Independence For Scotland

The currency debate rages on, as ever, and probably will continue to do so even after Scotland becomes an independent country.  It goes without saying that in the immediate aftermath of independence, Scotland will continue to use the Scottish pound.

The Scottish pound, is already treated by many, as a unique and separate currency.  Many English stores refuse to take it, and look baffled and confused when they see a Scottish note.  It is pegged at parity with Pound Sterling.  The Bank of Scotland, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Clydesdale Bank are the only three Scottish banks authorised to print Scottish bank notes.

Pound Sterling is still translated as Punnd Sasannach (English pound) in Scottish Gaelic.

Scottish bank notes are not issued by the Central Bank in England, and are only issued by retail banks in Scotland.  They are not even classed as legal tender in the UK, therefore the Scottish Pound is indeed already treated like a separate currency in that regard.

The fact that…

Does Scotland really have a £12.6 billion deficit?  Here's why Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures would have very little to do with the finances of an independent Scotland.

If anything, Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures are actually an argument for independence, and not against.  Because they only cover the current situation, and they expose exactly how badly Scottish tax payers cash is wasted by London.  When you compare the amount that Westminster spends on Scotland's behalf in a variety of areas to the budget of other countries with a similar population, it really doesn't make any sense.

First of all, take a look at the video above, of a Tory MP called David Mowat, actually admits in the House of Commons that Scotland is not in fact subsidised, and that any extra spending allocated to Scotland is merely based on oil revenues previously generated in Scotland.

Mowat explains, that rather than being subsidised, the Barnett …

The idea of having a bridge between Scotland and the north of Ireland, in itself, is not necessarily a bad one.  It's not the bridge in itself that upsets people.  In a perfect utopia, perhaps it would be a wonderful idea.


But if Johnson wants to build a bridge of trust between his UK Government, and the people of Scotland - the Scotland to Ireland bridge is not the answer.

Making such decisions about Scotland, for Scotland, on our behalf, without consulting our government, actually undermines devolution.  Public opinion is quite glaringly against the idea, with most people questioning how the UK Government would fund such a project.


Scotland sent £62.7 billion in taxes to London last year, and yet the Scottish Government will only have access to £34 billion for this year's budget.  The Scottish Government will, as always, be forced to balance the books to the penny, and will of course, have surplus funds left over as we did last year, and the year before.

However, the UK Gove…

Pro-union group 'A Force For Good' have published a very long list entitled '57 Benefits of the UK Union.' I thought it would be interesting to analyse each one of the 57 supposed benefits of the union and to challenge them all individually.


The purpose of this exercise, is not to ridicule the unionist position.  Far from it.  I'm simply analysing concerns that many unionists will very legitimately have, and attempting to alleviate those concerns, by challenging them with rational arguments.
Economic
1. "We can pool and share British-wide resources. This means Scotland can help pay for the rest of the UK's needs, and the rest of the UK can help Scotland, when and where necessary to the tune of millions and billions."

This one actually highlights the biggest reason for voting yes for independence. It is double speak, and actually sadly means that the UK Government are in control of Scotland's tax revenues, meaning that the Scottish Government do no…

Perhaps there may be a case for the Scottish Government to hold a consultative, non-binding referendum asking a series of questions, but without repeating the same question that was asked in 2014?

I would love nothing more than for Boris Johnson to wake up tomorrow morning, to defy his party, and the unionist establishment and agree to indyref2. However, I am a realist. And as a realist, I have come to the conclusion that banging our heads against a brick wall isn't working.

The idea of the Scottish Government holding an advisory or consultative referendum is not a new one. But the majority of people who advocate this position simply feel that we should ask the same question a second time around. Now, I am not altogether against that idea, but I think we should also be open to explore other possibilities, and at least be open minded to other routes to independence.

Look at the independence of New Zealand and Canada for example. Their routes to independence were gradual journeys. …

It's time to dispel the myth that Scotland is a poor and destitute country. The value of Scotland's finance sector alone will come as quite a shock to many, since it is rarely reported in UK mainstream media.

As reported this year by the BBC, Scottish personal wealth alone is worth over a trillion pounds.


Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England admitted (very sheepishly) during an interview with the BBC that the assets of the Scottish finance sector are worth "ten times GDP" or "north of a trillion." Ten times Scottish GDP would currently equate to roughly £1.8 trillion.
Carney also recently said that the UK finance sector would DOUBLE within the next 25 years - which means the Scottish finance sector could eventually be worth over £3 trillion pounds according to Carney's estimates.
And then of course, there's the issue of Clair Ridge, a new North Sea oil project targeting 640 million barrels of oil.  Anyone mentioning this project in 2014…

According to one of the world's most respected economists, Scotland could "not only survive on it's own, it could thrive on it's own." You will not however hear any of this from mainstream media outlets in the UK, and I think it's pretty obvious why.

Change is never welcomed by the establishment or corporations which rely on the status quo, so for quite obvious reasons, they'd quite like to keep things as they are.  It is therefore in the interest of the establishment to continue their onslaught of negative and biased unionist propaganda, in order to prevent Scotland from taking it's rightful place on the world stage.

One of the world's most respected Irish economists David McWilliams explained once, why Scotland would thrive as an independent nation.  McWilliams is highly respected because he correctly predicted the global financial crash of 2008.  Now of course, this was not reported in UK media, but on Irish news.  Interestingly, he also predict…

Can you be a unionist and still vote yes without fear? It might sound silly, but hear me out. Lots of people in Scotland quite clearly have a deep and emotional attachment to the union, so much so in fact, that the word 'independence' simply frightens the life out of them. Some may even refuse to engage upon hearing the word.

This is where the yes movement must make time to address a common myth - that somehow a yes vote will mean that Scotland cuts itself from the outside world, that there will be a hard border at Berwick and that we will somehow forfeit the special relationship that we have with our friends, family and neighbours down south.

Scottish independence has been quite falsely compared with the UK's exit from the European Union on a number of occasions by prominent politicians.

Here's why that's a lot of nonsense.  Firstly, the Brexit that the UK Government are seeking is a very distant relationship from the EU.  They seek a 'hard Brexit' so t…

In 2014, a few short days before the Scottish independence referendum, yes jumped into the lead in the polls, publicly, and privately (Westminster's private polling had yes at 52%).

The UK Government's response?  To offer 'near federalism' or close to 'home rule.'  They offered Scotland the chance for "faster, safer change."  Of course, it turned out that the UK Government never actually planned to deliver anything close to federalism.

Blair McDougall, the chief of the 'Better Together' campaign admitted at a later stage, that "we would have struggled to win without scaremongering."

The word scaremongering, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "the activity of spreading stories deliberately to make people frightened or nervous."  So the UK Government's no campaign chief has effectively admitted that the entire process was never supposed to be either fair or balanced, and that there was a very deliberate effort …

In August last year, a Lord Ashcroft poll put independence support at 52%. More recently, a YouGov poll conducted shortly before Brexit, a few weeks ago put yes support at 51% and today, a Survation poll which was conducted around the same time as the YouGov poll put yes support at 50.2% yes. Another poll released today by Panelbase puts independence support at 52%.

But let's not get too excited just yet.
Firstly, there is a margin of error with any polling data, and the real figure could be a few points higher or lower than the figures we're seeing here.
Secondly, democracy is fluid, and while we currently seem to be winning the arguments, and at least heading in the right direction, albeit slowly, we must never allow ourselves to become complacent, and we must be prepared to combat all kinds of Westminster propaganda and scaremongering.
In the last few days of the indyref campaign in 2014, private UK Government polling put yes at 52%, which prompted the government to promi…