“THE PARADOX DEBUNKED”
Usually when I run across a British Nationalists piece of work like this, I find (as in this case) that it’s an attempt to show how stupid people are for wanting to repatriate the political and economic power to Scotland and is usually an attack of some kind on the SNP. Well no surprise here then. The piece that the author has written is not worthy of any serious thought but I deemed it necessary to debunk it anyway so that folk who aren’t politically savvy can see through it.
Here we go, I’ll put my responses in each case within brackets [ … ] and use bold italics to distinguish my words from that of the author.
Written 26-1-14 by “north britten”
Can you answer the Nationalist Paradox?
‘Nationalist Paradox – discuss if you dare’ has been a common sighting on Better Together’s Facebook page in the last few weeks.
It has irritated, flummoxed, annoyed and baffled Nationalists who of whatever colour and shade in Politics, cannot see what it means.
This is because it is not included in the language of their particular discourse group. And they certainly are that – with their own language, morals, understandings, relationships, creeds and accepted values.
The Nationalist Paradox is something they instinctively deny because they have screened it out of their thinking – and it is easy to see why because it is inconvenient to what they wish to achieve.
So what does it mean?
Simply put, Scottish Nationalism is a great paradox, and on whatever level. It is a paradox, that is riddled through with sub paradoxes in many layers, like an enormous onion.
Picture Nationalism as a great and shining onion, plump, shiny and desirable. Then peel away at the layers and what do we find?
[This first introduction is quite laughable and displays the arrogance and condescension of a British Nationalist who actually believes that they can write something that would baffle a section of the population simply based on the political choice they have made.]
The greatest paradox of the Nationalists is that they offer Independence, yet there is more independence to be gained by staying in the Union. What they offer is not independence but fiscal dependence either on Brussels, or Berlin, or even on London without the controls they have now. That’s the over arching paradox; the skin of it. The “independence” they offer is not. They may point out that we are controlled by Brussels anyway through the Westminster middleman, and that Scotland could just as well liaise with Brussels herself. This ignores the considerable muscle of the UK in dealing with Europe as exemplified in our opt outs from Schengen, the Euro, and our rebate. Scotland alone would simply not have the strength in saying No! to Europe that the UK has – and therefore would be much more under control. That is not independence.
[More independence to be gained by staying in the union? Wow what a statement. The obvious drift that the author tries to make here is that we have our big sister, Westminster fighting our battles with Europe for us. What the author fails to mention is what that has cost the people of Scotland? If we consider for a moment that in negotiations with Europe, the British government tossed away the rights of the fishing industry to make gains south of the border. It was used as a simple pawn. Not so simple if your livelihood depends on it. Also, the Common Agricultural Policy which releases a block of money to landowners is channelled in such a way that real farmers in Scotland get short changed. The really important thing to remember here is that you don’t actually have to do any form of agriculture to get a payment. It is simply a payment for land ownership. The bigger the land area, the more you get. As Scotland is famous for food exports, this is one area that having the ability to fight our own corner working in alliance with countries of a similar nature within Europe that will create the biggest change to that payment. It is also obvious that our fishing fleet (what’s left of it) will benefit from having their corner re-negotiated directly by our own Scottish government. Did you ever wonder why Spain is so against Scottish independence? It’s not just about Catalonia. Spain’s fishing fleet plunders Scottish waters every day of the week and any re-negotiation in that respect, no matter how slight would have far reaching consequences for Spain’s fishing industry. And as to Schengen, the Euro and our rebate, I can assure everyone that reads this, we will still have a common travel area within the British Isles, we won’t have to join the Euro (because no one can force us to) and we will receive a rebate. The amount of rebate is of course negotiable and it may be that Scotland becomes a net contributor, but that means we’ll be doing very well indeed as an independent European nation.]
The second layer is that they claim to be wanting Scots to be self determinant, yet a key stone of their policy is to boost productivity by opening the doors to economic migrants and excluding hundreds of thousands of ‘Scots’ from having a say in the matter. This will ultimately benefit thousands of non-Scots who come to Scotland but probably not the 7.4% of unemployed Scots. Whilst excluding Scots who do not live in Scotland from the referendum on Scotland’s future may be seen as democratic and reasonable- indeed the only way to stage such a referendum, there is an irony in who does have the vote. It is not ‘Scots’ but the residents of Scotland who will decide the future of Scotland – and indeed of the United Kingdom. These include in their number thousands of people from all over the world, some of who will not stay in Scotland anyway. People born behind what was the Iron Curtain, under Communism, Americans, English, – will have a voice in this whilst 850000 Scots in England do not. This is a curious type of Nationalism, and indeed is not what it appears. It is Secessionism, and many of those who want it give reasons that are not Nationalist but economic. What appears to be Nationalism is apparently, for the most part, not what it appears.
[In this part I partly agree with the author, I’ll come to that further on but first I’ll mention the “boost in productivity” that the author mentions. Economic migrants are net contributors to our society. They aren’t the total answer as that is tied up with the planned reduction in corporation tax to create inward investment and a greater display of Scottish exports on the world markets. We aren’t “excluding” the diaspora at all but to give 50 million extra Scots around the world a vote in the referendum would be impossible. Therefore we are having a vote for those who live in Scotland because they have the greatest vested interest in how it turns out. I did think it was funny that the author would single out “People born behind what was the Iron Curtain, under Communism” and that perhaps gives us a sneak peek at the authors Tory Party commemorative knickers and what drives people like him or her. Lol.
The part that I agree with is where the author mentions that the drive for independence is an economic one. It most certainly is, backed up with a proper democracy to say where our wealth will be channelled. Each person in Scotland will have a vote that counts and a closer connection with our chosen government due to the smaller numbers involved. The British Nationalists are nationalists in the true “jack booted” meaning of the word whereas we should adopt “Self-Determinationists” as being a more of an apt title.]
The third layer is that they claim green credentials and ally with Greens and such, yet the bedrock of their policy is a fossil fuel which is running out. This is not very ‘green’. Neither is it very green to cover huge areas of beautiful Highland scenery with wind turbines. That is in itself quite a paradox, however there is another which is of greater irony than most.
Paradoxically this disallows them from using the vast wealth under Scotland’s feet which could be exploited through Fracking ,or coal gasification which they do not even consider. Which raises the question if their ‘ideology’ is actually good for Scotland? A linked paradox is that if clean ways could be found to utilize the massive amounts of gas and coal under Scotland, then there is more than enough to fund independence. Yet the available money is put into types of power generation that for the most part cannot supply base load to a national grid.
[In Scotland, our “green credentials” are second to none. It is very likely that with the correct investment, Scotland could emerge as a world class producer of subsea renewable technology, tested in the harshest of environments and sold to the world as a supplier of clean free energy. We will use a proportion of the revenue from the oil that we own to help with investment in that area no matter who is in power in our government. The skills of the people involved in production of oil are easily transportable to the skills required in manufacturing these massive subsea machines and making them fit for a harsh environment.
Anyone who promotes fracking and the gasification of coal in Scotland is, in my opinion, a few sandwiches short of a picnic. One of Scotland’s most prized elements is the water. We produce Whisky with it and it is simply the finest in the world. In a relatively short period of time into the future, potable drinking water will become the most prized of all elements. So, what use would the short term gain be in poisoning that element by filing our aquifers with chemicals to produce fracked energy when we have more than enough in our oil production? Anyone promoting such an idea in Scotland should be considered insane. Fracking and gasification of coal will take place in Scotland anyway and it is my hope that our first elected government in an independent Scotland outlaws it as quickly as possible.
As to power generation, we will deal with that initially using a spread of technologies just the same as any other country. The renewables part is only a part of the picture for the moment but as time goes on, more advances will be made to make full demand from free energy sources which won’t run out both possible and probable.]
The 4th layer of paradox is that they claim to want a more inclusive Scotland, welcoming, honest, open, bustling, yet what we see is secrecy, stonewalling, propaganda, elitism and exclusion in their tactics and language. They stated they had received advice on the EU when they had not.
But when they did seek advice they refused to publish the advice received- and still have not.
They have also been observed lying or misleading on several occasions, even within the walls of Parliament. They have cooked up a vast fantasy about oil on the West Coast when there is no evidence that it exists. They claim that England has stolen seabed from Scotland when the evidential record proves conclusively that this has not happened. Even this week they claimed that BAE will continue operations in Scotland based on a half quote from the BAE Chairman, when if you read it in context he makes it clear that how BAE would react would be in accordance with how their customer, Westminster wished to deal with the problem. And for all their talk of inclusion there is a strong element of anti English feeling in many of them that is no longer banter but racism.
[Whoops! This is straightforward BritNat fantasy and a pernicious fantasy at that. We do “want a more inclusive Scotland, welcoming, honest, open, bustling” and successful iScotland but where is the secrecy? Where is the stonewalling? Where is the propaganda? Where is the elitism and exclusion? I’ll tell you where it is, it is in the no campaign where all their meetings are held behind closed doors and their fear of someone asking a simple question that challenges their carefully nurtured idiocy. It is in their campaign website where people get banned for simply asking questions or posing an alternative view to BritNat fanaticism. It is in the BritNat main stream media where we find journalists openly spouting a propagandist message and bias in support of Westminster. Elitism? Exclusion? That is the worst case of clinical projection I’ve seen in a long time. It is those who come from Westminster to spout more scare stories who are being both elitist and condescending. I can assure you, the reader of this, that you haven’t seen exclusion the likes of what we will see if UKIP gain a foothold in British politics at the next Westminster election. And that is very likely indeed.
As to the “advice” thing, parliamentary rules govern that and the BritNats have used this over and over to try to show that our government were lying when they weren’t at all. The biggest obfuscation being performed is by the parliament in Westminster. Their words “they can’t even tell us if they’ll be in Europe” are used over and over and yet if the UK government simply asked the question of Europe (as they are the only ones that can ask) they would get an answer. It all depends on what you call a lie. In my opinion, the politicians from Westminster won’t ask that question of Europe because the answer would be good news for Scotland, and we can’t have that, can we? It suits their purpose to keep the air of uncertainty going for as long as possible.
As to the oil on the west coast fantasy statement, all I can say is that until the MoD blocked any oil operations on the Clyde to save inconvenience to their subs stationed at Faslane, Chevron had gone through the awesome planning procedures and design of a huge oil refinery at Hunterston Point. If there were no reserves in enough quantities, why would you plan such a venture? Next is the stolen seabed. That is simply a matter of record and 6000 square miles of Scottish seabed was taken to give England a few oil wells. We will sort that out after independence. The “evidential record” says the exact opposite to what the author is saying. If a BritNat can prove otherwise, I’ll eat two hats.
Next, BAE. It is a company like any other and will make decisions based on what is best for the shareholders. The highly skilled workforce based in Scotland produce the goods that those shareholders make their money from, Westminster may hold sway on them as a customer, but I think BAE will simply say that if Westminster want naval ships built to a high standard, then they have a shipyard that can do it and it just so happens that shipyard is in Scotland.
Finally on this section, I’ll discuss “inclusion”. The author said “And for all their talk of inclusion there is a strong element of anti English feeling in many of them that is no longer banter but racism.”
This is an assertion that I can’t let go as a simple BritNat fantasy and is a very serious charge that we’ve heard coming from the no campaign since they started. I have attended many conferences etc where people who want independence congregate, I also help run two of the largest pro-independence
Facebook groups on the internet. If there was any “anti-English” sentiment at all then I’d have heard it but I simply haven’t. The simple reason that we don’t have it lies within the DNA of the indy supporter. We welcome people from around the world who flatter us by coming to make their home here but we especially value those who have moved up from England. I have seen lots of evidence of that and it is a salient fact that some of our greatest indy supporters are English by birth. What we are well and truly against is Westminster and the House of Lords and the strange thing is that of those we oppose, many of them are Scottish anyway. This is a serious charge by the author and he or she should produce clear, incontrovertible evidence that “anti-Englishness” is indeed taking place or it should be retracted. Just because someone insinuates something doesn’t make it so, I actually have evidence to support the assertion that the no campaign is very anti-Scottish and that they get excited when something is presented that’s bad news for Scotland.]
They claim that Scotland subsidizes England. This is not true, and neither is it true that England subsidizes Scotland. What it would be more accurate to say would be that the four nations of the UK have united their economies into a larger one, and benefit, as shareholders, from any dividends. However that is actually not relevant. The Paradox is that by voting for independence they have to apply to enter the EU and will not partake of the rUK rebate and will end up subsidizing … England via the rebate which they will no longer get but will contribute to.
[Scotland has always subsidised the rest of the UK and not just in monetary terms. We have provided the manpower to drive the empire. We have produced discoveries and inventions that basically invented the 21st century that we see today. Scotland and her sons and daughters have fought well above their weight and the thing that has always pulled us back is the British Establishment who make an almost constant attempt to hide that fact. With regard to money, I could make the usual statement about Scotland producing more in tax over the last 33 years per head than the rest of the UK combined but I think it’s fairer to state that our wealth was plundered and hidden from us. The author goes on to say that we’d have to apply to join the EU. Does that mean that when we say yes to independence we get tossed out? I am a European citizen, it even says that on my passport, so what legal instrument is going to get used to evict me from that status? This is nonsense. Then the UK rebate is mentioned. If Scotland does poorly, we’ll get a rebate to help out. What is more likely is that an independent Scotland will be so successful that we’ll be a net contributor and help out poorer states like the rUK. That, after all, is only fair.]
They talk of ‘Wastemonster’ yet spend vast amounts of public funds on their own expenses and propaganda. They spend money on trews, hotels, expenses, their own propaganda yet see no contradiction or irony in accusing Westminster of the same.
[Westminster or “Wastemonster” is the most wasteful of all the parliaments sitting on the British Isles. That is undisputed except by idiots like the author who has written the original Paradox piece. The waste is astonishing and goes from billions thrown into illegal wars, to expenses fraud by the MP’s and finally to an addiction by those MP’s to flipping homes in order to make a fraudulent economic gain. If one of our MSP’s goes abroad to fly the Saltire in all its glory, should we have them book the eqivalent of “Travelodge”? Have them dressed in rags? Miss a round at the bar? How would that look to the world? What would others think of Scotland? These relatively small costs make great gains for Scotland plc and I see no contradiction or irony in that. Let me ask you one simple question; how much did it cost for George Osborne to come to Scotland to make his contrived statement about our currency? He didn’t answer any questions and in fact Bernard Ponsinby of the STV had to play cat and mouse to catch him running to his waiting car and Osborne still didn’t answer his question. He could have simply stayed in Westminster and recorded a video for the BritNat media circus in Scotland. That at least would have been a cheap alternative that created the same effect.]
This is a tragic paradox, for they offer false hope to those who have not. The have nots want more and think they will get it by voting for independence. The Nationalists have ruled out increasing tax on Oil. They have promised to lower Corporation Tax. They want a Scandinavian style society. There is only one way that they can make up the shortfall in spending for the society they wish to achieve. Taxes must go up. Not a little, but a lot. How else could it be done?
But if they do, then the over taxed haves will leave, and the have nots will end up with less. The goose that lays the golden eggs will leave. This is a charlatan’s trick.
[Now this is a myth that we’ve heard over and over recently. What we intend to produce is a proper progressive tax system that fairly reflects an individual’s ability to pay. We will take a leaf out of the book of several Scandinavian countries but because we’ll be looking to create a high pay, high technology, manufacturing economy, disposable income will increase. Just look at other people living in countries outwith the UK. They seem to have much more in the way of disposable income even though they may pay a higher amount of tax. That’s how you feed an economy. Higher taxes don’t necessarily mean you have less in your pocket. All wealth is relative. If you have ten quid sitting in your bank account from one months end to the next and your next door neighbour has ten thousand quid then you are poor by comparison.
There’s no false hope here, once the opportunities feed into the economy and we start to feel the beginnings of success, the possibilities for the average Scot become almost endless. I personally figure being one of the “haves” that the vast majority of folk like me will stay in our beloved Scotland and help turn this country into what we always wanted it to be. The author is talking piffle (again).]
The Nationalists claim that Scotland independent would be Scotland more democratic. Yet they rule by imposition. Caithness Councillors were unanimous in opposition to Gaelic road signs and a requirement that new teachers be able to speak Gaelic, yet they had it imposed on them.
The nationalists favour wind power, an expensive and unreliable form of energy that pushes electricity bills up, yet champion the poor – who cannot afford the higher bills and drives them into fuel poverty. They grumble when the UK government removes the requirement from the energy companies to buy onshore wind.
They also accuse the UK government in a press release this week of not funding offshore wind when the UK government announced increased subsidies for offshore wind on December 4th 2013 which was widely announced in the Press and may be searched for on the net.
[If we consider that just twice since the Second World War that Scotland’s voters have had any influence over the general election, that opening statement is pretty stupid to say the least. As an independent country every vote would count. With regard to the road signs, that is a devolved matter for the Scottish govt and not a matter for Caithness councillors. In the far north of the country where there is much greater use of Gaelic, does it not make sense that teachers should speak Gaelic? I live near Glasgow and none of the teachers down here have such a requirement. That just shows a Scottish government that are in tune with requirements in all of Scotland and don’t employ Westminster’s mistaken “one size fits all” idiocy.
As to the power statement, we who seek independence don’t all favour wind power, what we favour is a growing number of renewable sources in a mix to produce clean free energy. The wind turbines on land may even become a distant memory because of all the renewable energy producers they are the least powerful. They may become more relevant once more storage is put in place. And we do champion the poor, we don’t want to see folk have to make a decision whether to heat their home or eat in a rich country that is especially energy rich. That is most definitely the domain, responsibility and the blame of several failed Westminster administrations. Scotland can do so much better when independent.
As to the last part, this is a complex matter and doesn’t work in the straight line that the author tries to depict. In the south, energy producers are given a subsidy when connecting to the national grid, whereas in the north we are charged for the same. That is unfortunately a symptom of our disunited kingdom and after several attempts by the Scottish govt to get that changed, it seems that the UK government like it that way. Simple, if you want cheaper energy vote yes.]
The Nationalists claim to be concerned about poverty and inequality in Scotland yet have no anti poverty strategy or policy in place. For this lack of policy, Leslie Riddoch, a Yes voter told them off in her own column.
Indeed they diverted £1bn of anti poverty money to other places to make up for shortfalls in local spending after freezing Council Tax.
They blame the UK government for underfunding them and point to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Dr Barnardos as both saying that not enough was being done to address poverty in Scotland. Yet both these bodies stated that although they recognized the limited powers of Holyrood, there was a lot more they could be doing with the powers they had.
[Now let me see if I’ve got this one right? The author claims that the Scottish govt have no anti-poverty strategy in place? What then is their response to the bedroom tax? As to child poverty, there are literally hundreds of children’s charities in existence in Scotland and try as they might, after all these years we still have 210,000 children living in poverty in Scotland. On a per head of population basis, that makes us the worst in Europe. The solutions aren’t provided by just pouring money in because the damage has been done over many Westminster administrations. The mass-deindustrialisation, mass-unemployment and under-investment that happened in Scotland has led to the situation we see now. It has led to a lack of opportunity and self-respect which in turn has created three generation households with no employment or wish to seek employment. No wonder we have such a problem. Once Scotland is an independent country and has full control over fiscal levers, then we’ll see more opportunities come to those who wish to work and will infuse the others with a will and a wish to improve their lives. Without independence, everything either stays the same or gets worse. It’s a simple message yet again, vote yes and effect proper change and not just tinkering about the edges of this and other problems.]
They claim that they wish to have no nuclear weapons in Scotland and decry Trident, yet in their White Paper they allow for flexibility on removal and are prepared to let visiting NATO vessels use facilities in Scotland on the basis of don’t ask don’t tell.
They wish to join NATO, an organisation they were against for years. They think they will reap billions to spend on other things by cancelling Trident. They claim that Trident costs £30bn, yet do not mention that this is spread over nearly 40 years, and that the money is not spend to buy Trident to maintain it. It pays the wages of thousands of people in Scotland. Paradoxically the rUK could afford the pay for Trident at about £3bn a year out of the £100bn in invisible earnings that she reaps each year, and in which Scotland currently shares. That revenue stream will be closed to Scotland after independence.
The UK spends about £34bn on defence every year. It is not one of the big spenders. If Scotland were entitled to 10% of that (in reality its about 9) then she would gain £3,4 bn. That includes Trident. It is not a lot of money. Indeed the paradox is that is about the maximum of what is spent on Trident each year. It would have to be spent on creating new jobs for the people who would lose theirs after Trident left.
Another paradox of this is one of the purposes of Nuclear weapons. We hear a lot about deterrence – but that is not the sole purpose of nukes. They save money. If you have nuclear weapons then you do not need large conventional forces in the event of large scale conflict. This not only saves money on buying personnel and kit, but on the research needed to develop the new generations of weapons and the industries to build them. You can still be a big player on the world stage but have smaller forces.
Paradoxically this makes the world a safer place because there are fewer conventional weapons around.
[Yes, we do want rid of trident and all the other nukes from Scotland but realise like the reasoning people that we are that you don’t just phone Parceline and get them boxed up to send to Westminster or wherever. The move will take time and we recognise that with regard to the safety of all who may be involved. Nukes are transported by road all the time and so it shouldn’t take that long to see the back of them. We’ll even supply an extra packet of square sausage to keep the crews of the subs happy on their long journey south. Watch out for the party as you leave guys and sorry – it’s nothing personal, we just don’t want any more Cobalt 60 dumping into the Clyde or have the air polluted with Tritium anymore as there’s no safe maximum level for those elements in the human body. It’s not all just about the cost in monetary terms. I personally live just a 20 minute car ride down wind of that facility in Faslane. That means that if an accident were to occur and deadly amounts of radioactive gases were released, a full evacuation of Glasgow and all the towns on the Clyde down wind would have to happen within 40 minutes. Let’s just hope it’s not rush hour eh?
Then we come to the argument of why have nukes in the first place, I must admit I did chortle once or twice when reading this piece through the first time and actually had to read it twice to believe what I’d read the first time. “Nukes save you money”, I’ll say it again “Nukes save you money”. Not my words but the words of the author. My response; if you have nukes, you don’t need large conventional forces because everyone is dead. Period. Oh and the killer is “You can still be a big player on the world stage but have smaller forces.” So there you have it folks. The BritNat way of thinking……get rid of the army and airforce and just have the navy deal with anything that crops up by lobbing a nuke at it. Idiocy, pure idiocy. I really don’t feel like carrying on with that point any further as the authors words don’t even merit a proper answer.]
Scotland has played a huge part in the development of the United Kingdom. Indeed it can be argued that the United Kingdom was a Scottish creation, forged by a Scottish dynasty and is now a nation with one of the biggest economies, and generally one of the better standards of living in the world. The great paradox is that those who wish Scotland to be independent cry this down.
To them Scotland is a miserable downtrodden place, starved of funds by a government ignorant of Scotland, with only 59 MPs, undemocratic, neglected and victimised.
Scotland the victim. ‘Too wee, too poor, too ignorant’ they cry at the No voters, yet you would go very far to see a No voter who would actually say this. To No voters Scotland is a vibrant and proud place with great culture, scenery, industry and prospects of being even greater with the advance of further Devolution. No people are positive about Scotland and her place as a shareholder in a large Union which has more clout as the sum of its parts.. Yes voters ask what the positive things are about staying in the Union – but ignore lists of positives when repeatedly placed in front of them.
It is quite a paradox that the people supposed to be most upbeat about Scotland end up being the downbeat, the victims, the ones who do Scotland down.
[I’ll never do Scotland down but I will point out the places where Westminster have made things worse or gone out of their way to make things worse. The potential of Scotland if independent is staggering, however a Scotland under the status quo and the same old, same old is just sad. Westminster are and have been panicking for a while now regarding our impending yes vote and in response the London based political parties have started to outbid each other with more and more powers being offered to Scotland. Ah but wait a minute! Shouldn’t those extra powers have been debated in the House of Commons and agreed just awaiting the settled will of the people of Scotland? Yes they should. And with just months to go before the referendum there isn’t enough time to get such an important piece of work through the legislative procedure that’s required. For a second time, we in Scotland are expected to believe in “jam tomorrow”. That jam never comes, does it? Vote yes and get all the powers, then we answer to no one but ourselves.
This one is the scaremongering of the Yes camp. The UK, they say, is finished. They point to an advertisement published by a magazine called Moneyweek over a year ago called ‘The end of Britain’ and use it as ‘evidence’ to prove that Britain is finished.
They do not read it, because if they did they would see that the main idea is that Britain is spending too much on Benefits, the NHS, Pensions, and Education – it’s a very right wing article inspired by the Tea Party in the US. We are supposed to learn from this that the only way to save Britain from drowning in debt is to cut spending on these things
Which leads one to wonder if this is the model they would wish to see followed in an independent Scotland?
In reality the article was completely demolished in February last year by the noted Banking advisor Frances Coppola yet still gets trotted out as infallible proof that the UK is finished.
The great paradox here is that since the crisis over the Euro, the Independent Scotland wishes to use the pound.
The nationalists apparently see no irony or paradox in wishing to shackle themselves to an ailing and failing currency because they now think they have a share in it. The pound at any rate is not an asset – it’s an institution; the difference is not subtle, but you can’t really carve up an institution.
To be independent Scotland needs her own currency.
Even in the unlikely event she would have a currency union – or use the pound as a dollarized economy, she would still not have control over her own finances.
That is not Independence.
[I have read it and take it for what it is. Moneyweek sell advice to the plutocracy. Those people who influence governments everyday of their lives. Moneyweek wouldn’t stay in business for one more week if their predictions didn’t hold water. I’ll give you just one wee fact about Moneyweek that kills everything the author has to say about them; Moneyweek predicted the credit crunch one year before it happened. They almost stand alone in that.
Fact: The UK has £1.3 trillion in public debt and it’s getting bigger by the day – no matter what rosy picture Osborne likes to portray.
Fact: If we take all the debt and compare it to the GDP of the UK we find that the UK has a 900% debt to GDP ratio. We’re tumbling and no one is shouting “look out”.
I am part of the growing voice that’s calling for a separate pound (which we already have in a currency union with the rest of the UK by the way) – haven’t you looked at a Scottish £20 note recently. That is our currency which is backed with a Bank of England £20 note. T would be simple to set that up as a separate currency – it would after all be our choice. It would also call the bluff on those in Westminster who are playing a wee game of politics at the moment.
Yet again the simple message is clear, vote yes as that gives us the freedom to decide how we want it to be and choose the option that suits us best. We have many options as far as a currency goes. We’ll have 18 months to sort that out after we say yes to independence. It’ll be nice to see the ones that have said “no currency union come scuttling to the negotiation table to try to create one. The days of Westminster telling us what to do and when to do it are well and truly numbered. We hold all the cards on this one.
The Judas Paradox. Number 13 [At last!]
To vote no, we are told, is a betrayal of Scotland. No voters are ‘not true Scots’.
Yet surely the vote is about what is good for Scotland?
We have a scenario set out in the White Paper published last November, Everybody now knows what the Nationalists was- if not how they will pay for it.
But the great paradox here is that it might actually be the Nationalist who are betraying Scotland. There is no ‘what if’ about their plans. They will not even concede the necessity of a plan B for currency.
But the great ‘what if’ here is what happens if they cannot deliver after voting Yes?
What will they have delivered Scotland to?
Could it be analogous to Ireland? Will the young leave to find jobs in the southern part of the British mainland?
Will industries, companies, enterprises relocate and shrink?
Will unemployment rise?
Will taxes soar?
Will the poor finally get a poverty strategy which does them no good because the money has run out?
Will great houses and museums and monuments become shabby because there is nothing to spend on them?
Will the population shrink?
Will the population rise as cheap labour is brought in to boost the economy, driving down wages and eroding worker rights?
WIll power have to bought from England when the wind does not blow?
Will the NHS continue at its current levels?
Can pensions be afforded at current levels?
What will happen to house prices?
And so on. A never end of questions that must not be asked because the mere act of asking them s ‘scaremongering.’
And Scotland ends up poorer, leaner, declining, shrinking, having sold her shares in the huge company she was a shareholder of and set up a corner shop?
If that happens – but of course it never could, then where is the betrayal, and who is the Judas?
Can you answer the Nationalist Paradox?
[Just did. There are no “paradoxes” that I can see here. Just the common sense to realise that the author wants to see Scotland tied to a failing United Kingdom. Everything that the author mentions in the final “Paradox 13” could just as easy happen (in fact more likely) if we vote no. The UK is suffering from deep financial problems and much as I and others would like it to be otherwise, we are left with the conviction that if we don’t vote yes in September, the consequences will be dire for Scotland. As I’m being accused of scaremongering I’ll give you on that may spur you into a yes vote; at the moment we have an NHS which is part of the devolved settlement. Now devolved powers can be given and they can be taken away as we saw just months ago when the House of Lords removed a power over licensing of energy extraction. Quite important if you consider the fracking question. The UK Govt have been privatising the English NHS for a while now and the Coalition cabinet almost to a man have vested interests in private healthcare firms. You can imagine that those people, where possible would facilitate the aims and goals of those healthcare firms who would like to take over juicy parts of the NHS.
Now put those things together and imagine that we have voted no. Our Scottish NHS is part of the devolved settlement but that can be taken away and it would come as no surprise to many of us to see our NHS being turned into a repeat of the English NHS.
Yet again, let’s look on the positive side, by voting yes, we take that power away from Westminster who would seek to otherwise abuse it.]
Like most decent lies, they are wrapped up in half truths and if taken at face value, look quite convincing. However, the only thing that made this hard to debunk was its length but if I have to do it dozens of times before the referendum then so be it.
If people like this author wish to convince us then as I said before it’s too late. Any further promised devolved powers will just be words and nothing more than that.
The middle ground has now (thankfully) fallen away and left a stark choice;-
Are you going to vote no and support Westminster and every penny, every inch of seabed and every opportunity that they’ve stolen from us?
Are you going to vote yes and support Scotland and the exciting journey we’ll all take together?
I’ve made my choice and it’s not based on emotion. I’m voting yes to ensure a better future for my children and all my generations. Scotland will become a small, rich, normal, fairer, more equal independent European nation.
David Milligan Lvss