THANK GOODNESS WE HAVE NICOLA

\

Oh and for those of you who wonder where George is...

We're not too sure... but then, neither is he.

SO WHAT IS THIS BETTER TOGETHER WE KEEP ON HEARING ABOUT?

Well, it seems that, based on academic research over 30 years of UK economic statistics, the 'Better Together' life that we are promised if we vote to stay with the UK, is more of the same sh*t in a different bucket, or even possibly in the same bucket...

This article was extremely interesting, perhaps all the more so because many of its findings have been pointed out time and again by proponents of independence.

The research was commissioned by the Jimmy Reid Foundation, a left of centre organisation, and carried out by economist Margaret Cuthbert, a respected ex-government economist whose work is quoted regularly by political parties of all colours.

In short it was not commissioned by the SNP or the Yes campaign and it was not carried out by John Swinney, or anyone associated in any way with Scotland's independence campaign.

The main facts appear to be that we have been incredibly badly served over the last 30 years by remaining a member of one of the least productive economies in Europe, inefficiently run from London, for London.

Firstly in distribution of wealth (represented by GDP per capita), the UK has the most uneven performance of any EU country. Even though Italy is always held up as the example of inequality in distribution of wealth (rich booming industrial north and poverty stricken south), the truth is that whilst the difference between richest and poorest areas in Italy is a factor of 2; it in the Uk it is a factor of 4.7. Yes...London has a GDP of 4.7 times that of the poorest part of Britain.  Almost everywhere in Britain suffers in comparison to London which hordes its wealth. The GDP growth in London for example, in the period 2007-2011, was 12%: in Scotland 6%.

Welfare is expensive in the Uk because it is used to compensate the rest of the country for all the economic benefits hoarded by London.

Of all the advanced economies of the EU, the UK is the only one to have seen industrial production decline in the last 30 years. Austria has seen a rise of 99.8%, Norway of 122.5%, Germany 32.7% and Sweden 54.3%. By comparison, since Mrs Thatcher came to power the UK has seen growth of minus 1.2%. 

Scotland has far more part time and low paid jobs than London, suggesting that there is a structural fault with the labour market.

Exports have weakened, precipitating a weakening balance of payments, and consequently increased borrowing, disproportionately hitting everywhere compared to London.

Productivity in the Uk is 16% weaker than the average of the G7 countries of which the UK pretends to be a member. This is disproportionately felt in areas, like Scotland, where economic activity is real, rather than London where the economic activity is The City.

UK R&D is ranked very low in the EU tables, but what there is is concentrated in London. Scotland's R&D is the lowest in Europe.

Housing debt is massive in London, and economic policy is geared to creating affordable housing within London at the expense of economic growth needs elsewhere. (Didn't one senior banker once say publicly that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying for keeping inflation down?)

The UK is one of the worst places in the EU to be an employee in terms of career development.

Scotland has had years of population decline by comparison to the rest of the UK. This is an indication of economic under performance.

The report also concludes that we should not continue to be in a sterling economic zone after independence, but should strike out with our own currency (let's for now call it the 'Sporran' as a working name). 

Ms Cuthbert suggests that because the UK economy is so concentrated on London, and the housing market in London so different from the rest of the economy, monetary policy is set, and will continue to be set to suit that market... at the expense of the rest of the sterling zone.

(Given that we have already heard a sound reason for staying IN the sterling zone [relating to the strength of the Scottish Sporran v the weakness of the English Pound, creating a situation where, like Switzerland, it would be virtually impossible to sell goods to the sterling zone...ie England/Wales... one of Scotland's biggest markets], I'd be interested to hear what people think of Ms Cuthbert's opinion.)

Interestingly a spokesman for the Flat Earth Society Better Together said:

"LA LA LA LA LA LA LA Being a part of the United Kingdom is good for Scottish jobs, mortgages and pensions. We sell more goods to the rest of the UK than we do to all the other countries of the world combined. Tens of thousands of people in Scotland earn a living working for UK companies.

"The nationalists may want to turn our biggest economic market into our biggest economic competitor. However, the overwhelming majority of Scots think that this simply makes no sense. LA LA LA LA LA LA"

PS: Questions for Better Together. 

Do we not compete with English industries at the moment? Are you saying that if we hear that an English or Welsh company has tendered for a job we just roll over and let them have it... or do we put in our tender and hope to win?

Tens of thousands of British people (Scots or English) work for American companies like Cadbury, or French companies like Electicité de France, or German companies like Rolls Royce or Mini. Why could Scottish people not continue to work for English companies? 

Just asking guys...

ANOTHER THING YOU COULDN'T MAKE UP...

"SCOTLAND'S payments to the European Union could rise from £124 million to £673m under independence, official figures suggest.

‎"An independent Scotland, with oil reserves, would become the third richest country in the EU in terms of GDP per head. Only the Netherlands and Luxembourg would be better off": Magnus Gardham, Herald.

Unbelievably, in a 'blink several times and rub your eyes to make sure you haven't misread it' article over at the Herald, the political  editor has pointed how that Scotland's contributions to the EU would rise by several hundreds of million pounds per annum if we were to join as an independent country. 

Why, we hear you ask! 

Because, unlike the UK, we would be one of the richest countries in the organisation.

Wings over Scotland takes the article to pieces here.

But, if you thought that was good, it gets better... Wee Willie Rennie offers his unique brand of wisdom on the issue. Apparently unaware of the significance of being the third richest country in the EU, he opines: "The SNP government's own figures have laid bare the real cost of the nationalist's independence plans. Even with the rebate an independent Scotland's payment to the EU would triple to £378m." 

Duh! All that AND 14,000 treaties to renegotiate!

By the way, this new scare story replaces the previous scare story about us being flung out of the EU. If at first you don't succeed, keep sucking...

SNP RESIGNATIONS OVER NATO ...

Two MSPs have resigned from the SNP as a result of the conference vote to join NATO.

John Finney and Jean Urquhart, who are both Highland Region list members, announced their decision this morning.

They don't intend to stand down as list members and will continue to support the government as independents.

Needless to say the news makes the headlines of both the Scotsman and the Herald. The Record makes it their second story.


It will not change the situation in parliament. The two new Independent MSPs have indicated to Alex Salmond that they support the rest of the government's programme and will continue to vote with them on matters other than Nato. They will, of course, continue to support the YES Scotland campaign.

Some will suggest that they should stand down and I can understand that, but I can also see why they hae deided to stay. They stood on the platform of a non-Nato Scotland. It is is SNP which, democratically, (vote of 426 - 332) changed its policy. There was bound to be fall out, and there may yet be more.

Whilst I'm sorry that the pair have felt it necessary to resign, I respect their position. Conscience is something that is sadly lacking in so many politicians. It is hard to be critical of it when is does show itself. 

Should members of other parties not consider their position?

There are, I am sure, on the Labour benches, many who take strong issue with Mrs Lamont's assertion that Scotland is a "something for nothing" country and with her move to the right, so welcomed by the Conservative group. Thus far none has had the guts to do what John and Jean have done.

Equally, when the Conservative Party leadership elections took place last year Murdo Fraser stood on a platform of drastic change, removing their connection to the English Tories and renaming them in an attempt to bury the Thatcherite past. He had a number of supporters on the Tory benches, and indeed came second in the contest. When, by fair means or otherwise, David Cameron's preferred choice, Ruth Davidson, won, thus ensuring totally loyalty to the English party, Murdo meekly accepted a junior role in the parliamentary party. There were no resignations from the party.

Murdo and his supporters were proposing a new right of centre party because the old one was no longer fit for purpose. Where, I ask, are the principles of these people?

In light of the SNP resignations, the parliamentary arithmetic still gives the SNP a majority, but one that is far slimmer than the one that they started with.

Tricia Marwick's election to presiding officer obliged her to stand down from the party, and Bill Walker left the party following the disclosure of his lack of disclosure in respect of his past domestic life. 

CONGRATULATIONS TO JOHN SWINNEY

Congratulations to John Swinney on winning the Herald’s coveted Scottish Politician of the Year Award and the Donald Dewar Debater of the Year, sponsored by eaga.

The judges praised in particular his handling of the economy, which won him the title against last year’s winner Nicola Sturgeon, and Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

Referring to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, Donald Martin, editor-in-chief of the Herald & Times Group, ¬conceded that many thought his conduct in taking this very difficult decision might have earned him the top award.

“However, in his own words, it was a quasi-judicial decision so not entirely political,” said Mr Martin. “His record on other issues such as licensing and his comments over prisoners who had absconded also weakened the case for him.

“John Swinney, on the other hand, has handled a very difficult brief in the teeth of the ¬recession really well and thoroughly deserved to be named Scotland’s Politician of the Year.” (Herald).


I’ve had the pleasure of meeting John Swinney briefly in his office in parliament. Although he was busy, he took time to chat with me and make me feel welcome.

So, not only is John a consummate politician and a superb debater, he is also a really nice guy.

Congratulations Mr Swinney.