Over Last 5 Years - Scotland would have been better of as an independent country.

 
Figures confirm that Scotland would have been £8.3 billion better off as an independent country : Business for Scotland (Report, 12th February, 2016)
 
Over the past 5 years Scotland’s would have been £8.3 billion better off as an independent country, when taking account a new report published into Scotland’s finances.

The new report demonstrates that Scotland generated £800 more in tax per person than the UK average during the last financial year.  Scotland’s spending was also lower than the UK average over the past 5 years.  Scotland’s spending was 44.2% of GDP over the last 5 years. The UK average was 45.4%.  Spending on social security last year was also lower in Scotland than the UK average. In Scotland it was 15.5% of GDP compared to 16% for the UK.

The front page of The Herald reported that Scotland’s economy is 11% better off in terms of GDP per capita than the UK.

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland Report continues 33 years of strong performances by the Scottish economy. Had Scotland been an independent country, it would currently have a net cash surplus of over £50 billion and no public debt.

Scotland’s economic position, relative to the UK finances, would have been £8.3 billion better off in the past 5 years alone. Scotland is clearly a wealthy nation with the resources to be a successful independent country.

Scotland is one of the world’s wealthiest countries
This means that an independent Scotland will be one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

 
Independence can make Scotland better off
However, without the full economic powers of independence Scotland cannot grow its economy, support domestic businesses or improve its economic competitiveness.
 
 
The extra £8.3 billion over the past 5 years would have allowed a Scottish Government to increase investment, reduce tax for key growth sectors and reduce overall government debt.  In contrast, Westminster has created a crisis in public finances with total debts of £1.3 trillion.
 
Westminster costs included in figures
Despite the strength of these figures, they still contain a number of substantial ‘Westminster costs’ which are placed on Scotland.

Scotland had to pay £4.02 billion in debt interest last year to Westminster. This is despite the fact that Westminster ran up this substantial debt. As a report by the Reid Foundation and the Fiscal Commission confirmed, an independent Scotland would not have needed this debt. This has cost Scotland £68.12 billion.

The Scottish figures also include service charges for spending outside of Scotland. This includes substantial costs for military services and nuclear weapons. Scotland also pays for the large civil service bureaucracy based in London. Scotland has paid £15.8 billion for military costs over the past 5 years, which will have been increased by the war in Iraq.

Scotland also has to contribute to the UK’s £3.5 billion tax administration costs,  £1.5 billion border control costs and hundreds of millions in Westminster expenses. Through efficiencies and common sense, an independent Scotland can save money in these areas and improve the economy. This will provide a large independence dividend.

EU: To Be or Not to Be.......

The UK population, having been promised a referendum on the subject of leaving or remaining within the European Union, have, along with those citizens of other EU countries, been betrayed by their financial and political leaders in the response they have taken to the current refugee/immigrants crisis.   In bowing hastily to pressure from international commentators, the governments of those EU countries, who have kept their borders open to large movements of peoples of other nationalities, are storing up considerable religious, cultural and economic problems in the near future for their indigenous inhabitants and long standing ethnic minorities.  They must:

1) Close their borders, 2) revoke special visas of migrants, and, 3) look to repatriate those immigrants who are identified as non refugees, back to their counties of origin.  They must take immediate steps in that regard.  Hundreds of thousands of fake refugees are still on their way across Europe, on the backs of genuine asylum seekers.  Observers have already confirmed that over 80% of those who came to Germany for “asylum” are neither Syrian, nor refugees.  If clearly identified as not being proper asylum seekers, they must be returned to their countries of origin, not lavished with the wealth of Europe for no good reason.  Hungary has shown the way.  Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his government made the decision to seal off Hungary’s borders in just one month.  The resulting closure of the Hungarian border through the erection of fencing, in conjunction with the threat of arrest for anyone caught entering that country illegally, has worked wonders.

Western media has spared no effort to demonise Prime Minister Orban and Hungary for enacting the exact same border policies of Israel, but did not succeed in cowering him.  He stood firm.  His policies worked instantly, and now continue to protect the homeland of the Magyar people.

The indigenous peoples of Europe are taking power back for themselves:  Slovenia like nearby Hungary has started building a wall along its borders, to protect its own populations, and maintain Slovenia for the Slovenians.  Austria has also begun to build a wall for its people, realising the true scope of the threat laid against it.  Montenegro likewise on its border with Greece

The bulk of Europeans are, however, being left wide open to the probability of a breakdown in the stability and security of their daily lives by their unquestioning governments being too ready to accommodate disingenuous people masquerading as refugees.  Many Europeans are however seeking alternative political solutions to the situation, by supporting local nationalist movements.  Nationalism, properly understood, is simply a nation’s immune system kicking in to ensure survival and well being.

The good news is that anti-globalist, pro-sovereignty nationalist governments are on the rise all across Europe, as people realise that spokespersons of nationalist parties were right in their views about the disadvantages of the European Union from the beginning.  One of the countries in that respect is France.  In that country, National Front leader, Marine Le Pen, is now the leading candidate in the presidential polls.  Polish people are also making their feelings felt in the same way.  The nationalist party there recently won so many seats, that there are literally no leftist MPs remaining in the entire government.

Finnish people have also been giving their support to the True Finns party, which has now begun to dominate elections.  Sweden, a country suffering undesirable effects of assimilating large numbers of immigrants, has seen its nationalist party become the largest political party in the land.  Denmark is now also closing its borders, and electing nationalists. The Netherlands’ government has laid down strict rules for those already in that country to either fully integrate or lose considerable cash benefits.

There are a few nationalist movements and parties who are on the hard left of the political spectrum, and will double down on failure, such as the ruling Scottish one, which is in thrall to the European Movement; but, all in all, most of them are committed to taking sensible decisions through adoption of policies which will be of utmost benefit, both socially and economically for their indigenous inhabitants and long standing ethnic minorities.   Such policies are against globalism, and pro-sovereignty.

It seems the reality of the religious and cultural threat to European civilisation that EU policies are proving, may finally accomplish what no financial crisis has yet accomplished:  The beginning of the end of the monstrous EU experiment.  That day can’t come soon enough.

Independence - a new Referendum possible without UK approval?

Is any UK Prime Minister empowered to prohibit another Referendum? Does International Law explicitly state that the sovereign people of Scotland have the right of self-determination?

There is altogether very little understanding of the circumstances under which devolution came about. A telling example is a recent article by Derek Bateman on Newsnet.scot about England's built-in majority in Westminster which could ostensibly, quote "that if England wants privatised hospitals,… nuclear weapons… and even abolition of the Scottish Parliament and the Barnett Formula, they only have to vote for it. It’s theirs."

Fortunately for Scotland, abolition of the Scottish parliament  is most unlikely to happen as  devolution for Scotland was not a party political decision by the then Government, but imposed by international pressure to rectify the UK's democratic deficit. 

The Tories had stubbornly dragged their feet over the UK’s accession to the Charter of Local Self-Government, but then, in March 1997,  the Council of Europe pointedly spelled out the sanctions that would be applied, in a series of escalating steps, to any European state that did not “fully and swiftly comply with the basic democratic principles that are at the heart of the European Ideal.”

In plain language, get Scotland, Wales, etc. sorted out or be expelled from the Council of Europe in the most humiliatingly public manner – a step that would have had devastating international consequences, especially just a few weeks before the UK presidency of the European Union.

Total capitulation followed. With the entire international diplomatic corps breathing down its neck, the new UK Labour government signed the Charter on 3 June 1997 (the last one in Europe to do so) and brought in bills for devolution to Scotland and Wales – to written approval by Strasbourg, but described by Blair as “a damnable nuisance.” The fulfilment of this foreign policy obligation was therefore a diplomatic and not a political decision.

The full story can be found in 'Devolution and the Labour Myth' (link)which highlights  the role played by the Scotland-UN Committee, the precursor of the Scottish Democratic Alliance.

But also others who should be aware how the devolved powers to Scotland in the form of its Parliament came about, are ignorant of the chain of events which led to the current situation.

In a recent article by Elliot Bulmer in The National under "the VOW" echoed this with:

"The UK Government’s proposed solution, which is to “recognise” the permanence of the Scottish Parliament in UK legislation, is about as reliable a guarantee as any other political promise. As with all our other democratic rights, devolution would remain at the mercy of a UK Government with a parliamentary majority."

When the subject of the Scotland Bill was debated in Westminster, the Rev. Stuart Campbell in Wings over Scotland, on June 15 last, wrote:

"Amendment 58, proposed by the SNP and backed by Labour, was actually a modest concession. It provided a way by which Westminster COULD abolish the Scottish Parliament, with its permission and subject to a referendum of the Scottish people.

The amendment contained no tricks or traps. Nothing was tacked onto it to which the UK government could object. It did only what it claimed to do:

amendent58

 

 

 

But the government voted it down regardless, pointlessly trashing the promise that David Cameron had signed his name to before the referendum.

Readers can, as ever, form their own conclusions."

You readers - and the political establishment in Scotland - would be able to see clearly that devolved powers came about under international pressure and not as the result of party politics, once the records of the Foreign Office and Cabinet Office have become available. Meantime, a substantial outline of the story can be read in the attachment to this article titled "Devolution and the Labour Myth", you can access it by clicking here.

SDA Donation

Please consider making a donation to assist the Scottish Democratic Alliance

Facebook

Login Form