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!

Conservatives - The way forward - Part Two

The previous post on this issue dealt mostly with economic matters.  Today I want to expand on ways that the UK Conservative party can return to its roots and present a conservative alternative to the leftist policies put forward by the Labour Welfare party and the Liberal Democrats.

Some that read the previous post will no doubt have thought that the spending side changes were lacking in detail but please read on and maybe this will help to fill in the gaps and demonstrate how the Conservatives can take a step, a yard or two 'rightwards' and bring Britain beading into the right direction.

Crime
Let's start here.  I believe that the true conservative way is not about trying to 'understand crime and the causes of crime'.  We can leave that to those on the left who see that all of society's problems can be put down to being the responsibility of 'society' rather than being the responsibility of the individual.  In fact that really is the core of the difference between Conservatives and leftists.  Conservatives believe in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, whereas the left always seeks to subsume the individual into the collectivist state, where no one has responsibility (but just to prove it, they will commission a publicly funded enquiry or review with a pre-conceived outcome, saying that provision by the 'state' is best!). 

For Conservatives, crime should be about law enforcement.  Not about creating more and more laws but about enforcing the ones we have and enforcement, as the word suggests, should mean the strength and power of society coming to bear on those that infringe the laws that society, collectively pass.

For criminals, prison should be a deterrent.  That means the conditions need to be harsh, harder than those that prevail on the outside.  So no access to television or computers or the internet.  No access to drugs.  Regular but random searches  of the prisoner and cell.  Long periods where they are simply locked-up.  

Leftists regularly talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Prison should be about rehabilitation.  The rate of recidivism is high because of society, etc. 

I would posit that as a means of rehabilitation, prison mostly doesn't work.  There will be some that are so traumatised by the event that they never commit another crime but many are career criminals and they 'need' to commit crimes to fund the lifestyle that they (and certain sympathisers) believe that they are entitled to live.

In relation to criminals, Conservatives should put forward policies that put criminals behind bars and, leave them there and make their stay in prison a 'hard' experience.   I don't believe that society can rid itself of criminals in the true sense, all we can (and should) do is to get them off of our streets..

While we are at it, why do prisons need to be so conveniently located?  As part of the necessary prison reforms, build new prisons in more remote and inhospitable places rather than in city centres!  The message needs to be clear.  We don't care for prisoner welfare - prison is to be about punishment - we only care for the victims of crime. Period, as Americans say.

Speaking of Americans, how about a three strikes and you're out rule.  Something like, anyone that is convicted for the third time, for an offence that carries a sentence of greater than 5 years, then that individual, on the sentence for the third offence, has 10 years added to the sentence.  If after release, there is a fourth offence, then  the next conviction would automatically carry a life sentence.

Which neatly brings me to sentencing and particularly life sentences.  Put simply, the current parole system kicks in way too early.   We have had the spectacle of convicted Members of Parliament being released just a few weeks into a six month sentence.  They though, are not alone.  Criminals seem to be eligible for parole once they have completed one third of their sentence and, because of so called 'overcrowding' the impetus is to err on the side of releasing them.  The 'overcrowding' is a myth.  See above!  Prison isn't about being a holiday camp.  Multiple cell occupancy is a must - I wouldn't have any problem in recommending dormitory style accommodation rather than the 'own room' hotel-like comforts that some now enjoy.

A life sentence should be seen as a serious deterrent.  So 'life' should mean a minimum of 20 years served (I wouldn't argue too strongly if someone said it should be 25 years).  Remember, the Conservative way is that criminals should be put away!  We believe that we cannot cure or rehabilitate some people, so the only solution is to take those people out of circulation for a long time.

It will come as no surprise that a Conservative does not allow prisoners the right to vote, while they are prisoners.

Social Matters
I am not in favour of abortion.  I simply think it is wrong.  I think that Britain has allowed itself to be a place where abortions are so readily available  and publicly funded on the most false of pretences.  The 1967 abortion Act (as amended down the years) keeps on talking about the abortion being needed to 'prevent a grave threat to the mother'.

A 'grave' threat.   I seriously doubt that most of the cases where an abortion is carried out, truly represent a 'grave' threat to the mental or physical condition of the mother.  I do accept that for some an unexpected pregnancy could be 'inconvenient'.  It might impinge on the career prospects of the mother or the lifestyle but surely these cannot be said to be 'grave' reasons?

Needless to say, the rights of the unborn child are never considered.  Around 200,000 babies are aborted each year, in Britain and the media and others are more concerned about some TB-carrying badgers being culled.  Warped priorities doesn't really come close.

So, the rules on abortions need to be more strictly enforced.  The nature of the 'grave' risk needs to be clearly found and 'inconvenience' not be a reason for foetal murder.

Abortion on the NHS to no longer be state-funded.  If someone wants an abortion, then that person should pay for it.  Much as one might say, in relation to crime, 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' so in respect of abortion, one has to consider that the plethora of contraceptive options that are available should preclude the requirement for just about any abortions.

Same-Sex Marriage - regular readers will be aware of my views on this.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Any legislation that says to the contrary, to be repealed.

Education reform is now underway, with the 'free schools' programme.  This needs to be enhanced.  We need to get government, in any form,  out of the class-room.  Taxpayer funding of education, through a voucher system should be the extent of governmental involvement.

Foreign relations

Let's start with the European Union.  Throughout the time of its membership, Britain has been seen as a difficult member  of the EU.  Conservatives look at the free trade aspects and think that this is good but then we worry about the subsidies that are paid to various industries.   Worry turns to grave (proper use of the word) concern  for just about everything else that the EU does. 

I have just been reading 'How we invented freedom' by Daniel Hannan - highly recommended!

In this book Hannan captures the historical 'separatedness' of  Britain.  We are not part of Europe.  Geographically, we are on the fringe but politically, Britain has, for more than a thousand years, had a different approach to political matters and how society manages its affairs.  Our history is one where government is answerable to the people.  Where no person or organisation, is above the law.  Where the rights of the individual are understood and protected.  These are not concepts that are universally held within the EU.  Where something more than lip-service, to these practices, is followed, this is a new concept and its very immaturity poses a risk. 

Therefore, Conservatives need to dis-engage from the European Union, as the number one foreign priority.  Ignore all of the threats about lost trade opportunities etc..  These are empty.  People in other nations buy products or services from Britain because what is offered is of the required quality and at the right price.  If that quality or price were to change, after Britain exits the EU, I would suspect it to only be for the better.

While we are on dis-engagement, the UK should leave the United Nations.  This organisation has outlived its usefulness.  As evidence - the massacre at Srebrenica happened while the people were ostensibly under UN protection, the UN appointed Gadaffi's Libya to the UN Human Rights body! Time to leave and forgo the lectures from the various fools that populate that body.

Scotland 
On September 18, 214, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum on 'independence'.  'Independence' is written so because it's kind of a strange independence that moves from a union of equals - where Scottish votes have the same weight as English, Welsh or Northern Irish  votes do -   to a place where most policies are set by a foreign wanne-be supra power - the EU

Anyway, if Scotland stays within the Union, all well and good.  However, there should not then be any kind of further devolution of powers to Scotland as some kind of thank you or sop to the Nationalists. 

If the Scots choose to secede from the Union, then we will be sad to see them go but would wish them well.  However, they take with them a proportionate share of liabilities of UK Inc. and we should not offer them any kind of currency union.

BBC
The Conservatives must end the TV tax - aka TV licence.  Nothing more to be said!

Energy
Much as Conservatives are against subsidies, it is clear, that since the long term energy needs of Britain, will require a very large element of nuclear power in the mix, then state subsidy is required to support the economics.

In terms of Shale gas, we need to be realistic.  This does offer an opportunity for exploitation of our natural resources but we need to recognise that this is not a 'silver bullet'.  Recovering this resource will not be easy but it will be a little easier to get the large number of land drilling rigs mobilised and natural gas companies involved, if government views the opportunity as one of national strategic importance and lets companies drill.  As in, bring the full force of the law down on 'nimbys' and eco-activists and push through exploration and then, hopefully development, plans.

In the interim, Conservatives should support the British national interest and cease the closure of coal and gas fired power stations.  This will avert the next big crisis that is looming.

Charity
Two things.
Firstly, make all charitable giving tax deductible to the extent of 120%.  So if I donate £100 to a registered charity, I can deduct £120 from my pre-tax income.
Next, ban charities from public advocacy and lobbying.  Require that for them to retain the status of a 'registered charity' a minimum of 75% of all funds raised must be spent directly on the stated beneficiaries of the charity.  So overheads - cost of raising funds and employing charity workers - cannot exceed 25% of funds raised.  I don't like interfering but, one step further, no employee of a charity to be paid more than 3 times the national average wage - currently around £75,000.

Red Tape
Conservatives should be in the business of small government.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I work 40, 48 or 60 hours a week - Small government says that this is an issue for my employer and I.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I sell bananas (straight or slightly curved) in lbs or kgs - that is between my customers and I.

So along with a bonfire of quangos, a bonfire of regulations.  All regulations at the national and local level would be reviewed within a two year timeline.  The review would look at each regulation and consider the full costs of the regulation and the expected financial benefits of same.     Any national regulation, where the financial benefits do not exceed the costs by 25%, scrap the regulation.  Any where the benefits exceed by greater than 25%, have them reviewed and approved by Parliament.  For local regulations the benefit requirement for retention raised to being greater than 50% of costs.

Any regulation retained, to be reviewed every 3 years to see if it still meets the same cost/benefit thresholds.

All new regulations to have the test first applied, but the benefit threshold to be 30% and 60% respectively.

Scottish choices

As I write this, I am listening to the House of Commons debate on the European Union Referendum and hearing and seeing the shameful delaying tactics of the Labour Party.  If nothing else, the fact that Labour is so pro-Europe, might one say slavishly so, illustrates that this organization is a crypto-Socialist organization which fits solidly into the undemocratic mould that all Socialists desire.

Listening though, I am forced to return to the questions raised by the referendum that will be held in September 2014, on the question of whether or not Scotland leaves or remains within the United Kingdom.

These questions, I would suggest, are:

• How long after a yes vote, would it take for separation to occur?
• What would be the split of UK national debt assigned to an independent Scotland? Something around 8.2% - matching the population ratio?
• Similarly, how would pension liabilities be assigned?  Most of these are unfunded and so must come out of future current national income (GDP)
• In the event of a No vote, would that be it?  As in, would the current devolution settlement remain or would there be further concessions granted or demanded?  That is, independence by the back-door - total freedom without real responsibility. 
• Would Scotland have to apply as a candidate member, to join the EU (as I suggested on an earlier post, and now stated by the Spanish PM)
• Indeed, would the UK, which would be something less than when it signed-up for the old European Economic Community, have to re-apply for membership?
• What would happen to the Armed forces?  All fall under the rump UK or would some of the 'Scottish' regiments move to being part of Scotland's defence forces?  Would the military personnel have a choice?
• Back to the EU, if Scotland was admitted as an independent country then surely they would have to adopt the Euro as their currency and not the Pound Sterling as the Scottish Nationalists seem to think is possible?
• Staying with currency, how independent would Scotland really be, if it were able to retain Sterling?  Then its economic policy would effectively be set by Westminster not Holyrood. Mind you, if it joined the Euro, it's economic policy would be set by Berlin.  Funny kind of independence!
• If Scotland votes No, will the UK Government have the courage to abandon the Barnett Formula, which sees Scotland getting a disproportionate share of public spending, particularly welfare, and adopt a more equitable system?  Better yet abolish welfare all together

If you are wondering why I continue to pose these questions it is because these have not been answered by the Scottish Nationalist's papers on the subjects.  The recent Scottish Parliament White Paper is long on waffle and obfuscation and very short on facts.  Scotland will enjoy free this and free that, when the yoke of London is lifted etc. but no mention of how all of that is going to be paid for!

Anyone care to answer any of these?

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!

2013 Resolutions

At this time of year, people resolve to do or not do, certain things.  Here are my non-personal ones.

1. I will try not to wonder why a Conservative-led government allows itself to receive all of the opprobrium being heaped upon it for making austerity cuts, when it isn't actually reducing Public Expenditure. 
2. I will also try to accept that the Lib-Dem 'tail' wagging the Tory 'dog' is a good thing for the UK and democracy.
3. I will await the answer to my question on who actually wants homosexuals to have a so called marriage and what this 'ceremony' confers that is different from what homosexuals already have.
4. I shall eagerly hope that Arsenal find where Ivan has hidden the finances and then spend those  to bolster their defence and mid-field with 'take-charge' players who can dominate.  At the same time, I await the appointment of Jack Wilshere as club captain.
5. The much-anticipated EU speech, by David Cameron will surely allow me to rest easy that the UK will finally be given the option of an In/Out referendum and I won't need to bang-on about this.  Do you think?
6.  What to say about Scotland?  I do resolve to offer the hope that the politicians will provide its people with a balanced argument relative to the subject of independence.  With wily Alex there though, I somehow already doubt my hope will be responded to.  
7. Green taxes - I will continue to highlight these iniquitous taxes that add to the burden for people, increase so called fuel poverty and signally fail to reduce so called greenhouse gases. 

OK, the truth!  I will break #1 very soon (sub-consciously, I have probably already done so!).  #2 - isn't going to happen!  #3 - I won't hold my breath.  #4 This is a regular resolution or is it hope?  #5 Can but hope.  #6 When a nation has a chip on it's shoulder, balance is maybe too much to wish for.  #7 Reading Hiding the Decline by A.W. Montford to be better prepared for the 'green' liars and their allies at the biased BBC.

Enjoy 2013 and keep on thinking Right!!

Scotland's debt to England

In the late 1600s, independent Scotland sought to address the economic decline which it was suffering by emulating the English and establishing an overseas empire.

They sought to create a colony called New Caledonia in what is now Panama.  They raised funds to do so and these funds were estimated to account for between 20 and 25% of the monetary wealth of Scotland.

The Darien Scheme, as it became know failed, terribly.

The indebtedness of whole swathes of Scottish society (not just tribal chiefs and wealthy merchants!) pushed Scotland to seeking a political and monetary union with England and the formation of the United Kingdom. 

This was completed in 1707.  Part of the agreement was that the Scottish pound was subsumed into the Pound Sterling with a fixed value of 1 shilling (5 Pence).  Additionally, Scotland was granted £398,085 from the English exchequer.

That £400,000 grant which staved off national bankruptcy, for Scotland would, if compounded by a conservative 5% per annum, now be equivalent to £1.16 Trillion. 

Some Scots would say, ' Aye but England has taken all of our oil money' (no doubt adding epithets before the word England). 

However, since 1968, the sum total of all taxes raised against the oil and gas industry, in the whole of the UK, totals to  £158 billion.  Assuming all of this was ascribed to Scotland (which it absolutely shouldn't be!), then this would still leave Scotland owing £1 Trillion to England - an amount, funnily enough which is the same as the UK National Debt!.

So, Alex and the people of Scotland - Can we have our money back?

Not all of it, of course. 

Scotland has contributed to the Union in so many ways and for that, credit should be given

Alexander Fleming
James Watt
James Napier
John Logie Baird
David Livingstone
Andrew Carnegie
Robert Burns
Arthur Conan Doyle
Ian Rankin
Queen Elizabeth, the Queen's Mother

Among many, many others including the many people that have served the Union both within the UK and throughout the British Empire in the military and civil service as well as commerce and all other forms of endeavor.

How much credit, for this contribution? 

Honestly, it's hard to calculate and put a value on the contribution that these folks made to the success of the United Kingdom.  leave alone then having to make deductions from the sum arrived at for Scotland's giving the UK, people like Gordon Brown ( I won't mention those awful Hogmanay celebrations with the White Heather Club, as Scots and English alike, suffered that!)

So, let's work up a number and then 'Wee eck' and his merry band of supporters can settle up.

Incidentally, would the financial crisis in the Irish Republic, have anything to do with the silence in the demands for unification, from Adams, McGuinness and the other Nationalist terrorists?

Quite from Wales too.  The valleys may have once been green and may be getting back to that condition, but the 'green, green grass' of independence doesn't look so appealing in these cold and harsh economic times.

Alex, Please send the cheque, guaranteed by a solvent international bank, and make it payable to The People of England - c/o HM Treasury'.  You don't have to sign it, from an ungrateful Scot, we will know who it came from, but please do sign and date it!  Since you insist on dragging out the referendum debate you have plenty of time to get the funds in place!

Scotland - My View

My heart hopes that the Scots vote to stay in the United Kingdom  - we have a lot of shared history and I believe we are better and stronger, together.

My head says, while I do think we are stronger together, the important thing is to make the decision and then implement whatever that tells us!

Why will it take so long to hold a referendum?

Labour was elected to be the majority party in the UK Parliament, in May 1997,  By September of that year the referendum that established the Scottish parliament was held.  So around 4 months!  The Scottish parliament was up and running by May 1999 or within 2 years

Salmond and the SNP say they prefer a simple In or Out question.  Since they are in charge, in Edinburgh and they reckon they have a mandate, why wouldn't they just go ahead and get this done?

Why would it take 2 1/2 years to get that simple thing done?  Are they going to hand write the ballot papers?  That may keep some folks employed but surely that wouldn't reflect well on Scotland's efficiency!

Scotland, Debt and Ratings

The recent action by Standard & Poor's, to downgrade the sovereign debt of certain EU countries prompts me to look at the ratings of all EU members.

Getting accurate data on UK GDP, by region has proven difficult but the Scottish Government reckoned that in 2009 it was £143.8 Billion, which is around 10% of the total UK economy.

Making the, I believe reasonable assumption that an independent Scotland would take on its share of the National Debt relative to its position in the UK economy, would suggest a debt level of £114.9 Billion.  This would still equate to 80% of GDP.

As to ratings.  Only time will tell but I offer Finland and Portugal as possible guides.

Finland
The population is 5.3 Million - close to the Scottish 5.2 million.  The GDP is  .£149.6 Billion

Word of warning though.  It achieves a AAA rating mainly because its public sector deficit 2.5% and its Public Debt is 48%.

Portugal 


The population is 10.6 Million.  The GDP is  £143.3 Billion which is close to that of Scotland..

Word of warning though.  It achieves a BB Junk bond rating mainly because its public sector deficit 9.1% and its Public Debt is 93%.

It is difficult to estimate what would be the Public Sector deficit of an independent Scotland and current data doesn't support analysis because National Debt is considered 'national' and not apportioned to the constituent parts of the Union.

It would probably be wrong to infer that because, according to the Scottish Office GERS report, Scottish Tax Revenue is  £48.1 Billion and Expenditure is £62.1 Billion, that an independent Scotland would run a Public Sector deficit of £14.0 Billion or 29%

I don't think it would be too far fetched though to say that the Scottish sacred cow, that is the public sector would have to be reduced.

Oh! I don't say that the rump UK credit rating would automatically survive as AAA post Scottish independence.  Frankly I think we are fortunate to still have ours, today but given the socialist history of Scotland and a large consensus towards welfare and public spending, I suspect that a post independent Scotland government would be obliged, in the interim at least, to continue on its already unaffordable spending pathway. 

Member States
	GDP Sterling in Billions	Public Debt as % of GDP	Deficit 2010	S&P Rating
Germany	£2,074.0	83%	-3.3%	AAA
France	£1,604.2	82%	-7.0%	AA+
United Kingdom	£1,408.2	80%	-10.4%	AAA
Scotland including N Sea Oil  Estimate	£143.8	80%		???
UK Without Scotland   Delta between Eurostat and Scottish Gov.	£1,264.0	80%		???
Italy	£1,285.5	119%	-4.6%	BBB+
Spain	£882.0	60%	-9.2%	A
Netherlands	£490.9	63%	-5.4%	AAA
Poland	£294.1	55%	-7.9%	A
Belgium	£292.9	97%	-4.1%	AA
Sweden	£287.7	40%	0.0%	AAA
Austria	£236.1	72%	-4.6%	AA+
Denmark	£194.2	44%	-2.7%	AAA
Greece	£191.0	143%	-10.5%	BB Junk
Finland	£149.6	48%	-2.5%	AAA
Portugal	£143.3	93%	-9.1%	BB Junk
Ireland	£127.8	96%	-32.4%	BBB+
Czech Republic	£120.4	39%	-4.7%	AA
Romania	£101.2	31%	-6.1%	BB+
Hungary	£81.7	80%	-4.2%	BB+
Slovakia	£54.7	41%	-7.9%	A
Luxembourg	£34.5	18%	-1.7%	AAA
Bulgaria	£29.9	16%	-3.2%	BBB+
Slovenia	£29.9		-5.6%	A+
Lithuania	£22.8	34%	-7.1%	BBB+
Latvia	£14.9	45%	-7.7%	BB+
Cyprus	£14.5	61%	-5.3%	BB+
Estonia	£12.0	7%	1.0%	AA-
Malta	£5.2	68%	-3.6%	A-
GDP, Debt and Deficits based on information from Eurostat
Scotland GDP is based on Scottish Government estimate as of 2009. - Wikipedia
Scotland Debt is based on Total UK debt of		£1,126.5	80% of UK GDP
Multiplied by Scotland share of UK GDP		10.2%
Equals		£114.9
Relative to GDP stays at		80%
Something to ponder and comment?

Scotland and Salmond

It must be terrible for wee Alex Salmond!
He has huffed and he has puffed and he has tried to bring down the Union but for all his bluster we can now see him for what he is - a calculating politician rather than a Scottish patriot.

He wants all of the trappings of being 'El Presidente' but is scared to let go of the apron (and purse) strings of the Union.

He wonders:

"Who will pay, if my independence ploy becomes a folly?  What happens if I upset the neighbors and then when I ask to borrow a wee cup of sugar, they say, 'no more, you borrowed from us, too many times in the past and then just snub us and bad mouth us '? "

"What happens if the ungrateful and unforgiving Scots wake-up and say 'Hold on a minute, we have swapped shared governance  by the 'Brits' and Westminster, to domination by the Germans and French - didn't we fight wars against them, to avoid being ruled by Bonaparte and Adolf?'"

"How, when I know, 100% for sure, that constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster, can I gracefully and face-savingly  back-down?  What words can I use to deflect the Scots from knowing that the accursed Westminster parliament have seen through my plan?  That the public schoolboy running the show is not the easy push-over I took him for"

"I don't think I can win a straight Yes or No question, so how do I 'pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate' and get them to back me going for 'Devo-Max', when it seems that only my party and the Greens, want it and at the same time hold on to my 'Freedom for Scotland' credentials?"

If it wasn't for the fact that he is a politician, I might feel some sympathy for him.  But no!  I will reserve that sympathy for the decent Scots that he has deceived and led-up a garden path, never intending to get to the end.

Who was it said?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

Sir Walter Scot, methinks!

Scotland again - Some Clarity?

The Secretary of State for Scotland - Michael Moore -  is to clarify the legal position as regards a referendum on Scottish independence.

Since the power to change the constitutional status of Scotland is a retained power, the legal situation can only be changed by the parliament of the UK - i.e. the one at Westminster.  Alex Salmond and his SNP cronies must know this.  So why all of the bluster about Westminster interference?

I retain the view that the SNP and particularly the wily Alex, both want their cake and to eat it.  They want 'devo max' where they get control of all matters of policy within Scotland while having no responsibility for paying for it.  So they (or the Scottish Parliament) set a spending policy and the cost of this, short of any locally raised taxation, is borne by the UK government and taxpayer.

They want to have a power out of all proportion to their contribution to the UK economy and the UK population.

If they want to look at or have the Scottish electorate look at 'devo-max'  then the rest of the UK must be consulted.  How can they or any sane person think it is right for the Scots electorate to have the right to write a cheque for the rest of the UK economy and people, to pay?

Blogs and comment boards are buzzing since David Cameron's announcement.  I will try and address the various themes here.

Who votes on the Union?
This falls into those that say, only Scotland should vote on the matter versus those that say since it affects the UK, both sides of the border should be consulted.
In some respects I suppose it depends on what is the question.  If it is a simple In or Out then I can have some sympathy with just the Scots electorate being consulted for their advisory position.

If though, the question is wider and looks for greater powers for the Scottish executive, then both sides need to be consulted.

Assuming an In or Out question, whatever the response, the issue still rests with Westminster for action and not Edinburgh.  Clearly that is the legal position.

Who votes?  
This would be the relevant electorate according to the rules usually prevailing in the UK.  If it is a referendum only in Scotland then those resident in Scottish constituencies and eligible to vote, would be entitled to vote - no expatriate Scots, no exclusion of non 'Scots' (whatever that means).  Simple - if you are legally on the electoral register in a Scottish constituency, then you can vote.  Same rules would apply for a UK-wide referendum.


Scottish economy 1
There has been much to and fro on the sustainability of an independent Scottish economy.  I suspect that they would struggle and living standards would decline and both personal and corporate taxes would rise.

I am sure that much will be made of this during the referendum campaign and that we will all be confused and really none the wiser - those so called 'independent' economists will likely have an 'axe to grind' and their own agenda but I guess we may get a reasonable sense of how the Scottish economy might make out.

One point that I hope is addressed, is the relocation, if there is a vote for independence, of the UK government offices that are currently located in Scotland - the central tax offices etc.


Scottish Economy 2
The rules surrounding the UK oilfields are governed by International law and so they will need to be followed.  How to apportion the relevant share of National Debt is somewhat more complex as I doubt this can easily be identified as being for Scottish purposes or for UK purposes.  I would expect that this would need to be proportioned on relative shares of the national UK economy.
This would also need to apply to pension liabilities for civil servants employed in Scotland.

For shares in the nationalized banks, these would be shared on the same basis.  I don't subscribe to the view that the UK should be compensated by an independent Scotland for the bail-out of RBS or HBOS.  What happened when we were in the Union was for the benefit of all of us.   We must start from a point in time and go forward, not go back over  300+ years of history.  

Scotland and the EU
There seems to be an assumption that Scotland will, upon 'independence' automatically be a member of the EU.  I would be interested to hear why people think this is so.  I would suggest that if the independence vote succeeds, then the UK probably ceases to exist and both the UK rump (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and newly independent Scotland would need to apply for membership of the EU. 

This would likely require that both adopt the Euro currency, assuming it still exists at that time.   So in some ways, a referendum on Scottish independence might give all UK citizens the long-denied referendum on EU membership!

I would guess something similar for the UN and the UK's permanent seat on the Security Council would apply and indeed the Commonwealth.

Afterwards
What happens if Scotland is given a vote on a straight In or Out question and the answer is to stay In?  I don't see this as the demise of the SNP but believe that you might see a re-alignment in Scotland with perhaps something less polarized along the left-socialist axis.

If the answer is No, I would hope that having had the referendum and had an answer, the issue could be put to bed for a reasonable period of time  - 25-30 years as a minimum.

Comment
Feel free to comment - I will publish all, whether you agree with me or not, except those that are abusive or use foul language.

Scotland and Independence

Some of you will have read my previous posts about the fear that surrounds Alex Salmond and the SNP,  (fear of calling a referendum) and their trying to squeeze ever more concessions out of the UK government.  This on top of the excessive funding that Scotland already receives.

Well, seems like someone is finally listening.  The timing of the referendum is being discussed by the UK government as well as the question to be posed.

Salmond and Co. want a three choice option.  Something like:

Do you want complete independence for Scotland and a break with the United Kingdom or do you want greater powers for the Scottish Assembly?

• Yes, complete independence
• No, remain part of the United Kingdom
• Greater powers for the Scottish Assembly but remain part of the UK

The SNP and fellow travelers think that when faced with such a choice, they will get what they really want - Greater Powers. 

I believe that they know they will not get a majority Yes (what would be a majority?  More than 50% of the eligible voters (that is those registered to vote in Scotland) or more than 50% of those that bother to vote?)  

Getting Greater Powers is what they really want as this way they can strut and preen themselves as leaders without needing to face the full economic consequences of their actions - i.e. they will demand that the English continue to subsidize them.

As I said earlier, I think that the English should also be asked for their opinion or view. 

I think the question on both sides of the border should be:
                   Do you want Scotland to remain a member country of the United Kingdom?

• Yes
• No

A majority would be when 50% plus 1 vote of those eligible to vote is met.

The referendum needn't be binding ( I am not sure any referendum is binding on the UK Government) but this would give a sense of English  and Scottish feelings.on the matter. 


Also, whatever the outcome, the Barnett formula must go and the subsidy to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) must end.   This needs to happen before the March Budget.

Then we can see if they can afford free university education and prescriptions etc.

Scotland funding is grossly unfair

That is according to the chairman of the Local Government Association.

Local authority funding in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is governed by the so called Barnett Formula.  This was a 'stop-gap' measure introduced, by the then Labour government,  in the late 1970s which has survived until now because politicians have failed to 'grasp the nettle' and address the inherent "unfairness and plain illogicality" of it.

Whenever a English department gets a change to its budget, the other countries of the Union get an automatic share.  The formula is based on population rather than need.

For example, when the UK Government froze council tax for English councils, saying that they couldn't raise additional taxes from local tax payers, the Government softened the blow by giving these councils an additional grant.  Simply, because of the formula, an extra £67.5 million was then given to Scotland.  This even though the devolved Scottish parliament had already frozen council tax in Scotland!

As another example, Scotland and Wales both receive extra money because Crossrail is being built in London.  Even though both of these countries don't have to make  a case for local projects requiring such funding!

Oh!, and when cuts are being made, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, get cut less!

Recent research shows that if the formula was revised there would be an additional £2.6 billion of funds diverted from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to English local authorities.  That would help keep quite a few English libraries open and 'meals on wheels' services running, wouldn't it?

According to the UK Treasury, the Government spend per person, in Scotland was £10,212 last year.  That was £1,624 per person, more than in England.

 Someone not a million miles from Downing Street keeps saying "We're all in this together" but I can't help thinking that those on the Celtic fringe are better protected than the heartland majority.

I can understand Labour protecting the Barnett Formula - it was devised by them and protects their strongholds that have, so far, always returned  lots of Labour MPs.  Why do the Conservatives keep it on?

Time for an equitable change!

Even Lord Barnett, he who devised the formula, says so!

To any English socialists reading this, ask your local MP (whatever party) and your local councilor what they are doing and have already done about this and why they don't highlight this 'unfairness' rather than just bleating on about the 'cuts'.

To the rest of you, speak up about this inequitable situation!

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.