Scotland: a nation, not a region

Here is an excellent article recently published in The Japan Times.

What a pity Scotland's home-grown press can't find the room to give the referendum such excellent coverage.

"Scotland’s wealth is being wasted by those who don’t care about the well-being of its people. Only independence can reverse this abomination."

By Ian Robertson

An independent parliament in waiting, Edinburgh’s devolved Holyrood legislature will become the beating heart of Scotland’s democracy if the country backs itself and votes yes in September’s independence referendum.

There is certainly no logical reason why a rich, naturally left-of-centre country like Scotland would vote against the best interests of the majority of those who call it home, to pursue the right-wing future offered by both Westminster parties.

For Scotland, independence is about democracy not nationalism; it’s about righting the wrongs of a country living its life as a region.

In a manic desperation to safeguard Westminster rule, British nationalists are trying to con people in Scotland into believing black is white: that more austerity, an increase in the retirement age, pensions being privatized, nuclear weapons on the doorstep of Scotland’s largest city, a lower life expectancy, record numbers of food banks, governments it didn’t vote for, are the best thing for Scotland.

“Die before you retire” would be an apt slogan for the no campaign.

Scotland really is being asked to vote for its very own dystopia; where the poor are to be used as the logs on a roaring Westminster bonfire that’s burning the remaining threads of a fair and progressive society.

The Westminster government in London uses Scotland as a place to house its weapons of mass destruction and for its abundant resources. And it will continue to bleed the country dry for its own ends if the no camp’s message of doom and gloom prevails in September.

Fortunately the ludicrous nature of the scare tactics and threats being imposed on the debate by those determined to control Scotland for their own self-interest is unraveling by the day. The polls show things are pretty much neck and neck, with the no side edging it at the moment. But people across Scotland are only now beginning to fully engage with the debate and they hear loud and clear the lies of the no side.

When the ministry of defence in London says the nuclear submarines housed in Scotland are a little too dangerous to be relocated to certain parts of England, the people of Scotland know they are being taken for fools. They see that Scotland is not a valued part of the United Kingdom; rather, it is a place to be placated with false promises in the hope it will continue to fall for the lies of Westminster millionaires.

The truth is that Westminster is financially, politically and morally bankrupt. The keenness among pro-unionist members of the U.K. parliament from Scotland to push the country toward a no vote is borne from their own self-interest. They want to continue enjoying their inflated Westminster salaries before whiling away their later years in the warm and unelected surroundings of the House of Lords; living the life of the privileged while those they serve starve inside austerity Britain.

Scottish independence can be the beginning of the end for this desperate political construct: the U.K.; it can spark a democratic revolution across Britain.

As a country, Scotland’s natural constitutional state must be independence. For the regions of England, many of whom feel disenfranchised by the elites running what is one of the most centralist states in the developed world, devolution and greater local decision making could be the prize, if Scotland votes yes in September. English democrats will rightly push for more powers closer to home. Indeed there is growing support from liberals in England for Scottish independence, with twitter buzzing in recent months with backing from those south of the border sick of the direction of Westminster rule, many telling Scotland to have courage and “go for it.”

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron tells Scotland it should vote no to independence because “we’re better together,” but ultimately it will mean being together in isolation. The London regime is planning for an in/out referendum on membership of the Europe Union to try and win back the right-wing conservative voters it has lost to the puerile anti-European UK Independence Party, whose acting chair in Scotland recently attacked Glasgow City Council: saying it was for “gays, Catholics and communists”. This charming party is expected to do well in England at this year’s European elections, and in the next U.K. general election. Yet another right-wing party then with no support in Scotland on course have a say on how the country is run.

When it comes to the EU referendum, opinion polls show Scotland would vote to remain in the EU, while the rest of the U.K. is largely determined to leave. Scotland’s opinion will count for nothing though, as its far larger southern neighbor will ultimately decide, due to the sheer size of its electorate.

With any luck, this democratic injustice won’t come to pass because the country will have voted yes to independence. The polls show the momentum is with the yes movement, who are running an inspiring grass-roots campaign organizing local meetings across Scotland pretty much every day to talk with the public about independence and what it will mean for them. People are listening and want to hear more.

In town halls the length and breadth of Scotland, the pro-democracy independence side are winning debates on a weekly basis. The only barrier to this has been when debates have been canceled because the no side failed to put forward someone to take part.

Sadly Westminster is only interested in democracy as far as it is able to dictate the terms of it. In the case of Scotland’s independence referendum, this has been to stifle proper debate. Cameron won’t even go head to head with Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond; he’s been too busy lobbying Russian President Vladimir Putin and other national leaders: briefing against Scotland internationally while refusing to address the issue on his own doorstep.

Even U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne on a trip to Scotland in February refused to speak to Scottish Television after announcing there would be no currency union with the country in the event of a yes vote.

A U.K. government minister has since let slip to the Guardian newspaper there would “of course” be a currency union. The inability of Westminster to treat Scotland with respect has become a hallmark of this campaign.

More worrying than this, though, have been the pronouncements by some senior U.K. government figures that Westminster might not accept the result if the people vote yes. The sheer contempt which some within the British nationalist camp have for the democratic process is beyond belief.

Scotland needs to bring an end to this ridiculous situation and gift its parliament with the transformative powers that come with independence.

If the country votes yes, political parties of all colors will have to respond to its aspirations and come forward with new policies. A no vote on the other hand will leave Scotland in the grip of one party rule for the foreseeable future, as the right-wing Conservative Party and formerly left of center Labour Party adopt the same policies in a scramble to secure the crucial votes of those in the south of England.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has even made clear his ambitions to become the male Maggie Thatcher, pledging to govern like the iron lady herself if he becomes U.K. prime minister. The woman who used Scotland’s oil to finance her thirst for war and to destroy the country’s industrial base, is not the type of role model the people want a potential Labour prime minister to follow. And with Miliband now intent on more austerity if he gets the top job, both Westminster parties are on course to destroy the hopes of future generations, with the Child Poverty Action Group revealing that 100,000 more Scottish children will be forced into poverty by 2020 as a result of London’s austerity obsession.

The society of Scotland has a once-in- a-lifetime chance to claim the political powers needed to avert this impending, and — in so many parts of Scotland —already existing, humanitarian crisis.

According to the Financial Times newspaper: “An independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the U.K.”

Scotland’s wealth is being wasted by those who don’t care about the well-being of its people. Only independence can reverse this abomination.

Iain Robertson is editor of Enterprising Energy magazine, and partner at Write Word International.

Independence Referendum: Yes EK urge constituents to vote yes to save Scotland's NHS

From the Daily Record 21 August

NHS consultant surgeon, Phillipa Whitford, tells voters at a public meeting in Westwood Hall that a Yes vote in four weeks time is essential to ensure the NHS stays alive in Scotland.

NHS consultant surgeon Phillipa Whitford 

addressing voters at a public meeting in Westwood

Yes East Kilbride has continued its programme of door-to-door canvassing, taking the positive message for independence to all corners of East Kilbride.

The core Yes message is simple: by taking the powers and responsibilities of a normal country, Scotland can be one of the world’s richest nations and use this wealth to deliver a fairer society.

By contrast, the message from the No camp seems to be that we Scots are uniquely incapable of running our own affairs and must continue to rely on Westminster to take the big decisions for us.

One of the issues debated over the past week has been the future of our National Health Service.

While senior opposition and medical figures in England and Wales express alarm at the impact Westminster’s privatisation agenda will have on the NHS, Better Together says, not to worry, the NHS is safe in Holyrood’s hands.

The reality is that, in the event of a No vote, Scotland would be under immense pressure to follow the same path as Westminster on the NHS.

We have already seen how this kind of pressure works under devolution with PFI contracts, promoted by the UK Treasury, creating major difficulties for the NHS and local authorities.

Most notably for East Kilbride, the Hairmyres PFI contract continues to create difficulties in improving the quality of service in the hospital.

On Friday, August 19, the future of the NHS featured heavily at a packed public meeting in Westwood Hall.

The speakers were Cat Boyd, a trade union activist, Kate Higgins, of Women for Independence, and Philippa Whitford, an NHS consultant surgeon.

With over 30 years’ experience working in the NHS, Philippa Whitford’s message was clear, a Yes vote is essential to ensure the NHS stays alive in Scotland.

Saturday saw a welcome innovation when the town centre management provided space for both sides of the campaign to provide information to shoppers.

The response at the Yes stall was simply overwhelming, fully justifying the decision to make this opportunity available.

By agreement with Better Together and the town centre, both campaigns will repeat the exercise this Saturday – please do pop down for a chat!

Yes East Kilbride believes the response on Saturday justifies the continuation of this service from now up to referendum week.

We’ll keep you posted.

A tale of two crossroads

This is a piece about how National Collective challenged one of Better Together's array of wealthy and powerful backers and the challenge facing us all on 18th September. It is an extract from an article on the growth of National Collective into one of the driving forces behind the Yes campaign.

It defines two crossroads. The first faced National Collective when threatened with court action for doing no more than telling the truth when the press refused to do its job. The second crossroad faces us all on 18 September. We can give in to Project Fear, vote No, and let someone else define Scotland's future. Or, we can vote Yes and recover the power to set our own course. It really is that simple.

It's time for Yes.

Original by Ross Colquhoun, National Collective

On Sunday 7th April 2013, Better Together revealed the details of those who donated £1.1 million to their campaign. The Sunday Herald provided a platform for Ian Taylor, who donated £500,000 of that money, to explain why he chose to back Better Together to such a degree despite not being eligible to vote in September.

We were confused. Nobody in the press seemed to be expressing any concern over Taylor’s background, despite a series of press reports linking Vitol Group, the world’s largest oil trading company, which Taylor serves as CEO, to several ‘scandals’. So we collated a series of stories already in the public domain, and in doing so challenged Better Together over the source of much of their funding.

The reports we raised were serious, and we did not publish them brazenly or without due care. Taylor’s company had been accused of giving $1 million to a Serbian Paramilitary leader, of bribing Saddam Hussein’s government and of tax avoidance, amongst others. All of these stories had been sourced and had been in the public domain for several years. We simply, in response to Taylor’s piece in the Sunday Herald, compiled them and asked Better Together to respond.

Within days, Mr. Taylor’s lawyers sent us legal threats accusing both Michael Gray and myself of defamation. We were informed that they would pursue substantial damages from us personally if we did not remove the article immediately, publish an apology and agree to never to publish the material again.

We took this threat seriously, of course. Ian Taylor is a rich and powerful man and the courts are often a rich man’s playground. Out of fear of provoking further action, we were forced to become silent. We didn’t tell our closest friends and family what was happening. We sought legal advice. We went through the original article with a fine tooth comb to check if, in fact, there was any basis in the claim of defamation. We couldn’t find any. So a week later we held a press conference at Nelson Mandela Square in Glasgow to announce that not only would we not be backing down and removing the article, we would be investigating every avenue of their business for further evidence of ‘dodgy deals’.

National Collective was now on the mainstream media’s radar.

This year we have a question that will define our generation. We can be the Scotland who chose to grasp the opportunity to create a better society, or the Scotland who put fear before hope.

Scotland’s Referendum is a fork in the road, it’s about the nation we are and the nation we want to be.

Would you rather live in a country that welcomes immigrants or detains them?

Would you rather live in a country with a strong welfare state at the heart of its society or a crumbling welfare state facing privatisation?

Would you rather live in a country that is a positive influence on the international community or a warmongering dwindling empire?

Would you rather live in a country that advocates peace in the international community or stores nuclear weapons in our communities?

Would you rather live in country where we can tackle child poverty head on or where ⅕ children live in poverty?

Would you rather live in a country where you actually get the government that you voted for or one where we are perpetually given governments that don’t reflect our demands?

It really is that simple.

For the first time, Scotland’s future really is in your hands on September 18th 2014. Vote Yes because it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity for all of us to build a better Scotland.

Read the full article here:

Independence - the business opportunity of a lifetime!

The nice people at Business for Scotland work hard to combat the fear and scare stories peddled by Better Together.

Most of Better Together's multi-million pound funding comes from outside Scotland, from those who benefit most from London's control of Scotland's resources.

Even the conservative Financial Times dismissed the Better Together donors as "Billionaire bankers, property companies and Conservative party supporters".

So, not at all representative of Scotland.

By contrast, Business for Scotland is funded from within Scotland's business community, by people who are making their lives and building their businesses here.

Business for Scotland people really do have 'skin in the game' for the success of an independent Scotland.

They have now produced this informative, short video, it is well worth a watch.

Its conclusions are worth more than all the propaganda funded by those seeking to keep control of Scotland's assets in London's hands.

• Scotland can more than afford to be independent

• Independence will make Scotland's economy stronger and its people better off financially.

• Control over Scotland's finances means we will gain the powers to create more jobs. 

• Independence also saves Scotland money currently wasted by Westminster governments. 

• This means we can invest in new opportunities for Scotland.

"Independence is the business opportunity of a lifetime."

YES or NO - everything has changed

Dinner with No Voters or 
“What I wanted to say before the Pudding hit the fan”
By Peter Arnott

This is an extract, to read the full post, got to BELLACALEDONIA

(In the independence referendum), the status quo .....  may well be on the ballot paper. But it is not on the cards. A wish for a return to normal is a wish for a stability that is already in the past.

You can’t go home when it’s not there any more. Indeed, I would argue that a No vote will change the terms of that “stability” quite as radically as a Yes vote. A No vote is just as much of a vote for change. It is not only Yes voters who should be called on to look into a crystal ball and imagine a future that is radically “not the same”

Before my No voting friends dismiss that as a paradox, may I ask them to consider the following.

Every vile piece of Westminster legislation that has attacked the poor and dismantled the Welfare State, every policy that has ensured that it is only the poor who have paid the price of the recession caused by the greed of the rich, every act of economic and social vandalism – it has been the comfortable posture of the well meaning voters of Scotland that none of these things have been your fault. That you didn’t vote for them.

Well, you won’t be able to say that any more.

Up until September the 18th, we have all been able to hide behind all that being someone else’s fault. Either way the vote goes, Yes or No, that comfortable position has already been shattered. Either we vote to take responsibility for our own economics , our own wealth distribution, our own decisions to make war or peace…or we are voting to mandate away control over all of these matters to Westminster forever.

Either way, we will be responsible.

If a Yes voter has to take on board the moral hazard of whatever happens for good or ill in an independent Scotland, a No voter must equally accept moral responsibility for having given Westminster permanent permission to do whatever it likes forever. No questions asked.

Moral Hazard works both ways.

Whatever austerity measures are coming down the line, all those policies that weren’t your fault before September 18th? After September the 18th, they will be your fault. No. Sorry. Every single one of them. Will be your fault. This is the trap that history has set you. And I understand your discomfort. I understand your wanting to wish all this away. But you can’t. You’re stuck along with the rest of us.

...

Before September the 18th, nice left leaning folk in Scotland chatting about the Welfare State and the decline of local government and the miners and the poll tax and the sale of council housing and the destruction of our industries at dinner parties could say in their comfortable, pre-democratic way:

“Oh well, it’s terrible. But it’s not our fault. We’re not responsible. We didn’t vote for that. “ No more. After September the 18th, we in Scotland will be responsible for whatever happens to us. Our choice is whether or not we want democracy to go along with the responsibility.

Right now, thanks to the referendum, however uncomfortably or prematurely, our future is, temporarily, in our own hands. A No vote is not a place to hide from that future. It is just a vote to have no influence over that future after we deliver a mandate to whoever wins in Westminster elections that we can’t influence to do whatever they like with it.

I hope you’re comfortable with that, folks. Because if you win, I promise to devote every waking moment to reminding you what the hell you just did, even if there are none of you at dinner parties in a years time who will admit to it any more than you’d admit now to being a Tory.

Everything has changed. Everyone has to face the reality of that. Our only choice in September 18th is: Do we make the way we change subject to democratic control within Scotland, or do we leave the management of that change to whomever somebody else votes for.

Because, my brothers and my sisters, as George Bush once said, democracy, with all of the adult responsibilities that implies, is coming soon to a place near you. For the first time in history, for 15 hours in September, Scotland will be a democratic country, with its people responsible for themselves.

Putting your head in the sand of a No vote won’t make it go away.

Originally posted in BELLACALEDONIA on JULY 17, 2014

A Yes vote can end Westminster's War Tax - Linda Fabiani MSP

A constituent recently suggested to me that Scotland pays a ‘Westminster War Tax’, which he defined as additional and wasted costs Scots pay because we are tied to the high defence spending of the United Kingdom.  I set out to see if this was true.

How do we compare internationally

The most common measure for comparison of defence expenditure is as a per cent of each country’s total economic activity (Gross Domestic Product or GDP). This measure allows comparison of countries of different sizes and stages of economic development.

Scotland’s GDP, including oil revenues, is 9.1% of the UK total. On this measure, in financial year 2012/13, Scotland contributed £3.3 billion to UK defence expenditure of £36.4 billion.

The table on the right shows that, in 2012, UK/Scotland ranked 31 in the international league table of defence expenditure as a per cent of GDP. Apart from the Cold War superpowers, the vast majority of countries appearing above the UK are affected by conflict or potential conflict, including the ‘Arab Spring’ countries, post-Soviet countries, and the Middle East.

Greece is the only EU member that appears above UK / Scotland in terms of defence expenditure as a per cent of GDP.

Does Scotland get appropriate Defence in return for this extra tax?

Despite the UK being one of the world’s highest spending countries on defence, there is mounting evidence that Scotland does not get appropriate defence arrangements in return for its contribution to the defence budget.

To get an idea of Scotland’s defence needs, it is worth looking at Scotland's combined land and sea area. Clearly, such an area requires effective maritime defences and monitoring, especially with the extensive oil assets located in the North Sea and off Shetland.

Scotland and UK Continental Shelf

In August 2011, Angus Robertson MP, the SNP’s defence spokesman submitted evidence to Westminster‘s Defence Committee. This  showed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as some English regions, enduring significant defence cuts, in some cases from an existing low base.

Subsequent decisions show the MoD continuing to concentrate defence personnel, basing, and spending in the South of England, ignoring Scotland’s defence needs. If anything, recent developments have increased the mismatch between Scotland’s contribution to the UK defence budget and what we get in return:

• After decades of investment, the MOD failed to procure a maritime patrol capability to replace the aging Nimrod aircraft. Nimrod was withdrawn from service as no longer safe to fly after the deaths of all 14 crew on one of the aircraft following years of ‘flawed budgeting and poor management’.
• The absence of a single major ocean going conventional naval vessel based in Scotland meant that, in December 2013, the Navy had to despatch an escort ship from Portsmouth, a 24-hour sail away, to meet the Russian Navy as it entered Scottish waters.
• A reduction of more than twenty-eight percent in the military personnel based in Scotland compared to eleven percent for the UK as a whole, with Scottish-based personnel down to just eleven thousand, a record low. Promises of additional personnel to be based in Scotland as troops return from Germany are in doubt.
• Two of Scotland’s three military airbases, RAF Leuchars and RAF Kinloss, have been axed. 

The Scotland Analysis paper produced in connection with the referendum demonstrates that the UK Government is still focused on its status in the world, its ‘reach’, and its relationship with the USA, as opposed to an assessment of the defence needs of the UK working with regional partners. This is reflected in the following quotes from the document:

"key player within the international system"

"extensive international defence engagement"

''UK's global reputation''

In a less jingoistic assessment of UK defence arrangements, Mark Urban, BBC diplomatic and defence editor, highlighted that basic homeland defence for the UK is sorely lacking:

“The UK has no defence against missile attack (unlike Japan, several Gulf states and Israel); no long range anti-aircraft missiles (they went 30 years ago); no diesel submarines able to protect the home islands (these were scrapped in the 1990s); only enough minesweepers to keep one of its major ports open; no long range maritime patrol aircraft (binned in the SDSR); there is frequently no frigate or destroyer available for home defence; and the number of RAF interceptors that are fully operational is barely adequate.” 

Nothing better illustrates the absurdity of the UK's position than, in the absence of such basic homeland security, the UK Government still intends to spend £100 billion renewing the Trident  missile system. 

The Trident system is largely dependent on American technology, as demonstrated in this evidence to Westminster's Defence Committee, and represents a major drain on the UK defence budget and economy.

 A Yes vote can act as a wakeup call to the rest of the UK that it is time to rein in Westminster’s ambition to remain a global power, swinging on America’s coat tails. 

Following a Yes vote, the prospect of spending an additional £25 - £50 billion to relocate Trident out of Scotland would spark a real debate over rUK’s international role post Scottish independence.

How much would Defence cost an independent Scotland

In the White Paper, Scotland’s Future, the Scottish Government proposes a defence budget of £2.5 billion for an independent Scotland. Implementing this change, would result in an independent Scotland having defence spend of approximately 1.8% of GDP.

This represents a saving of approximately £800 million against Scotland’s current share of UK defence expenditure. Even at 1.8% of GDP, Scotland’s defence spending would rank higher than many comparator countries.

Details of current plans for independent Scottish defence arrangements can be found on the Yes Scotland website. 

In the White Paper, the Scottish Government proposes that Faslane become the joint headquarters for Scotland's conventional armed forces as well as the main naval base. While Scotland’s Military HQ will be at Faslane, there will be delivery functions based here in in East Kilbride.

Conclusion

Decisions made by the UK Government do indeed result in Scotland paying a ‘Westminster War Tax’.

Scots pay more towards defence than comparable countries yet this is not used for effective defence of the UK and Scotland; instead, it is used to ‘project power’ across the globe often in dubious circumstances that do more harm than good, as recent developments in Iraq all too tragically demonstrate.

If we benchmark Scotland against directly comparable countries, such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the ‘Westminster War Tax’ costs Scots well over £1 billion per annum, approximately £400 per household.

After being in denial for more than 50 years, a Yes vote will finally make Westminster face up to the challenge set down in 1962 by Dean Acheson, then America’s Secretary of state, when he said:

“Great Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.”

Jim Sillars urges Labour voters to back Yes vote

On Wednesday 2nd July, a packed Greenhills hall heard Jim Sillars, former Labour MP and SNP Deputy Leader back a Yes vote in the independence referendum, followed by a Labour vote in the first elections to an independent Scottish Parliament in 2016.

Sillars, speaking in East Kilbride for the first time since the death of his wife Margo MacDonald, told the meeting that she had been instrumental in getting him back on the campaign trail.

He announced that, although currently an SNP member, he would be backing Labour to form the first government of an independent Scotland in 2016.

The meeting, which was organised by Yes East Kilbride, also heard from East Kilbride MSP, Linda Fabiani, and Allan Grogan, founder of Labour for Independence, the group campaigning for a Yes vote within the Labour Party.

In a fiery speech, Sillars condemned successive UK governments for halting oil exploration off Scotland’s west coast because of the presence of Trident nuclear submarines.

Sillars called for governments in an independent Scotland to learn from Norway’s management of its oil reserves and keep control of exploration and extraction in public ownership.

Linda Fabiani reminded the meeting that Scots were powerless to stop Scottish soldiers being sent to an illegal war in Iraq and looked forward to the day Scotland had the power to say ‘Not in my name’ and make it come true.

Allan Grogan said that only under independence will Scots get a Labour government working for Scotland.

Commenting after the event, Jim Sillars said:

“This event is part of the biggest discussion Scotland has ever seen.

“Scots will go to the polls on the 18th of September better educated politically than ever before. And I am convinced Yes will win!”

Convenor of Yes East Kilbride Paul McCartney added:

“As we saw here tonight, the Yes campaign is increasingly drawing support from right across the political spectrum.

“Our next public meeting will hear from Tommy Sheppard, previously a senior figure in Scottish Labour, Jeane Freeman, adviser to Jack McConnell as First Minister, and Andy Myles, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

“Our message is clear; this referendum is about much more than the SNP. Only a Yes vote puts Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands.”