Author: AngusSkye

Many of you will have already picked up on the Wings Over Scotland poll in which 53% of Scots said that they would be happy with a hard border between Scotland and England if that was the price of effectively remaining in the EU, against 26% who did not agree.

Before the 2014 referendum, Better Together used a hard border as one of their negatives against Scottish independence. They also claimed that the volume of trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK was so great that Scotland could not afford to lose it. That was, of course, before Brexit blew everything out of the water. We no longer see a hard border between Scotland and England as something to worry us.

An independent Scotland would continue to trade with the rUK. Why would Scotland and the rUK not do so? But what happens if this trade reduces and Scotland loses volumes of both imports and exports? This is exactly what is going to happen between the UK and the EU very very soon. The UK says that it will replace EU trade with markets further afield. This is costly, time-consuming, inefficient and uneconomic. Even if the rUK can deliver new trade deals they will be on the new markets’ terms – hello privatised NHS, privatised Scottish Water, no labour rights, lower health and safety standards, reduced pensions, etc.

Scotland, on the other hand, has a ready market for its exports and imports closer to hand – the EU. Not only will this take up the slack of any reduced trading with rUK, it is extremely likely that trade will increase. An independent Scotland, fully-controlling its own resources and economic policy, forging new trade routes to bypass rUK, has a bright future. As rUK haemorrhages manufacturing and financial services jobs, Scotland is also ideally placed to accommodate a good portion of them. 

Of course, had we voted “Yes” in 2014, this would have taken place by now, but it is never too late.

Hello people of the United Kingdom, my name is Johann Estranger but, as I know how you struggle with other languages, just call me Johnny Foreigner.

Talking of language, I have a gripe with you. We in continental Europe were very pleased when you joined us in 1973, so much so that we made your English language one of the official ones of our community even although you were the latecomer to our party. We organised our education systems so that we taught our children to speak your language, to the extent that I would suggest that many of us do that better than many of you. That served us well when you visited us in your hordes in the south of Spain, Greece, our Mediterranean islands and everywhere else it was sunny and low cost. It enabled us to more easily see to your every need in our pubs, clubs, pubs, restaurants and pubs (but still revert to our own languages to laugh about your union jack shorts and your union jack tattoos on your sunburned bodies.)

If you know anything about language you will see that I have used the past tense in the paragraph above. That is because everything has changed and the above is soon to be in the past. You have decided that you want to leave our community, to have nothing to do with us, unless you can make money out of us and we don’t make anything from you.

The first thing that will change is that we will no longer see the need to educate our children in your language. Why should we if we are to lose contact with you? We don’t want dodgy trade deals with America and Canada (you can have them if you like) so we lose nothing there from not speaking their bastardised version of your language. We can now concentrate on teaching our children languages like Chinese, Japanese and Russian, as they will be of more use to us. “But this means that we won’t be able to speak to you when we come on holiday” I hear you say. Can I reply to that with 2 suggestions? One, maybe you should try learning another language yourselves and, 2, maybe you don’t need to communicate with us as, realistically, will you be able to afford to come to our countries on holiday anyway? (Don’t worry about us, we’ll soon replace you with those Chinese, Japanese and Russians whose languages we have learned.)

You see, you have been conned for many years about our money, our currency, the euro.  It has had its up and downs (our problems with Greece did not help and did not show us in our best light) but today – yes today – our euro beats your pound every time.

This takes us into the realms of economics. (Incidentally do you know that your word “economics” comes from the Greek “oikonomia”? You always were good at stealing anything you wanted from the rest of the world.) Sorry for digressing there, so back to economics. In 1991 our euro was worth 71p of your money. In 2016 it was about the same. However, in that year you decided to leave us, so you now need to spend 88p to buy one of our euros. That’s an “official rate” so you struggle to actually get that as you buy our euros through the bank and exchange bureau (apologies for that French word) who all charge a bit extra. So, realistically you have been paying maybe 90p to 95p. At the end of the day all this economics makes your foreign holiday travel, your beer and your chips more expensive for you.

And it won’t all end there. Once you actually leave us your pain is going to increase. Everyone, even your own government, knows that things are going to get worse for you. That’s why they first tried to hide their own reports, deny their existence and then poo-poo their own figures. It will be bad .. very bad. The best estimates show the euro costing you 95p officially by the end of 2018. (How much will the banks charge you?) By the time you are off on your own this is estimated to be £1.10. So in the 5 years from 2016 to you “getting out”, our currency will cost you around 55% more. Let’s be conservative (as you do like that word) and put it at 50%. So, your holidays will cost you half as much again within a very short time and no-one would bet against double in the future.

That’s why we think that we won’t see you here for much longer. Never mind, you will still cut a dash in your union jack shorts and union jack tattoos on the beach at Brighton and you won’t have to worry about all that sunburn.

Au Revoir

Johann

PS We’ll miss the Scots.

Dominic Barratt, who put together the amazingly comprehensive database on the Tory Election Expenses investigation, has now turned his considerable talents in a new direction. He has started a new website, entitled YesTV.scot, to bring together videos of interest and relevance to the independence cause, all in one easily accessible place.

Some of these videos will be familiar to you, having been around since before the 2014 referendum and some are more current and new.

Over the coming months Dom will be refining the site but he decided that it was well worth releasing it as it is just now as there is so much “out there”.

I hope that you agree that it is an important addition to the independence movement.

http://www.yestv.scot

As someone who has recently acquired the label of “Old Age Pensioner”, I am saddened by statistics and polls that show my age group as being the one least supportive of the natural aspiration of independence for Scotland. The last BMG poll for The Herald showed a whopping 67% as “No” voters. This was quickly followed by 2 others showing similar figures.

Obviously, I am not amongst those of my age sector who are against independence, but I have not always been so strongly for it.

I lost interest in politics roughly from the mid-70s until the mid-00s, but my early inclination was always towards independence. Back in the 1950s and 60s independence was very much a pipedream, but in a household in Glasgow with my Skye father and Ayrshire mother and grandmother, politics was often discussed. This made for many an amicable argument between my independence-supporting grandmother and my shop steward socialist father whose leanings were towards the union. I felt that my grandmother won the argument (although my father’s socialism has also remained with me) and so contributed to the shaping of my own views on independence. Although not educated to a high standard, she, like many of her generation, made full use of the public library and the radio and was incredibly well-read in history, politics and (Scottish) literature and was very difficult, as a result, to argue against unless you were sure of your facts. Following this, I ended up pushing leaflets through doors in Pollokshaws in 1967 for George Leslie, our local vet and SNP candidate. A good man, George was, nevertheless, beaten into third place by the winning Unionist MP and the Labour candidate.

After I attended university and subsequently left home for the north-east, my desire remained for independence, but my interest waned and – I hate to say it – I even stopped voting, as I saw no chance whatsoever of my voting for a winning SNP candidate. When I moved away from the north-east to my father’s homeland, our local MP was Lib-Dem Charles Kennedy, a charming and able man and I ended up voting for him, telling myself this was a vote for the person not the party.

(One anecdote concerning Charles Kennedy is worth relating, as it shows, in a small way, the type of person he was. During the time when I was a teacher of business education, a Young Enterprise team I was involved with had won the 1993 Young Enterprise Scotland Competition as best company. We went forward to the UK finals at London University and, as a result, spent a week in London. Whilst there I organised a few side trips for the pupils, one to the Houses of Parliament, where Charles Kennedy showed us around on the Friday afternoon. One of the pupils asked him, towards the end of our very interesting and entertaining hour-long visit, why the place was so quiet. Charles said that this was because Parliament didn’t sit on a Friday afternoon to give MPs time to travel back to their constituencies. When asked why he wasn’t doing this, he replied that it was because he wanted to stay on to show our group around. When we finished and he then headed off for the last train back to Fort William he left behind a group who were most impressed by this modest, knowledgeable and humorous man.)

In 1999, when devolution was finally won, I regained a real feeling of optimism and my enthusiasm was rekindled. With the SNP entering government in 2007, having proved to be a strong and formidable opposition, and consolidating in 2011 and 2016, my rehabilitation was complete and my old enthusiasm returned!

It will be pretty obvious that I voted “Yes” in 2014 and will vote “Yes” again “whenever”. However, whereas in 2014 I voted for “me”, next time round will be different. The vote will be the same, but the reason will not be.

When I see that the majority of those in the younger age groups than mine voted “Yes” (with the strange anomaly of the 18-24s who voted 52% “No”), and with polls since then showing the “Yes” vote in these age groups increasing, who am I, at my age, to deny the young their wishes? Why should those of us who will live fewer years under likely permanent toryism, force those who will suffer the most to do so? Now, I hope to be around for a few more years, but I would like my tiny contribution toward the future of my children, my grandchildren, their friends, their colleagues and everyone else of their generations, to be my vote for independence.

In today’s “National” (3 April) Caroline Leckie suggests that my age group may not be “worth it”, regarding spending time and effort in changing voting intentions from “No” to “Yes”. My immediate thought is that we mustn’t do this. Brexit has changed everything for my age group as much as any other. Many of the reasons for we oldies voting “No” in 2014 have melted like the proverbial snow from the dyke; those reasons and perceptions that remain can be worked on; it’s just a case of finding the right platforms to address them. (All suggestions are most welcome!)

I often joke about withdrawing the right to vote from those who are older than the national average life expectancy, with the logic that they may not suffer the consequences of their actions, but I would ask all “No” voters of my age and beyond to think very seriously again about their reasons for voting “No”. Is it for selfish reasons?  Have you considered those who come after you? I have, and so it’s “Yes Again”.

As a boy I read comic books such as The Rover, The Rover and Adventure and The Rover and Wizard. (I, obviously, liked The Rover!) The Commando comic book started around the same time I had taken an interest in these and became essential reading too, along with comics like The Hornet and The Victor. A common theme running through them all was the supremacy of the plucky Tommy, the British explorer and the British athlete. No matter how bad the odds “we” always won through, even if it involved only half a dozen of our brave soldiers against a horde of screaming Zulus or Afghan tribesmen. Our “Wilson”, “Bernard Briggs” or “Alf Tupper” (The Tough of the Track) would always beat the foreigners, even if they had a one lap start in a 2 lap race. (Incidentally, women did not exist in this world!)

At the same time our newspapers and black and white televisions told us that our lives were far superior to those in foreign places. We had better food, higher standards of safety, better wages; we built better ships, aircraft and motor cars and constructed better buildings, bridges and roads.

It was only when I moved into my teens and began to read more than comic books that I realised that the picture painted by our media was not quite true. It turned out that our standards were not as high as we were being told, our working conditions nowhere near approaching those of other countries. When we joined the then Common Market in 1973 we were forced to improve many of our standards in health, gender equality, safety and employment legislation. Workers gained rights that they would not have had were it not for our membership of the European Union.

Successive UK governments and business have fought tooth and nail against implementing EU legislation that “costs money”. The end result is that they have got away with the bare minimum to stay within the law. Here are some statistics that are truly shocking:

The UK

(a) is the fourth most unequal country in the developed world;
(b) has the biggest wealth gap in Western Europe;
(c) shows the worst productivity record in the developed world;
(d) works the third longest hours in the EU;
(e) has the second lowest wages in the OECD countries;
(f) has seen real wages fall fourth fastest in the EU over the past 10 years;
(g) has the fourth lowest state pensions in Europe; and
(h) has the highest infant mortality in Western Europe.

Less subjectively measured is “happiness”, but study after study reveals our children to be the “least happy” in the developed world.

It is no coincidence that 40% of all privatisation in the developed world over the past 30 years has been in the UK, as governments, both Conservative and Labour, sold off our national assets. (Thanks for the gold reserves sale, Gordon Brown, as well!)

Now, we approach leaving that European Union and throwing out even the basic legislation that has forced government and business to improve our working and living standards. The policies of cute hoorism, always present with a Tory government, look set to last indefinitely whilst the Labour Party continues to implode and suck itself into its own black hole.

Here in Scotland, despite the odds, we have a higher level of public services than elsewhere in the UK. This is not because we have more to spend on them but because we set our priorities differently to the rest of the UK. Politically this makes for a sore in the face of the UK government as people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland realise the truth as to how Scotland manages to show a better performance in its National Health Service, how it manages to supply free prescriptions and to be able to give its 0ver-60s free bus travel and its under-5s nursery care. Rather than howl at the scrounging Scots for having more money than they do, they are slowly beginning to question the priorities set by their own local authorities and the UK government.

But where does Brexit leave us? It pushes us into a world where we no longer have even the basic of basic legislation forcing the UK government and business to provide their citizens and workforces with the standards they should have to live and work.

However, Scotland does not need to go down this route. Within the next 2 years we will all have the option of choosing a different path that looks to the welfare of people first and not career politicians, lords in waiting and big business. We can also continue to be members of the family of nations that is the EU and work with our fellow members to continue to improve standards within our countries.

As a postscript, I would say that in the longer term Scotland’s independence will benefit the rest of the UK. Brexit will be a disaster in terms of the rUK economy, its health and welfare provisions, its pensions, its social obligations (or lack of them) and its wages. Hopefully we will see plucky Tommies, Wilsons and Bernards appearing to take on, not these dratted foreigners, but those who have led them into the dire straits they find themselves in. Whether this comes through a revival in the Labour Party, the Greens or a new party, remains to be seen. As long as it happens! We may even see an application to rejoin the family of European nations.

Many people are not sure why their pound can, overnight, buy them fewer euros or dollars. Sometimes, this happens the other way round. The papers and the tv news report that the value of the pound has risen/fallen, that confidence in the pound is high/low, that trade figures are up/down, etc.

The fact is that currencies buy more or less of other currencies (the rate of exchange) depending upon simple demand and supply. If those who hold currencies like central banks, commercial banks and speculators decide to put a currency on the market, ie up for sale, supply increases and so price – the rate of exchange – falls. If they want to buy then the price of the currency rises.

There are many reasons for holders of currency wanting to buy/sell. However, the bottom line is that if they expect the value of a currency to fall they will sell – get out now whilst the price is relatively high. If they expect the value to rise then they will buy in expectation of selling at a higher price.

One of the main reasons for buying/selling currency is confidence in how well a country is doing – how buoyant is its trade? Are its future prospects good .. or bad? Is its level of debt increasing? Is there uncertainty as to how well it will do in the next few weeks .. months?

At the moment the pound’s value is showing an inexorable downward trend. In 2014 the value of the pound fell – we were told that this was due to uncertainty as to the result of the Scottish independence referendum. In 2016 it fell as a result of the EU Leave/Remain referendum. Now in 2017 as we see it falling we are being told that it is due to the likelihood of a second Scottish independence referendum.

It is not difficult to understand a fall in the value of the pound due to the madness that has caused a majority of the electorate in England and Wales to vote “Leave”. Walking away from the largest and most successful trading partnership in the world cannot fail to make the UK worse off, hence the rest of the world dumping its pounds and causing the exchange rate to drop. However, the situation with a Scottish independence “Yes” vote needs just a bit more thought.

Unionists in both mainstream and social media loudly tell us that all this independence uncertainty is the cause of the fall in the value of the pound. It’s Scotland’s fault that they can buy fewer euros for their holidays and that the prices of bananas and coffee and tea and everything else that comes into the UK are rising.

Now, at the same time we are also told that we are subsidy-junkies, a drain on the resources of the UK, scroungers, grant-takers and downright parasites. So .. here’s the question – “If Scotland is a drain on the UK and is expected to vote to leave and regain its independence, then surely this is a good thing for the UK economy?” In that case, with the UK’s prospects improving through no longer having to subside we Scots, surely the rest of the world, also seeing this, will want to buy pounds as quickly as they can, causing the exchange rate to rise? But wait .. the exchange rate is falling. Mmmm. Could it possibly be that the currency markets see the UK losing Scotland as being detrimental to the UK, ie Scotland isn’t really subsidised, but, in fact gives more than it receives?

As always, unionists want to have their cake and eat it.

 

There is an excellent post today on Wings Over Scotland in which Stu Campbell does what he does best – debunking nonsense unionist statistics.

London “think tank” Europe Economics has published some research which “non-think tank” Scotland in Union is publicising. WoS has ripped this shoddy piece of work apart in a matter of hours – but there was one incredible claim that jumped out at me.

Basically, the terms of reference for this report were to – yet again – try to show that Scotland, without the largesse of the UK, would be an economic basket case and would run the most massive of massive deficits in the history of time (as no doubt Neil Oliver will be pointing out in his next series).

The following paragraph states one of the reasons for this gigantosaurus rex of a deficit:

“2.7 – LOST TUITION FEES FROM THE REST OF THE UK

If Scotland had become independent and became a new Member State of the EU, then it would become forbidden, under EU rules, for Scotland to charge fees to students from the rest of the UK as is done by Scottish universities at present. That is because under EU law “any person holding nationality of an EU member state is entitled to move freely and reside in another member state and in doing so should not face discrimination from the host member state”. As Scottish students do not pay fees and neither do students from other EU countries, students from the rest of the U.K. would also become entitled to study free of fees in an independent Scotland.

The fee income received by Scottish Universities from students from the rest of the U.K. has been estimated at £150m.”

It would appear that both Europe Economics and Scotland in Union have forgotten the little matter of Brexit and that the UK will no longer be an EU member state.

What a bunch of numpties!

One of the many lies peddled by Better Together during the 2014 Independence Campaign was the one that in an independent Scotland pensioners would lose out on their pensions; perhaps even losing them completely. This lie is still dripping away.

It is no coincidence that it was the higher age groups, those either drawing a pension, or about to, who voted proportionately more for “No” in 2014. These age groups are also those less likely to take their news from sources other than the mainstream, union-supporting media.

Let’s debunk the lie.

Firstly, private/occupational pensions are funded internationally from invested funds and it makes no difference whatsoever where the recipients paid into them or where they now live. Even Better Together wouldn’t be stupid enough to claim that these are at risk from an independent Scotland. It is the public pension they refer to.

So, let’s consider the public pension.

At the moment the UK government sends millions of pounds overseas to pensioners who earned their pensions by making National Insurance contributions in the UK during their working lives. These “expats” (more correctly “immigrants” in the countries they reside in) live in large numbers in places such as Florida, Portugal, France and, particularly, Spain. The UK Government confirmed that this would continue if Scotland were to become independent. Although there was some coverage of this in the better elements of the unionist media, it was kept as quiet as possible.

Let’s be clear then – anyone receiving a pension at the moment will continue to receive that pension from the UK Government, even if residing outwith the UK (including in an independent Scotland), and it will be on the same terms as anyone living in the UK has.

What about those not yet receiving a pension?

Arrangements regarding those not yet of pensionable age will be determined by negotiation between an Independent Scotland and the Rest of the UK (rUK). Now, no-one can know where these negotiations lead so here are my own thoughts on 3 possible scenarios.

1 – Scotland takes over full responsibility for payment of pensions. However, there would require to be a settlement from the rUK that involves payment for part of the National Insurance contributions made by all of the Scottish workforce up to the date of independence. This payment would be extremely large and, as the rUK would struggle to find funds of this nature, I don’t see this happening.

2 – Scotland and rUK operate a joint pension arrangement. Now, had there been a pension fund built up for pensions this might be possible (see NOTES below), with both Scotland and rUK continuing to pay into it and draw from it. However, as pensions are funded from current revenue, the level of cooperation that would be essential between the national governments might just be a step too far.

3 – Scotland starts its own pension system (hopefully establishing a pensions fund as part of it). Those reaching pension age will have a pension from the UK based on their contributions pre-independence, PLUS one from Scotland based on post-independence contributions. As time progresses those reaching pensions age would see the balance of their 2 pensions alter – more from Scotland, less from the UK. Politically, the Scottish pension would need to be at least at the same level as that of the rUK.

Now, what is not widely known is that the current UK pension is amongst the lowest in Europe at around £155 per week – roughly £8,000 per annum. Surely Scotland could do better than this? In another item The Playgroup will argue that – contrary to what the unionist media still claim – an independent Scotland will be much wealthier than it is at the moment and so pensions paid in that independent Scotland will be higher than in the rUK. (It could also be the case that the current trend to increasing pension age could be halted.)

I think that this option (3) is the more likely of the 3 outlined. Readers, hopefully, including those from within the pensions industry, are invited to submit their own views and ideas. If I am totally on the wrong track, let me know (politely, please!) Everyone else, let’s get the message out that pensioners, now, and in future, not only have nothing to fear for their pensions, but could see themselves better off than if we remain in the UK.

 

NOTE

When the welfare state was introduced immediately after World War 2, by a Labour Party whose members must be collectively whirling in their graves at what calls itself “Labour” now, National Insurance contributions from employee and employer were intended to fund, on an ongoing basis, our new National Health Service, our Social Security and .. our Pension. Of course, subsequent governments, hell-bent on “maintaining Britain’s world position” treated National Insurance as just another tax to be thrown into the pot and spent. Just like with oil taxation revenue from the 1970s to today, no fund was set up from which we could draw for future social expenditure, like the Pension. So, pensions, social security and the national health service are funded from current tax revenues, including NI.