Thursday, 13 December 2012

The following exchange on McWhirters letter in todays Herald caught my attentions as I browsed todays press.It is a classic example of the utter fuckwittery we are seeing time and again from unionists who when trying to debate Scottish Independece and run out of positive ideas for the Union just resort to "AHH BUT" like schoolboys smoking and bickering behind the bikesheds.

It really has come down to "ah but whose going to cut the grass in an Independent Scotland." That is what these poor sods are left with. You can almost feel sorry for these poor unionists. They know the games up they just cannot find the way to save face and admit it.


QUESTION: Tony Lewis

What we actually need in Scotland are some clear answers to some very clear questions.

Are we to keep the pound?

Are we to be part of the EU?

How are we to defend our interests abroad?

How are we to defend ourselves?

How do we fund our Health Service?

Do we honour existing benefits such as pensions?

Please add your own list of "things we need to know before the referendum"


REPLY FROM: Doug Daniel, Aberdeen

Do you mean "things we need to know before the referendum in order to satisfy us enough to vote Yes" or "things we can claim not to know to try and scare other folk into voting No"? Because unless you're asking these questions for constructive purposes, then there's little point in people engaging with you.

"Are we to keep the pound?" The Scottish Government's position is that we will continue with the pound, yes. This has been stated countless times, so to suggest you don't know the answer means you've either not been paying attention, or you're just stirring.

"Are we to be part of the EU?" This isn't even the argument, so read Iain's article again. Even die-hard unionists like Lord McFall refuse to suggest Scotland will not be in the EU. This stooshie is about how we will get there, nothing more.

"How are we to defend our interests abroad?" With foreign policies that are tailored towards Scotland, that's how. In fact, one very good way of defending our interests is in having a direct voice in the EU, rather than having to go through London. The Scottish fishing industry has never been anything more than a pawn for the UK government, and the UK's CAP arrangements are unsuitable for Scottish farmers, who will be better off with Scotland as an independent member of the EU.

"How are we to defend ourselves?" Well, we'll remove that huge target sign from the Clyde that is Trident for a start. From there, we'll have defence policies that fit Scotland. We'll build ships that serve some sort of purpose, rather than wasting billions on unneeded aircraft carriers. We'll have a defence policy that befits a nation with a large coastline. Most importantly, it'll cost significantly less than the amount Westminster currently spends on defence "on our behalf", and it'll go towards Scottish jobs.

"How do we fund our Health Service?" Devolution passed you by, eh?

"Do we honour existing benefits such as pensions?" Obviously. You realise we already pay tax, yeah? So we already pay for these things, it's just we pay it to London rather than Edinburgh.

Simple answers. But as I say, I suspect you're not asking questions to get answers - you're just asking them for the sake of asking questions.

An excellent and perceptive response from Doug Daniel.

Monday, 3 December 2012

Entertain your man for Christmas. PDBBTW

Wednesday, 21 November 2012



John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated"or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards."
They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender."
The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right."
Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

A final thought -" Greece is collapsing the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray.Welcome back to 430 BC

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Westminster released false figures to ‘distort’ Scottish economy.

Westminster released false figures to ‘distort’ Scottish economy
Posted by Alexander Porter 1569.20pc on November 07, 2012 · Flag

SNP MP Stewart Hosie has accused the treasury of misleading the Scottish public

Scottish news: Westminster released false figures to ‘distort’ Scottish economy

by Laura Wilkinson

It emerged last night that a UK treasury report released last week used adjusted figures based on the 2001 census, releasing findings over Scottish public spending raising fears that UK civil servants will be deployed to manipulate public opinion ahead of Scotland’s independence referendum.

Stewart Hosie, SNP MP for Dundee East, has accused UK treasury’s use of inaccurate and misleading public spending figures in Scotland as a “dodgy dossier of meaningless figures” designed to support the anti-independence campaign.

The treasury report based on the 2001 census to project Scottish public spending per head whereas figures for London and the UK were based on the 2011 census. The treasury’s findings show the average public spending per person in Scotland to be £10,088 compared to £9,613 for Londoners.

However, it has been reported that if the numbers for London had been calculated using the 2001 census figures, the average Londoner would be the recipient of £678 more than the average Scot.

The manipulation of the figures will heighten Scots' distrust of Westminster and the UK’s civil service at a time when Unionist parties are struggling to instil confidence in the UK parliament’s competence.

The treasury report claims that Scotland is one of the most costly areas for UK public spending and so the revelations of using misleading data will be widely perceived as an attempt to undermine Scottish self-confidence by encouraging a view of Scots as 'subsidy junkies'.

Mr Hosie said that the report did not take suitable adjustment in its calculations, underestimating the UK population distributions and not considering the tax contribution per capita.

He said: “The fact of the matter is that Scotland contributes 9.6% of UK tax revenues despite forming just 8.4% of the UK’s population.”

Danny Alexander, Treasury chief secretary, used the figures to persuade the public that Scotland benefits from being part of the union with the UK.

The SNP has criticised the use of the figures by the no campaign as “painting a distorted picture of Scotland” to win support for the anti-independence campaign.


Scottish News News Scotland
scottish independence scottish news news scotland

Thursday, 15 November 2012



See the guy carried away wearing the fawn jacket.


The same guy miraculously recovered and directing the rest of the faked causalities. You would think after the recent descent in to shit that the BBC would have tightened up on it's journalism. It now does not even have the credibility of Comical Ali.

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Scotland in the EU myths busted by.......Westminster.

HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland

Graham Avery, Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission

1. The object of this note is to clarify the procedure by which, following a referendum in which the Scottish people vote in favour of independence, Scotland could become a member of the European Union. Although the note touches on wider issues such as the terms of Scotland’s membership and the attitude of the EU member states and institutions, it focuses on the question of the procedure for Scotland’s accession.

2. In the debate on Scottish independence it is natural that opponents tend to exaggerate the difficulties of EU membership, while proponents tend to minimise them. This note tries to address the subject as objectively as possible. In summary it argues that:

· Arrangements for Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with independence

· Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens

· For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission

· Negotiations on the terms of membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence

· The EU would adopt a simplified procedure for the negotiations, not the traditional procedure followed for the accession of non-member countries

3. The author a Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He worked for 40 years as a senior official in Whitehall and Brussels, and took part in successive negotiations for EU enlargement (see biographical note at end).

4. The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence. The following cases are relevant, but hardly constitute precedents:

· Greenland joined the EU in 1973 as part of Denmark. Later it obtained home rule and voted to leave the EU. This led to a decision of the EU in 1989 removing Greenland from the EU’s customs territory and legal framework.

· In March 1990 the German Democratic Republic elected a new government committed to reunification; in October 1990, when it joined the German Federal Republic, its 16 million people became members of the EU.

· As a result of Czechoslovakia’s ‘velvet divorce’ the Czech Republic and Slovakia became independent states in 1993. Slovakia applied for EU membership in 1995, the Czech Republic in 1996, and they both became members in 2004.

5. German reunification represents in some ways the opposite of Scottish independence: it was enlargement without accession, whereas Scottish independence would be accession without enlargement. Nevertheless it is pertinent for the Scottish case from the point of view of procedure. Under pressure of the date for reunification, the EU adopted a simplified procedure for negotiation under which the Commission explored with Bonn and Berlin the changes needed in EU legislation, and its proposals were approved rapidly by the Council of Ministers and European Parliament. No EU intergovernmental conference was necessary because there was no modification of the EU Treaties.

6. However, for Scotland a modification of the EU Treaties would be necessary, if only to provide for Scottish representation in the EU institutions (number of members of European Parliament, number of votes in Council of Ministers, etc.).

7. At this point we need to consider the timing and procedure for such Treaty changes. Scotland’s EU membership would need to be in place simultaneously with Scottish independence. For practical and political reasons the idea of Scotland leaving the EU, and subsequently applying to join it, is not feasible. From the practical point of view, it would require complicated temporary arrangements for a new relationship between the EU (including the rest of the UK) and Scotland (outside the EU) including the possibility of controls at the frontier with England. Neither the EU (including the rest of the UK.) nor Scotland would have an interest in creating such an anomaly.

8. From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years; and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey. The point can be illustrated by considering another example: if a break-up of Belgium were agreed between Wallonia and Flanders, it is inconceivable that other EU members would require 11 million people to leave the EU and then reapply for membership.

9. It follows that negotiations on the terms of Scottish membership would take place in the period between the referendum and the planned date of independence. We do not know at this stage how long that period would be; complicated negotiations between Edinburgh and London would have to take place; but we may guess that not more than one or two years be needed.

10. The main parties in negotiations for Scottish accession to the EU would be the member states (28 members after Croatia’s accession in 2013) and the Scottish government (as constituted under pre-independence arrangements). It may be noted that in this situation the government of Scotland - not yet an independent state - could not in fact submit an application for EU membership under Article 49 of the Treaty. But it could indicate its wish for Scotland to remain in the EU, and this would lead to negotiations in an appropriate framework to prepare the necessary modification of the Treaties. Proposals would be submitted for approval to the EU institutions and the Parliaments of 28 member states and of Scotland, and would come into force on the date of Scottish independence.

11. As in the case of German reunification, the EU would adopt a simplified procedure under which the Commission would be asked to conduct exploratory talks with Edinburgh, London and other capitals, and submit proposals. Although an intergovernmental conference would be needed, it would not be of the kind that handles accession negotiations with non-member countries. A protracted accession procedure of that type, with detailed scrutiny of 35 chapters of the EU’s acquis, would not be necessary in the case of Scotland, which has applied the EU’s policies and legislation for 40 years.

12. Let us return to the question of the changes in EU legislation necessary for Scottish membership. We need to distinguish here between changes in the EU Treaties (primary legislation) and changes in EU regulations, directives, decisions etc. (secondary legislation). The changes in the basic Treaties for institutional reasons should not be problematic: for Scotland they could easily be calculated by reference to member states of comparable size (Denmark, Finland & Slovakia have populations of 5-6 million). The number of votes in the Council for the remainder of the United Kingdom would not need to be adjusted (with 60 million it would still be comparable to France & Italy) although its members of Parliament might need to be reduced in number in order to respect the Parliament’s limit of members.

13. In accession negotiations with non-member countries the EU has always strongly resisted other changes or opt-outs from the basic Treaties; at this stage it remains to be seen what might be requested by Scottish representatives concerning the euro or the Schengen area of free movement of persons. Without embarking here on a discussion of the implications for Scotland of these policies, we may note that although new member states are required to accept them in principle, they do not become members of the eurozone or Schengen immediately on accession, and are not permitted to do so. Joining the euro or Schengen depends on a series of criteria that are examined in the years following accession.

14. Let us turn now to the secondary legislation. Although a large number of technical adaptations would be needed in order for Scotland to implement EU law, the vast majority of these would be uncontroversial since they would be based on the existing situation. In respect of EU policies and legislation, Scotland’s citizens have a legitimate expectation of the maintenance of the status quo in terms of economic and social conditions. There should be no need, for example, to re-negotiate Scotland’s application of European policies in fields such as environment; transport, agriculture, etc.: it would suffice to transpose mutatis mutandis the situation that already exists for Scotland within the U.K. Since the rest of the U.K. could be affected, that process would require discussion and clarification with London, but it would have little interest for other member states who would be content to consider the question of secondary legislation on the basis of a report and proposals from the Commission.

15. Here again, it remains to be seen whether Scottish representatives would request changes in the application of EU rules and policies, for example the fisheries policy or payments into the EU budget. In general one would expect these matters to be solved on a temporary basis by means of a roll-over mutatis mutandis of existing arrangements for the U.K. until the relevant EU rules come up for revision, for example the renegotiation of fishing quotas, or the multi-annual budgetary framework. Such solutions would, in fact, be in Scotland’s interest since it could expect to obtain a better deal as a member state with a full voice and vote in the EU than in the pre-independence period. However, the adaptation of the British budgetary rebate could require difficult negotiations between Edinburgh and London as well as with Brussels.

Biographical note

Graham Avery is Senior Member of St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, Brussels, and Honorary Director-General of the European Commission. He has given evidence on a number of occasions to Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords

In the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London (1965-72) he headed the unit responsible for negotiations for accession to the EC, and later (1976) served as Private Secretary to two Ministers. In the European Commission in Brussels (1973-2006) he worked in agricultural policy, foreign affairs, and the cabinets of the President and other Commissioners, and took part in successive negotiations that enlarged the EU to 27 members. His last post was as Director for Strategy, Coordination and Analysis in the Directorate General for External Relations

He has been Fellow at the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute, Florence,

Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, and Secretary General of the Trans European Policy Studies Association

In the Queen’s New Year Honours 2012 he was appointed Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (CMG) for services to European affairs.

24 September 2012

Sunday, 28 October 2012

Labours Liemongering Hatefest

By a Newsnet reporter

Claims by Labour MSP Jackie Baillie that the Trident nuclear weapons system sustains 11,000 Scottish jobs have been called into question following a Freedom of Information request by Scottish CND.

Figures obtained from the Ministry of Defence by the nuclear disarmament group show that the total number of jobs directly linked to Trident is a mere 520.

According to official figures, of the 520, 159 are employed by the Ministry of Defence and 361 are employed by contractors.

Labour MSP Jackie Baillie has been a regular critic of the SNP’s policy over the siting of nuclear weapons on the Clyde. Ms Baillie has repeatedly claimed that having Trident creates 11,000 jobs, with thousands more set to be generated through plans to expand the naval base.

Speaking on her official Labour party website, Ms Bailie said: “There are over 11,000 jobs dependent on the base. The SNP would remove Trident, devastating our local economy and turning Helensburgh into a ghost town.”

Ms Baillie also claimed that the renewal of the nuclear weapons system and the expansion of the base would create thousands more jobs and added: “The SNP also fail to acknowledge that almost 3,000 new jobs will be created with the impending expansion of the base. These too would be jeopardised by the SNP plans to scrap Trident.”

The release of the official figures also follows a statement by Tory defence minister Philip Hammond that said: "The naval base at Faslane is the largest single site employer in Scotland with over 6000 jobs."

Mr Hammond’s figure suggests that the Labour MSP has been exaggerating the jobs benefit of having Trident based on the Clyde.

However, according to Scottish CND, both the Conservative MP and the Labour MSP are guilty of inflating the job benefit.

Speaking to the Sunday Herald, SCND co-ordinator, John Ainslie said: "Both Labour and Conservative politicians are trying to scare the public by exaggerating the economic implications of nuclear disarmament," he added;

"The loss of 520 posts would be a serious blow to those directly affected, but far more jobs would be created if the same money was spent on anything else."

Mr Ainslie was backed by Stephen Boyd, assistant secretary at the Scottish Trades Union Congress, who told the newspaper: "Suggestions that as many as 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident were not replaced are inaccurate”

Mr Ainslie cited a study his organisation had commissioned along with SCND into the economic consequences of cancelling Trident

He added: "Our study concluded that the reduction in direct and indirect civilian employment across Scotland would be less than 1800 and that this reduction would not take place until after 2022."

The results of a 2007 report also challenged claims by Jackie Baillie that Trident renewal would create an additional 3000 jobs. According to the study, the renewal of Trident would see a reduction in the Scottish block grant of £85 million per year for fifteen years which would harm Scottish employment and lead to a loss of 3000 jobs.

Commenting in the Sunday Herald, Jackie Baillie defended her 11,000 jobs number and claimed she had been told by defence experts that the entire future of the Faslane naval base was dependent on Trident.

According to the paper, the Labour MSP claimed the 520 figure was “too simplistic” and added: "Whatever people think about nuclear weapons, there is a responsibility to think about the jobs,"

Dismissing his Labour opponent's claim as nonsense, SNP MSP, Bill Kidd, said: "Trident is, in reality, a jobs-destroyer, and attempts to justify the presence of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde in terms of jobs is the worst kind of nonsense, as Jackie Baillie knows only too well."

By Peter A Bell

There is a sickness in Scottish politics. A corrosive malignancy in the very heart of our nation. A debilitating malady that threatens to cripple our democracy.

The UK zombies howling at the moon.

So the referendum will happen despite the Ukanian zombies howling for months it could not legally take place, now they move back on to the EU lies. The poor mad sods to not understands the law of diminishing returns.Their lies, their pettiness, their juvenile name calling in Holyrood, their abuse, their scaremongering has all been seen through by the Scottish electorate.
The polls the polls, next week we willsee a poll saying only one Scottish voter intends to vote for independence. These very same polls that told us that Scotland would never vote for devolution or a SNP government. What a bunch of howling losers the Ukanians are.

You can go back to 2007 when Eamonn Gallagher- former director general of the European Commission stated: “Scotland and the remainder of the UK would be equally entitled, and obliged, to continue the existing full membership of the EU. This was conceded by Emile Noel, one of Europe’s founding fathers and long-serving secretary-general of the European Commission, who said Scottish independence would create two states, which would have “equal status with each other and the other states”.

This is backed up by Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States, which reads: “Any treaty in force at the date of succession of states in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor state continues in force in respect of each successor state so formed.”

Or you COULD listen to Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, former president of the European Court of Justice who stated: “Independence would leave Scotland and something called the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to re-apply, so would the rest. I am puzzled at the suggestion that there would be a difference in the status of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of community law if the Act of Union was dissolved.”

Friday, 19 October 2012



David Cameron said in a speech in Glasgow a couple of years ago:

"There's one aspect of Scottish-English relations that I want to address.

It may seem trivial to some but I happen to believe that it's almost more damaging to the Union than institutional or economic difficulties.

It's a question of attitudes.

And, in particular, the ignorance of English people about Scots and Scotland.

All too often Scots switch on their televisions to be greeted with ignorant and inaccurate stereotypes.

Even as an Englishman, I find it a bit embarrassing.

Another aspect of English cultural insensitivity that rears its head in the media is the vexed question of sporting identity.

Why is that Scottish sportsmen and women who win are habitually claimed by English media commentators as 'British' only to be promptly redesignated as 'Scottish' the moment they lose?

Instead of deriding Scots as chippy or difficult, isn't it time that English people of good will educated themselves?

Part of the problem is that some English commentators don't seem to know what to think of Scotland - when they can be bothered to think at all.

They appear seriously confused.

One moment they deride Scots as hopeless drunks and beggars.

The next they complain that England is run by something called the Scottish Raj, a race of superhumans led by John Reid and Kirsty Wark."

Brown's £2bn Tube bail out...THE SOUTH FEAST.......

The Government is having to pay £2billion to clear the debts of failed Tube contractor Metronet, it was revealed today.

The Department for Transport must hand over the money after Metronet's backers called in their loans. It marks a major humiliation for Gordon Brown who as Chancellor was the chief architect of the private public partnership deal behind the debacle.

Metronet had originally raised the cash to cover the cost of its contracts to maintain and upgrade seven London Underground lines. But it went into administration last year with the debt outstanding.

Conservative transport spokesman Stephen Hammond said: "This is an extraordinary sum of money. The contracts should have been more tightly written. We,the taxpayer, are now underwriting the cost of Gordon Brown's failed PPP."

Under the arrangement, pushed through by Mr Brown in the face of fierce opposition, Metronet's backers are entitled to have all their debts repaid exactly six months after the company went into administration.

The Government has been forced to pick up the bill on behalf of Transport for London which is seeking to take over Metronet. "Metronet raised this money and should have invested it effectively, it failed," said a TfL insider.

The complex financial arrangement sees the Government hand over £2 billion to TFL which will in turn pay the money to Metronet's lenders.

TfL said the failure would not cost the London farepayer any more money. But it was unclear exactly how much the taxpayer would be out of pocket.

Insiders said that until TfL got its hands on Metronet's books it was impossible to tell how much work they had done and at what cost.

London Underground managing director Tim O'Toole said: "Our priority remains the removal of Metronet from PPP administration as quickly as possible. A great deal of progress has already been made. Tube services continue to operate safely and reliably for passengers, as they have done throughout the period of PPP administration."

Today's arrangement was triggered by the banks which were entitled to call in their debts - a process known as the Put option - from Metronet exactly six months after the company went into administration.

A Department of Transport aide said the deal was equivalent of someone having to pay off their mortgage early.

In a statement a spokesman said: "The settlement gives London Underground the resources needed to manage Metronet's administration and move toward a more stable long-term footing and continue the work to maintain, renew and upgrade the Underground.

"This will have limited net impact on public finances since Metronet's borrowing was already part of the Government's balance sheet."

Metronet, the largest of the two private firms upgrading the Tube, collapsed after running out of cash. Despite receiving around £70 million a month of government money to upgrade nine of the 12 Tube lines - all but the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly - it forecast a £2 billion black hole.

This put it in dispute with the Mayor, who frequently condemned the firm as incompetent and called for its directors to be "hung, drawn and quartered".

This condemnation, combined with delays in its work, caused its share price to crash. When it applied for an extra £550 million to keep it going but received only £121 million, the company was put into administration. Despite the collapse, TfL performed a miracle and kept services running - though many of the station upgrades have been put on ice.


THE SOUTH FEAST.Our collective pensions pay a lot of bonuses in the city of London. Scottish money is spent on educating a lot of people who go and live and pay tax in London.

Bureacrats who administer Scotland work and play in London.

Our soldiers go off and fight in Iraq and pay their taxes centrally.

We shop in shops who report profits centrally. We buy things made by companies who report profits centrally. We pay for media based in London..... When you dig down and add on the cash that is not included in the per capita amounts, you find that the SOUTH EAST U.K. is cushioned by billions of taxpayers money which pours into London from Scotland and the rest of the U.K.Scotland’s budget administers a geographic area covering one third of the UK landmass.

The present figures per head are. N.I. £9385. Scotland. £8623. Wales. £8139. England. £7121.These figures only take account of identifiable spending. ie. Money collated to the London account is monies that are spent specifically for the benefit of London.

The figures do not account for, thousands of Civil service jobs stuffed into London because it is “The Capital,”

The Foreign Office-

The MOD-

Dept.of Health-Culture and Sport-

The Treasury-

The Home Office-



Westminster including The Lords, do not count towards the London per capita account as they are regarded as for the common good of the U.K. as a whole.

A massive public subsidy pouring into London that does not show up on the books. These agencies by their very existence create in their wake thousands of spin of industries businesses and job’s to service them. As Scotland is finding out.

Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University say’s , there are billions spent on London that are never added to the account’s thousands and thousands of jobs centred in London simply because it is the capital of the U.K.

These jobs are counted as part of the shared U.K. total, never added to the London spend. It doesn’t matter if it part of the common U.K. effort, you can’t pretend that all the investment in London is doing any good in Aberdeen or Devon.

The Millennium Dome, cost £789 million, almost twice as much as Holyrood, for what a white tent?

Money plundered from the Lottery at the expense of the U.K..The Olympics are already at £5bn. And will plunder the Lottery again, starving Scottish athletes of funds for development, and with Scotland forced into a U.K. team many Scottish athletes will never see Olympic fame as they would otherwise in a Scottish team.

The Jubilee rail link at £3.5bn. 3.5 times the estimate for a Forth crossing.Scotland’s entire transport “allowance,” is £2.3bn. The new Euro Star London to Paris line has just cost us the thick end of £6bn. Great benefit to us here in Scotland.

The BBCs budget is £4bn. Half of the Scottish “allowance,” for health.

According to the BBCs annual report, 44,234 hours of TV were produced in London, compared to 2,495 in Scotland. They spent a tiny £106 million in Scotland out of a £505 million outside London. Leaving £3.5 billion INSIDE London, no wonder BBC Scotland is so utterly dire and pathetic.

Institutions classed as “National Resources,” do not count towards London Government spending.

The National Gallery gets £26 million.

National History Museum gets £45 million.

The British Museum gets £45 million.

The National Museum of Scotland is classed as “just for Scotland,” and gets £15 million per annum.

Most of the UKs citizens will never visit these “national assets,” in London, as it is to expensive to travel and stay there.The London Centric Scotlandphobic Union is a giant con and propaganda machine.

And then there is GERS which was compiled by Dr. Goudie was ordered by the Tory’s primarily to undermine the truth put forward by the SNP and many financial experts that Scotland was economically viable as an independent country.

Dr. Goudie has urged politicians to treat GERS with caution as the figures used are pure mythology and propaganda, and have easily been discredited by many experts and the SNP.

The top secret McCrone report said:
It is not possible to compare these figures with an accurate estimate of Scotland’s present balance of payments position. From the state of Scotland’s economy one would expect a balance of payments deficit on current account and a rough comparison of income and expenditure estimates for GDP suggest that this could be of the order of £300m. a year in 1970/71.

Plainly this is a most unreliable figure and it will vary from year to year, but it is probably sufficient to suggest the orders of magnitude. What is quite clear is that the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the existing deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus.

No wonder then that the Westminster/ UK/ English parliament, (same thing) lies and contorts itself so badly to keep Scotland where they want her. Who wants a partner who you have to subsidise?

Micheal Lynch - Scotland; A new History - points out the the Scottish economy prior to the treaty was growing at around 2.5% per annum based on data from custom duties income.
Post Union there was a collapse of the Scottish economy as it was flooded with cheap imports from England causing major job losses in the burghs which 'free trade' with 'English colonies' did little to offset.

85% of of Scotland's trade prior to 1707 was with Scandanavia, Baltic, Hanseatic League and the Low Countries.

The Scottish economy did not recover to pre Treaty state until the late 1750's as its normal trading partners were blocked by England's European Wars in defence of Hanoverian possessions.

By 1713 the negative nature of the Union on the Scottish economy had been realised and was the main driver behind the Earl of Selkirk's attempt to have the treaty dissolved.

Given the natural resources in Scotland there is no evidence that Scotland gained any economic benefit from the Union during the Industrial revolution and given the many innovative engineering solutions invented by Scots - not the least vital among them being Nielson's Blast Furnace, Watt's Steam engine - the rest of the UK (aka England) would have been chasing an independent Scottish economy.

There is no historical evidence at any level that Scotland has ever had any economic benefit from the Union that it would not have accrued as an independent nation. According to Michael Lynch it would be a brave historian that would return to such 'Olympian pronouncements' on the economic benefit to Scotland of the Union Treaty.

Micheal Forsyth, an ex-Scottish (Tory) Secretary, in his book on the Union Treaty comes to the same conclusion and argues that the Union Treaty no longer has any great benefit to either party and should be revoked.

Meanwhile, GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenues Statistics) leaves North Sea oil revenues out from the Scottish account but Oil companies corporation tax is credited to London. And it puts the entire cost of Trident IN the Scottish account.
They are lying and the know it.

The McCrone report in the 1970's indicates that the Scottish economy would have had rapid and strong growth as an independent nation versus the reality of stagnation under the last 302 years of Union hegemony.


The evidence today is that 50% of all the base load from Scotland's two nuclear power stations is used to prop up the North of England and Northern Ireland as is Scottish Hydro power used to deal with peak demand. Hydro in Scotland is therefore not as viable as it could be.

To meet the UK requirement for re-useable power Scotland is being plastered with wind power and Hydro capacity 'ironically' reduced to ensure that 'UK' i.e. Scottish wind farms get EU grants.

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

SCOT goes POP!: @Admin4TheYoonYoon Tweet-Watch : The Return

SCOT goes POP!: @Admin4TheYoonYoon Tweet-Watch : The Return: It's been far, far too long since we've taken a dip into the exotic waters of the Twitter account of Johann Lamont's former Shadow Minister ...

The missing Scottish millions.


Saturday, 13 October 2012

All of Europe invited to celebrate start of WWI

All of Europe invited to celebrate start of WWI

Merkel: "Mein Gott, Cameron! Es wird nie enden?"

By Tobias Yirnovoat our correspondent for shamelessly cashing in on the fallen

Passendale - Made in Great Britain - won by Great Britain
David Cameron has announced a year of celebrations to commemorate the outbreak of "The Great War" which will be held across Europe in 2014.

France and the Low Countries will be invited to join in the 2014 festivities to mark the beginning of the five year global conflict - which the Prime Minister has described as "A 'Great' war, made in Great Britain and won by Great Britain" - so those countries will be able to feel more positive about the outbreak of war.

A spokesbanker for the PM explained that some countries had been "dismayed and appalled" at plans to mark the start of hostilities with a £50 million trench festival. However, critics had been (quite literally) silenced by the subsequent offer to send gangs of Union flag waving English schoolchildren to Belgium and France, to assist the locals in feeling a proper sense of Britishness.

When asked whether the 'Year of the Lovely War' celebrations were intended to combat the likelihood of Scottish independence, the spokesLIBORcheat said; "No, not at all, but that is a most fortunate coincidence', isn't it? Haw haw. Seriously, if we were seen to be spending 50 mil just to get around the spending restrictions of the referendum, people might thing we were going 'over the top', haw haw haw. And no bloody Barnet money either, haw haw haw haw".

Apparently, the German government was also unhappy with the Prime Minister's idea of holding a celebration Christmas' football match in October 2014 in a field in Passendale. This was to have been a 'friendly match' between the Team GB and German Olympic sides.

A spokeskraut for the Bundesleiga told BBC Scotlandshire that premier Angela Merkel was not keen to celebrate either the 1914 or the 1939 anniversaries and that Boris Johnson's "two world wars and a world cup" remark had, if anything, made her feel even less inclined to take part.

A subsequent suggestion, originally proposed by notorious cyberbrit Tom Harris MP, that the Germans might want to mark the 81½ anniversary of the opening of the first concentration camps, resulted in a curt diplomatic response and a reminder that "it vos you Englanders who inwented ze koncentration kamp during ze Boer var,", adding "For us, if not for you, Tommy, ze vor is over".

Spokesnonentity for the now defunct Scottish Liberal Democrats, oor Wullie Rennie told BBC Scotlandshire, "OK. Whatever David Cameron decides is just fine by me. That's a big part of being better Together, you know. It's really the whole point of it.

"Also, I think Alex Salmond should be forced to step down as First Minister, and mibbe be banned from Holyrood or something. 'Cause somebody told me that he supported the SNP, or he used to, or something like that anyway.

"And besides, he's always making me look stupid on the telly. And I'm no stupid. But I'm going to classes an I'm hoping to become stupid by the next election." adding, "Bit hey, whit can you do, eh?"

Heidgirl of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, Roofy Davidson MSP, said: "I don't see what all the fuss is about. 90 percent of Scots live on benefits and will qualify for the free union jacks that the Orange Order will be distributing for us. That's a lot more than those scrounging jockstraps deserve, if you ask me."

Chairkeelie of the Royal & Ancient Judicial Committee of Unionist Nutters Torpedoeing Separation, Ian Davidsom MP, dissembled to a BBC Scotlandshire reporter:


No - that wid be treason, boy, let me tell you!
"That' aw shite! Me an ma committee ur gonnay ban aw James Bond filums and Braveheart, and Rob Roy, and Highlander from the telly fur the hale ay 2014, jist in case they make people feel too Scoatish. An wur takin' river City aff the boax. An Newsnat Scoatland. An aw that Gaelic cac an aw.

"Besides, ur the natz no celebratin' the start ay Bannockburn onywiy? Mind you the start an the end wus oan the same day, but that's no the point, is it? Its just too Scoatish, and that's aye a bad thing.

Plus, we only celebrate when the English GIED sumboady a doin', even if they goat the Jocks tae go in an' dae if fur them. We dinnay ever celebrate sumboady GIEIN' the English a doin, dae we? Of course no – that wid be treason, boy, let me tell you!"

Leader of Labour in Scotland Johann 'Rosa' Lamont was unavailable for comment, as she was too busy sharpening the wee knives in her shoes.

Posh boy owned!

Lamont the Tory's bitch.

The working class can kiss her arse!

Scot Independent.


Follow this site




Bloggers who can bother with me;)

About Me

Go on click me...

Go on click me...
Pig in the middle as usual.