Scotland: How a Nation was Conned

How Westminster lies conned a nation into voting NO in September 2014.

And why the fight for Scottish Independence will continue until it happens.

A wonderfully enthusing video for people wanting independence for Scotland  and a shaming one for those who don't.

Episode 2 : Winner Take Nothing begins with the increasingly desperate ‘No’ campaign arranging Her Majesty’s backing. The impact of Project Fear's negativity, elite self-interest, media imbalance and last-minute promises finally proved too much to overcome for the Yes campaign. Interviewees consider aspects of voter behaviour and results as well as flaws in the Yes argument that require attention before considering a second referendum. In a campaign that saw the unionist parties prepared to destroy themselves to win, perhaps the real winner was the newly politically aware Scottish public who are still deeply engaged in a conversation about their constitutional future, a debate that seems destined to arrive at only one conclusion. 

This episode includes interviews with Derek Bateman, Janice Galloway, James Kelly, Paul Kavanagh (Wee Ginger Dug) and Christopher Silver.

This can also be found on Youtube using the link below...
https://youtu.be/-zV1h20li20

This can also be found on the 'Wee Ginger Dug' blog at the address below...
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/altered-state-part-2/

This episode follows on from my post of 30th September.
http://scotcitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/altered-state-critique-on-first.html

#toysootthepram #biggestcrisissincetheabdication #projectfear2 and all that stuff. Its now the big day!

Well here we are again on the day of a UK General Election.

So much has changed, but so much stays the same.

One of the things that has marked out this campaign, is the coverage that Scotland has been getting. The BBC has been showing Reporting North Britain (known by the BBC as Reporting Scotland), and North Britain 2015 with Sarah Smith (known by the BBC as Scotland 2015) on the BBC Parliament channel so it has been available to everyone in the UK. No other BBC ‘local’ news programme or political programme is shown on this channel on a daily basis. Nicola Sturgeon has been getting coverage and the ability to state the SNPs case outside Scotland during UK wide news and leaders debates. 

Nobody can deny that the SNP’s position in the polls has not considerably raised Scotland’s profile.

What has stayed the same is the British Establishment’s reaction to the SNP. However now it looks as though the SNP and therefore Scotland might actually have the possibility of getting something out of a UK General Election, the barbs have been getting somewhat stronger although have not been to the standard we have come to expect after the Scottish Independence Referendum campaign in the months and years leading up to September 2014.

There were murmurs of #ProjectFear2 but when a twitter storm started from disgruntled Yes supporters this very quickly seemed to peter out , although it may be resurrected at the polling stations by Labour representatives mirroring what occurred at the polling stations at the Independence Referendum.

We then had the #biggestcrisissincetheabdication from Theresa May the UK Home Secretary. True she was referring to a constitutional crisis stating that English voters would question the legitimacy of a UK Government where the SNP held sway over taxation and spending powers that would not affect their own country. She was obviously forgetting the fact that Scotland too is part of the UK (quite a common problem for those in Westminster, even for many of those elected from Scottish constituencies once they are in the Westminster bubble), the SNP are a UK political party legitimately standing for election to the UK parliament to represent Scotland, and that Scotland had to put up the same thing in the opposite direction for just under 300 years up to the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament in 1999. After all when Scotland had 72 seats to England’s 550 there was not a great deal Scotland could do about anything as it didn’t really matter how it voted. Scotland’s views only ever mattered when they coincided with what England wanted, and that remains largely the case since 1999 in matters reserved to Westminster.

This was quickly followed by #toysootthepram Milliband, who was so harassed by the ‘impartial’ UK media, indicated that he wouldn’t even talk to the SNP if they won lots of Westminster seats in the House of Commons inferring strongly that he would therefore prefer a Tory Government rather than a left wing coalition if this coalition required the SNP to function. This indicated a lack of political maturity on his part (hence the ‘toys oot the pram’ line), but also part of the arrogance and the sense of entitlement that has come to be associated with Labour in Scotland i.e. they don’t care how people voted as everyone is going to have what Labour wants.

According to the opinion polls Scotland could be on the cusp of something historic. I can’t say as I am surprised given the infamous vow which promised the maxiest devolution but ended up a mish mash which will be a nightmare to administer and gives Scotland complete control of road signs but very little else. Everything else seems to be qualified by the requirement for a Scottish decision to be approved by Westminster which largely defeats the point unless I am missing something.

The opinion polls have been showing the SNP polling amazing numbers since late 2014 and I remain in a state of disbelief over them. If the SNP win anything above 11 seats then the result will be historic (NB: When these 11 seats were achieved in November 1974 Scotland had 72 Westminster seats). If the party gets more than 30 as looks likely then Scotland is much less likely to be ignored in future as it gives the SNP real clout. If the SNP win over 50 seats out of the possible 59 Scottish seats then I may need to call an ambulance for the shock. I have wanted the SNP to get a majority of seats in Scotland since 1978, and I honestly thought I would never be alive to see the day. However if I end up in hospital I don’t think I shall get seen very quickly because of the queue of ousted Labour MPs in front of me. If anyone reading this knows me and wonders where I am on Friday when I am not contactable I shall send you my ward number in due course.

However Scotland’s position even if the unlikely event of the SNP gaining 59 out of the available 59 seats was to actually occur then it needs to be remembered that although an amazing political statement will have been made, because Scotland remains part of the UK this will still only be a small part of the 650 seats in the House of Commons in Westminster. This is the actuality of Scotland’s position in the UK, and nobody in Scotland should forget it. It is only the fact that both major UK parties are virtually neck and neck in the rest of the UK that Scotland can have clout on this occasion.  Onwards and upwards.

Dear Willie...

Letter sent to Willie Bain our beloved MP in Glasgow North East

Hello William,

I have just read your leaflet, as delivered to my household on 11/4/15. I have numerous questions arising from this, and would like to seek some answers from you. I hope you can take the time to answer.

The first thing that is brought to my attention is that our NHS is in "crisis". Can you please tell me why your party denied this pre-referendum?

It then says that "our families" are £1600 per year worse off under the Tories and that your Party will fight against this. May I point out that Labour voted WITH the Tories on further austerity? May I also point out that Labour have had the GNE seat for in excess of 80 years, and that it's one of the poorest constituencies in the country. I mean, the Tories haven't always been in charge....can I have your thoughts on this?

The next thing that is brought to my attention is that Labour will increase the minimum wage to £8. Other Parties have quoted £8.70 and £10 respectively, so why does £8 make you the better choice? Also, may I ask why Labour voted against the other proposed rises in favour of a lower proposal?

I then see that Labour plan to abolish "exploitative" Zero-hour contracts. It is a well known fact that in excess of 500 staff-members are employed by Labour on such contracts. Does this mean that you are admitting that your Party currently exploits people? Also, can you please explain why, after Tony Blair promised the same thing in 1995, we are still no further forward 20 years later?

The leaflet also mentions the mansion tax that your Party proposes. How many homes in Britain are worth £2m plus? I can't imagine that such tax will cover much. Can you please explain just how much this tax will cover?

I also see that you say that if we don't vote Labour, the Tories will get in. I'd like to point out that Scotland voted Labour in 1951, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and 2010 and got Tory anyway? That's a staggering 10 from the last 15, so kind of disproves your notion. Can I ask why you still think that voting Labour beats the Tories?

We have here an opportunity to have a Labour/SNP government, going by the polls. Do you not think that Labour not working with the SNP would allow the Tories in? Given that your printed assertion is wrong?

I note you also mention that you are anti-austerity. May I then ask why your Party voted FOR the cuts alongside the Tories? And why Ed Balls has said he won't change any of the current Tory plans?

Moving on to the 50p tax for £150,000 plus earners. Well, there aren't many of them in the UK. In fact, the Prime Minister doesn't even earn that. So....how much will this cover?

Finally, may I ask why your leaflet does not offer any advice on what YOU will do for us? You've been my MP for 6 years, and you do not say one thing that YOU will do for GNE.

I know that's a lot of questions. But they're the questions that immediately run through my head upon reading your promotional leaflet. I hope you can answer my concerns, and convince me it is not just the "same old".

Thanks,

James Gilchrist

reproduced with the kind permission of the author.

SCOTLAND WAS ROBBED OF ITS INDEPENDENCE

This is my response to any NO VOTER who tells me to just get over it and accept the result that Scotland VOTED NO in September 2014.

If the Scottish Referendum had been conducted FAIR and SQUARE then the result would have been considered to be more acceptable to the people who campaigned for and then voted "YES".

Unfortunately by any measure it wasn’t. David Cameron himself said, and I quote " The Scottish Referendum is a matter solely for the people of Scotland to decide".

From that moment on the people of Scotland and down south were bombarded with scaremongering lies and deceit from Westminster, Better Together and mainstream media which includes the newspapers, the broadcasters with particular reference to the BBC.

Westminster was virtually put on hold when it looked despite all this that Scotland may have the temerity to vote Yes with 100 Westminster Labour MPs shipped up to Scotland by train to try to force a NO vote.

Bus loads were brought from England and Wales (paid and fed I may add) to canvas for a NO vote whereas Yes campaigners were largely doing everything for free and were from Scotland.

Scottish Pensioners were phoned in their homes by Better Together and told that they could lose their pensions and put them at risk if they voted "YES". This was then backed up by Labour people at the gates of polling stations telling those on benefits or pensions that they would lose them if people voted YES.

Scottish SUPERMARKETS and BANKS and BUSINESSES were called into Downing Street to frighten the Scots about prices going up and businesses moving south and mortgages costing more if they "VOTED YES".

Scotland was told that the NHS would be at risk if they VOTED "YES". But we now know from Labour General Election campaigning that it is at risk in the Union. Gosh what a surprise! People were told that Scotland’s OIL would run out in 20 years; and 2 days after a NO VOTE they were told that the Oil would last at least 120 years. None of the economics of a Yes vote was based on oil being anything other than an added extra.

The USA was contacted to speak out for the Union; Russia was contacted to speak out for the Union; Spain was contacted to speak out for the Union; The EU was contacted to tell Scotland it would not be allowed in the EU. Even the British Embassies around the world were contacted to support the Union.

Every dirty trick in the book was used by Westminster against Scotland voting Yes. The only thing they did not do was put tanks on the streets and threaten to blow Scots off the map.

In spite of all the lies, the might of "THE ESTABLISHMENT" and dirty tricks etc being launched against them 45% of all the Scots VOTED "YES".

I think under the circumstances people in Scotland therefore have every right to vigorously pursue self determination and independence for their country. Justice will be seen to be done and honesty will prevail.

Any reservations I may have had before the vote have now gone thanks to what occurred during the campaign and on the day of voting. Until the day of Scotland’s independence, the fight goes on. Of that the world can be rest assured.

A rant about Scottish Independence prompted by a video from Stephen Paton online.

A great video (and series of videos), well presented, with excellent content research and sound reasoning. For more in this series  see Stephen Paton on Youtube.

 

At 3:27 in this particular video, it is stated that Scotland voted NO to devolution in 1979. This is a small point but this is not correct. In Scotland a majority actually voted YES, but, because of the terms of the Act passed by Westminster no devolution was given. These terms that 40% of the total population had to vote YES. This meant that dead people actually counted as NO votes; those that could not be bothered to vote counted as NO votes; those people who felt that it didn't concern them who also had a vote but did not use it also counted as NO votes. For any other referendum or election these terms are completely ridiculous and outrageous but for Scotland it was okay according to Westminster, the Labour Party and the Conservatives. The fact that we went into the Common Market on a simple majority which was a far bigger constitutional change for the UK as whole didn't matter.

The results of the Referendum in 1979

Scotland in 1979 by any reasonable democratic measure therefore did vote YES in 1979! Never let it be said that they didn't. Westminster wouldn't know the meaning of the word democracy unless of course people vote in a way that suits them (but if you are Scotland then that doesn't matter much given that we have only affected the outcome of a General Election twice in 100 years. Good luck for 2015 if we vote NO?). How can this be the great EQUAL union of nations that the UK is according to Better Together when you are dominated by England 59 to 533 (which incidentally works out as 9% representation). 

 I want Scotland to be normal and be able to make its own decisions without being dictated to by Westminster in which Scotland has such a small stake.

I want Scotland to be free of nuclear weapons, which are currently situated here because they are too dangerous to be situated in the Thames just beside the Houses of Parliament in London.

The simple way to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

 I want to get rid of the absurd notion that being run by a Parliament we did elect in Edinburgh with no real power and one which we most definitely did not vote for in Westminster is actually 'the best of both worlds'.

Scotland deserves better than this. Best of both worlds? Best for whom?

I want to live in a country that actually utilises its resources wisely rather than completely squandering them like the UK has done with the oil from Scotland's waters in the North Sea. This is completely unlike one of Scotland's nearest neighbours Norway (who with a similar population, similar oil reserves but a less diverse economy, has invested their proceeds wisely, and the money from those oil revenues will benefit the Norwegian people forever). Scotland is also unlike almost ANY OTHER OIL producing country in the World (except Iran) in that it has not invested the oil proceeds for the future. This was another decision again taken by Westminster on the Scots behalf as they knew best! Scotland has very little to show for discovering oil and indeed it can credibly be argued that Scotland has suffered because of it. To quote Margo MacDonald 'The economic management of Scotland's resources by London has been awful, surely we couldn't do it worse ourselves?'

A quote from the late Margo MacDonald, a greatly respected politician in Scotland and who is much missed.

 As has been proved by the Scottish Parliament YES WE CAN make better decisions ourselves if we have control over our own affairs. We have decided to prioritise our spending (as that is all we in actuality have any real control over at present) in different ways i.e. abolishing tolls on Scottish bridges, making prescriptions free so you are not taxed for being ill, making student fees free so again the person wishing to improve themselves is not taxed more than once for the audacity of actually wanting to improve their own, their family’s, and their descendants lives, and ultimately improving their country's and the World’s future. We have prioritized infrastructure spending to boost our wide ranging and diverse economy both now and in the future. Before this wouldn’t have happened – As Boris Johnston says ‘My argument to the Chancellor and the Treasury is that a £ spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country (UK?) in strict utilitarian calculus than a £ spent in Strathclyde. Indeed…’. 

We have tried with limited resources to mitigate the effects of policies that are an anathema to Scotland like the welfare cuts but in our current position we can do only so much. Why does it make economic and social sense to have a few so very rich, when the poorest and most vulnerable must rely for food-banks for their very survival whilst living in freezing homes because they can’t afford to heat them, if indeed they have a home at all? (Why is it you need to be sent to prison in the UK to be assured of having a roof over your head, and enough food to eat? Why is it you can have a full time job, due to the low UK minimum wage, but still not earn enough to have enough money to actually live on without additional assistance? Indeed in such a rich country (referring on this occasion to the UK as whole) are these things and many other similar examples not obscene?)

Indeed why should we have to try to reverse the effects of a decision that we in general strongly object to (by spending part of a finite amount of money, so graciously given back to us by Westminster, thus damaging some other person as a result), when we and our own Parliament could have made a better decisions for the people of Scotland in the first place?

It has been said many times that a decent society should make decent provision for the poorest and most vulnerable, and this is a mark of true civilization. Where does this fit in to the current UK philosophy, particularly since all the London based UK parties generally agree on the current fiscal package and the current political trajectory. Scotland seems to have developed, over a long period, a different political and social philosophy summed up by the saying ‘We’re all Jock Tamson’s bairns’. It seems finally to be realising this no longer applies if it decides to stay in the UK.

Iain Duncan Smith, UK Government Minister, Department of Work and Pensions, heckled by Willie Black [27MAR2013] 

The choice between YES and NO is almost nothing to do with Bannockburn, tartan, bagpipes, haggis (and dare I say it Tunnocks Tea Cakes, or Barrs Irn Bru and the like after the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014 opening ceremony last week) and Scotland’s romantic past as portrayed by Sir Walter Scott and continuously perpetuated by perplexed media persons of all nations who seem unable to understand. 

It is nothing to do with traditional anti external forces of nationalism which the UKIP is espousing which is striking a chord mainly in voters who feel disenfranchised in England, and much more radically the National Socialists did in Germany prior to the Second World War. It is not about ethnicity, nationality, sex, or sexuality either, as is illustrated by the diversity and inclusivity of the YES campaign (see English Scots for YES, Africans for YES, Cabbies for Yes, Academics for YES, YES LGBT, NHS for YES, etc.). Who would have thought that we would have Labour activists campaigning for the same goal as the SNP, the Scottish Greens, the Scottish Socialists, and even right wingers too?

It is not about putting up borders where none existed as they do all ready in Scotland’s every-day life. Indeed it is about removing some barriers and lowering some borders to people from around the World, including the 800000 people who reside in the remaining UK who currently have no jobs here to match their talents and aspirations. It is about ending the almost obligatory requirement for Scots to go to other parts of the World, and the UK, in particular London, to fulfill their cherished ambitions. Why can these ambitions not be equally achieved currently in Scotland? Does this not mean the current set up doesn’t work well? To me it is obvious things are not fine the way they are, and that little seems likely to change in the foreseeable future if we stay in the UK.

 

A YES vote will show that Scotland has finally shown it needs to join the world on its own terms, free from the often toxic filter of Westminster which still seems to hark back to British power, imperialism and Empire. 

 

A YES vote is about normalism, self determination, internationalism, the future, and the settled belief that we have a very good chance of being able to do things better (as we certainly have all the resources to do so – as the YES and the NO campaigns agree, or at least say they do).

We would have an equal place in the World as a nation, just like any other. I have heard the arguments that Scotland’s voice at the UN, in Europe and in other international bodies would be much diminished if we are an actual member state and for some reason, I just don’t know why, I just don’t believe it. 

Scotland’s Future is in Scotland’s hands on the 18^th September 2014. For the first time all the residents of Scotland will hold their own country’s sovereignty in their own hands in a single moment. Whose hands will that sovereignty will be in the day after?  I know whose hands I want it to be in. I don’t want to be as reckless as the UK has been, with Scotland’s resources and people, up until now. It is far better to have more control in an uncertain World.  I am risk averse so I am voting YES.

A Sterling Area the sensible option – for everyone

A currency union is the sensible option for all

A currency union is the sensible option for all - with Scotland and remaining UK continuing to use the £ within an agreed framework of shared input into cooperative financial supervision, and agreed fiscal rules.   

The right choice for Scotland and for the remaining UK

The proposals for a formal currency union came from internationally renowned economists including Sir James Mirrlees.  Sir James won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1996.  You can read the full proposals of Sir James and his colleagues in the Fiscal Commission’s First Report here.  On 13th February 2014 Sir James confirms in the Scotsman that a currency union is the right choice for Scotland AND for remaining UK.  

It is surely the most logical option

Sir James explains:  “Political debate will take place on the issue of a currency union. Technical discussions will continue.  A continuation of sterling in its present area, which would be a benefit for all parts of the UK, is surely the most logical option. Politics may cloud that view as the referendum approaches”.

And people across the UK agree

A poll from December 2013 shows that 71% of people in the rest of the UK supported a formal currency union after Scotland votes Yes.  The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey in 2013 found 79% of Scotland’s people thought Scotland should retain the pound after Yes.  

Why a currency union would be “a benefit for all parts of the UK”

• A different currency would increase the costs for UK companies exporting to Scotland

The remaining part of the UK exports almost £60 billion of goods and services each year to Scotland. Even straightforward currency transaction costs would take £500 million per year from businesses in England and endanger thousands of jobs.

• Maintaining a ‘level playing field’

Businesses on either side of the border will compete on a level playing field as neither will benefit from gaining an artificial advantage from currency devaluation.  

• Price transparency helps competition – lowering prices and boosting productivity in both countries

Consumers are better placed to compare similar goods on both sides of the border, boosting competition and choice

• Both Treasuries will benefit from keeping trade easier and cost free

Because it’s good for the economy, currency union is also good for BOTH treasuries

• Shared Sterling supports an integrated labour market across the Sterling Area

Using the same currency eases movement throughout – for workers and indeed tourists and other visitors.

• Oil and gas make a massive £30 billion contribution to the Sterling balance of payments.

We can use the £ anyway And what some fail to remember is that Scotland cannot be stopped from using the £ anyway.  As a fully tradable currency we don’t need George Osborne’s permission to carry on using it.  However, as explained above, the currency union has added advantages of shared input into cooperative financial supervision, and agreed fiscal rules.    Has Osborne even read the Fiscal Commission Report? As we know, the Bank of England has been in technical discussions with the Scottish Government as it draws up its proposals.  The UK Treasury has refused to take part in any such discussions – no wonder parts of his speech suggest that Mr Osborne hasn’t even read the Fiscal Commission proposals.   And his analysis in some areas is factually wrong – for example, the contribution of Scotland’s financial services to our national wealth is grossly overstated by the chancellor. It’s actually not significantly different to the UK. Issues such as financial stability, lender of last resort facilities, deposit protection schemes and fiscal sustainability have all been addressed in the Fiscal Commission proposals.  In short, everything that Osborne has queried has already been addressed.   Why we know Osborne’s doing this for political reasons alone A currency union works for all, and is wanted by all.  That’s why we know Osborne’s doing this for political reasons alone.   Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has called Osborne’s bluff and said Scots "shouldn't be fooled" by the suggestion that a currency union could not be worked out.     He told BBC Scotland: "This is entirely political and of course consistent with the unionist campaign. This is negative, it is about spreading fears and scare stories.  What we require from the unionist parties is a bit of statesmanship and quite frankly their behaviour so far falls well short of that."