Michelle joins Business for Scotland EK team

Yes East Kilbride is pleased to announce that Michelle Rodger, journalist and entrepreneur, is joining the team presenting the Business Case for Yes in East Kilbride.

Michelle will join Ivan McKee in presenting the benefits of independence for Scottish business.

The meeting takes place at 7pm on Tuesday, 27th May in The Bruce Hotel, Cornwall Street, East Kilbride.

Yes East Kilbride is aiming this event at the town's business community. All are welcome, whatever their position on the independence referendum, and Yes East Kilbride is particularly keen to hear the concerns of undecided voters.

Scotland has got what it takes

The following post is based on the article 10 key economic facts that prove Scotland will be a wealthy independent nation. You can read the full article here.

All the evidence demonstrates that Scotland is a wealthy nation. Scotland would be the 14th wealthiest nation in the developed world by GDP per head of population. Scotland’s wealth is also built on solid financial foundations, a diverse economy and substantial economic potential in new industries such as biotechnology and renewables, as well as current key sectors like food and drink, tourism and oil and gas

Voting for independence – to have control over taxation, regulation and global promotion – will give the Scottish government the tools to create greater opportunities for growth and a better business climate for Scottish business. In short, a Yes vote will improve Scotland’s economy. This will make people in Scotland financially better off.

1) Scotland has a rich and diverse economy

2) Scotland is a net contributor to the UK

3) Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average

4) Westminster has cost Scotland £64 billion in the past 30 years

5) Scotland has a lower deficit and lower public spending than the UK

6) Scotland has strong exports

7) Scotland’s oil fields remain a massive financial asset

8) Scotland has huge potential in renewable energy

9) Scotland is one of the top UK locations for inward investment

10) An independent Scotland can support Scottish business in tax, regulation, the labour market, innovation and global exports

Conclusion

There is overwhelming evidence that Scotland will be economically better off as an independent country. Even opponents of independence have conceded that Scotland can be a successful independent country.  Their own negative economic forecast estimated that Scots would be just £1 worse off a year.

In contrast every single Government Expenditure and Revenue report for the last 30 years – compiled with official statistics – finds that Scotland generated more tax per head than the UK.

If voters are convinced that Scotland will do better economically a majority support independence. Yet astonishingly around 34% of the electorate currently believe that Scotland would fare worse economically as an independent country; while 37% believe Scotland is incapable of independence. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. Not a single economic expert supports such a doom laden proposition.

This demonstrates that truthful economic information like the facts contained in this article will change the result of the independence referendum.

With the knowledge that Scotland will benefit economically from independence, business and citizens will move towards voting Yes as it is the only way to ensure progress for themselves, their businesses and their communities.

Scotland will vote for independence because the economic case for independence is unanswerable.

Original article Michael Gray for Business for Scotland

The business case for independence comes to East Kilbride

Ivan McKee

Leading pro-Business Yes campaigner, Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland, is coming to East Kilbride to set out the business case for a Yes vote in the Independence Referendum.

Ivan worked in manufacturing for thirty years, mostly for large companies. Eight years ago he launched his own manufacturing consultancy and turnaround company.

He has worked in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, and currently has manufacturing businesses in Scotland, England, and Eastern Europe.

Business for Scotland hit the headlines recently when its challenge to the anti-independence stance of the Confederation of British Industry led that organisation to register as a pro-union campaigning organisation, and then, after much confusion, to deregister.

Yes East Kilbride is holding a series of meetings that will allow voters to hear the facts about Scotland’s potential as an independent country, and the implications for them. These meetings, and key information about the issues discussed, will be reported in this blog.

The Business for Scotland meeting with Mr McKee takes place in the Bruce Hotel, at 7pm, on Tuesday 27th May.

Ivan Mc Kee said

“All the data shows clearly that Scotland contributes significantly more to the UK than it takes out.”

“Scotland’s natural resources put us in a much better position to weather future economic storms than being tied to a UK economy which is too heavily dependent on casino-style financial services.

“After Independence, Scotland would continue to enjoy close trading relationships with the rest of the UK, as well as with other countries in Europe.”

Paul Mc Cartney, Convenor of Yes East Kilbride, said:

“We can all see the damage done to the East Kilbride economy by Westminster’s focus on London-based financial services.

“Only a Yes vote on 18th September will give businesses in Scotland the opportunity and the support to use Scotland’s resources to build a fairer and more sustainable economy for the 21st century and beyond.

“We look forward to welcoming representatives of East Kilbride’s business community to the Bruce Hotel to hear the business case for a Yes vote.”

Further reading.

Scotland's Future, Chapter 3 - Finance and the Economy - Scottish Government

Scotland's Future, Chapter 8 - Environment, Rural Scotland, Energy and Resources - Scottish Government

UK economic recovery on shaky ground - The Guardian

No campaign EU membership myth falls apart - Business for Scotland

A message for all NHS and Health workers in East Kilbride

Responsibility for health in Scotland has allowed us to show what can be achieved with the full powers of a Yes vote. We've taken a very different approach to health and social care from that taken by Westminster.

Since 1999, Scottish governments have made steady improvements to Scotland's health and the quality of healthcare, while protecting the NHS as a free public service, consistent with the values of the NHS and the priorities of the people in Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament has introduced a smoking ban in public places, reduced waiting times, and made significant reductions in premature deaths from cancer, heart disease and stroke.

In delivering and protecting free personal care we have demonstrated that Scotland can provide support for older people in a way that looks after them, maintains their dignity and respects the contribution they have made to society.

However, with 80% of the UK austerity cuts still to come, experts reckon NHS spend could fall to 6% of GDP by 2021 - the lowest level since 2003.

Through the Barnett Formula, changes in the Scottish Budget are tied to changes in the budget set for England by the UK Government. Figure 1 below shows previous and planned changes in NHS spend for England.

Graph courtesy of The Kings Fund

Figure 2 shows the dramatic decline this will produce on NHS spending as a % of GDP. Down from a peak of 8% of the UK economy in 2000 to 2002, to just 6% in less than 10 years time.

Graph courtesy of The Kings Fund

So, although control of the Scottish NHS is devolved, decisions taken in Westminster will have a huge influence over services in Scotland.

Also, without control over Scotland's budget and with further cuts from Westminster we won't be able to address the inequalities which are the root causes of many of our country's health problems.

The No campaign wants to see Westminster keep control of Scotland's purse-strings. This is the real threat to Scotland's NHS.

If you work in the NHS or have a health background, and are passionate about a health service that is free at the point of need - join YES NHS here.  Whether you're a non-medical NHS worker, a medical student, a GP or a nurse, get involved in the new group.

Based on an article by Yes Scotland

Once bitten - twice shy

Recent weeks have not been kind to the Better Together campaign in East Kilbride.

First, they had a chaotic visit by a Tory Cabinet Minister, Justine Greening. They were so frightened of the reaction to her visit that they switched meeting venues at the last minute. Those attending had to endure speeches shouted across a room far larger than needed – the public address system, and possibly many of the audience, having been abandoned at the original venue.

Just when they thought the worst was over, Michael McCann MP disgraced himself twice within days. At a debate organised by the Trades Union Council he showed how desperate the Tory-funded, Labour fronted, No campaign has become. Clearly rattled at being forced to justify a No vote, he abused his position on the platform to hurl abuse at a member of the audience, and at fellow No speaker, Professor John Foster.

McCann then turned his attention to the speakers for the Yes campaign, describing Yes supporter Cat Boyd as ‘a socialist’ in a tone that clearly meant it as an insult. His final comment was directed at Linda Fabiani MSP, when he criticised her for referring to the blacking of Chilean Air Force aero engines as an example of social justice that crossed borders, describing this as 'an esoteric issue'. This was too much for some Labour supporters who left the meeting in disgust.

Days later, to widespread ridicule on Twitter and Facebook, McCann used his column in the EKNews to complain that ‘bussed in’ members of the audience had heckled him.

Local Labour members are clearly annoyed at the way their party has been hijacked by such a unionist element, and local interest in Labour for Independence and Radical Independence is growing. Labour voters and members in East Kilbride are also increasingly willing to sign the Yes Declaration, and it is clear the party is facing a major revolt by its supporters over its pro-union stance.

The troubles facing the No camp in East Kilbride are mirrored across Scotland. Even a visiting journalist, Channel 4’s Jon Snow, was moved to comment on the negativity of the No campaign and the failure of Westminster to grasp the position in Scotland.

I have come away from Scotland deeply impressed by the high quality of debate, and the relatively low quality of many of the arguments put forward by the No campaign. I’m equally impressed by the range and quality of people who constantly surprised me by their commitment – often recently determined, to vote yes. My sense too is that where the vote on Scottish independence is concerned, Westminster politicians just don’t get it.

Sensing that their campaign is in trouble, Better Together has reached for an old favourite – promise that a No vote will lead to something better, but don’t specify what that might be. This tactic was first used in the 1979 referendum on devolution. Former Tory Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, urged Scots to Vote No, and, after the General Election, Westminster would deliver something better. Sound familiar?

The "something better" turned out to be Margaret Thatcher, whose government refused to deliver any form of devolution, and subjected the country to policies consistently rejected by the Scottish people. These policies saw a massive rise in unemployment and the virtual destruction of Scottish industry, doing immense damage to the economy of East Kilbride.

While the No camp talk of more powers ‘guaranteed’, even their own publicity highlights the lack of clarity about what these powers might be. Some of their supporters point to the, as yet unimplemented, 2012 Scotland Act as the limit to any further powers that would follow a No vote. This Act implements the much watered down recommendations of the Calman Commission, which was set up as an attempt to save the union in response to the SNP taking power in 2007.

Here is the view from the Conservative Party adviser, Adam Tomkins, a regular 'objective commentator' on BBC news programmes, who is such a committed unionist that he refers to Scotland as North Britain:

A No vote is guaranteed to mean that devolution will change and develop. How do I know this? I know it because it’s already been legislated for, in the Scotland Act 2012. This Act, described at the time of its enactment by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as the largest transfer of fiscal powers within the United Kingdom in its history, will bring to Holyrood a substantial degree of fiscal devolution. 

Calman reported in 2009, and these powers were on the way when the SNP was elected to majority government in 2011. If the No campaign genuinely believed in delivering more powers for Scotland, they would have ensured these were also on the statute book before the referendum. Instead, all we have in place are the grossly inadequate powers in the 2012 Act.

Voices around Westminster make clear any proposals for more powers for Scotland would be given a rough ride, with a newly appointed Tory Minister describing devolution as ‘constitutional vandalism’. The Labour Party is so divided that no one has a clue what its policy is. Its plans for more financial devolution have been so badly developed that not even Johann Lamont could describe them accurately when she launched them for the press.

As Professor John Curtice points out, the gulf between the powers Scots want the parliament in Holyrood to have, and what they believe Westminster will deliver, is huge:

No less than 68 per cent of Scots agree that, in the event of a No vote, the Scottish Parliament should become primarily responsible for taxation and welfare. But just 39 per cent think Holyrood will actually be given more powers and responsibilities should Scotland vote No.

With clear echoes of 1979 and Alec Douglas-Home, the Scottish people must not be fooled again by unspecified offers of jam tomorrow. 

The ONLY way to guarantee Scotland gets the powers we need to grow our economy and to deliver a fairer and more prosperous country is to vote Yes on 18th September.

Unionism is a Form of Nationalism, Too

Nationalism. It is a term often misunderstood, mistakenly or intentionally, but thrown around anyway like mud by those who do not understand its meaning, demeaning the debate we are having. Before we continue, here are some simple definitions of nationalism:

Cultural Nationalism is where historical and cultural characteristics determine that a country is different to its neighbours. It doesn't mean it is any better - just different.

Civic Nationalism is defined by territory and those within it seek the right to self determination. An example would be European member states. 

Ethnic Nationalism is where a nation is defined by ethnicity or race. Citizenship is genetic, and ethnic nationalists seek to exclude those from different backgrounds. It has been linked to fascism and apartheid.

The first two terms are peaceful and democratic. Ethnic Nationalism? Most definitely not. It has no place in society. Ethnic Nationalists do not believe that someone from a different ethnic background should be a part of that nation. The above definitions are easy enough to understand. 

In our context, the Oxford dictionary defines nationalism as:

Advocacy of political independence for a particular country:

 - Scottish nationalism

What we are seeing more and more of is the demeaning of the word 'nationalist', by some uncomfortable with the idea of independence. It's a term which is now branded around by an increasingly agitated, shaken opposition from those within the Better Together camp. The official No campaign use it, as do politicians from unionist parties. It most certainly shouldn't be a term of abuse.

On social media, you may well be called a cybernat. Other terms include Cyberrat, or CyberNazi. Rather than offer an alternative, modern vision of what unionism can be, some unionists instead insult their opponents. 'Cybernat' is a loser's word. More often than not, you know you have won an argument when it is used. 

Unionism is a form of nationalism, though. What else could it be? Think about it.  Essentially, unionism is tied to British state nationalism. If unionists aren't nationalists, what are they? Confused? Unionists should admit to their nationalism, too, and be comfortable with it. Those who describe themselves as Scottish nationalists have, so why can't unionists? 

It isn't wrong for nations to seek self determination. In Scotland, cultural nationalism and civic nationalism are largely responsible for getting us to where we are right now. We have diverged politically from the rest of the United Kingdom for a number of years now - think how irrelevant UKIP are in Scotland. There is a democratic deficit, and unpopular decisions are often taken at Westminster, which a majority of Scottish MPs oppose. Think the privatisation of Royal Mail, and implementation of the Bedroom Tax. It is time we had a government which reflected our voting behaviour.

Independence is normal. It is the default status of nations. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.  Scottish independence will not be 'cataclysmic for the world' as Lord Robetson suggests. 

Having said all that, you don't have to be a nationalist to vote for independence. It is understandable that some people do find difficulty describing themselves in such terms. They aren't misunderstood or wrong - indeed, they often have other valid reasons for voting Yes. You can call yourself a democrat, and support independence – as Colin Fox states. Alternatively, you can describe yourself an internationalist and support independence. You can call yourself whatever you want and support independence, really. 

There are many great reasons for voting Yes. 

Better Together may worry we will turn our neighbours into foreigners overnight - their words, not ours. They will still be our neighbours, and we will work constructively with them. We seek a modern democracy, where the makeup of our Parliament is more representative of how we actually vote. We do all this in a peaceful, respectful way. We wouldn't describe ourselves as separatists, and we certainly aren't going anywhere. Our debate should be filled with facts, not abuse. This debate is much too important. 

All we argue is that we SHOULD be independent because we will have a better future if key decisions are taken by the people who care most about Scotland - that is people who live and work here. It really is that simple.

A Just Scotland - Yes or No

This Friday, 25th April, sees the first major debate of the referendum campaign in East Kilbride.

The debate has been arranged by South Lanarkshire and East Kilbride Trades Union Council, and will feature two speakers from each side in the campaign.

Speaking for Yes will be local SNP MSP, Linda Fabiani, who will be joined by Cat Boyd, of the Radical Independence Campaign.