Wednesday, 30 October 2013

The have nots and the have yachts

Many ask if independence would lead to a wealthier Scotland.

This can be a difficult question to answer.  No independent nation in history has discovered oil in quantities similar to what Scotland possesses and become poorer, yet this alone can’t be used as a guarantee.  Also, Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK since the 1980’s, that is, putting much more in than we take out, so it stands to reason that investing this lost wealth each year within our borders would yield a stronger economy.  Yet this fact can’t guarantee prosperity either.

So let us assume that Scotland, despite becoming energy stronger in an energy weak world, and despite having representatives who are wholly elected by the Scottish people, and despite having a stronger focus on the issues that we face, and despite losing the need to maintain wasteful expenditure such as foreign military bases, wars and weapons of mass destruction, does produce lower GDP.  Would independence still be beneficial?
The answer is ‘Yes’.  The reason is simple; if a hundred people share £1,000 equally, then each of them is generally wealthier than the group who have £1,010 but with the majority concentrated in a few hands.  The UK is the forth most unequal society in the developed world, and is advancing quickly towards number one.  Does it make sense, then, to vote against independence so that the privileged few maintain their larger share?
We are rapidly developing a two tier society; the ‘have nots’ and the ‘have yachts’.  The ‘have yachts’ are clear that they do not want independence.  They are the ones who fund Westminster’s parties and most of the media.  They are the ones who do not want a more equal society or the potential for competition.
An independent Scotland would more accurately reflect the wishes of its people.

"We need to protect the big fish from the little ones," Westminster policy at all times
By having a greater number of political parties to choose from, it becomes more difficult for self interest groups such as the ‘have yachts’ to dominate our parliament.  Reforms, designed to reduce state corruption and increase the participation of citizens in our democracy, are almost certain to pass following independence.  The ‘have yachts’ don’t want this.
I firmly believe that independence would be a better option for Scotland as a whole in an economic sense.  I also believe that the majority of us will personally benefit by having governments that don’t actively concentrate wealth into the hands of the few.  A vote ‘Yes’ is a vote for the ‘have nots’.  No is backed by the ‘have yachts’.

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland


  1. If Scotland was independent two hundred years ago , and then all this oil was found, I really do believe Westminster would have started a war and taken the oil, why do you think they are in the Falkland islands right now??? it's not for a hand full of English speaking people living there. or the sheep or penguins, it's for "oil" Now they have been reaping the benefits of north sea oil for free, and for decades , now it's looking like they are about to loose this benefits, so they are trying to black mail us with fear mongering , BUT NOT FOR MUCH LONGER.....YES. and it is fear that is driving them.....

  2. Its absolutely illogical that there is so much hate and loathing towards Scotland from Project Fear just because we want to govern ourselves.

    If you think properly about why Westminster spends so much of its time and resources trying to frighten Scotland into staying in the union, you soon realise that it cannot be because of what they claim about us being too wee too poor and too stupid to govern ourselves, for that does not make any sense whatsoever coming from a Westminster government that always knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    So you then have to come to the inescapable conclusion that Scotland must have something Westminster desperately wants to keep for itself.

    Therefore it must be because they desperately want to keep Scotland's oil and gas tax revenues and a base for Trident right next to Scotland's largest city after all.