'Subsidy junkies', aye?

86
Nemo me impune lacessit… The tale of a great nation, deprivation, and monumental deceit ‘Subsidy junkies’, aye?

description

The tale of a great nation, deprivation, and monumental deceit.Download for access to hyperlinks to webpages and on the contents page for easier navigation.. :)Please share... it's the local campaigning that is going to win it for Yes!

Transcript of 'Subsidy junkies', aye?

Subsidy junkies, aye?

The tale of a great nation, deprivation, and monumental deceit

Nemo me impune lacessit

Natasha Kater, August 2014

It is 24 hours before youre to be born as a baby, and a genie appears.

The genie is going to let you set the rules of the world youll be born into. You can set the social rules, the political rules, the economic rules-whatever you like. And whatever rules you set will apply for your lifetime and your childrens lifetimes too.

You think: This sounds great! Whats the catch? And the genie then tells you that you dont know if youll be born rich or poor; black or white; male or female; sick or healthy; intelligent or foolish.

The Ovarian Lottery Warren Buffet

Background5Click a Heading

THE PAST5THE REALITY6THIS PAPER7What are the political issues for Scotland as part of the UK?8POOR REPRESENTATION8DIFFERENT PRIORITIES10MORE INFLUENCE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND10What are the economic issues for Scotland as part of the UK?11SCOTLANDS TAX AND ECONOMY11WHERE THE SUBSIDY MYTH COMES FROM12ASSETS AND INDUSTRIES17SAVINGS AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WILL MAKE MANY ARE PER YEAR19OTHER MONEY THAT WILL BE SCOTLANDS AS OPPOSED TO THE UKS20THE DEBT21SO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OIL21THE OIL FUND23AN INCREDIBLE SUCCESS STORY FROM NORWAY24WHAT SCOTLAND PAYS FOR THAT IT DOESNT NEED18LOSING OUT25What are the social issues for Scotland as part of the UK?25THE UK AND SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION25THE REAL COST OF BENEFIT FRAUD29FROM DLA TO PIP AND THE BEDROOM TAX29MEANWHILE, IN THE UPPER ECHELON OF SOCIETY31WELFARE AFTER INDEPENDENCE32THE COMMON WEAL33Why have I not heard everything about what will happen? (This also has information about Scotlands start up costs)34MEDIA BIAS34PORKIE PIES FROM THE TREASURY35MORE PORKIE PIES BUT SCOTLANDS PEOPLE LEARN NOTHING ABOUT IT36THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT AND CHEAPER THAN WESTMINSTER36GENERAL VIEW FROM THE YES / NO CAMPAIGNS37Where would the money to start an independent Scotland come from?38INFRASTRUCTURE38SCOTLAND IS ALREADY PAYING38How would Scotland build its industry/boost the economy?39SCOTLANDS ECONOMY NOW39UNDER AN INDEPENDENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT40What about peoples pensions?41YOUR PENSION WILL BE PAID REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE41AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLANDS PENSIONS41UK PENSIONS41What will happen about Scotlands defence?42SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION42IS SCOTLAND EVEN CURRENTLY DEFENDED?43DEFENCE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND43NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)44TRIDENT44Will Scotland not be under threat if its nuclear weapons are removed?45What about the people who will lose jobs?46What is happening with the current NHS?47BEING DESTROYED BY PRIVATISATION47SCOTLAND AND THE NHS47What will happen with the BBC?48What about currency?49THE POUND IS SCOTLANDS TOO49THE EURO49THE CURRENCY UNION49Will Scotland stay in the EU?51THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED AGES AGO!51THERE IS NO REASON FOR SCOTLAND TO LEAVE51WHAT SPAIN REALLY SAID52AND JUNCKER (PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION)52AS PART OF THE UNION53Will Scottish people still have a monarchy and be British?53What about international relations?54SCOTLAND IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED54PROJECTING PEACE AND JUSTICE, NOT FORCE AND FEAR55THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REST OF THE UK55Do the big companies not all want to leave?56How is Scotland in a strong position to become independent?57Why should I vote YES now and not wait to see if there is another opportunity in, say, ten years?57LESS BUDGET = LESS PUBLIC SERVICES IN SCOTLAND58WESTMINSTER POLICIES ARE WIDENING THE INEQUALITY GAP59EITHER WAY, CHANGE IS INEVITABLE60MORE POWERS ACTUALLY NOT VERY POWERFUL61SCOTLAND HAD ITS CHANCE62A CALCULATED CHANCE63Further reading / other links64

Background

Scotland is in a MUCH better position than the media and Westminster would have us believe. We arguably have more assets than most other countries in the world relative to our size (sadly, minus the self-belief of the countrys people), and are world renowned for our history of engineering feats and inventions.

Yet a lot of Scots simply think that we dont have what it takes to go it alone. Is this because of the Scots Crisis of Confidence, the people of Scotlands heritage of lacking self-esteem, seeing the glass as half-empty, and being overly critical of themselves and others? Or could it be something to do the way that we have been presented to ourselves by the UK government and media over the last 300 years?

THE PAST

The Scottish people voted for independence in a referendum in 1979. They had the majority of the votes for Yes, but a last minute change to the requirements (needing 40% of the total electorate rather than the people actually voting in order to win) meant that Scotland stayed in the Union. The electoral register contained the names of people who had passed away prior to the date of the referendum. How would they have been able to vote?

Before the referendum in the late 70s, there were scare stories just like there are now. Some of these ended up coming true under the government that issued the warnings, and governments that were to follow. For example, in the UK, industries were wiped out and millions of people lost jobs under the policies of Margaret Thatcher, after Scots were told that this would happen in an independent Scotland.

People back then were also lied to about Scotlands wealth, and were promised change after the 1979 referendum that didnt happen: how can some people in Scotland be willing to let that happen again?

Similar scare stories were flying about prior to the referendum for a devolved Scottish parliament in 1999, that key parts of our economy would collapse and businesses would flee, etc. However, most people would agree that Scotland has been in an increasingly strong position since then.

The truth is that Westminster have covered up facts from the UK and Scottish public, such as the McCrone report (buried for decades by Westminster) which outlined the embarrassing wealth an independent Scotland could harness from its oil reserves. Gavin McCrone, then Chief Economist for the Scottish Office, advised the government in power to set up an oil fund for the countrys people: something they declined to do.

Instead the UK government has spent the vast majority of Scotlands oil money, while endorsing stories of an impoverished and undeserving Scotland, such as the myth that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. This is simply not true.

The British Empire has enjoyed a long and mighty reign all over the world. But despite the loss of its colonies, the reigning British government still indulges itself by projecting images of grandeur around the world: the vision of punching above our weight resonates around Westminster.

The reality of the current United Kingdom is something quite different. It is a great country to live in, for the higher-end of society, yes. But unfortunately the vast majority of people do not fall into this bracket.

THE REALITY

Scotland is doing much better economically compared with the UK, and The Financial Times stated that with independence Scotland would be within the top 20 richest countries immediately after the event of a Yes vote, several places further up the list than the remainder of the UK.

So why does Scotland have some of the most shocking welfare statistics in the developed world?

And why are people so misinformed about the truth of what is really happening in their own country?

We need to bear in mind that many of the unanswered questions could have been avoided, and a clear picture of what an independent Scotland would look like could have been created for the Scottish people for them to cast their votes on the 18th September.

The Scottish government requested meetings with the current UK government to discuss the relevant issues and present the facts for all to see so that people would know exactly what they were voting for or against. However, this was declined by Westminster with an absolute refusal to pre-negotiate. No doubt, in order to cast uncertainty and doubt over the Scottish electorate: an act one may expect from a party set to lose a lot.

Additionally, instead of matters being explored and discussed openly in the media, as you would suppose from a country with freedom of speech laws and a liberal press, the media has created, at best, a murky view of what could be in an independent Scotland.

THIS PAPER

This paper discusses answers to some common questions relating to the coming referendum: questions asked by many, but with answers sadly not necessarily being investigated fully by the mainstream media outlets. I can assure you that what I have written is NOT scaremongering, something that has been all too common during this campaign. Things may sound unbelievable at times, but that is because the fact of the matter is that they are, and have been for quite some time.

Please click on the headings on the contents page to navigate directly to your particular questions of interest. There are a lot of pages so this saves having to scroll up and down!

It is recommend to first read the answers about the political, economic and social issues for Scotland as part of the UK, to set the context for the rest of the paper. Some answers may refer you to others, due to the overarching, overlapping and interconnected nature of the topics discussed. Also there may be some issues and facts that are repeated, due to the expectation that some people may only read answers to one or two questions.

There is a lot of reading involved, condensed from a lot of data from many different sources, and there are recommended links highlighted by colourful, underlined words. Some sections have more links than others: I would like to have included more, but time is essentially running out.

The argument about Scottish independence is a vastly important one, for the future of Scotland and its people. I hope that this information will help the Scottish citizens who read it make a better informed decision on the 18th September: whether to remain part of the Union of the United Kingdom, or to become an independent nation, in charge of our own affairs. What are the political issues for Scotland as part of the UK?

POOR REPRESENTATION

Scotland is poorly represented at Westminster. In the last 70 years Scotland has had the government it voted for in less than half of the elections. Even if the whole of Scotland voted for one party, its voice would not carry enough weight to make a difference if less than half of the rest of the UK voted differently.

Therefore, when decisions are being made in regarding important issues that affect us all, Scotlands voice remains largely unheard. Over recent years, Scotlands MPs have voted against many of the UK governments undertakings:

The Iraq war: Scotland voted against the unlawful wars that the UK has been getting involved in. Thousands of UK troops have lost lives or been affected in other ways in unjustifiable and illegal wars such as in Iraq. Many share the view that Tony Blair should be charged with war crimes.

Austerity measures: Scottish MPs voted against this policy. Despite Scotland being a very wealthy nation, there are 5 times more food banks in Scotland than last year according to the Trussel Trust. People, including working people and children, are literally starving due to UK government cuts to public services and industry. This is happening while the richest people in society get richer. Please see the social issues for Scotland for more information.

Welfare reforms: Despite tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy costing a vast amount more than benefit fraud, which only accounts to around 0.8% of the welfare budget, a (completely unnecessary) crackdown on benefit fraud has led to changes to the welfare system, causing millions of disabled people to have reduced or no benefits. Again, please see the social issues for Scotland for more information.

Prioritising of nuclear weapons over Scotlands economic development: Westminster chose to introduce dangerous nuclear weapons to the west coast of Scotland instead of investing in lucrative industrial infrastructure to extract oil from the Clyde Basin. Scotland had voted against such policies, yet, again, its voice is largely unheard.

With an independent Scottish government, the people of Scotlands voices will be heard and have an impact on the decisions the country makes. The voices of 5 million are heard fully when they are not diluted in 67 million. Scottish citizens will vote in the parties that they want in their government, and the Proportional Representation system, where parties are allocated a percentage of seats dependent on their percentage of votes, is far more democratic than the current Westminster First Past the Post system where themajority rules. So everybodys vote will go towards something to a much greater extent than it does now.

The Scottish people will be able to influence the Scottish government, something they are simply not able to do now in the UK.

Policies and laws can be much more easily tailored to the needs and wants of a population of 5 million than the UKs current 67 million. And the composition of the Scottish cabinet is far more representational of the range of people within Scotland: more MSPs have been brought up in working class backgrounds, fewer went to private schools and likes of Oxford or Cambridge University, and they have lived in Scotlands local authorities, some even growing up on council estates. Thus, the Scottish MPs are far more in touch with the needs of Scotland and its people, than the government made up from wealthy public school boys several hundred of miles away.

DIFFERENT PRIORITIES

Throughout recent years, policies are have been generally tailored to suit the richer end of society, with a large focus on the City of London. Even the last (New) Labour government implemented policies to suit a right wing agenda. The Tory policies that have been implemented since the time of Thatcher and were accelerated under the last Labour government, to shrink the role of the state and increase the role of the private sector (privatisation of public services, tax cuts to favour the wealthy and big businesses, and cutting public spending), are dangerous to the economy and are certainly not in Scotlands interests.

Another example of the widening gap between Scotlands and the UKs vision for society, is regarding human rights. The UK government wants to withdraw from the European Union Human Rights Agreement. This would mean that UK citizens would not be able to call upon an EU court concerning a human rights violation. This mindset is miles apart from the Scottish governments view that social justice is paramount.

MORE INFLUENCE FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND

As mentioned previously, due to Scotlands smaller population not being diluted in a bigger one, the people of Scotlands voices will be heard more easily, and count towards the outcome of general elections and decision making to a far greater extent.

Another reason why a new, independent government will give people more influence regards the creation of a Scottish constitution, the first formal constitution written in the UK, by the people for the people. Declaring that the Scottish people will be sovereign, rather than a parliament or government allows the countrys citizens to make decisions about how they feel the country should be run and what the priorities should be.

The draft constitution is on the Scottish government website and can be read by the public. If a person sees something that they think should be altered in some way, or they think something should be added in, then they can write to the Scottish government stating their thoughts.

Whatever is written into the constitution enshrines those things as rights which every citizen of the country would be able to claim, and would be every governments responsibility to protect and deliver, e.g. access to free healthcare and education. No subsequent governments would be able to create legislation to violate the constitution, so things like public services will be protected.

In an independent Scotland with a smaller, arguably more manageable population, the lines of communication to members of the Scottish parliament are relatively short compared to those at Westminster who are far removed from the everyday folks. A lot of MSPs work at a local level as well as their post in the government, so are much more invested in their area at ground level. What are the economic issues for Scotland as part of the UK?

SCOTLANDS TAX AND ECONOMY

Scotland is the only country in the world to discover oil and get poorer. Scotland constitutes 8.4% of the population of the UK and every year it contributes between 9.5% and 10% of the UK's total tax revenue, meaning that Scotland's economy is stronger than the UK's as a whole. Over the last 5 years, Scotland has contributed 9.9% of the UK's total tax revenue, and received 9.3% of the public spending. This amounts to an 8.5 billion pound shortfall for Scotland over the same period, debunking the myth that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Quite the reverse is true. "The Scots are subsidy junkies whingeing like a trampled bagpipe as they wait for their next fix of English taxpayers' money."

(Lord) Christopher Monckton is the person responsible for coining the phrase 'subsidy junkie'. He was UKiP's president in Scotland but was sacked in 2013 after factional infighting.

WHERE THE SUBSIDY MYTH COMES FROM

First of all we must question: if Scotland is indeed a sponging nation, reliant on handouts from the rest of the UK, why is there such a desperate attempt by Westminster to keep Scotland in the Union? Obviously this little country north of the border has a good thing going on.

WHY WITHOUT OIL AND GAS?

When the media compare the economies of Scotland and the UK as a whole, they routinely present two figures for Scotland: with oil and gas and without oil and gas. Aside from the fact that we never see figures for the economies of Norway, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Russia or any other oil-producing country without oil and gas, we also never see a separate figure for the economy of the remainder of the UK without oil and gas. This is an interesting piece of presentational bias, repeated over and over.

The constancy and ubiquity of its use by pro-Union commentators seems designed to imply that these real, tangible assets - which indisputably belong to Scotland due to simple facts of geography and existing international law regarding maritime boundaries, may be in some way unreal or perhaps inherently unreliable and not to be trusted. No other countrys economic strengths are viewed in this way and no other country considers at its own assets in this light.

Even accepting this split, the BBC article above confirms that with the contribution of the revenues from the oil and gas industries included, Scotland contributes more per head in tax than the rest of the UK. When the contributions from oil and gas are artificially excluded, Scotland is found to contribute more or less its population share (99% of the UK average and almost equal to the southeast of England). This allows the YES-campaign to legitimately assert that Scotlands economy is not dependent upon oil and gas indeed, it demonstrates that the revenues which flow from these industries are a bonus.

Although this highlights the underlying strength of the Scottish economy, it is surely a mystery that we never see similar figures deliberately excluding the contributions of other sectors of our economy, such as tourism or construction. Or does the fact that it is always oil and gas and only ever in Scotlands case tell us all we need to know? 25%-30% of Norways economy is based on oil, compared with 10% - 15% of Scotlands.

EVEN BEFORE DISCOVERY OF THE OIL

The subsidy myth is pervasive and resilient, however. Even when we finally take on board the fact that over 90% of the oil and gas belong to Scotland - and always have done - most of us are surprised to learn that Scotland did not become a net contributor to the Union at the point when oil and gas began to be extracted from the North Sea.

John Jappy, a former civil servant, has told the story of how he had believed that Scotland was subsidised by the UK until he got a look at the books and found that the reverse was true: every year, a large subsidy flowed out of Scotland into the coffers of the UK Treasury. You can listen to Mr Jappy speaking about the past regarding Scotlands oil and Westminster.

Going considerably further back, UK Government figures for 1920 1921 reveal that Scotland has been a net contributor for a long, long time. According to these figures, the revenue from Scotland was 119,753,000, the expenditure on Scottish Services was 33,096,000, and the balance retained in London for Imperial Services was 86,657,000 (most of which, it is noted, was disbursed in England).

One wonders why they stopped producing these figures, contrary to the wishes of Scottish representatives! Another article makes the point even more powerfully, looking at figures from 1900 to 1921, and showing that Imperial Services during that period cost Scotland approximately 2.5bn a year in todays prices.

As evidence shows, the drain continues today, mainly through annual payments servicing the debt of the UK. Here are some pages with more information about this:1. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-tricks-scotland-out-of-127-00-per-second/2. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/westminster-debt-is-harming-scotlands-economy/3. http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-angels-share/4. http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

SO WHY DOES THE SUBSIDY MYTH PERSIST?

As noted in the On Our Own Two Feet article by John Jappy (see link above), the Westminster Treasury admitted in 1997 that Scotland had paid the Exchequer 27bn more than it had received since the Tories came to power in 1979. Given the evidence is now public and has been for some time, why does the subsidy myth persist?

One reason is that the true facts and figures receive very little coverage from a mainstream media almost entirely hostile to the idea of Scottish independence: scares, smears and untruths abound. Instead there is a focus on the Scottish governments decision to place a spending priority on its citizens welfare, offering free tuition fees, free prescriptions, and care for the elderly. Arguably, something that a lot of people south of the border feel resentment toward.

Also, it has been a central tactic of the anti-independence campaign to emphasise the fact that Scotland gets more per head in spending than the rest of the UK. While its true that, under the Barnett formula, Scotland is given more spending-money per capita than the rest of the UK, this is not a gift given to Scotland out of the goodness of Westminsters heart: it is based on borrowing, therefore it is a loan. Scotland has to pay any borrowed money back and do every year, to the tune of around 4bn.

When we look at the money that is coming in and the money that is going out, three figures are relevant: the total amount of revenue raised, the total borrowed and the total spent. Scotland is not allowed to borrow any money at all. Instead, it gives all the money it raises to the UK Treasury; on top of revenue raised from all parts of the UK, the Treasury borrows money on behalf of the UK as a whole and spends the combined total on a range of things. One of those things is the money back to Scotland in the form of a block grant.

All the services in Scotland have to be paid for out of this grant; Scotland has no way to enlarge the pot and its budget cannot legally exceed it. If Scotland runs a budget surplus one year, Westminster takes that surplus. If Scotland runs a deficit another year, it has to pay it back to the Exchequer with interest.

So Scotland has to pay off its own deficit if it runs one and, over and above that, the UK also charges 4bn a year to Scotland towards the cost of servicing the UK debt! (See the above links). As Business for Scotland has made clear, Scotland pays a massive subsidy to the rest of the UK regarding debt, to the tune of 64bn over the past 32 years.

The debt is continuing to rise faster than the UK can pay it off. Each year, Scotland is only paying off interest on the total amount of UK debt, never managing to make a dent in the capital that has been and is being borrowed (technically known as a structural deficit).

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

THE 'BLOCK GRANT' AND THE BARNETT FORMULA

Scotlands block grant for public spending, calculated via the Barnett formula, is based on a percentage of what is spent by the UK Treasury on public services south of the border; e.g. schools, hospitals, roads, etc. These percentages are called Barnett consequentials.

When we look at what the UK spends its money on, we can say that Scotland pays for 10% of everything, including repaying the costs of UK borrowing. This can be extremely unfair on Scotland for a number of reasons: not only is it paying more than its share for everything, but many of the things the UK chooses to spend its money on have zero benefit for Scotland, e.g. the London sewer upgrade and the HS2 rail service. Also things that a majority of Scots have strongly opposed, such as the illegal war in Iraq and nuclear weapons. Please see the section below about other savings Scotland will make under independence.

CUTS, CUTS, PRIVATISATION, AND MORE CUTS

In addition to the unfairness of the present arrangement, there is the issue of the vulnerability of the block grant to any change in Westminsters spending priorities. If cuts are made to public spending, Scotlands block grant shrinks accordingly and it has no means of enlarging it. Scotland has no power to stop Westminster from slashing spending on higher education and switching to a policy of introducing tuition fees for universities in England. Money not spent in the rest of the UK means a reduction in the money available in Scotland.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised a further 25bn cut to public spending which will result in an unavoidable 2bn being cut from Scotlands already shrinking block grant; Labours Shadow Chancellor has committed to carry out exactly the same plan.

However, its not just cuts to spending that impact upon Scotlands grant. Whenever any services are privatised in the rest of the UK, the costs to the public purse are reduced. Therefore, the public spending money (the block grant) that Scotland gets is also reduced, regardless of the fact that the level of public services required remains the same.

Scotland's public spending is being cut, regardless of the fact it is more than paying its way in the Union, and the need for public services remains the same. Therefore, meeting the needs of Scotlands people is becoming more difficult, and in some cases, they are simply not being met. If Scotland stays in the Union, it will not be able to maintain the level of public services that most people want and depend upon.

With deliberate policies of public service privatisation down south, and consequent reductions in its block grant, Scotland will no longer be able to afford policies such as free tuition, free prescriptions and free personal care for the elderly. Scotland will be forced to either cut or privatise. As part of the UK, Scotland has no means of increasing this block grant. SCRAPPING THE BARNETT FORUMLA

The three main Westminster political parties want the Barnett formula reformed, i.e. scrapped. Many prominent politicians such as Prime Minister David Cameron and Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair Carmichael have been vocal on this subject, as have spokespeople for a wide range of associations, commissions and organisations. They want to scrap the 'Barnett Formula' to make a 'needs based' system to distribute money around the UK. They say believe a flat rate per capita across the UK would be 'fairer'. As part of the union, Scotland would lose out far more than it already does: it would mean 4 billion less for Scotland to spend in Scotland.

This is terrifying seeing as it is already in need of increases in public spending, and is very unfortunately the reality of Scotlands future after a No vote.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE EVENT OF A YES

Simply, an independent Scotland would have full control of 100% of its money in order to spend it how it chooses on national priorities, like improving public services and welfare.

There is no political party in Scotland that is against keeping public services such as healthcare, prescriptions, tuition fees, etc., so with independence the people of Scotland can be assured that they will stay.

ASSETS AND INDUSTRIES

Scotland owns around 10% of everything in the rest of the UK: everything from Ministry of Defence aircraft and ships, to the London Underground, the Bank of England, as well as land and properties all over the world, artwork, etc. How to apportion these will be under negotiation on the event of a Yes vote. Of course these will be of significant value, and negotiations will take into consideration the fact that Scotland has no need for underground stations in London or giant aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

Scotland also has more of its own assets than most countries of comparable size. (Think about different countries and see if they have more assets than Scotland!)

Scottish industry is a worldleader in an impressive range of sectors, however Westminsters priority is the extremely temperamental financial sector: we only have to look at the recent financial crashes to see how easily this industry can fail us. The giant suction machine of the City of London is having a detrimental effect on other industries. Industry in the UK has suffered greatly over the past decades.

An independent Scotland could take full control of its industries to develop them to their full potential to contribute to the countrys wealth. Scotland benefits from an already incredibly diverse economy, with multi-billion pound strong industries, including food and drinks, whisky (with ever increasing demand), creative, construction, life sciences, tourism, fishing and agriculture, manufacturing, financial and business, education (5 out of the worlds top 200 universities with world class research facilities), and digital and ICT.

Scotland is also sitting what some consider a renewable energy goldmine: regarding the small size of Scotland, it has the potential to harness 25% of Europes off-shore tidal and wind energy and 10% of Europes wave energy: a renewable energy powerhouse, an industry the Scottish government are committed to developing with the creation of thousands of jobs. More than 2,000 energy-related companies put Scotland at the forefront of the worlds energies market.

An independent Scottish government will have the power to design industrial policies that will protect the people and environment from harm as well as creating jobs, and take advantage of the countrys considerable strengths, investing in currently struggling industries such as shipbuilding

The huge oil and gas reserves that Scotland has is really a bonus. This little country really has been blessed. Perhaps, the only asset that Scotland is lacking is its peoples self-belief?

Please see the section on how Scotland will boost the economy.

WHAT SCOTLAND PAYS FOR THAT IT DOESNT NEED

The current system also allows for massive spending in the rest of the UK on things which are of little or no benefit to Scotland, but are considered to be beneficial to the UK, such as:

Londons new sewer system

Maintenance and construction of The London Underground

The new high speed rail link, HS2 between Birmingham and London (nowhere near Scotland but we will be paying 200,000,000 pounds for it per year for 20+ years)

The London Olympics (Scottish Parliament and Glasgow City Council (plus sponsors) paid the full whack for the Commonwealth Games on its own without the help from the UK, yet Scotland had to contribute to the Olympic Games!)

Trident nuclear weapons (a militarily useless resource but simply a symbol of global status according to Tony Blair)

The Iraq war (which was illegal and Scotland did not want)

The recent bank bailout (where the UK government chose to nationalise private debt, protecting the bankers who caused the problem, while crippling the countrys small businesses and vulnerable individuals. This was fraud committed by individuals on a massivescale, yet a crime for which not one person has been tried.)

Despite Scotlands contributions, and the fact that our economy is stronger, people are still led to believe that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK since we have free tuition fees, prescriptions, etc. This is simply down to the Scottish governments decision to place a much bigger priority on its citizens welfare.

SAVINGS AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WILL MAKE MANY ARE PER YEAR

Here are some examples of the huge savings that Scotland would make under independence. For more information please click here.

4.4 billion per year more to spend in Scotland from income tax no longer taken by the UK treasury

Scotland currently pays Westminster 5 million pounds per year just for the privilege of having them run its affairs, and the coming Palace of Westminster refurbishment is set to cost Scotland 300 million

Not paying for HS2 (High speed rail link between London and Birmingham which comes nowhere near Scotland) will save Scotland at least 200million per year (the total cost to Scotland being 4.5billion over many years)

Scotland will save at least 1.6billion for the subsidy of the development of Hinkley Point power station in Somerset. The venture was initially supposed to cost 10bn but costs have now vastly increased. The lifetime costs for Hinkley will be much more: regarding liability, the taxpayer would be covering the insurance, potentially trillions of pounds in the case of an accident. (Renewable energy advocated by the Scottish government is both safer and cheaper: costs are precise, free from hidden subsidies, and there is no dangerous, residual waste to deal with.)

Not paying for Londons sewer upgrade will save Scotland 400million

Not having to pay for the M25 upgrade will save Scotland over 600million

Scotland currently spends 3.3billion on defence (significantly more than any other country of its size) and the current Scottish government plans on spending 2.5billion on defence, meaning it will save 800 million pounds every year to spend on other national priorities. (Please see the question about defence for more information)

BBC license fees are currently 300million from Scotland and the next budget for BBC Scotland is 87million. It would have an extra 200million per year. (Please see the answer about the BBC for more information.)

Scotland will no longer need to pay for servicing the UKs debt every year, saving over 100 billion altogether

It will save billions of pounds that it currently pay to Westminster for Public and Common Services costs. The public do not actually know what these are as they are not broken down into itemised costs.

Over 10billion would be saved by not having to subsidise the remainder of the UKs pensions (over 6 years of lower life expectancy)

Trident: over 10billion will be saved if nuclear weapons leave Scotland a weapon which Tony Blair stated was actually useless and simply a sign of status.

OTHER MONEY THAT WILL BE SCOTLANDS AS OPPOSED TO THE UKS

Fuel and alcohol/tobacco duty, DVLA and other licensing fees plus agencies that manage these = jobs and income tax etc.

Imports to the whole of the UK pay duty and VAT direct to HMRC (Revenue and Customs) so, under independence, imports to Scotland would go to the Scottish Treasury. Over five years, this would bring 5 billion to the Scottish Treasury.

VAT is payed according to where the headquarters of a company is located, so companies such as Tesco, John Lewis, Argos are all in England so VAT for products bought in Scotland is regarded as being raised in England. As an independent country we will get to keep that VAT (no exact figure has been calculated but it would be a lot!)

Many Scottish exports are not currently credited to Scotland. For example, whisky is credited to the port from which it is shipped, e.g. Southampton. The imports and exports of an independent Scotland will be clear to all. Currently, the UK is taking credit for some of Scotlands exports.

1.5 trillion (1500 billion) is the value of the oil underground which has yet to be extracted, excluding oil fields west of Shetland, west of Lewis, and in the Clyde Basin.)

THE DEBT

Scotland owes none of the debt that was acquired by the UK government. The UK government has recognised this. Of course, this would give Scotland great bargaining power with the rest of the UK after independence, especially regarding the currency debate.

SO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OIL

This question raises its head again: Why is Scotland the only country in the world to find oil and get poorer?

PESKY WESTMINSTERS SECRETS

Scotland has been getting tricked out of its oil money by Westminster since the oil discovery was made. Instead the UK government has consistently and deliberately downplayed the value of the North Sea oil in order to mislead Scots about the wealth of their nation, while spending the money on its own priorities. Westminster could obviously afford to be choosy, as during a time of industrial hardship in Scotland, it blocked an oil boom in the Clyde in favour of installing nuclear weapons. The position of the west coast of Scotland could have been quite different to what can be seen now in some of the jobless, poverty-stricken, run down towns.

The UK government also secretly adjusted the maritime boundaries in 1999, taking 6000 square miles of Scottish waters, no doubt in the hope that they would strike black gold there.

Professor Gavin McCrone wrote a report before the last referendum for Scottish independence in 1979 stating that Scotland would have embarrassing wealth if they became independent. It was hidden by Westminster so the public and political parties could not gain access to his findings. However, it was obtained in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act.

Some excerpts from the McCrone report state:

"the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the existing deficit whatever its size"

"The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to aquite an embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe"

THE SCOTTISH OIL INDUSTRY IS ACTUALLY THRIVING

Despite reports about Scottish oil running out, last year investments in the Scottish oil industry were at a 30 year high and Scotland is now on the verge of another oil boom. David Cameron recently visited Shetland in secret to discuss new oil discoveries on the Clair Ridge. The linked report states:

This weekend rumours spread that workers on a rig in the Clair field had been sent home on full pay and told not to return until late September, coincidentally after the independence referendum.

Are Westminster still keeping secrets from Scotland? Surely the Scottish people should question why they have been so misled by the UK government over the years and are still continuing to be?

Over the years, 300 billion has come from oil tax revenue from North Sea oil, yet we have nothing to show for it. Instead, the UK has 1.4 trillion of debt.

We must therefore ask: what exactly has the UK government been doing with Scotlands money? It has certainly not been benefitting the Scottish people.

Under independence, Scotland will gain full control to its oil industries and will get to keep its own wealth, positively impacting on Scotland. The Scottish government has stated they will create an oil fund for the countrys people.

Here are some more links for people to read more information about Scotlands oil:

http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/vids/dugoil.html a humorous but informative cartoon about oil

http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/oil.html links to some different sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUduiJL1f6s John Jappy, senior civil servant during the discovery of Scotlands Oil, discusses what has happened over the years.

THE OIL FUND

The Scottish government would set up an oil fund from the money gained from oil tax revenues, a very favourable idea for the people of Scotland. Gavin McCrone advised the Westminster government to do this in the 1970s, but this advice was ignored. MPs over the years, such as Denis Healy, Neil Kinnock, and Alistair Darling have admitted that by not setting up an oil fund, Westminster have wasted a significant opportunity.

Many experts have stated that if Scotland had become independent in 1979 and had invested in starting an oil fund then it would be in at least 5 billion surplus (taking the UKs debt into consideration). Of course if Scotland was not having to service part of the UKs debt then the figure would be substantially higher than this.

The Scottish governments proposed oil fund would have two parts:

1. a fund to offset market volatility due to the unstable price of oil

2. intergenerational fund that would grow over time like savings which would be continually gaining interest then the interest can be used to pay the nations pensions

The UK government have stated that in the case of a No vote, they are still not going to set up an oil fund for the Scottish people, questionably continuing to waste the potential of this resource.

AN INCREDIBLE SUCCESS STORY FROM NORWAY

A hugely prosperous oil fund model that the Scottish government has been looking to for guidance comes from Norway.

The Norwegians set up their oil fund in 1990, but it only started to grow in 1996. It is now worth approximately 500 billion. Norway is therefore one of the few countries in the world that is in permanent massive surplus: they own between 1 and 2% of the equity on Earth.

If Norway was to dissolve their oil fund now and share it equally between the population, every man, woman and child would be a kroner millionaire.

Because their oil fund is now so strong, Norwegians dont just pay oil money into it. They are able to borrow money from international lenders at an interest rate of about 3%, and then invest it into their oil fund where they get around a 7% return. They are essentially making money from the money they borrow.

This has been recognised by the Scottish government as a way to further develop the countrys wealth, so there is no reason Scotland could not benefit from a situation such as this.

Scotland is already in surplus for energy production, and the renewables goldmine it is sitting on can contribute to this fund as well.

LOSING OUT

An additional point that highlights how unfair Westminsters treatment of Scotland is, and how much better we could be doing as an independent country, relates to the European Union and the farmers grants. Scotland has a large agriculture industry, however it is near of the bottom of the list for the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies in the whole of Europe. A billion Euros for farmers grants up to 2020 should have come to Scotland last year because of the strong agriculture industry but Westminster only gave a fraction of the money to Scotland.

As an independent country, Scotland could do much better. It would have a seat at the EU table and be able to represent itself for its farmers, it would be able to target markets not currently being exploited by the UK where Scottish produce is in high demand, and it would be able to get more rural development funding (Ireland currently gets six times more than Scotland). With independence comes opportunity.What are the social issues for Scotland as part of the UK?

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."Mahatma Ghandi

THE UK AND SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION

SHOCKING STATISTICS

Even the mainstream media outlets cant hide these facts about real life for some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom. Sadly, this is what has actually been happening in the UK - not sensationalism or scaremongering.

British people are committing suicide to escape poverty. (Reported on the Daily Mail website)

One in five of Scotlands children are officially recognised as living in poverty. In some areas over one in three children grow up in poverty. With Scotlands undoubted wealth CPAG believes this is a scandal. There is no reason why our child poverty rates should be so much higher than in many other European countries. In Denmark and Norway less than 10% of children live in poverty, whilst Germany has a poverty rate of 15%. (Reported on the website of Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland)

The government's own figures revealed that 1,300 (disabled) people had died after being told they should start preparing to go back to work, and another 2,200 had died before their assessment was complete (Labour MP, Michael Meacher about the newly introduced Personal Independence Payments, as reported on the Guardian website in 2013) The truth is that now the figure of deaths is believed to have reached over 10,000.

UK income inequality is among the highest in the developed world and evidence shows that this is bad for almost everyone. (Equality Trust website)

Cancer patients lose out on millions (nearly 100 million) of unclaimed benefits. (Reported on the McMillan Cancer Support website)

UK state pensions are the lowest in Europe (Reported from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the Daily Mail website). Soaring energy costs could kill 200 pensioners per DAY this winter as they fear to heat their homes (Information from Age UK, reported on the Mirror website). Pensioners are paying the price of the Governments failure to act on the scandal of rocketing energy bills. Thousands will be forced to choose between heating and eating this winter because of David Camerons failure to stand up to the energy companies. (Shadow Energy Secretary Caroline Flint as reported on the Mirror website)

Five times more Scots are needing to use food banks than last year, nearly one third of them children, according to the Trussell Trust, one of the main food bank providers. The reason for the rise in food bank cases is that household incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living. Half of those who use food banks are actually working, but their wages are too low to sustain them. The other half are people on benefits, whose low incomes have been squeezed even further by harsh policies like the bedroom tax. And with more welfare cuts on the way, this situation looks set to get even worse. (Margaret Lynch, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice Scotland, as reported in the Scotsman.)

An additional 100,000 children in Scotland will be pushed into poverty by the end of the decade owing to welfare changes (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, reported in the Daily Record)

There are 657,000 carers in Scotland. 16,701 of which are young carers. Helna Herklots, the Chief Executive of Carers UK said of the 3.53 billion care cuts over the past 4 years: we face a stark reality of a rapidly rising number of older and disabled people needing social care, whilst fewer and fewer [are] able to access the support they need. Families are unable to fill the gap left by care cuts. The number of people providing full-time care to loved ones has soared to over 1.4 million, and cuts to the support they receive risks pushing carers to breaking point. This cannot continue, and unless Government acts to place social care funding on a sustainable footing, the future for older and disabled people and families struggling to care for them, is even bleaker still.

More than 300,000 disabled people will have their benefits cut when Disability Living Allowance (DLA) is replaced by a new benefit, Esther McVey, the minister for disable people, announced. (Reported in the Independent)

Even the nations working people are getting a rough deal:

More than six million working Britons are living in poverty. (The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, reported in the Independent)

Half a million soldiers, nurses, and teachers will have their income slashed under the coalitions benefit crackdown, according to a new report (The Childrens Society, reported in The Guardian)

Unfortunately, the case is not just that things are bad: they are set to get worse if Scotland remains in the Union:

A further 25bn spending cuts much of it from the welfare budget will be needed after the next election, Chancellor George Osborne has warned. He said more austerity lay ahead, as the job was not even half done. (Reported on the BBC News website)

No matter how much we dislike particular Tory spending cuts or tax rises, we cant make promises to reverse them. I am clear that I wont do that and neither will any of my Shadow Cabinet colleagues. (Ed Balls, reported in the Independent)

Pensioners literally having to choose between food and heat, working people and children starving: how can this be in a country that had the potential to have embarrassing wealth according to the McCrone report, which was hidden from the UK public by the government in the 1970s?

The sad fact of the matter is that Westminster has messed up, prioritising financial gain and maintenance of a global status over the welfare of the countrys people. Many of the social issues in Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK are being swept under the carpet as recent policies, such as the Bedroom tax and changing Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to Personal Independent Payments (PIPs), have actually made the situation for many already vulnerable people, a whole lot worse.

An excellent but incredibly upsetting breakdown of the current Westminster governments failings regarding the welfare of the UK can be found here: http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2014/01/the-cost-of-ids-100-ways-iain-duncan.html

THE REAL COST OF BENEFIT FRAUD

Regarding the benefit system, some people may be quick to blame benefit fraud on the reasons why the government is cracking down. However, the fact is that the cost of benefit fraud is incredibly low: a small percentage (2bn in 2011/12) compared with the vast cost of legal tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy, benefit errors, and the money the government saves from unclaimed benefits ((nearly 48bn altogether),) possibly more as it is difficult to calculate tax that that has been avoided).

However, the myth that this type of fraud is a huge problem in the UK is rife, and the TUC (Trades Union Congress) states that the support for benefit cuts is dependent on ignorance and that hostile attitudes to welfare are widespread.

For example, on average people think that: 41 per cent of the entire welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people, while the true figure is 3 per cent. 27 per cent of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently, while the government's own figure is 0.7 per cent.

Despite these incredibly low figures, the government and media have allowed the myths to continue, in order to justify support for their unrelenting cuts to the welfare budget.

FROM DLA TO PIP AND THE BEDROOM TAX

It would be easy to argue that the recent Westminster administration has truly victimised disabled members of UK society.

DLA TO PIP

PIPs (Personal Independent Payments), administered by a private, French company, Atos Healthcare, were introduced to replace the previous DLA (Disability Living Allowance) to radically reform the welfare system and reduce the number of disability claimants.

Disability Rights spoke of the loss of independence many disabled people would have to endure: nearly half a million people would have no disability benefit entitlement at all, and nearly half a million would have a reduced award. Some aspects such as the fit for work tests state that if a person can walk 20m, even needing the help of a stick, they could lose up to 1800 of their benefits and their mobility vehicle, and even if people were already registered as being disabled, they would have to undergo distressing retests.

Since the introduction of the PIPs, literally thousands of deaths of disabled people have been recorded. People have died while appealing cases that they should have won first time round, while having to wait months for money that they were perfectly entitled to, and there is much anecdotal evidence reported by relatives that their loved ones were simply so distressed by the stressful, painstaking PIP application (and reapplication) process that their health suffered considerably. Some claim that the new system violates disabled peoples human rights.

In response to this reform, the Disability Benefits Consortium, made up from more than 50 disability organisations, urged the government to rethink the policy. Letters written from the charities to Department of Work and Pensions from charities representing millions of disabled people requested that the policy be reexamined as the life shattering changes meant that over half a million people are set to lose out and even more in years to come. Thousands will be forced to give up their car or other essential mobility equipment, thus potentially leaving work or education, or missing medical appointments.

The case went to court, but unfortunately the charities were unsuccessful as the changes were deemed to be lawful.

The National Audit Office produced a report on the PIPs, which stated that this new benefit system was three and a half times more expensive than the previous benefit and took double the time to administer.

Ironically, the documentation for this welfare reform can be found on the Simplifying the welfare system and making sure work pays section of the UK government website.

THE BEDROOM TAX

The Bedroom Tax means that people with spare rooms in their council or Housing Association accommodation will not be entitled to full housing benefit if they are deemed to be under-occupying their home. Again, it tends to be the poorer people in society who live in this type of housing.

There have been reports of increased homelessness around the country, and people having to rack up debt in order just to pay bills.

Among other problems with the policy, there are no allowances for disabled individuals who need a place to store medical equipment in their home. The only way out that disabled people have is to apply for the already over-stretched Discretionary Housing Payment fund, and Westminster MPs have stated that local authorities should help the people in their area, (of course public spending cuts make this incredibly difficult). Many disabled people are unable to get help.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith stated in 2010:

You have nothing to fearIt is a proud duty to provide financial security to the most vulnerable members of our society, and this will not change. This is our contract with the most vulnerable.

So, is this really the financial security that the UKs disabled and vulnerable have been looking for? An independent Scotland can do much better.

MEANWHILE, IN THE UPPER ECHELON OF SOCIETY

While this austerity was underway, affecting the most vulnerable in society, the richest have been wealthier than ever and the UK had more billionaires per head of population than any other country, according to the BBC after viewing the Sunday Times Rich List.

Tax cuts have been introduced, favouring the wealthiest in society. The super rich are twice as rich as around five years ago, and the fortune of the wealthiest 1000 people in Britain is equivalent to one third of the countrys GDP. The Equality Trust state that the current tax system is regressive, not fit for purpose and the public are misled about the tax system and wrongly believe that the richest pay the most in taxes. The truth is that the poorest households in the UK pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest.

The one off tax for the wealthy was an alternative to the austerity measures. Much of the public agreed it was a very effective way to solve the economic problems of the country, but was dismissed by David Cameron. Instead, his government chose to hit the poorest people the hardest.

As an additional insult to the people crippled by welfare cuts, a UK government minister recently quit his job as the 120,000 per year wages were intolerable and not enough to support his family in London.

WELFARE AFTER INDEPENDENCE

Scottish government is committed to social justice and equality. According to the Equality Trust, countries with a lesser divide between rich and poor have lower crime rates, higher life expectancy, higher levels of trust, happiness and social participation, higher educational scores.

The Expert Working Group on Welfare for the Scottish government recognised that the current system is too complex and advocated ways in which improvements can be made.

The Scottish government is dedicated to:

scrapping unnecessary and ominous Westminster policies such as the bedroom tax

maintaining the sovereignty of the Scottish people regarding the wants and needs for their country in the writing of the constitution

introducing a minimum wage that, at least, rises with inflation

stopping the PIPs that have had a disastrous effect on the countrys disabled people and reforming the welfare system, focusing on making it fairer, more personal and simpler for all, and making care for the most vulnerable in society a priority

preserving public services like the NHS and free tuition, where healthcare and education should not just be for those who can afford it (please see section about what is currently happening to the NHS).

offering childcare to families with young children in order to increase quality of life, tackle poverty, and benefit the economy as more adults can get back to work. This can also reduce gender inequality in the workplace.

THE COMMON WEAL

A more equal society for Scotland is advocated by Robin McAlpine, via the Common Weal, an emerging movement which is developing a vision for economic and social development in Scotland. It rejects 30 years of grasping, me-first politics, a survival-of-the-richest, winner-takes-all mentality which left us all in second place, and asserts that we should create hope and change by putting All of us first.

Some of the elements to create a fairer and more equal society promoted by the Common Weal involve:

supporting individuals and small businesses through a national fund for industry, beating big-business

fighting back against energy companies and taking the nations energy into collective ownership

building a new generation of great quality, affordable public housing

strengthening the welfare state, not cutting it, in order to alleviate peoples fear of having nothing

ending tax avoidance: if poorer people have to pay taxes, so should multimillion pound companies

believing in Scotlands ingenuity and rebuilding the economy that has been crumbling due to UK government policies

There is no reason Scotland cannot have these things. For too long, Scotland has been lied to by the UK government, and made out to be too wee, too poor, too stupid to run its own affairs: Scottish people have lost faith, and have lost their self-belief. But Scotland has the money for welfare. It has the industries to create more jobs for people. It has the capacity to build a better country than its citizens are currently living in.

In an independent Scotland, people can create an all of us first society to thrive in and be proud of.Why have I not heard everything about what will happen? (This also has information about Scotlands start up costs) MEDIA BIAS

Essentially, the Scottish people are being tricked out of making an informed choice, as the issues surrounding the referendum are not being discussed and highlighted in the media. What is being presented to us is a false prospectus from the No campaign.

The media has strong ties to the current government, who obviously dont want Scotland and its assets to leave the union. (Scotland has approximately one third of the landmass, 70% of the coastline, 1.5 trillion pounds asset of oil as well as other growing industries, and it strengthens the UKs balance of trade as it is in surplus [the balance of trade is the UKs import/export balance and is the worst in the developed world in 2014 according to the EU: Scotland is propping it up.])

The BBC is pro union with clear bias in its coverage, and many media channels are the same. A report by Professor John Robertson of The University of the West of Scotland explores the range of media bias in the BBC relating to items about the referendum.

For example, negative news would be shared first to have the biggest impact, government studies would be passed off as having impartial figures, on television, supporters of independence face more intense questioning and are cut off far more readily than pro-Union people. Also, in newspapers, many headlines have had an incredibly doom and gloom stance yet if you read the article you will find a quote or something perhaps taken out of context regarding an area where people have doubts or questions about what may happen in an independent Scotland e.g. a headline such as PENSIONS BLACK HOLE of an article that discusses the UK being safer for peoples pension whereas the truth is something scarily different from that (see above section about pensions).

Here is a link to the first in a series of videos that explore a tool that has been used to a huge extent during the referendum campaign: The Fear Factor: The politics of fear can mean only one thing: that the powerful are afraid: http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/ffvideos.html

PORKIE PIES FROM THE TREASURY

The UK Treasury was caught out lying about the start up costs for an independent Scotland. They stated that it would cost 2.7billion based Professor Dunleavys figures (from the London School of Economics). Professor Dunleavys research actually highlighted that the average cost to start a UK government department is 15million and it was deliberately highlighting that in comparison to other countries the UK government are incredibly wasteful and inefficient.

The UK treasury took the figure of 15million and decided that Scotland would need to create 180 departments. This is how they came up with the figure of 2.7billion, despite the fact that most of Scotlands government departments already exist so would not need to be set up. The UK government have less that 30 departments so why they would think Scotland would need to have 180 is a question I am sure many people would like to know the answer to!

Dunleavy rejected the use of his figures and stated that the Westminster had increased his figures by 1200%. He stated that in actual fact, he deemed the systems already set up in Holyrood (the Scottish government) were modern streamlined directorates able to work at a fraction of the cost in collaboration with other relevant departments in contrast to the large, expensive bureaucracies of Westminster all working in isolation from each other. Quite the contrast to the picture that Westminster had painted of his research.

His actual estimate for a one off start up was between 200 and 250million.

(If Scotland remains in the Union, HS2, the high speed rail link between London and Birmingham, would alone cost Scotland 200 million per year, EVERY YEAR, if it is even on budget. There has also been the banding about of a 900million figure from the UK Treasury for the updating of Scotlands IT systems. Firstly, this is likely to have to happen if Scotland stays in the Union anyway, the cost would be spread between now and 2018 2021 and possibly longer, and regarding the UK Treasurys recent guesswork for Scotlands start-up costs, do they even have much credibility to be making assessments for Scotland? Even if the figure was that high, Scotland could easily still afford it.)

MORE PORKIE PIES BUT SCOTLANDS PEOPLE LEARN NOTHING ABOUT IT

After the treasury admitted to misbriefing by using Professor Dunleavys figures inappropriately, they then said that the real start up figure was 1.5 billion, based on the work of Professor Young from the University of Western Ontario.

Professor Young immediately rejected the use of his figures as they were not applicable to Scotland. The figures specifically applied to a situation where Quebec might become independent from Canada, and have to start up a whole countrys governmental infrastructure more or less from scratch. In line with Professor Dunleavy, Professor Young asserted that the infrastructure necessary for Scotland to function as an independent country was already largely in place. Unsurprisingly, this was not largely promoted in the press.

Down south, in the week that this news came out, the headlines stated things such as UK TREASURY CAUGHT OUT LYING TO SCOTTISH VOTERS OVER INDEPENDENCE in order to tell the true story. In Scotland there were no such headlines and the media hardly covered the story. By the end of the week, the media coverage had completely twisted the story, with headlines such as BLOW TO YES CAMPAIGN: SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT UNABLE TO PUT A FIGURE ON START UP COSTS. Unfortunately, this is a common way in which information regarding the referendum and Scottish independence has been handled by the major media outlets.

For further information about media hysteria, please also see the sections about Scotlands entry to the European Union, and whether big companies want to leave Scotland after the event of a Yes vote.

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT AND CHEAPER THAN WESTMINSTER

The Scottish government finance minister, John Swinney, also gave an example of Dunleavys argument about Westminsters inefficiency and wastefulness. Relating to new tax gathering powers acquired through The Scotland Act, where an administrative body had to be set up to do what we had previously been paying the UK to do on our behalf, the service can be done in Scotland more efficiently and 25% more cheaply.

This applies to all the things that we currently pay the UK to do on our behalf, e.g. Ministry of Defence, Department of Work and Pensions, DVLA, etc. We already pay for these services, and start up costs would not be a lot more than we pay now but will create thousands of jobs in Scotland which will therefore feedback income tax to the Scottish Treasury.

GENERAL VIEW FROM THE YES / NO CAMPAIGNS

Arguably, the move by Westminster and the media to keep information from the Scottish public was to keep people guessing and add to the scaremongering that has been rife in the No campaign.

If the Scottish government and the UK government sat down to work out what independence would mean, the people of Scotland would know exactly what they would be voting for. As mentioned previously, the Scottish Government wanted to do this but Westminster declined. Fear, uncertainty and doubt could have been removed but instead have formed a central part of the No campaign.

It could be argued that the Yes campaign depends upon discussion and exploration of a wide range of issues and how issues are interrelated - from finance to welfare, industrial policy to defence, pensions provision to government spending priorities. In contrast, the No campaign has tended to avoid discussions, having refused on numerous occasions to put forward people to take part in local and national debates, as well as simply have simply not turning up to scheduled public meetings.

It has also been evidenced that the direction of travel of voters is generally from No to Yes as people become better informed about the issues surrounding Scottish independence. There are very few that have gone from a Yes to a No. This indicates that the arguments for independence are far stronger than those for No. Where would the money to start an independent Scotland come from?

The savings that Scotland will make under independence are vastly more than the cost. Please see the sections about the economic issues for Scotland, and the media bias answer that also discusses start-up costs.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Restating a point made previously, experts stated that Scotland already possesses the bulk of the infrastructure needed for an independent country, e.g. government bodies already established, tax administration, it already runs its own departments, it already runs its own education system, prison service, NHS, police and emergency services, etc.

The remaining things Scotland needs to establish, it already pays for. It contributes between 9.5 and 10% of the UKs tax revenue every year, despite being only 8.4% of the population. This alone means that Scotland would have an extra 4.4 billion pounds to spend in Scotland after a Yes vote.

SCOTLAND IS ALREADY PAYING

Setting up of any new departments, such as the Scottish Ministry of Defence, means that jobs that Scotland currently pay people to do in England would come to Scotland, at no extra cost. Scotland is already paying for these services, and experts have stated that we can be doing it significantly more cheaply in Scotland. Because of these jobs being created for people in Scotland, the income tax will go to the Scottish Treasury, therefore keeping the wealth and jobs within Scotland.

Any new infrastructure that needs to be created will have the same characteristics: jobs for Scottish people, and income tax staying in Scotland, all from things that Scotland already currently pays for within the United Kingdom.

Scotland generates money that tends to end up in London and the South East of England. As a consequence of this, people want to work where the money is so as well as a financial drain, there is a drain of Scotlands talented and educated people, who also have to leave if they want to do well in their careers.

An independent Scotland can fix the leaky ship: money currently pouring out of its economy into the drain of the City of London can stay within Scotland, to build the kind of fairer and more prosperous society that it is more than capable of having. How would Scotland build its industry/boost the economy?

SCOTLANDS ECONOMY NOW

Scotlands current balance of trade is positive, meaning that it exports more than it imports. The UKs is negative, meaning that it imports more than it exports. The Scottish economy is currently stronger than the UK economy as a whole. It could be said that Scotland is, in some ways, propping up the UK economy. Scotland has a diverse economy that is doing well but the Scottish government does not currently hold powers to develop its own industries to their maximum potential.

Since the time of the Thatcher government, there has been a switch from the promotion of manufacturing industries to the expansion of the financial sector and prioritisation of big business. Therefore industry across the whole of the UK, such as in mining, shipbuilding, and car manufacturing has been reduced to a large extent, especially Scotland and the north of England.

This led to privatisation of public services, selling of national assets, and of course, a huge loss of jobs (and therefore loss of income tax to the Treasury), as well as placing an emphasis on low pay for the remaining workers and little regulation of business (the phrase cutting of red tape has been banded about a lot relating to this).

Of course, the financial sector is not particularly productive as people are dealing with money and numbers: nothing is actually created, so there is little need for a large workforce in this area.

There has been very little effort by recent Westminster governments to rebuild other industries in the UK. Their priorities tend to involve reading the market trends and basing decisions on ways to make the most profit, rather than creating policies to benefitting the people and economy in a more sustainable way.

UNDER AN INDEPENDENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. Ralph Charell

The Scottish Government will be proactive in their approach, by linking supply and demand simultaneously in order to boost the economy. They have stated that they would create an integrated industrial policy where industries would be created as part of a virtuous cycle, where a product is created as well as a demand for that product, therefore creating jobs in the process.

For example, we can look at the potential development of the biomass fuel industry: empty land in the north of Scotland can be utilised to grow biomass crops (regarded a green alternative to fossil fuels), so a number of local authorities then switch to using biomass fuel, therefore creating a need for biomass crops. This cycle leads to the development of jobs and training opportunities for young people (and of course the income tax of these goes back to the Scottish Treasury rather than the UKs or another investing countrys).

This model of creating supply and demand can be used can in other industries, such as the renewables sector. The product is already there, i.e. wind/tidal/hydro power, and the demand for energy exists. The government would develop the industry to link the product to the demand, again, creating many jobs in the process.

The government and local authorities would create markets, in order to grow industry in different ways in different areas of Scotland, as well as constantly looking for ways in which these cycles can be improved.

What about peoples pensions?

YOUR PENSION WILL BE PAID REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE

The UK Minister Steve Webb answered a question from MP Ian Davidson on the subject and reassured the public that everyones pensions will be paid. If you have paid the UK based Department of Work and Pensions / national insurance in your life, you will be entitled to get your money, regardless of in which country you were living.

AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLANDS PENSIONS

Scotland pays less of overall public spending than the rest of the UK so pensions are more affordable in Scotland. On average in Scotland, people die younger so they dont benefit from their pensions for as long (not a particularly happy statistic but a fact nonetheless). There is a possibility of future pension policy in an independent Scotland taking this into account and making pensions fairer and from a younger age.

The Scottish Government stated that the basic state pension would continue to be uprated with the Triple Lock initially for the period of the first independent Scottish Parliament. The proposed oil fund is also to be used to create a pension pot for the people of Scotland, and the Scottish government wish to improve pensions for its elderly citizens.

UK PENSIONS

On the other hand, the current UKs pension is one of the lowest in Europe and the current government is looking to increase retirement age to 67. This raises the question about pensions liability for the UK and whether they will be in a position to pay the pension that people have paid into all of their lives. However, there is no pension pot accruing interest as you would expect. Gordon Brown took 100 billion from the pensions money when he was in power so peoples pensions are currently being paid from current national insurance payments and general taxation. What will happen about Scotlands defence?

SCOTLANDS CURRENT SITUATION

At present, the UKs pitiful defence of Scotlands coastline does not nearly justify the huge, yearly defence bill that Scotland pays. Scots pay 3.3 billion pounds of the UKs defence budget, but just over half of that is actually spent in Scotland.

The UK government overspend due to their continuous at war status and invest billions of the UKs money in wasteful projects such as building aircraft carriers for which there are no aircraft, and Trident, a nuclear weapon of mass destruction, which most Scots do not want. Regarding Trident, Tony Blair in his time as Prime Minister, and at a time when he was trying to justify decisions to renew the UKs nuclear capability, actually stated that Trident was unusable and was merely a symbol of the UKs global status. Scotland is currently paying for the UKs arguably futile projection of power as opposed to simply protecting its own peace.

European countries of comparible size to Scotland pay a lot less to have perfectly functional defence systems.

The difference is that these other European countries are paying for defence, whereas Scotland is currently paying towards the UKs force projection, i.e. invading other countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the USAs extremely questionable war on terror.

This article Spend less to get more outlines more detail about how Scotland is currently losing out from its current UK defence and would be better under independence:http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/defence-in-an-independent-scotland-spend-less-to-get-more/

And further reading about Scotlands defence can be found here:http://www.scottishindependencereferendum.info/defence.html

IS SCOTLAND EVEN CURRENTLY DEFENDED?

It is arguable whether Scotland is even currently adequately protected by the UKs defences. Despite Scotland having around 70% of the UKs coastline, the Royal Navy does not have one major surface vessel centered in Scottish waters. Instead, major vessels are deployed to support military strikes in other parts of the world, such as Syria and Iraq.

Therefore, a few years ago, when a Russian aircraft carrier strayed into the Moray Firth, UK Intelligence was only alerted via social media sites. Due to the lack of local naval resources, the UK government had to send a vessel from the south of England to make contact with the fleet. It took 24 hours for a naval vessel to arrive from Portsmouth, demonstrating the current lack of rapid response in defence for the coastline of Scotland. Despite the incident, UK Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond asserted, "We do not need a frigate stationed in Scottish waters.

A similar incident also happened in 2011.

DEFENCE IN AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND

After independence, the defence budget would be reduced to 2.5 billion pounds, freeing up 800 million per year to spend on other Scottish priorities.

The Scottish Government intend to re-prioritise where money is spent on defence, and create a better-equipped defence system that meets Scotlands needs, such as protecting Scotlands oil rigs and fishing areas.

There are currently no naval patrol vessels or aircraft based in Scotland or the surrounding waters, and under independence there would be an immediate need for the procurement of several frigates and a range of other appropriate vessels. Therefore maintaining shipbuilding on the Clyde and giving the industry time to diversify and expand. Again, we can follow a Norwegian example, where a diverse shipbuilding industry thrives. This would, of course, create jobs, and kick-start Scotlands shipbuilding industry, with income tax coming back to the Scottish Treasury, as opposed to the UKs.

Again, the vision for Scotland is about projecting peace in its own country, not force on others.

There is no question as to whether Scotland can afford an adequate defence system, despite what has been stated in the media. It is already paying way more than necessary for less mediocre defence from the UK.

For further information, please see the answers to questions about where the money will come from, and why people may not have heard all the facts about the independence debate.

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation)

The majority of countries within NATO do not have nuclear weapons, so it is difficult to see how the loss of Trident would affect Scotlands entry. Spain got rid of their nuclear submarines and warheads by 1979 and joined NATO in 1982.

Regarding its geographical position, if Scotland was not part of NATO, there would be a significant hole in the area the organisation is meant to cover, therefore logic states that it would be in NATOs interests to admit Scotland.

This is a very interesting letter about the American view of Scotland, and an independent Scotlands entry to NATO from Will McLeod, the Government and World Affairs Correspondent for Netroots Radio in Washington, DC:http://wingsoverscotland.com/an-actual-letter-from-america/

And here is an interview with Professor Michael E. Smith, Chair of International Relations at the University of Aberdeen, an expert in the area:http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-keepers-of-the-gate/

TRIDENT

Scotlands MPs and MSPs have voted against the use of nuclear weapons, however due to our relatively small percentage of the UKs constituency, our voice is overruled.

The Scottish governments plan is to remove Trident from Faslane Naval Base by 2020, and the base will be expanded in order to become the headquarters for all of Scotlands military forces.

We must ask, Why are the UKs nuclear weapons in the west coast of Scotland and not protecting the larger portion of the population of the City of London and the south East of England? People in the rest of the UK have (and rightly so!) stated their horror at the prospect of the nuclear weapons being moved closer to their homes and children. So why should they stay in Scotland, so close to its homes and children, especially when Scottish MPs have voted against the renewal of Trident?Will Scotland not be under threat if its nuclear weapons are removed?

Quite the contrary. Scotland is currently a global target as we are housing unusable weapons of mass destruction. As soon as the weapons leave Scotland, the target is removed.

It could be argued that people in the west coast of Scotland are currently in more danger of nuclear poisoning than your average UK citizen, because of the inefficient yet horrifying weapons being harboured there. In 2010, a Royal Navy nuclear submarine, HMS Astute, ran aground off the coast of Skye. Fortunately, the vessel was not armed and no harm was done.

Some may say that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent to the threat from other countries. However, to have a deterrent weapon, the holding party must be willing to use it and communicate this to the opposition. Clearly, the Scottish government and the vast majority of the population have no intention of striking a nuclear attack.

Other northern Atlantic countries such as countries such as Ireland, Greenland and Iceland have a very small military capability, much less than what Scotland is proposing. And the geographical position of Scotland would warrant help if defence was needed as, being so close to other European countries, it would be in their interests to keep Scotland safe. The same way that France would be likely to help Belgium if they were invaded (ridiculous as it sounds).

Anyway, who would invade Scotland? And for what reason? How often do you hear of peaceful countries such as Switzerland and Sweden being invaded? However, if there was to be an invasion from another country, an independent Scotlands waters and aerospace would be significantly more protected than they are now, as part of the UK.

What about the people who will lose jobs?

Unfortunately, those who currently work on Trident would lose their current position at some point after Scottish independence. However, the numbers have been vastly exaggerated by the Tory and Labour parties.

520 jobs at Faslane and Coulport rely on Trident, nowhere near the excess of 6000 that has been quoted by the pro-Trident parties.

John Foster, a social sciences professor at Paisley University was quoted in the report that new jobs would be created at the Faslane base by the introduction of non-nuclear Astute-class submarines.

The jobs lost will be in tiny numbers compared to the jobs that could be created by the Scottish government in their industrial policy, although, the transferable skills of the Trident workers could lead them into other defence jobs.

For further information please see the section about how Scotland would boost the economy.

What is happening with the current NHS?

BEING DESTROYED BY PRIVATISATION

Many would agree that the creation of the National Health Service was one of the pinnacles of Britains society. Free healthcare for everyone, no matter how much money you have.

However, the current UK government is allowing the NHS to be bought off by private companies, therefore reducing the public spending budget. And because the public spending budget is being reduced in the rest of the UK, the budget allocated to Scotland is also being reduced, despite Scotlands public services remain at the same level.

(For further information about this please read about the block grant and the Barnett Formula in the economic issues for Scotland as part of the UK).

The UK government are selling off hospitals and medical centres to private companies (one of the UKs largest private health insurance company being Virgin Healthcare), so hospitals are essentially being made to compete with each other. This means that the sharing of good practice, which is common in the publically owned NHS, does not happen.

Also, these new privately owned hospitals obviously want to appear to be the most successful to potential new customers, so the administrators generally choose to provide the most cost-effective procedures with high success rates only - the more difficult and costly procedures are left for the NHS to carry out. Essentially, these companies care more about profit than people, and this is what the current UK government is advocating.

SCOTLAND AND THE NHS

Luckily, Scotland is currently responsible for its own NHS, so privatisation has only been taking place south of the border. Contrary to Westminster, the Scottish government has put in place measures since devolution, to undo the beginnings of privatisation begun by the Thatcher government: they are committed to keeping the NHS very much a public service.

But because the Scottish government has no say in the budget allocated, the public spending cuts via the Barnett Formula (that are really happening) will lead to the Scottish Government not being able to afford free healthcare for the countrys people. The Scottish government will have no choice but to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. Within 10 years time, there will be no NHS as we know it.

A very recent article in the Independent outlines concerns of Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham: NHS could be 'carved open' by US healthcare profiteers.

Fortunately, all parties in Scotland are unswerving from their view that the Scottish NHS is an essential part of society, therefore with a Yes vote, you can be sure it will remain a national, free, public service.

What will happen with the BBC?

The BBC licence fee in Scotland raises 300 million pounds although the budget for BBC Scotland is only 87 million pounds. If we keep the licence fee as it is for a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, this would leave us just under 200 million to invest in sports coverage, creative arts, film studios and related infrastructure (it was reported that the lack of a film studio was the only reason the makers of Game of Thrones went to Ireland, having originally wanted to use the landscapes of Scotland as a backdrop).

Regarding watching the BBC in an independent Scotland, most countries in the world pay on average 1.5 million to get access to the BBC programmes that they want. The main broadcaster in Ireland, RTE, pays 21 million for the full output of the BBC (all channels), why should Scotland not be able to get a similar deal?

What about currency?

There has been a huge amount of negative press coverage on the currency debate, much of it, such as the repetition of Salmond does not have a Plan B has no substance. Alex Salmond