A reply to the celebs letter from Steven McBrien of Glasgow.

This is so well written and says everything that any one of us would have wished to have said to these people, given the opportunity. So much so, in fact, that I just had to re-blog it. My thanks to Steven McBrien for this great piece of writing:

Dear William Dalrymple, Eddie Izzard, Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Mick Jagger, Jenny Agutter, Sir Ben Ainslie, Kriss Akabusi, Roger Allam, Kirstie Allsop, Alexander Armstrong, Sir David Attenborough, Steve Backley, Baroness Joan Bakewell, Frances Barber, Andy Barrow, John Barrowman, Mike Batt, Glen Baxter, David Aaronovitch, Helena Bonham-Carter, Stanley Baxter, Martin Bayfield, Mary Beard, Sarah Beeny, Anthony Beevor, Angelica Bell,Dickie Bird, Cilla Black, Graeme Black, Roger Black, Malorie Blackman, Ranjit Bolt, Alain de Botton, William Boyd, Tracey Brabin, Lord Melvyn Bragg, Jo Brand, Gyles Brandreth, Rob Brydon, Louisa Buck, Simon Callow, Will Carling, Paul Cartledge, Guy Chambers, Nick Cohen, Michelle Collins, Colonel Tim Collins, Olivia Colman, Charlie Condou, Susannah Constantine, Steve Coogan, Dominic Cooper, Ronnie Corbett, Simon Cowell, Jason Cowley, Sara Cox, Amanda Craig, Steve Cram, Richard Curtis, Tom Daley, Richard Dawkins, Dame Judi Dench, Jeremy Deller, Lord Michael Dobbs, Jimmy Doherty, Michael Douglas, Simon Easterby, Gareth Edwards, Jonathan Edwards, Tracey Emin, Sebastian Faulks, Bryan Ferry, Ranulph Fiennes, Ben Fogle, Sir Bruce Forsyth, Amanda Foreman, Neil Fox, Emma Freud, Bernard Gallacher, Kirsty Gallacher, George Galloway, Sir John Eliot Gardiner, Bamber Gascoigne, David Gilmour, Harvey Goldsmith, David Goodhart, Lachlan Goudie, David Gower, AC Grayling, Will Greenwood, Tamsin Greig, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Lord Charles Guthrie, Haydn Gwynne, Maggi Hambling, Mehdi Hasan, Sir Max Hastings, Peter Hennessy, James Holland, Tom Holland, Tom Hollander, Gloria Hunniford, Conn Iggledun, John Illsley, Brendan Ingle, Betty Jackson, Sir Mike Jackson, Howard Jacobson, Baroness PD James, Griff Rhys Jones, Terry Jones, Christopher Kane, Sir Anish Kapoor, Ross Kemp, Paul Kenny, Jemima Khan, India Knight, Martha Lane Fox, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Tory Lawrence, Kathy Lette, Rod Liddle, Louise Linton, John Lloyd (the journalist), John Lloyd ( the producer), Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, Gabby Logan, Kenny Logan, Sarah Lucas, Dame Vera Lynn, James May, Margaret MacMillan, Stephen Mangan, Davina McCall, Sir Ian McGeechan, Heather McGregor, Andy McNab, John Michie, David Mitchell, Lord John Monks, Lewis Moody, Michael Morpurgo, Bill Morris, David Morrissey, Philip Mould, Al Murray, Neil Stuke, Sir Paul Nurse, Andy Nyman, Peter Oborne, Sir Michael Parkinson, Fiona Phillips, Andy Puddicombe, Lord David Puttnam, Anita Rani, Esther Rantzen, Sir Steve Redgrave, Derek Redmond, Pete Reed, Lord Martin Rees, Peter Reid, Baroness Ruth Rendell, Sir Cliff Richard, Hugo Rifkind, Sir Tony Robinson, David Rowntree, Ian Rush, Greg Rutherford, CJ Sansom, June Sarpong, Simon Schama, John Sessions, Sandie Shaw, Helen Skelton, Sir Tim Smit, Dan Snow, Peter Snow, Phil Spencer, David Starkey, Lord Jock Stirrup, Neil Stuke, Sting, Tallia Storm, David Suchet, Alan Sugar, Graeme Swann, Stella Tennant, Daley Thompson, Alan Titchmarsh, James Timpson, Kevin Toolis, Lynne Truss, Gavin Turk, Roger Uttley, David Walliams, Zoë Wanamaker, Robert Webb, Richard Wentworth, Sir Alan West, Dominic West and Kevin Whateley,

I would like to express my hearty and sincere thanks to you all for your stated concern that myself and my countrymen remain in the United Kingdom. I was just heading back from my job (the job where I earn under eight quid an hour for working with people with learning disabilities) and passing the local food bank when I heard the news, namely, that you were so concerned that we might leave the UK that you had all deigned to write your names on a piece of paper.

I was delighted to hear this news, so transported, in fact, that I temporarily forgot about the nuclear stockpile that's a mere 25 miles away from my front door, and so giddy with the receipt of this beneficence that I almost forgot that I could spend my remaining English tenners up here as no-one up here has any kind of problem with accepting English money. I write to inform you all that the fact that a bunch of millionaires and multi-millionaires who have, on the whole, exhibited total disinterest, and, in some cases (Mr Curtis, Mr Starkey) outright contempt for my country, its denizens and its history were so thoughtful as to sign a piece of paper has forced me to totally review my lifelong pro-independence stance.

I realise and understand completely that you all probably know more about the situation in Scotland than the people of Scotland do; after all, you're all really famous, and we're none too bright up here, you know, apart from inventing television, the refrigerator, canals, bicycles, chloroform, fingerprinting, animal cloning, fax machines, microwaves and magnetrons, adhesive postage stamps, tubular steel, pneumatic tyres, radar, propellers, ATM machines and PIN codes, the telephone, the condensing steam engine, tarmac, penning such unremarkable gewgaws as Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Jekyll and Hyde, discovering penicillin, founding the US Navy, establishing Universal Standard Time, adumbrating the Rankine Thermodynamic Cycle, establishing the foundation of modern economics thanks to Adam Smith, abetting in the foundation of sociology as a modern science thanks to Adam Ferguson, discovering the nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri, discovering and linking the Noble Gases, establishing the Kelvin unit of temperature, inventing MRI machines, discovering the vaccine for typhoid, helping to establish general anaesthetic in medical procedure, inventing the electric clock in 1840 and the flush-toilet in 1775, devising the foundations of the Bank of England and the Bank of France, taking the world's first ever colour photograph, and various other trifles. We really do need to be reminded that these are mere dilettante efforts; governing ourselves is an entirely different matter. As the good folks at Better Together have told us on numerous occasions, we, alone among the nations of the planet Earth, and despite abundant-to-the-point-of-overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not be capable of this.

On that note, I should like to take a few lines to address the Better Together campaign now, as you have all, through your signing of this hallowed document, tacitly aligned your good selves with the efforts of that noble organisation. Despite what you may have heard, Better Together have, throughout the last few years, been a shining example of truth-telling and reassurance. Those accusations, slung by those vicious people who state facts, that their campaign has been nothing more than a random farrago of shrill, terror-inducing and panic-peddling doomsday prophecies, saturated throughout with slander, half-truths, quarter-truths, outright lies and an irrelevant hate-obsession with one man, are, as I now see, totally exaggerated. They were right all along. The debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond (yes, that debate, the debate that was described by pundits as one of the most important debates in modern political history, but which you probably didn't even see, because it wasn't televised in England, thanks to the equally unbiased British media) showed us all that modern UK politics is in rude health, with three main parties who should be occupying totally different strata of the political spectrum uniting as one to remind us that Alex Salmond is nothing less than the devil in pudgy form and that we are inherently incapable of governing ourselves, before, in a coup de grace, offering to give us as a nation more powers if we as a nation refuse more powers. They are simply a beacon of logic and compassion. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the BBC, who unthinkingly took time out from their busy schedule of covering up the sundry paedophiles and abusers of vulnerable adults who were protected and celebrated by them to alternately ignore us completely/refuse to broadcast facts/remind us up here that we don't matter.

As for having some of the finest exports on Earth, we are fully cognisant that this will not help. And the oil? We'll just follow Westminster's lead and shut up about the oil, and the possibility of joining the rest of the world in actually setting up an oil fund if we got independence, as we don't want to annoy anyone. Besides it doesn't matter: we don't want independence anyway, because we can't do it.

We should also be reminded that a constitution that is increasingly alone among the nations of the civilised world in never having been drawn up or cohesively codified (with the result that if I were a practicing rather than a lapsed Catholic, I could not be Prime Minister, and if I were to go out walking to an archery contest in York clutching a bow and arrow, it would be perfectly legal to kill me) is the way to go in terms of governance, that Martin Luther King and the rest of them were just kidding about all women and men being equal and deserving an equal chance, when in fact, the Royal Family is inherently better than the rest of us because their ancestors chopped people up really effectively. That must be why so many of you have taken knighthoods, damehoods, lordships and peerages. Yes, that explains it. You are all such enlightened and selfless individuals, there is clearly nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to defend your Kingdom; to the extent that, in some cases, such as that of Sir Tony Robinson, you have even been willing to sacrifice your own principles to defend it.

The financial system of the United Kingdom that you defend so valiantly, you know, that one were the banks and corporations do whatever they want and pay their executives outrageous salaries only to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the inevitable bust comes along, the one that enriches the obscenely rich while enslaving the vast majority of the population, is the envy of the world. This, in turn, must account for the shocking appearance, in one or two cases, of signatories of this document who are not in fact millionaires, living in ivory towers and totally divorced from the reality that most people have to live. Once again, I commend you all for making me see sense.

I am certain that the Prime Minister (you know, the millionaire who went to Eton along with half of the previous cabinet; that man whom myself and my entire country didn't vote for, as we so ignorantly revile both his party and his policies) will salute you all for your efforts. You've certainly persuaded me. I'll vote for the UK, with its pro-Israel stance, and totally ignore the suffering of the people in Gaza, too. It's for the best, really. As for foreign affairs, well, it's demonstrably obvious that the best way to conduct them is with a horde of nukes at your back, and that the surest way to preserve world peace is with an array of weapons that could only ever be deployed militarily in some kind of nightmarish endgame scenario, but which nevertheless cost billions a year to maintain and store, even while public service budgets are ruthlessly slashed. Why didn't I see this before? I genuinely feel like the writer of Amazing Grace.

I'd like, finally, to take this opportunity to highlight, and indeed, laud, certain signatories of this document who I feel have made an undeniable contribution to twenty-first century art, science and high culture, namely Messrs Armstrong, Barrowman, Bragg, Brydon, Ms Cox, Messrs Cowell, Dawkins, Galloway, Izzard, Ms McCall, Messrs Mitchell, Richard, Robinson, Miss Sarpong, Messrs Starkey, Sting, Sugar, Titchmarsh, Walliams and Webb. You are all deeply talented and necessary individuals, and I thank you all from the bottom of my bowels for descending temporarily from on-high to appeal to scum like me to see sense and vote No.

Thank you all for affording me this opportunity to tell you all how wonderfully wonderful I think you are,

Yours obsequiously,

McB

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.