A picture and a thousand words.

The better together, or “vote NO” campaign launched last week, one picture reverberated through the psyche. Lamont, Darling, Davidson and Rennie; all standing together, not one able to look at the other and all declaring, “Better Together”.

Time and again, it appeared there were words missing from the frame. The omitted words were obvious, justified, and so very self explanatory.

The liberty has been taken of filling in the missing words, consider what each representative of union stands for individually and collectively, arguably there can be no more apt and fitting banner than that pictured above.

The horsemen of the apocalypse, collectively that is what these individuals represent for Scots, Scotland and Scottish nationhood, if they can fool us into supporting them.

They are on a recruiting drive.

War, as represented by Ms. Lamont’s Labour party, they have led us into conflicts that we neither wished for nor approved, they have stripped Scots of foreign policy rights, rights that would allow us to decide where and when or in whose name our young should die. Ms. Lamont’s party has demonstrated little care for truth, legality or justice, but war is their credo when others demand. Today our soldiers are still returning home, in bags. The red horse of the apocalypse, the red rose of Labour, the red blood of our children, the red on the Union draped coffins.

Famine, the party represented by Ms. Davidson. The Conservatives are stripping the welfare state. Tory policies are demanding people are in employment even when there are no jobs. They are the party who are removing benefits from those unable to find work, letting charity or starvation run its natural course. The Tories are in Downing Street, cutting taxes at the top level while they cut child support and increase VAT. The party that is overseeing an increase in poverty and famine, an increase in those disabled denied sustenance if it is thought they may have six months more to live. The rich, the fat cats of the City are increasingly better off while the poor return to the workhouse in the Conservative world.

Pestilence, plague is ably represented by Mr. Rennie’s party of Union. They are the party that sold their souls for power, the party that has visited upon us a plague of broken promises from student fees to moderation of Tory excesses. The Liberal Democrats share the stage well with the others above; they declare they stand for federalism, they refuse to provide it. Power corrupts, and the almost absolute power of coalition government, the first time they’ve tasted any such in almost a century seems to have visited a pestilence of forgotten promises and backtracking footsteps upon the Liberal Democratic Party.

Death, Alistair Darling represents it most ably in this scenario, for as the de-facto leader of the horsemen above it can be no other way. Scots have a chance, the first in three centuries and more to bid farewell to the other horsemen unless they can be fooled into voting for war, famine and plague. Mr. Darling has the job of convincing Scots to support death and his compatriots; so far it looks like he might just manage it as the horsemen are ably assisted by the devil’s messengers in Scotland, a mostly compliant media.

Yes, in this scenario Alistair Darling represents death, just as he did for much of the UK’s viability when he was chancellor.

As chancellor he should have allowed institutions to fail and supported the individual saver. At the least there should have been new, stringent laws. Those potential protections met their doom under his fiscal watch.

As chancellor he should have ensured “too big to fail” did not exist in our lexicon, as chancellor he should have reigned in the excess before the fatal blows were delivered.

Alistair Darling represents death, because if his cause emerges victorious it can signal an end to Scottish aspirations for a generation, more cultural integration by the BBC and media, a nail in the coffin of Scots individuality and sovereignty.

The parties of the Union, like the horsemen of the apocalypse are focused on bringing continued death and misery to Scots, they don’t care about our areas of social deprivation, our unemployed, our industrial demise or our appalling health statistics. If they did, these things would no longer exist in our potentially prosperous land.

These individuals don’t care that our children are deprived and that youth unemployment soars faster than sales of cheap alcohol, they work for their paymasters in the City of London.

These individuals represent parties which are on record as stating that a Conservative Westminster is preferable to a nationalist Holyrood, they are on record as stating there could be a future need to bomb an independent Scotland, and they are on record as fomenting dissent in our land to achieve their ends – they would sooner create another Irish question with all that entails around Scotland’s islands than see an independent land. They are on record as stating that unemployment in the North is a price worth paying for prosperity in the South.

Who outside the south, in their right minds, could or would support such ideas. It continues as the horsemen strip our wealth and strangle our green future through unfair taxation, like grid connection tariffs, just another tax by yet another name.

Think of what these horsemen would have you support, individually and collectively. They would have you support poverty, they would have you support unemployment, they would have you support weapons of mass destruction; and they prefer any nuclear apocalypse to be aimed at Scotland.

Think more on what they ask, they demand that Scotland’s next generation is as bereft of opportunity as our present, where 800,000, one in six of us had to leave our homes or face a future as bleak as many of our ancestors knew. The clearances continue today, we just don’t call them that anymore, the horsemen have deemed that politically incorrect.

For three centuries and more Scotland has seen our best and brightest flow from our land through lack of opportunity, lack of hope, lack of promise, a lack of tomorrows. Many would return.

We cannot guarantee that turning our faces from the horsemen, refusing their empty words and ignoring their hollow promises will lead us to a better tomorrow, but we can promise our children and our grandchildren that we will give them, each and every one, the opportunity to decide for themselves the kind of world they will live in.

We can promise them they will no longer have to suffer under the united yoke of the horsemen as they seek to stabilize their extended kingdom. We can promise our children that the future will be their own, it will be theirs to forge and not another’s to dictate. We can promise an opportunity to achieve democracy.

That is the gift we give our descendants by turning our backs on the horsemen. 

Scotland’s referendum will be decided by the Banks.

International banking, the big investment houses and the global investment companies will be the ones to ultimately decide Scotland’s future path. Unless we, through political leadership, act now.

There are many scenarios, all pointing to only one of two possible outcomes in the 2014 referendum, a “YES” or a “NO”. While that sounds obvious what is not often spoken of in the “YES” camp is that the “NO” camp is presently winning. That and the fact that the “YES” camp isn’t making any significant inroads on even the soft “NO” vote.

This has much to do with the fact that the “NO” camp will not, cannot allow a Scotland only referendum, built in Scotland and funded in Scotland, because just like 1706 it needs the money and support of the City, her institutions and her bankers to secure victory. The “NO” camp will get that support, funnelled from the Union parties if needed, channelled by thousands of little donations if required, but it will get it.

This is the principle reason Independence support has wavered in Scotland over the last three decades, from less than 30% to almost 60%. Polls show the last five years of SNP administration has seen independence support at between 30% and 45%, but its static nature within that band does nothing to affirm the present Holyrood administration’s primary policy, rather it reflects the desires of Westminster, of its backers and its accomplices in Fleet Street.

Simply put, that level of support is not enough. Independence will remain just a dream.

Scotland runs a real risk of becoming not just bought and sold for English gold, but duped by it as well. The joke ultimately will be upon us however, as there isn’t any gold left these days.

Since the late 1990’s when support for Independence peaked there have been two Labour led coalitions in Holyrood, there have also been two substantial depressions with the dot com burst and the market collapse / credit crunch. It can be construed that the failure of promise, that lack of vitality at Holyrood during these first two administrations was a Union success; it soured the attitudes of many Scots towards the administration in Edinburgh.

We did however get what we collectively voted for, again with the above caveats of money and influence.

The depressions added little cause for optimism.

A major scare tactic used by the UK government and her proponents is the financial doom and gloom surrounding the bank bailouts related to the credit crunch. It has been repeated so loudly and so often that many believe it on some level. These people may not have swallowed the whole Union bile, but it is without doubt colouring their perspective. All the negativity the Union puts forwards about Scotland colours opinion.

Support for independence therefore waxes and wanes amongst the electorate at large, presently hovering just above that 1/3 of individuals who see themselves as Scots patriots and who’d vote “freedom” whatever the price. For the rest as they watch Europe’s woes, independence is a dying cause; they see Edinburgh tied to London as Greece is tied to Germany, dancing to her tune under the Euro. With Holyrood’s proposal that post independence we’ll be tied to Sterling and the Bank of England, the common perception can be no other way.

The Darling [Alistair] of the Union aptly playing the only card the Union has left. The solitary ace in the Union deck is Sterling. The Scots electorate are not stupid. As they watch Europe unfold its tale of woe in the Eurozone they can only wonder if this is the fate awaiting Scotland if we vote “YES”; subtly the response from our electorate veers towards “no thanks” to the Independence cause.

The Union has a strong positive case in this argument, if Scots leave there will be no return, but London says “you’ll be the Euro zone’s Greece to our Germany”. It is only a positive case on the surface because Scots are not getting all the facts, and it’s safe to say the facts will continue to be sparsely disseminated.

Scotland will have to use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort we’re told, but it’s often overlooked that we’re simply not likely to need such a lender. It’s rarely told that the Bank of England needs a lender of last resort; it’s the IMF. The very establishment the BoE called during the 1970’s. Westminster’s proponents ignore the fact that Greece was not only bailed by the EU, the IMF has many hands in that pot as well.

Many colonial nations and Ireland used the pound for a period after independence, the Bahamas and many other nations use the dollar, and they are not tied to US fiscal policy other than in the currency value. This would apply to Scotland in Sterling, yet the case made by Holyrood for this is muddy, it simply isn’t reaching the electorate at large. Average Scots are having difficulty getting past the media spin. They are able to reach through the message Westminster and the City wants us to hear, but can’t seem to decipher Holyrood’s code.

The administration in Holyrood need to make plain to all Scots that the tie-in to the pound would only last as long as it benefits Scots; that if and when the times comes where Sterling becomes no longer viable, we will be presented with alternative currency choices. This is a small and acceptable policy step for Holyrood, an intelligent step of a forward looking government while planting the seed that Sterling itself is none so secure a currency.

It is time to spike the Union guns. Time to destroy what should be their final argument.

If we are to stride with purpose towards the referendum and not stagger drunkenly towards oblivion of the type facing Greece, Spain or Portugal then these currency steps are necessary. These are steps we must take if we are to enlist the markets help, for the market will in many ways decide Scotland’s referendum. If the Unionists continue to control monetary policy and the Nationalists continue to promote it, essentially it’s “game over” for Independence for at least a generation. The referendum could be lost by as much as a 70/30 split. It may take the nationalist cause decades to recover.

The markets are crashing; worldwide they are in some type of subdued panic mode. Europe’s economies are moribund, stagnant, almost zombie like.

An independent Scotland must put herself in a legislative position of achieving anything from letting the banks liquidate, to securing the small savers, to bailing out the banks. Holyrood must propose that in a Sovereign Scotland the small saver will be secure; the banks will be liquidated as appropriate. Our government, all of us, we’ll simply guarantee deposits to a percentage of the annual median salary with any banking group. It’s far cheaper than bailing out the banks. It promotes multiple smaller banks and helps curb the “too big to fail” culture. Banking costs are driven down by competition. We can gain both diversity and vitality here.

The markets are crashing; there simply isn’t enough bail-out money to go around. The EU is struggling with Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and France. Meanwhile, Germany is being asked to underwrite these debtors, but is also staggering under the burdens already imposed by EU policies.

Credit ratings are being slashed across Europe; from banks to Sovereign nations, they’re consistently revised – down. Brussels recently legislated to basically ignore the agencies reviews, the EU might well do that, but the private investors won’t. The agencies and investors are multinational, they really don’t care what Brussels thinks, money is their law, and the pursuit of more is their god.

Still, the markets are starting to get very jittery, just last week they bought billions of Euro’s worth of Danish currency at a negative return. Essentially they loan Denmark ten billion Euros for three years, Denmark pays them back nine billion Euros and keeps a billion for the privilege of borrowing the money. The numbers may be slightly exaggerated, the principle is not.

The markets are doing this because they’re putting their money where their mouth is, that Denmark will decouple their currency from the Euro, and its relative value will rise, ultimately giving them a profit. Even if it doesn’t the cost to insure Euro based debt is now virtually guaranteeing investors a loss. Scotland can guarantee a profit from its currency and stimulate inward investment by similarly de-coupling from Sterling in time of need.

This brings us back to the UK, now the most indebted nation on earth by many standards. The last time UK-plc turned a significant profit it relied on Scottish oil, and Michael Foot was running against Margaret Thatcher. Since then it’s been a nation living of the never-never. Eventually there comes a day of reckoning, and that day is almost upon us. Scotland was in the black as recently as our first ministers’ last administration. We may still be in the black if we had accurate accountings, for GERS does not give the whole story.

The question for Scots of an independent mind is weather the crash in the pound Sterling will come before or after the referendum. It will be close in historical terms either way. The question for Holyrood is will they have a “Plan B” or is there such a dramatic lack of foresight on the part of all concerned in Edinburgh that they will simply wallow in the subsequent mire.

Alex Salmond must make clear that the pound Scots will be an independent currency if the need arises, the markets must also be aware of that. Stating that this is simply a clarification of policy is easily achieved, it’s an independent currency tied to the pound Sterling. Sterling will be accepted in Scotland as the pound Scots should be south of the border. Note – should be, as little is expected to change there.

When the markets remove their funding from UK debt, when the collapse comes, if it’s before the referendum there can be a plan “ready for implementation”, but dependent upon a “YES” vote. Who would wish to stay with Sterling in a tailspin of devaluation against a stronger “pound” Scots.

If it’s after the referendum, after a “YES” then Holyrood can tie the Scots pound to the dollar, the Euro or any other tradable currency it chooses. A true Scots government could even elect to make it an independently tradable currency of its own. Again we Scots have options; the back door remains wide open. Only a fool or foolish government cuts off lines of escape.

By re-adopting the pound Scots, whose notes we are familiar with, whose coins already line our pockets, the politicians in Edinburgh will be following their goal of minimal perceived upheaval while achieving the much more valuable prize of getting Scots pounds back onto the international markets. The pound Scots will be right alongside all other nations’ currencies, ready for that decoupling in case of need.

When the butcher’s bill becomes due for Sterling’s decades of excess on the good graces of the world and her markets, it is the markets who will dictate where their money flows. It will flow away from Sterling, from London and from “The City”. Scotland can either be tied to the UK and suffer the ignominy of a position like that of Greece, where even medications for hospitals are unavailable, or she can be in a position to free herself from Sterling and stimulate investment.

In the run up to the referendum the markets will likely push for and fund a campaign for the retention of an integrated UK, it’s what they know, and investors hate uncertainty or upheaval. After the referendum if the markets get their way, as is likely, for money is often what makes the world go around, the chance is strong indeed that they will rue the decisions made. It will be the old case of “be careful what you wish for”.

As for the average swing voter on the independence issue, polls indicate that much will be decided on the value and type of currency in their pocket, and that value is something the markets will also dictate.

They always have done.

It’s simply up to us Scots to give the markets a few options and some sensible direction. We can either let the banker’s money, fundamentally our own money, hoodwink us. Alternatively we can put forward monetary policies that will get Scots excited, policies to make them vote “YES”, for without them the Union and her bankers will win, the only real question will be “by how much?”.

After independence Scotland needs a second chamber.

There have been too many scare stories, opinions, preferences and noises from all aspects of society to make anyone believe we don’t actually require a second house, although Holyrood’s political leaders are on record that one is not necessary.

Individuals, nationalist, unionist and those with no political opinion have all voiced concerns about the dominance of a single party. It seems to be fine at Westminster, or in France where Hollande’s socialists just swept all chambers, but not in Scotland. Odd that.

Perhaps the reality is that Scots are more finely tuned towards democracy, it’s an ages old tradition here. It wasn’t always effective but we used to have clan councils, clan heads, chiefs and others would get together and agree, our seven Ri, or sub kings, would elect our Ard-Ri, or high king. Our old parliament was constructed of three “estates”, all of whom had to be won to a cause. Arguably Scots had one of the best of old world democracies.

It is fair to make the argument that more than any other nation on earth democratic principle and individual sovereignty is in our heritage, our psyche, our blood.

What we don’t need in Scotland is two elected houses that operate in contradictory fashion, as the US often has with Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the house, this usually just ends in “horse trading” and more un-required money being spent on additional “bridges to nowhere”.

What we need in Scotland is a uniquely Scottish solution to our perceived issue. What we need is a second house which is funded by the taxpayer without requiring significant additional burdens to be borne by the taxpayer, better yet by reducing burdens we already have.

Proportionately we have somewhere around 150 “representatives” at Westminster, between commons and Lords. That’s approaching an all in bill, when they’re working for us 9-5 daily, of about £50 million a year for folk we “send south”. Simply transferring half that burden to a new second house of around 51 will create substantial savings of about 2/3 just by numbers alone, more when removing any need for a “London loading”.

How would a second house work, what would it do, and how would it interact at Holyrood are all excellent questions. Questions that are best answered individually over time, but suggestions might be that it would only review Holyrood’s proposed legislation for benefits to the Scottish people and affordability – is it properly costed or must other areas be reduced to accommodate the legislative proposals.

The second house might best work if it was remote from Holyrood, yet balanced with it geographically. Perhaps locating it in the old Highland capitol, Inverness might be an option. Placing it in a smaller building than Holyrood, perhaps a restoration or conversion of an existing historic site would be appropriate. If we choose this path and choose it well the budget could be small.

Meetings could be held in Inverness once each month; the principle office of each representative would be in their constituency.

These individuals could vote on the legislation by a simple majority, and it could be done either in Inverness or from their offices, all votes of each individual being subject to immediate publication. These individuals we elect could even be permitted to vote electronically – with today’s technology it would be simple. With the results public on such a small sample the opportunity for fraud would be almost nonexistent and if suspected could be quickly remedied.

It would also be important for the second house to be as devoid as possible of party politics. Only independents should sit there. The criteria for public campaign funding should be simple, comprehensive and elegant. Each candidate should have a set grant and be permitted no other funding. Private funding from any source to second house members, except perhaps from their pre-existing own business, should be illegal.

If our national leaders at Holyrood had the spirit to pass such legislation and enact such a second chamber it would stop much corruption in its tracks. It would advance cleanliness in Scottish politics by a considerable degree.

It would help arrest any potential of corruption, this second house, but it would also put the UK system to shame. It would be no toothless chamber, able to be ignored at whim, able to reform without a constitutional referendum. It would be a truly inclusive, geographically representational body for all Scots.

Orcadians would have five representatives, as would Glaswegians. There could be five more from the highlands, offset by another five from the borders. Each of our three largest cities could have five representatives. The Western Isles would have an equal voice to central Scotland. Such an inclusive chamber would go a substantial way to preventing or lessening feelings of disenfranchisement within our more remote communities.

Such an inclusive chamber could only serve to weld our nation together as one single polity. It will forever spike the Union guns about a situation in Scotland that might mirror the Irish, where some parts decided to found a new state allied and beholden to London.

It is time Holyrood started clarifying the choices that will be available to Scots after a yes vote. A second chamber should be a choice of all Scots, enhanced democracy and democratic safeguards are difficult for the establishment to argue against. But they will.

Holyrood, it’s up to you, you have the voice, the authority, the coverage to initiate and disseminate policies that will get us excited, make us enthused and weld a brave new path for a resurgent nation, or you can do nothing and watch the dreams sink in a sea of privilege and political correctness.

The six things Holyrood could promise to be certain we'll vote yes.

The issue at present- until Scots of a nationalist persuasion can reach into and beyond the ranks of the undecided, there remains a possibility of the referendum failing to achieve our desired result. Holyrood, the elected government of Scotland is a mirror of Scots society. The majority believe in more powers through to full sovereignty for all Scots, yet the debate drivers are focusing on entirely the wrong areas. Holyrood continues to debate on Westminster’s terms.

There’s no present indication of any change in tone or direction, the debate has been bogged down in minutiae, primarily driven by Unionist leaning politicians and an often fawning media with a London centric world view. It’s not a minutiae debate; it’s a full canvas big picture debate.

That Scots are hungry for change is without question, with more than 2/3 leaning towards either more powers or full independence. With such a healthy majority backing additional repatriation of sovereignty in some form then it should be a foregone conclusion that this will come to pass.

This conclusion has the potential of being stymied through Westminster intervention, where the range of options available to Scots will not reflect the wishes or aspirations of the nation.

Its worthwhile examining what, under a truly representative democracy, should be available to the Scots people. All variables and potentials should be on offer, and our polls would refine them as our nation sees fit. It may require multiple polls to accomplish this constitutional issue in a truly democratic society, for democracy itself is not a static issue.

Having resolved the parliament question in 1997, perhaps the next subject could simply be do we wish to continue with the status quo or do we wish more powers repatriated to Holyrood. In the unlikely event the nation votes for the status-quo the story ends until a popular up-surging through electoral returns or political agitation is indicated. If the populace votes for additional repatriation the debate continues.

Eventually we arrive at the level of self government we as a people select. That’s true democracy, that’s a fundamental right under the UN, but with London rule it will not be coming to a location near you anytime soon.

One issue that’s apparently taboo in Scotland’s mainstream media is just why anyone, not just Scots, is willing to meekly accept such disenfranchisement.

Given the absence of true democracy which is being forced upon us by Westminster, we must examine the limited choices available. Until a middle ground is defined and identified on the ballot, and all sides agree on the content of the middle ground then it must be removed from the equation. Today, although a denial of democracy, that middle ground is somewhere as likely as a significant lottery win.

Choices are therefore reduced to either the status quo or a fully sovereign parliament in Edinburgh.

There are potentially some 30% or more of Scots residents who’d fall into the undecided category, these are the devo-max supporters who must find another home, or simply stay home.

Present polling indicators on a two choice ballot are that slightly more of them may lean towards the status quo than sovereignty, perhaps by as much as 2:1. This speaks of a lack of compelling argument in favour of full sovereignty from the perspective of this significant section of the franchise. The ubiquitous Cybernat or other individual can’t address this; the leadership is required to come from Scotland’s parliament.

The challenge for Holyrood is how to sway this segment. In part Holyrood has gone some distance towards meeting that challenge with its consultation; it garnered some 20,000 plus responses.

The issue is that that number is still only around 0.3% of the population. Amongst the voting section of the population it’s somewhere around half that number. That is a woefully small percentage, less than 2 of every thousand of us, who felt this subject mattered enough to voice an opinion, although it still a magnitude better than managed by Westminster on a significantly larger base.

Scots simply aren’t moved to act, to devote time and resources necessary to the single question which would be the most important political event in their nation during the last three centuries, and few in the establishment are asking why. As this situation self evidently benefits Unionists, Nationalists must examine and respond to these fundamentals of self disenfranchisement.

To be certain of winning the referendum Holyrood must first beat voter apathy.

Everything surrounding the negative perspective appears to center around one thing, which is the “why bother” or “nothing much will change anyway” type of attitudes.

These attitudes strongly reflect the political reality of today’s Scotland, where we as a whole view politics and the political process with distrust.

It’s a system that is perpetuated by continual media scare stories and articles headlined “politician accused”. A constant stream of Westminster based scandals, Leveson, expenses, cash for honours, police corruption and sex for secrets also do nothing to inspire confidence in any elected official. Without confidence in those elected and appointed it is difficult for many to uncover the need or desire to express their right of franchise. It becomes exceedingly difficult to actually persuade them to make the effort to go and vote.

This lack of engagement, the problem with the upcoming referendum is that it is bogged down in minutiae. The media circus focus varies from the wording of the question to how many soldiers or ships a sovereign Scotland might have. Will we be £540 per year better off, or just £450, these are the detail distractions the media and Westminster are using to obfuscate, confuse and create apathy. The internet and message boards are infested with proponents of both sides doggedly arguing the hues without an apparent comprehension of the spectrum.

The referendum debate to date has been a triumph of obfuscation for London.

At day’s end these debates are simply that, they’re a distraction. The only predominant question Scots needs answered is “are we viable”, to which the widely acknowledged answer remains what it has always been, “yes”.

After that it’s simply a matter of choice as to the physical location of government and the specific political system Scots choose to select. In that perspective it is incredulous that five million voluntarily would allow fifty million neighbours to dictate to them, to dilute their franchise.

In 2014 there is opportunity for real democracy, a change the establishment in London is trying to prevent by using the micro debates false premises to create confusion, because as they themselves are well aware no government can solidly dictate future policy.

Quite simply, in a democracy if the electorate doesn’t like what the existing government is doing, they throw them out during the next electoral cycle and put in an elected leadership they prefer, usually with different policies. Sometimes this even happens at UK level, though the policies rarely change there.

The real issue about the upcoming poll is missing, and that’s the aspect of constitutional change.

The constitution when updated and enacted in Scotland should remain constant irrespective of individual government policies unless the people vote for subsequent constitutional change. This is unlike the present scenario whereby true democracy is being treated like the plague by almost all parties concerned with driving the upcoming poll.

Under the present Holyrood limitations, barring line item specific declarations of UDI by Holyrood against the “reserved powers” issues, there’s not much that can be implemented until after a positive referendum result. It can still be planned for however.

It is beyond time for Holyrood to unveil the big picture plans.

Various parties, individuals and organisations have looked into, even drafted an updated constitution for Scotland. These could be put forward for consideration after the referendum. Representatives should be placed on a panel that is assembled like Iceland’s was – people driven. Then the final document should be voted in, or rejected for amendment. Once adopted it should have constitutional hurdles to prevent needless tinkering. This should be one facet of the new Scotland we will vote upon in 2014.

Holyrood also appears to give little consideration to the fact that Scotland is a completely diverse country. We have mountains and lowland’s, we have moors and farmland, industry and agriculture, with cities, towns, villages all the way through small crofting and fishing communities to lonely dwellings in the glens. All need a voice.

Perhaps a second chamber of government is appropriate, although Holyrood at present thinks not.

The Westminster MP’s will cease to exist for us, that funding could mean each of Scotland’s regions given a vote with identical membership on this second house, a requirement being no party affiliation. Independents would give people politics, not party politics to that legislative area.

Highland could have ten members, as could Strathclyde. There would be a balance on the political representation of our communities. This is a subject that has a potential to excite many, especially if all politicians salaries and packages were tied to a percentage of the average wage.

This second house would not initiate laws, but could reject and amend proposals. The better the nation is managed, the better the nation performs, the better our politicians are rewarded. Ask the people and we will answer. We will tell you that promoting economically sound and sustainable policy is what we want.

Scots need to know that parliaments are not “just au’ the same”, that ours will be different. We need to know that all primary election promises must be funded, and that the parties making them must publish the details and timeframes before the election, then hold to the promises that are made or face a recall. Scots need to know that issues like the Liberal Democrats signed and discarded pledges will not be allowed to happen here. We will happily enshrine these principles.

When it comes to Europe we must be asked, the choice must be ours. The promise of such an expansion of democracy after the referendum will win many to the cause Holyrood is promoting. There also must be policies to make certain that if our best intentions result in a mistake today; our children are not bound by our revealed stupidity. All treaties entered into by our nation that deal with future issues of sovereignty must have sunset clauses, clauses which do not prevent popular reaffirmation. Our children must be ensured the freedom of choice that has for so long been denied to us.

We know that the Euro is threatened; we know that the pound has been inflation prone for almost three quarters of a century, and that the Bank of England is a serial de-valuer with a record stretching back even longer than that. Neither Brussels nor London has been proven capable of effective money management. With these facts self evident Scots need options for a plebiscite on currency under a sovereign Holyrood. It is not necessary to supply details at present, simply the timeframe under which we will be polled.

On the subject of Money, we need to know our land will never be in thrall to the bankers, usury agencies and financiers who are increasingly running our world. We need to know that we will continually balance our budget and that in cases where borrowing is called for beyond a certain minimal limit, we must approve it. That is a democracy I would vote for, that is a democracy which will be worth fighting for.

Six simple enhancements of democracy, give us a constitution we ourselves develop. Mandate an independent second house as a check and balance, make political promises real, make them funded and binding. If we can do this and add the choices on Europe, our monetary system and our nations finances to be all driven by the electorate we would have a system worthy of acclaim, a system worth implementing, a system that will never happen in Westminster’s corrupt halls. There is only one location Scots can ensure such a system.

Give me this and you will inspire me, give us this and you can inspire a nation, for the debate is not about the minutiae, it’s not about Unionist V Nationalist, it’s quite simply about the potential of democracy from Edinburgh against dictatorship from London.

Holyrood, show me you are aware of this divide in the debate, show me you know it’s about something far, far larger than the petty squabbles we presently hear, show me you know and understand the bigger picture.

Edinburgh, make me this promise and win not only my interest, win my vote. Grab not only the imagination of Scots, but behold a world astounded.

Europe’s Scotland, Scotland’s Europe; both can be defined by Scots leadership.

Today Scotland isn’t even worthy of consideration on the European stage. Scotland and her resources are administered by Westminster. London is who Brussels deals with and in practical terms rarely a thought is given otherwise. Scotland at present effectively has no voice in Europe. The interests of Scots are subordinated to general UK policy. This is Scotland’s Europe, 2012.

Scotland’s MEPs are mostly faceless amid myriad others, key committee roles and policies from fisheries and farming to oil remain decided by Westminster.

In 2012 Scotland has no opportunity for leadership in Europe, but she is full of promise.

Against this background the next half decade is fluid, dynamic and potentially vibrant, at least for Scots, should we choose. We can also lead Europe to a new path.

Europe is changing because Europe must. Most of us pay little regard to the backdrop of the EU and Eurozone crisis, it’s a news item, but not that significant as we deal with the turmoil of our daily lives and more personal crises.

The Europe we know is changing, and it’s changing quickly. Many are seeing it as Germany’s Europe, where the mid European powerhouse economy dictates to the rest of the EU, primarily through its financial support of the Eurozone. Germany is laying down the law, dictating social structure, welfare and benefits, her tentacles are seeping into every aspect of EU life as conditions of perpetual bailouts.

This perception of Germany is a myth based in reality. The Germans are certainly underwriting the EZ, but only because that’s what the EZ governments, these popular “democracies” desire. We the citizens demand benefits and safety nets, policies and welfare to elect our politicians, so our politicians promise them, even in the knowledge that our nations can’t afford them. Then our politicians turn to the German backed institutions of the EU or the global IMF for funding.

This is essentially underwritten by the parasitic banking system, where private banks are licensed to create money and lend it to us so that we have to pay interest on the money they create.

We have lived with this snake eating its tail since William Patterson first convinced William of Orange this was a good idea. With the concept that money and wealth can be “created” by private banking companies and not as a product of the work of the people there would always be a day of reckoning, and that day for Europe is now dawning.

Europe is now in a situation that will play out largely in a timeline with Scots independence, barring an accelerated disaster with Spain, Italy, Ireland or Portugal. The two, the EU and Scots sovereignty are interrelated and intertwined on a multitude of levels. Both scenarios are about money, power and the politics of fear.

It was the politics of fear that had the Irish confirm the latest EU treaty, it will be the politics of fear that will have the Greeks vote for an EU supporting party this weekend. Of course there could be an unlikely result where the Greeks vote to restore their sovereignty and steal Scotland’s thunder. Don’t expect such a result in Greece; the entire EU machine has directed its broadside of impending doom at Greece in recent months. Present indicators are that the Greeks will buckle.

The Greeks will join the other countries of the EZ who are now bailing each other out – it’s portrayed as neighbours helping neighbours. The problem is there’s only one truly strong neighbour, Germany, with the others all in varying degrees of onerous debt. We’re now seeing Spain’s banks being bailed out, Ireland has to use some of its bailout funds to help Spain – or it can try to borrow more. Italy is on the hook for almost 20B Euro’s as part of Spain’s banking package, and it has to borrow that money at 5% to lend it to Spain at 3%. That’s the EU rules. For those who noticed, Spain’s bailout euphoria only lasted a few hours this time. The banks and “investors” are always demanding more, and with governments in debt to them they are rarely told “no”, and then it’s often just for appearances sake with decisions quickly, quietly reversed.

This Spanish bailout is a good example, it means Italy who the markets are already avoiding, will have to find 2% of 20b each year to finance Spain, that’s 400 million Euro’s a year the Italian taxpayer has to eat, on top of financing their own debt and paying into the EU. The Italian taxpayer, like the Greek and Spanish are beginning to have second thoughts. Confidence in the EU and Euro is dropping and the drop can be expected to gain momentum. The UK is a microcosm of the EU.

Contrast this with Iceland’s experience; it dumped the debt on the bankers rather than the public purse. Iceland had two rough years but is now well on its way to sustained recovery. The markets are not avoiding Iceland. Iceland also held the bankers criminally to account.

The EZ and the UK by contrast has an overall negative debt ratio, a negative balance of payments and an overall contracting economy.

The EU, particularly the Eurozone, as it presently exists is lacking a single overall positive indicator which says the recession/depression will even have a potential of terminating. The politicians of the EU and the UK are using wealth that has only one foundation in reality, the future penury of the individual through onerous taxation. Our premiers and politicians are enriching a privileged few as they perpetuate an ideology of a United States of Europe.

This United States of Europe is simply a project that most of those involved with can’t afford to see fail, for with its failure goes their credibility, careers and backers profits.

The single prop still holding up the EU is the one leg of a four legged stool, when the economic foundation is eroded, the natural wealth denuded and mortgaged, national assets stripped and sold or privatised all that remains is taxing the futures of the average citizen. The average citizen can only be taxed so far, have so much of their future mortgaged before social unrest commences. It’s that burden which has led to revolution, to upheaval, and to demands for only taxation with representation in the past.

Europe is about to undergo such a period. Scotland will also undergo such a simultaneous change, both are now predetermined. What is not set is Scotland’s path, it can be the opposite of Europe and the UK should her people choose, or it can mirror the impacts of the larger area. Everything is dependent upon whether Scotland’s course is within or outwith the UK. Indicators state that charting our own path will mean travelling in much calmer waters.

We can expect the Euro to collapse during the period of Scotland’s march to self determination, we can also expect the pound to lose approximatetely 20% to 50% of its value over the same 2012 – 2017 period; both relative collapses have already started. Both Europe and the UK are suffering from the same malaise.

The revolution within the EU will likely be peaceful for the most part, like the revolution that created the Euro. A two tier EU will emerge, with the EZ being reduced to a block largely consisting of the original EEC members, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Luxembourg. Italy, from a market perspective is ailing and questionable, but the potential for a viable reduced EZ certainly still appears to be present amongst the group. The EZ has a potential to retrench, reorganize and expand, but it has a relatively small window of opportunity.

Scotland within the UK is in the same position.

The scenario we can expect to develop as Scotland elects to once again to beat her own drum, putting her own needs forward within the international community instead of relying upon London using her “proxy” vote, all too often left in the envelope, is one of hope for other small EU nations.

We can anticipate the EU/Eurozone very reluctantly reducing to a more stable trading community with a substantial recovery of national sovereignty. A sovereign Scotland will help the retrenchment; it will enhance the viability and reduce the social unrest. Scotland will be able to demonstrate to Europe that smaller nations can repatriate sovereignty and recreate the levers of economic success without destructive revolution and terminal social decline.

This is the base scenario of what we can consider to be Europe’s Scotland in 2017 and beyond. Europe will be a continent struggling through the aftereffects of abysmal policy by Brussels and resurrecting national sovereignty on a nation by nation basis. The electorates will demand it.

A newly independent Scotland will be undergoing a similar, but peaceful upheaval as she finally stumbles towards prosperity in her own right, prosperity now delayed some three centuries.

That our future Scotland will be part of the new European framework in some fashion is without question. That she will be there on her own fair, democratically decided terms is also without question, for Scots have what Europe needs. It is those very needs that for good or ill will make Scotland a focus, a beacon.

Scotland has more than 40% of the EU fossil fuel reserves, our coal supplies are relatively untapped, and we have between 10% and 40% of the EU’s renewable energy potential by industry, with less than 2% of her population. Scotland can also be a net exporter of water and food to the remainder of the EU; we have an abundance of both. Scots stand poised for a boom of potentially unprecedented proportions.

As this decade of radical change draws down, Europe’s Scotland can be developing into Continental Europe’s powerhouse, it can be helping fill Europe’s breadbaskets, it can be culturally enhancing our fellow nations within the EU to a considerable degree.

Most importantly, the dissolution of the UK that can be engineered by the Scots in 2014, in peace, in friendship and with amity can shine a light for the rest of the peoples of the EU. We can show them that “stronger together” is a great ideal when nations remove trading barriers, but also that sovereignty reclaimed is democracy enhanced and the individual re-enfranchised.

Europe’s Scotland can be a place where the Greeks, Spaniards, Irish and Italians can learn that fear of withdrawal from the EZ is just that, fear. That it can be done in an orderly fashion, that it may not be painless, but will involve far less hardship than perpetually pursuing failed monetarist policies to ultimate bankruptcy and individual penury.

Europe’s Scotland will only exist for a short time, until she learns what Scots can teach her, that Unions must be equal, that proportionate representation between nations simply doesn’t work, for the smaller is always subsumed and the greater will accept no other form of Union. Slowly, after our referendum, it will again become Scotland’s Europe.

If we choose.

SNP Policies for post independence are irrelevant.

Well, the “YES” campaign is well under way, there’s a sort of sense of the inevitable about it these days.

We’ve known since May 5th 2011 that we’ll be having a referendum. We’ve known that the nation will divide for two years or so as we ramp up to the final vote, and we know that there will be [at least] two campaigns, one for each camp. We still don’t know for certain that all the Unionist forces will declare as one camp, though that’s looking increasingly likely.

We heard that the “YES” campaign had its guns spiked by Alistair Darling’s poll, showing barely 1/3 of Scots even have any interest in independence, closer two 2/3 of us are very firmly opposed and a small percentage of us remain fence sitters.

The salvo by Darling effectively launched the “NO” campaign. It can be strongly inferred the funding for the poll and choice of pollster was determined over the tea and scones at the Darling’s residence recently. A bigger question for supporters of the Union would be why they didn’t pick a more credible pollster. Yougov has acknowledged its own criteria simply “don’t work for Scotland”. The only logical reason to select Yougov therefore, would be the fact it is more likely to give the result preferred by the person or group commissioning the poll, Mr. Darling’s nay-sayers.

The second key to the launch was the specific lack of policies for a post independent Scotland. This lack was immediately pounced upon by Westminster’s supporters as highlighting a massive void in the independence argument. It’s seen as a void worth exploitation, a black hole to be highlighted, and a lack of substance to be pounded into the collective consciousness of the electorate.

The reality of the situation is that 2014 is simply a choice for better democracy.

We can have our individual democratic value increased ten-fold.

We can have our input into the democratic system increased ten-fold.

We can have our Parliament represent 5 million, not 65 million; that places it more than a dozen times closer to each and every one of us. It will be geographically closer; it can be more easily bound to do our bidding.

Policies for post independence, that’s also where our individual democratic might increases, but the creation and issuance of those policies is not for now. Right now, in the run up to the referendum it’s about democracy. It’s about the value of democracy.

After 2014 if the SNP say “no nuclear”, if the SNP say “green energy” or if the SNP say “re-industrialisation”, it’s great to know these policies will be on the table. Right now the SNP are driving home the policies they were elected upon. Nuclear, alternative energy, protecting the NHS and freezing council tax amongst others. That and providing a referendum was their mandate, nothing more, nothing less. If the referendum delivers a pro-democracy vote, then we implicitly expect the SNP to negotiate with Westminster on our behalf, that’s where the remit ends.

The only additional thing the SNP need to do is to set forth their policies for the next term, as an independent parliament or as part of the UK. It is an enhancement to the debate should they do this as its good to know what our present party of government would have us do in either case. It is not relevant to the fundamental structure of the debate itself as the SNP has no guarantee of being elected at the poll after the referendum.

I checked the wording of the question again, “do you agree Scotland should be an independent country”, at no point does it ask “do you agree that Scotland’s next government shall be SNP”, that’s a different question for another day.

While the SNP can’t be the sole face of the “YES” campaign, we all know it is their baby, and they are the acclaimed vehicle of independent minded Scots. The independence campaign must be a broad church.

While the supporters are a broad church, the detractors must also be prepared to fight on a single question. In or Out. They must coalesce as a unified force. The fact that the Union itself can’t even unite over a policy about just one question speaks volumes.

It is this lack of Union within the Union that makes SNP policy post referendum largely irrelevant.

Without knowing what we’re voting for if we vote “NO”, what does it matter what the SNP policy is, as many Scots for whatever reasons will never vote SNP.

What Scots need from the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservative parties in Scotland is an irrevocable decade long guarantee that if they win the referendum then these are the policies that Scots can anticipate being implemented in Scotland. Scots need to know that if these guarantees are broken the price will be triggering a second referendum.

Scots would also like to know what policies these Westminster supporting parties propose, and will hold to for the next decade or so, whatever happens in the referendum. These parties should be consistent. As part of the UK, this is what you’ll get. As an independent nation this is what you can get.

The surprising thing, at first glance, is that none of the Union parties have sprung into action on this basis, yet they expect the SNP to provide all the answers to questions that simply aren’t being asked of them in 2014.

In reality, it’s not surprising at all. Politicians at Westminster largely do and say what it takes to get elected. Events change, circumstances change. London parties claim they cannot be tied to electoral pledges; they abandon them liberally when in office. The London parties nonetheless expect Holyrood to live to a higher standard, to not vary, to make no allowance for “circumstances”.

Effectively Westminster demanding that Holyrood, the SNP, does something which it cannot or will not. Effectively Westminster is telling Holyrood to act honourably as it pulls every dirty trick in the book, and that Holyrood should act so regardless of any future consequence for the Scottish people. Then again, London has form when it comes to acting without regard for the Consequences north of the border.

2014 might as well have on the ballot, Democracy, more or less.

Unless both sides of the argument over future policy are on the table there is no argument to be judged.

Absent both sides of the argument and with the SNP not guaranteed a 2016 electoral victory the arguments are pointless. They’re simply a distraction created by the “NO” campaign, fuelled by fear and disseminated by a compliant media who are irredeemably beyond the level of even requesting balance, never mind requiring it.

If the argument is pointless, although a little advance knowledge of what could be expected might be nice, the SNP policies post independence are, and will remain irrelevant to the debate.

Germany prepares for Greek exit.

With the fear tactics having failed, evidenced by a still surging Syriza in Greece, Germany is digging in its heels over Eurobonds and is preparing for Greece to leave the Eurozone.

Neither Angela Merkel nor David Cameron’s stark warnings about Greece’s future, if it votes for the left leaning Alexis Tsipras and his demand for re-negotiation of Greek debt, appear to be swaying the Greeks. There was a period of several days where the warnings  appeared to have an impact, but polls have largely stabilized showing Syriza still maintaining a healthy lead.

Both EU leaders added their voices to the growing clamour that the next Greek elections will be a referendum on the EU. Greeks have consistently shown in polling that they favour remaining in the EU, but it appears that under the present remotely enforced Austerity and lack of direct control over their own destiny, that some prices might simply be too high.

The backdrop to the drama is detailed by Greece’s ongoing public finances, reported to have dropped again and now exceeding 1 billion Euros less than the comparative period last year. Greece’s finance ministry is giving the reason as political turmoil caused by the elections coupled to reduced economic activity. Unless the Hellenes expect us to believe the tax collectors have been fired, it simply serves to demonstrate Greece’s continuing downwards spiral.

As the EU was not so subtly lecturing on the consequences of Greeks voting for the “wrong party”, one that doesn’t support the Troika measure, the EU, ECB and IMF imposed austerity, Greeks themselves were seeing their country run out of medicine. They were witnessing pharmacists striking because they hadn’t been paid and they were being notified that they had a shortage of life sustaining drugs.

Publically all the main EU nations are stating they don’t want a divorce, they want Greece to remain. Everyone is acknowledging that for Greece to remain part of the EU it needs Austerity at least until 2020, if it leaves it could be back on its feet in two years.

The public face of the EU is therefore issuing warnings while making conciliatory noises, a rather contradictory stance very much akin to what we are seeing from Westminster in Scotland. What is of far more significance is what the principle actors are doing behind the scenes.

Der Spiegel reported it had information about a German government 6-point plan to encourage growth in Europe, under which crisis countries like Greece would receive tax concessions, on condition though that they reform their labour markets, like Germany did in the early days of the euro.

The plan involves creating special economic zones in the crisis-struck parts of the Eurozone. Foreign investors would be lured with tax incentives and more relaxed regulation. The crisis countries would be required to establish German-style privatisation agencies or privatisation funds to sell off, or part privatise, parts of the public sector. It might be a difficult sell as it involves creating additional inequities within the EZ.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung opened with front page news page that internally the Eurozone partners are very seriously preparing for a Greek exit, while externally wanting to create impression that Greece is staying.

Sueddeutsche and Bild appear to be working on news that’s leaking out, reporting the carefully coordinated contingency plan emerging at multiple levels which will enable commerce, industry and governments to assist Greece to leave the euro, although such a move shouldn’t be possible under EU law.

As examples the travel agency TUI is insisting on having a drachma clause in all its contracts, to protect it from financial loss should a currency switch take place while supermarket chain Metro is making plans to allow customers in its Greek shops to pay in Drachma. It's making preparations for pricing labels and cash machines to be changed.

Deutsche Telekom has sent experts to its Greek partner, OTE to help plan for a change from euro to drachma. German banks have reportedly written off all their junk Greek funds and investments so that a Greek exit will not affect them.

The European Central Bank is reportedly working out practical ways in which Euro notes could be switched, possibly by stamping them with a special magnetic stamp. The ECB also needs to work out what it does with the €40bn worth of Greek bonds it possesses. In the event of Greece going bankrupt, or leaving the Eurozone they could end up being worthless, and the UK will need to stump up on its portion of loan guarantees.

If the UK is required to underwrite the costs expect an additional drop in the value of sterling. That will increase the cost of all imports, and as the UK actually manufactures little these days that will be significant. This doesn’t allow for direct exposure to Greek debt, thankfully the UK is one of the lesser exposed nations here.

Ultimately the situation in Greece somewhat mirrors the situation in Scotland within the UK.

There are many who are ardent supporters of Union, but as time progresses if the true economic situation can be laid bare and the consequences be seen to be biting in Scotland, then even supporters of the Union will desert the cause in their droves. As this knowledge takes hold in Westminster we will see increasing levels of “contingency planning” for the “fait accompli”.

The only question really hanging over the future of the UK, like Greece, can it borrow enough in the short term, or can it do enough devaluation of Sterling [that quantitative easing of which the B of E is so fond] to keep the truth of current UK national finances from being self evident to all Scots in the short term. Judging by the IMF’s comments this week, it may be teetering on the edge.

If Westminster can achieve borrowing and resultant delay, there is a chance it may just squeak in the referendum, this time. The question will not end here, because it is already self evident it is not a fair and open campaign with Union scare tactics being granted full press and nationalist advances glossed over.

Should Westminster have any inkling that it may not be able to borrow sufficiently through the life of the referendum campaign, it would best serve all the inhabitants of these islands, and Europe in the wider context, to begin the preparations for an orderly dissolution now.

Ultimately what happens to Greece 2012 will be a bellwether of sorts for Scotland 2014. For good or bad it will have an impact. It just remains to be seen how large an impact.

To save Greece within the EZ and perhaps the EZ itself will take nothing less than a United States of Europe. For Greece there just isn’t time for that to be created. For the remainder of the EZ, it’s obviously quickly becoming a desire for weaker nations, it’s just as obviously becoming unpalatable for the stronger ones.

A Greek tragedy: the Euro, the pound, the disaster.

This weekend the UK PM David Cameron was at the G8 in the USA. He’s widely reported to have been issuing instructions to the Eurozone on how to deal with their issues, and telling Greece in particular that it better watch its P’s and Q’s.

The general view in the Eurozone is that he’s got a cheek, and rightly so. The UK isn’t even a member; its prime minister is decrying EU fiscal policy while not really saying much, in fact the UK might not even be in the EU at all if Mr. Cameron was a man of his word. If he had given the UK the membership referendum he promised before taking power.

Add to this the UK’s unmitigated disaster of government debt, with levels that make Greece’s positively microscopic, and any emanations by Westminster are decidedly for home consumption only. They carry little to no weight in the EU.

The plain English side of the EU conflict, for such is what its shaping up to be, is most easily set out in a Game of Houses. Allocating house sizes and tax bands to each country will show us exactly where the problems lie. Like the UK however, to get to the root of the problem it’s necessary to go into the history of the modern pan European treaties. The root causes are almost identical, within the EU to within the UK, but this time we’re just dealing with half a century instead of three centuries and counting.

The EU began about fifty years ago with six nations entering a common market. No trade barriers, no duties, no taxes between the nations. It worked, it was a wonderful concept and it enriched lives across the EEC. The reason it worked was threefold; the nations concerned were all northern European nations sharing similar, although rarely amicable cultural heritages, they all had similar standards of living and pricing structures, their social benefits and mobility were largely the same.

The problem with the EEC was it succeeded, and as is the way with things human it expanded, but it expanded without limitation [the EU, as it became, ignored its own fiscal policies for admission to the Euro] and decided to implement the Euro project on a massive scale.

The Euro project is an unmitigated disaster, which was pre-ordained. It was still forced through by bureaucrats in Brussels.

Imagine each nation in Europe as a single house, each in the same village. The tax bands go from A-H, so does the influence within the EU. Greece would be a tax band-A But n Ben, Germany a tax band-H palatial mansion. Greece raises £1,000 a year for the EU; Germany raises £10,000 a year. The UK is somewhere around a band-D, raising about £5,000, but nobody is really certain because nobody else in the EU is sure of the UK commitment – the UK to the EU is like the over mortgaged council house on the outskirts that keeps arguing for the village to redraw its boundaries, without the UK inside, but at the same times likes to tell the rest of the village what to do and how to run the village council.

The village council is getting fed up.

The problem is that the EU doesn’t work; the diversity of socio-economic structure is far too wide. The EU is like the developer putting the Band H structure inside a scheme containing band A’s and Band B’s. That band H will see its value dragged down by the A’s and B’s while the A’s and B’s will see their value lifted by the band H. People won’t pay more for exactly the same band A house they can buy somewhere else unless someone gives them the extra money to pay for it, it’s called a subsidy.

The only place the subsidy can come from is the band H house, they’ll pay the same taxes but see their services shared by the band A’s. The people in the band A’s are now dependant; the people in the band H are now upset. The band A’s are also restless because they now know that if the band H’s ever decide to stop the subsidy they’ll lose their homes. Friction ensues.

The reason the original EEC worked was that everyone was in Band F’s through Band H’s, and everyone had a chance in a few years to upgrade. The diversification of bands in the current EU means it’s almost impossible to go from band A to band H without winning the lottery of nations, for example by discovering oil and keeping the revenues. Even this opportunity is vanishing as the EU continues to legislate in an attempt to make oil an EU resource. The EU to Greece is then like the UK to Scotland, it drains the wealth and leaves the misery behind.

In a circumstance like this, where Greece were fortunate enough to discover oil, if the EU had its way the revenues would be divided across the entire EU, with the houses in the biggest tax brackets getting most benefit. Germany would get ten times more benefit from Greece’s oil than Greece. It’s exactly the same in the UK. It’s called pro-rata division of assets. It’s a wonderful concept when you have nothing but a proportionally huge population.

Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain are all in the band A’s and B’s. They’re all dependant. They’re all in a place, i.e. a Union, they shouldn’t be in. They’re all in trouble. Ditto Scotland, arguably we have two layers of problems.

The fact that Germany, our band H, is only 10% of the total tax doesn’t matter, the other 90% can’t outvote her because Germany, and perhaps a couple of the band G’s are the only one’s without a mortgage in the village. Not only that but they underwrite the mortgages of the band A’s through band C’s. The smaller homeowners can’t afford to upset the mortgager because the only way they can pay the mortgage is with more loans from the band G’s and H’s.

Sooner or later the folks in the big house are going to say “enough is enough”, go earn the money to pay your mortgage. If you can’t earn more, spend less. This is where we are today.

So the band A’s and band B’s try to make more money, but can’t because the band G’s and H’s won’t lend them any more money to make money with. All the money the band A’s and B’s are making goes to the mortgage. It’s still not enough.

The people in the little houses, who can’t borrow [and the UK is perilously close to that now] find they still have the onerous mortgage burden. They have to look for savings if they can’t make more money, so they do everything possible to save money. They stop paying for healthcare, for their children’s education, for helping their elderly and infirm. They do it to themselves simply because they need to make those mortgage payments. They do it to themselves simply because it’s better than having somebody else do it to them.

It’s called self imposed Austerity. The UK, now demoted to band B is in that period of self imposed Austerity, if it was in the Euro it would simply be Berlin imposed Austerity.

Meanwhile the Band G’s and Band H’s keep getting wealthier.

This is Europe today under the EU, a microcosm is Scotland under the UK, Scotland is the Band H in potentiae existing as, optimistically, a band B.

The solution, it’s simple. The folks all need to realise they’re all one village, one community, and share. This means a relatively sudden and dramatic drop in living standards for Band H’s and Band A’s seeing a dramatic rise. Eurobonds would achieve this. Direct funding would achieve this. Neither will happen.

The Germany’s, the wealthy of the world will not impose upon themselves the reductions needed to help the poor, the Greeks. This is why the EU in its present form should never have happened, though it might have worked if limited to the original EEC partners with similar histories, social structures, standards of living, economic productivity and laws.

The only foreseeable outcome without the high value nations diminishing themselves is anarchy. Anarchy takes many forms, the obvious first of which we’re seeing now. Default.

It doesn’t matter the verbal window dressing, by not paying all its creditors Greece has already defaulted. Greece has not fixed the underlying problem; it’s had no significant help from the village. Greece still owes more than it can afford to pay, and it’s just had a 30% pay cut.

Greece will default again; it has no option without massive cash injections and complete debt forgiveness from everyone in the village. Greece needs to be helped into a job where it can recover not just its lost 30%, but make 30% more. The village can just about afford to help Greece, but it won’t. Greece won’t get what it needs because helping Greece would exhaust both the wealth and the borrowing power of the band G’s and band H’s. Their mortgages go up.

The band G’s and H’s aren’t bad folks, they might be inclined to help Greece, the band A, except they know all the band B’s aren’t much better off than Greece, and each band B has a bigger house, bigger commitments, bigger debts, bigger needs. They can’t help even one band B without selling their own homes, and that’s something their own families just aren’t going to allow.

The problem is that the families in the big houses are already on the hook for Greece, they’ll have to pay for her debts in the end. All we’re seeing right now is the heads of household in the Band G’s and H’s delaying the day of reckoning as they try to work out the best payment terms for those inside their walls. The forlorn hope is that the longer the collapse can be postponed the better the terms might end up being.

It’s called delay and pray, pray for a miracle.

This affects the UK and it impacts the lives of each and every one of us. I’ve seen my income cut by 30% and more since 2008, the pound was at $2:10+, now it’s bouncing around between $1.55 and $1.60. Add in inflation compounding at 3.5% per year with a drop in what the pension pot is worth and in four short years I’ve seen the real buying power of my income reduced by almost 50%. Everything imported has gone through the same cycle. Every one of us to greater or lesser extent has suffered. The suffering will continue within the UK.

In the last week the pound fell 4 cents, because of the Euro we’re told, that’s the spin. It fell because the UK has far less than 1 in 5 people actually making anything anymore, the UK relies on finance, and finance is illusory wealth. As soon as people can’t pay anymore the financial houses come crashing down – last week’s 4 cent loss, pound against dollar, was the international market pricing in the City of London’s Greek losses to the pounds value. Yes, it is that dramatic, as goes the City of London so goes the pound, we in the UK are that reliant upon financial services. This is where the power of the City originates, this and the debt.

Germany, if it had the mark, would not have seen such dramatic movement because it is nowhere as near reliant upon financing, it still has industry. It still has a positive balance sheet.

Every UK Prime Minister since Harold Wilson owns the problem and none will acknowledge that the City of London, with the UK economy is just lasting longer than expected on its deathbed. Greece and the failure of the Euro will simply administer the last rites, but neither Greece nor the Euro is to blame, that accounting lies squarely in London’s houses of Parliament.

It’s time for Scotland to put an end to the UK electoral cycle, to that ignominious game of thrones centered on number 10 Downing Street.

Democracy. Alive and Well, or non-existent?

Democracy, it’s a principle that governments in what we commonly refer to as “the free world” are founded upon. It has a simple principle, one individual has one vote, and every vote has the same value. No sane person would have it any other way.

The reality is somewhat different, the reality is that it only functions properly under one unique and peculiar set of social circumstances and that when these social circumstances don’t exist democracy is simply another way of saying “elected dictatorship”.

The United Nations finally got it with its declaration of March 2008 concerning rights of indigenous peoples, it’s well worth a read especially when one considers that North Sea Oil falls directly under these articles, that Scots, English and Welsh are all “indigenous peoples”. The 2008 declaration was a final summation of the earlier declaration embedded in article 1 of the UN charter which states that all peoples have the right to self determination. The UN later published a comprehensive document detailing those rights.

The above document explains why the ancient right of conquest is now considered dubious, opening the door for Welsh autonomy, and why Scots have that unalienable and ongoing right to self determination. It also explains Spain’s consternation about national movements even though they “created” a constitutional amendment recently to forbid such choice. It also explains why the Union government has been using Spain in its widely circulated scare stories.

All of this effectively ties back into democracy, Spain only managed to get its constitutional amendment through by NOT asking the people, very undemocratic. Had the Catalans, for example, had a referendum and had to pass such a measure, their vote may have been very different to that in Andalucía. To get the amendment passed each region should have been required to have submitted an affirmative vote. That’s democracy. The Catalans have an ongoing wish, or voiced expression for independence, the Andalucían’s not so much. It is inappropriate for one group of people to remove or try to remove rights from another.

In our own situation, our sham democracy, none argue that Scots, and for the most part Welsh have a different ethnic and societal background to English, that’s reflected in polls that historically and continually show a center left leaning in democratic principles.

Both nations have boundaries; both are and remain more than simple “lines on a map”. History, language and culture make us all undeniably distinct, unique and separate. There is no common bond which exists, other than London’s avarice and determination that it must be so. There is no natural circumstance that could or should weld either Celtic nation into an unbending, unyielding incorporating Union which is dominated and dictated to by another country.

Both Scots and Welsh are effectively disenfranchised; they have little democratic impact, to a lesser extent this also applies to England.

Scotland and Wales find themselves in the historical situation the EU is presently facing, where the votes and rights of the individual are diluted in favour of the “greater good”, that political super-state. Political amalgamations can work, but each unique member needs an equal voice. Greece, to a lesser extent Italy, Portugal and Spain are all being forced to follow the Franco-German model, the consequences for the nations are dire. The US with its 2 members per state in the senate is one reason why that super state endures. The US has a balance with basically proportional representation in its “House”. The EU lacks such a system; the UK lacks such a system of balanced fairness. Both are doomed to ultimate political failure.

The UK could implement fairness as it reforms the Lords, making it fully empowered and fully elected with an automatic 100 members per nation. Direct national quantitative representation, just like the US senate. The UK will not do this, it speaks too much of fairness and true democracy. It dilutes the “Game of Thrones”.

Without such a system in place it means that a vote in Scotland or Wales has less than 1/10th the value of a vote in England. It means that for Scotland or Wales to obtain what they desire, at least 45% of English must agree, and those elected must be honest. It means that every Scot and every Welsh citizen is being denied over 90% of their democratic right, even before the intrinsic and endemic Westminster failings are considered.

We fundamentally exist in the United Kingdom within what is an “elected” dictatorship. It’s a dictatorship where one individual holds primacy for a period of years, where dissenters can be “whipped” into line to ensure the masters bidding. Today’s downing street incumbents are little more than the visible participants in a modern day “Game of Thrones”, participants not principles, as the true power appears wielded by the denizens of the City.

There is no method to remove this premier, this “elected” head of state, and if our representatives fail us there is no way to remove them either. It’s not democracy; it’s lightly modified perpetuation of the “rotten boroughs’” under democracy’s guise.

The Iraq war is a case in point, Scotland and Wales found themselves powerless. In England there’s the ongoing case of privatising education, the NHS and social structures, the English discover themselves powerless in face of the onslaught of the pursuit of private profit, against societal weal. Because of their own rotten electoral system, they’re also politically impotent. A politician, any politician who doesn’t keep his or her word must be impeachable. In this corrupt dis-United Kingdom, they aren’t.

Disenfranchisement and disrespect for democracy are not just historical; they exist today, this month, and are ongoing in the Union parties. Take for instance the local council elections in Scotland, just last week. The voter’s choice absent an overall majority is for the two largest parties to work together, to compromise. They got the most votes after all. Most often the outcome was a Labour/Tory cabal arising to prevent any potential of democracy being fulfilled. Unionist parties would rather compromise policy than cooperate with the SNP.

We also had the Scottish Government referendum consultation, where Labour freely admitted creating false email addresses and submitting responses under the guise of Walt Disney characters. Such an intentional attempted perversion of democracy’s course should surely see them struck from the political party register, but no, not in this severely disenfranchised Kingdom where such aberrations are to the benefit of the establishment.

Voter turnout is low because respect doesn’t exist in our political system. How many times have we heard the comment “they’re all the same, why bother?”

There is only one effective way to correct the situation, to revert to three nations with the Northern Irish choosing their own destiny. There could be a federal structure as the Lib-Dem’s previously proposed, and then reneged upon in Scotland. Alternatively each nation could truly see a dramatic increase in enfranchisement, in democratic value as its own nation gained a true voice in its own best interests at every one of the world’s top tables, each would revert to its natural state, independent. The Scots, Welsh and even the English themselves would no longer be isolated.

Until that day arrives the Scots and Welsh have no significant input to monetary policy, to taxation methods, to social benefits, to retirements, or to health and elderly care. The English are in little better shape. The Scots and the Welsh get what London chooses based largely upon the needs and desires of “the City”. The wealth and social structure of at least two constituent nations is presently available for the avaricious potential just of one town. That is a failure of democracy; it is a dilution of value of the vote of every individual in each nation.

To convince millions of Scots to vote no to independence, to continue to surrender over 9/10th’s of their fundamental democratic rights to another in return for “warm and fuzzies” would be an incredible accomplishment. Consider that there have been no serious arguments of substance as to the Union benefits to Scotland while those based in reality consistently show how Scots have been harmed by the 1707 Union.

With even the American’s affirming Scots probable success as independent nation, as this Wall Street Journal article voices, and it’s just one example, still some of us will vote against the idea of better democracy, of more individual power, of greater liberty, of independence. This leaves us with one inescapable conclusion to every Union vote placed in the upcoming referendum.

Votes for the Union will represent a completely unprecedented success in dictatorial propaganda, better and more polished now by London than ever Goebbels or Stalin’s Pravda could have imagined, for never yet in the course of human political history will it have been possible to spin so many into giving up so much for so few.

FAQ, the spin and the reality.

What would Scottish independence mean for the monarchy?


The Union Perspective: Under the Scottish Government’s current plans, Scotland would retain Queen Elizabeth as head of state and remain within the Commonwealth.

The Reality: Any future king or queen would likely be required to undergo a Scottish coronation instead of simply swearing an oath in a back room in London. The option for Scotland to become a republic would always remain open and would happen if it was the settled will of the people. Independence may be the best option for the Monarchy in Scotland, each new head could be voted in preferably by referendum. Election by popular acclaim followed by due crowning in Edinburgh or other Scots location with public swearing of the oaths of office could not only help to revive the Monarchy north of Tweed, but it would also ensure the monarch worked for the people.

Would an independent Scotland keep the pound?

The Union Perspective: Yes, until it chooses the Euro. But keeping Sterling would mean it loses control over monetary policy to the Bank of England, and ideally need Scotland to strike a currency union deal with the remainder of the UK.


The Reality: Yes, that is current policy. The Bank of England is part of the Treaty of Union [article 16] so would be an intrinsic part of untying that treaty. In theory Scotland is an equal partner in the Bank of England, but with the bank’s semi autonomous position there’s a lot to be negotiated. It is in Scotland’s interest to retain Sterling to prevent the possibility of a run on the currency which will inevitably be weakened if/when Scotland leaves. It is entirely possible a future Scotland will join another currency union or set her own coinage, that will be a choice of Scots in days to come. Currently, under the Union, Scotland has no say on monetary policy.

Who would get North Sea oil revenues if Scotland declared independence?


The Union Perspective: The Scottish government believes Scotland is entitled to a 90% geographical share of the North Sea's oil and gas fields, giving it 81% of all the oil and gas produced in 2010. This has not been tested and the UK government refuses to confirm this.

The Reality: International law is clear; Scotland gets over 90% of presently identified reserves. The maritime boundaries on the East also revert to historical norm/international agreement bringing more territory back to Scotland, and as yet unidentified resources in the West as far as Rockall’s boundaries will also fall under Holyrood. Berwick upon Tweed would return to Scotland, become independent, or remain with England. Berwick is legally a Scots town but will likely be given a choice due to its unique treaty history.

Could an independent Scotland have bailed out RBS and HBOS?


The Union Perspective: Not without great difficulty. The UK government spent £45bn bailing out RBS and £20bn on Lloyds, which took over Halifax Bank of Scotland to avoid its collapse. That exceeds Scotland's annual tax receipts. But most significantly, at its peak, the Treasury had £465bn at risk in cash and guarantees, well over three times Scotland's total GDP, even if a full geographical share of North Sea oil is included.

The Reality: Absolutely. International accord [but not international law, as Iceland showed no nation needs to bail out private industry] is clear; nations are expected to be responsible for debts accruing within their boundaries. When a European bank recently failed the Dutch, French and Belgians all bailed it out, proportionate to the business share in each nation. With only around 5% of the UK banking business being in Scotland Holyrood would have been responsible for somewhere around £4 billion in direct funds and less than £25 billion in guarantees.

This assumes that Holyrood would put private debt onto the public account which it could quite simply have refused to do. The real answer in hard cash is therefore anywhere between £0.00 and £4 billion would have been required. That £4 billion wouldn’t have just been “gifted”, it would have bought shares which could later be sold. An already independent Scotland could have been expected to have reserves’ like Norway [McCrone] and simply underwritten such a sum, unlike London which had to borrow it. The Union perspective also operates under an assumption that Scotland would have permitted its banks to “run riot”, it is equally likely that Scots banks would have operated under a system as secure as Canada’s or Norway’s.

Would an independent Scotland have its own armed forces?


The Union perspective: Certainly but it remains unclear how large it would be or what alliances it would forge. The Scottish government believes it will be based around the UK mobile armoured brigade being moved to Scotland, and could spend about £2.1bn, similar to defence budgets in Norway and Denmark.

The Reality: Scotland contributes £3.3 billion to UK defense. Defense spending in Scotland is now less than £1.5 billion and falling. Scotland can increase defense spending to a Nordic level by adding some £600 million in internal expenditure and still pocket over $1 billion, which currently goes to London, for future investment in her own people. The UK government is presently completing the process of disbanding almost all the Scots regiments.

What would happen to Royal Navy and RAF bases in Scotland, including Trident?


The Union perspective and Reality coincide: Alex Salmond's government believes it needs one principle airbase and one principle naval base, in addition to an army. It may take over Faslane on the Clyde as its naval base but wants the Trident submarines based there to leave. It would use the last remaining RAF base in Scotland at Lossiemouth in Moray. The exact details are fluid, but the proposals are expected to leave a stronger, better equipped, better funded military in Scotland than presently exists under the UK.

If Salmond wins a referendum can Scotland simply declare independence?


The Union Perspective: Not immediately. All the key issues, like Scotland's share of UK debt, dividing up North Sea oil fields, a possible currency union, taking over military bases and UK government offices, would need to be negotiated. Some argue the final deal should also be ratified in a referendum: Salmond has suggested it will be approved by the results of the Scottish parliament election in May 2016. It is unclear how the UK parliament would approve any deal. There would also be a transition period before that process was complete which could take several years.

The reality: Yes. Negotiations would then take place between two sovereign nation states rather than a unitary state representing three nations and one who is then of indeterminate status. The legality and political reality are even different here; Holyrood could declare independence tomorrow if it chose, legally, because it’s the representative government of Scots, but the political reality is everyone accepts a referendum is needed to make it “clean”. There is nothing to prevent a declaration on the day of a positive result, just like moving out and waiting for formal distribution of obligations. The reality is time will be required to set up taxation and social funding structures, but this should have been done before the vote if all parties are cooperating.

What do the opinion polls say?


The Union Perspective: The latest polls show a rise in support for independence and a decline in support for the UK, but the findings vary dramatically depending on what question is asked.

On 31 January 2012, Ipsos-MORI asked voters to choose based on that question, and found: 37% said yes, and 50% no. Firming up those answers to focus on only those who were certain to vote, and the proportion preferring independence rose to 39%.

However, in early February, a Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland, had a more startling finding – that 47% would vote yes to the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?", against 53% saying no.

The Reality: The polls are now running almost neck and neck, but often include weighting or wording which can skew the outcome if not applied correctly. Scots have not yet had the debate and it’s even. There has been little to no balance in reporting and many true facts about the state of their nation remain hidden from the average Scot.

It’s reasonable to expect that with full and honest debate, absent deception, and with the parties campaigning on the platform strengths alone the result should surpass that of the 1997 referendum which showed an average between the two ballots of a “yes” vote in the high 60’s.

Can Salmond hold a multi-option referendum?


The Union perspective: Probably, but it would involve a major political gamble. Salmond wants the freedom to give voters an extra option of voting on devo plus or devo max, to give Scotland greater autonomy within the UK. His opponents say this is technically difficult and would confuse voters. Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie has posed a question known as Rennie's riddle: if independence won 51% support but devo plus 99%, would Salmond still opt for independence? Salmond also needs someone else to campaign for devo plus in a referendum; so far no-one has offered to do so.

The Reality: Yes. It would be held just like the 1997 referendum, there would be two ballot questions, on two separate ballots. Do you want Independence, do you want Devo Max. The devo max option, like the tax question in 1997 would only come into play dependent upon the result of the other ballot. There’s no ambiguity, there’s no confusion, there’s no obfuscation.

Holyrood would need to define “Devo-Max” very precisely, and there would need to be a time limit for Westminster to agree, or that agreement would require being in place before the poll. Failure to secure the terms of “Devo-Max” would of necessity require creating a default condition of either votes for Independence or triggering a second referendum after say, twelve months, if Westminster failed to act honourably over “Devo-Max”.

Devo-Max is essentially Scots saying they will offer an opportunity to Westminster to renegotiate the 1707 treaty. Westminster can then either accept or refuse. The reality of the situation is that Westminster is strongly against significant constitutional change, it perceives Devo-Max as forcing this upon it and simply hopes it can win a “yes/no” independence vote as it did with Clegg’s PR referendum and avoid any change to the way it does business.

What does it mean for me, my life, my future citizenship?

The Union Perspective: Someone born or resident in Scotland: it should mean a greater direct say over one's government and more political freedom, but also greater economic risks, less security and more differences with England.

The Reality: A vote in an election is no longer diluted 11 to 1. There will typically be easier access to needed services, more nimble government which is closer to the people and an overall a climb of about 10 places in the world wealth table. This should signal an end to Austerity, an ability to invest inwardly and a potential which does not presently exist to protect the welfare state and social services. Scots could also realistically expect lower taxes, or equivalent taxes with better support and infrastructure. It appears the Union considers everyone should be just like England?

The Union Perspective: Non-Scottish UK citizen: not a great deal, but the UK economy will be smaller, oil and whisky might be more expensive, British identity would be diluted and Britain's status overseas could be weaker.

The Reality: There will be no UK economy. Scotland and England will become equal free trading neighbours on the world stage with fair competition, not London’s lopsided rules. There will be a period of potential constitutional upheaval as Wales and Northern Ireland figure out their future. The pound will track closely to present values until Scotland decides to leave Sterling, at that time based upon present indicators there’s a strong potential of sudden and substantial devaluation. There could be significant positives after the adjustment period with improvements in the Scots economy, democracy and accountability, or it could be simply “business as usual” at Westminster. Scotland will have a voice at the top tables which far exceeds her size and is proportionate to her wealth. British identity is something of little to no value with only a minute percentage seeing themselves as “primarily British”.

Someone outside UK: Pro and anti-Union supporters now largely agree, Scotland is expected to remain in the EU, so there will be few major changes for tourists or investors. Future EU choices would be for Scots themselves to make which will permit Scotland a direct voice at Europe’s top table on fisheries and agriculture, to name but two. With 50% of Europe’s fossil fuel supplies and 30% of its green energy potential, Scotland is expected to “punch well above her weight” and be one of the principles in future policy formulation. Most importantly Scotland will now have direct representation for her interests at every significant level.