The Negotiator

The strength of Scotland's position in post referendum negotiations is completely dependant upon the outcome of the vote. A Yes makes us much, much stronger. A no makes us weaker. Here are the reasons why:
 

 

 

Strength of Yes

Scotland as a country is fundamentally self-sufficient. We produce excesses of electricity, have abundant supplies of water, export food and textiles and generally have most of the other essentials of life. We have a balance of trade surplus as a result of our natural resources as well as other industries, and with a significant tourism sector we have no problems with brand recognition or sources of revenue.

 

The things that the UK offer aren't important. We don't need a vast military as we have no nearby threats, we don't need a permanent seat in the UN security council, and we certainly don't need nuclear weapons. Our largest market is provided by the EU (and which the EFTA could equally offer) and the currency is fully tradeable. There isn't anything that we need to have from Westminster.

 

The UK however has a debt problem that isn't getting better, and the £ needs more exports to guarantee its value. The UK also has significant trade with Scotland that it will need to protect and the prospect of leaving the EU is very real, making good relations a priority. And, strictly speaking, the liability for current pensioners will not change, as their national insurance contributions were paid to Westminster. Starting with no debt or pension payments will mean Scotland will begin with a very lucrative budget surplus.

 

Finally, the Westminster negotiators are rubbish. Because the path to power is guaranteed, the people who gain high politicial office don't require any special talent or skill. The Westminster system is a lazy system that lacks the competitive nature of a proportional parliament. We will have the more skillful negotiators, and we will be giving them the best possible hand.

  

All of this means that Scotland holds the advantage in any negotiations. And there are plenty of things that could be done to make Westminster squirm (like demand the immediate removal of Trident or insist on an audit of the UK's debt - both of which they will not want).

 

Weakness of no

A no vote leaves Scotland vulnerable. With independence no longer an option (thus making us dependent on Westminster) there is no incentive for any further devolution. Indeed, both halves of Westminster have an incentive to reduce the importance of Holyrood.

 

A no vote also means a cut to the Scottish budget is not only a possibility but a likelihood. The fact is, Scotland more than pays its way and is a net-contributor, but that won't stop Westminster politicians from demanding that spending is cut here. The current system makes no allowance for where money is earned and the only UK 'region' which will be viewed as an exception is London and the South East.

 

With no means to defend ourselves and every reason to cut, Westminster will view a post-no Scotland as a means to secure more votes in England, and deny reform for a generation.

 

You don't have to be a great negotiator to see the difference. A Yes vote means that Westminster is left over an oil and whisky barrel. No leaves us open to no end of cuts and the prospect of a weakened Holyrood. Even if you don't want Scotland to be independent, you can see how independence is the best way to protect our interests.

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

A Scare A Day - NATO edition

Would Scotland be a part of NATO post independence? The short answer is ‘Yes’, but the various scare stories issued by ‘no’ campaigners that have been promoted by newspapers and the British State Broadcaster are trying to suggest otherwise. We at Sign for Scotland are going to do our best to explain why there is only one circumstance where Scotland would be outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

BBC Scotlandshire report

Let’s start by looking at the scare and its purpose. ‘No’ campaigners are claiming that an independent Scotland would need to keep Trident at Faslane in order to be accepted into NATO. They hope that by implying that the people of Scotland are powerless to enact change whether they vote for independence or not will drive them to the conclusion that voting Yes is pointless. But let’s look at the reasons why this scare isn’t realistic.

 

1 – The UK’s nuclear deterrent isn’t very significant to NATO

The UK hosts less than 2% of NATO's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. There would still be plenty left to return most nations on Earth back to the Stone Age even if Trident were scrapped. This is just one of the reasons why the US has repeatedly suggested that Trident be dropped in order to fund more conventional forces.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/us-urges-britain-to-ditch-trident-1573764.html

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/may/ditch-trident-former-un-weapons-inspector-urges-uk

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/04/do-the-americans-want-britain-to-renew-trident/
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-keepers-of-the-gate/ 

"Treaty ratifications?!  Only Westminster can do them!" said by no-one

2 – Spain’s historical precedence

Nuclear warheads, which had been stored in a joint Spanish-US naval base near Cádiz, were removed in 1979, just three years before Spain formally joined NATO (see: http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7868-nato-unionist-nuclear-attacks-undermined-by-spanish-precedent).  The current Scottish Government intends to take a similar approach to Trident and there has been no specific reason offered as to how our circumstance is different.

 

3 – Existing members want us to join without nuclear weapons

Iceland, Denmark and Norway have a strategic interest in co-operating with an independent Scotland, and the easiest way to do that is if we are all members of NATO (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22087115).

 

If Scotland were refused entry into NATO on the grounds that we won’t host nuclear weapons, then would the alliance demand bases in other, non-nuclear states?  It is hard to believe that Norway, which hosted a two-day conference to ban all nuclear weapons, or Denmark, which publically stated that it does not want nuclear weapons deployed in its territory, would accept these weapons being imposed upon them.

 

And as we saw in point 2, there is already an example of a nation banishing nuclear weapons from its territory and being welcomed into NATO, so the notion that NATO needs to take a hardline approach against Scotland to prevent anti-nuclear movements in other member states is both wrong and very much against the spirit of democracy.

"You don't want self determination.  BAD things might happen to you if I don't make all the decisions" Better Together statement (probably)

4 – The alternative

Scotland is not located in a strategically important position in terms of deploying nuclear weapons against potentially hostile states (primarily because there aren’t any near us), however we are becoming increasing important in terms of trade routes.

 

‘China begins using Arctic shipping route that could change the face of world trade’ was the headline from Business Insider from August 16th, 2013.  The route passes by the East coast of Scotland.  This is extremely significant because instead of being at the fringes of Europe, Scotland can become its gateway.  It’s estimated that between 5 and 15% of China’s international trade could be using this passage by 2020, offering huge opportunities.

 

If Scotland were to be shunned by NATO over weapons that don’t matter and wouldn’t be forced onto other members, then having closer relations with China and Russia would be very lucrative for us, and worrying for America.  The best solution for the United States would be to have us in the club instead of engaging in a bidding war for our co-operation.

5 – The legality of hosting Trident

We’ll have to make this a two part answer because we’re not sure which scare the ‘no’ campaign is using at the moment (see: http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7365-independent-scotland-could-be-debt-free-if-westminster-maintains-current-stance and http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/6604-scotland-and-ruk-both-successor-states-after-independence-says-academic), but if Scotland is a brand new nation (with no debts or treaty obligations) then, under international law, we are not permitted to host nuclear weapons.  There is no rational reason to refuse a Scottish application to join NATO on the basis that we aren’t breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially when there are lots of positive reasons amongst various existing members for us to be included.

 

And if we are a successor nation (with our share of assets and with equal status with rUK), then we will already be members of NATO, and thus there is no debate.

We said at the beginning of this blog that there was one circumstance where Scotland would not be a member of NATO.  That is if we don’t want to be.  After independence, we will decide the important issues.  If we want to be a member of NATO, then we’ll be a member, if we want to join Partnership for Peace, then we’ll join Partnership for Peace.  Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to provide an answer to each of the five points listed above.

 

Otherwise, this is just another scare.

Drew

 

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

The folly of Trident

Nuclear weapons have no military use. They can't destroy every target, they can't be used anywhere near your own troops and their expense draws funds away from conventional forces, including personnel, equipment and technology. They are utterly worthless against terrorism and always run the risk of being detonated by accident.
  

Even arguments that they prevent war only apply to superpowers like America and Russia, and even then it is debatable.
  

Nuclear weapons have one purpose, destroying mass civilian areas. Mutually Assured Destruction was based on the principle that neither side of the cold war would launch a full scale attack as the retaliation would result in the slaughter of their own citizens in every town and city. And yet this still didn't stop military personnel from suggesting that they should go ahead and do it anyway.
  

Let's look at the effects of what they were contemplating:

Look at how it destroys people's lives:

 
Look at the devestation it creates:

The effects of an nuclear attack can be classed into four categories: Instantaneous, Near-immediate, Short term and Long term.

Instantaneous

"The heart of a nuclear explosion reaches a temperature of several million degrees centigrade. Over a wide area the resulting heat flash literally vaporises all human tissue. At Hiroshima, within a radius of half a mile, the only remains of most of the people caught in the open were their shadows burnt into stone." CND UK

Near-immediate

"People inside buildings or otherwise shielded will be indirectly killed by the blast and heat effects as buildings collapse and all inflammable materials burst into flames. The immediate death rate will be over 90%. Various individual fires will combine to produce a fire storm as all the oxygen is consumed. As the heat rises, air is drawn in from the periphery at or near ground level. This results in lethal, hurricane force winds as well as perpetuating the fire as the fresh oxygen is burnt. Such fire storms have also been produced by intense, large scale conventional bombing in cities such as Hamburg and Tokyo.

People in underground shelters who survive the initial heat flash will die as all the oxygen is sucked out of the atmosphere.

Outside the area of total destruction there will be a gradually increasing percentage of immediate survivors. However most of these will suffer from fatal burns, will be blinded, bleeding from glass splinters and will have suffered massive internal injuries. Many will be trapped in collapsed and burning buildings. The death rate will be higher than in a normal disaster since most emergency services will be incapable of responding due to their equipment being destroyed and staff killed. The sheer scale of the casualties would overwhelm any country's medical resources. The International Red Cross has concluded that the use of a single nuclear weapon in or near a populated area is likely to result in a humanitarian disaster that will be "difficult to address". There is currently no international plan in place to deliver humanitarian assistance to survivors in the case of a nuclear attack. Most casualties would receive at best minimal, palliative treatment. The best they could hope for would be to die in as little pain as possible." CND UK

Short Term

"Survivors will be affected within a matter of days by radioactive fall-out. The extent of the fall-out will vary according to whether the nuclear bomb detonates in the air (as at Hiroshima) or upon impact on the ground. While the former will entail more blast impact, the latter will throw up much larger quantities of radioactive debris into the atmosphere.

The effects of exposure to high levels of radioactive fall-out include hair loss, bleeding from the mouth and gums, internal bleeding and haemorrhagic diarrhoea, gangrenous ulcers, vomiting, fever, delirium and terminal coma. There is no effective treatment and death follows in a matter of days.

At lower levels of exposure, while there is an increased chance of at least short term survival, the death rate remains high. Those who do survive face many complications. Pregnant women are likely to miscarry or give birth to babies with a range of disabilities. Healing from injuries is often slow, leaving distinctive scar tissue. Damage to the immune system is probable." CND UK

Long Term

"Radiation-induced cancers will affect many, often over twenty years later. Certain cancers such as thyroid cancer in children are particularly associated with exposure to radiation. The children of those exposed to radiation are statistically more likely to be born with abnormalities and suffer from leukaemia. Because of the long period between exposure and the onset of cancer, it is difficult to attribute a particular cancer to a particular cause. The correlation is described as epidemiological, rather as the connection between smoking and lung cancer was statistically established before the medical links had been uncovered.

Nuclear weapons cause severe damage to the climate and environment on a scale incomparable to any other weapon." CND UK

 

The question to ask is: who are willing to use these £100,000,000,000 weapons against? Since Britain first gained access to atomic bombs in October 1952, we have been involved in the following countries and conflicts:

 

Korea (Korean War), Kenya (Mau Mau Uprising), Cyprus (Cyprus Emergency), Egypt (Suez Crisis), Ireland (Border Campaign), Brunei (Brunei Revolt), Indonesia and Malaysia (Indonesia-Malaysia Conflict), Oman (Dhofar Rebellion), Yemen (Aden Emergency), Argentina (Falklands War), Iraq (Gulf Wars), Serbia (Bosnian and Kosovo Wars), Afghanistan (Fourth Anglo-Afghan War), Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone Civil War) and Libya (Libyan Intervention).

 

Which cities should we have destroyed? Should we have slaughtered the 516,000 people who lived in Pyongyang in the early 1950s? Maybe killing the 2,991,000 people in Cairo during the Suez Crisis would have helped? Perhaps levelling Buenos Aires and its 9,920,000 inhabitants would have ended the Falklands conflict quicker? The answer is none: but then what is the point of a deterrent if it is never used?

 

The money that was wasted on nuclear weapons could have been spent in other aspects of the military (or on improving the lives and economy of people at home), so what was the point of them? Did Soviet Premier Konstantin Chernenko say "we launch an attack tod- wait, Britain has a 520 atomic bombs and we only have 45,000, we need to call the whole thing off!"?

 

And then there is the risk of accidents (and there have been lots of very close calls). Here are a few examples:

 

US Dropped Four H-Bombs on Spain in 1966

A B52 bomber and a KC-135 tacker aircraft collided over Palomares village in south east Spain. The B-52's four hydrogen bombs (each 100 times more powerful than that dropped on Hiroshima) fell from the craft. Two remained intact whilst the others leaked radiation into the surrounding farmland and coast. Despite other munitions onboard exploding, none of the atomic bombs detonated.
  

Nuclear weapons damage at RAF Lakenheath, Suffolk, 1956

A US airforce B-47 crashed into a storage facility and leaked burning fuel over 3 Mark 6 atomic bombs. Here is the comment from the official report:

"Preliminary exam by bomb disposal officer says a miracle that one Mark six with exposed detonators sheared didn't go."

UK Navy ships fires torpedo at nuclear sub dockyard, 2014

This story was widely covered in the international press.

"HMS Argyll fired a torpedo by mistake during a training drill at the Devonport dockyard in Plymouth south west England, where nuclear submarines are also docked.

The incident occurred on Wednesday afternoon, during the Navy’s Flag Officer Training.

Workers were shocked to see a 2.6-meter long torpedo shoot out of the side of a ship, fly 200 meters through the air, blast a hole through a security fence and then slam into a metal storage container." Russia Today, 14th of March 2014

These stories (and the many others like them) don't tend to get discussed by the pro-war lobbyists at Westminster. Despite the effects of an accident being partly understood, it is safest to not have these weapons in our territory at all, and to encourage others to do the same.

 

The images we used above are pretty graphic, but they are nothing compared to what you will find with a simple google search. Nuclear weapons have no strategic value. They are a relic of the cold war and are far more trouble than they are worth. Scotland should not have these weapons. Scotland should not be threatening others with industrial slaughter.
  

Our military spending should be focused on the things that actually keep us safe, our military personnel and their equipment. We should look towards offering the world something positive, not violent obsenities. With independence we can rid nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from our shores and legitimately push for disarmament through our example.

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

Why the SDA?

We at Sign for Scotland recently sent out a request to a number of pro-independence political parties asking for a few words about their aspirations for an independent Scotland. We hope to show the different visions for Scotland that we'll be able to vote for in 2016 and beyond, and to help people consider the possibilities that independence can bring.

The first to respond were the Scottish Democratic Alliance (SDA). We'd like to thank them for their speedy and enthusiastic reply.

Why the SDA?

The Scottish Democratic Alliance advocate a progressive, populist small 'c' conservatism that is diametrically opposed to the elitist, dogmatic brand emanating from Westminster's blue, yellow and red Tories. And their puppets here in Scotland.

In a nutshell the SDA's view is to put people first. Not corporations or the rich. We want corporations to be profitable; entrepreneurs to get rich because these are mechanisms which should serve to make people's lives better. The SDA support high-quality public services like free education, and healthcare. We support working folk being paid at least a living wage to ensure a good quality of life - with a citizen's pension providing dignified retirement.

The SDA supports the idea that sovereignty and independence are inseparable, and applauds those who have brought Scotland to this historic referendum. At this crucial time, however, the SDA feels that there is now the danger of losing sight of these principles in favour of political expediency and that the Independence movement is becoming just another group of politicians pursuing power and ending up offering only bland policies which seem designed to create a copy of the current UK - "independence-lite".

This manifests itself in the retention of Sterling and the Bank of England; the switch to becoming a member of NATO and the automatic assumption of membership of the European Union. The SDA considers all of these policies to be fundamental sacrifices of sovereignty and thus assumes to itself a role in preserving the conscience of Scottish Independence.

The SDA offers to 2014 independence referendum voters an alternative vision - a vision of a Scotland quite distinctive from its current persona. It offers a second enlightenment to Scots with the imagination to consider new ways of governing a modern community unencumbered by the 300 years of feudal society and privilege which is fast destroying the United Kingdom. In old fashioned political parlance, the SDA promote policies, some of which could be termed 'right' and others which could be seen as 'left'.

The SDA's commitment is to Scotland's independence and the implimentation of the party's policies after a YES majority referendum vote to build an economically vibrant, socially just, lean but competently governed, successful modern country, for the benefit of all Scottish citizens. If you take the time to look at our website, you will see a radically but intellectually sound basis for government - a different kind of government.

The SDA, the party of true independence, considers sovereignty to be the essence of independence. A Scottish government adopting SDA policies or administered by SDA members will not permit foreign military bases within its territory other than by invitation in times of war or National Emergency - all as provided for, in a new written Constitution for Scotland. Of course the administration will remain free to enter into trade and defence agreements other than under terms which prejudice this sovereignty. That sovereignty extends to the National Currency and the issue of banking licences granted under the terms of the Constitution of Scotland whereby their National Currency shall remain sovereign and protected from predation or manipulation by private interests - whether domestic or foreign.

There is a wealth of further information on our website. See About, Our Vision and Policies.

http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/about

Twitter: @sdemoalliance
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ScottishDemocraticAlliance
Web: http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/

 

  

We at Sign for Scotland would once again like to thank the Scottish Democratic Alliance for replying to our request as quickly as they did. They are an example of a political party that could flourish in an independent Scotland and we wish them well. If reading this had made you interested in finding out more about the SDA then please do visit their website and Facebook pages.

 

  

We hope to be able to run more blogs like this in the run up to September's referendum. If you are a member of a pro-independence party and would like to write about what your party could offer, then you can email us at: sign4scotland@gmail.com.

Drew

 

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:

Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Why pay for what you don't want?

On the TV and in newspapers we come across frightening terms such as deficits, national debt, inflation, deflation, stagflation and many more besides. Most of these relate to problems that our economy has and they have a single root cause: governments living beyond their means to deliver promises they can't keep.

"This is the only solution that we want you to know about," 'no' campaign statement (probably)

Westminster has been living beyond its means for many decades, as the ever increasing national debt proves. The UK government spends more money on interest payments than Defence, Law and Order, Housing and Environment, Transport or the Department for Industry, Agriculture and Employment.

Our media offer only two solutions: austerity (which is favoured by the coalition government in London) or capital investment (which is favoured by the Scottish Government in Holyrood and nominally by Labour). No other options are given any credence because they aren't available to the UK, but for us in Scotland there is an alternative...don't pay for what we don't want.

Don't pay for Trident's replacement, which will cost £100 billion.
Don't pay for the House of Lords, which costs over £77 million every year.
Don't pay for the London sewerage project, which costs £4,200 million
Don't pay for the Jubilee Line, which costs £3,500,000,000 (£3,500 million)
Don't pay for the new communications headquarters in Cheltenham, which costs £1,200,000,00
Don't pay for the London Crossrail Tunnel project, which costs £14,800,000,000
Don't pay for the Euston Station upgrade, which will cost £42,000,000,000
 

Nasty Scots putting pensions before privilege

We currently pay for military personnel to be deployed in over 80 countries around the world. We're contributing £4,771 million towards a high speed rail network that won't get within 300 miles of Scotland. And if you believe that we should pay this money because we're going to get some incidental benefit from this vast expenditure then shouldn't the UK government be part funding the railways in France?

 

There are other expenses too that we don't need to accept. Taking part in conflicts around the world isn't cheap. The war in Afghanistan, for example, has cost £37 billion in financial terms, despite hopes that not a single shot would be fired, and it certainly isn't alone in the long list of British military campaigns.

The above list alone equals approximately £3,916 for every single man, woman and child in Scotland, and we and our children only have to pay it because we're not independent. Is having Westminster in charge over our affairs worth nearly £4,000 to you and your family?

 

Why pay for what you don't want? Vote Yes in 2014 and let's live within our means by first cutting the junk that doesn't help us.

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

Also, check out our latest video - 'Why Yes March Edition' [in BSL with subtitles]

Rule It Out!

One of the favourite tactics of the ‘no’ campaign is to suggest that every and all post-independence proposals from the Scottish Government can’t work.

This approach is laced with half truths and weasel words. Rarely an out and out lie (although sometimes it is), it will often fly in the face of reality and logic. To each one we ask ‘why don’t you end any uncertainty and just rule it out?’ We’re going to look at two examples today: Currency and Shipbuilding.

 

Currency

We already covered this topic in our blog, ‘Ten a Penny - Westminster's Current Currency Threats', but we’ll highlight the main points again.

 

There are two types of currency union: ‘formal’ and ‘informal’. The Pound Sterling is a fully convertible currency and its usage by non-Westminster controlled nations cannot be denied. It would be like claiming gold would have no value in an independent Wales. The Pound will be used and accepted from day 1 of an independent Scotland, the only debate is whether we gain direct representation on the board of the Bank of England (an example of a 'formal' agreement), or if we look to create an alternative body (probably with a similar function to the Bank of North Dakota).

 

With that out of the way, let’s look at what ‘no’ campaign members are claiming:

“But if Scotland became an independent country, we would need to put in place our own currency arrangements; new currency arrangements. The bottom line is that a currency union may not be in the interests of Scotland or the continuing UK and it is highly unlikely to be agreed - not because of any malevolence, but because it wouldn't work.” Alistair Carmichael (STV News 13th of November 2013)

It wouldn’t work?  What wouldn't work, a formal or an informal currency union? In either case why say it is ‘unlikely’ to be agreed. Why would you ever agree to something that 'wouldn't work'? Why doesn’t Mr Carmichael state that the Bank of England, which independently of Westminster controls interest rates in Scotland, would simply refuse to continue this function following Scottish independence?

Of course, Mr Carmichael could just ask the Governor of the Bank of England his view on whether or not it can work:

"The Bank of England would implement whatever monetary arrangements were put in place." Mark Carney, 29th of January 2014

The problem with the 'no' campaign's approach is that, contrary to the words of the Secretary of State ‘for’ Scotland, a shared approach is the most likely outcome.

“The pound sterling is not English money, it is British money, and just as with the Bank of England it is owned by the people of Britain in proportion to population. The political union has long ago stopped working in Scotland’s favour, the currency union still makes sense and will be of equal benefit to both Scotland, and the rest of the UK if maintained. What hasn’t yet sunk in is that a Scottish currency could be made to work for Scotland, but the threat to the rest of the UK would be significant if Scottish energy and Scottish exports were removed from the sterling zone’s balance of payments.” Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (Business for Scotland)

The interesting thing to note from the earlier interview from Mr Carmichael was him stating that "international law is clear: the UK would continue. The UK's currency would continue and the laws and institutions that control it like the Bank of England would continue for the continuing UK.” This would be fantastic news for Scotland as 'no rights = no debts'. Why should we take on debts relating to a currency which apparently had nothing to do with us?

 

We can definitely rule out Westminster denying the value of a Pound in an independent Scotland. And we can confirm that members of the ‘no’ campaign will continue to hint and suggest otherwise until the 19^th of September.

 

Shipbuilding

This topic can also apply to the broader issue of manufacturing in Scotland but shipbuilding has been most prominently used example by the main stream media since news of over 800 job loses between the Clyde BAE shipyards was announced.

 

First, let’s look at what the ‘no’ campaign claims:

"It is worth noting that, other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, no complex warships for the Royal Navy were constructed outside the UK in the 20th Century and the UK Government remains committed to using the strengths of UK industry in this specialist area." Philip Hammond (Herald Newspaper)

Apart from the specific falsehoods within this statement, the overall suggestion that the UK Government would have no ships built in Scotland is highly unlikely. There is a rather obvious reason for this: military contracts are given to BAE systems. They decide where ships are built, not the UK.

"BAE owns the yards and pays the workers. BAE is the shipbuilder. The shipbuilder is  not the state. The state is the client which orders and pays. BAE delivers. BAE has restructured its naval defence business in agreement with the state so that future orders can be delivered on time and on budget. How likely is it that, having reached this agreement, the state would renege and leave BAE with empty yards and unemployed staff? If that decision was based on a political reason and if that had been predictable all along – like a referendum – wouldn’t the state be liable for BAE’s costs (£3bn) and might it not be in breach of contract?
 
Also, from what Hammond and the procurement minister Philip Dunne have already said – as I mentioned in a previous post – the frigate decision is coming after the referendum and before the establishment of an independent state. In other words, Scotland will still be inside the UK when the contract is awarded. Therefore, technically, no conflict with the aim of building “in the UK.” Derek Bateman (Derek Bateman Broadcaster)

There’s another important point to consider: how well is Westminster managing our shipbuilding industry under there watch? With the added boost of defence contracts, which they assure us will forever take place in the UK, surely our shipyards would be amongst the busiest in Europe, with perhaps only our largest neighbours rivalling our success?

“Yet today the shipbuilders of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, none of which are low-wage economies, still thrive, each pulling in hundreds of millions of pounds of orders annually, with even little Scotland-sized Norway providing 2% of Europe’s output compared to the UK’s paltry showing of less than 1%.” Scott Minto (Wings Over Scotland).

Why doesn’t the ‘no’ campaign rule out, categorically, any UK Navy vessel being even partially built in Scotland following independence? Because the most likely outcome is that some UK warships will be constructed on the Clyde. That is what BAE wants and that is what’s best for Westminster. The ‘no’ campaign won’t rule it out because it would tie their hands and hurt their interests following a Yes vote.

Better Together debate coach

Conclusion

You can extend the ‘rule it out’ response to most Westminster scare stories, including Pensions, the EU and NATO.

 

If what they say doesn’t mean yes and doesn't mean no, then it doesn’t mean anything.

Drew

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

Put Scotland first by voting Yes!

This entry is a little different from the majority that we write.
 
Normally we focus on the democratic, social, environmental or economic benefits following a Yes vote for Scotland and those beyond our borders, including those who the UK Government doesn't appear to have much concern for.  But this week, we're going to be a little selfish and say 'put the people of Scotland first'.

We know that the UK Government cannot put Scotland first because:

1. Scotland directly elects just 4% of Westminster, and the number of MPs we will have is due to be reduced yet again, making our influence weaker than ever.
2. Westminster's form of democracy disenfranchises us more than almost any other system imaginable.  Because Scotland has fewer 'marginal swing seats' between the only two parties who can form a government, the amount of effort and attention we are afforded is much lower, making our views up to 22 times less important.
3. Much of the funding for Westminster's two main parties comes from the City of London.  Even though Labour receives large donations from Trade Unions, the lack of viable alternatives means that they just need to avoid appearing to be on the right of the Conservatives to be guaranteed these funds (and again, most trade union donations are generated outside Scotland, continuing the cycle above).

This isn't strictly true, we also store their WMDs and fight in their wars!

With Independence we will see a seismic shift in priorities.  The massive, pervasive influence of City financiers and war advocates will be greatly diminished.  No political party will ever be guaranteed to return to power, meaning that they will need to work much harder to get into, stay and return to office.  Greater choice will mean more positive campaigning in every part of Scotland and because every vote will matter, every voter becomes more significant and sought after.
 
In short, the people of Scotland will be the main priority of every party.
 
Having such a focus will undoubtedly help in a number of ways:

1. Better transport connections will be advocated by all, with the people of Scotland deciding whether this primarily takes the form of more rail links, lower air-passenger fees, improved roads and/or better ports.
2. Armed forces will be based in Scotland with Scotland's needs in mind.  Specialist desert equipment isn't needed in a wet country like ours, and aircraft carriers with no planes on them and nuclear weapons do nothing to keep us safe.  The people of Scotland will control the number of personnel, the type of equipment used, and where our troops are deployed.
3. Scotland's interests in Europe will always be defended, with our farmers, fishing communities and exporters never being sacrificed for City greed and gain.

Message from our always impartial British State Broadcaster

I cannot say what the priorities of an independent Scotland will be, but I can guarantee that our money, which Westminster is wasting on nuclear weapons, HS2, stationing military personnel in over 80 countries, illegal wars and refurbishing the unelected House of Lords, will be used for the benefit of Scotland.
 
Only voting 'Yes' will put Scotland first.
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Should your opinion matter?

Yes Scotland is campaigning for a more democratic and representative government for Scotland.  They want your opinion to matter.  They want you to have a greater choice of political parties to choose from.  They want you to get involved in writing a constitution for Scotland.  They want you to be closer to the seat of power.

The no campaign doesn't have any enthusiasm for this kind of control.  Indeed, their campaign so far suggests that they don't want your opinion on a whole range of subjects.  Let's take a few examples...

Currency
The Scottish National Party want to continue the Sterling Zone which is currently in place for at least 10 years after independence, with the only exception being that Scotland has a representative on the Bank of England board.  The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Democratic Alliance want Scotland to have it's own currency which would be controlled by our parliament.  We're certain that the Labour Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats will produce their own policy options after a 'Yes' vote, allowing the people of Scotland to choose the path that follows closest to their values.

The 'no' campaign suggest that 'creating' a Sterling Zone would be risky, difficult and might not happen at all (although they don't explain why).  Neither of the parties who can form the UK government offer any alternatives to the current set-up.

Better Together strategist

Trident
The main parties who make up Yes Scotland want to follow the wishes of the majority of Scots and have nuclear weapons removed from Scotland as soon as it is safe to do so.  People who disagree with this stance would still be able to vote Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem, who may advocate for the weapons to stay.

The 'no' campaign claim that an independent Scotland would not be able to remove Trident as:
a) The bill for moving and re-homing these weapons would, for reasons that have yet to be explained that would go against the historical precedence set by Russia following the end of the USSR, fall on Scotland.
b) Faslane, where the weapons are currently stored, would, against international law, be annexed by England.
c) NATO, which is primarily composed of non-nuclear states, would, for reasons that defy logic, insist that Scotland must host these weapons or be refused membership, thus leaving us in the same situation as stable non-Nato states as Sweden and Ireland.

Once again, your opinion doesn't matter with 'no'.

"You, run your own country without us?  Don't be silly old chap!" Bullingdon Club Statement (probably)

Defence
The SNP want to increase overall military spending in Scotland to match those of stable, independent Denmark.  This would be funded by having the tax revenue raised in Scotland staying in Scotland.  The defence underspend that we have suffered runs into the billions which would result in more military personnel for less money.  The Scottish Green Party wish to have military spending cut further, to levels enjoyed by stable, independent Ireland.  The size of our military and the scope of its operations would be dependent upon who the people of Scotland elected, allowing us to tailor our armed forces to match our needs and to react to changes around the world.

The 'no' campaign states that only Westminster should decide military policy.  They claim that a Scottish Defence Force would be incapable of operating as well as that which Denmark or Ireland enjoy (despite having equal or superior funding) for reasons which they have yet to explain.  The UK's position as 4th largest military spender in the world is unlikely to change as both of the parties who can form the government are in complete agreement.

Pensions
Yes Scotland want to introduce a triple-lock to pensions, ensuring that the purchasing power of the state pension remains the same.  Pensions are more affordable in Scotland however there are advocates for reform to guarantee a fairer, sustainable system.  But on the first day following independence, most pensions schemes will remain exactly the same as many are already administered in Scotland.

The 'no' campaign have no vision for how to improve the pension system, only vague threats which ignore Scotland's superior economic position.  They state that the EU (which they simultaneously claim will not accept an Independent Scotland as a member) will demand that the black hole in certain pension schemes will need to be filled instantly following independence.  This goes against historical precedence as other nations have managed to negotiate delays in the full application of this legislation.  It is important to note that the pension shortfalls were under Westminster guidance.

For more on pensions, see this comprehensive piece from Wings over Scotland.

These are just four of the areas where Yes Scotland want you to be a stakeholder in your country, but the no campaign don't.  So if you feel that your opinion should matter, if you want choice, if you want debate and if you want your children to be guaranteed to always have the governments they elect, then you need to vote Yes.

Otherwise, you're letting others decide.
Drew

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

To Hell With War! (Part 5 of 5)

"I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

"There is no use kidding ourselves any longer.  The cause of the allies is lost.  we now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.  If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lost) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money ... and Germany won't.  So..."

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war -- even the munitions makers.

So...I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Smedley Butler died in June 1940.  The 'War to end all Wars" was, as he had predicted, a lie.  The Second World War didn't have the widespread use of chemical weapons which he had feared, yet even more terrifying arsenals were devised.  The nuclear age, where entire cities could be destroyed and irradiated with a single bomb, would be the next great threat to humanity.

Today, the use of depleted uranium, anthrax and other biological weapons are as prevalent as ever, and the profits are just as great.  The war racket continues and won't stop under the current political set-up.  Only more representation for the people and greater awareness of the subject will see this change.

We hope that you have enjoyed reading these excerpts over this last week.  The book, War is a Racket, is available in many book stores and from online retailers.  It is definitely worth a read.  It is our hope that one day this book will be in every school and studied within history classes to offer students a different perspective on the world they will inherit.  I know I wish I had read this work when I was at school.

Part 1 - War is a racket
Part 2 - Who makes the profits?
Part 3 - Who pays the bills?
Part 4 - How to smash this racket!
Part 5 - To hell with war!

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