"TO BE MUGGED TWICE WOULD BE UNBEARABLE" - GORDON WILSON

Gordon Wilson has written an article for the “Scots Independent” to be published next week, in which he points out the importance to Scotland of Sea Power.

It was Gordon who led the SNP’s “It’s Scotland’s Oil” campaign back in the 1970s and he reckons that Scotland must not lose out on the massive potential of electricity generation from tidal and wave power off its coasts this time round.

To ensure this the ex-party leader says that the Crown Estate should be devolved, a Scottish sea energy authority established and an interconnector cable laid under the sea between Scotland and Europe.

In his article he points out, “It is 40 years since the discovery of the giant Forties field in the North Sea was announced. It led to a bonanza, with a succession of huge discoveries over the next 20 years. Everyone thought that Scotland was the luckiest nation in the world. There is a huge amount of oil left but the hope, the vision of a new society, getting rid of poverty, has long since turned to dust.”

Mr Wilson goes on to say that the Crown Estate should be replaced in Scotland with some body that could, among other functions, license sites for experimenting with technology. A sea energy authority would work with production companies in commercial development and the generation of electricity.

He’s right of course. We all thought that like other rich oil states, from Texas to Qatar, Brunei to Norway, the days of grinding poverty were over. Wrong. Mrs Thatcher took the oil money and used it to pay for the massive dereliction that she wreaked on our industry. The money went on paying Unemployment Benefit, and when the numbers became embarrassing, Sickness Benefit, the hidden benefit.

She also spend billions of it sucking up to America, and bigging Britain up so that she and Ronnie could spend more time together.

There’s still plenty oil there as Gordon says, but we do have a second bite at the cherry. The potential for wind and wave power round our coasts is enormous. We must move to secure a future for ourselves with it.

Gordon’s article concludes: “Scotland has been given a second chance. Let’s not throw it away this time. To be mugged twice would be unbearable. Yet that’s what will happen if we do not mobilise now.”

Pic: Gordon Wilson

No Scottish Embassies Post Independence? And other ramblings of a Scottish Quisling

Here is a letter that appeared in yesterday’s edition of the Dundee Evening Telegraph:

Independence dream in tatters?

After year upon year of talking about the wish for independence from the United Kingdom, we learn that Scotland without the UK would not establish its own worldwide consular service.

Instead, an independent Scotland would hope to rent a room at the British Embassy.

What an admission. Presumably the rent costs would be met with Alex Salmond’s billions from what is euphemistically called “Scottish Oil”. It begs the question, with the money he said we would have, why can’t we afford embassies?

And if that wasn’t a smack in the face for the independence dreamers, what about the other one, “Independence in Europe”?

The latest from Brussels is an independent Scotland would not walk into membership of the EU without being part of the UK as it is very likely the other 27 member states would veto Scottish membership without the UK. — Eck Setterra.

I’m posting this because after reading it I cringed at the stupidity of some of my fellow Dundonians, but laterally came to realise that this is a good example of the sort of mindset that has to be overcome if we are to obtain our freedom. Talk about clutching at straws or in this case any ridiculous argument to legitimise the continued overrule of our country from abroad (Englandshire for those of you not in the know).

It starts off well enough with a good question from Mr Setterra (Do you think that’s his real name?) and I was looking forward to an interesting answer. But no, instead we get some half baked claptrap about not having our own consular representatives in foreign countries. In case you don’t know off the top of your head that would meant 193 (I’m not counting Taiwan) ambassadors and embassies plus diplomatic staff, cars, security and so on (Dare I say et cetera??). Quite a tall order for Mr Salmond’s billions (as he puts it). Never mind the obvious fact that the oil billions are ours (the Scots) and not Mr Salmonds personal piggy bank. I for one don’t want the oil money squandered on a load of high living freeloaders who do nothing for most of the time except attend parties and drinks and functions at our expense. A bit like the royal family only a lot of the current British ones live better than the royal family but without the blue blood. You ask “why can’t we afford embassies” that answer which you yourself more or less give is that we can (or will) be able to afford them. But while parts of Scotland are some of the most deprived parts of the EU, while our sick still have to pay for prescription charges (not for very much longer thank you SNP) and while our elderly are living on a niggardly pittance given them by an out of touch minister in a foreign country we would rather spend our money on social justice. I imagine that will go doubly for the oil money when we get it because we will have to undo centuries of misrule.

Mr Setterra how is it euphemistically Scotland’s oil? Euphemistically means the act of substituting a mild, indirect or vague expression for one though to be offensive, harsh or blunt. What is the offensive phrase for which you are substituting “Scottish Oil”. I’m jiggered if I can think of one. I’m also unable to fathom how that phrase is mild, indirect or vague or indeed anything other than a fact.

The final bit of Mr Setterra’s letter relates I guess to the article that appeared the day before (28/09/09) in the Scotsman:

http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Doubts-over-automatic-EU-entry.3335953.jp

It actually says that there would need to be negotiations regarding Scotland’s entry into the EU after it becomes independent. I don’t think the SNP ever claimed that there would be no negotiations at all. So it all depends on your definition of the word seamless. As we know Mr Setterra is on shaky ground when it comes to defining words. The rest of this article is based on research done by a law student at Hull University 10 years ago in 1999. I’m wondering if Mr Setterra is hostile to the EU after all if the UK left just think how many more embassies would be needed.

I’m just wondering whether Eck Setterra is a euphemism for something else?