Jan 18, 2012, Multiply, Scottish Independence

Scottish Independence

Jan 18, '12 7:11 PM for everyone

http://home.scotland.gov.uk/home

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Scotland


http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/HCOU-4UCGGJ

http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/the-2012-olympics-and-the-barnett-formula-an-end-to-the-row/

http://www.nfus.org.uk/farming-facts/what-we-produce

WARNING;
THIS IS A PRETTY LONG READ,
AND FOR SOME PROBABLY A BIT BORING,
 BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I THINK SCOTLAND
SHOULD GAIN INDEPENDENCE
READ ON

Scottish Independence is THE hot topic of conversation again and the question most people ask is ‘could Scotland survive on her own? My answer to that………oh yes.
The assumption seems to be that Scotland would be more vulnerable and less economically viable as an independent Nation. It’s a common belief that England subsidises Scotland financially and without those subsidies Scotland’s economy would collapse, taxes would rise and living standards would fall. My standard response to that is ‘’Independence is not primarily a matter of economy it’s about national Identity and the right of a Nation to self determination’’.  And I do believe that, but I also believe Scotland would flourish politically and economically as an Independent Nation. There’s not one single reason why an Independent Scotland should fail.
To put it into some sort of perspective compare Scotland with Norway
Scotland has a population of 5.2 million, Norway has a population of about  4.9 million.
Norway has extensive reserves of petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood, fresh water, and hydropower. Norway, is a net exporter of energy.
Scotland has some of the best energy resources in Europe, and is a net exporter of electricity. At present it has a generating capacity of 10.1GW primarily from coal, oil and gas with some nuclear generation. This is supplemented with an ever increasing amount of renewable energy.
Gas and oil
The great majority of the UK's oil production and around half of its gas production comes from fields based in the continental shelf around Scotland, and mines in Scotland are responsible for around a quarter of the UK's coal production.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource which is why Scotland's ability to produce renewable energy is so important but; while the UK still has fossil fuels most of it is produced off the coast of  Scotland. Considering Scotland has a population of only 5 million compared to the total UK population of almost 70 million, Scotland has a huge advantage when it comes to energy production and energy potential.
Renewables
Scotland has been identified as having vast potential for the development of renewable energy.  There is potential wave, tidal and wind power in abundance. Scotland's wind and seas hold some of the most concentrated potential not only across the UK and Europe, but in the world, with an estimated 25% of Europe's offshore wind and wave potential and 10% Europe’s tidal capacity.
Scotland accounts for around nine per cent of the UK's total energy consumption, but is rich in energy resources. Around 20 per cent of the electricity generated in Scotland NOW is exported to the rest of the UK, as the renewable energy becomes more available, Scotland’s energy excess will increase leaving more and more energy available for export. With nearly 7 gigawatts of renewable energy now either, installed and producing, or in the pipeline, Scotland is expected to meet its target for renewables to generate 100 per cent of gross annual electricity demand by 2020, just 8 short years away. I would say that any nation with the potential to be self sufficient in renewable energy by 2020 AND  have the capacity to export energy,  is not a nation that need worry about its economy.
Wave and tidal energy
Scotland possesses a huge wave and tidal energy resource; the potential exists to generate far more electricity than would ever be needed from wave and tidal energy sources in the waters around the Scottish coast. Wave energy is intermittent but relatively predictable, whereas tidal current energy is intermittent but largely predictable. Some of the best resources in the world for wave energy are located off the north-west coast and northern tip of Scotland - the world's first commercial wave energy device continues to produce  power on the shoreline at Islay.
 Wave and tidal energy will make a very important contribution towards meeting  future demands for electricity; that is why  Scotland  helped fund the construction of the European Marine Energy Centre on Orkney. This Centre is a world class facility for the development, testing and accreditation of marine energy generation and delivery systems.
Biomass energy
Apart from fossil fuels, biomass is the only other naturally-occurring, energy-containing carbon resource large enough to be used as a substitute for fossil fuels. Biomass includes plant matter, vegetation and trees, as well as waste biomass such as municipal solid waste (MSW), municipal biosolids (sewage) and animal wastes (manures), forestry and agricultural residues, and certain types of industrial wastes. Unlike fossil fuels, biomass is renewable in the sense that only a short period of time is needed to replace what is used as an energy resource. Biomass is also held to be "carbon neutral", in that the amount of carbon it absorbs while growing is the same as the amount it produces when burned. Scotland has a potentially huge wood fuel resource arising from its forests and associated timber resource. Biomass energy could be extremely valuable in Scotland, given its lack of intermittency, its ability to meet local and small-scale energy needs and its potential to provide and sustain jobs.
Solar energy
Scotland’s long hours of summer daylight and demand for heat and hot water even when it's sunny makes it a prime candidate for the development of solar energy technologies. Solar applications are usually small scale and can supply electricity or heat on a domestic scale which is probably why solar panels on the roofs of houses are becoming a common sight across Scotland.
The energy industry is big business in Scotland, Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe. This puts the country in the unique position of already having the business expertise, infrastructure and work force ready willing and waiting for the industry to diversify into renewables as the North Sea Oil and gas becomes scarcer.
Water
Scotland has an abundance of fresh pure water. In Scotland, public drinking water and sewerage services are provided by a public sector corporation, Scottish Water, which is accountable to Scottish Ministers and through Ministers to the Scottish Parliament. In England and Wales these services are delivered by private profit led companies.
Scottish Water operates within a regulatory framework established by the Scottish Parliament in which Scottish Ministers, acting on behalf of the people of Scotland, set the objectives for the industry to be delivered at least cost to customers.
The water industry contributes to the Scottish Government's Strategic Objectives, specifically the objective ‘’ A wealthier and Fairer Scotland’’
Unlike other parts of the UK Scotland has more water than it will ever need, in fact there have been suggestions that water could be exported from Scotland to England.
BUT;
important though they are, a country can’t survive on energy and water alone.
The Economy of Scotland
The Scottish labour market has performed better than the UK as a whole during the last year (2011). Over the year employment in Scotland has risen by 14,000 while unemployment has fallen by 14,000. Scotland's employment rate is higher than in the UK (71.2% vs. 70.2%), and unemployment is  lower (8.0% vs. 8.3%).
There is a slow recovery in the Scottish economy which is continuing, but along with the rest of the world, recovery is fragile. This says more about the world recession than it does about Scotland’s ability to survive in the world independently. The very fact that some progress has been made is encouraging.  Output in Scotland grew by 1.1% last year.
The economy of Scotland is closely linked with the rest of the UK and Europe. When assessing the economy of Scotland; the revenue from North Sea oil and gas is never included, but all monies passed from Westminster to Scotland are, which makes it appear as if Scotland’s outgoings are greater than its incomes. However, it’s widely accepted if North Sea revenues were included in the equation, as they would be in an Independent Scotland, Scotland would have a small budget surplus. In 2011-12, North Sea oil and gas is forecast to generate £13.4 billion in tax revenue, a record high in nominal terms. And over the five years from 2011-12 to 2015-16 it is forecast to raise £61 billion in tax revenue, 35 per cent more than during the previous five years. And under the present system of administration ALL  of that revenue goes directly to Westminster and bypasses Scotland.
The Scottish timber industry and Scotland's timber resources
Scotland’s forests are the most productive in the UK. They make a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy through jobs in the wood processing industry, forest management, wood haulage and associated industries.
At the start of the 20th century, Scotland (like the rest of
the UK) depended almost entirely on imported wood.
This led to supply problems during the naval blockades of WW1. At the time the shortage of wood for pit props threatened the UK’s main source of energy, which at the time was coal. In 1919 this led to the founding of the Forestry Commission with the specific aim of ensuring sufficient supplies of home grown timber. Since then, nearly 10,000 km2of new forest have been created in Scotland – and almost half of this was planted between 1965 and 1990. Presuming that average consumption per person in Scotland
is the same as in the rest of the UK, the total consumption in Scotland is about 7.5 million m3 wood. This compares with Scotland’s annual wood harvest of 5.5 million m3, this leaves Scotland 73% per cent self sufficient in wood as a raw material..
In practice, Scotland imports more than the balance of 2 million m3, but also exports large amounts of wood, especially to the rest of the UK
In 1980, just over 1.5 million m3 of wood was harvested from
Scotland’s forests; by 2000 this had reached 5.5 million m3 per
year. Since then production, the associated industries and exports continue to increase. Scotland's managed forests are entirely sustainable and as the newer forests mature, the wood harvest will continue to grow, approaching 10 million m3 per year by 2020 which is estimated to exceed Scotland’s demand for wood.
Fishing Industry
Scotland's main sea fishing opportunities are regulated as part of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and every year there are ongoing arguments about quotas and time at sea.  The aim of the regulations is to preserve fish stocks and ensure sustainability, regulations are needed to protect fish stocks and fishermen recognize this, but that doesn’t make the quotas any easier. Despite quotas and regulations, Scotland remains one of the largest sea fishing nations in Europe and the Scottish Government is an integral part of the UK team negotiating fishing opportunities with other countries. The Scottish fleet is responsible for landing 66 per cent of the total UK volume of fish. You only need remember the difference in the population size between Scotland and the rest of the UK to realize Scotland catches far more fish than (within the UK as a whole) it consumes.
Agriculture in Scotland
Some 75% of Scotland’s land mass is under agricultural production, making the industry the single biggest determinant of the landscape we see around us. Scotland’s farmers, crofters and growers produce output worth around £3.0 billion a year, and are responsible for much of Scotland’s £400 million food exports, rising to £2.4 billion if whisky exports are included. Around 65,000 people are directly employed in agriculture in Scotland. Best estimates suggest that for every worker employed in agriculture another three workers are employed elsewhere. These jobs are largely in agricultural supply, and in food and drink processing.
Beef;
Scotland has almost 30% of the UK herd of breeding Beef cattle and 4% of the EU herd. The UK beef herd is the second largest in Europe, after France.
Dairy
Scotland has approximately 9% of the UK dairy herd. The UK has the third largest dairy herd in the EU after France and Germany, and the largest average herd size.
Sheep
Scotland has more than 20% of the UK breeding flock. The UK has the largest sheep flock in the EU – over a quarter of the total EU flock.
Pigs
Scotland has almost 10% of the UK pig herd. There are over 1000 holdings with pigs in Scotland and a third of these holdings are in the North East of Scotland.
Cereals
Over 454,000 hectares of cereals are grown in Scotland. Scotland’s main cereal crops are barley and wheat. More than 12% of the UK cereal area was grown in Scotland. The UK is the third largest cereal producer in the EU after France and Germany.
Other crops grown in Scotland include potatoes, oil seed rape and fruit. Scottish producers produce over 2400 tonnes of raspberries and over 4600 tonnes of strawberries per annum.
Soft fruit production tends to be concentrated in fertile areas of Tayside and Angus which has some of the best quality land in the whole of Europe. Other fruits, such as rhubarb are also grown in certain areas as are field vegetables such as carrots, peas, beans and turnips are also grown, sometimes for animal feed and sometimes for human consumption.
If you look at the percentage of UK agricultural production that comes from Scotland and then you look population percentages of Scotland compared to the rest of the UK its hard to understand how any one could say Scotland would not prosper as an independent nation.
Financial services
Scotland is already internationally recognised as the most important UK financial centre outside London and the South East. Edinburgh offers international services including global custody, asset servicing, banking, investment management, corporate finance, general / life assurance and pensions. The very word ‘Bank’ is a dirty word these days, but (unfortunately some may say), in a developed country financial services are an essential part of life. Edinburgh is already an established financial centre which is poised to serve an Independent Scotland and make the transition from devolved country to Independent country as smooth as possible.
The latest data available from the Business Register and Employment Survey show the financial industry in Scotland employs over 94,000 people with more than half of these working in banking.
Tourism
Tourism is one of Scotland's largest business sectors. It provides direct employment for 200,000 people and generates visitor spending of more than £4.5 billion a year. In the height of the summer Scotland is full to bursting with Americans tourists looking for their ancestral homes and wanting to buy their clan tartans, and Japanese tourists photographing castles, hills, bagpipes and men wearing kilts.
Even during recent years tourism in Scotland has continued to grow. Tourism has become an important part of Scottish life every where, from major cities to rural areas, many of which depend on the industry for jobs and infrastructure.

And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg, Scotland is so much more than this. Already Scotland offers a more comprehensive health care system than England, no one pays for prescription drugs and residential care for the elderly is free. Our Education system is completely different to that of the rest of UK and unlike other students, our students do not have to pay tuition fees. To generalise; the political ideology of Scotland tends to be more socialist than that of England. Scotland tends to favour a more collectivist, less private type of society than England. When schools across the UK were given the option of opting out of local authority control there was a glut of English schools clamouring to opt out, but to date only one Scottish school has opted out. Scotland WANTS its local authorities to be responsible for providing good education and it DOESN’T want schools to opt out and become part of the private sector. In Scotland, public drinking water and sewerage services are provided by a public sector corporation, Scottish Water, which is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. In England and Wales these services have been privatised. Water companies in England and Wales are private profit led companies but when water privatisation was suggested in Scotland, there was such popular rebellion against the idea that is simply never happened. The mass protest across Scotland against the unfairness of the poll tax led the way for the rest of Britain until finally this Maggie led atrocity was abolished. In discussion about Scottish independence some one recently said to me ‘’ It’s just that people also need jobs, education for kids and access to affordable medical care’’, my response to that is………….yeah I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be a problem.



 

Tags: scotland, political

Prev: The morning light.
Next: Song Saturday; Peter Gabriel, Solsbury Hill.

reply edit delete

35 Comments

Add a Comment

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 24 Loretta, the UN is the final arbiter of what might pass for international law in the world. All Countries (with a few exceptions) are members and are bound by their rules. Sanctions and resolutions imposed by the UN are supposed to be binding (except when the big five care to ignore them such as was the case with UNSCR 1970 and 1973 over Libya). The veto wielded by the big five is of crucial importance to the Pwermanent Security Council. It's only this veto (for instance) which enables Israel to ignore all sanctions against her. The threat of the veto by Russia and China is all that's keeping the US from attacking yet another Country in the Middle east. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, acting on the authority of the Queen and, representing indirectly all the Realms and Territories plus the fifty four nations of the Commonwealth acts on behalf of over 2.1 billion people. Our seat on the PSC and the veto is not one to be given up lightly. At the moment Argentina is making noises about the Falklands and occasionally mutters about the UN interceeding. Hilary Clinton, on behalf of the US would love to see the Falklands renamed the Maldives. An adverse vote in the General Council and it's only our permanent seat and the veto that would keep our subjects of the Crown in the South Atlantic free from argentinian domination. I'm afraid I don't share your confidence in the EU. I won't talk too much about it here as that would detract too much from your original blog but, a power block which would openly remove the heads of government in Greece and Italy and replace them with appointed Kommisars, manipulate elections across Europe and attempt total fiscal control of all of Europe is not something I'd trust. In my opinion the EU is the most dangerous power block in the world today and by far the most evil.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 21 bernardv said Hello again, I'm sorry I couldn't repond last night but, as I said, I had company and your comment deserves concentration and not some half hearted response. Hi and after tea with a friend and the day with my daughter, I’m finally back. I don’t think I agree with your comment re ‘’ Polls that I've seen point (in general) that a majority of Scots would prefer to remain in the Union while the majority of English would prefer them to leave. But, polls can mean whatever they want them to mean so I don't put much credence in them.’’ Results by area for the Scottish elections 2011 for the Holyrood parliament were; SNP 73 seats, labour 30seats , conservative 16seats, lib dem 9 seats others 1seat. Or put another way Scottish national Party 73 seats, all others 56. That’s a pretty substantial majority, so I don’t know where the idea that the majority of Scots are against Independence comes from. It was on the basis of the SNP landslide last year that that the subject of a referendum was raised, the overwhelming majority gained by the SNP should, in theory, have been enough in itself to move someway toward independence. Despite this majority we are no closer to independence as such, but we are much closer to a referendum, which is good. . I understand your concerns about the UN veto, but I’m not sure I share them. Personally I would like to see Scotland align itself more to the EU and less to America, and if the loss of our UN veto will achieve this, then its not all bad. Sometimes I get the feeling that US says jump and UK says how high, and personally I really don’t like this. I don’t think our seat at UN will pass to the EU, but if it does, that needn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Scotland’s Judiciary, along with its Education system, is completely separate from the rest of the UK therefore any adjustments would be minimal. You said ‘’ The dissolution is an enormous undertaking and not one to be taken lightly’’, and I agree it is, and every one else in Scotland knows this too, which only goes to show how much people are willing to have their lives disrupted in order to regain Independence. I keep thinking about your final little statement…’’ Finally, I hope Scotland doesn't go. I like Scotland and I like the Scots. Over three hundred years we've accomplished so much and it's my personal opinion that a dissolution would diminish both our Countries.’’ I know you feel this way, and I think lots of other people think this way too. We are two people looking at the same thing from a completely different viewpoint. Imagine you are at the top of a hill and I am at the bottom of the same hill and we both take a photograph of a tall tree half way up the hill. It is exactly the same tree and both pictures are authentic representations of the tree but the images themselves are radically different. Unless I travel to the top of the hill, I can’t recognize your Image as a true image of the tree, and vice versa. It’s pretty hard for someone else to understand how the need for Independence becomes so ingrained.

Comment deleted at the request of the thread owner.

delete reply catherinearmant wrote on Jan 20 I made this Video, (the Music is mine), in 2009, and I called it : "Stupendous Scotland".

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 20 bernardv said Hello again, I'm sorry I couldn't repond last night but, as I said, I had company and your comment deserves concentration and not some half hearted response. fraid that' a ditto from me..............off to tea with a friend now, hopefully back later to respond. Looks like you have some good points there which I will need to think about

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 20 bernardv said Holy Mother. I'll have to admit I just read the link and didn't look into the background of the author don't worry neither did I. I read it and it somehow didn't 'sit right' with me. I think I am maybe more accustomed this type of tirade from those who oppose independence than you are which is why I checked out the guy. I had a feeling I had heard of him and his ultra right views before so wasn't particularly surprised at what I found. The pity is its often this type of misrepresentation that encourages others to think of Independence as unrealistic. I'm all for real debate about independence but this sort of rubbish only clouds the issues. And no I don't think he wrote it for the money, I think he wrote it for the glory, to be quoted as a pretty smart chap who knows a thing or two.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 20, edited on Jan 20 Hello again, I'm sorry I couldn't repond last night but, as I said, I had company and your comment deserves concentration and not some half hearted response. I would agree on your point of national self determination, in fact the UN insists on it. In the Falklands for instance the UN is insistent that the Falklanders may decide for themselves wether they remain subjects of the Crown, defer to Argentina or, declare independence. So far they elect to remain subjects of the Crown. The legal difficulty in this regard is in places like Kosovo. The balkanisation (as they put it) of the former Yugoslavia has, in my view, been a retrograde step. Scotland certainly has the legal right in international law to have a referendum on independence. I've seen the question raised that a referendum on the break up of the UK should involve all of the affected Countries and not just Scotland. I'm not really qualified to address that point I'm afraid. Polls that I've seen point (in general) that a majority of scots would prefer to remain in the Union while the majority of english would prefer them to leave. But, polls can mean whatever they want them to mean so I don't put much credence in them. A point that I've seen raised more than once though is the UK seat on the Permanent Security Council of the UN (along with our power of veto). This was negotiated when the UK included Scotland and it may be open to question if Scotland secedes. Baroness Ashton, High Representative of the EU, has expressed more than once that our seat should pass to the EU. That's not something I'd like to see. Not something he US would like to see either I imagine as France and the EU would very likely vote as a block. The economic points are not within my purview I'm afraid. I take your point about the RBS though. Mr Salmond however, in my opinion, should give some thought to how much of the UK debt may be transferred to Scotland and it's repercussions on future repayments or further loans from the IMF and World Bank. I appreciate your other points about defence, passports (embassies?), a coastguard, of course. These are all things that will take some serious thinking on the part of Mr Salmonds advisors. The dissolution is an enormous undertaking and not one to be taken lightly. Not just for finance or defence but also the laws that affect our lands. Just as a 'for instance' our military, at the moment, swear loyalty to the Crown as does our police force, not to the Government. That would be anathema to our Constitution. I'm aware that the Scottish judiciary are different in some ways from our own but, I don't know in what respects. In England, as you will no doubt know, our judiciary is also responsible to the Crown and not the Government. I don't know how Scotland will rearrange these things although, I'm sure they've thought about it. Finally, I hope Scotland doesn't go. I like Scotland and I like the scots. Over three hundred years we've accomplished so much and it's my personal opinion that a dissolution would diminish both our Countries.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 20 Holy Mother. I'll have to admit I just read the link and didn't look into the background of the author. At the time it seemed to bring up some valid points, now I'm not so sure. I think you've known me long enough now Loretta to know that this mans viewpoints are diametrically opposed to my own. And, while that shouldn't alter the validity of something that he's written, I can't help but feel uneasy at his motives (assuming he didn't just write it for the money). Possibly I'm becoming too cynical in my old age (grins). I also didn't know he was married to Susan Gilchrist, a managing partner of Brunswick and friend of Robert Thomson (managing editor of the Wall Street Journal). In fact she wrote a laudatory article about him not too long ago (Redefining reporting for the digital age). In future I shall check more closely.

delete reply mitchylr wrote on Jan 20 Some really interesting discussion going on here, I can see both sides of the argument. I'll keep coming back to read when I can. I'm afraid politics is not one of my strong points, so I don't have a lot to add to the discussion.

delete reply veryfrank wrote on Jan 19 I will have to revisit this another time. I'm not able to sit long enough to get through it, at least not until the incision on my hip heals.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 19 bernardv said knew I'd seen this somewhere. It's a projection of Scotlands future if they leave the UK written by the historian Andrew Roberts. It's well worth a read in my opinion. He makes some scary points Thanks for the link, I checked it out. I can’t say I took it seriously, most of it is speculation mixed with not particularly pleasant sarcasm … e.g. ’’Scottish Groat’’ etc etc However, I thought a little insight into the article may be useful. It was written by author and historian Andrew Roberts; Roberts was born in London, the son of a business executive who inherited a large dairy milk business and owned the UK franchise of KFC. He obtained his degree in Modern History at Cambridge and then began a career in corporate finance as an investment banker and company director with Robert Fleming & co, a London Merchant Bank. He is married to Susan Gilchrist, a senior partner of a corporate communications firm and Governor of the South Bank Centre. He was a vocal supporter of the Iraq war, he supported and encouraged invasion claiming that any thing else would be ‘appeasement’.. He likened Blair to Churchill and eagerly anticipated the day when ‘’Iraq is successfully invaded and hundreds of weapons of mass destruction are unearthed from where they have been hidden by Saddam's henchmen’’ ( nice to know he’s not right all the time) He is vocal supporter of waterboarding by the CIA claiming that ‘’sometimes liberty requires some pretty unpalatable decisions’, I don’t think ‘unpalatable’ is a word I’d use to describe waterboarding, but there again I wouldn’t fantasise about a failing Scottish currency called a ‘Scottish groat’’ either. He claimed that the Iraq war was being fought by the English speaking peoples as "an existential war for the survival of their way of life" and that "this struggle against Islamofascism is the fourth world war" (the Cold War being the third world war). He believes the English speaking peoples are at the forefront of protecting civilization. And that George Bush was a success. In 2006 he wrote a book ‘A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900’ , which was criticised in The Economist but historical, geographical, and typographical errors, in short, The Economist didn’t think at lot of this work. Other publications of Roberts include; A History of the World in 100 Weapons, Napoleon Bonaparte, Postcards from the Trenches, The Multicultural Experiment, The Kings and Queens of England, the Storm of War, the Art of War, Master and Commanders…. ………..by now you get the gist. Is any one surprised this man mocks Scottish Independence? Back to the article, published by the Daily Mail, right wing tabloid edited by Paul Dacre who is known for a conservative editorial stance on topics such as immigration, working women and teenage sex. That would be the same daily Mail which, following a successful liable case bought by Businessman Alan Sugar paid out £100,000 in damages, following a successful liable case bought by Actress Diana Rigg paid out £30,000 in damages, following a successful liable case bought by Elton John paid out £100,000 in damages and in January 2009 awarded £30,000 to Dr Austen Ivereigh following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortions. Excuse me if I don’t take this article too seriously.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 19 brendainmad said I heard the question of an independent Scotland on the news (Spanish) the other day. Reading this, I think the UK needs Scotland, but Scotland doesn't really need the UK. bravo....................... :-)

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 That's a brilliant comment Loretta (and frankly I agree with much of it). I'me very much looking forward to responding to it. It'll have to be in the morning though, I have company and that deserves concentration.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19 forgetmenot525 said if the US disarmed the world may well be a safer place. Yes, it may well be, especially if it held Israel in check and worked to build relationships with Russia, China and the Muslim world. The US lost more men in the Civil War of 1861-65 than in ALL its other wars/police actions/invasions combined. I do not want to hijack Loretta's blog or change the subject, but we managed to kill more of our countrymen in one morning in Gettysburg (1864) than were killed on 9/11.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 19 bernardv said But, how would you feel if the US had no army just because nobody is attacking you at the moment? lol..............hate to bring a note of triviality here...........but personally I think if the US disarmed the world may well be a safer place.

edit delete reply forgetmenot525 wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 19 bernardv said You make a strong case Loretta. Politically though there are problems with a Scottish independence. Hi and thanks for the comments, first, I don't claim to be an expert, I'm not that good at politics or economics and much of what I wrote was a combination of information I had found on various other sites, newspapers etc, edited and in places copy/paste. .However.........to answer your points; As I said in the beginning, independence is primarily a matter of National Identity and the right of a nation to self determination. Once that principle is established every thing else follows. If you said to any other nation that they should give up their independence and become subordinate to another nation because their Independence presented ‘political problems'............you wouldn't be taken seriously. Any Nation would say exactly the same as Scotland does, if there are 'problems', we need to find solutions but what we absolutely don't need is to give up our Independence, the biggest 'political problem' any nation could face is lack of Independence. Re EU membership; there are options for an Independent Scotland which as part of the UK don't exist. Scotland could, for example chose not to be a full member of the EU and instead opt for membership to the European Economic Area (EEA), established on 01.01.1994 following an agreement between the member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Community, later the European Union (EU).Specifically, it allows Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway to participate in the EU's Internal Market without a conventional EU membership. In exchange, they are obliged to adopt all EU legislation related to the single market, except laws on agriculture and fisheries. One EFTA member, Switzerland, has not joined the EEA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area Or, it could chose to remain a full member of the EU or, it could even chose complete independence from all European trade agreements. That’s extremely unlikely and in my opinion not particularly sensible. The point is, as an independent Nation it would have the CHOICE and it’s the right to choose, in exactly the same way as every other nation has the right to chose that is most important. Yes I agree there would need to be negotiated agreements between the EU, the UK and Scotland but I don’t see why that would be a problem. The EU spends most of its time negotiating agreements, I don’t see why they would object to negotiating with Scotland. In fact, since the EU and the UK often seem at loggerheads the EU may even welcome the chance to negotiate with Scotland. ‘’ Mr Salmond claims Scotland would walk away with 90 per cent of North Sea oil assets, but leave English taxpayers to shoulder the £187billion exposure to the Royal Bank of Scotland. He may find that more difficult than he anticipates.’’ I’ve already said I’m not an economist, and I can’t say with certainty that Scotland would receive 90% of North Sea revenues, but I do know Scotland would get a substantial amount from North Sea revenues and when added to the revenue from Scotland’s many other assets there is no reason why Scotland should suffer economically more than any other Nation. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group is a British banking and insurance holding company in which the UK Government holds an 84% stake, that 84% is managed by UK Financial Investments Limited, which also manages, amongst others, The National Westminster Bank and the Ulster Bank. Which means; that although its called The Royal Bank of Scotland, and it is based in Edinburgh, it is in fact a multinational company managed by the UK government. And as such I would expect the distribution of its assets and debts to be the subject of discussion and agreement between the UK government and Scotland. Both sides will negotiate the best deal possible and I’m sure what ever Mr Salmond thinks is fair will not be the same as what the UK government thinks is fair, but that’s the nature of negotiation. Many people say what your friend says, that an Independent Scotland would be top heavy with public sector employees and as such fail to secure the revenue needed to continue free prescriptions etc. This is a direct quote from the SNP site ‘’ Sweden has its enhanced parental rights, including generous maternity and paternity leave; Norway its £300 billion Pension Fund from oil; and Denmark has been able to lead the world in onshore wind technology. And what do they have in common? They are all small independent states. Independence will allow us to take decisions in Scotland that will improve the lives of families, communities and individuals across our country. With independence we will have the ability to solve our own problems and to make the most of the very many opportunities open to all of us.’’ http://www.snp.org/ When you look at those other small Independent Nations and you look at their natural resources and the way they are governed, and then you compare them to Scotland, there doesn’t seem to be any reason why Scotland couldn’t be equally as successful. I know there are differences, but there are more similarities than differences. I think much of the problem here is the difference in expectation. Scotland in many ways shares the ideology of the Scandinavian countries and England’s ideology leans more toward the American model. To those who share a more Anglo/American view, the high level of public services looks suspicious, it looks like ‘big government’, perceived as a bad thing, the Scots on the whole don’t see that as bad. Defence; as far as I know we would get rid of the submarines and be a nuclear free country, and that’s a good thing. As Bennett said………….who would attack us?? Why would any one attack us?? The country I find scariest is America, and with so many Americans claiming Scottish ancestry I can’t see them being a problem, although I do worry about them more than any other country. And lets face it, no matter how well armed you are, if America decides you need ‘liberating’ there’s not a lot you can do about it. Who attacks Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, to name but a few? If those countries manage to have a small defense force suitable for its needs, why couldn’t Scotland? And as for the RAF etc bases closing down………..they already are, the UK government has been withdrawing its bases from Scotland for a long time, most recently the government announced the closure of RAF Leuchars. Leuchars was particularly valuable to the people of Scotland, not because of the money it bought into the area, although that of course was useful, but because the air /sea rescue helicopters fly from there. If you knew our coast line, the weather conditions here and the cliffs surrounding the coast, you would understand how vulnerable that leaves us. There are barely any passport controls between France and the UK and the controls that are there are easy enough to negotiate, why would it be any more difficult to pass between England and Scotland? Scotland already has a very efficient Passport office in Glasgow, staffed with efficient passport personnel. I’m sure it wouldn’t be that difficult for them to start dealing with Scottish passports rather than UK ones. All of the points you raise are valid concerns, but none of them address the main issue, which is the right of a Nation to Independence and self determination. If you look at the situation objectively, if you forget about the propaganda from both sides and assess the countries population, resources etc and then compare that the population, resources etc of other similar small countries, its pretty hard to come up with reason as to why the other countries manage as Independent nations and yet Scotland supposedly needs to remain tethered and subordinate to another bigger country.

delete reply brendainmad wrote on Jan 19 I heard the question of an independent Scotland on the news (Spanish) the other day. Reading this, I think the UK needs Scotland, but Scotland doesn't really need the UK.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 It was fun chatting with you too Bennet. Take care in your day...........:)

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 20 bennett1 said I think our reading or understanding of the Schengen Treaty is somewhat different. That may well be. The Common Travel Area only works as long as the Republic of Ireland (not to be confused with Northern ireland) is not a member of the Shengen Zone. Scotland would be required to join Shengen and therefore could not be party to a hypothetical Common Travel Area between the UK and Scotland.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19 Wonderful talking with you, must go. I cannot wait until Loretta returns from work as I am anxious to hear her views on these points.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19 bernardv said Nobody's going to attack Texas either. The Texans feel they are under attack right now, by Mexico. But that is neither here not there. If an Irishman right now does not need a passport to travel to London, why would an independent Scotsman or woman? I think our reading or understanding of the Schengen Treaty is somewhat different.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 We could argue the ins and outs of a military for a long time but, to little purpose. I can't imagine any Country wanting to attack Scotland at the moment (I certainly wouldn't. I have a cousin who lives there and I've spent many relaxed weeks in Ayreshire). The point is though, nobody can fortell the future and Alex Salmond would find it difficult to make a case for no defence force at all. Nobody's going to attack Texas either. Why not disband their national guard, tell the federal government they no longer need air patrols (save a few tax dollars)? They could get rid of the coast guard too. It wouldn't work you see. In these unhappy times all Countries need some sort of military.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 bennett1 said Terrorism is best dealt with by diplomacy, not armies, Indeed so, on that point we're in full agreement.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 19 The Republic of Ireland is rather an anomalous point (as is the Isle of Man and possibly Guernsey). Together with Northern Ireland, the Republic is one Country and there is no fixed border between the two. It's impossible to control and so that's a virtue of neccessity. It's rather a grey area to be honest. Quote "Although not implemented until 1995, two years later during the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference, all European Union member states except the United Kingdom and Ireland, plus two non-member states Norway and Iceland, had signed the Schengen Agreement. During those negotiations, which led to Amsterdam Treaty and the incorporation of Schengen into the main body of European Union law, Britain and Ireland obtained an opt-out affirming their right to maintain systematic passport and immigration controls at their frontiers. If the United Kingdom or Ireland were to join Schengen, the Common Travel Area would come to an end. If one were to join without the other, the joining country would have to exercise border controls vis-à-vis the other thus ending the zone. If both were to join all the functions of the area would be subsumed into the Schengen provisions and the Area would cease to have any separate existence. The British government has always refused to lower its border controls as it believes that the island status of the Common Travel Area puts the United Kingdom in a better position to enforce immigration controls than mainland European countries with "extensive and permeable land borders". In contrast Ireland, while not signing the Schengen Treaty, has always looked more favourably on joining but has not done so in order to maintain the Common Travel Area and its open border with Northern Ireland, though in 1997 Ireland imposed selective identity and immigration controls on anyone arriving from the United Kingdom, measures that would not have been permitted if both countries were part of the Schengen Area. The Irish position is reflected in the Schengen opt-out secured by the United Kingdom and Ireland in the Amsterdam Treaty. While the protocol applies unconditionally to the United Kingdom, it only applies to Ireland while the Common Travel Area is maintained." Finished But Scotland, not being part of the Common Travel Area would require passport control from the UK. Not however from Countries within the Shengen Zone. They would be obliged to ratify the Shengen Treaty as that's a requirement for EU membership now.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19 Arguably, a military is necessary for the US, since we have run around making so many enemies. But Scotland? Really, who is going to attack it? The Isle of Mann? Terrorism is best dealt with by diplomacy, not armies, as the US is finding out to its grief. I did read the DailyMail article. Amusing, but fantasy. One person's projection of what might happen.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 bennett1 said Is it too radical an idea to have a nation with no army? You tell me. Switzerland has no appreciable army I'm told and that's fine with me. But, how would you feel if the US had no army just because nobody is attacking you at the moment? It's usually a bit late to start recruiting when the enemy are landing on your beaches. And then there's all that rushing 'round the shops trying to buy rifles........:) Bennet, while I think it would be a wonderful idea if the Countries of the world eschewed a military, at the moment that's just not possible. Take a look at the link I left to the DM article if you get the chance. Without a commitment to a military Scotland would be denied membership of NATO. While I'm very far from being a fan of NATO they would be Scotlands only defence in any attack. Militarily or terroristic. A military are a sad prerequisite for any Country in todays world. For aid during a disaster, martial law if such were needed, coastal defence and escort, aerial defence (let's keep out those 9/11 style chappies). But, these things need an enormous and expensive support network. You can't have an airforce without an airfield or a navy without dockyards.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 19 Persons may travel between Ireland and the UK without a passport. (link deleted because it stretched the page out) Is could be made legally possible.

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19 bennett1 said Couldn't the same arrangement be worked out between England and Scotland? No, I'm afraid it couldn't. The UK is not a member of the Shengen Treaty zone and with good reason. Apart from anything else, a private arrangement between the UK and Scotland for passport free travel would be discrimatory in our laws (don't blame me, I didn't write them). It's just not legally possible.

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 19 bernardv said How does Mr Salmond plan to fund the defence of Scotland Who is attacking Scotland? Is it too radical an idea to have a nation with no army? As for the passports, until the paranoia of recent here in the US, passports were not needed for travel between the USA and Canada. One still does not need a passport to enter Canada from the US - not even a driver's license. Couldn't the same arrangement be worked out between England and Scotland?

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 19 I knew I'd seen this somewhere. It's a projection of Scotlands future if they leave the UK written by the historian Andrew Roberts. It's well worth a read in my opinion. He makes some scary points. Among them: "Proportionately by population, Scotland was set to inherit £110 billion of Britain’s £1.4 trillion national debt, which would cost it £3.2 billion a year to service at 4 per cent interest." Or this: "As it turned out, Scotland’s representation in other counsels of the world also suffered. She was not admitted into Nato, as her aggressive de-nuclearisation programme and inability to meet the necessary spending requirements on defence disqualified her. At the same time the UK began to recruit Englishmen, Welshmen and Ulstermen to fill gaps in the armed forces previously occupied by Scots. Scotland was welcomed into the Commonwealth, of course, but found no place at the G7, G8 or G20, as she had while part of the United Kingdom. Her seat in the United Nations was also delayed for a long time by the Russians, who objected to their having a place when the Kurds, Palestinians, Tibetans and other ethnic groups did not." Here's the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086465/Scottish-independence-referendum-What-Scotland-did-alone.html

delete reply bernardv wrote on Jan 19, edited on Jan 19 You make a strong case Loretta. Politically though there are problems with a Scottish independence. The most important one (from my point of view) is the EU. Scotland would need to reapply for membership to the EU (which I think takes some years), in the meantime there would be no subsidies from Europe that Scotland has received in the past. Not to mention that Scotland would be obliged to join the eurozone at some point. In the meantime though, what would Scotland use as a currency? It could hardly be the english pound and a tiny scottish pound would be at the mercy of financial manipulation. Scotland also has no gold reserves to back up their currency. Mr Salmond claims Scotland would walk away with 90 per cent of North Sea oil assets, but leave English taxpayers to shoulder the £187billion exposure to the Royal Bank of Scotland. He may find that more difficult than he anticipates. Paul (gregers) would be better informed than I am to talk about some of the other aspects of scottish finance (he's commented about it a fair bit lately) but, as I understand it, a disproportionate number of scots are either unemployed or work in the public sector. Paul feels that the taxes paid by the remainder of scots in work wouldn't cover the bills for such a large public sector. He can make a compelling case for this. That would mean no more free college education. Prescription charges would need to be reintroduced. No free care for the elderly. Then there is defence. How does Mr Salmond plan to fund the defence of Scotland now that it would no longer enjoy the protection of the UK? Come to think of it, how many people would be out of work when the Royal Navy and RAF withdraws its bases and shipyards south of the border? The scottish regiments would need to be disbanded. Could Scotland afford to reform similar regiments with all their supply requirements? If not, that'd be a strong nationalistic blow. And speaking about borders. I don't anticipate passport control between the UK and Scotland will help the tourist industry. But, that is insignificant when you consider how many scots work in England, they'd now be foreigners and tax they pay in England would stay south also. Scotland would also need to set up its own passport service and vetting system too, plus, embassies all across the world for scottish nationals. I've no idea how much that might cost but, I'd guess it's not cheap. And finally, what would the EU say? A UK bereft of Scotland would no longer be a member of the EU and we'd have to reapply too........and have our referendum. In the meantime the EU would be deprived of the billions which we give them every year. I can't see Brussels being happy about that at all.

delete reply mitchylr wrote on Jan 19 On my way to work, so don't have time to read it all. Bookmarked to come back for a proper look.

delete reply starfishred wrote on Jan 18 I have always been for your independence and I hope that it will come true

delete reply bennett1 wrote on Jan 18 Tremendous blog, well researched and written. I truly admire Scottish long term planning and the sense of collectivism. Yes, I think a clear case can be made for an independent Scotland, and you have made it.

delete reply artprevails wrote on Jan 18 Need to get some food in my belly but will return later to read this!