Not in the News - 6th of September Edition

Welcome to another edition of our weekly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages. Our last edition can be found here.

  

Do you hate your children? You must be a Yes voter!

The No campaign, which had previously claimed that "the key factor (in determining how to vote) is the love of our families", made what is quite possibily the most ridiculous campaign poster since Mayor Quimby's disasterous "he'd vote for you" promise. "We love our kids. We're voting no thanks" (the obvious conclusion being that everyone voting Yes does hate their kids, even the ones who don't have kids!).

 

 

#Hamatime, #PatronisingBTLady and now #ilovemyfamily. The No campaign has been nothing but entertaining (really, they have been nothing!). We can confirm that this trend will continue, as we have seen a preview of their next poster campaign:

 

 

Taking it to the Max

Max Keiser, star of the internationally renowed Keiser Report and On the Edge, has previously stated his support for Scottish Independence. He confirmed that again with his website adding the following post: "YES! An independent Scotland would have the highest GDP per capita in the world. A 'No' vote is asinine".

 

 

No wonder he and his partner Stacy Herbert are considered the most dangerous people to the establishment in the financial media. Well done Max and keep up the great work you do!

 

Checking your purse before they check your pulse

The UK Government confirmed that the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (also known as TTIP) will affect the NHS. The details can be found in these articles by Unite the union and International Business Times.

 

  

Independent EU nations have the right to safeguard their health services if there is an existing state monopoly (i.e. if privatisation is not already taking place). Scotland can only have this protection if we vote Yes on the 18th.

  

The Pot and the Singing Kettle

Yes supporters in Scotland were buoyed by the latest figures from polling agency YouGov. Whether or not you believe the initial figures isn't very important (or even the notion of polling altogether) the evidence that the movement is towards independence is very encouraging.

  

And we know this is important because the BBC (that bastian of impartiality [sarcasm]) considered the massive jump in support for Yes as being less news worthy than the music group the singing kettle announcing that they will stop touring in 2015. Maybe they could have squeezed them both in by dropping the 'New Paranormal Festival for Scotland' story...nah [sarcasm, extreme sarcasm].

 

The reason why this is important is because belief regarding how most other people will be voting is a consideration made by a very large proportion of the electorate at every election. If our fellow Scots believe that Yes can win, then this will translate into more votes. It shouldn't be this way (and with independence we will gain a representative parliament where every vote carries the same value - unlike Westminster) but it is a reality we should recognise.

 

Heartless Vandals!

Evidence has emerge of terrible acts of vandalism against 'no' campaign signs! First Minister Alex Salmond has had to deny personal involvement! Additional statement which hints at, but doesn't make a specific allegation which would need to be justified or could be subject to scrutiny, the Yes campaign being evil and bad!

 

Have these cows fully appreciated the choice facing Scotland?

 

Scotland has value (something the 'no' campaign doesn't appreciate)

We wrote a while ago in our blog 'Nobody wants you so please stay with us' how the primary tactic of those opposed to independence is to portray Scotland as a land which has no intrinsic value. Westminster wouldn't want to treat us as equals because we have no value. The EU won't try to keep us in the club because we have no value. And then NATO would expel us because we have no value. Just follow the links to see why each of these arguments are nonsense.

 

In each case we have shown that this just isn't true, and today we had more evidence of this as a former UK ambassador to NATO, Mariot Leslie, stated her intention to vote Yes and her confidence in Scotland being warmly welcomed within the military alliance.

 

And on a little side story which Russia Today mentioned: a country can be a member of the EU and use the currency of another. Luxembourg, which was a founding member of the EU, continued to use Belgian Francs until 2002. Of course, to the 'no' campaign, Luxembourg has value but Scotland does not. There are only obstacles and problems facing us and no-one will do anything to make things easy or fair.

 

I'm not ready for my closeup, Mr Ponsonby

David Cameron spent Prime Minister's Questions accusing STV of chickening out of hosting a debate between himself and undecided viewers. His exact words were: "On the television programme, I offered them [STV] a date and indeed a format but they seemed to run away themselves which is a great pity."

 

Mr Cameron made a few interesting demands:

No questions from a journalist

No representatives from the Yes Campaign (which STV would have agreed to)

And only 'genuine' floating voters, which Downing Street would arrange (ie, Dave's team would pick the audience)

 

  

Despite attempts to put pressure on the channel by claiming that this 'debate' would take place on Sky News or the BBC (Mr Cameron has so far taken part in nothing), STV refused to surrender editorial control.

 

The offer for Mr Cameron to speak to undecided voters on STV is still available, but we suspect he won't be ready for 'genuine' scrutiny any time soon...

 
Every little hinders

The no campaign used a frankly bizarre claim in their literature recently that the cost of food in supermarkets would increase following a Yes vote. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons (most of which are explained here and here) but the interesting part is the use of Tesco. The image below was taken from a no campaign leaflet and clearly shows that the supermarket will increase every price by 16%.

 

"I can confirm that this [16% higher prices] is not true as we've got a great business in Scotland and our job is to create the best offer for customers whatever the outcome of the referendum." Sue Whitaker, Tesco Customer Service

The problem for the no campaign was that someone asked Tesco, and they confirmed that this story was a lie. So, the no campaign have been caught making up nonsense (again) and hiding their scares behind someone else. I guess in their world, every little hinders.

  

This fake story, which has been introduced whilst votes are being cast, is clearly against election rules. But fear not! Below is a photograph which shows all the work we have seen that the Electoral Commission, who describe their own objective as achieving "well-run elections", is doing to ensure a free and fair contest:

  

  
Strategically positioned paperwork jobs

This map below, which was shared by the Wings over Scotland's twitter account, shows where civilian jobs for the UK military are based.

 

Civilian jobs within the military are very important but they can by and large be located anywhere. Why do these jobs (and remember that a population share of their associated costs are attributed to Scotland despite the obvious shortfall in jobs being based here) have to be concentrated in the south of England? Does this map look fair to you?

 

It reminds me of this article by Business for Scotland. The maps there don't look very fair either.

  

Eh...mass canvas?

We at Sign for Scotland do not share links to the Scotsman newspaper (see our blog 'I read it in the paper' for the main reason why), but even they were highlighting how hopelessly unsuccessful Johann Lamont's mass canvassing attempt in Govan was on Friday.

"But despite an army of Labour supporters knocking doors, only three residents engaged in conversation with her - while several even came outside to return the leaflets pushed through their letter boxes." Scotsman Newspaper

Ouch! The reason why senior Labour politicians are finding such a hard response from people in Govan and other predominately working class areas is because they are campaigning to keep a Tory government in Westminster in power over Scotland. The argument that we should 'vote no and then hope people in England vote Labour next year, (just ignore our commitment to matching every Tory public service spending cut)' is not as strong or as reliable as 'vote Yes and the people will always get the government they vote for'.

 

We can even save a fortune by not paying for what we don't need!

 

But if you are an undecided Labour voter, then please compare any speech by Johann Lamont to the words of Jeane Freeman and decide which one more accurately reflects the founding principles of the Labour Party. What future would you rather have?

  

Join us again on Sunday for our final look at what's 'not in the news' before the referendum!

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

Vote no, get nothing

This blog is about reasons for voting ‘Yes’ during the referendum for Scottish Independence. We largely focus on economic, social and political reasons why we, the people of Scotland, would be better off having the decisions affecting our lives being made within our borders by politicians who are answerable to us. We try to use logic and facts to back up our arguments and avoid personal attacks (wherever possible).

But it’s important to acknowledge the future that awaits us if we vote no. No offers no economic stability; just as the ‘Yes’ campaign cannot guarantee that an independent Scotland will become richer despite a mountain of evidence which suggests that it would, the ‘no’ campaign cannot promise to stop the UK’s economic slide and stagnation.

 

The ‘no’ campaign cannot tell us what tax rates we will have, for even if everyone in Scotland were to agree on an approach we would be unable to enforce such a policy within the UK due to our minority status. The ‘no’ campaign cannot tell us what currency we will use, for the decision is a reserved matter at Westminster. There is nothing to stop David Cameron from taking us into the Euro or adopting the US Dollar. He doesn’t need our permission, the way an independent Scottish Parliament would, as all he would need is to have a majority of MPs to back his idea, and he can easily gain them in England alone (and even if he were forced into a referendum, a 55% - 45% vote in Scotland would only affect the overall outcome by less than 1%, reducing us to spectators).

"We'll make all the important decisions for you," Westminster's 'offer'

The Conservatives will not transfer new powers to a Scottish Parliament which they are unlikely to control. This means that whenever we get a Tory Government ruling us, the transfer of power can only move south. Most people agree on this point. What about the only alternative to the Conservatives at Westminster, the Labour Party?

Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, has repeatedly called for ‘One Nation’.

“I’ve set out a vision of what this country can be, one nation…from business to education to welfare.” (New Year speech, December 2012)

A ‘one nation’ approach to business means that the power to vary the rate and thresholds for corporation tax cannot be held in Scotland (which Mr Miliband has relegated to a region). A ‘one nation’ approach to education, means that the tuition fees which students resident in Scotland can currently avoid will be imposed, with a £9,000 per year charge becoming the norm. A ‘one nation’ approach to welfare means that the prevailing attitudes in Westminster towards those receiving benefits will be adopted, regardless of whether those values match those of the Scottish People. ‘One nation’ doesn’t leave much room for the transfer of powers towards Scotland.

The Scottish Parliament will no longer be for a nation within a nation, regardless of which half of Westminster wins. If we want a meaningful say in our future and for our parliament to hold onto the powers that it has, then we need to support independence. The two Westminster parties are like railroad tracks running parallel to one another. Their direction is clear; reduce the authority of the Scottish Parliament until it is unable to do anything and hoard all power in the southeast.

Only ‘Yes’ can maintain what we have.  If you vote no, you'll get nothing.

Drew

 

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

Not in the News -24th of August Edition

Welcome to another edition of our weekly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages. Our last edition can be found here.

 

Bankers' Loyalty

A prime example of why it is better to build an economy on real goods and commodities was revealed this week as a number of US Banks threatened to re-locate from the City of London to locations within the EU.

  

With it appearing increasingly likely that Westminster will leave the EU (and have to negotiate a free-trade agreement that will not have favourable terms for Scotland), the American Banks are making contingencies to move operations to Dublin and/or Frankfurt. With independence, Scotland could also enjoy some benefit from the Bankers' flight from London, but re-industrialising our country will be the priority.

And of course, there are others who are looking to re-locate to Scotland.

 
Two wrongs make a far right!

You can read the story of Yvonne Hama, who appeared on the front page of the official no campaign website, here. It so shocking that even the BBC had to report it!

 

But none of that stopped Ms Hama from starring in the no campaign TV broadcast a day later. It's #hamatime!

Go Westminster! (Seriously, just go away and stop interfering)

Everyone in Scotland who is reading this article will be pleased to know that the tax they pay is contributing to the 'no' campaign! HM Government has been paying for better together adverts on various websites in an attempt to prevent a Yes vote in September's referendum.

 

This story appeared on aworkingclassman.com, whose evidence comes from Google Adwords used on their site. It was confirmed that this process has continued into the final 28 days of the referendum, which is in direct contravention of the Edinburgh Agreement. The real question is whether or not the Electoral Commission will record this expenditure as part of the no campaign budget and act on this breach of election rules. We don't have high expectations.

 

Vote Yes and we'll punish you (vote no and we'll really punish you!)

Westminster's idle threats against Scottish Independence have been around since the start of the referendum campaign, but their very geniune signals of intent following a 'no' vote have become much clearer during the past week. The Times, the Herald, the Telegraph, the Scotsman and even the BBC are highlighting the coming cuts (although they use the estimate of £4 billion per year rather than the more likely £7 billion figure).

And these extra cuts are likely to come about despite up to 1,000,000 being unable to afford adequate housing with 100,000 of them being deemed too poor for even minimum standards. Instead of looking at money that is being wasted, it is those who have the least that will bare the brunt of future London budgets.

 

Vote Yes and Westminster will have to cut off its own leg to scratch us, vote no, and we'll be left defenceless to resist their austerity programme (as well as the demand for a pound of flesh from voters in England).

  

The missing 8 billion barrels of oil - Let's 'Frack' this case!

If you have any interaction with the Main Stream Media in Scotland, then you will have come across the name Ian Wood. This week, he claimed that there is just 15,000,000,000 to 16,500,000,000 barrels of oil left in the North Sea, which is much lower than the amount in Scottish Government's White Paper on Independence (24,000,000,000 barrels). The fact that this was significantly higher than the OBR's estimate of 10,000,000,000 barrels wasn't as widely reported.

So what do other experts in the field believe? Well the UK Government's own Department of Energy and Climate Change put the oil reserves at 35,000,000,000 barrels, and N-56, a think tank with members that operate in the North Sea, has estimates closer to 60,000,000,000. You can also read the reply to Mr Wood by economist and former advisor to Labour and Conservative Secretaries of State for Scotland Donald MacKay here.

 

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, in February of this year Ian Wood wrote a report saying that he believed there to be around 24,000,000,000 barrels left in the North Sea (yes, the same Ian Wood who, with no new information being presented to him, now believes that 8 billion barrels worth of oil has magically disappeared). He also advised young people to get involved in the North Sea industry as it can offer them 'a job for life'. Let's hope that none of them were silly enough to listen to him!

 

While nothing has changed with regards to the amount of extractable oil, a new feature is UK Government contracts for fracking becoming available. Mr Wood's company, the imaginatively titled 'Wood Group', is heavily involved in fracking, and Westminster will be handing out lucrative licences in various locations across Scotland and the UK. If the Wood Group were to receive enough of these, then Mr Wood's grandchildren would certainly be thankful for a no vote!

 

 

But the central question remains: do you believe the Scottish Government's position that we will have a massive windfall for numerous decades to come, a position based on record levels of investment by numerous oil companies as well as the evidence presented above, or Westminster's predictions that it will all be gone the moment we become independent. Here's a final bit of evidence to consider before you decide.

 

Things I don't know because I trust the BBC...#YesBecause!

The whole #YesBecause trend of twitter seemed to pass the BBC by this week. There were some fantastic messages of hope and optimism (as well as a few cheeky replies!) which helped to highlight the causes that we are campaigning for. It was fantastic that #YesBecause was seen around the world and it came just 1 day before Yes Scotland announced that 1 million voters in Scotland had signed the Yes Declaration.

Of course, there were a few #nobecause messages:
 

 

Remember to check our next 'not in the news' to find out what else I wouldn't know about if I trusted the BBC!

 

Silence in Unison

"SNP under fire for 'scandalous deceit' on future of NHS" was the headline in the Daily Express this week as the Yes Scotland campaign highlighted the threats to our health service. So it was no surprise that the controlled media in Scotland offered very little coverage to the warnings of NHS privatisation made by trade union group UNISON.

 

 

As you should know by now, if you want the facts, you need to look online. Our favourite article on this topic comes from Wings over Scotland with "More lying nationalists".

  

Join us again on Sunday for our next look at what's 'not in the news'!

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

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

Not in the News - Early August Edition

Welcome to the ninth of our bi-monthly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages. Our last edition covering late July can be found here.

  

Don't make the games political, or we'll make it personal

The Commonwealth Games were a fantastic event for Scotland. There were numerous trade deals signed which will generate more wealth and jobs for our country, and we proved to ourselves that we can produce a fantastic squad of athletes capable of competing with anyone.

 

Unfortunately, some of our athletes received bullying from UK organisations.

 

 

With a Yes vote, no Scottish athlete will ever be threatened for taking their own flag onto a podium (whether they choose to represent Scotland or the UK). This is one of the key aspects of independence: independent nations are equal nations. There are no second class national flags amongst independent countries.

 
Statistical Gymnastics (the BBC in Scotland is full of nincompoops!)

When it comes to manipulating figures, the BBC deserves a gold medal! We mentioned in our last edition of 'Not in the News' that the BBC had quickly altered figures on their website which originally showed Scotland as a net contributor to the UK. Now, thanks to Scott Minto of Wings over Scotland, we know how they are 'justifying' this change.

 

The scam starts like this: the actual export figures for Scotland in 2012 (the most recent year for which figures exist) were £98,100,000,000 (ninty eight billion, one hundred million pounds). With this figure, Scotland is clearly an net contributor, which is why the BBC had to change it. But how do you change reality? The BBC followed 3 easy steps:

 

1) They excluded oil and gas from Scotland's figures (but not from the UK's). This is immediately biased as the equivalent action of removing funds generated by financial transactions in the City of London are never done or considered. The excuse offered is that there hasn't been a formal agreement yet between the Scottish and Westminster Governments regarding marine territory, although this type of thing is covered extensively in the 'Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coast' and other international agreements. It is also Westminster who refuses to pre-negotiate. The BBC's solution is to assume that Scotland will have no rights anywhere (which is ridiculous).

  

Despite removing one of our most valuable revenue streams, Scottish exports would top £73,700,000,000 per year, which would still show us as net contributors. Something else needed to be done to talk us down.

 

2) The BBC excluded all exports from Scotland to the rest of the UK. No reason is given for this. The total affect of this change is to artificially lower our exports by £47,700,000,000 per year (down to £25,900,000,000). Yet even this figure would be too high for the BBC to use, so 1 more excerise in statistical gymnastics was required.

 

3) The 2012 figures, which are the most up-to-date, were replaced with the lower 2010 totals. The only possible reason for selecting 2010 and not 2011 or 2012 is to artifically put down Scotland's economic performance to fit into the BBC's narrative of lies.

Three unjustifible changes - assuming that Scotland has no oil or gas whilst predicting full UK control and no adjustments to the more volitile City money, the exclusing of all Scottish exports to the rest of the UK (but not the same in reverse) and the misleading of people by selecting out of date figures from a previous year - have been made by the BBC.

 

Yes Scotland is not competing against a no campaign, it is competing the Westminster mouthpiece known as the BBC. They are lying to you and have done so for quite some time. Don't trust the BBC.

 
Sidestepping parliament and the people

On the 29th of July, CND (the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) reported that David Cameron had signed a secret, decade-long nuclear agreement with the Government of the United States.

 

This was done without the opportunity for Parliament to discuss the terms which will not be disclosed to the public or MPs. This is how democracy works at Westminster. You can read more about this story at Newsnet Scotland.

 
The Times they are a lyin'

The Times newspaper: Making up Usain Bolt quotes so the no campaign doesn't have to. The Main Stream Media: Mo power, mo power, mo power, mo nonsense!

 

According to unionist newspapers, this is someone who doesn't like Scotland

 

Do you hate or despise independence?

On the 11th of July popular independence site 'Wings over Scotland' revealed the 16th questions being asked of Scots ex-pats living in the United States. These included such balanced questions as: "Do you think that the Scottish Government has any real idea of the financial and economic costs of ending the Union?" and "Are you more persuaded by the analysis and concerns of The Banker magazine or assured by the statements of the Scottish Government?" (you can look at each of the questions, along with their preambles, here).

 

The poll was organised by The Friends of Scotland who claim to be non-political organisation. They sent the survey to just 300 people. With the biased nature of the questions revealed in advance only a desperate rag would try to present their results as any kind of serious analysis.

 

Oh Daily Record, who included it on their Scotland now site. Oh Scotsman, who advertised their rival's website just to let their readers see the results (but not necessarily the questions). Oh Press & Journal, who decided to ignore journalism and follow their tabloid peers.

 
It's hard to keep track of London's expenditure

Keeping up-to-date with all of the non-Barnett expenditure that the UK lavishes on London and the South East of England can be quite tricky (see one of our attempts here), but considering that this one project alone is likely to cost Scotland over £19 billion we thought we would mention it.

 

"Once the Galactic Railroad is complete in London, we'll consider replacing the broken 'give way' sign near Tomintoul."

'Plans afoot for £200bn orbital railway!' was the headline in the Mail online. Unsurprisingly, similar plans for cities and towns in Scotland have not been announced. But don't worry, London expects another £1,300,000,000,000 (with over £120,000,000,000 coming from Scotland). And there are suggestions that they are going to get their wish.

  

Plans to have 39.7% of all UK state investment spent where just 13.14% of the people live are being made. If we're independent, then we can prove to those outside of London that there is an alternative.

 
On the Bonnie or Fracked Banks of Loch Lomond

The international media recently highlighted the expansion of fracking licences across the UK to include national parks and places of outstanding beauty. We now have confirmation that the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is going to be targeted.

 

Those opposed to fracking, which is also known as hydraulic fracturing, do so for both environmental and economic reasons. It triggers earthquakes, poisons water supplies, causes illness and loses money (lots of money). Fracking isn't required in an energy rich country like Scotland but will be forced upon us anyway if Westminster remains in charge.

 

And Westminster isn't likely to change their minds over the process. The blue side is being paid by the fracking companies, and the red side are happy to expand fracking further. There is only one certainty: vote no and Scotland will be fracked!

 
Crude attempts at silence

BP have been examining the potential for vast quantities of oil in the waters west of the Shetland Isles for quite some time. They announced in June that they were excited about the Clair field in particular.

 

Following an analysis of the initial (but as yet not publicly announced) results, Prime Minister David Cameron hurriedly visited the Shetland Islands (something that his predecessors had not done in over in over 30 years). He said little to the press and no further comment has been offered by No 10. Workers are not due to return to the site until after the referendum.

  

This has led to speculation that BP may have found one of the largest deposits of oil in the world.

 

We know from past experience that Westminster has lied to the people of Scotland about our resources. From the McCrone report which was classified for decades as 'top secret', to the cover-up of oil discovered on the west coast of Scotland, and mis-information regarding a future's fund similar to that which Norway has. Even international magazines recognise that the UK Government is lying.

 

Questions remain as to just how much wealth Scotland has. But the UK Government don't want you to know before you vote. Perhaps because the answer would guarantee a Yes.

 
What was once deleted is now un-deleted

Anti-independence comedy troope the Confederation of British Industry were embarrassed yet again in August (just as they have in April [twice], May, June and July). Emails which were thought to have been deleted have been uncovered by the Electoral Commission and finally revealed.

 

For context, here is a quote from a spokesperson for the confederation from earlier this year:

"The early conversations that took place between the EC and the CBI were at relatively junior official level and confined to narrow compliance issues," CBI statement

 

So let's take a look at who the 'relatively junior' officials were:

  

Iain McMillan, Director of the CBI in Scotland

David Lonsdale, Assistant Director of the CBI in Scotland

 

I guess the CBI consider a director (and his assistant) of its (admittedly very small) Scottish branch to be nothing more than a junior official. For once I think I may have to agree with them.

 

But where is the BBC in this story? As paying members of the anti-independence group they would have better access to information than most. Why is there no mention of this story on their news website? It's not as if they haven't highlighted the CBI in the past or stressed the importance of the views of these junior officials...

 

I guess they will keep us waiting until Friday the 19th of September.

No vote guarantees a raid on our troops' pensions

The UK Government will tax service personnel more for their pensions as a result of changes to the tax system from April 2017. The rules surrounding the introduction of a flat rate pension system means that those on a second state pension will no longer receive a rebate on their national insurance (potentially affecting anyone who is a state employee). This will cost the average Army private £162 a year in additional tax.

When victory is recorded as defeat

Amongst undecided who watched the STV debate between First Minister Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling MP, the Yes side won by 54% to 46%. So who does the newspapers and the BBC declare as the winner? Alistair Darling!

 

The excuse the controlled media gave for claiming that Alistair Darling won is because of a snap opinion poll by ICM. This opinion poll showed what you would expect - those thinking of voting Yes at the start backed the First Minister and those intending to vote no before the debate supported Alistair Darling. But they asked more people who were already committed to voting no than voting yes.

 
Our favourite quote came from Wee Ginger Dug:

"But for the most part the currency question is technocratic pseudowaffle. It’s one of those practical problems to which there is a practical solution. And there are several solutions, ranging all the way from a formal currency union to sticking the UK national debt up George Osborne’s arse and setting up a new Scottish currency, and all points in between. My personal favourite is the sticking it up George Osborne’s arse option, mainly because I’d like to see the look on his face. You can probably tell I’m not primarily motivated by economic arguments there."

Which is why you should read sites like Newsnet Scotland, Wings over Scotland, SCOT goes POP! and National Collective.

 
We don't need Westminster's approval

Contrary to suggestions made by the mainstream media, Scotland does not need Westminster's approval to use the pound or any other currency.

 

These countries share the same currencies, some officially, others unilaterally

Our most popular blog, 'So who else can't use the pound?', goes into detail about how and why we don't need permission from George Osborne or anyone else from Whitehall. Quite frankly, if you believe that Westminster would hurt businesses in England just to spite us, then why on earth would you want them making decisions over Scotland?

 
Why my juggling has prevented atomic war

I have been juggling for a number of years. There has been no nuclear wars during that time. Therefore, my juggling is the reason why there has been no nuclear wars.

 

This is how I learned to juggle

That is the argument put forward by Annabel Goldie MSP. Voting against the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland alongside her Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat allies, the representative for the West of Scotland said:

"The fact is that since acquiring Trident, and its predecessor, Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict." Annabel Goldie, presumably being serious

It feels almost embarrassing to point out that non-nuclear states have also avoided nuclear conflict during that time.

 

We have already looked into the reasons why Trident does nothing to keep us safe and is a complete waste of money. We have also examined NATO membership, and why the power to decide what alliances we make will be up to voters in Scotland. For unionist MSPs to actively vote to keep weapons for mass destruction stored a few minutes away from our largest city (and for Scots to continue paying for the things) is abhorant.

 

But after a Yes vote, these parties will change and start acting in Scotland's interests.

 
FREEDOM (of information)!

Our freedom of information request found the the UK Government's leaflet 'What staying in the United Kingdom means for Scotland' had no BSL or audio versions. You can read the full story here.

 

The BBC, which used the low number of orders for the BSL version of the White Paper to attack the Yes campaign, has, as of yet, not given the same attention to an even worse example by Westminster. We can only speculate as to why...

"I say the BBC is biased!" "And I say the BBC is incompetent!" (at least they agree the BBC is full of nincompoops!)

All aboard the love boat

Love is in the air as 200 people who aren't able to vote in the referendum told us that we should vote no because they care so much about us. You can check out some of their personal messages below.

 

First on the list - Piers Morgan:

"OK, Scotland, you've had your fun. Now just quietly vote 'NO' and we'll say no more about it." Piers Morgan, 8th of August

David Starkey:

"If we decide to go down this route of having an English national day, that means we become a feeble little country, just like the Scots and the Welsh and the Irish." David Starkey, BBC Question Time

 

Rob Liddle:

"The only reason any people remain in Scotland is on account of the extremely cheap alcohol available in supermarkets, plus a ready supply of heroin for when the alcohol runs out...Soon Carlisle and Berwick will resemble those awful UN transit camps you used to see in Rwanda; in this case the inhabitants would be millions of displaced, grey-eyed Jocks pleading for a fix of lager or subsidised methadone." Rob Liddle, Sunday Times

"Love us (or else!)" no campaign 'celebrities'

We can't wait to see what plan Ronnie Corbett and Barbara Windsor have to create a more democratic system, what Dan Snow and Dame Vera Lynn proposed to do about the 1 in 5 children in Scotland who live in poverty, or what Mick Jagger and David Bowie think about tax avoidance (I suspect we may have to wait some time for that last one).

 

Post script - we understand that Mick Jagger will be releasing an album to support the 'no' campaign. Songs include: 'Sympathy for Westminster', 'Tory money is on my side', 'I know it's only child poverty (but I like it)', 'Under our thumb', '19th September Nervous Breakdown' and finishing with 'It's all over now'. The album will be called 'Tax Exile on Downing St'.

 
The Scotsman is telt!

We just wanted to point people towards the fantastic letter by broadcaster Derek Bateman for the editor of the Scotsman "newspaper". It is definitely worth a read!

Wings gives you no bull!

Popular online blog Wings over Scotland has produced its long awaited 'Wee Blue Book'! Digital versions can be downloaded from its website in an easy read format for laptops and smart phones (click here). On its first day it achieved over 100,000 downloads. A physical version will also be coming soon.

  

It is a fantastic read and covers the main issues of the referendum campaign. Short and sweet, it is bound to be a big help to those who are looking for more information (and we know they won't find it in the newspapers - as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and above).

 

Occupancy rates at over 1,000,000%! 999,000,000 people at risk!!!

Another case of the BBC attacking the Scottish NHS with exaggerated figures. The reason why? Newsnet Scotland covered that back in 2012.

 
Join us again near the end of August for our next look at what's 'not in the news'!
Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland