Dear Scotland, You are being lied to about the Union.

Dear Scotland

With the Scottish independence referendum just around the corner, the UK Unionist parties are getting ready for a fight.

This fight will be to convince Scottish voters that it's going to be in your best interest to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

This comes at a time where the anti-Scottish rhetoric in the media has hit incredible new heights. Proclamations of Scotland being a subsidy junkie of England have never been higher and with the recession and banking crises, Scots are being told over and over that we simply cannot go it alone. We are too small, too insignificant and our economy is too fragile to withstand the stormy seas of this recession without 'financial hand outs' from our generous English cousins.

These are lies.

The banking lie is one which seem to be gaining a lot of traction and many Scots need to know the truth. Remember the AndyMurrayOMeter?  He is British when winning, Scottish when losing.

For example: When successful during the good decades, the Royal Bank of Scotland was was pumping billions of pounds into the UK treasury and supporting many UK jobs (Not Just Scottish) this was a successful BRITISH bank.

Then it was a failure, and it was a failure due to the useless Scots who ran it. We were told we needed (The English) to bail it out. What other generous 'foreign' nation would do such a thing? therefore the English are awesome and Scots are losers. Of course, the bailout had nothing to do with safeguarding British (mostly English) interests.

When it failed, it was suddenly a Scottish bank exclusively, with not a smidgen of Britishness about it and with absolutely no link to Britain whatsoever. This was summed up nicely by this excellent comment I blatantly stole from an online forum, read it here.

I'd love someone to do a calculation on just how much money the RBS and other 'Scottish' banks have paid into the UK treasury over the last few hundred years. Should be quite a lot I expect.


When I was a unionist, I loved the idea that if Scotland ever got into some social or economic trouble, then the pain would be easier to bear knowing that the great UK union which we helped to build would be there for us.

Equally, I relished the thought that Scotland would be there to help out anyone else in our grand union in times of crisis, this is of course what a fair and equitable union is supposed to be, is it not?

For example, why should England have to pay to import energy when Scotland has a surplus, they can have ours. Being part of the union can also help Scotland by having access to a larger market to buy and sell our goods.

Note: Scotland recently sent hundreds of Scottish police officers to aid their English colleagues during the England riots. UK media outlets did not bother to give this much coverage.

However, the ideology of union is very different from the reality of union. The bank bailouts are just one example where Scotland is constantly being paraded as a handicapped nation, one which must be helped at all costs by the rest of the UK, or England.

Perhaps in the Utopian 24th century future of Star Trek, I might believe that such generous actions could be possible, where one nation is happy to take on such a burden to help out a neighbour. Somehow I don't think this is what's happening here.

Thankfully I was educated in a Scottish system which promotes it's students to challenge and ask questions about such things. Therefore I ask this;

'if Scotland is such a hefty weight, such a burden on the shoulders of the English taxpayer. If Scotland really does not provide anything to this union to benefit the other citizens within the union, then why have successive UK governments not supported the Scottish Independence Movement and kicked us out the door? 

And why did Westminster set up the Holyrood Parliament under the STV (single transferable vote) system ? Why not set up Holyrood under the FPP (First Past the Post) system?

if it's good enough for Westminster...

*Correction, Siônnyn correctly pointed out that Scotland actually uses the Additional Member system, not STV. :-)



Something doesn't add up here. I think that the UK prefers to keep the myth alive that Scotland is 'too poor' and 'too wee' and therefore needs the British state to be a continual, generous overlord over this part of Great Britain.

Read more about the insulting myths of Scotland's incapacity to contribute.

The Machine:
I foresee a continuation of this attitude coming from the UK establishment in the years to come, and when Alex Salmond announces the date of the Scottish Independence Referendum, then the UK propaganda machine will kick into full force.

This machine will have one objective.

• To retain UK sovereignty over the entire area currently identified at Scotland and her Exclusive Economic Zone. 

This machine will employ at least 2 methods.

• To convince Scottish citizens that there is no way an independent Scotland can survive on it's own without funding from London. 'Too Poor' and 'Too Wee'.
• To convince Scottish citizens that Scotland has an important place as a dominant nation within the UK and therefore the world.

The problem with the objective is that it will clash with the first method. Even the average Joe in Scotland is all too aware aware of a few important facts.

1. Scotland is rich in natural resources.
2. Scotland occupies a massive 33% of an island upon which almost 60 million people reside.
3. Scotland's Exclusive Economic Zone is much larger than England's.
4. Scotland 'wants' to re-industrialise.

The 2nd method of convincing Scotland that she is an important nation within the UK and therefore the world, is one that many Scots are unable to gauge.
A Scot really has to live outside of the UK for a while to understand just how Scotland is perceived. As an Expat Scot I have already written about my own views regarding this and how I switched from Unionist to Scottish Nationalist.

In my own life I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears just how much Scotland is seen in the world and exactly how important it is within the UK. The sad news is that it's not important. It never has been.

Scotland is seen as an attachment to England, nothing more. Sometimes convenient, usually not. English people I have spoken to outside of the UK clearly describe the UK as England with some bits 'attached'. Not once have I heard anyone talk about Scotland in equal status with England in the UK.

International Representation:

If the country of Scotland has no seat at the United Nations or European Parliament, then the voice of the Scottish nation shall always be drowned out by the other 91% of the UK. Proportionately, the voice of the Scottish people is silent among international organisations.

Example:

• The Republic of Ireland Population is 4.5 Million.
• The Republic of Ireland has 12 Ministers of the European Parliament
• Scotland's population is 5.2 Million
• Scotland has 6 Ministers of the European Parliament
• The Republic of Ireland is a member of the United Nations.
• Scotland is not a member of the United Nations

Note* Luxembourg has a population of only 460,000. They also have 6 MEPs.

Scotland 2011 Election Map.

Different Voting Pattern, Different Ideology:
What I've discovered in recent years is the different mindset that exists between voters on either side of the border. I used to think that most of us were unionists and that we all believed in things such as the NHS, a strong welfare state and being unified in times of crisis.

Recently it has become very much apparent that people in England, (a fair amount anyway) are far closer to being right wing liberal capitalists whereas people in Scotland are (in my humble opinion) more likely to be left leaning Progressive-Social-Foundationists.*Please see note [1]

This different voting pattern helps to prove that most Scots do not support the UK unionist parties.

Scottish Governance and Irony:
Many will argue that because Scotland already has it's own partially autonomous government, that we are fine just the way we are.

UK Nuclear Submarine with Trident

Nothing can be further from the truth. 

• The Scottish People and Government has only a small % control of Scotland's resources.
• The Scottish People and Government does not have a say on Weapons of Mass Destruction (Trident Nuclear Missiles) located in Scotland. Which costs the UK and Scotland billions of pounds to operate and maintain with the vast majority of that money going directly to the USA where the weapons are bought from. 
• The Scottish People and Government don't have a say on whether we send our troops to spill blood in illegal wars.
• The Scottish People and Government can't influence the UK on spending and investing 'our' share of total UK taxation and revenue gathered from the Scottish economy. We just have to trust Westminster to do that for us. 

Ironically, in areas where Scotland does have powers and the ability to operate in our self interest, Scotland is heavily criticized and labelled 'spongers' off the English taxpayer for doing so.

Topics such as tuition fees and medical prescriptions spring to mind.

Border Control:
Right now, it is possible to drive from the Arctic circle to the Mediterranean sea without encountering a single border post, as a member of the EU, Scotland would be no different.

Defence:
How will poor wee independent Scotland defend itself?
If we attain full sovereign independence, the Scottish Government will then be in a position to use an acceptable % of the money we currently send to London to invest in the Scottish defence forces at a level similar to other nations of our size.

Example;

Danish F-16

• Denmark spent 4.3 Billion USD on defence during the year 2009.
• The UK MOD only spent 1.99Bn on Defence in Scotland during 2008, up from a paltry 749Mn in the years previous to that.[2]

Note also, that upon separation from the UK and despite years of under investment of defence in Scotland, Scotland will receive at least an 8.6% share in all UK defence assets which she has already paid for.

8.6% of all UK defence could be interpreted as these main assets.(not including most of the auxiliary and training equipment and most of these figures end up with Scotland gaining e.g. 55% of a ship and I have not counted it as such.

• 14 Eurofighters
• 11 Tornado Jets
• 1 Reconnaissance aircraft
• 20 Transport and SAR Helicopters
• 6 Apache Attack Helicopters
• 3 Lynx Attack Helicopters
• 36 Challenger II Tanks
• 28 Scimitar Light Tanks
• 67 Warrior Fighting Vehicles
• 77 Bulldog Armoured Vehicles
• 1,314 additional armoured and non armoured vehicles.
• 25 Modern Air Defence Missile Launchers

As you can see from the very partial example list above, an Independent Scotland would have no problem defending herself.

Of the 79 active ships in the Royal Navy, an 8.6% share would be 6.7 ships. The composition of these would of course be up to the negotiating parties.
Note: Many Scots would argue (myself included) that although our population share is only 8.6% of the UK, Scotland has and currently does contribute a far higher number than that in terms of real taxation, identifiable and non-identifiable. Many have placed that figure at approx 10.4% including the GERS report direct from Westminster. 


Scotland Subsidises the UK >

Wins / Losses: 
 
Things we will lose under independence.

• Trident Nuclear Weapons.
• Being dragged into illegal wars.
• 'Pocket money' from London. (Block Grant)
• Being ruled by political parties which very few Scots vote for.
• The Scottish Office.
• The continuing offensive names such as 'subsidy junkie'.

Things we will gain under independence.

• Representation at the United Nations
• Fairer representation in the European Union
• A fairer democracy which allows the party voted by Scots to run Scotland
• Close to 100% of our own money, taxation and resources
• A Government which is 100% interested in advancing Scotland
• An affordable, strong social service without having to feel guilty about having it
• A modern Scottish Air Force, Army, Navy and the power to use them legally

I believe that Scotland needs to assert her position in the world in at least the same way that Australia, Canada and New Zealand does, by having complete and utter independence of any other nation.

We can of course retain certain cultural and royal links if the people choose to do so, just as New Zealand, Canada and Australia do now.


Murray TC Douglas

[1]. This is a term that I created to describe a nation which favours a strong social foundation (health, defence, welfare, minimum wage, unions) protected by the people and for the people represented by the government. Upon which, market forces and capitalism exists and trades in mostly luxury and non-essential products and services of the nation in a fairly taxed and regulated economic system.

[2]. http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=16821