Oddquine

So equally we can also completely ignore the following, and a lot more about the so called "shape of an independent Scotland", from the 670 page publicly funded SNP Manifesto published last November? Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds. Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament. Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit. It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort". BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC. Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation. A safe, "triple-locked" pension system. Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living". Nope....it is exactly what every UK party does before every election..........puts forward what they'd do if they got into power. It's called a manifesto and the SNP made no secret of the fact that part of the 670 pages included what they would hope to do if they became the first iScotland Government and depending on the results of the negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon said as much on a GMS interview post the publication. It was in there mostly as an example of what could possible if we had the control of our own economy, compared to what we know will happen in the Union if we vote NO. Before the end of negotiations we won't know stuff like......will we have our share of the debt or no debt....... will we have our share of assets or none of them.......but it was written on the assumption that Westminster wouldn't tear up the Edinburgh Agreement (given the current Westminster rhetoric, that assumption was most certainly wishful thinking). Could give you links to the other parties ideas on what an independent Scotland could be like if they were in power. Personally, I don't expect to have many , if any, majority Governments in iScotland, which pleases me, because consensus politics is a lot less wasteful than adversarial politics. Still waiting for a cogent response to post #576, btw. Is it an election? No, it isn't an election, though you'd be forgiven if you thought it was, given the MSM spin on the SNP supremacy and Charles' fixation on the idea that the SNP will definitely form the first iScotland Government. It is a vote, at bottom, to decide if we want to have elections in the future which will give us the government for which we vote...and which will institute policies which will give us the kind of society we would prefer...whatever the colour of that administration may be. As a one time SNP member (and local council candidate (failed)) who has always voted, for the 4+ decades since I reached voting age, solely on the independence principle, and not on SNP policies, I am highly unlikely to vote SNP in iScotland. However, if you are facing an unknown situation which has not yet been resolved, like in any General Election, you look at the possibilities/options in the best case scenario and produce policies which should work, all things being equal.which is what all political parties do prior to any elections, and what the SNP did in a part of the White Paper.....but in the SNP case, they were not aiming at election and power, but at illustrating what could be, with the will of the Scottish electorate to vote YES on September 18th 2014.. A proper manifesto from any party is not possible until post-negotiation, when we will know where we stand. I suppose it is down, in the end, to a decision as to whether we are happy to have England tell us that the UK "democratically" elected Government, elected on English votes, while Scotland has long turned its back on right wing Governments, is what we have to accept because of the Union. So we have to suck up the Westminster fixation on subsidising the city state of London while penalising all areas outside London and the South, including Scotland. An iScotland may well end up, proportionately, not a lot better off debt-wise than the UK in the short term.....but the difference will be that we will spend our free (as in not already committed)income to benefit all our citizens....and not just the richest..as it appears is the main aim of the current Westminster administration with an eye on their main chance and their future employment

Speaking of which, we certainly dodged a bullet by not being independent in 2008 when our banks needed bailing out, eh? The inability of an independent Scotland to support its financial sector is one of the reasons pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them. Nope......we didn't. Firstly....... we'd not have been 10 minutes independent in 2008 when the banks went doolally, so would have, I trust, have, well before then, set up sensible banking regulations and better oversight, which would have stopped our banks playing fast and loose with the economy to earn ginormous profits and equally ginormous bonuses for the gamblers. And secondly.......we would only have been liable for the losses incurred by the Banks operations within Scotland. I am getting tired of saying this on forums.....operations by branches of banks operating furth of Scotland are the responsibility of the countries who gave them licence to operate. That was why the USA supported the RBS and Barclays operations in the USA....and the UK didn't have to. And that is why the UK supported BOS and RBOS in the UK........because 90% of their activity was over the border in England. Even if we had been independent at that stage, we would only have had to find at most 10% of what the UK spent. And thirdly, on forums, at the time of, and after, the banking crisis, I continually advocated dealing with it on the Swedish 1990s model....which would have meant not gaily writing cheques before compelling the banks to write down losses and hit the bank's shareholders, who had reaped the rewards of irresponsible banking practices for some years, before they trashed the taxpayer....thus holding the banks, and their shareholders, to some extent, responsible for their actions. Do you read any part of the MSM articles other than the headlines, starchief? If you did, you would know that pretty much all of those institutions will be moving to England, taking their jobs, GDP and tax revenues with them. is nothing more than Unionist spin (lies). All of them are preparing to move all or parts of their businesses if necessary.....which is sensible business practice......but none of them has said unequivocally, that they intend to move lock, stock and barrel out of Scotland on Independence as soon as, or shortly after we vote YES. Businesses do pragmatic and will wait and see what policies will come into play....as many have said they will, including a couple of the airlines and a couple of the banks. If you have read S&P's report on the credit rating of an iScotland, they actually appear to think that less reliance on financial institutions in the economy will improve Scotland's credit rating. Contrary to Westminster scare mongering...the "reliance" on oil is less of a problem for iScotland than the "reliance" on financial services. Does make one kinda wonder, given the reliance in the UK on London and financial services to underpin the economy, how their credit rating would do without nearly 10% of their economy, without the Scottish Trade exports to set against the UK Trade deficit and without oil.

Sure, by following the French model advocated by Gordon Brown. The one that's led to even heavier debt levels in that country than than previously. The same policy that led to the voting out of the Spanish government when theirs failed too. Why on God's good earth would we take any notice of anything Gordon Brown says.....ever?

So equally we can also completely ignore the following, and a lot more about the so called "shape of an independent Scotland", from the 670 page publicly funded SNP Manifesto published last November? Thirty hours of childcare per week in term time for all three and four-year-olds, as well as vulnerable two-year-olds. Trident nuclear weapons, currently based on the Clyde, removed within the first parliament. Housing benefit reforms, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", to be abolished, and a halt to the rollout of Universal Credit. It would be in Scotland's interest to keep the pound, while the Bank of England would continue as "lender of last resort". BBC Scotland replaced at the start of 2017 with a new Scottish broadcasting service, continuing a formal relationship with the rest of the BBC. Basic rate tax allowances and tax credits to rise at least in line with inflation. A safe, "triple-locked" pension system. Minimum wage to "rise alongside the cost of living". Nope....it is exactly what every UK party does before every election..........puts forward what they'd do if they got into power. It's called a manifesto and the SNP made no secret of the fact that part of the 670 pages included what they would hope to do if they became the first iScotland Government and depending on the results of the negotiations. Nicola Sturgeon said as much on a GMS interview post the publication. It was in there mostly as an example of what could possible if we had the control of our own economy, compared to what we know will happen in the Union if we vote NO. Before the end of negotiations we won't know stuff like......will we have our share of the debt or no debt....... will we have our share of assets or none of them.......but it was written on the assumption that Westminster wouldn't tear up the Edinburgh Agreement (given the current Westminster rhetoric, that assumption was most certainly wishful thinking). Could give you links to the other parties ideas on what an independent Scotland could be like if they were in power. Personally, I don't expect to have many , if any, majority Governments in iScotland, which pleases me, because consensus politics is a lot less wasteful than adversarial politics. Still waiting for a cogent response to post #576, btw.

Then, Charles, if you are a republican.the best chance of getting rid of the monarchy is in an Independent Scotland! Go on, vote YES......you know it makes sense! Was pointed at a blog today (an eclectic FB friends list often turns up some interesting stuff and saves much googling) . http://tarffadvertiser.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-alexander-brothers-and-currency.html A quote from there..... According to the most recent OBR figures the UK debt to GDP ratio is 75%, this is projected to rise to 95% for England and Wales (with NI) if Scotland exits the Union and stays in a Sterling currency union. The comparative figure for Scotland's debt to GDP ratio after a 'Yes vote' is between 45 and 50% depending whether Scotland is in or out of a Sterling currency union. Easily seen why Westminster is fighting Independence with all the scare stories they can spin.. From that blog a link got me to http://moneyweek.com/endofbritain/ My next half written pontification was going to be about pensions, the increasing of entitlement ages and what that means to Scots, given the difference between the life expectancies in England versus that in Scotland, NI and Wales, with reference to http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/uploaded/documents/2014/20140219 PPI Single Tier Series Paper 5 SPA.pdf . However, the UK financial problems appear to be much bigger than how to pay in the future for the unfunded state and public pension obligations, and is more than a shade scary. To quote from the Money Week article....In recorded economic history, every single country with debts as big as ours – every single one – has suffered a devastating economic collapse. There are NO exceptions. and Shockingly, our debt load is now on a scale comparable with one of the most frightening economic disasters of the 20th century… We're talking about the Weimar Republic. Now that is a real Project Fear possibility the Unionists are not using to scare the crap out of us...because it is one we can avoid with independence.

While Charles is pondering his response to the repeated questions in my post above, here's something for the rest of you to read. As usual, any bolding in the body of the article is mine. For those who haven't used up this month's allowed articles or don't hit the paywall ....the link..... http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/memo-to-danny-alexander-the-very-things-that-make-london-rich-make-us-poor.23633041 For those who won't pay the MSM for anything and have already used up their current quota.......... Memo to Danny Alexander: the very things that make London rich make us poor ... Iain Macwhirter Aggreko warns of risks." The Scottish front pages have been reduced to a proforma. They just fill in the dots. Alliance warns of risks, Standard Life warns of risks, RBS warns of risks ... Lloyds ... BP ... Shell ... Sainsbury's. There is a weary inevitability about the coverage of the referendum campaign. George Osborne says No, Ed Balls says No, Danny Alexander says No, Johann Lamont says nothing at all. A coalition of the City of London, the political classes and a UK-dominated media laying down the law. Wagging a finger. No means No! I'm beginning to wonder whether this isn't becoming just a little counterproductive for Better Together. This relentless procession of finance companies, business bosses, Tory politicians all lecturing, scolding, tut-tutting and shaking their heads. You can't have the pound, we'll take our ball away. Your money won't be safe because we'll take the banks. We'll try to destabilise your cross-border pension funds - don't expect any co-operation from us. If you don't do as you are told, we'll take your passports away and have you kicked out of Europe. We'll put up the price of food in the shops, and your mobile phone charges, and your insurance rates. Eventually people are going to ask themselves: who exactly is running this country? Who are these people to make these threats? Who elected all these financiers and captains of industry? Bob Dudley, the boss of BP who earned $8.7 million last year, heads a firm that isn't even British any more. Since when did we allow banks to make our political choices for us? The degree of direct political involvement by big business in this referendum campaign is unprecedented, and deeply disturbing. It is reminiscent of Latin America in the bad old days, of US dirty tricks and Yankee colonialism. Normally, companies avoid taking political sides in Western democracies, because, well, they are supposed to be democratic countries. And it can damage business. As I noted last week, a lot of Scots - Yes and No voters - will be taking their money out of ­Standard Life and RBS and shifting to Barclays, whose chief executive recently said he would at least try to make any arrangement work. And Ryanair has become the airline of choice for thousands of Scots, after their canny boss said: yeah, sure, whatever. I can't speak for the Labour Party in Scotland, but I can tell you how it looks to many of their voters: an unpopular front with the discredited Liberal Democrats, the loathed UK Tories and the City of London. It's these daily hectorings about the irresponsibility of independence from the finance houses, Alliance, Standard Life, RBS, Lloyds - the very people who nearly destroyed the UK economy out of unrestrained greed - that sticks in my personal craw. Being lectured on public responsibility by banks is like being lectured on childcare by paedophiles. A campaign that is based almost entirely on fear is a campaign that has lost the argument. Correction: it hasn't lost the argument on the Union because it hardly bothered to make it in the first place. A few platitudes about Team GB and Nelson Mandela from David Cameron in his Olympic speech does not amount to a reasoned case or claim of right. Then the dambusters took over. I defy anyone to compare the New Statesman lecture from Alex Salmond last week in London with what we heard from Danny Alexander in Edinburgh. A lot of people dislike the First Minister, and perhaps with some justification. He can be a bit full of himself. He was fairly criticised for equivocating on whether he would cut the top rate of income tax in Scotland if it was still in place in England - though just imagine the threats that would have come from all those business interests if he had. But the point is that the referendum isn't about Alex Salmond or the SNP running Scotland - it is about the right of Scots to run Scotland and choose the government of their choice. Right now, Scotland is being run by the City of London and the UK political establishment. This conflation of the personality of Alex Salmond with the case for Yes is the disingenuous means by which the left in London has sought to ally themselves with financial corporatism against Scotland. Ah - he's just like the rest of them, "shovelling even more wealth to the elite", tweets Owen Jones, the BBC Question Time's favourite tame lefty, clearly knowing and caring nothing about what has been happening in Scotland. Like ending means-tested prescriptions, scrapping tuition fees, promoting childcare, resisting the bedroom tax, and defending policies such as free personal care. You would think the left in London would be glad there was an alternative political space opening up in which it is possible to challenge the neoliberal consensus. And come to think of it, which party actually did press for the abolition of university tuition fees? It was the SNP, and it was opposed by the Labour Party in Scotland, which regards these policies as part of "the something for nothing society". Salmond told the New Statesman audience last week that Scotland doesn't want to be a part of a country that is dominated by the anti-immigrant, anti-welfare, low-tax government of which Danny Alexander is a leading figure. He tried to spell out how Scotland could be a beacon of progressive policies that could counter the relentless drift to the right of the city state of London which now dominates the UK, and as even Vince Cable said, is sucking the wealth out of the rest of it. One of the most chilling experiences I have had recently was at an NHS Scotland conference last week on welfare reform in Scotland. The impact of the UK Government's welfare reforms is devastating - especially on the many Scots with disabilities the bedroom tax is causing huge hardship, food banks are running on empty and, as our report shows today, poverty has returned to Scotland in a way I could never have imagined a decade ago. George Osborne is planning to push through another £12 billion in cuts to people who are workless through no fault of their own. And there is nothing that the Scottish Parliament can do about it because it doesn't control welfare - or taxation, or the huge oil revenues that flow to the London exchequer to finance Boris Johnson's grandiose schemes. Politics of envy? Damn right. And what was the Unionist response? Danny Alexander coming north wagging his finger, and warning: "the currency decision is final" - and anyone who doesn't get it will be sent to the back of the class and held after school. Well, here's a message to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: the currency decision, Mr Alexander, will never be final, because it is not in the UK Government's gift to make it. The pound is common property of the UK, not London's toy balloon. As for the threat on cross-border pension schemes - the EU is on the point of announcing that it wants to see a lot more of them. His pensions warning was just another nasty little scare, like mortgage rates, Europe, food prices. And don't think this scolding, contemptuous tone from the London financial establishment will somehow disappear if Scots obediently vote No. We've learned a lot in the past few weeks about power and how it is distributed. The campaign has revealed the true face of the Union. They may win the referendum, but they've lost Scotland.

OK, Charles........so you explain to us the certainty we will get from remaining in the Union, (over and above the certainty of continuing austerity for the less well off, the continuing increasing rich/poor gap, the continuing growth in food banks, the continuing and increasing costs of maintaining a nuclear "deterrent", the continuing and increasing costs of maintaining the lifestyles of 1500 elected and unelected nincompoops, and the continuing burgeoning debt levels) which will be so compelling that they will be an obvious improvement on the uncertainty of being a rich country, with a population full of clever people like you and me, a surplus in overseas trade, increasing foreign investment, and without WMDs, with the choice as to whether a war is just or not.....and without the costs of maintaining the UK Government and higher echelon civil civil servants and the bankers in the manner to which they have become accustomed? Or you could just answer the questions I asked you previously....... .if Scotland votes NO.... With the Government and UKIP squaring up to the European Union, and a promised referendum, will the UK remain a member of the EU? With Westminster politicians threatening to uproot the Barnett formula and cut Scottish funding by £4 billion, how secure are Scottish finances after a No vote? Will the UK still be one of the most unequal countries in the developed world? Can Scotland trust Westminster to deliver any further devolution, given that depends on the votes of the UK Parliament? In fact, can it be trusted not to roll back devolution altogether, as has been mooted by some? And, finally...... regarding the prospect of a currency union.or even just using sterling unilaterally..... If it is “not independence”, as many No campaigners claim, then surely many unionists will feel able to vote for it..and if not.why not?

Worth a read....http://peterabell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-referendum-is-about-us.html As is this http://www.stringerville.com/2014/02/23/scottish-independence-an-open-letter-to-england/ Not for any particular reason, tbh....just that they are pro-independence POVs, different to the ones you get from we Yeah-sayers on here..and well- written (though as long as anything I can produce when I'm on form.)..and because I liked them. The second link, btw, Charles, is by an Englishman who is voting YES...as are many English people who have chosen to make their home in Scotland....and the comments on that blog are how people should conduct a debate of such importance. You will notice the almost complete lack of sneering, patronising and supercilious contempt for others' opinions. Those on there who disagree with the concept of independence are worth reading. Unfortunately, you are not.

Commonsense from the New Statesman............though I'm still not keen on a Currency Union...... .http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union Says a lot of the same thing as http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues

If you have a look at my previous post #532 quoting "points" made by Westminster MPs and the MSM, since oil was discovered and started to flow, you can see that opinion varies depending on whether the politicians are trying to put Scotland down or bum the UK up. Hence, when the SNP has been rising, independence/devolution has been on the agenda and the Westminster politicians have been running scared....the oil is running out..maybe even tomorrow or the next day...but when Westminster is increasing MPs salaries, handing out tax cuts to millionaires (like most of the UK Cabinet), ignoring the levels of tax avoidance and evasion by the rich and big businesses, it is going to last for ages and is being spent as if it is going to last forever. Westminster Government, which can't balance its books, even with the oil proceeds flowing directly into the Treasury and straight out again through the enormous hole in the palm of its hand, has some weird idea that only the UK Government is capable of managing the oil industry and Scotland is too wee and too stupid to do it for ourselves. A bit ironic, imo, given the only ability our "esteemed" Governments appear to have is the ability to create debt, despite the oil revenue input which is so "near to being completely used up". If Scotland would be fecked with it, as Westminster is always so eager to insist...then the UK would be well buggered without it, given the UK National Debt of £1.3 or so trillion, with £100+ billion a year additional borrowing and annual interest payments of about £48 billion. With the oil income in UK's tax stream and without the oil income in Scotland's, Scotland's GDP is 99% of that of the UK. Including the oil, it would be about 118%. For Scotland, the oil would be a bonus, not the only thing standing between us and bankruptcy. According to Oil and Gas UK 2013 Economic Report, over the past 45 years, the UK Treasury has widdled up against the wall £300 billion + (in 2012 money) in production tax. In 2012-2013, it received, from the oil and gas industry, a total of around £12 billion in production tax and in corporate and payroll taxes..and has only a horrendous National Debt to show for it. In addition, the offshore oil and gas industry generates almost £40 billion a year for the economy by producing oil and gas worth £32 billion and by exporting oilfield technology and expertise worth £7 billion. There are estimated to be between 15 and 24 billion barrels left, without the discovery of new fields in the West of Scotland (once Trident leaves.) http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/news/news.cfm/newsid/873 or the full report https://publ.com/N6D1Taa#8 The UK Government values the wholesale worth of this at £1.5 trillion and the same government claims a future for the industry well past 2055. If that is what they claim for UK purposes, why would that not equally apply to the worth in an independent Scotland, given approximately 90% of this bonanza lies in Scottish Waters according to UNCLOS (once we get back what Westminster stole in 1999.). It can provide a cushion for the future on the same lines as Norway has, albeit much smaller, given the wasted years of Westminster squandering, but our oil income is a lower percentage of our tax take than it is in Norway. Of course, if you agree with Johan Lamont that " We are not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions", it will certainly be better to leave the political decisions to those extremely intelligent, economically astute millionaires who direct our lives. But if you reject the "Scottish Cringe" factor....do you really think we will be as incompetent as the last 45 years of UK Government has been? Do you really believe that “Scotland will be so rich from oil you won’t be able to handle it by yourselves!” and it needs the “broad shoulders” of the UK economy to get any benefit from the income. Really?

Can someone please tell me when the UK government has ever subsidised the cost of recovering hard-to-get oil. The government sells the licences to explore. It then takes taxes from every barrel removed. Granted some tax breaks have been given for the continued production from some older areas but certainly no subsidies. Todays news from the Cameron camp emphasised the drop in revenues for last year over the previous year. What they failed to tell us was that some older platforms were shut in for longer than normal for major refurbishment so production was down. They failed to tell that their hosts for the day (BP) have invested over a billion on its most northerly field to extend its life for a further 30 years. Further billions on two new platforms for its established West of Shetland fields and is spending further billions on Atlantic exploration and production planning. That is just one of the many major companies involved in investing billions around our shores and none of them are doing so just for the sake of spending their cash. And nor are they seeking government handouts to assist them. They haven't, afaik, but I'm sure someone will turn up shortly to give us chapter, verse and links. But they do rely on the ordinary punter not realising that they are taking the proverbial, because they are convinced that all our heads button up the back and we won't notice....and some of us in Scotland certainly confirm that opinion! . They appear to believe that subsidising is what the oil giants should be doing for them...given the raids on oil company profits over the years.(not so dissimilar to the raids on pensions by Gordon Brown in the not so long ago past). Seems to me, being a thick eejit, that 16 changes in taxation of oil income in 10 years, would produce much the same reluctance to commit finite monetary resources to expand anything oil related, as I'd have in committing to taking on a mortgage after that many changes in the mortgage rate in that time, with no way of knowing what the next change was liable to be. Emphasising drops is what Westminster does best.....good news doesn't fit their Independence doom and gloom agenda! They are spinning to the extent that those of us watching them do so are feeling dizzy, even if they themselves are managing to remain upright!

Is it only me who gets the impression that the debate is nearly all about what the rUK will lose if Scotland votes for independence, rather than how Scotland will benefit by staying in the Union! As Lord Healey said: “I think [Westminster politicians] are concerned about Scotland taking the oil. I think they are worried stiff about it. I think we would suffer enormously if the income from Scottish oil stopped but if the Scots want it, they should have it and we would just need to adjust. But I would think Scotland could survive perfectly well, economically, if it was independent.” Nothing to do at all with what is best for Scotland and the citizens of Scotland.......it's all about the oil (and Trident) and Westminster control and not about the poverty, the foodbanks, the crap infrastructure etc and Westminster's policies which are geared towards London and the South and don't work in Scotland. The debate, until it doesn't do the No campaign any favours, appears to be going to focus on the oil industry for a while...hence the relatively sudden parachuting of the Westminster Cabinet into Scotland for the third time in 300+ years. Is it just a co-incidence that Cameron has chosen to hold this once in a 100 years appearance to show "the caring face of Westminster" (and I'm not even going to mention Brigadoon ) in Aberdeen seven or so miles from where the Scottish Government is holding their long arranged equivalent? It rather begs the question, though, that if the UK can, (as stated below) boost the oil and gas sector by £200 billion over the next 20 years, why on earth has the UK Government waited until now to even think about it? And is it going to happen before the vote on September 18th...or is it a carrot for (possible) implementation after the vote, as are the promises of some unquantified kind of further devolution...... at some stage.....if enough members of each UK party can agree on the form it will take.....and then if the Westminster Parliament can be encouraged to vote for it...(preferably before voting to remove the Barnett Formula). We are expected to vote for this kind of lying by omission...... “The UK Government has spent 30 years suppressing its own report telling the Scots how rich oil would make them with independence.” (The Independent, December 2005) and this kind of "benefit" of being in this Union .... “Poverty in Scotland at its worst in 30 years.” (The Herald, March 2013) When it comes to the oil, they don't even have the native wit to read from the same hymn sheet....so who do we believe.....the people who have continually said the kind of thing noted below, over the decades, at the same time as they are spending the proceeds of the windfall as if the income was going to be an eternally available resource.......or those who base their forecasts not on scaring the Scottish people away from support of the SNP in the earlier days, and Independence now, but on the forecasts of the oil industry and a sensible taxation regime to give more certainty to the industry than 16 UK taxation changes have in the past 10 years? We have had, from Westminster directly, or via the MSM over the years........ “Oil and gas will run out by the end of the 1980s.”(Tory MPs Timothy Eggart and Peter Ross, January 1982) “Oil will be running out by 1989.” (Labour MP Jeff Rooker, April 1984) “The oil will run out by 1994.” (Labour MP Tony Benn, May 1979) “The oil will run out by 2000.” (Labour MP Ioan Evans, February 1980) “North Sea oil could run out by 2018.” (The Guardian, May 2008) “North Sea oil will last for another 50 years.” (Daily Express, September 2012) “North Sea oil will last another 100 years.” (The Telegraph, June 2008) “There’s no bright future for oil revenue.” (Dumfries And Galloway Standard, March 2013) yet also...... “North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future.” (UK energy minister John Hayes, March 2013) And while this kind of misinformation was being trumpeted loud and long, we have also had..... “Alistair Darling is pocketing an extra £13m A DAY thanks to soaring oil prices.” (The Sun, April 2008) and “High oil and gas prices could lead to a Treasury tax windfall.” (Alistair Darling on BBC News, June 2008) however “Soaring oil prices could hold back the economic recovery.” (Alistair Darling in the Evening Standard, June 2009) followed within months by “Collapsing oil revenue will turn the whole UK into a banana republic!” (The Telegraph, November 2009) And it continues to this day to fulfill the "make sure Scotland thinks oil is only a blessing if it flows into the UK Treasury and will only be a curse to Scotland if it is independent, because the UK needs it to try to balance their books" self-serving mantra. After all, the UK can use this......“North Sea oil to give George Osborne £25bn boost.” (The Telegraph, February 2013) to compensate the public purse for some of the taxes they allow Corporate businesses to avoid, as the Tory/Coalition Government happily trashes the poor and disabled and prepare to do worse until 2015, and even worse if re-elected. Just think what we in Scotland could have done for our economy with that £25 billion! So if Scotland votes for independence “Scotland faces bill of £30bn after North Sea oil runs out.”(The Scotsman, April 2012) “Declining oil revenue will leave Scotland worse off than the UK.” (The Telegraph, November 2012) “The trouble with oil is that it’s a tremendously volatile diminishing asset.” (Alistair Darling in the Paisley Daily Express, December 2012) “Falling oil revenues will mean savage public spending cuts or tax rises.” (Vince Cable in the Scotsman, March 2013) “Oil revenue is volatile, and declining, and cheap gas from fracking will probably make it completely worthless.” (The Scotsman, March 2013) “It’s not Scotland’s oil, it’s Shetland’s.” (Tavish Scott in The Shetland Times, March 2013) But if we vote to stay with the Union......it all changes..... “Oil and gas decline to halt as investment booms.” (Reuters, January 2013) “Oil and gas will play a vital role in British energy needs for decades to come.” (Vince Cable in the Daily Record, March 2013) “There are probably billions of barrels still to be found in Scottish waters, which is why we’re investing billions of pounds in looking for it.” (New York Times, March 2013) “Analysts believe that Clair, along with other developments [in Scottish waters to the west of Shetland], could lead to the Atlantic overtaking the North Sea as the UK’s biggest oil-producing region within 20 years.” (BBC News, March 2013) We are, of course, too wee and much too stupid to cope with the oil.... “Scotland will be so rich from oil you won’t be able to handle it by yourselves!” (The Telegraph, March 2013) "SCOTLAND could lose out on £200billion worth of oil over the next 20 years if the country becomes independent, David Cameron warned yesterday. The Prime Minister pledged to fast-track recommendations that could help to pump four billion extra barrels from the North Sea. He said only the “broad shoulders” of the UK economy could subsidise the cost of recovering the hard-to-get oil." (Daily Record 24/2/2014) (just as if we hadn't lost out on on every penny it has brought in to the UK to date! ) although on the "broad shoulders" of the UK economy..... "Sir Ian said a new approach is urgently needed in order to address declining production efficiency and exploration. The former head of the Wood group said the cost to the UK Treasury of the inefficiencies is estimated to be around £6 billion." and yet a Norway which is just as small. manages its oil very well......... “Norway’s oil fund grew by 18% in 2012 to £450bn.” (BBC News, March 2013) And yet, despite “It’s definitely Scotland’s oil.” (Vince Cable in The Telegraph, March 2013) we have, and I repeat......... “Poverty in Scotland at its worst in 30 years.” (The Herald, March 2013) If you want to check out the links to the various quotes...they are on http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-oil-debate-for-busy-people/. bar the £200 billion jobbie (and I use that word advisedly) which is on http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/prime-minister-david-cameron-warns-3177827 I have just set the information out in my own inimitable style for your reading pleasure.

Oddquine does, at least mostly give links to be studied to inform punters how her long-standing opinions are confirmed....which is not necessarily the MSM, but is sometimes.... .which is more than the anti crowd do as they expect us to take it on trust that things will get no worse in the Union, despite link evidence to the contrary........ and here is the next one from me... http://derekbateman1.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/estates-of-the-nation/ This is what I call love-bombing..... .http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/topic-of-the-week-england-and-independence.23507786 (To be fair I don't know if it is all available to anyone but me, the Herald viewing restrictions are a monumental pain)....but if not...happy to C&P it for anyone interested.

A NO vote will bring us more and more of this austerity, for those of us with no clout , whichever Political Party is in power. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/09/zero-hours-contracts-great-depression WWII veteran Harry Smith http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-simon-duffy/austerity-cuts_b_4802793.html?utm_hp_ref=tw&just_reloaded=1 http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-02-14/40-cut-in-public-sector-jobs-as-nhs-and-schools-protected/ http://samedifference1.com/2014/02/20/rnib-threatens-dwp-with-court-action-for-not-catering-for-vi-people/ http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/jack-monroe-poverty-can-happen-to-anyone?CMP=twt_gu http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/15/rachel-reeves-labour-benefit-recipients http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/18/welfare-state-jobs-inquiry-culture-fear http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision http://sallysjourney.typepad.com/sallys_journey/2014/02/dear-mr-cameron-id-like-to-talk-to-you-about-your-moral-mission.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/20/benefit-sanctions-food-banks-clegg_n_4822314.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim And more of this for folk who do have clout......the rich, big businesses, London and politicians http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/corporate-britain-corrupt-lobbying-revolving-door http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-47bn-corporation-tax-lost-through-evasion-and-avoidance-as-royal-mail-is-sold-for-650m-less-than-it-is-worth-8874873.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530171/David-Cameron-fire-cost-running-House-Lords-leaps-42m.html http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/12/mps-expenses-rise-record-high http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/english-think-tank-uk-government-promoted-london-recovery-at-the-expense-of.23444016 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south Is it so inconceivable that an Independent Scotland could do better for Scotland and the Scots by spending Scotland's money on policies and projects to benefit us. How can anyone say we will be Better Together in a Union which, over the past thirty five or so years, has, and will for the foreseeable future, subject our society to policies which increase poverty and inequality, when, with the confidence and will, we would be Better together working for ourselves in an Independent Scotland.

Starchief, Cameron is taking the proverbial.....Labour was getting the economy back on track, albeit slowly..but it was certainly a useful blame-game cover for implementing Tory policies under the guise of essential austerity required the rolling back of the welfare state http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html, PS,,,,,never have said there is no moral obligation on Scotland to take its fair share of debt........but there is no legal obligation if Scotland is a new state......and in that case, you can't renege on a debt you had no hand in borrowing. And moral obligations work both ways...if Scotland has a moral obligation to pay a share of what will be rUK's debt..then they have a moral obligation to share assets. I think that is self-evident.

http://reidfoundation.org/portfolio/issues-surrounding-the-sharing-of-uk-debt-post-independence/ The Jimmy Reid Foundation has an interesting paper on the National Debt and the methods by which it could be shared on Independence, which was written by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert. It looks at, and explains, their reasoning behind various scenarios/conclusions in almost accessible terminology. I was particularly interested in the Quantitative Easing issue, but it also looks at the relative positions of Scotland and the UK, if Scotland had been Independent since 1980,but assuming that, apart from Debt interest, Scotland was still spending at the levels they were allocated within the UK accounts. I have never really thought about quantitative easing.....I suppose I always thought of it as printing more money and just easing it out into the economy to be spent and provide a boost. How thick is that, when it turns out that isn't how it works at all. The brand spanking new notes are created on a computer somewhere, and are used to buy back UK gilts (Public Sector Debt). In theory, that should add money to the system, via the banks having more cash and charging lower interest rates to attract borrowers. (at least I think that's what it means) From there it appears to work a bit like borrowing from yourself to buy a property for investment...the deeds of the property go into a safe deposit box somewhere handy.. you pay interest on the amount you borrowed from yourself to pay for it..and the deeds are there to be sold on once the property market improves. Anyway up to 2013, there has been £375 billion spent on buying back about 31.5% of total UK Public Sector Debt, certificates for which are sitting in a Treasury Drawer somewhere, waiting for a sustainable economic upturn to sell them back on the open market, thus taking money out of the system and by reducing supply, theoretically increase demand, and thus interest rates. And by that stage, the danger of inflation should be over.(again I think that's what it means). Anyhow,that is all by the by...bar QE is meant to be a temporary fix to a temporary problem. However, the Cuthberts suspect, going by the adverse market reaction to the mutterings made by the FED about reversing QE in the US, that it is quite possible, to avoid that effect on the UK economic recovery, the Treasury will simply cancel the hoarded Debt certificates....much as they did with the £9 billion in gilts they acquired from the PO pension scheme in 2012...and there is where problems lie re debt apportionment. The idea of bond cancelling is something being said by others in economic blogs, so isn't just an idea out of some Cuthbert left field. So, if Scotland, tomorrow, agreed to take on a percentage of the UK headline debt, including that £375 billion, there is then nothing to stop rUK cancelling that £375 billion of debt at a stroke the next day, and wiping it off their own debt figures, while Scotland ends up paying a disproportionate amount. The independent Scotland from 1980 scenario is interesting. It assumes that Scotland has taken its population proportionate share of UK debt at that stage, and is paying the interest on that share, and also that Scottish spending and revenue levels remain the same as they have been as part of the UK with the addition of a geographical share of oil revenues. That shows that by 1982, Scotland would have had a fiscal surplus, which they could have invested to earn a return. Under three different assumptions about levels of interest rates, it shows that by 2011, it would have had a sovereign wealth fund of anywhere between £50 billion and £148 billion...and no appreciable Public Sector Debt....and that is using UK expenditure figures, which include a population share of Defence spending and Foreign Affairs, and non-identifiable expenditure like the cost of running and maintaining UK Government departments and the UK Parliament itself. The Cuthberts did the same for rUK....as a mirror image. They have left in the Scottish input to the Treasury in taxation and the expenditure Scotland theoretically received in return...but removed the input from oil. They conclude that Scotland would have been in surplus every year until 2009 and rUK would have been in deficit every year bar 1999 and 2000. However, given that the IMF had to be called in in the 1970s, when UK net public borrowing figures were at the level of 7% of GDP, even with the anticipation of future oil revenues the 7.7 % of GDP figure of 1984, without oil revenues, would have had them heading into an equivalent economic crisis. The UK used the oil reserves to prop up a system whereby the South East of England grew disproportionately and most other parts of the Union declined. During the peak years of oil production, around 150,000 people left Scotland to go south or overseas. In their introduction, the Cuthberts say the issues surrounding debt, when fully examined, in fact represent strong additional arguments in favour of, rather than against, independence. So the benefits of the Union are an annual proportionate share in interest on a debt we'd not have had if it weren't for the Union, Trident, illegal and pointless wars and (failing) policies enacted in an attempt to ameliorate decades of irresponsible stewardship of the UK economy by successive Westminster governments culminating, under the Coalition, with trashing the easy marks and enriching the already wealthy. Just think...if we had been independent from 1980 on, we'd still have had the spending levels we had as part of the UK, bar the levels of debt interest, but used them to make different choices as to what we did with it,and then maybe less of our population might have left our shores.....and we'd have minimal national debt and a sovereign wealth fund today. It's not too late to change the future for Scotland...but I feel it is too late to change the ingrained Union mindset in Westminster...the same mindset which promised jam tomorrow in 1979...and didn't deliver..the same Union mindset in which political parties can come together to set out pre-negotiation red lines to try and scare us away from a YES vote..but can only set up commissions...again.....to talk about further devolution...and even if they each come up with a separate option before September....they can guarantee nothing re implementation, as it is up to Westminster as a whole, both the Commons and the unelected Lords. to discuss the bill, in which it can amend, insert and remove clauses......so what we end up with could be a shadow of what was originally offered..as happened with the Scotland Act 2012. To me, it is a no-brainer....take the plunge now, while we still have the life-jacket of some oil income to provide a cushion in the early days and an oil fund once we have sorted ourselves out and have the economy stabilised.......or wait until Westminster has wasted the oil money on Trident, wars, bloated Government departments and the other trappings of Government and tax hand-outs for those that don't need them....and privatised much of the Welfare state, (which has never actually appeared to save us anything much and give acceptable results over the piece), including, as they have often hinted, Scottish Water and the NHS to bring them into line with the rest of the UK, annually cut back on the Scottish Block Grant levels, even as far as removing the Barnett Formula altogether.....and then we will have to start anew with less income and an even more impoverished country......or accept that we are North Britain and just another region, wholly owned and controlled by the Union and ignorable with impunity..

I'm only going to respond to bits of this so won't quote the whole lot...and will try and make it obvious when I am referring to something I don't quote I agree, DD....,but the thing is that arguing on forums is not aimed at changing fixed opinions..but offering information to the undecideds. I don't expect to change Charles' mind and he doesn't expect to change mine. It is unfortunate that most of the posts on here are from those with polarised views doing tit for tat...and also unfortunate that, for the benefit of the undecided, it is very hard to tease out figures from official publications.....and figures and information from either side in reports and articles are assumed to be biased in their interpretation by the other side,. (You will see that tendency by the reactions to the next post I am going to make.) I do however think that in a constituency in which the majority does not want the status quo to continue, I feel that there is some responsibilty on the part of Westminster political parties to try to win the referendum by coming together and telling those people what would become better with our governance if we vote NO as opposed to doing what they have been doing to date, which has been creating uncertainty, as they did in 1979....even to using some of the same points as the Unionists did then. They did manage to put up a united front over the No to a Currency Union, though, while refusing to offer any positives otherwise, bar that austerity is positively going to continue for at least another Government term, as will the attacks on the Welfare State. I really do think if they win a NO vote on the back of the campaign they have been running to date, that the union will have been broken beyond repair. on 19th September.....it would just remain to be seen as to how long it would take it to die. Re the EU and the currency points, as someone who would prefer not to be in the EU or in a currency union with the rUK, I can only say that you pays your money and you makes your choice. All life is uncertainty, but precedence and law give pointers..which, as in everything else in this debate, is then down to interpreting it in a way which chimes with your own opinion. There is no more uncertainty with independence than with continuing in the Union given the way the world works nowadays, I find it rather surprising that Westminster assumes that they, and only they will be the UK successor/continuing state, and Scotland will be a new one....yet also assumes for debt purposes alone, that Scotland will be a successor state..and part of the problem with this debate is Westminster trying to square that circle to their own benefit. If there is single continuing/successor state, as Westminster claims rUK will be, and Scotland is a new state as they sometimes say when it comes to EU membership etc....then all the debt belongs to the rUK as do all the fixed assets in rUK and all the UK removable assets, international Treaties etc...and Scotland can walk away free and clear like a new born babe. If both are successor states as Scotland believes, then I am quite sure Scotland will have no problem letting the rUK be the state which ponces about on the world stage, but both the debt and the assets (or the monetary equivalent of them) are up for negotiation. I suspect that, if there is a yes vote, negotiations will take place.and nothing will be off the table, as at that stage pragmatism will prevail. I do find it rather amusing, though, when I read all those comments after articles in the UK media in which people outside of Scotland believe they will get a tax cut when the subsidy to Scotland is removed from the rUK accounts, along with their input to the Treasury, and their trading surplus input to reduce the rUK's balance of payments deficit. Regarding the uncertainty of the position re the EU it would be very easy to get some more definitive information, however the EU won't provide it unless Westminster asks for it.and they so far refuse to do so...so the uncertainty is solely of Westminster's making and is being used with regular monotony to scare the undecided electorate. Why are you so sure that rUK will not also have to renegotiate their membership of the EU, given they are not the UK which joined the EU, and the fact that their current rebate is a bone of contention among many EU members? That fact and given the population reduction, and the reduction in rUK GNI and VAT which would come with an Independent Scottish state, would perhaps signal lower payments by rUK, and no, or less of a rebate, as input to the EU is a size of the economy thing. For that reason alone, I don't think that either rUK or Scotland will get any share of any current UK two-thirds rebate......but will be obliged to negotiate for themselves in the new situation, though Scotland would probably do better re CAP grants than it does in the Union and will have more input into the CFP than they do now. I suspect, if Cameron thinks he can negotiate upwards any UK rebate or alterations in membership requirements from the EU before a EU referendum, if we stay in the Union, he is inhabiting cloud cuckoo land. I can't see why it would be more of a choker to people who vote YES on the strength of Scotland remaining within the EU, when there is always the alternative of EFTA, (which I'd personally prefer), when staying in the Union means, regardless of how Scotland votes, (and that is more likely to be to stay in the EU than not) there is more chance of ending up being outside the EU if the promised UK referendum happens in 2017. I think there should be a referendum on the EU and on currency in an Independent Scotland...and I'm sure at some stage there will be a political party which will include that in their manifesto..but it seems sensible to start off embracing the relatively familiar, judge the results once they are known and change tack then if necessary, on the assumption that Scotland will not become the world pariah as painted by Westminster. Your last point is well made, but is not looking at it from the view that if there is going to be a divorce, then it is better to make it as amicable as possible, for both sides in the situation, as they are going to have to live next door to each other and be members of the same clubs. If I was one of the parties in the divorce, and I had been told before I had even gotten round to packing up and leaving, that I wasn't going to get my share out of that joint bank account, into which I had been pumping the money I earned throughout the marriage and he had been spending on his own pursuits as if I had never contributed to it ..but I was still expected to help him pay for the jag and the second home that were in his name only and he was taking them with him as well....you really wouldn't want to hear my response. And if he was also contacting previously joint friends and relations, and the memberships of the clubs to which we belonged, trying to turn them against me in an effort to make life much more difficult for me than it needed to be, simply because he feels emasculated by my trying to take control of my life, and because of the loss of my income which he spends to the last penny on boy's toys and paying the interest on loans he has taken out to buy boy's toys, then I'd feel justified in drastically increasing the shoutie volume and swearie words directed towards him.....along with more than a few kicks up the bum. I would like to see the same as you state in your last paragraph, but with the addition of the same requirements laid on the No campaign...because neither side is preaching to the polarised, but to those who can be converted......and, with the best will in the world...they are all those, and are the majority of Scots, who want, or would be content with devo-max. There are no more who want the status quo to continue than want Independence as a fundamental irreversible belief....and both sides ignore that in-between demography at their peril, because they are the ones who will decide...not me and the other come-what-may pro-independence supporters or Charles and those who are resolutely anti-independence......but those who wanted, or could have happily lived with, devo-max.....and it is as incumbent on the No campaign to convince those people that the lack of a Devo-max option on the ballot paper does not leave them with their only possibility for the change they want being the only change on offer..which is independence. Going to be an interesting and probably blood-pressure raising few months.

It's not just Salmond who thinks Westminster is bullying! http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/02/18/as-scotland-mulls-independence-a-stupid-london-plays-it-dirty/ A quote from the above link. Instead of letting the Scottish voters make a reasoned and unpressured decision, the London establishment has increasingly been playing it dirty. As the Irish economics commentator David McWilliams has pointed out, London’s “bully-boy” tactics have been so clumsy that they may backfire.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/scottish-referendum-independent-scaremongering-eu The last paragraph sums it up.......There are seven months to go to the referendum. Let's quit the scaremongering, and accept one thing: if the Scots democratically choose independence, then Brussels, London, and all global institutions will accept this and work to make it happen. Not for Scotland's sake, but for their own. No one is going to throw us out. And specially for Charles because he likes unrepresentative polls.....(btw I'm not going to spin anything from it) Channel 4 online survey.....https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1bjntrrT_1zy4eEdG8FNAPJB_-usej61UgerYAD3t-gc/viewanalytics Are you eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum? Yes 10695 86% No 1677 14% Are you in favour of Scottish independence? Yes 10235 83% No 2137 17% Do you think an independent Scotland should be allowed to keep the sterling as currency? Yes 10155 82% No 2217 18% Do you think an independent Scotland should be allowed to join the EU? Yes 11107 90% No 1265 10% Edited to add a link rather than make a new post...http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/17/enter-the-union/ Again, the last paragraph says it all.......The union is not a partnership. It is a highly centralised state that only begrudgingly cedes power. The calculated dismissal of an independent Scotland as a partner in a currency union makes the true nature of the relationship clear. The union has joined the debate to show us that, however Scotland votes, punitive measures will be taken. The only questions is whether they’re taken against a demoralised region or a confident young sovereign state in the making.

I logged into my paypal, clicked on send money and put in the email address provided....and the amount......sent it as to friend/family so I bear the transaction cost. at the end of the continue/pay bit, you get to the email notification to go to the punter and I put Flag donation from Oddquine on that. And now my fingers are crossed that I did it right! (works when I send money to USA)

£20.00 sent .

Blliddy heck, if I'm younger generation, Charles must be absolutely ancient!

it means........rest of UK or rump UK...or remainder of UK...as in what is left when Scotland goes. We did heed Mark Carney......thought he was very professional and factual. Shame his "bosses" can't take a leaf from his book!

Personally, I'm not bothered how we deal with the currency...I'd be happy enough to use sterling informally in the short term until we can make up our minds. That is no different in fact than the position we are in currently, really. We are subjected to UK monetary policy, geared to London and the South of England, with no input from Scotland to the decision making, and little ability to ameliorate the effects on the Scottish economy. Using Sterling informally would leave us in the same position as we are now re decision making.....but we would have the full panoply of fiscal tools to counteract the effect of a London-centric monetary policy. According to Mark Carney, what a currency union would do......."…it eliminates the transactions costs associated with using, and switching between, different currencies…Sharing a currency can promote investment by reducing uncertainty about currency movements and giving businesses access to deeper, more liquid financial markets… Sharing a currency can also help to increase the mobility of labour and capital, raise trade in goods and services, and improve the flow of technology and ideas." As Scotland is rUk's second biggest trading partner, transaction costs would likely be around £500 million, and it is possible that the extra costs, particularly with smaller businesses, would threaten some of the 700,000 jobs related to that trade. According to the ONS...UK Trade is a major component of two other key economic statistics – UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the UK Balance of Payments. This means that there is a threefold potential for UK Trade statistics to inform the Government’s view of the UK economy, as well as the views of others, such as economists, City analysts, academics, the media, and international organisations. So a reduction in both of those statistics would affect the statistics produced using them...and that could affect things like the credit rating, position in league tables etc. While I'm not saying for a second that it will produce a much more enormous hole than a £1.4 trillion National Debt has already drilled, it could affect the level of interest paid on the annual borrrowing, which is currently at a level which is continuing to add to that debt and has no chance of not being required by 2016, as Osborne has admitted. The UK , in 2012, had a Balance of Payments deficit of £59.2 billion, and that was with Scotland, without Scotland, that would have been around £99 billion. Whisky alone, according to Cameron, adds £135 to the UK balance of payments credit side every second..and the rUK GDP would be reduced by the 9.9% of Scotland's input, not only affecting statistics, but also the income available to service the debt and support the spending. I think the main problem, apart from politicking, with Westminster's attitude is that any negotiations would not be the rUK dictating what was going to happen, but a joint agreement to satisfy both sides.....and Westminster doesn't like not being in charge of everything. If Westminster thinks it can just impose monetary and fiscal parameters on Scotland and not have to accept the equivalent themselves, then they are as daft as they so often appear. Today, of course, Westminster is not just foot-stamping and pouting.....it is actually throwing its toys out of the pram.....A REFERENDUM Yes vote would not guarantee Scottish independence and the 'status quo' will be maintained if talks do not go smoothly, a senior ­Coalition source has warned.......pretty much saying that if the Scottish negotiating team doesn't agree with what Westminster says is going to happen, then even if we vote YES in appreciable numbers...we ain't getting Independence, because they won't let us! Don't see how they can stop us, myself.....all we would need to do is stop trying to be reasonable and walk away with nothing but the clothes we stand up in ....a bit like someone reaching the end of his/her tether with an abusive spouse..and start again..with no debt....no good neighbour and no friends, because the spouse has turned everybody against us....but with a roof under which to shelter, and an income to pay their way. And the Westminster government, which invades to impose democracy in other countries will be shown up for the arrogant, terminally thick, two-faced barstewards they are. http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-does-not-mean-yes.23438016 Beats me when folk on the "NO" spectrum bleat about an Alex Salmond dictatorship after Independence..when the UK is already governed by a dictatorship of the Westminster plutocracy, and has been for decades. At least Alex Salmond is more likely to protect his position by undertaking policies which will get him regularly elected in Scotland. No Unionist Scottish MPs in Westminster care what Scotland would like..and even if they did, there is bugger all they can do about it.

Just compare the rantings of Osborne and the other Unionist politicians with a thoughtful article like this. http://www.cmonscotland.org/#!Debt/c112t/39C2D4C6-1629-4E14-8EF9-A69EA307F7E0