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.

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?

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 - 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  

Shetland independence, all that oil and Norway

I seem to recall that way back in the early devolution vote - 1978 - the Shetland Isles (and Orkney) voted very much against devolution.  The general feeling was something like, if we are not to be governed by Westminster, as part of the United Kingdom, then we would rather be on our own than governed by Edinburgh.  At the time there was also some mention of Shetland re-joining up with Norway!!

Now, if they were to vote similarly in any independence referendum, would the SNP consider offering them independence from Scotland?  (Maybe same for Orkney and Hebrides?)

Would the SNP allow Shetland to remain part of the UK?

Or.  Would the presence of all that Shetland oil mean self-determination only goes so far?

Wikipedia suggests that Shetland is pledged to the Scottish crown, which now rests on Queen Elizabeth's head......

"Oh what a tangled web we weave......."

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 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 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.