Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The United Kingdom is rotten at the very core.

The United Kingdom is rotten at the very core of its institutions. The sooner it is brought to an end by its component nations - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - the better.

It is beyond reform and beyond redemption.

By Moridura

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Scottish Times: How English see themselves after independence

Scottish Times interviews English people and asks if they are English or British. How will independence impact on England's identity?

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Is the BBC biased when reporting on Scottish Independence issues?

BBC Headline misrepresents the SNP on the RBS bail out.

"Sturgeon Says an Independent Scotland would have relied on UK for RBS bail out"

That's what this BBC article said last Sunday. I was shocked. I immediately thought that given the nature of the international bank bail outs, there is no way that Nicola Sturgeon would have said that Scotland would 'rely' upon the UK for bailing out RBS.

But I tend to trust the BBC, so I read the rest of the article and watched the video alongside it.

Did the depute leader of the Scottish National Party say such a thing?

BBC Headline changed. Damage done.
No, of course she didn't.

So why would the BBC deliberately misrepresent Nicola Sturgeon?

Was it an attempt to embarrass Scotland? was it an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in the minds of people across the UK that Scotland could never have managed to take on it's share of the responsibility for re-capitalising (bailing out) the Royal Bank of Scotland?

Whatever it was, it was not fair and balanced journalism. It actually reminded me of FOX news and that's worrying.

I immediately wrote a letter to the editor of the BBC stating that this type of inflammatory headline is the type of thing I would expect to see from low level tabloid and certainly not from the BBC. But there it was for all to see.

But wait, what's this? .. a couple of days later the headline has been changed! Victory for those of us who complained!, or has the damage already been done?

Read more about this at NewsNet Scotland >>

The Scottish Defence Rip Off.

Scotland’s per capita GDP is 99 per cent of the UK average, so it’s straightforward to assess this figure based on our population, which is 8 per cent of the UK total.

The UK’s defence budget for 2011–12 is £33.75bn. Scotland’s “share” is about 8 per cent of that: £2.8bn. According to the MoD's own statistics, the under-spend in Scotland increased from £749m in 2002/03 to £1.259bn in 2007-2008, which represents a 68 per cent increase in six years.

The cumulative under-spend between defence reviews is in excess of £5.622bn. Given the embarrassment this must have caused the MoD, they simply stopped producing the official statistics, so it is now impossible to get a clear idea of where taxpayer money is being spent on defence across the UK.

The most recent GERS report proves that Scotland raises 9.4% of all UK taxation

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

England would BOMB Scotland !

England could have no choice but to bomb Scottish airports in order to defend itself from attack if Scotland became independent, the former Solicitor General for Scotland has warned.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said if Scotland was left undefended, the enemies of England could use it as a base from which to launch air raids over the border, The Herald reported.

"If that were to happen what alternative would England have but to come and bomb the hell out of Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport," he said.

The Tory peer was speaking in Edinburgh on Monday at the launch of a pamphlet examining the prospects of the UK splitting up.


Although this is a very amusing article, it seems to be a given among many people that Scotland would not be able to defend itself. Why do people think this?

Scotland WILL inherit at least an 8.6% share of UK defence assets upon seperation. 

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 subject to negotiation.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Portillo and guests - Scotland's independence

An oldie - but it's all there - all the core arguments, prejudices, misconceptions - but also the essence opfthe matter. Portillo, McLeish, Michael Fry et al.

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

English Independence :: Say NO to the freeloaders!

Have a look at this gem.

Here we have a Pro-English independence video (a noble pursuit) which claims the usual nonsense that all nations in the UK (apart from England of course) are a bunch of freeloaders who take 'English' money.

This video is a gift from god himself to the Scottish Independence Campaigners. Not only is the video somewhat rude, it contains so many unfounded and ridiculous assertions that it has made my Irn Bru go flat.

Statements such as 'We let you run most of your own affairs' seem to suggest that the 'we' in the video are in fact England, not the UK entire. This is yet more proof that many people in England do not consider the UK to be the fair and balanced union that David Cameron and many others would have us believe.

I believe in Scottish and English Independence from each other, but it's very important to understand the facts surrounding the current arrangement. England doesn't have a government, so that government cannot 'give' anyone ANYTHING. This video arrogantly presumes that England is already an independent nation-state which is governing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland across some kind of benign foreign network.

This will come as no surprise to many, in fact I posted a video yesterday with an English woman making frequent references to the 'English Parliament'. How can we expect a UK union to be fair and equal to all UK members when most of the people in that union (English) do not even understand the basics of how the union works?

In addition, notice how the video poster still seems to be under the illusion that the Republic of Ireland is still a part of the UK. You could'nt make this stuff up...

Scotland's Debt Post Independence and other stuff.

This content is an edited/modified version of a comment I read in the Guardian newspaper and republished with permission. The original article can be found here

Issues that are currently being debated...


Many figures place Scotland's post Independence debt at approx 81 Billion Pounds. £81 billion is not actually a particularly unmanageable debt for a small country.


First off, let's get the oil question out of the way, the divvying up of the earth's natural resources is based on well-defined practices that have been in use for decades. It is completely ridiculous - and I mean that in the purest sense of the word - to suggest that oil would be allocated by population, rather than geography.

The oil in Scottish waters is every bit a part of Scotland as the mountains in Highlands or the water in our lochs - and you can see how ridiculous it would be to suggest giving 90% of those to England based on population.

The only "debate" over how much of the oil is Scotland's is due to underhand practices by past Westminster governments to slyly try and commandeer oil away from Scotland, to try and remove one of the key arguments for independence. Read Craig Murray's blog for a quick run-down on how Scotland has been cheated, and why Scotland WILL get 91% of the oil in the North Sea.

Let's just get this sorted out now: Scotland owns 91% of UK oil. The rest of the UK will not be looked on kindly if it attempts to take what is not rightfully theirs. There will be no oil grab operation masquerading as the removal of a despotic dictator, no matter how often unionist politicians try to portray the democratically elected First Minister of Scotland as such by comparing him to Mugabe, Milosevic and Mussolini.

Oil, A Declining Resource:

Phrases such as "declining resource" a often used to describe oil, especially North Sea Oil.

ALL natural resources are declining once you start using them. This "declining resource" is currently worth about £1 trillion - the oil still in the seabeds is worth more money than the oil that has already been extracted! £81 billion looks like a fiver your mate lent you in comparison.

Credit Rating:

Any analysis of an independent Scotland's potential credit rating is incomplete without an analysis of the UK's likely credit rating at the time of independence, because it is often based on the assumption that we would lose the AAA rating we "enjoy" as part of the UK.

The UK may have an AAA rating now, but only the most blinkered of people would believe that it is not going to be downgraded, and soon. Credit ratings depend on a country's bankable assets which mitigate the risk of lending. What is the UK's single biggest bankable asset? That's right, Scotland's oil.

How will the rUK credit rating look without it?

'Scottish' Bank Bailouts:

It's a discredited notion that just because a bank has the word "Scotland" in its name, this automatically means every single penny of debt it incurs would have to be dealt with by Scotland.

Probe a little further and we can see that these banks are British. Why? because they are regulated by Britain (not Scotland), pay ALL taxes to Britain (not Scotland) and most of their customers are in the largest part of Britain, (that's England by the way, not Scotland).

So it's really not difficult to see why Britain (not Scotland) bears the responsibility for re-capitalising these British banks.

Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Scotland / England Maritime Boundaries and the suspicious move north.

This article was written by Craig Murray, former UK ambassador and human rights activist.

According to existing Westminster legislation, English waters stretch at their North Easterly point to 56 degrees 36 minutes north – that is over 100 miles North of the border at Berwick, and North of Dundee.

In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields.

The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

The pre-1999 border was already very favourable to England. In 1994, while I was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I had already queried whether it was too favourable to England. I little anticipated that five years later Blair would push it seventy miles North!!

I should explain that I was the Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark (Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries, as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very few people in the World – single figures – who have more experience of actual maritime boundary negotiation than me.

Read the rest of this incredibly important article at Craig Murrays Blog >>

Monday, March 05, 2012

Scottish Times: English view of Scottish independence

This is an excellent example of the English viewpoint regarding Scotland.

Some seem quite reasoned, others peddle the usual subsidy myth. The lady at the end is downright bizarre (2:15 onwards). She makes reference to an institution that doesn't exist (The English Parliament). If this was any other country, people would simply laugh. But no, this is Britain, where dysfunctional viewpoints and lack of knowledge in the basics of the way our nation-state is made up are taken as 'normal'.

Thursday, March 01, 2012

An English Parliament? - the momentum grows

As a Scot who wants Scotland to be governed by Scotland, I fully support the cause for an English Parliament.

I would always listen to any argument for the continuation of the union, I have heard none except that 'change is bad'

Fantastic article by Ian Hamilton QC. 

I am 86. Thus I have lived in the United Kingdom for more than a quarter of its existence. My observations on its identity and mine may be of value.

Even in the 1920s and 1930s I always knew I was a Scot.  So sure was I of my identity that I never minded being called British or English.  If called the latter I just thought they were wrong.  During the war we were all called English. 

As I grew up I discovered that my petit bourgeois contemporaries thought that there was no Scotland.  It had been absorbed into its greater neighbour.  Looking back this is not surprising. 

The union gave us the chance to expand into the great free trade area that became the British empire.  We seized that chance.  Glasgow was the empire's second city. We were the workshop of the world.

Seventy years ago it seemed that the price we had paid for the wealth of empire was the loss of our identity as Scots.  To be ignorant of who you are is profoundly disturbing.  England suffers from it badly today.

The England of the shires, of Puck of Pook's Hill, has gone.  England is now London.