Scottish life expectancy

What do you think is the life expectancy for a 21st century Scot?  According to official statistics,  the latest averages are 77.1 years for a man and 81.1 years for a woman.


What about a 'generation'.  How many years do you think that might be?  I reckon somewhere between 25 to 30 years.

The reason for these questions is that I am trying to understand why you or I might understand what a 'lifetime' or a 'generation' means and yet this can so escape the mind of Nicola Sturgeon - First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party and indeed, of all those SNP delegates at a conference, last Saturday, who rose as one to applaud Sturgeon's speech.

Sturgeon has said that later this Summer, presumably after the Euro Referendum, the Scots will undertake an exercise to kick-off a process which would lead to another Scottish 'independence' referendum being held.

What are we to make of this?

When the last referendum was held, the people of Scotland voted by 55% to 45% to remain part of the United Kingdom.  During that referendum campaign and in the aftermath of the result, politicians of all hues and persuasion,  including Nicola Sturgeon and her predecessor, Alex Salmond made clear that this was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'.

The referendum was held in September 2014, as in 18 months ago.  On what possible measurement can such a short period be considered a 'lifetime' or even a 'generation'?

Wags now dub this the 'neverendum'.  Sturgeon and the SNP have learnt well the lessons of European referendums. If you don't get the answer you want, ask again and keep asking until you do get the answer you want.  Yes it is a very warped version of representative democracy but it really is all of one with socialist politicking.  It is the political elite that knows best.  Those privy to the mind and musings of the leader and her cabal, must be right.

Consider though, what has transpired since that September 2014 referendum.  The SNP made so very much of the very positive impact that 'Scottish oil' would have on the Scottish economy.  At the time, Brent Crude was trading just north of $100 a barrel.  Since that time, oil prices have plummeted and, even though they have recently recovered a bit, now sit around $40 a barrel.  To say that this blows a hole in the sustainability of the finances of an independent Scotland would be an understatement of titanic proportions.

I don't want to bore you with statistics but consider the following:

                                                     £BN           % of UK GDP

Public Revenues                          51.6                 8.0

Public Revenue incl. Oil             53.4                 8.2

Public Expenditure                     68.4                 9.3
               
Deficit                                         13.7                 9.8

Deficit incl. Oil                           11.9                 7.8

The overall UK deficit was 3.3% of GDP

(source GERS 2016)

These figures show one of the greatest benefits of the Union.  Public spending in Scotland, at the above levels, was made possible because people in other parts of the United Kingdom, financed it. Remember too, that these Scottish Public Expenditure figures do not include any allocation of the financing costs for the UK's debt mountain.

The people of Scotland voted, in 2014, to remain part of the United Kingdom.  I believe that the economic uncertainty was a very large influencing factor.  In addition to the precarious nature of 'leaping into the dark' largely based on a single commodity, the other major factor was the post-independence currency.  The UK government had made clear that an independent Scotland could not expect to enjoy a currency union and the SNP could not answer what currency they would use.  There was undoubted fear among the Scottish electorate, that the only choice would be for an independent Scotland to join the Euro.  Sensible Scots had seen, time after time, the failings of this flawed currency and chose to have no part of it.

Nothing about this currency question has changed.

Any future independence referendum, in Scotland, requires an Act of Parliament, passed by the UK parliament.  The one at Westminster.  Nicola Sturgeon and many of those in the SNP, know this. They know that even their 50 Westminster MPs cannot force another referendum through Westminster.  If there was any residual sympathy for another referendum, then this will surely have been discarded when the recent activity of the SNP, at Westminster, has been considered.

I refer to the changes that were proposed to Sunday Trading laws.  These would only affect England and Wales.  They would bring the Sunday Trading laws, in England and Wales, into line that already prevail in Scotland.  Yet, the SNP decided to join with the Labour Party and others, including some Conservative dissenters and so voted out the opportunity.  They came up with the most spurious claim to defend their action but, at the end of the day, they voted on matters that, being an issue that is devolved to the Holyrood parliament, would have absolutely no impact in Scotland.  This was bare-faced political opportunism.

For me the position is crystal clear.  David Cameron should use the next available occasion (Wednesday's Prime Minister's questions?) to make clear that we will not allow a new Scottish  referendum to be on the legislative agenda during the lifetime of this parliament - so not before 2020 -  and that if the Conservatives are re-elected, in 2020, then it would not appear on future legislative programmes.

Knowing that Cameron and Osborne are highly political animals, I think this is a win-win for the Conservatives.  They take this issue off of the table for the immediate future and, more importantly, it will force Scottish electors to focus instead on the appallingly inept management of Scotland that the SNP exercise. The SNP, at Holyrood are failing the Scottish people.  They are failing on health, failing on education, failing on social care and failing the poor and the disadvantaged.

It doesn't take a cynic to suggest that this renewed enthusiasm for a referendum is a classic exercise in deflection.  The SNP don't want the Scots to look at their appalling record in Holyrood because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   The SNP want the Scots to go off on some kind of 'Braveheart' fantasy and ignore the wasted last 5 years.

Over to David Cameron.

Oh, and to the people of Scotland, so that they can give Sturgeon and her SNP bigots a very bloody nose.

SNP - Wind your neck in!

The SNP aided by the BBC seem to have got above themselves.  They both seem to forget that in September 2014, in a turnout significantly in excess of the 2015 General Election turnout (85% versus 71%) Scottish Independence was soundly rejected by Scottish voters.  The  55% No campaign  beating the the 45% for Yes.

Both also seem to have lost sight of the fact that, while the SNP captured a total of 56 of the 59 seats available within Scotland, they actually gained less than 50% of the votes cast.

Now we have the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, who is not even a member of the UK Parliament, thinking that she can rule the Westminster roost.  Truth is, she is most likely to have trouble controlling her own newly elected Westminster MPs who are acting like an uncouth rabble and are being egged on by Ms Sturgeon's, predecessor Alex Salmond and one will soon have to question if the dual role - Scottish First Minister and SNP Leader are compatible.

Time for some perspective.

Scotland represents less than 10% of the population of the UK, less than 10% of the UK economy and less than 10% of the seats at Westminster.  The SNP popular vote of 1.454 million was dwarfed by UKIP's 3.88 million and even by the Lib Dems 2.41 million - so when it comes to 'speaking for the people' a sense of proportion wouldn't be out of place.  Yes, the SNP gained 56 seats while UKIP only gained 1 and the Lib Dems just 8 and yes that is a reflection of the 'first past the post' system but that is the system that the UK chose to retain, when given a choice. However, as said, the SNP are always a minority party.

Out of courtesy, and, I hope,  only for that reason, David Cameron trooped up to Edinburgh, post election and held talks with Ms Sturgeon about fulfilling the Conservative plans on implementing the Smith Commission.  This is something which, while it represents even greater power for the Holyrood parliament, is actually opposed by Sturgeon - supposedly on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough.  Leave aside that the policy, called Full Fiscal Autonomy, was developed by Scottish politicians, Sturgeon fears FFA.  She fears this (and that is why Cameron must rigorously pursue it), because Sturgeon and the SNP will then be found wanting.  The Scottish economy simply cannot fund the lavish policies that the SNP push, based on its own economy.  It absolutely needs funding from the UK Exchequer.  The loonies that thuggishly follow the SNP  will spout on about Scotland's oil and so on, though they have been (mercifully) quite since the significant post IndyRef  decline in oil prices, but the simple fact is that Scotland needs funding from the UK, indeed, let's not be coy, they need funding from England.

She is also fearful because the SNP are being found out, in their own back-yard.   The SNP controlled parliament at Holyrood has presided over a frightening decline in educational attainment and standards, coupled with a significant reduction in the number of students from poor families, attending university.  We might expect a re-branded and hopefully suitably chastened Scottish Labour Party, along with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, will focus on these and other failings on the already existing devolved powers, when the next Holyrood elections are held, in 2016.

To hear the newly elected SNP Westminster MPs you would think that they have a mandate for governing the UK.  Simple truth is that they don't.  They don't even have a Scottish mandate!  They need to wind in their necks and get down to the real business of representing all of their constituents - those that voted for them and those that, in equal proportion, didn't vote for them.

And while we are on the subject of people losing their sense of proportion, let's be clear.  Scotland had its Independence Referendum and everyone agreed, including Salmond, Sturgeon and the SNP, that this was a once in a generation event.  Now the UK Government is planning to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.  This will be a countrywide referendum and will apply to the whole country and the results will be for the whole country.  If a majority of people in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire or even 35 Acacia Avenue, Solihull vote to remain in the EU while the majority vote to exit, then we all exit.  Ms Sturgeon has put forward a warped sense of democracy, as discussed here.

I am sure that the SNP and Yes voters retain a sour taste in their mouth after the IndyRef vote loss but now the SNP need to shut-up and get on with the job that they were elected to do!

Sturgeon's idea of democracy

Just in case you have been visiting the International Space Station or trekking through the Amazon or your name is Nicola Sturgeon, I wanted to let you know the outcome of the referendum on Scottish Independence.  The answer was 55.3% of the votes cast said no to independence.  This on a respectable turnout of 84.6%.

If you were on the ISS or seeking new species in the Amazon you could be forgiven for not knowing the result but Nicola Sturgeon is the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party and, following the referendum result and the resignation of Alex Salmond, she is soon to become the leader of the SNP and the First Minister of Scotland.  So clearly she does know the result!

Maybe it is the inappropriate climate in Scotland that causes the SNP vines to yield such sour grapes?  I ask because the latest proposal from Nicola Sturgeon is that in any referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union, then the result must not only be a majority over the whole of the UK, but also a majority in each of the constituent nations of the UK.  So if the UK as a whole votes to leave the UK but in Scotland there is a majority to stay in the EU, then the UK would have to stay in the EU!

This is a crazy notion of democracy.  I remind you that Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.  The UK is considered by international bodies as a unitary authority.  When treaties are signed, they are signed on behalf of the United Kingdom, not the constituent member countries but the United Kingdom.  The UK is a member of the United Nations and indeed the EU not the individual constituent nations.

This is fatuous nonsense from Sturgeon and the SNP.

When the SNP were pushing the independence agenda, seeking to divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK, they didn't for one minute consider the thoughts or opinions of the rest of the UK.  Scotland was to have this divorce and Scotland would decide how the fruits of the union would be shared out and the rest of the UK would just have to lump it.  There's a part of me that believes that many people in Scotland saw that such a one-sided approach to a divorce was unrealistic and unfair.  Think of any divorced couple that you know - do you you know of any where one party had to stay silent and accept everything that the other party wanted?  

Think further on Sturgeon's ideas of democracy.  Northern Ireland has an electorate of just over 1.4 million.  In Sturgeons World, if just over half of those voters  - say 706,000 vote no to leaving the EU  in a referendum then this would dictate the outcome for the whole of the UK.  These 706,000 voters would trump whatever the other 45 million voted for!  Of course, it could require even less than these 706,000 votes, since that is based on a 100% turnout in Northern Ireland!

This is blatantly absurd.  Sturgeon knows this but wants to bait the Westminster parliament and is trying to gain independence by the back door.  I guess the rationale at the SNP policy asylum runs something like this.  We will insist, on behalf of the people of Scotland, that any referendum on EU membership must have not only a UK majority but one in the same way in each of the constituent countries.  That way, if England's 38-39 million voters, vote no but just 706,000  people in Northern Ireland vote yes, then it doesn't matter what majority is found in the England part of the UK, the result will be determined by those Northern Ireland Yes votes!  This will really annoy the English and will strengthen UKIP and will lead to calls from the English for them to have independence from the rest of the UK and so, Scotland will be given independence even though it has said (against our strong advice) that it doesn't want it!  Magic!!

Sturgeon and the SNP know that foreign affairs is not a matter that is devolved to the Scottish parliament.  These powers are reserved to the national parliament at Westminster, where members of parliament, elected from across the UK represent the people of the UK.  Sturgeon and the rest of the Scottish parliament should stick to trying to manage Scottish affairs.

Loosely related to this subject, I was reading comments on the BBC about Sturgeon's outlandish proposals (seemed to be the majority viewpoint, there, as well).  Commentators kept referring to someone called Lego man and it took me a couple of minutes to get the visual and the connection - see how long it takes you!

After the vote.

We are a couple of days away from the result of the referendum on Scottish Independence.   The opinion polls suggest a close result likely to favour the No campaign.

In recent weeks there has been talk of David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, being called upon to resign if Scotland votes yes.  The people that make these calls offer no logical reason for why he should do that, other than he has ‘lost’ Scotland.  That is complete poppycock!  As a Unionist, and Englishman, I fully understand the limited participation of Cameron  in the debate.  When he has spoken it is with an obvious and deep-seated passion for our United Kingdom.  Let’s be clear though, the Conservatives are not well liked in Scotland.  Indeed, in some parts they are loathed.  A Scottish friend, who sits in the No camp, said that the less Cameron speaks on the referendum, the better, as his Etonian pronunciation just pushes the ‘don’t knows’ into the Yes camp.  I see his point and it is a sad reflection of the current debate that he may be right.  There’s a part of me though that thinks that as the campaign draws to a close, some people of Scotland are seeing (hearing?) past the voice and listening to the message.  This is a message of our shared history  and a strong desire to have the United Kingdom  continue to lead the world in so many fields.

I think though, that whatever the outcome, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon his deputy, must stand down on Friday morning.  They have led a very divisive campaign.  Oftentimes, they have either wittingly or unwittingly unleashed the thuggish element which inhabits the nationalist fringes (North and South of the border) . 

They have  given a glimpse of what life would be like in  Scottish Nationalist Scotland – Independent or not.  A State controlled media, for example.  One that pushes-out the party line according to wee Eck.  Salmond became furious with Nick Robinson, of the BBC, because Robinson has dared to question some of the more outrageous statements made by Salmond and Co.   Bad boy  Nick – go sit on the naughty step!      It was perhaps telling that Salmond’s outburst against the BBC came just after his independence campaign was solidly endorsed by North Korea’s Supreme Leader – a fully paid-up member of the ‘It’s my country to do with as I want and don’t dare question me’ club.   In Pyongyang one can’t say that the emperor has no clothes but is still possible, just, in Edinburgh. 

Salmond and Sturgeon have taken Scotland down a very divisive road and pitted neighbor against neighbor.  Does anyone believe these two have the ability to bring the country together, from Friday?  These are little people with little minds.  I’ll admit Salmond has a way with words but throughout this campaign they have not managed to craft an answer to the fundamental questions that have been posed.  Ask a question Salmond or Sturgeon don’t like  and back they come with a non-answer or an accusation that ‘you are in the pay of the distant Westminster elite’.  Ask about the Scottish NHS and the accusations that it would not be safe with a No vote and you get all the rubbish about privatization and nothing about the fact that Health is a devolved responsibility and so currently and will continue to sit with Holyrood and not London!  Oh, and by the way, the NHS was established, ever before devolution by those ‘Westminster elite types!’

So come Friday whatever the outcome,  Salmond and Sturgeon could do one last decent act for Scotland, by tendering their own resignations.   They have said nothing, in their years in power, to indicate that they have the spirit to heal the divisions that their hubris has brought about.  

Scotland's choice

I have written extensively on the subject of Scottish independence.

For the masochists and 'anoraks'  among you read here , here, here,, here on currency, and again here on currency , here on Shetlands and Oil here on Scotland and debt , also here on debt, and again, here.  There have been other posts as well which, if you are so minded you can seek out.

Why so many posts?  Something like 18 by my count.

Well, as an Englishman, of Irish parents, with a son and a grandson born in Scotland, Scotland is personally important to me.  It is an integral part of a great nation - the United Kingdom.  A country that I love.  A country that has a Scottish part, a Welsh part, and Irish part and an English part.  I will be very saddened if the people of Scotland  were to take the irrevocable step of voting for 'independence' from the rest of the UK.

Why 'independence' and not independence?  Well frankly, it is a funny kind of independence that is currently proposed.  An independence that cedes economic policy power to the rest of the UK and, given the ever creeping federalising of the European Union, other powers to Brussels.  Exactly what will Scotland be independent of?  It seems to me that what is really happening is that Alex Salmond and the Scottish Nationalists resent, maybe even hate, the English and this is why they want independence.

Anyway, on Thursday 18 September 2014, a referendum will be held and Scotland's choice will be made.  At the moment it looks like a narrow majority in favour of the  No vote will be the answer.

In some ways that bothers me most.  Non-Scottish politicians have been falling over themselves to offer to grant more powers to the devolved parliament for Scotland.  This is wrong!  Scotland has more than enough power already.  It has had minor tax raising power since devolution was granted and has chosen not to use it.

Have a care !  You politicians may offer Scotland more power but what then of the English?  In the House of Commons, today, we have MPs elected for constituencies in Scotland and in Wales that can vote on matters that solely affect England's constituencies and yet MPs representing English constituencies cannot vote on devolved issues relating to Scotland or Wales.  Mind you, neither can those Scottish and Welsh MPs!

The argument runs that the Westminster parliament is not representative of Scottish opinion because the UK has had the temerity to elect Conservative governments.  Well, bear in mind that Labour relies on the support of 55 Scottish based MPs as part of its power base and this is an overwhelming boost to Labour's electoral chances - absent these seats, Labour would struggle to be the major party in Westminster, as England typically leans toward the Conservative Party.

Since this will be my last blog post before the referendum, I also wanted to mention the tactics of the Yes campaign.  These seem to fall into the following categories.  If faced with a question that is uncomfortable and for which you have no answer, accuse the questioner of 'scare-mongering'.  When your lack of a policy, e.g. on post-independence currency, is challenged, insist that the Westminster parties - all three of the major parties - are bluffing.  When the governor of the Bank of England and numerous other economists chip in with the same questions, repeat the 'they're bluffing ' response.

Then there is the really  nasty side to the debate.  This is exemplified by Jim Sillars, the former leader of the SNP.  He has basically threatened vengeance upon all of those companies that have the temerity to stand-up and be counted and voice their opinion that  a Yes vote is the wrong vote.  There is even talk of nationalising the likes of BP.  Is it any wonder that companies like Standard Life and Royal Bank of Scotland are saying that if there a Yes vote, they will re-domicile their headquarters outside of Scotland.  Obviously the currency uncertainty will play a part but they surely also have a fiduciary duty, in the light of Sillars' comments, to protect their shareholder's interests by avoiding nationalisation.

To the Scots reading this, I say vote No on Thursday and stay in the family of nations that is the greatest on earth.

To the other nationalities that are reading this, get in touch with your Scottish friends and implore them to vote No.

To the politicians I say, stop pandering.  Scotland already has more than enough power.  devolve no more.

Remember VOTE NO!

Scotland's turmoil

The people of Scotland are around 40 days away from making a momentous decision - to remain part of the United Kingdom or to become an independent nation. The referendum question is straightforward enough but as with such things, the devil is in the detail.

In this case, there are more than a few unanswered questions and the recent TV debate between the leader of the pro-independence Scottish Nationalists, First Minister Alex Salmond and the leader of the Unionist Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling, did nothing to resolve the key ones.

I will declare an interest at the outset. I sincerely hope that the Scottish people vote to remain within the United Kingdom.  So if my comments seem somewhat slanted you will perhaps understand.

I live overseas and didn't manage to view the debate but by most all accounts, Alastair Darling and the Vote No campaign, won the debate in terms of people's pre and post views on how they would vote.  Certainly amongst the 15% or so that are 'undecideds'.

The reason for the 'No' victory is, I believe, due to the lack of answers, from Alex Salmond, on key issues.

What currency will Scotland have after independence?  Alex Salmond is insistent that it will be the existing Pound Sterling.  The UK political parties, in a rare show of unanimity have said that this will not be possible.  That the UK will not enter into the required currency union, with a post-independent Scotland.  You might think that the UK is being petty and peevish by such actions.  Maybe even that they are a poor loser, however, this is the stated policy of all of the major UK parties.  We know that politicians usually have only a limited attachment to the promises that they make but I think that the very public and very united approach that they have taken to this one, would mean that reneging on it would be very difficult.  Critically though, as I posted here , the Scottish Nationalists have no Plan B.

Alex Salmond has pinned his colours to the mast and said that Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  That's it.  All the ramifications of this?  Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  What kind of independence is this, when economic policy is effectively decided by another country?  Scotland will use the Pound Sterling.  How will Scotland use the Pound Sterling - or as Salmond now likes to call it, the Scottish Pound! - when the rest of the UK says no? Scotland will use the Pound Sterling!!

Another unanswered question which, to my mind is inextricably linked to the currency question is membership of the European Union.  Comments from European Commission leaders and European political leaders have not endorsed, for one minute, the Independence campaign's assertion that a newly independent Scotland would automatically be a full member of the EU.  Some have gone further and indicated that Scotland would need to apply for membership and go through the lengthy process of candidacy.   What is clear though, is that any new member of the EU is expected to adopt the Euro currency so where would that leave Alex Salmond's   'Scotland will use the Pound Sterling' assertion?

The third unanswered question, also linked to currency, relates to debt.  As in how much debt would the newly independent take-on from the United Kingdom.  Most pundits expect that it would be somewhere in the region of 8-10% of the UK National Debt as these numbers represent the relative share of UK population and GDP.  When Czechoslovakia split-up in 1992, population was the basis used as the measure.  this doesn't seem unreasonable.  Speaking of Czechoslovakia, they too had the currency dilemma.  Their solution was to continue with the existing  currency - score one for Alex Salmond - however, within a matter of months, two currencies were developed and the initial equality of exchange rate, soon fell away.

Linked to debt is the question of future liabilities.  This mainly relates to state benefits such as state pension.  These are largely unfunded and so paid out of current national income.  Scotland has something of a demographic time-bomb with its population aging being a greater proportion of the overall population, than occurs in the rest of the United Kingdom.   Does this get taken into account?  It certainly doesn't seem to have been considered by the pro-Independence politicians, who promise ever greener pastures and higher pensions in the free Scotland utopia that will come to be!

These are critical questions that need to be answered.  I doubt that they will be, during the coming six weeks - Alex Salmond will continue to rely on the 'heart' ruling the 'head' and winning because of that.  I sense though that the consistency of the No vote, in polls - always more than 50% - is because people, while liking the idea of an independent Scotland, realise that the actual notion has just not been properly thought through.  I suspect this is because, on an economic basis, the arguments simply don't stack-up - that Scotland is better-off, financially speaking, as a member of the United Kingdom.

Three other things to think about, this morning.

You will notice, after Salmond's less than stellar performance in the TV debate, that people in the Yes campaign are starting to distance themselves and the campaign, from Salmond.  Things are being said such as 'Salmond isn't the leader of the Vote Yes campaign' and so on.  Complete hogwash!  Say what you like about Salmond but please don't try to kid people that he has been anything other than at the forefront of the campaign for an independent Scotland for the last 30+ years.  And, frankly, he has been resolute in pushing the independence agenda.  Alex Salmond and the Scottish Nationalist Party continue to lead the Vote Yes campaign and don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

One worrying thing that is now on the horizon is the suggestion that the UK Parliament will grant extra powers over taxation and some other matters, to the devolved parliament in Scotland, should Scotland vote to remain in the United Kingdom.  This is absolutely the wrong way to proceed.  It is wrong to seek to bribe the people of Scotland and it is wrong to continue to penalise the people of England.  Post the 2015 General Election, the so called Barnett Formula, which is used to apportion government spending, must be changed and Scotland cannot be 'ring-fenced' from the effects of such change.

I posted here  about the possibility that the Shetland Islands might seek independence from Scotland and take-away with it, all of that oil wealth that the mainland so desperately needs.  What then for an independent Scotland.

Scotland should vote No!



 

BBC Madness

If you have read my blog before you will be aware of my concerns about the biased BBC and the iniquitous TV Tax - also called the license fee.

However, even the most (blinkered) ardent supporter of the BBC must have been taken aback and stared with incredulity at the claim that in the past two years the BBC contributed more than £8 billion to the UK economy!

How did it do this?  Well it is called the 'multiplier effect'  This says that for every pound that is spent it generates economic activity of twice it's value.  In the case of the BBC the premise is that when it buys a TV camera for example, the money it pays, goes to generate salaries for the makers of the camera and their workers etc., and these then buy food which generates economic impact for the makers and transporters of food, etc.  and on and on it goes.

This is fatuous nonsense and the fuzziest of fuzzy maths.  If we take the BBC's view to it's logical extension, all global activity can be traced back to the spending that the 'beeb' is making.

Is it any wonder that the BBC push socialist policies, which posit that spending can occur without  actually having the money to pay for them?  According to BBC economic theory, all it takes is £1 and then you double-up and double-up and double-up until that fancy new BBC News Centre or Newscaster's salary has been paid for.  You can do the same with hospitals!  Need to finance a Trans-Gender outreach worker? - all you need is to spend a pound and in no time the funding is there.

In case you think I am making this up.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/entertainment-arts-21041587

The report said: "The effect of initial BBC spending is 'multiplied' as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector (and to the employees of those sectors). This is known as the 'multiplier effect'."
The BBC's chief economic and policy adviser Najma Rajah explained: "The basic premise is that when the BBC spends a pound, the impact of that pound is 'multiplied' as that pound spent by the BBC creates value elsewhere in the economy.
"So, for example, if the BBC were to buy a camera from a supplier in Manchester, the camera supplier would receive some money in return for the camera.
"The camera company would then use the income generated from the sale of the camera to pay their suppliers for the components that went into the camera and to also pay their employees and so on."
Rajah added: "A really good example of how this multiplier effect works is when the BBC commissions a programme that is made by an independent television production.
"The programme might be filmed in Scotland using local runners, electricians, make-up artists etc. who are paid and then will spend their wages in Scotland to the benefit of the Scottish economy."

 So there you have it (are you paying attention Mr Salmond?) another series or two of Monarch of the Glen and a couple from Rab C Nesbitt and Scotland's economic future is secure - maybe Salmond is right - they don't need the oil industry!

 Now ardent supporter, you might ask yourself why the BBC needs to have it's own chief economic and policy adviser?  Why doesn't it spend less on justifying it's own existence and maybe more on original programming?


Repeal the TV Tax now!

Can Scots count and/or consider?

In respect of the subject of Scottish Independence, a consultation exercise was launched by the UK Government.  Presumably on the basis that this being a subject the power over which is reserved to Westminster.

At the same time, the Scottish Parliament initiated a consultation exercise.  Presumably because Alex Salmond and the SNP thought they should have some say.  Or perhaps this was just an exercise in more mischief making?

Anyway, the exercise by the UK government ended in March and the results have been analyzed and issued.

The Scottish Parliament consultation ends in May 2012 and unbelievably it will then take 4 months for the underwhelming volume of responses to be counted and analyzed.

• We know that the Scots can count.
 

• We know that they can read

• We know, from history, that they can analyze data

So, why will it take four months?

Okay, so part of the time will be spent eliminating the comments of Anonymous  responders.  These were not allowed under the UK consultation as this could open the way to abuse and an unreflective view.  Belatedly, the Scottish Government agreed to eliminate these 'anon' responses amid accusations of such abuse and possible multiple responses by over-zealous Nationalists.  I know such abuse couldn't happen but better to be safe than sorry!

The total level of responses, including 'anons', is so far around 12,000.  Let's say that in the remaining 6 weeks or so, this gets a spurt on and the number rises to 50,000 or Scotland goes consultation-crazy and there are 100,000 responses, surely, these could be counted and analyzed within a month?

One gets the idea, that this is yet another delaying tactic from Alex Salmond to delay the question being posed until it meets a timeline that the SNP are pushing.

Time then for the UK Government to intervene.  After all, only Westminster has the actual legal authority to initiate a referendum.  Indeed, if they did so swiftly, they could save the Scottish people the unlikely to be inexpensive cost of this 'counting exercise'  which we are told will be contracted out.

I have yet to hear from any supporter of the SNP, any valid reason why, it takes less than 5 months to establish the rules for a referendum on the Scottish Parliament and conduct the exercise and then the count yet, the SNP, a party that has been craving a vote on Scottish independence for 40+ yeas (maybe longer), is so unprepared for it, that they want to wait 30 months before asking the people of Scotland.

Sir Fred Goodwin - more hypocrisy

So, an obscure committee of civil servants have recommended that Sir Fred Goodwin, of RBS fame, be stripped of the knighthood he was awarded by the last government.  This 'de-knighting' was confirmed by  The Queen.

Goodwin was awarded the knighthood, in 2004 for 'services to banking'.  Nothing he did since then has been found to be criminal - nothing!  Crass?  Insensitive?  Arrogant?  Self-serving?  He seems to be guilty of all of these things but none are a criminal offence.

As stated above, Goodwin received his honour for 'services to banking'.  The committee did not disclose if it found that those 'services to banking' to have been wrong, in some way.

So let's for a moment, leave aside opinion on the honours system and ask why he is stripped of the gong?  The only conclusion I can reach is that it is because it is expedient and panders to the baying mob.  I don't think anyone is fooled that this is a civil service committee which is operating independent of the government.  This has the grubby hands of politicians, all over it!

Contrast his treatment with that of

• Lord Archer - Jailed for perjury
• Lord Taylor - Jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £24K in expenses.
• Lord Hanningfield - jailed for fraudulently claiming more than £30K in expenses.
• Baroness Uddin - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £125K in expenses.
• Lord Paul  - (One of Britain's richest men) SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £42K in expenses. 
• Lord Bhatia - SUSPENDED from the House for illegitimately claiming more than £27K in expenses.

All have retained their honours.

I don't like hypocrisy but do the politicians have to be so blatant about it?

Now turn to who it was that ennobled Goodwin - Step forward 'the people's tribune' the defender of the 'working class - The Labour Party!   At that time, that would mean Blair and Brown.  Since Tony was waging his dodgy war with Iraq (cast of thousands, including ill-equipped British troops), one comes to the conclusion that the domestic maestro, Gordon 'I have banished boom and bust' Brown, was the sponsor of the award.  No doubt assisted by other members of the Tartanocracy, including Wily Alex Salmond.

You will scour the media in vain for any of them to now be defending Goodwin.  The only supporter I saw with the decency and courage to speak out was Sir Jackie Stewart, apparently, a family friend of Goodwin.

Of course Goodwin and his team brought RBS to the brink of disaster (some would say beyond).  However, he did not single-handedly cause the economic crisis (but see below).

• Then Senator Obama (and others) was a big proponent, in the US of reckless lending which became known as the sub-prime mortgage market.  
• Gordon Brown and leaders throughout Europe continued to borrow money and increase debt levels to unsustainable levels, without any assistance from Goodwin!
• The people of Europe and the USA continued to borrow and borrow and then spend money that wasn't theirs.
• Some banks, including RBS, were dealing in financial instruments of which they really knew very little, at the end of the day.
• Some financial institutions, just like some countries became over-leveraged and their shareholders paid the price (and in some cases, like RBS, they were bailed out)

So the mob has its victim but just like the Hester bonus - at what long term price to the UK?

Scotland - After much thought - procrastination

Can you believe the nerve of Alex Salmond?

He has had how many years - 30 or more? - to ponder and decide on the question he thinks should be asked regarding independence for Scotland.

He says that he wants the question to be:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? 

But because he is such a sweetie he wants to consult on this to ask Scottish voters if they think the Scottish parliament should have more powers.

Now the wily Alex knows full well that greater powers for the Scottish parliament are not within the remit of any referendum set by the self-same Scottish parliament.  He knows that such powers rest with the parliament of the United Kingdom.  He also knows that the granting of additional powers to Scotland would need to be discussed in a UK framework, affecting, as such would, the whole of the UK.

How would his nationalist colleagues in Northern Ireland and Wales feel about Scotland getting additional powers and they not?  The Welsh First Minister has already voiced his concern

How would the English feel about Scotland getting more and more powers while still 'sticking their oar' into English business?

Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies know that won't fly.  So...

They hope to stir up the pot so that anti-English and anti-Westminster feeling, in Scotland, rises at what they will portray as 'Westminster interference in the legitimate aspirations of a sovereign nation and people, etc.'

I trust that the Scots, not usually considered gullible fools, will see through his charade and political posturing and will understand that the only question they can be asked is In or Out and then they take their own decision.

Salmond also now wants to hold the referendum in autumn 2014 "on the same terms as any Scottish election, to the same standards and with the same guarantee of fairness"

He then goes on to say that the Scottish government proposed to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds for this vote.

Usually the gap between saying one thing - same terms as any Scottish election - that is, franchise at 18 - and then  saying something very different - extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds - takes longer than a sentence or two but not for Alex and the SNP!

So dear reader, what is your view?

Simple Yes or No question?

Multiple choice?  If this then the referendum has to include the rest of the UK and be run by the government of the UK since it affects all of its constituent parts.

What constitutes a majority?  If the turnout is 75% and of these 53% vote for Independence and 47% vote against, would Scotland get Independence?  Bear in mind that with figures like that it would mean that of the possible electorate 60% either voted no or by abstaining could be considered to have voted for the status quo = No to independence.  As usual the devil will be in the detail  

Comments response

Trust it is acceptable to respond en-masse.

Thank you for your the civility of your comments - nice to know we can talk about issues without degenerating into name-calling or abusive language.

I can agree that if the question is a simple Yes or No one, then this could be put solely to the Scots electorate.  However, if the question is expanded to include anything else - such as 'Devo-Max' then that wouldn't be acceptable - the position is fundamentally altered.  Such a question would alter the whole dynamic.  Then the UK electorate would need to be involved.

I do find it interesting to note that the SNP claim that they promised a referendum on independence and yet they now claim to want to obfuscate the issue by adding 'devo-max' in as a choice.  The latter is apparently because 'un-named' others are clamouring for it! 

If they have any kind of mandate around independence, it can really only be for the Yes/No question.

I also worry that the result of a more than 2 part question will 'muddy the waters'.

Say the choice and results are as follows:

Yes   33%
No  33%
Devo-Max 34%

What could we deduce about this?

Anti-independence supporters would say 67% of people voted against independence.

Pro-independence supporters would say that 67% voted in favour of the dissolution of the status quo.

The latest poster, indicated that the SNP want independence and there are many people in Scotland that want it as well.  So Alex and the SNP, let's give them that simple choice.

I have spoken on these blogs as to how an economic split could be effected and to my mind that is a reasonable position.  Leave all of the 'subsidized' or 'not subsidized' arguments to one side as it seems that, anything that comes from statisticians or economists can be used to support any argument.

On Scottish funding, I hold to the view that the use of the Barnett Formula is unfair to the English and must be eliminated and a fairer system, more closely reflecting populations be deployed.

Final point - what do the SNP hope to gain by suddenly enfranchising 16 and 17 year old's for the independence vote?  Okay, so they figure that this demographic may be more pro-independence but why stop at 16?  Do they plan to extend this franchise for all time and all votes?  Other than Brazil, Nicaragua and Cuba, I can't find any other countries where the franchise goes to 16 year olds.  North Korea and Sudan do extend to 17 year olds

Scotland the brave?

Scotland the brave? 

Or

Scotland the coward?

We hear time and again that Alex Salmond will decide when to call a referendum on independence. 

We also hear much about the SNP mandate for governing Scotland.

So what is stopping the SNP calling a referendum?

Lack of courage or belief that they will get an answer that suits them?  Or, that once called, whatever the outcome, they will have lost their major, indeed only, bargaining chip with the UK Parliament?

I don't know how the Scots would vote.  I sense that they would want to stay with the Union, if given the choice but we may never know because I believe the SNP don't really want a vote.

However, I am not sure that the English would say the same if they were given the choice.  And surely when the question is to break or keep a long-standing union is posed, both parties to the union should be consulted - that is, the Scots and the English.

I think it is time for Cameron and the UK Parliament to 'lance this boil' and call a referendum on both sides of the border and not wait on the whims of the wily Alex.

Then once that is out of the way, if Scotland votes for 'freedom' to quote Mel Gibson, they can go on their merry way to a socialist oblivion and the English can remain the conservative and prosperous nation it always has been.  (Please, if you comment, do not prattle on about 'Scottish oil' and I promise not to give a lecture on Maritime Law and ocean boundaries)

The interesting thing might be, what if Scotland says no to independence and England says yes? 

Scotland decides it wants to stay part of the UK and receive the benefits it now does and England says no we want to have an equal Union where the spend per head in Scotland is equalised to the amount spent in England.
Oh Dear! What then?

Perhaps that's why Alex doesn't want to ask and David is too nice to push him into a corner.

But Alex.  Take care, last week Cameron shows he has 'a pair' when needed so either put up, and call a referendum or shut up and stay in your overpriced Edinburgh palace.