer meet in the middle. I’m now worse than broke.
Anyone not relying on foreign exchange rates may see it as a minor thing, but with pretty much everything made overseas these days it simply means, in Scotland, when the current supplies on the shelves run out, the new ones are going to cost more. We are all two months away from losing that real money.
In about ninety days, and much less for many items, that £725 a month in every pocket will soon become £688. It will still say £725 on the statement, so we’ll fool ourselves. But at the end of the day if it doesn’t buy anyone what £725 did a month ago, how can you argue it’s still £725?
Let’s invent a little scenario. You’re selling your car, you want £5,000, but you drove it this morning and had a wee fender-bender and slightly bent the chassis – but it still looks not too bad. Hey, it’s still your £5,000 car. It has a couple of dents here and there that weren’t there yesterday, but you've still got the same sticker on the window, £5,000 it proudly declares. Think you’ll ever get that now?
That dented car of yours is Sterling. These are just the first view visible dents. The difference is it has been ready for the knackers yard for years, the rot was just hidden under the shiny exterior, but any decent mechanic would walk away from it asking if you’re insane. MOT; No chance mate, but there’s a bloke in the next village who, for fifty quid like….
We’re now at the point where even the bloke in the next village won’t touch it.
For the UK and Sterling, it means this time it won’t recover.
Expect the pound to continue to devalue. After all, it has for over eighty years. The ability to devalue the pound and thereby steal our savings is the primary reason that Westminster didn't join the Euro.
We've all heard and seen the unrest in Greece; in many instances the United Kingdom’s press have given the Greek people short shrift in terms of sympathy. The Irish have been the media’s financial whipping boy. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians have all been slated and derided by the papers. Whereas, for most of the UK’s self vaunted media, the Italian’s have always been good for a joke; the Spanish and Portuguese seem to me largely ignored.
It may take once-mighty Britannia a decade more to be in such a condition that Greece looks like a safe haven. It may only take a few months. The United Kingdom’s per capita and national debt burden is fast outstripping that of Greece. Don’t doubt it, Greece’s debt load stands at less than 70% of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP.
What about Italy, Spain and Portugal? They are likewise positioned with debt about 75% of the UK’s. Only Ireland, another favourite punching bag of the UK media, is actually worse. However, we’re entering the home stretch and the nag in green white and gold isn’t the favourite in this race anymore. With the finishing posts ahead, the cuddy in red white and blue is set to come thundering down the home stretch. That poor old Irish nag seems like it hasn't got a hope of staying in front.
Except this is a race to poverty, to national penury and isn’t a race anyone really wants to win, is it?
The reality of the situation is that no matter who is elected to Westminster, the average individual is going to get screwed.
Westminster can barely service its debts right now. If interest rates climbed just a little, say to the historical norms of five percent, then Germany’s old Weimar Republic where wheelbarrows were needed to carry the cash to buy a loaf of bread might look like a wonderful place to have lived. Our debt burden is already worse than that of the Weimar Republic.
So, why has the crash not already happened?
It has begun, but most people want to play the ostrich. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand long enough, we might fool the lion and he won’t actually bite us on the behind. Sadly, the lion has the luxury to decide when the ideal time will be to bite us. The only thing we know is that his jaws will snap shut someday soon, and when it does out collective behookie is going to hurt like hell.
Social upheaval, no jobs, riots, deprivation and hunger are possibly the nicer parts of what lies ahead, if we don’t get our act together. Mr. Osborne’s current attitude of “it’ll be alright” and Westminster’s continual “Nothing to see here folks, move along” are even bigger lies than Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” declaration in 1938. Six years of “peace” broke out the following year in September. Chamberlain’s piece of paper had as much true worth as that printed by the Bank of England today.
Consider at the time of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, still in living memory for some, that one pound of sterling bought one pound of silver. At the time of writing the value of silver is £300 per pound. Where did the other £299 go?
It was neatly pochled by Westminster, through that cunning mechanism “inflation”.
Surely, we may think, the value of silver has just risen incredibly? No, it hasn't At that time five hundred pounds, sterling or silver, bought a modestly sized family home. Five hundred pounds of silver today will still buy that £150,000 home. And what about the £1 note from 1932? Well there is not a coin small enough in the treasury’s inventory that I could now trade it for. It is worth a fraction more than one old ha’penny. They have legally devalued that £1 to nothing viable in today’s currency; only in Westminster.
Remember, in the five centuries prior to World War One, inflation was by all comparisons, nonexistent.
The only way the United Kingdom is surviving today is by borrowing. Where do the banks get the money they lend to the government? Essentially, it’s invested savings. You put your extra cash (if you are one of the lucky folks to have any) in the bank to save. The bank loans it to the government at less than 2%, sometimes less than 1%. Inflation has swung from over 5% to less than 3% in the last seventeen months. That means your bank is loaning to your government at a guaranteed loss.
There have even been instances of late when some governments have been able to borrow money at negative interest rates. Although, not Westminster, they’re not “safe enough”. Effectively, the investment firms supplying that money have been willing to guarantee their investors i.e. you, an instant loss for the so-called safe keeping of your money. In other words, well managed economies are actually being paid to borrow your money.
The United Kingdom passed the point of no return about five years ago and has been hovering around there, barely surviving, making payments, but not cancelling debt.
The problem is those interest payments, those billions upon billions paid every year are our new hospitals, schools and our infrastructure. Our future.
Westminster is bankrupt, arguably it’s fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Like the destitute old lord in the crumbling manor, it is time to sell the family silverware. Except, we are the only silverware Westminster has. Our savings, our pensions, our health service, our children’s education. Like any government in history, Westminster has only one option; its people and their pockets.
This fiscal tsunami will be released in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it won’t be released until after the 2014 referendum. If Scots vote YES, which appears to be the intelligent course of action, it could well be released with early. After all, the release of this tidal wave will only require a very modest 1.5% change in the interest rates, and we've all seen that happen on countless occasions in our adult lifetimes.
Any way you look at it, promoting a “Sterling Zone” is insanity incarnate.
The Scots Pound is already in circulation. We need to resurrect it as a world currency once more. As many economists have pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult. Let our money float, or tie it with other currencies, any currency - except Sterling.
Our choice is simple, since no nation in history has ever recovered from the UK’s debt load; we have to vote Yes to survive or we vote No for long term debt, poverty and bankruptcy.
Monday, 1 October 2012
Either Holyrood or Westminster must go.
That’s the problem with devolution – it just doesn't work. It’s either got to be an all or nothing scenario for any state, or some type of federal set up where the nations run their own affairs but contribute to a joint “Uber-administration” in which each nation has an absolutely equal say, like the US senate.
Johann Lamont and her London bosses know this also, as do the Tories and Lib-Dem’s. If we understand that 2014 is ultimately, in Westminster’s eyes, an either / or referendum we can begin to understand the recent labour speech in Scotland, it was designed to bring our nation into line with England. If we vote no, the signal is strong, devolution is dead, there actually will be no need for devolution, and we’ll be just like England.
In the event of a “Yes” vote, Ms. Lamont’s speech of last Tuesday is irrelevant, we all know it.
If the insanity of a “No” vote comes to pass, we will simply be informed that we were very clearly told what to expect. Do not doubt it. It will come to pass.
This will happen because the UK and EU are not federal institutions; they don’t even pretend to be. It is therefore baffling why any small nation would sign up to either, effectively volunteering for a jackboot across the jugular.
Proportionate representation across nations just doesn’t work – folks don’t mind in the good times, but when the bad times bite the coin flips to a “who are they to dictate?” type scenario. Fractures erupt.
That either Holyrood or Westminster must go is self evident. As a glaring example, and there have been many from the Megrahi affair to planning permission, and not including Ms. Lamont’s apparently insane speech last week, please look at just one headline in the latest Sunday Herald concerning the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces.
More important for the purpose of this article is the lead in sentence from the headline.
“SCOTLAND's single police force is facing "horrendous" cuts worth £300 million over the next three-and-a-half years, according to official figures leaked to the Sunday Herald”.
Wow, now that’s an attention grabber and no mistake, thousands of jobs must go to make that type of saving possible. The implication, wrongly, is that it’s Holyrood’s fault.
Frankly the cuts to the police force where services are duplicated can only be a good thing, it saves the taxpayer money. Accelerating the cuts is a very bad thing, John Swinney knows this, but he can’t avoid Westminster’s diktat.
In this amalgamation every reasoning Scot must surely applaud the Scottish government. A single police force for a nation of five million is eminently sensible.
The speed of the cuts and their human consequences is certainly not a good thing; that is a direct result of devolution.
With the austerity measures being forced upon us by decades of Westminster bungling, corruption and ineptitude, resulting in Holyrood budget cuts, John Swinney was put into an impossible position. His budget has been reduced; he has to make efficiencies and cuts.
The problem is that there’s a human side to these efficiencies and cuts, and it can and will have dramatic individual consequences. Take the USA for example, the recession/depression hit in 2008. They do counting tricks like Westminster, if you’re not actively looking for work, you’re not officially unemployed. If you give up, you don’t count.
This has allowed the US to keep its official unemployment figures from reaching outlandish levels; meantime for young adults suicide has just passed vehicular accidents as the leading cause of death for the first time ever.
There is always a human cost.
John Swinney has been put into a position where he has to pass the human cost onto Westminster, to hope that they take care of it, because he simply can’t. With devolution he doesn’t need to worry about social security, Westminster simply won’t allow him that luxury.
These thousands of newly unemployed, from the police merger alone that will hit the dole must still be cared for in the greater context of our societal obligations. Or not, but the “or not” is not John Swinney’s concern – it’s not his budget responsibility.
This is a glaring example of why devolution simply doesn’t work, why anything but a partnership of equals simply doesn’t work.
Conversely, this is why independence does and will work.
Under devolution we now have a situation where the governing Westminster party’s ineptitude and ignorance is forcing cuts. Swinney can impose cuts of this scale simply because it’s not his budget that has to underwrite them.
Really, really think about this for a minute, it’s devolution in action.
Westminster is incompetent.
Westminster forces Holyrood to enact savage cuts as a direct result of Westminster’s incompetence.
Holyrood, which has absolutely no choice, passes along these cuts. The police forces [in this case] are merged at a grossly accelerated rate and thousands are unemployed.
These thousands become unemployed so fast the private side can’t accommodate.
There’s a labour glut which gets worse, this helps drive salaries backwards in real terms.
Holyrood meets its budget as imposed upon it by Westminster.
This is a devolved settlement. This is Westminster control. Holyrood has no options.
However, what isn’t obvious is that the responsibility for these thousands doesn’t go away and as private industry can’t absorb that many that quickly, what exactly is their fate?
Under devolution the answer is simple, they go on Welfare, support, buroo, social, call it what you will. These multitudes have just become Westminster’s responsibility.
It’s why devolution doesn’t work and independence must happen. Westminster just forced Holyrood to meet its budget.
Except in forcing Holyrood to meet its budget, Westminster just ensured it can’t live within its own budget.
Westminster must now cut benefits or borrow more – either way it’s doing things a nation or the impacted individuals can’t afford. London’s kick-started a vicious cycle, the casualties will be many, but is acceptable in London because their voices are small.
What existed under devolution was hidden in the times of plenty, but when famine strikes the cracks yawn wide.
Westminster is well aware of the situation, so is Holyrood. One government or the other must go, there’s no option except mutual bankruptcy unless devolution consists solely of a puppet administration.
As there is no longer a puppet administration, neither Westminster nor Holyrood wishes to see bankruptcy. Both are banking on 2014. Both must secure Scotland for themselves. That is the truth of referendum 2014. Only with Holyrood is there an opportunity to ensure we will look after our own interests.
In an independent Scotland as with any prudent nation, budgets would be somewhat controlled; it is probable we will not be as heavily impacted by fortune’s variables. Irrespective we know one thing. If Holyrood had to make the choice between a slower more orderly and better managed draw down of surplus staff, or be faced with the welfare bill for those it had just made unemployed, we could expect any sane administration to opt for the more orderly draw down.
The current police amalgamation is providing a snapshot of the reality of devolution; it doesn’t work. The only point to suffering the ignominy of a devolved or supported administration is if that administration is but a step on the path to a rightful reassertion of statehood.
If the path leads anywhere else, it’s pointless.
Holyrood or Westminster – 2014 will be the year of decision, the choice is that simple.
Unless you are advocating the end of Holyrood as anything but a parish council, unless you want an end to Scotland’s parliament, there’s only one option.
Johann Lamont and her London bosses know this also, as do the Tories and Lib-Dem’s. If we understand that 2014 is ultimately, in Westminster’s eyes, an either / or referendum we can begin to understand the recent labour speech in Scotland, it was designed to bring our nation into line with England. If we vote no, the signal is strong, devolution is dead, there actually will be no need for devolution, and we’ll be just like England.
In the event of a “Yes” vote, Ms. Lamont’s speech of last Tuesday is irrelevant, we all know it.
If the insanity of a “No” vote comes to pass, we will simply be informed that we were very clearly told what to expect. Do not doubt it. It will come to pass.
This will happen because the UK and EU are not federal institutions; they don’t even pretend to be. It is therefore baffling why any small nation would sign up to either, effectively volunteering for a jackboot across the jugular.
Proportionate representation across nations just doesn’t work – folks don’t mind in the good times, but when the bad times bite the coin flips to a “who are they to dictate?” type scenario. Fractures erupt.
That either Holyrood or Westminster must go is self evident. As a glaring example, and there have been many from the Megrahi affair to planning permission, and not including Ms. Lamont’s apparently insane speech last week, please look at just one headline in the latest Sunday Herald concerning the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces.
More important for the purpose of this article is the lead in sentence from the headline.
“SCOTLAND's single police force is facing "horrendous" cuts worth £300 million over the next three-and-a-half years, according to official figures leaked to the Sunday Herald”.
Wow, now that’s an attention grabber and no mistake, thousands of jobs must go to make that type of saving possible. The implication, wrongly, is that it’s Holyrood’s fault.
Frankly the cuts to the police force where services are duplicated can only be a good thing, it saves the taxpayer money. Accelerating the cuts is a very bad thing, John Swinney knows this, but he can’t avoid Westminster’s diktat.
In this amalgamation every reasoning Scot must surely applaud the Scottish government. A single police force for a nation of five million is eminently sensible.
The speed of the cuts and their human consequences is certainly not a good thing; that is a direct result of devolution.
With the austerity measures being forced upon us by decades of Westminster bungling, corruption and ineptitude, resulting in Holyrood budget cuts, John Swinney was put into an impossible position. His budget has been reduced; he has to make efficiencies and cuts.
The problem is that there’s a human side to these efficiencies and cuts, and it can and will have dramatic individual consequences. Take the USA for example, the recession/depression hit in 2008. They do counting tricks like Westminster, if you’re not actively looking for work, you’re not officially unemployed. If you give up, you don’t count.
This has allowed the US to keep its official unemployment figures from reaching outlandish levels; meantime for young adults suicide has just passed vehicular accidents as the leading cause of death for the first time ever.
There is always a human cost.
John Swinney has been put into a position where he has to pass the human cost onto Westminster, to hope that they take care of it, because he simply can’t. With devolution he doesn’t need to worry about social security, Westminster simply won’t allow him that luxury.
These thousands of newly unemployed, from the police merger alone that will hit the dole must still be cared for in the greater context of our societal obligations. Or not, but the “or not” is not John Swinney’s concern – it’s not his budget responsibility.
This is a glaring example of why devolution simply doesn’t work, why anything but a partnership of equals simply doesn’t work.
Conversely, this is why independence does and will work.
Under devolution we now have a situation where the governing Westminster party’s ineptitude and ignorance is forcing cuts. Swinney can impose cuts of this scale simply because it’s not his budget that has to underwrite them.
Really, really think about this for a minute, it’s devolution in action.
Westminster is incompetent.
Westminster forces Holyrood to enact savage cuts as a direct result of Westminster’s incompetence.
Holyrood, which has absolutely no choice, passes along these cuts. The police forces [in this case] are merged at a grossly accelerated rate and thousands are unemployed.
These thousands become unemployed so fast the private side can’t accommodate.
There’s a labour glut which gets worse, this helps drive salaries backwards in real terms.
Holyrood meets its budget as imposed upon it by Westminster.
This is a devolved settlement. This is Westminster control. Holyrood has no options.
However, what isn’t obvious is that the responsibility for these thousands doesn’t go away and as private industry can’t absorb that many that quickly, what exactly is their fate?
Under devolution the answer is simple, they go on Welfare, support, buroo, social, call it what you will. These multitudes have just become Westminster’s responsibility.
It’s why devolution doesn’t work and independence must happen. Westminster just forced Holyrood to meet its budget.
Except in forcing Holyrood to meet its budget, Westminster just ensured it can’t live within its own budget.
Westminster must now cut benefits or borrow more – either way it’s doing things a nation or the impacted individuals can’t afford. London’s kick-started a vicious cycle, the casualties will be many, but is acceptable in London because their voices are small.
What existed under devolution was hidden in the times of plenty, but when famine strikes the cracks yawn wide.
Westminster is well aware of the situation, so is Holyrood. One government or the other must go, there’s no option except mutual bankruptcy unless devolution consists solely of a puppet administration.
As there is no longer a puppet administration, neither Westminster nor Holyrood wishes to see bankruptcy. Both are banking on 2014. Both must secure Scotland for themselves. That is the truth of referendum 2014. Only with Holyrood is there an opportunity to ensure we will look after our own interests.
In an independent Scotland as with any prudent nation, budgets would be somewhat controlled; it is probable we will not be as heavily impacted by fortune’s variables. Irrespective we know one thing. If Holyrood had to make the choice between a slower more orderly and better managed draw down of surplus staff, or be faced with the welfare bill for those it had just made unemployed, we could expect any sane administration to opt for the more orderly draw down.
The current police amalgamation is providing a snapshot of the reality of devolution; it doesn’t work. The only point to suffering the ignominy of a devolved or supported administration is if that administration is but a step on the path to a rightful reassertion of statehood.
If the path leads anywhere else, it’s pointless.
Holyrood or Westminster – 2014 will be the year of decision, the choice is that simple.
Unless you are advocating the end of Holyrood as anything but a parish council, unless you want an end to Scotland’s parliament, there’s only one option.
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
Britain’s Unequal Society – where you can be stopped from marrying.
Didn't we all have a wonderful day at the march in Edinburgh on Saturday? I know I did. However I’ve decided I won’t blog about it as many others will and I reckon they will do it admirably. Therefore, back to the blog in hand.
No, the title is not a typo. The United Kingdom, David Cameron’s vaunted golden land, home to the latest Olympics, proclaimed as a beacon of democracy, the “Mother of Parliaments”, and a place of freedom and enlightenment.
What Westminster projects, acclaims and espouses continues to walk farther and farther from reality as each new initiative passes. Administration after administration, Labour, Conservative or coalition, the steps made to equalise society between 1945 and 1965 have been eroded.
When it comes to inequality, we in good ol’ Blightey universally rank in the top ten, it really doesn’t matter which indices are checked, the butcher’s apron is right there nudging the top of the list.
This is not the dream of the average person.
The latest raft of policies and proposed new immigration laws being brought to the legislative table proposed or under serious consideration includes such issues as special immigration lines for “high value individuals”. The only time that any individual should gain precedence in any system is for either a medical emergency or a credible threat to wellbeing.
Saving twenty minutes because your cheque book is fatter should never be a consideration.
Then there’s the new immigration laws, they amount to an obscenity of inequality. A system whereby Scots are additionally unfairly treated in comparison to the South East. In fact, this is a situation where everyone else in these unequal shores is treated in a discriminatory fashion with respect to London.
The laws appear equitable on the surface, setting basic income thresholds for certain immigration criteria. That appears fine at first glance until one understands that there’s no national or regional differentiation allowed.
The unequal aspects that need addressed, but will not be, aren’t those where someone willing to put £5 million into a UK bank gets two years shaved off their residency requirements, or 3 years off for really good behaviour, AKA a £10 million deposit.
No, the unequal aspect that really needs addressed is the effective marriage ban on anyone making less than about $22,000 a year. That’s right, meet, love, marry whomever you want, but if you make less than £22,400 a year you won’t be living in the UK.
Home Office
This overall provision makes even the United States draconian immigration laws look positively benevolent.
Where it gets worse is that £22,000 isn’t the same dependent upon where you live. Londoner’s have much higher salaries, employeebenefits.co.uk notes that salaries paid to Londoner’s are £10,000 higher than those paid to the rest of the UK.
In simple English, or in Westminster speak if preferred, a mechanic in Putney can get married to his Sweetheart, a mechanic in Peebles, Powys or Peterlee can’t. A hairdresser in Southall has no issues with her beau, but stylists in Saltcoats, Saltney or Skipton are pretty much left without a hope.
These are real people, real lives and real discrimination.
How long will it be before the human rights act gets invoked over this legislation is a question worth asking, until one considers that the initiation of any legal action takes money, and in the case of human rights law usually a lot of money, and the legal aid budget is being decimated.
So the Tory, Lib-Dem coalition is again targeting those who are the most vulnerable in our society while effectively working to prevent them having the means to defend themselves.
The Cameron-Clegg message is clear, if you go on holiday, volunteer overseas, or simply like to travel, don’t date.
Democracy in action, equality in action, big society in action, Westminster style.
No, the title is not a typo. The United Kingdom, David Cameron’s vaunted golden land, home to the latest Olympics, proclaimed as a beacon of democracy, the “Mother of Parliaments”, and a place of freedom and enlightenment.
What Westminster projects, acclaims and espouses continues to walk farther and farther from reality as each new initiative passes. Administration after administration, Labour, Conservative or coalition, the steps made to equalise society between 1945 and 1965 have been eroded.
When it comes to inequality, we in good ol’ Blightey universally rank in the top ten, it really doesn’t matter which indices are checked, the butcher’s apron is right there nudging the top of the list.
This is not the dream of the average person.
The latest raft of policies and proposed new immigration laws being brought to the legislative table proposed or under serious consideration includes such issues as special immigration lines for “high value individuals”. The only time that any individual should gain precedence in any system is for either a medical emergency or a credible threat to wellbeing.
Saving twenty minutes because your cheque book is fatter should never be a consideration.
Then there’s the new immigration laws, they amount to an obscenity of inequality. A system whereby Scots are additionally unfairly treated in comparison to the South East. In fact, this is a situation where everyone else in these unequal shores is treated in a discriminatory fashion with respect to London.
The laws appear equitable on the surface, setting basic income thresholds for certain immigration criteria. That appears fine at first glance until one understands that there’s no national or regional differentiation allowed.
The unequal aspects that need addressed, but will not be, aren’t those where someone willing to put £5 million into a UK bank gets two years shaved off their residency requirements, or 3 years off for really good behaviour, AKA a £10 million deposit.
No, the unequal aspect that really needs addressed is the effective marriage ban on anyone making less than about $22,000 a year. That’s right, meet, love, marry whomever you want, but if you make less than £22,400 a year you won’t be living in the UK.
Home Office
This overall provision makes even the United States draconian immigration laws look positively benevolent.
Where it gets worse is that £22,000 isn’t the same dependent upon where you live. Londoner’s have much higher salaries, employeebenefits.co.uk notes that salaries paid to Londoner’s are £10,000 higher than those paid to the rest of the UK.
In simple English, or in Westminster speak if preferred, a mechanic in Putney can get married to his Sweetheart, a mechanic in Peebles, Powys or Peterlee can’t. A hairdresser in Southall has no issues with her beau, but stylists in Saltcoats, Saltney or Skipton are pretty much left without a hope.
These are real people, real lives and real discrimination.
How long will it be before the human rights act gets invoked over this legislation is a question worth asking, until one considers that the initiation of any legal action takes money, and in the case of human rights law usually a lot of money, and the legal aid budget is being decimated.
So the Tory, Lib-Dem coalition is again targeting those who are the most vulnerable in our society while effectively working to prevent them having the means to defend themselves.
The Cameron-Clegg message is clear, if you go on holiday, volunteer overseas, or simply like to travel, don’t date.
Democracy in action, equality in action, big society in action, Westminster style.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Dissecting the McCrone Report, the official secret of Westminster
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”.
The McCrone report is a document often referred to by Nationalists or those generally in favour of the restoration of Scotland’s sovereign powers as something of a mystic Holy Grail with regards to proving Westminster's lies and deceit.
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”.
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.
The McCrone report is a document often referred to by Nationalists or those generally in favour of the restoration of Scotland’s sovereign powers as something of a mystic Holy Grail with regards to proving Westminster's lies and deceit.
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”.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)