As part of his Apocalypse Of Doom Revue this week, Gordon Brown provided the Daily Record with a no-questions puff-piece the paper summarised as, “we must continue to share costs of health care and welfare with rest of the union – or pay the price”.
So that’s nice and positive.
As readers of this site will be well aware, 40 years ago the UK government economist Professor Gavin McCrone analysed the effect of North Sea oil on the finances of a notional independent Scotland, which at the time seemed a real and possibly even imminent prospect. His assessment was so alarming to Westminster that its findings had to be kept secret from the Scottish public for over three decades.
With the information suppressed, Scotland remained in the UK (and was even refused modest devolution despite voting for it in a referendum), resulting in the imposition of a series of Conservative governments elected on English votes, beginning with Margaret Thatcher’s turning-point victory in 1979.
Ironically, we have Mrs Thatcher’s government to thank for the collation of the data which demonstrates the true state of Scotland’s finances within the UK, in the shape of the GERS figures (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland).
The data was subsequently collected into the Scottish National Accounts Project, which provides the figures (Excel document) for the following analysis. What it reveals provides a surprisingly unambiguous statement of Scotland’s financial condition, and one which is agreed across a broader political spectrum that you might imagine.
Alert readers may recall that when the UK government announced plans for a £55m jamboree to mark the beginning of World War 1, on a date conveniently before the independence referendum rather than the traditional Remembrance Day in November, the more cynical of Yes supporters were immediately suspicious and/or angry.
But despite David Cameron initially announcing it as a “Jubilee-style” event that would tap into the celebratory spirit of the Olympics and might feature a star-studded football match (rather clumsily between Germany and England, rather than Britain or the Allies), the assurance was given that it would in fact be a sombre event respectfully commemorating the sacrifice of the dead, and definitely NOT a jingoistic festival of Britishness designed to influence the outcome of the vote.
Above is the video released by the “Military Wives” choir for the occasion, featuring Eamonn Holmes, Alan Titchmarsh, a George Formby impersonator and a dancing dog singing “Pack Up Your Troubles”, a jaunty song about what a jolly lark war is.
One of the most enlightening aspects of doing this website has been seeing how the nation’s elected representatives behave towards the people they ostensibly represent.
We’ve been collating the responses from various Unionist MPs, MSPs and assorted others to these questions we raised recently and the standard has varied wildly, from serious and considered to petulant and juvenile. (Many more, of course, simply haven’t bothered to respond to their constituents’ queries at all.)
But the most disturbing yet is the one below.
The Telegraph, 10 August 2014:
Nice to have a range of democratic options about punishing the poor, isn’t it, Britons?
Because you know he’s coming. Do you feel lucky, Labour voters?
We encourage readers to keep an eye out for the soon-to-be-released work of the Scottish Research Society. You won’t have heard of them before – they’re only three months old, with just 48 “likes” on Facebook – but they’ve already amassed some serious funds and have registered as campaigners for No in the referendum debate.
The society’s website notes that it “was formed on May 6th, under the Act of 1854, permitting Scientific and Literary Societies to be set up to inform and educate the public on social, economic and scientific matters.”
It goes on to add that “the material contained in the Society’s works, is used to provide accurate and informed commentary on aspects of the issues relevant to the question of Scottish independence. The Society is not a campaign group, but an organisation seeking to inform and provide balance.”
So that’s an interesting start.
Chris Huhne in the Observer, 3 August 2014:
Isn’t it weird how an MP has to be “disgraced” before they can tell the truth?
This is Andy Burnham, Labour’s shadow health secretary, earlier this week:
And here’s a press release from the Unite trade union in 2009, when Labour were in power and Mr Burnham actually was the Health Secretary:
Readers have had a small handful of replies in response to our “Infrequently Asked Questions” post of last week. (Have you written to your MP/MSP yet? WHY NOT?)
They’ve mostly been pretty rubbish, as you’d probably expect. But while pondering them, a thought suddenly came to us out of the blue, in that irritating “Why on Earth didn’t I spot this before?” way that’s the curse of all writers.
It’s about the idea that the rUK would have to impose border controls – logically, including a 100-mile-long physical barrier from Gretna to Berwick patrolled 24/7 by armed guards – if an independent Scotland adopted a significantly different immigration policy to that of the remnant UK.
The notion has always been cobblers, for all sorts of reasons including the ludicrous cost such an undertaking would entail and how upset poor Rory Stewart would be, but if you think about it there’s an even more obvious one.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
