Jump to content

Chris Carter


Laurence

Recommended Posts

ISSUES ARISING FROM THE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN

 

1. Introduction

 

1.1.   When the present independence initiative was started by the SNP, the stated intention was that The Queen or her successors would no longer be the Head of State, Scotland would join the euro and would seek to emulate the examples of the tiger economies of other small countries such as Ireland and Iceland.  Since then, all these intentions have been reversed.  The evident popularity of the monarchy, even in Scotland, at the time of the royal wedding in 2011 and the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, coupled with polls showing that a majority of Scots wanted the Queen to continue as head of state brought the first change.  The collapse of the Irish and Icelandic economies coupled with the near collapse of the euro as it also bailed out the struggling larger economies of Greece, Portugal and Spain, brought the other changes, which seem to point to the risks of a small country seeking separation from the security of a larger well-established economy.  (It might also be noted that the Queen received a warm reception in Glasgow when she arrived to open the Commonwealth Games.)

 

1. 2. The independence campaign is increasingly polarising the population of Scotland.  On the whole, until now, the various groups that make up Scotland’s population have co-existed fairly well together, apart from the occasional anti-English outbursts.  The campaign for independence, however, is driving people into two opposing camps creating unnecessary friction.   Worse still, all nationalist movements, without exception, have an extremist fringe, and there is a great deal of evidence of it in the form of intimidation of people who have declared themselves in favour of the ‘Better Together’ campaign.  In particular, the so-called ‘cybernats’ have launched disgraceful vitriol against people who have publicly expressed support for the ‘no’ campaign. For example, when the owner of Barrhead Travel advised his employees that Scottish independence would not be in the interest of his company, he was bombarded with on-line abuse which instructed people to boycott his company.  The cybernats would clearly prefer to bring down a successful Scottish company, which employs 700 people, than accept that a businessman is entitled to express a view that he believes to be in the best interest of his company.  The on-line abuse of Clare Lally was made worse by one of Alex Salmond’s most senior advisers, who sent an e-mail, which the First Minister subsequently admitted was ‘not appropriate’, to the Daily Telegraph, while JK Rowling received on-line abuse for donating to the Better Together campaign, much of it expressing openly anti-English views.  More recently, Michelle Mone, the highly respected boss of the Ultimo lingerie company, has been the target of abuse for expressing her support for the ‘no’ campaign.  Although Alex Salmond did describe the on-line abusers as ‘idiots’, he hasn’t insisted they desist and doesn’t seem to realise that it is the pursuit of independence which is bringing this behaviour to the surface.  Evidently he has more recently been the object of on-line abuse himself and has even received death threats.  This is equally regrettable, but it’s a predictable product of the polarisation of the population and something Scotland could well do without.

 

1.3.   In the event of a vote against independence, especially if it’s by a narrow majority, there is a real risk of nationalist extremists seeking retribution against either those who declared themselves against independence, or even anyone with an English accent.  Alastair Carmichael (the Scottish Secretary) touched on precisely this issue some months ago, and said that it is important that the campaign leaders ensured there is responsible behaviour.  This was helpful, but it neither stressed the very real likelihood that such irresponsible behaviour would happen, nor appeared to recognise the long term damage this issue would cause.  Do we want Scotland to become a country where people can’t speak their minds without fear of retribution?

 

1.4.   Alex Salmond has declared that in the event of the ‘yes’ vote winning, the Scottish Government will continue to “work closely with our friends in the south”.  This appears, however, to overlook the fact that ever since the SNP came to power in Scotland it has consistently blamed all of Scotland’s problems on Westminster.  As a result it is doubtful whether an independent Scotland would have any friends left in the south.  It does not seem to be on the Scottish Government’s agenda to work together with the UK Government to solve these problems, rather than working against it all the time in an atmosphere of hostility.  

 

1.5.   In the event of a ‘yes’ vote, Alex Salmond has set the date of  24th March 2016 for Scotland actually becoming an independent country.  This seems a short timespan in which to conclude the vast array of negotiations that would be necessary, and evidently appears to assume those negotiations would be straightforward, overlooking the fact that, whilst no-one would necessarily seek to obstruct Scotland’s progress towards becoming an independent country, the rest of the UK, for example, would, first and foremost, be seeking to protect its own interests from the perspective that Scotland would set to become a foreign country.  In other words, the government of the rest of the UK would be conscious of voter pressure to ensure as tough a deal as possible was negotiated with the Scottish government.  Moreover, because there is a UK general election in May 2015, it is unlikely that any effective negotiation would start before then, and once a deal has been struck there would have to be legislation in both the Scottish and UK parliaments.  It is highly unlikely that this could be concluded before March 2016, especially when additional negotiations with other countries and various international bodies over issues such as double taxation, extradition and tariffs & trade will also have to be concluded.

 

1.6. In a recent television survey asking young voters whether they would vote ‘yes’ for independence, one respondent said “I think we should give it a go”.  This implied that he thought that if it didn’t work out, we could always go back to being part of the UK again.  Do voters appreciate that if Scotland votes for independence, there is no going back?………and even if it was possible, it would not be on the favourable  terms which Scotland enjoys at present, despite what the SNP claims, through the Barnett Formula for funding.

 

1.7. Approximately 8.5% of the current UK population lives in Scotland.  Alex Salmond has accordingly argued that an independent Scotland would therefore be entitled to an 8.5% share of everything owned by the UK government.  Indeed he has demanded that everything not located in Scotland should be valued and then Scotland given its share in cash terms.  However, Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at Glasgow University, has stated that all buildings, institutions and organisations outside Scotland at the point of independence would remain the property of the UK.  He says that Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets and liabilities and that as a result, Scotland would get a share of the UK’s debt, but it would only get fixed assets that were actually in Scotland at the point of independence.  Alex Salmond disputes this view, which seems to suggest, rather remarkably, that he thinks that anyone choosing to leave an organisation has the right to dictate the terms on which they do so, which of course is not the case.

 

2.  Establishing a new state

 

2.1.  The establishment of an independent Scotland would involve unnecessary duplication of effort and expense in providing a whole range of services and activities.  For example, there would be a requirement to establish departments such as a Treasury, a Foreign Office, and Defence, which would require much more in the way of resources than the present departments in the Scottish government.  Scottish embassies and/or consulates would have to be established in most of the world’s 200 independent countries.  This would involve the cost of buying or leasing suitable properties, as well as the training and deployment of suitable staff.  At present, we have a UK Passport Agency, a Royal Mint (for coinage), a Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, UCAS (for university applications), the Post Office, HMRC, the Health & Safety Executive, the Security Services (MI5 and MI6), the BBC and the Met Office, all of which operate on a UK basis, and would have to be duplicated, split, or shared in some way.  In mid-July, with only two months to go, the Scottish Government was forced to admit that it has made no detailed calculations to establish what the cost of setting up a new country would be.  A recent report by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, predicted that the immediate start-up costs of establishing a new Scottish state would be a relatively modest £200 million, but warned that the long-term costs would almost certainly be far higher than that.  He has subsequently revised his figures and said that “we can be reasonably sure that the transition costs will be between £600 million and £1.5 billion over the next ten years”. Significant elements of this would be an increase in civil service employees, and the establishment of IT systems, particularly to handle the tax and benefit systems.  Alex Salmond claims the figure of £200 million is realistic, but the UK Treasury puts the longer-term figure even higher at over £1.5 billion.  

 

3.  Some implications of withdrawal from the UK

 

3.1.  The Scottish government’s present policy of charging fees to students from the rest of the UK, while not charging fees to Scottish students, or to students from other EU countries, would be untenable if Scotland was an independent country within the EU.  If the policy of not charging fees to Scottish students was maintained, EU law would prohibit Scottish universities from charging fees to students from the rest of the UK, which would be a separate state.  It is estimated that this would cost Scottish Universities approximately £150 million per annum.  This position would, of course, change if the rest of the UK withdrew from the EU.

 

3.2.  Scottish Universities at present compete disproportionately well for research funds from the UK Research Councils.  They gain 12.7% of UK Research Council funding compared with a pro rata share of 8.3%  They would be disadvantaged considerably if they were restricted to competing among themselves for funding from a pro rata share of research funds.  The Universities are very concerned about this, but, as publicly funded bodies, they are not allowed to express a view.  The retired principals of all the universities have, however, strongly expressed their worries about the detrimental impact of this issue, particularly in relation to scientific research, and more recently, Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, Lord Stern of Brentford, President of the British Academy, and Sir John Tooke, President of the Academy of Medical Sciences, have expressed their similar concerns in a joint letter to The Times.

 

3.4.  The population structure of Scotland means that there is a smaller proportion of the population of working age supporting a larger proportion which is not in work, than in the rest of the UK.  Forecasts show that this situation will deteriorate further in future.  This means that public expenditure which is already higher in Scotland than the rest of the UK, will have to increase further to meet the costs of pensions and welfare benefits.  Despite this, the SNP is promising additional childcare expenditure, the continuation of free university tuition, the abolition (or halving) of air passenger duty, the abolition of the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, additional support for university scientific research, higher subsidies for farmers, a reduction in corporation tax, the postponement of the higher age  for receiving state pensions, an additional £5 per week on state pensions, and the creation of a ‘fairer welfare system’, with increased benefits and a higher minimum wage, all of which may be very desirable, but has to be paid for at a time when oil revenues are in long-term decline.  Researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies have estimated these additional costs to be £1.7 billion per year. 

 

3.5.  David Davison of Spence & Partners has said that in just 20 years after Alex Salmond’s intended independence date, Scotland would need an extra 272,000 workers to keep up with the UK in its ability to meet pension costs.  This would mean that a net in-migration to Scotland of 24,000 people a year would be required, and although in recent years net in-migration has been running at 22,000 a year, which enables Alex Salmond to claim that the target is achievable, it fails to take into account that independence might cause in-migration from the rest of the UK largely to dry up.  Evidence that this might already be happening is illustrated by figures just released for 2013, which show that net in-migration to Scotland fell to 10,000; that is, 14,000 per annum (58%) short of target.  One impact of this is  displayed in the staff shortages in certain Scottish NHS hospitals, which are experiencing fewer or no applications from south of the border due to the current uncertainty. Also it is quite likely that many disillusioned residents in Scotland might decide to leave, a possibility underlined by a recent Panelbase survey for the Sunday Times, which suggested that one in six adults in Scotland, the equivalent of almost 700,000 voters would consider leaving Scotland in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote.  Fearing that even a small proportion of this might actually happen, the on-line estate agent eMoov has indicated that such an outcome could lead to a significant decline in house prices, possibly by as much as £32,000 on the current average house price in Scotland of £160,000. New evidence suggests that it is not only the residential sector which is being affected.  Data from the Registers of Scotland show that in the second quarter of 2014, sales of commercial property fell by 30%, with only Aberdeen bucking the trend.  David Melhuish, the director of the Scottish Property Federation has said: “The fall in the value of commercial property sales between April and June inevitably leads to questions about the impact of the independence referendum on the commercial property market”.

 

3.6.  Some weeks ago, The Times printed a headline stating ‘Yes camp has my vote, says BA boss’.  This referred to a statement by Willie Walsh, the chairman of the International Airlines Group, the parent company of British Airways.  It was taken to imply that Mr Walsh supported the possibility of Scottish independence.  However, what he actually said, in referring to Scottish independence, was:  “If anything, it might be marginally positive because I suspect the Scottish government will abolish air passenger duty because they recognise the huge impact that tax has on their economy.  So it is probably going to be a positive development, if it does happen, for British Airways”.  In other words, it is not independence per se that Mr Walsh supports, but the possibility that air passenger duty might be abolished.  Clearly he was using it as a way of telling the UK government that he’d like to see air passenger duty reduced or abolished at all UK airports.  Other airlines like Ryanair and EasyJet would no doubt hold similar views.

 

3.7.   Moody’s Investor Services, one of the companies that sets international credit ratings, has produced three reports on the impact of the break-up of the UK if Scotland becomes independent.  Amongst its findings are that the currency union which Alex Salmond desires would be detrimental to the rest of the UK and that it would affect its credit rating.  It also believes that the process of breaking-up the UK will take far longer than the 18 months the First Minister has set aside for negotiations.  In giving an explicit credit rating to an independent Scotland, Moody’s suggest it would be two notches lower than the UK is currently rated.  This would be AA3 instead of AA1, and that the rest of the UK would be unaffected.  This would mean that residents in Scotland would be forced to pay more for mortgages and higher interest on credit card debts or personal loans.  It would also mean that any international borrowing by the Scottish government would be more expensive and large-scale investors would force the country to pay higher interest rates on loans.

 

3.8.   There are fears that independence could provoke a devastating run on Scottish Banks.  A poll among voters in the rest of the UK found that 42% would be likely to move their money to England if an independent Scotland lost the right to use the pound as well as the protection offered by the Bank of England and the UK regulatory authorities.  This would mean that £280 billion would move south of the border. At a recent hearing of Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee in Edinburgh, Ronald Macdonald, Professor of Economics at Glasgow University said there was increasing evidence that this was already happening.  He stated: “I have spoken to CEOs based in Scotland who have moved all of their capital out in advance of the referendum”.  A report by market analysts UK Equity Research at Barclays has also warned that independence would be likely to create “an adverse reaction” to the value of many Scottish-based listed companies as the markets reacted to the problems that independence would cause.  The report predicts that the whole UK stock market would suffer from the effects of a ‘yes’ vote, but that some specific Scottish companies such as Wood Group, RBS, Diageo, BG Group, BAe Systems, Babcock, SSE, Aggreko, Weir Group and Standard Life were likely to suffer significantly.  With less than a week to go before voting, The Times has reported that nearly £17 billion of UK shares, bonds and other financial assets were dumped by investors over the previous month, indicating that as the possibility of independence gets closer, the predicted adverse reactions are already taking place.

 

3.9.   At present each British supermarket chain charges the same price for any item throughout the UK.  In other words, there is no differential pricing due to varying transport costs.  If Scotland were to become an independent country this practice, judging by the comments of the leaders of Tesco and Sainsbury, would almost certainly cease, and families in Scotland would have to pay more for their daily needs. On 11th September, Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that supermarket groups had already scaled back investment in Scotland because of the uncertainties.  He also pointed out that there could be damage to some of Scotland’s food production companies, once shoppers in the rest of the UK no longer saw Scottish produce as coming from their own country.  Senior executives for a number of other retailers, including Next, Asda, Ocado and Marks & Spencer have all warned that costs could rise with a ‘yes’ victory.

 

3.10.  If an independent Scotland were to adopt, as proposed, a more open policy on immigration than the rest of the UK, it could well be the case that border controls would have to be established, because, in the absence of such controls, there would be no way of stopping immigrants to Scotland subsequently moving to England or elsewhere in the UK, thereby negating the policies of both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

 

4. Economic issues

 

4.1.  The rest of the UK, and England in particular, is the largest customer of goods produced in Scotland.  Indeed, Scotland sells almost twice as much to the rest of the UK as it does to the rest of the world put together.  Also, more than half of all tourists who come to Scotland are from south of the border.  A vehemently anti-English referendum campaign, whether independence is gained or not, may dissuade English customers from buying Scottish goods and may dissuade potential English visitors from coming to Scotland if they feel they will not be welcome.  Such consequences would be disastrous for the Scottish economy. 

 

4.2.  With the Scottish government’s insistence that an independent Scotland would be ‘nuclear free’, the economy of West Dunbartonshire, especially the Helensburgh area, would be decimated, if the Faslane submarine base were closed.  Whilst this is not an argument in favour of nuclear weapons in general, the huge cost to the UK, and possibly NATO, of moving the base would be a serious waste of money, and yet Alex Salmond declares that he wishes an independent Scotland to be a member of NATO, which is a nuclear alliance, (see also para 6.3 below).  The SNP has recently stated that it is already working on plans to bring new jobs to the Helensburgh/Faslane area in the event of the closure of the base.  How realistic is it that businesses providing large numbers of skilled jobs would choose to locate in that area?  Glasgow, the nearest city, has, over the past few years, displayed the second worst economic performance of any UK city, so where are the new businesses and jobs going to come from, and what commitment can any firms make in a situation of such uncertainty? 

 

4.3.  There are about 20,000 manufacturing jobs in the defence industry in Scotland, many with BAe Systems in Glasgow and Babcocks at Rosyth, but many also at Thales and Rolls Royce.  These jobs are very heavily dependent on UK Government orders, particularly the MoD.   This is particularly the case with the remaining shipyards on Clydeside.  If Scotland ceased to be part of the UK, there would be no obligation on the UK military to continue to place orders with Scottish companies.  Indeed, Sir Roger Carr, the chairman of BAe Systems has said that the UK government has made it clear that “it would not commission warships from an independent Scotland and that there was nothing to suggest that ministers would change their minds”.  Added to this, Henry Wilson, a shop steward at BAe Systems, has said: “If there is a ‘yes’ vote, shipbuilding in Scotland is finished from a defence point of view”.  Victor Chavez, the UK head of Thales has said: “The defence sector faces many challenges and the uncertainty caused by the referendum does not help.  We have also stated that we can see no discernable benefits to our domestic or export prospects from independence”.  Whilst recognising recently that independence is a matter for the Scottish people to decide, he added: “For our Glasgow-based business, independence would take its largest domestic customer and make it an export customer, with all the inherent complexities and challenges that would involve.  This could clearly have a negative impact on Thales”.  Babcock, Scotland’s largest employer in the engineering sector, has similarly expressed fears that a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum could prevent it from winning lucrative Royal Navy contracts.

 

4.4.  The cost of the referendum in terms of (a) the production of campaign materials, (b) the diversion of so many people’s time away from tasks that need attention, and © lost investment in Scotland because of the uncertainty over the future, is very worrying. A recent survey by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce found the lowest level of confidence in the oil and gas industry since 2010.  In their responses, 45% of companies said the referendum was affecting their plans and investment proposals.  The report stated that the uncertainty arising from the actual referendum process has caused more angst amongst oil and gas companies than the prospect of an actual ‘yes’ vote. Against a background of continually declining production and drilling activity, but with operating costs rising to their highest real-term annual figure, contractors’ confidence in the North Seas has fallen.

 

4.5.  Alex Salmond has said that he wants an independent Scotland to establish in Edinburgh, (perhaps in cooperation with North- East England!) a financial counterweight to London. As London is the most important financial city in the world, at the centre of a conurbation of 15 million people and close to the other major European financial centres of Frankfurt and Paris, it seems unrealistic to think that a separate major financial centre can be created in Scotland, not least because the Scottish Government would be unable to afford significant financial incentives, such as much lower taxation, to trigger a mass relocation.  Furthermore, of the four most important financial institutions based in Scotland, the RBS is 80% owned by the UK taxpayer, the Bank of Scotland is 30% owned by the UK taxpayer and 70% owned by another UK bank (Lloyds), Scottish Widows is owned by another UK Bank (Lloyds), while Standard Life has said it is drawing-up contingency plans which include the possibility of moving south if Scotland becomes independent; indeed, together with Scottish Widows, Standard Life may be obliged to do so, under EU law, which requires financial institutions to have their headquarters in the country where most of their business is conducted.  The financial sector currently generates £750 billion for the Scottish economy.  If independence causes any of this to be lost to Scotland, it would be a disaster.  With a week to go before polling the reality of these fears is beginning to strike home as RBS, Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank announce that in the event of independence they would move their legal headquarter to England.  Each of the banks has stressed that their operations in Scotland would continue and, as a result, the SNP has claimed, despite previously stating that it was imperative that RBS retained its Headquarter in Scotland, that the whole issue is simply a case of moving brass plaques.  This, however, is far from being true, because a company pays its corporation tax in the country where its headquarters is located.  In addition, strategic decisions are made at HQ, and evidence suggests that, over time, more activity is located closer the centre.

 

4.6.  If Scotland had been independent at the time of the banking crisis in 2008, the country would have become bankrupt.  UK support of £320 billion for RBS is more than twice the annual value of the Scottish economy.  When Alex Salmond complains about the savage cuts in public expenditure which have been imposed by the coalition government, and which have undoubtedly affected many Scottish and other UK people adversely, he conveniently fails to mention that these cuts are in large measure due to the near collapse of two Scottish banks, and that there is a UK-wide responsibility to reduce the deficit incurred, not least to ensure that the UK can regain its triple-A international credit-rating.  The Bank of England estimates that in 2010 the assets of Scottish-based banks were valued at about 12.5 times the Scottish GDP.  By comparison, the Greek, Irish and Icelandic banks, which had to be bailed out by the European Central Bank, were valued at about 7 times their respective GDPs, which means that with independence, Scotland would be even more vulnerable than those economies as well as not having the safety net of the Bank of England as the UK lender of last resort.

 

4.7.  Although there are encouraging signs of economic recovery in several parts of the UK, the major driver in this recovery is London and the south-east of England.  Why should Scotland wish to distance and alienate itself from that powerhouse, rather than working together with the rest of the UK to find ways in which that growth can be shared?

 

4.8.  The Chairman of BP has indicated that he thinks it would not be in the best interest of North Sea oil developments for Scotland to become independent.  Barclays Bank and Lloyds Banking Group (incorporating the Bank of Scotland) have warned of the dangers of breaking up the UK.  Lloyds forecast that taxes could rise, costs of regulation could increase and customers could be faced with higher bills if Scotland becomes independent. 

 

4.9.  Bill Gammell the retiring Chairman of Cairn Energy has expressed the view that the North Sea has lost its attraction for major oil investors because it has no significant new reserves.  Although he did not subscribe to the view that the North Sea was in decline and accepted that it still had potential for the right players in the right circumstances, he felt the rewards no longer justified the high risks.  In light of this situation, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent of the UK government, has forecast that North Sea tax revenues, once reliably over £10 billion a year will fall from £6.7 billion in 2012-13 to £4.1 billion in 2016-17. Furthermore, the Scottish government has overestimated likely Scottish oil revenues this year by up to £3.7 billion, which suggests that the main source of revenue that an independent Scottish government would be relying upon is likely to be much lower than expected.  The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer’s 2014 budget statement may improve the situation as it has been well received by the oil industry as a way of encouraging development.  But this is a UK initiative, which suggests that if the costs and risks of developing North Sea oil are shared by the whole country, so too should the benefits be shared.  More recently (August 2014) the quarterly survey by Oil & Gas UK has expressed similar views to those of Bill Gammell, by stating that business confidence at North Sea oil companies had fallen to its lowest level in five years.  This undermines claims by the SNP that offshore oil and gas can be relied upon to produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil in the next few decades and yield billions in tax revenues for an independent Scotland.  When making such claims, Alex Salmond has given the impression that such optimism was supported by Sir Iain Wood, former Chairman of the Wood Group, who is widely regarded as one of Britain’s leading businessmen in the oil and gas industry.  But on 20th August Sir Iain stated clearly that he thought the SNP’s estimate of 24 billion barrels left in the North Sea was 45% to 65% too high and that they were overestimating the potential tax revenues by at least 40%.

 

4.10.  Speaking about the possibility of independence, Richard Prenter, chairman of MacTaggart Scott, an engineering company that  worked on the Royal Navy’s recently launched new aircraft carrier, and which employs 350 people has said: “After a comprehensive review of the likely impact, MacTaggart Scott has concluded that being part of the UK offers the best prospect for the company.  The Board believes that independence would create big risks and uncertainty in key areas of operations.  UK governments do not buy warships from outside their borders and consequently we believe MacTaggart Scott would find it more difficult to trade if it were out of the United Kingdom”. 

 

4.11.   A survey of 60 companies by Edinburgh University showed that 54 thought the risks associated with independence outweighed the opportunities.  The former Chief Executive of Aggreko, Rupert Soames, has said that his company has “noted a marked increase in the nervousness and questions that we get from investors in the last six months. Now that the polls are getting closer, I think they (the investors) are getting much more worried”.  At a time when economic recovery is fragile, such uncertainty is unhelpful, and has caused a number of Scottish companies, most notably Weirs, the engineering giant, to consider whether they would remain in Scotland, while other companies have stated that they will not make further investments until the position is clear.

 

4.12.  In claiming that Scotland can become one of the top 20 wealthiest countries in the world, Alex Salmond is failing to admit that:

(1) his calculations ignore the fact that non-Scottish shareholders dominate in the main business sectors, such as oil, energy, finance and whisky, so that much of the wealth generated will not be of benefit to most individual Scots,

(2) his forecasts for revenues from oil and gas are extremely optimistic and at best are highly volatile, depending on world-wide prices of oil and gas,

(3) the high the level of economically active in-migration required to help meet pension and welfare costs is unrealistic,

(4) the forecast increase in productivity which would have to be achieved is unrealistic as Scotland is already lagging behind the rest of the UK in terms of productivity.  According to Professor Richard Harris of Durham University, there is no evidence that this will change, even if, as proposed, corporation tax is lowered.  In addition, the EU would be likely to oppose any significant reduction of that tax on the grounds that it would be tantamount to a state aid,

(5) the flagship childcare policy, aimed at increasing the number of working-age mothers  who might return to work, has failed to identify anything like the numbers required,

(6) taxes will have to be raised and borrowing increased to meet the shortfalls arising from the above plus the costs of an earlier state pension age, higher pensions and higher benefits.

 

4.13. There have been numerous reports in recent weeks that Alex Salmond and senior members of the SNP have been putting pressure on a number of businessmen and members of  various influential bodies not to express their misgivings about the possibility of independence.  For example, Tony Rush, the former chairman of Barr Construction and former member of CBI Scotland Council, has said that the SNP has a habit of “warning off opponents in a threatening manner”.  His comments followed similar claims by other business leaders and academics, all of whom have talked of intimidation from SNP ministers.  Gavin Hewitt, the former chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association has said that SNP ministers have tried to “neuter business comment” about independence.  The chairman of Scottish Financial Enterprise has said he had received a telephone call from Alex Salmond in what appeared to be an attempt to discourage him from publishing a paper on the referendum, and Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fisherman’s Association has revealed that Alex Salmond made what he described as a “wholly unacceptable attempt to silence him when he wanted to speak out about independence”.  Officials representing Alex Salmond and other senior SNP figures have denied these allegations of intimidation, but why would so many people speak out, possibly risking their relationship with the Scottish government, if it wasn’t true?

 

4.14.  In a recently published book ‘Scotland’s Decision’, Professor David Bell, who was budgetary adviser to the Scottish parliament until last year, indicates that Scots face the danger of having to make higher pension contributions and pay higher taxes to fund the country’s liabilities under independence.  He also brands Alex Salmond’s growth plans as ‘unrealistic’ and further suggests, as indicated above, that Scotland could lose trade with the rest of the UK and face continuing spending cuts under independence, despite Alex Salmond’s efforts to present a ‘yes’ vote as a chance to escape ongoing austerity measures.

 

5. Energy

 

5.1.  Alex Salmond has a dream of making Scotland a renewable energy powerhouse for the whole of the existing UK.  Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh calculates that in 2012-13, the Scottish electricity generators received £779 million in subsidy for renewable developments.  Of this he estimates that Scottish consumers paid only £246 million with the other £553 million being paid by consumers in the rest of the UK.  By 2020, Mr Salmond intends Scottish renewable generation to become the equivalent of 100% of Scottish electricity consumption, requiring a threefold increase in present wind-generating capacity, with a subsidy of between £2.4 billion and £3 billion. But if Scotland becomes independent, there is no guarantee that the rest of the UK would be willing to continue to pay these subsidies, choosing instead either to buy electricity more cheaply from other countries, or to increase its own generating capacity by using its huge cheap shale gas resources.  If this happened it could impose intolerable costs on Scottish consumers’ electricity bills, estimated at an extra £280 per household per year and an extra £5,000 to the average business electricity bill.  Evidently, UK ministers have not ruled out paying some support for Scottish renewables, but have said they may prefer to spend the taxpayer-funded subsidy on renewable projects elsewhere in the UK.  As a result, Professor Hughes concludes that the expectation that the rest of the UK will pay some or all of the subsidies required is a very large political gamble, especially in light of a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice that no country may pay subsidies to renewable generators in another country.

 

6. Defence

 

6.1.  The Scottish Government’s White Paper states that Scotland would have a Scottish Defence Force, which would include 3,500 regular army and 2,000 navy personnel, but the whole issue of how UK forces would be divided is extremely unclear.  It surely makes more sense to have defence forces covering the whole of the UK, without duplication of effort.  There are those who say that Scotland wouldn’t need a defence force because there are no threats, but the activities of muslim extremists pose a real threat, and Russia, in its present mood, is unreliable, so much so, that General Sir Richard Shirreff, who stepped down in March as Britain’s most senior NATO commander, has said that Britain should push to rebuild a 5,000-strong NATO response force to defend itself against Russian aggression.  Might the Russians be tempted by an undefended, disused, deep-water submarine base at Faslane?  

 

6.2.  How effectively would a small independent Scottish Defence Force be able to recruit members, when it could offer very little of a career structure compared with the long established and much larger UK forces?  What will happen to RAF Lossiemouth?  The reduced number of Typhoons (Euro-fighters) being located there is precisely because of the uncertainty over the issue of independence.  In the event of a ‘yes’ vote, the RAF may withdraw completely from Scotland, although the White Paper states that the 12 Typhoons based at Lossiemouth together with 6 Hercules transport planes and a helicopter squadron will represent the air force element of the Defence Force.

6.3.  Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of NATO has expressed the view that by insisting on the closure of Faslane, which the SNP says is non-negotiable, Scotland would be likely to face strong opposition to becoming a member of NATO.  Similar views have been expressed by both President Obama and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. In addition, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the present Secretary General of NATO, has said that Scotland, as an independent state, would have to apply, like any other state, to join the organisation, with no guarantee of success, because the decision would have to be unanimous by all 28 existing member states.

 

7. Currency

 

7.1.  The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has stated that a sterling currency union on the terms that Alex Salmond has proposed is unworkable.  He has, however, said that currency union would be possible if the Scottish Government surrendered some ‘sovereignty’ to the UK.  This view has been supported by the three leaders of the main political parties in the UK, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but is not acceptable to Mr Salmond, who has described it as ‘bully boy’ tactics.  This is not the case.  The intention instead is to make clear that it is not possible to have a currency union between two or more independent countries that are not operating within the same policy framework, for example in relation to the level of austerity required to reduce the deficit,  taxation, defence, state pension provision, immigration and welfare policy.  The significance of this has been amply illustrated by the crises within the Eurozone because certain countries were not adhering to the EU’s rules, and by the fact that the proposed currency union between the Czech Republic and Slovakia collapsed within six weeks.  This position has been made abundantly clear to Alex Salmond for the last six months, but he refuses to accept it, and as a result has failed to formulate a ‘Plan B’.  Equally astonishing, following a recent statement by the Governor of the Bank of England, the Scottish government’s finance secretary, John Swinney, said that the Scottish government had had discussions with the Bank regarding its proposals for a currency union.  This led the Bank to issue, on 14th August, a further statement directly contradicting this claim, and pointing out that the discussions which had taken place were ‘technical’ and limited to explaining statements already made by the Governor on currency unions in general, and to providing information about the Bank’s current operations.  Despite Mark Carney repeating his statement about a currency union without some surrender of sovereignty, Alex Salmond still refuses to accept the reality of the situation and continues to call it a bluff.

 

7.2.  The unwillingness of the UK government to enter into a currency union with an independent Scotland, means that Scotland would not have a ‘lender of last resort’, a role currently played by the Bank of England for the UK as a whole.  As a result, according to a report by Dr Angus Armstrong of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, the Scottish government would have to use its reserves to insure its citizens’ bank deposits and to create a ‘bail-out fund’.  He estimates that this would require £95.2 billion to be laid aside for this purpose, a figure he has subsequently revised upwards to £120 billion.  The SNP has made no provision for this because it still considers a currency union to be possible.  As this is clearly not the case, people with deposits in Scottish banks might have no security, unless the relocation of the banks’ headquarters to England alters the position.

 

7.3.  When the issue of an independent Scotland’s future currency was discussed in the first televised debate between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, Alex Salmond said: “It’s our pound as well. The pound has been built up by the people of Scotland as well as the people of England”.   In fact, the pound doesn’t belong either to England or Scotland.  It is instead the currency of the UK, and if Scotland choses to leave the UK, it surrenders the right to use the pound unless it meets certain conditions determined by the rest of the UK.  When forced, during First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish parliament on 7th August, to say what his ‘Plan B’ was, Alex Salmond said: “It’s Scotland’s pound and we are keeping it”, indicating that if a currency union with the rest of the UK proves impossible, Scotland would keep the pound unilaterally.  A few hours later, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research published a report saying that such a model was likely to cause major financial businesses to move to England, implying that it would cause huge job losses and deal a blow to Scottish exports.

 

8. Membership of the EU

 

8.1.   Alex Salmond has claimed that an independent Scotland would get fast-tracked entry to the EU under Article 48, because it claims already to be a member.   Many people, including the President of the European Council, Mr Herman van Rompuy and the recently retired President of the European Commission, Mr Jose Manuel Barroso, have pointed out that this is incorrect because Scotland, as a new country, would have to take its place in the queue and negotiate under the terms of ‘Article 49’.  Mr Salmond hoped that the new President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, would take a more sympathetic view, but he has emphatically stated that he supports the view of his predecessor and has in addition indicated that he thinks there should be a 5-year moratorium on the admission of new members, although that was subsequently qualified when he said he was not referring to Scotland, but refused to be further drawn on precisely what he meant.  Furthermore there is likely to be opposition to fast track membership, particularly from Spain, who have expressed worries that this would inflame the Catalan and Basque separatist movements in their country. This means Scotland becoming members of the EU could take 3-4 years, and, when eventually granted, would not be on the same terms as those enjoyed by the UK.  Scotland would not get a share of the rebate paid to Britain and would be required to commit to joining the euro at some point.  Indeed Scotland may even have to contribute towards the UK’s rebate!  In addition, Scotland would be obliged to impose at least 5%, but possibly as much as 15% VAT, on food, children’s clothes and the other 52 items on which the UK is currently able to zero-rate VAT

 

9. Conclusions

 

9.1.  Whilst there are understandable emotional arguments in favour of seeking independence, based on a belief that the UK government in London is too remote and that Scotland should be responsible for making its own decisions, the evidence suggests, as Richard Prenter, the chairman of MacTaggart Scott has stated, “The risks of separation far outweigh the benefits”, or, as David Way, the managing director of the recruitment company Marks Sattin said: “Our research suggests the overwhelming consensus among UK finance professionals is that the numbers simply don’t stack up in favour of independence”.  In so many instances the SNP’s forecasts either underestimate or fail to recognise the costs, and overestimate the revenues, particularly those of North Sea oil, which will in any event ultimately fall to zero when the resources are eventually depleted.  The SNP also appears to under-estimate the complexity of certain issues such as the terms on which separation from the rest of the UK would occur, the implications of not being admitted to a currency union with the rest of the UK, determining what currency would instead be adopted, the establishment of a new state, the establishment of new tax and pensions arrangements, the terms on which admission to the EU and to NATO might be granted, defence, and the splitting or sharing of bodies which at present serve the whole of the UK.  These complexities and the fact that Scotland would be negotiating as an incipient new state and not as part of the UK, suggest that the proposed date for independence in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, is highly optimistic.  This point has recently been emphasized by the Law Society of Scotland, which, whilst not wanting to express a view on the merits or otherwise of independence, has called upon Alex Salmond to reveal his ‘plan B’ on currency in light of the Westminster government’s veto of a currency union.  It also says he should spell out his contingency plan if he cannot negotiate Scotland’s place in the EU in the interval between a ‘yes’ vote and his planned independence day in March 2016.  In such circumstances, it asks whether independence would be moved back to allow for a conclusion to negotiations or would it still be fixed for 24th March 2016, requiring Scotland to leave the EU and re-join when the negotiations were concluded?  The Law Society also wants to know what the Scottish government’s approach would be if a cross-border research council to fund scientific research cannot be agreed, and has called upon the Scottish government to provide the advice supporting its claim that it could continue to charge fees to students from the rest of the UK to study at Scottish universities.  The uncertainty surrounding these and other issues is creating difficulties for businesses, universities and other bodies in planning ahead, and appears to be adversely affecting inward investment in Scotland. 

 

9.2.  Whenever the likely adverse consequences of independence are pointed out, Alex Salmond and his fellow SNP spokespersons say that this is ‘scaremongering’, even though the evidence, for those who care to look at it, is overwhelming.  Can so many highly respected academics, leading businessmen and women, trade union leaders, chairpersons of national bodies, leaders of political parties other than the SNP, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, the present and a former Secretary General of NATO, the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the Royal Society, the President of the British Academy, the President of the Academy of Medical Sciences etc. etc. all be wrong and Alex Salmond be right?

 

9.3.  Alex Salmond has said that “voting ‘yes’ is a vote for ambition over fear”.  In light of the above evidence, it might instead be seen as an emotional vote for foolhardiness over common sense.  Given that there are nevertheless misgivings over how well the UK has served Scotland, the time and money spent on a divisive referendum might have been much better spent on finding ways in which the UK could serve Scotland better.

 

9.4.  Jill Stephenson, Professor Emerita of History at Edinburgh University, in criticising the nationalists’ attempts to minimise (or ‘detoxify’, as she puts it) the effects of independence,  says she objects in particular to “The notion that independence will not affect the things that you hold dear  – pensions, currency, universities, the BBC – when the opposite is true”.  She says the SNP is “trying to persuade people that these things will continue.  In reality we will be a foreign country as far as the rest of the UK is concerned. Somehow they (the nationalists) contrive to say: ‘We will not be part of the UK but we will be British.’ It’s nonsense.  At first I thought they were misguided.  Now I believe they are being deliberately misleading.  “Perhaps the greatest myth perpetrated by the nationalists was the notion that the unionists are fighting the more negative campaign…….there is nothing so negative as trying to break up the Union.”

 

9.5.  Who would want as Prime Minister a man so arrogant that he thinks he is entitled to break the regulations at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships, by taking into Centre Court, and unfurling, a Saltire flag far bigger than the permitted size?  Interestingly, Andy Murray has stated that he was embarrassed by this behaviour by Alex Salmond.

 

9.6.  The Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has stated on a number of occasions that the SNP sees the risks of independence, to which others so readily draw attention, as opportunities.  This might sound persuasive, but what opportunity is offered by the risk (now a certainty) that Scottish financial institutions will move to England?  (Alex Salmond’s proposed financial counterweight in Edinburgh is dealt a fatal blow).  What opportunity is offered by the risk (almost a certainty) that the UK MoD will no longer place defence contracts with Scottish firms?  What opportunity is offered by the risk (a certainty), that an independent Scotland would get a lower international credit rating than the rest of the UK and that, as a result, mortgages, loans and credit card debts would become more expensive?  What opportunity is offered by the risk (highly probable) that an independent Scotland would find it difficult to join NATO because of its insistence that the Faslane nuclear base be removed?  What opportunity is offered by making it more difficult for Scottish firms to sell their products in the rest of the UK and in making Scotland appear to be a more hostile destination for English tourists?

 

9.7.  At a meeting in Aviemore on 30th May 2014, Scottish Journalist and Labour Party supporter, Bill McAlister, neatly summarised the situation by stating: “I am proud to be Scottish, but I’m also proud to be British, and I don’t want to live in a foreign country”.  

 

9.8.  The whole process of the referendum, which is causing a polarisation of the population, will mean that Scotland will never be the same again.  Either it will become independent and no longer be part of the UK, or, if the ‘no’ vote is successful, there may well be retributions by nationalist extremists.  It seems unlikely that the sort of people who can indulge in on-line abuse will happily accept that the other side has won.

 

 

 

 

Chris Carter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure what Oddquinel is?

 

Try - Oddquine(exclamation mark)  :amazed:  

 

And maybe I should just add that although, on the basis of sampling about 1% of it, I probably agree with much of what Mr Carter says, it would appear to originate from the height of the Neverendum campaign and is hence probably best not revisited.

When fresh issues like the falling oil price and the Smith Commission delivering its Heads of Agreement three days early emerge, then fair enough. But I really don't see the need to revisit issues which were done to death as long ago as when Derek Bateman was on the BBC.

 

PS - my wordcounter is saying something knocking on 9000. Beat that OQ! :lol:

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeezis Laurence! This guy is even longer winded than Oddquine! :lol:

Charles you are right on this one! I didn't even bother to read it.  Although I liked Oddquine's posts during the referendum :scotland:  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jeezis Laurence! This guy is even longer winded than Oddquine! :lol:

Charles you are right on this one! I didn't even bother to read it.  Although I liked Oddquine's posts during the referendum :scotland:  

 

So, actually, did I although you will understand that I didn't exactly agree with what she said. I did read most of them, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know who Oddquine is............but who the hair oil  is Chris Carter?

 

When I read the title, I thought it might be a critique of all the untruthful and exaggerated claims made during the Referendum Campaign by Better Together and Unionist politicians, who all threatened Scottish meltdown, because, without the nurturing Westminster bosom, our pensions would not be safe, the oil would run out in 15 years, the Clyde wouldn't get the contract for the navy frigates, because the UK doesn't give warship contracts to foreign countries etc, etc ad nauseam.

 

And then I read the start of the first line When the present independence initiative was started by the SNP, the stated intention was that The Queen or her successors would no longer be the Head of State,  and realised it was just another Unionist correspondent from somewhere on their own planet demonstrating their ignorance......again.  I did do him/her the courtesy of reading the last bullet point in his/her article and am away to beat my head off the nearest brick wall and cry!

 

It is not the losers of the referendum who can't let it go......we YES voters have moved on to the GE campaign to try and actually get the Smith Commission proposals, abysmally pathetic as they are, through the dual-layered Westminster wrecking ball. 

 

It is those who won who can't let it go and move on...maybe because, deep down....they know fine well that it was never a fair battle and will be proven a pyrrhic victory.

Edited by Oddquine
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the untruthful and exaggerated claims made during the Referendum Campaign

....like potential oil revenues? :ohmy:

 

Oddquine, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of separation but your verbosity is hardly a major vice and I am somewhat prone to it myself. Furthermore anyone who knows what a Pyrrhic victory is and can spell it correctly has my profound respect. :clapping:  However I am these days transferring my CTO allegiance to the Old Inverness threads where I am actually also finding a great deal of empathy with some of my former adversaries on this thread. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

all the untruthful and exaggerated claims made during the Referendum Campaign

....like potential oil revenues? :ohmy:

 

Oddquine, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of separation but your verbosity is hardly a major vice and I am somewhat prone to it myself. Furthermore anyone who knows what a Pyrrhic victory is and can spell it correctly has my profound respect. :clapping:  However I am these days transferring my CTO allegiance to the Old Inverness threads where I am actually also finding a great deal of empathy with some of my former adversaries on this thread. :smile:

 

 

Now, now, Charles......which part of the oil revenues would have been a bonus are you not quite getting yet?  It's Westminster which needs it to lessen the annual  borrowing increases......not us to balance the books, if we were independent. :smile: 

 

Might well join you on the Old Inverness threads if they get into really old stuff....like the map to which alternative maryhill linked

.........you don't get rid of me that easily!  

 

Been reading through the older threads bit by bit, as I'm doing my Inverness/Inverness-shire paternal genealogy and am having a job trying to identify connected places. None of it goes far enough back, though, as I'm looking at Inverness and surrounding parishes in the couple of centuries up to the 1920s..so more history than reminiscences.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

....

Been reading through the older threads bit by bit, as I'm doing my Inverness/Inverness-shire paternal genealogy and am having a job trying to identify connected places. None of it goes far enough back, though, as I'm looking at Inverness and surrounding parishes in the couple of centuries up to the 1920s..so more history than reminiscences.    

 

Oddquine you may find a connection to the Bannerman's :ohmy:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

all the untruthful and exaggerated claims made during the Referendum Campaign

....like potential oil revenues? :ohmy:

 

Oddquine, we disagree fundamentally on the issue of separation but your verbosity is hardly a major vice and I am somewhat prone to it myself. Furthermore anyone who knows what a Pyrrhic victory is and can spell it correctly has my profound respect. :clapping:  However I am these days transferring my CTO allegiance to the Old Inverness threads where I am actually also finding a great deal of empathy with some of my former adversaries on this thread. :smile:

 

It will soon be time to start another thread for the General Election which I think will be more interesting than the last one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

....

Been reading through the older threads bit by bit, as I'm doing my Inverness/Inverness-shire paternal genealogy and am having a job trying to identify connected places. None of it goes far enough back, though, as I'm looking at Inverness and surrounding parishes in the couple of centuries up to the 1920s..so more history than reminiscences.    

 

Oddquine you may find a connection to the Bannerman's :ohmy:

 

 

Not so far......got what seems like flaming hunners of (so far) unconnected  Fraser lines though!

 

IBM, the GE this year can't help but be more interesting than any one to date...and I hope a lot more fun. 

 

I await the first GE thread with my two typing fingers poised at the ready. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Now, now, Charles......which part of the oil revenues would have been a bonus are you not quite getting yet?     

 

What an amazing tansformation from building a political party since the 1970s on the slogan "It's Scotland's Oil" .... to a mere "bonus".

 

 

It would be Scotland's oil if the Treaty of Union hadn't been signed by Scottish "grandees" on the make, Charles.you know it and I know it!   So it was a fact, not a slogan.....unless, of course, you think that Scotland ceased to exist as a country in 1707, as Westminster has tried to insist! 

 

And the one thing I'm darn sure of is that any party of canny Scots, in a country with our other resources, and a population 85% less than that of the UK, wouldn't have widdled  all the oil income up against the Westminster wall to buy votes in the on-going obsession to turn the UK into America-lite.

 

If you stop to think about it, most of what we spend now is because we are in the Union, not because we'd be spending at that level in an independent Scotland. We are paying annually........interest on the UK debt, which pays for, among other things.......Westminster's nuclear gonads; the waste due to the incompetence of the UK procurement system, particularly in the MOD; the subsidies to the city state of London; wars in countries which wouldn't be bothering us much (if at all) if we hadn't been warring all over the world for centuries; the cost of wages, subsidies and gold-plated pensions for a bloated Government of 1350 well-paid, but incompetent politicians; more than half of them unelected placemen;  wages and pensions for the 405,070 FTE employees in the civil service; 239 foreign embassies/consulates//trade offices etc and staff, in 152 countries (plus 21 organisations representing us in the likes of the UN,......and those figures don't include honorary consulates).

 

I could go on, but you get my point, I'm sure....a country of 63 million people, with a Government which still has delusions of imperial grandeur and importance, needs much more money to keep it in the style to which it has become accustomed than a wee country of 5 million people without the same delusions.

 

Bear in mind, we are paying a share of all of the above, both via identifiable expenditure which is allocated specifically to Scotland in the UK accounts, like the UK Government departments within Scotland which deal with reserved issues and what we receive in benefits and pensions.....and also what we don't get back from Westminster out of our taxes, which goes into unidentifiable expenditure, like debt interest and the costs of the reserved departments at Westminster..... at the same time as we are paying for our own Government and its maintenance to deal with devolved issues from a relatively small proportion of our tax input, those issues devolved to us which, in the rUK,  are being paid for mostly from borrowing, on which we help pay the interest. 

Edited by Oddquine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Now, now, Charles......which part of the oil revenues would have been a bonus are you not quite getting yet?     

 

What an amazing tansformation from building a political party since the 1970s on the slogan "It's Scotland's Oil" .... to a mere "bonus".

 

Nothing like keeping it topical, Do you think Scotland should be playing Martin Buchan or Tom Forsyth in central defence ? What do you think about colour television, will it catch on ?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy