HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...

The last North British News EVER

ALAN BISSETT SAID THIS IN NOVEMBER 2013

Pretty neat, don't you think, except for the last few words. 

We HAD a chance to change this.

WELL DONE TO...

Congratulations to Lidl for announcing that they will pay the Living Wage as of next month.

I wish I could say that it had swayed me to transfer my business to them, but as I already do a lot of my shopping there, I can't say it has.

Lidl impress me as a business and as a store.

During the referendum campaign, I was insulted by one of the staff in my local Lidl, who ridiculed the YES sweat shirt I was wearing, and then insisted on telling me, in front of a queue of customers, that prices would double in an independent Scotland. I asked him if that was official Lidl policy. He mumbled no, and as he saw the black look on my face, he started to look a bit worried...

I walked from the shop absolutely furious, but without saying or doing anything. When I got home I was still so angry that I wrote to Lidl Customer Services, telling them of the incident (without mentioning the lad's name) and asking if it was going to be their policy to double prices in an independent country. I pointed out that I didn't seriously believe it was, and even if it had been it wouldn't have swayed my decision, but there were other customers who had heard the exchange.

I received, almost immediately, a fulsome apology, explaining that they had no such policy, that they would, depending on economic circumstances, adjust their prices up or down or leave them the same in the event of independence. They also said that they would arrange for staff to be instructed to remain completely neutral in front of customers in future. They didn't ask for the guys name, and I wouldn't have given it to them if they had. I see no point in getting a guy disciplined or even sacked for a stupid mistake.

I was seriously impressed with the way that the management team dealt with the situation, and I carried on shopping in the store. 

I just have one request of Lidl now. please introduce a contactless payment system as soon as you can. My bank gives me 5% cash back on the first hundred pounds spent using this type of payment every month. That's £60 a year!!!

Aldi has the technology, as does Morrisons. You need to catch up.

Put politicians on minimum wage and you'll
see how quickly things will change

It's high time that every company paid the living wage and that the living wage was, indeed, a wage you could live on. Not just here but as the illustration shows, in France too!

Indyref2: The Four Way Split

BY MUNGUIN

In light of all the comments and discussions recently regarding a rerunning of the Independence Referendum and whether this should be included in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto, Munguin thought it would be interesting to air his thoughts on how most boxes could be ticked for supporters of both “yes” and “no” and how this could be included in the SNP manifesto and be almost impossible for the Westminster Government to withhold its approval.

Instead of just re-running the simple Yes/No vote. Why not restructure it as a Redefinition of Scotland’s Place in (or out of) the UK, and to that end have a multiple choice four way split where people are asked to choose between the following four options:

1.      Full Independence

2.      Devo Max

3.      The Status Quo

4.      Return to direct London Rule

Full Independence: This speaks for itself, essentially what we would have got had “yes” succeeded last September.

Devo Max: This time the term would be pre-defined by the Scottish Government in advance of the vote, and not some woolly vow cobbled together in desperation at the eleventh hour, where nobody knew what it meant and it was easy for tricky politicians to swindle us out of after the fact. As a definition, Munguin would suggest full fiscal autonomy and control of everything except Foreign Affairs and Defence.

The Status Quo: That’s simply what it says. Things stay as they are now.

Return to Direct London Rule: We abolish the Scottish Parliament and return its powers to Westminster and a beefed up Scotland/Scottish Office reporting to Westminster.

In order to make things totally fair we could run the referendum on a PR basis similar to the way London Mayors are elected, where everyone ranks their choices for a first round of voting. If no candidate receives over 50% at the first round, then the two with the least support are eliminated and their second choices re-apportioned until one of the remaining candidates gets over 50%.

Munguin doesn’t imagine the above scenario will appeal to everyone but it’s a fair compromise, allowing a choice of all four possible outcomes. It could easily be included in the SNP manifesto and it would be hard for the Westminster Government to say no to as it’s not a rerun of the first independence referendum but a redefinition of Scotland’s future.

In view of the fact that even on the “Yes” side of this debate there is division on the ‘ifs and whens’ of running a second referendum, it might be the best compromise possible.

Munguin personally does not want to wait till yes is guaranteed to win, as seems to be the view of Lallands Peat Worrier.

When is that going to be? When “yes” is at 75% in the polls?

It is a perfectly understandable view that running a second referendum and losing it could spell the death knell of the whole independence movement.

But there is attraction for  Scot Goes Pop’s  proposals that we strike while the iron is hot, and the SNP is on a roll, and go for the second referendum sooner rather than later.

Stalling for a protracted period of time might squander the momentum we have, and who is to say the SNP will continue to form majority administrations at Holyrood given that the system is stacked against that outcome?

Clearly in the above scenario the Devo Max option is probably the most likely to triumph. And naturally that is not to the taste of those who want independence. But it is Devo Max on Scotland’s terms and it can be viewed as another step on the road to independence.

Once Scotland has control of almost everything, and has proved that it can run efficient democratic  government for all its people, not just the few,  we could look at the possibilities of  referenda  on individual matters…for example to make Scotland nuclear free,  or to not send Scottish troops to fight in wars unsanctioned by the UN.

Eventually in the fullness of time, it would seem natural for there to be another referendum in which people would be given the opportunity to cede from the union altogether and take responsibility for foreign affairs and defence.

Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.

RAMBLINGS ON WHAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT... PART 1

So... We did not badly last night, did we?

I was far too pessimistic, as ever. I just couldn't believe that it was even possible for us to get over 50 seats. I couldn't conceive that Labour, which had ruled Scotland since forever, would melt even more quickly than the Tories did after Thatcher laid waste to the country.

But damned hard work from the SNP, from Nicola Sturgeon, who never stopped, to the candidates, who were out day and night, tweeting and meeting, to folk going round chapping doors, putting leaflets through letter boxes, putting posters up in windows and gardens...and yes, Munguin, blogging, secured an unimaginable (at least to me) victory.

And now the work starts.

First let's kill dead the Labour narrative that if Scotland had only just voted Labour as usual, like it's supposed to do, we would have had a Labour government. 

We wouldn't. 

If every single seat in Scotland had sent a Labour MP to Westminster, we would still have had a Tory government. 

Currently the Tories have 325 seats; Labour 229. If the 58 seats in Scotland which did not vote Labour had done so, they would have had 287 seats and the Tories would have had 324. (Check my arithmetic. I only had about an hour's fitful sleep.)

Because the English voted Tory, like the English almost invariably do, we have a Tory government.

So leaving that behind, what went right for the SNP was that they worked hard for sure, but they also had a positive message about Scotland and about the future. And that wasn't anything to do with independence. No matter what Jim and Kez were saying.

It was about getting us what we were promised.

Gordon Brown, in partnership with David Cameron, and with Miliband and Clegg in tow, made us promises in September when they thought we were going to vote for independence. Enough of us bought these promises at face value, for Gordon to be able to claim to have saved the union, just like he'd saved the bankers, and the world, and just about the whole of civilisation, only 5 years earlier.

But the next day the promises started to fall apart. Cameron had pulled off a coup and got Gordon to sell us something that wasn't quite what it seemed.

On the day after we voted NO, thanks to promises of the best devolution in the universe, Cameron, like the sneaky little Eton boy he is, put in terms and conditions that Labour would NEVER have agreed to. 

English Votes for English Laws (EVEL), which he insisted must be a part of any improved devolution for Scotland, would mean that, effectively, Labour would never be the government of England again. Even if it won a general election depending on seats form Scotland and Wales, it would never control votes on English matters. 

In fact, it wouldn't be worth voting Labour in England, because the Tories would control everything that they proposed on English matters. And that is a large chunk of the Westminster timetable, comprising a vast spend. Why would Washington, Berlin, Paris or Beijing be interested in a government that didn't control a vast part of its territory and its laws?

Anyway, what did Gordon do about all this deceit? He fumed a little, probably smashed a few Nokias off the wall, then took off on his international jet setting and left us to stew, picking up his salary whilst being an ex-politician.

Seeing that the Clunking Fist and of course, his deadly enemy Alistair Darling, had nothing to say about the duplicity, Cameron reckoned a green light had been shown and carried on going back on much of what Brown had promised on his behalf.

[It's interesting that the Prime Minister of "our" United Kingdom, had been obliged to get Brown to deliver his promises because of his own unpopularity in Scotland. Nor was he able to send his deputy, or his Secretary of State. In fact he couldnt even ask the leader of the opposition. They were all seen as too unpopular.]

The Smith Commission was duly set up. But now Labour didn't want to devolve much to Scotland, because whatever was devolved to Scotland would be effectively devolved to England, and outwith their control.

Then when a very watered down Smith Commission reported, it reported not to the people of Scotland, but to a largely English Tory and Liberal Cabinet, which pulled it to pieces.

Some of what had been promised was simply not allowed because it offended Iain Duncan Smith or Theresa May; some of it turned out to be illegal anyway, like the setting in stone of the Edinburgh parliament.

No one stood up for Scotland except the SNP and the Greens. But in London we had no power. Six MPs isn't exactly a formidable block.

So we did something about that.

To be continued....

CONGRATULATIONS TO NICOLA STURGEON AND STEWART HOSIE

The SNP Conference this year might have been a huge celebration of a Yes vote, or it might have been a gathering of a few down and despondent souls, who having booked their hotel rooms early, felt they had to turn up.

It is neither of these things. Instead it's a great big celebration of our future. 

The Perth Concert Hall, an excellent venue with, a friend who has played there tells me, excellent acoustics, was packed to the rafters with enthusiastic members old and new, and old and young, and the SNP party management were forewarning members that there wasn't an empty seat in the house, and begging them to please not turn up on spec! 

(It's an interesting side note from the BBC, that the conference is set to give the Perth economy a boost of £1.75 million over the weekend.)

So the SNP is a party renewed by not winning the referendum. As we all know, on the day of the referendum the membership was around 25,000. Now, around 8 weeks later it stands at 84,000...and it's still growing!

Alex Salmond has stood down...something that some people agreed with and others did not. And today the SNP has a new leader, Nicola Sturgeon,who stood unopposed, and a deputy leader, Stewart Hosie, who, stood against two first rate colleagues, Keith Brown and Angela Constance, for the post.

Munguin's Republic congratulates them both and wishes them every success in taking the party, and the country, forward.

Both have made it clear that they accept that the referendum was lost. The Scottish people spoke, and what they said was that they wished, by a majority of 55% to 45%, to remain part of the UK. 

Having accepted that, it has to be recognised that that vote was made days after senior Westminster politicians offered a form of devo max, or as an ex prime minister (ex-politician) described it, as near federalism as is possible in a state where one country (England) comprises 85% of the population. 

Given that in the early days of the referendum campaign, before the UK prime minister ruled out a third option, Devo Max was what the polls showed as runaway favourite option, it isn't unreasonable to assume that this promise, or "vow" as the Record called it, held some sway.

Both new leaders have said that they intend to hold the UK to the promises it made in and around that vow, and surely no one, not even independence's fiercest critics, could possibly call that anything but completely reasonable.

Of course that means that, bowing out with his speech later today will be our current First Minister, Alex Salmond. 

Love him or hate him; agree with independence or not, any serious thinking person would say that he was a giant of a politician. His Scottish or British opponents pale by comparison. I believe that the reason that the prime minister of the UK wouldn't debate with him on the referendum was that he believed that he would surely have lost, as would Miliband or Clegg, neither of whom seemed in a rush to put themselves forward.

Alex Salmond has seen off four Labour leaders, the official opposition, not to mention two Liberal leaders and one Tory (Nicol Stephen/Tavish Scott and Annabel Goldie). 

He had to retire. He'd run out of wall space.

Jack McConnell stood down after losing the election in 2007.

Wendy Alexander followed him but stood down after only 9 months in the job, after allegations of accepting foreign donations to her leadership campaign and some alleged back stabbing at the London head office by her brother, Douglas.

Iain Gray followed, lasting 3 years as leader, until his party was defeated heavily by the SNP in the 2011 general election. 

Finally Alex outlasted, although only just, Johann Lamont, who came to power on Iain's resignation. Ironically, just a few weeks before her resignation Ms Lamont is reported to have forecast that Mr Salmond would have to resign on defeat in the referendum, but that she would "still be here working for Scotland". 

However, that's not quite the way it worked out and in the end it was Johann's detractor, Jackie Baillie, who had the honour of making a complete idiot of herself in Alex's final FMQ, as James points out here with his customary panache.

Alex Salmond changed the SNP. And he changed Scotland. 

He persuaded many people who were 'UK' through and through, that Scotland could be an independent country, and he did so by running a sound and efficient government on an ever decreasing budget. 

In the end, surely that is what we elected politicians to do for us. And surely there isn't higher praise for a retiring First Minister, than that he did just that, and indeed was criticised by his opponents for doing it, (see above) which kinda showed just how poor THEY were, eh George, you nobleness?!!

So thank you Alex for 7 years of sound government; seven years of proving to Scottish people that not only we can do it, but that we can do it better, more fairly, with compassion and some foresight. 

Thanks for helping people that the UK government cast adrift, the poor, the sick. 

Thanks for leading us to a point where we nearly made it. 

Thanks for bringing us closer to independence than we have been in 300 years. 

Thanks for helping to relight an interest in politics.

Thanks for actually doing the job you were paid to do.

Munguin wishes you good luck in whatever you decide to do in the future.

WELL, WOULDN'T THAT SERVE THEM RIGHT?

THE MESSAGE FOR THE PRIVILEGED FROM THE VERY PRIVILEGED OF ETON

David Cameron has called upon Scots to stay in UK while warning that there is still difficult work ahead when it comes to repairing the economy.

He says cutting immigration, cutting the welfare bill, protecting the economy and raising school standards are also priorities in 2014.

The Eton toff prime minister said 2014 was an historic year because of the vote on Scottish independence, which could "change our country forever".

"Our family of nations is at its best when we work together with shared interest and common purpose," he said. "This year, let the message go out from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to everyone in Scotland … we want you to stay – and together we can build an even stronger United Kingdom for our children and grandchildren."

What tosh. What utter complete tosh!

We have a very limited number of shared interests. And the problems which England faces, are not necessarily the same problems faced by the Celtic nations in the union.

I don’t think anyone would deny that immigration is a problem in parts of England. And with Ukip snipping at his ankles Cameron must be seen to be tough on foreigners and tough on the causes of foreigners, hence the rushed legislation regarding the Bulgarians and Romanians who gain full EU rights today. But not explaining Lynton Crosby or the governor of the Bank of England! Australian and Canadian in turn.

Scotland, on the other hand, has a very different problem. Years of failing to educate people for the jobs market of the 21^st century together with an aging population, has left us with an acute shortage of young people with relevant skills. Both Labour and SNP governments in Edinburgh had been dealing with this by encouraging people to settle in Scotland after university for a period of at least two years, so that Scotland could get the benefit of the skills they had developed and to help to redress the imbalance of young and old. It is a system similar to that run by the Republic of Ireland.

Teresa May, however, cared not much for our problems and banned the scheme, although there should have been no need for it to happen. The beneficiaries all had work visas that were valid only north of the border and National Insurance numbers that were only valid in Scotland. But then, as the Home Office itself was employing illegal immigrants as cleaners we wouldn't expect Tessy to be up to speed with that kind of thing.

More welfare cuts are on the agenda. Well, Osborne said that we couldn't afford a welfare state, didn't he? But what the hell they are going to cut without killing off even more of our sick, old and weak, I can't imagine.  

Of course I agree with his desire to raise school standards, but as that is something over which he has responsibility in England alone, his plans there are (thankfully) nothing to do with us.

Cameron emphasised the coalition's determination to stick to austerity and continue "vital work on the deficit".

"It's a New Year – and for Britain there can only be one New Year’s resolution – to stick to the long-term plan that is turning our country around," he said. "When we came to office, our economy was on its knees. Three and a half years later, we are turning a corner." 

I wish I knew which corner it was!

"The plan is working. That's why this year, 2014, we are not just going to stick to the plan – we are going to redouble our efforts to deliver every part of it, to benefit the whole country and secure a better future for everyone."

I can’t help but wonder just how much benefit is being felt by the millions of people who are struggling to pay ever increasing rents, electricity, gas and food bills, or now living on the streets because of the Bedroom Tax, or queuing at food banks after work to feed their kids, and just how much better a future he thinks they are looking forward to.

Highlighting the progress made in 2013 as the country returned to growth, he said there remains "difficult work" ahead to protect the economy for the long term and keep mortgage rates low.

Cameron also hinted there would be more help for “hard working families up and down the country who play by the rules” by cutting income taxes and freezing fuel duty".

Oh these hard working families up and down the country...what would politicians do without them?

In the meantime, of course, I'm always delighted to hear Mr Cameron telling us Scots what to do. We need an Eton and Oxford man to do that for us. Heaven only knows what we should do without him.

Countdown to the referendum

THE EXCELLENT RESULT THAT IS, OF COURSE, A HUMILIATING DEFEAT

Another letter from Nicola...

Dear Tris
 
Earlier today the Electoral Commission published its report on the referendum question and campaign spending limits.
 
The Scottish Government is accepting the recommendations in full. So - subject to the agreement of Parliament - the question on the ballot paper in 2014 will be: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Yes or No.

It’s a minor tweak to the question we had proposed – and is poles apart from what the No campaign wanted. Alistair Darling wanted a question asking “if you want to remain part of the United Kingdom”. Others pushed the idea of asking about a “separate” Scotland (as the Social Attitudes Survey still does). That’s gone too.
 
We are left with a simple 6-word question, approved by the Electoral Commission, which gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a clear and informed decision on our constitutional future.

Nicola
******
Seems reasonable to me, even if some are calling it a humiliating defeat for Alex Salmond. Doubtless Lamont will repeat that in the fullness of time, when they let her out of the bunker. 

I've never objected to the Electoral Commission giving its opinion on the question or the conduct of the referendum. I think, though, that the actual referendum, the counting, etc, should be overseen by a more neutral body, something international with no axe to grind in either direction...the UN perhaps, sending in observers to do spot checks, as they do in third world countries. 

I'm happy too with the amount of money that can be spent based on the results of the last election. It is far more than the government had proposed; a sum I thought was a little short. It allows the SNP to spend £1.344m: Labour £834,000. The Tories will be allowed £396,000, the Lib Dems £201,000 and the Greens £150,000.

The SNP has the money to spend thanks to two large bequests and thousands of smaller donations. I'm wondering where the other parties will raise their funds, given the parlous state of their finances. From rich Tories in England, I suspect.

I'm pleased too that the Electoral Commission has proposed that, in order that the referendum be fair, electors must know what they are voting for. So the YES campaign must publish details of what they expect  an independent Scotland to look like.

The down side for the UK is that they must say what will happen if there is a YES vote; and what will happen if there is a NO vote. What would our future be like in the UK. In fact why they think we are better together. 

So the end of the vague promises of Jam Tomorrow proposed by both Cameron, and his Scottish lieutenant Ruth. 

Both sides must be honest and serious about their proposals. This may be interesting because Cameron has completely ruled out any pre-negotiation with the Scottish government, while the Scottish government is quite happy to put its cards on the table. So we will have no idea what their position on many issues will be...

Having for some time now badgered the Scottish government about accepting the suggestions of the Electoral Commission, the UK government now needs to do the same thing.

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE FROM THE TAIWAN POINT OF VIEW

This is the take of a news channel in Taiwan on the subject of Scottish Independence. I really like the spelling mistake that makes it even more Scottish "loch" for lock. Funnily enough it seems, for all its origins, to be more accurate about the subject than the BBC ever is.


The animations are superb: I particularly like the Irn Bru Enterprise!


In case anyone missed it in the last post Cynical Highlander pointed out the new Labour For Independence Facebook Page here.


Apparently that means that all the unionist London-based parties now have Facebook pages for independence. We progress.

STOP THE WORLD - SCOTLAND IS ABOUT TO GET ON

Winnie Ewing is now 83 and looking forward to the referendum in 2014 but has  in the wake of Mr Cameron's speech in Edinburgh, warned against empty Tory promises.

She said:


"When I heard David Cameron say last week that if people voted No to independence in the referendum, then he would deliver more powers for Scotland, my mind went back immediately to the scandal of 1979 when Scotland was cheated out of a parliament.


"In February 1979, just days before the devolution referendum, former Conservative Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home told Scots that if they voted against the assembly then on offer, a future Tory Government would deliver a better scheme.  And we know fine what happened. 
“Scotland actually did vote Yes - though not in sufficient numbers because of the infamous 40 per cent rule - but we didn't get a parliament.  Instead, we got Margaret Thatcher - and 18 long years of a Tory government Scotland didn't vote for.

"I was a very good friend of Alec Douglas-Home. I would meet him when we were both MPs, on the Terrace of the House of Commons in the morning, where we would both draft our speeches to be made later in the day. We would often exchange jokes that we would include in Burns Supper speeches. 

“It was on one of these informal occasions that he once said to me: 'Winnie, I am a nationalist in my heart but not my head'. I remember that I replied to him quoting Burns: 'The herts aye the pert that aye maks us richt or wrang'. So we got on very well. And, therefore, I am sure that he himself was sincere at the time when he made this promise to Scotland, to deliver a better Bill. But of course the promise was never fulfilled by the Tories, and unfortunately Alec's name will forever be associated with this breach of faith by his party.
"So let's not have a repeat of history, and not be gulled by empty promises from David Cameron.


"When Alex Salmond comes forward with the referendum in autumn 2014, grab with both hands the opportunity for Scotland to become an equal and independent nation.  Alec Douglas-Home offered Scotland "jam tomorrow" in 1979 - and we got 18 wasted years.


"Scotland has another opportunity to take a step forward - and I'd advise the people of Scotland to trust themselves, not Mr Cameron."

UK GOVERNMENT 'S REFERENDUM QUESTION

Would an independent Scotland be financially sound?

every scot SHOULD read this

I've lifted this entire article from Newsnet . I hope they will forgive me. It seemed to good to not be shared. There are nearly 300 comments, many worth reading.

279 COMMENTS

By John Jappy 

As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.

However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners.  This was, of course, before the oil boom.

I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed nationalistic tendencies north of the border, which at that time were very weak.  I took the decision to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time.  However, the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.

In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour started to appear.  This came unexpectedly on 13 January 1997 when, in reply to a series of questions put by SNP Leader in the Commons, Alex Salmond MP to the then Tory government, Treasury Minister William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979.  Statistically this works out at £5,400 for every Scot. 

There were no attempts to refute these figures, which caused much embarrassment to the Tory Government of the day.  However, the facts were quickly covered up by the Unionist controlled media.

Then a year later with a Labour government now in power came a further bombshell.  Following further promptings by the SNP, on 21 August 1998, Mr Salmond received a letter from the House of Commons Library (ref. 98/8/56 EP/rjt) which gave a table showing that based on Scotland's GDP per capita, Scotland would occupy 7th place in the world's wealth league.  The UK was at 17th Place.

When the Labour government came to power it announced a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax.  From my detailed knowledge of income tax, I felt that this was the worst possible thing that they could do, as extra monies would be needed following on from the Thatcher era, if they were to fulfil even a fraction of their promises to the electorate.  I came to the conclusion, and I still feel that I was right, that this was done by Labour to prove to the voters of Middle England that they could match the Tories in tax cuts. 

Despite the disclosures of 1998, attempts to deceive the Scottish electorate did not end there.  In March 1999 a Labour Party leaflet appeared which said that if the SNP were to forego Gordon Brown's 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, every family in Scotland would be £250 worse off.  This became the major topic of a TV debate between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar.  Salmond tried to point out to Dewar that he was using the wrong figures.  Watching the debate, I saw Dewar's eyes roll in his head for a few moments but he carried on regardless.

After the debate it took the Labour Party a whole week to admit that they were wrong.  There was in fact a whole chain of errors which the Labour Party tried to blame on "printing mistakes".  However Labour could not deny the fact that in their calculations the UK average figure, which included the high wage earners in the city of London and the booming economy in the South East corner of England (which if I may say so were the result of the selfish policies of Mrs Margaret Thatcher), the figure used was almost double those of the average Scottish wage which at that time stood at £17,000 per year.

Looking closely at the figures and taking the year 2006 as a benchmark, I found that Scotland had an annual relative surplus of £2,8 billion, which works out at £560 for every man, woman and child.  In contrast the UK had a deficit of £34.8 billion.

In November 2006, the U.N. published its annual "Human Development Index".  For the sixth year running, oil rich Norway topped the list, and won on such factors as generous welfare payments, education, high income and a long life expectancy.  Norway wisely created an "oil fund" in 1995 which in 5 years reached a total of £250 billion, so that Norway sailed through the Credit Crunch. 

Who are the real subsidy junkies?

Any lingering doubt that Scotland more than pays its way, or survives on subsidies, was dispelled by a new report published in October 2007.  Whilst the Daily Mail, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a supporter of Scottish nationalism, devoted a whole page to the analysis of the report which was based on tax paid per capita as against spending, Northern Ireland received £4,212 more than it paid in tax, North East England £3,133, Wales £2,990, N.W. England £1732, South West England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185 and lastly Scotland £38.  Only the South East corner produced a small surplus due to tax paid on the high wages within the city of London at this time (pre-Credit Crunch).

Analysis

It is no longer refuted that Scotland exports more per capita than the rest of the UK.  In 1968 when I first discovered that Scotland was in surplus in relation to the rest of the UK, its exports could be broken down into whisky, meat, timber, fish, and of course tourism which is a huge hidden income.  Those exports are supported by a population of only 5,000,000 as against 45,000,000 for the rest of the UK, quite a substantial advantage.

With the oil boom, Scotland's economy was transformed.  Scottish oil has to date funded the Treasury with £300 billion, which has pushed Scotland up from 7th place in World Wealth rankings, had it been in control of its own resources, to 3rd place.

On 29 May 2008, Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling admitted in a back-handed way, that Scotland's oil revenue had been underwriting the UK's failure to balance its books for decades.  There is still 30 years of oil supply left in the North Sea (some 150 million barrels) valued at 2008 prices at 1 trillion dollars.  This excludes the new fields being brought into production in deeper waters west of Shetland.

Meantime whisky exports, which I listed in 1968 as one of Scotland's top assets, have risen at a phenomenal rate.  For example, whisky exports to China amounted to £1 million in 2000/2001, by 2007 they had risen to £70 million.  They have continued to rise, although I don't have more recent statistics.

On the economies of Independence, Scotland has also 18 times its requirements in North Sea gas, which on current trading is more expensive than oil.  The country exports 24% of its surplus electricity south of the Border, with much of the back-up by Hydro Electric unused.

Even if nuclear is excluded, the future looks bright, the new Glen Doe hydro station on Loch Ness which was opened by Scotland's First Minister last year can produce enough electricity for 240,000 homes.  Further projects down the Loch which have now reached the planning stage will increase this to over 1,000,000 homes.  Wind and wave energy will also contribute significantly in the future.

No doubt as the time draws nearer to the referendum on Scottish Independence, politicians will do their best to distort the figures, but the truth is something that never varies.
Before retiring, John Jappy was a senior civil servant in the Inland Revenue, working for the Accountant & Comptroller General's Branch based at Somerset House in London.  His duties involved liaising closely with Treasury officials to prepare accounts and financial information for UK government ministers.

INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM: OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR SAY

I've been tardy (so what's new, I hear you ask), in bringing to people's attention the independence referendum consultation paper launched by the Scottish government. My thanks, as ever, to Cynical Highlander for reminding me.


In a way I'm glad I am late, because James has produced another corker of a set of answers to the questions, to which I can have the pleasure of directing you!


I think it's important that we complete this consultation, regardless of what side of the argument we are on, with the best answers we can give.


I have never made any secret of the fact that I thought that the consultation into our country's future, launched by David Cameron, was no more than 'an exercise in having a consultation', but I think that this one is likely to be a genuine attempt to find the mood of the country, particularly with regard to the "second question". Some have said that the possible inclusion of a 'devo max' option on the ballot paper is a cop out for the SNP. 


But given that opinion poll after opinion poll shows that option to have massive support, it would surely be anti democratic to allow no official discussion of it (on the basis that we want to discover what the people of Scotland actually want, as opposed to what the leaders in Scotland or London prefer for them, or for their careers).


In the Tory referendum of last year about constitutional change in the UK (voting systems), it seemed to me that the choice that most people wanted was left off the ballot paper, possibly exactly because it was the choice that most people would have voted for. (Unscientific assertion there, based on my personal questioning of anyone and everyone I could ask, across a wide range of contacts.) 


I think Cameron banked on the fact that, although many (most?) people  didn't think much of the FPTP system, the only alternative offered was very much more complicated, not much better, likely to produce the same biased results, and had, only months before, been disparaged and ridiculed by its main supporter in the campaign, namely the UK's deputy prime minister. 


It was a "devil you know" situation, as both options would allow some MPs to go on with their "jobs for life" on a minority of votes.

For us Scots this decision is vastly more important than how we elect our representatives. It's our whole entity, our way of life, our future in the world, which could be changed... in my opinion for the better; in the opinion of others for the worse.


I genuinely believe that the government will listen to what we have to say: how we feel about the actual question; whether there should be a second option; the design of the ballot; its clarity, possible bias (or lack thereof); what we feel about the extension of the electorate to include all adults in Scotland (rather than accept the English legal definition of adult), and the timetable allocated to the referendum by the government.


This consultation in and of itself is not the most important decision we will ever make, but it is part of a process that (apart from our very personal decisions) may well be.