Wonderland Two: the benefits of the union

A couple of days ago I came across the image below on the Better Together website, showing that Scotland gets more back from the UK than it contributes in taxation.

Scotland gets a full £10 billion a year more from Westminster than we delivere in taxation.

The SNP has just published what it apparently thinks is a refutation:

 

So: Scotland gets 20% more in spending than we pay in tax..... and that's a reason to break up the union which delivers this result?  

As the immortal philosopher Homer Simpson is wont to cry in moments of vexation: Duh!!

I mean...

What would they prefer? 10% more? 20% less?What can it mean when the No To the Union Campaign advertises this great benefit that befalls us by our membership of the very union they despise?

Is there a mole in their rapid rebuttal department?

We used to hear a lot about "Alex in Wonderland Economics". 

Is this the return? 

"Wonderland Two: the benefits of the union"

See the great 20% gift. ...Luxuiriate in the spectacular generosity of the benificient Union! 

Learn to love your fellow islanders!

Nationalists, the EU Membership and hidden advice, No. 99

There has been much controversy about the Nationalists and the advice they have bought, with our money, on the status of an "independent" Scotland vis-a-vis membership of the EU and the Euro.

Broadly speaking those who oppose the break up of the UK have been suggesting that EU membership would not be automatic for a newly independent Scotland and we would be forced to join the Euro, while the Nats have  been claiming that it's a foregone conclusion that the EU would welcome us with open arms and we could still be part of a "Sterling zone".

There has been legal opinion sought on these matters by the Nationalists, but they seem reluctant to publish it.

So, thanks to the Better Together website for this little image.....

....which gives a simple precis of all the public advice from the top experts.... ....all of which contradict the Nationalist politicians.

Whether it contradicts their legal advice, who knows?

Maybe they will let us, their constituents and paymasters, see it some day....

A "promise them anything" coalition cannot prevail

Last month Jim Sillars branded the SNP the most totalitarian party... his contention being that the lack of any challenge, dissent or protest from its active politicians, particularly MSPs, and their kowtowing to the Party leadership, was a sign of weakness in the party and a sort of cowardice by its members.

 He has reurned to the theme in Holyrood Magazine, and is again attacking the lack of backbone evident in SNP MSPs

Jim Sillars berates SNP MSPs for failing to address openly the many policy questions that will require answers in an "independent" Scotland.

The problem for Mr Sillars and others who may be exasperated by the SNP's lack of opennes and challenge on policy is that the SNP has promised so many things to so many disparate groups that any honest discussion of policy would be poisonous to party unity and alienating of the various tranches of voters they have managed to attract by promising them whatever they wish.

It's all very well telling Nat MSPs to break ranks, but every time they do they reveal, not just that they have promised one constituency a particular thing, but that they have promised other constituencies conflicting even opposing, things.

So business friendly tax cutting to North East Tories, tax raising left-wing service deliverers to Central Belt working class voters, anti-nuclear to CNDers, pro-Nato to pragmatic defence realists, conservative Christans to the Archbishop's flock, supporters of gay marriage to liberal sentiment...right-wng in Tory constituencies, left wing elsewher. It's a balancing act that can only be maintained by never acknowledging that you are on the high wire in the first place. Even glance down once and you topple into the abbyss.

Any honest challenge or critical discussion of any of these positions and you alienate at least two groups and lose their votes. What's more you show the splits and dishonesty at the heart of the SNP project the more discredited the party becomes and the more tarnished its only real policy looks. 

Sillars is right that SNP MSPs are supine. But how could they be anything else given the contradictions inherent in their pro-independence coalition and the penalties in revealing those contradictions?

500,000, 50,000, 5,000...whut!?

Masses fail to appear at Nationalist rally.

I was in Edinburgh on Saturday. I had organised a day visiting a few art galleries and a special evening meal for a family celebration. I had not realised that a huge Nationalist gathering, march and rally was planned for the same day, so it was with some trepidation that I approached the weekend: would our special day be compromised by gangs of woad encrusted warriors and boisterous tartan army refugees clogging up the streets and bars and restaurants of our fine capital city?

The problem was compounded by the fact that our chosen hotel was only a few hundred yards from the Meadows, where the invading army was scheduled to bivouac before taking over the town centre. And the route of the march was close to the walk we hoped to take to one of our planned exhibitions.

Around midday we set off to town, prepared to be beset or accosted and delayed by the occupying army on the march. As we walked our view of the Meadows showed no hordes a-gathering and no blocked streets, no hubbub, no hum, no skirl of the pipes, no drums and fifes, no music of any description, in fact nothing....

Edinburgh old town is a tightly formatted swirl of narrow street and connecting closes. Any celebrations or stramash of any size or volume would be seen and heard around the town. It would seem impossible to hide a march or expedition of any size, in this enclosed and echoing space, from detection.

But we saw nothing and we heard nothing.

I can't say I was disappointed at the non-appearance of the Nationalist convoy. Just a bit puzzled.

Anyway. We crossed the Royal Mile and headed for the City Arts Centre and an exhibition of the work of the Scottish Colourist Leslie Hunter. It was great.

Two hours later we emerged and headed past Waverley Station where we glimpsed a single face-painted Nat clumping along the pavement. We then walked through the eastern end of Princes Street Gardens. It was a beautiful autumn day and there were - at least - hundreds sitting, strolling, playing and even picnicking along the gardens.

At the National Gallery there were even more people sitting out having coffee and cake.  

We made our way to the Van Gogh to Kandinsky exhibition. Another fabulous two hours passed in a flash and we emerged blinking in the late afternoon sunshine onto the foot of the Mound.

By this time the march had passed and the rally was going on across the street, in the western end of the Gardens. I saw one man with a Saltire draped, football-fan-wise over his kilt-and-vest garb and another with a red and orange flag of Catalonia. An amplified voice carried from the rally, but no press or throng assaulted the streets. From what I could see, a not-very-large crowd were facing a stage. The space available was not taken up and, while respectable, the attendance was very obviously nowhere near the spectacular numbers (even pro rata) reported from Barcelona last week.

We walked up the mound and back to our hotel and saw no more of the Nationalist spectacular.

Truth to tell, Edinburgh was mobbed on Saturday, but not by political activists or galvanised voters intent on showing the strength of support for their chosen path. Edinburgh's throngs were tourists and shoppers and locals going about their business. 

Sunday dawned and the papers reported 5,000 people at the rally.  So few. No wonder they made no impression.

There were about a thousand people strolling and picnicking in the Gardens. There were tens of thousands mobbing Princes Street, the Royal Mile and the other main thoroughfares. 

The problem for the Nationalists must be: why were these people, or even a small proportion of them, not on the march? What does it say for the attractiveness of the pro-independence message and the momentum behind the Yes Campaign that they couldn't even attract a crowd any bigger than either of the local SFL teams gets regularly, every Saturday, to watch their games?

Minister for the Referendum, Nicola Sturgeon, 

looking puzzled as to why nobody turned up at her party.

We enjoyed our weekend and it wasn't spoilt by the pressing mass of Nationalist marchers. Because, rather to my surprise and I suspect the chagrin of the organisers, there was no pressing mass.

Good news, IMO. What Eck and his Minister for the Referendum make of it, I would really like to know.

  

Why not publish the advice?

The SNP claims that an "independent" Scotland would automatically accede to membership of the EU.

You would think that they would have taken legal advice on the possibility of this being so, any legal or constitutional problems or obstacles in the way of immediate accession identified by this advice and any arguments for or against that they have thought of, heard of, or have been advised might apply.

If you had a difficulty, perhaps unprecedented situation or problem that you were wrestling with, wouldn't you take advice? Legal advice if approriate? 

Maybe they have taken advice, but they refuse to tell us if they have. And if they have sought such advice at public cost, they will not tell us what advice they got.

So it's not clear to the voters whether the Nats are telling the truth or not: would an "independent" Scotland have to/not have to apply for EU membership.    

But we don't have to speculate any more. This week Manuel Barroso, President of the EU Commission, commenting on the situation in Catalunya, said that any secessionist region (Catalunya, Scotland) would have to re-apply for membership of the EU. They would not automatically accede to the Union, they would have to apply and meet any pre-conditions that would allow EU membership.

So there's the answer. An "independent" Scotland would not automatically be an EU member. It would have to apply and meet membership criteria. This would, of course, take time, maybe years.

So much for for Eck's "Och it'll be all right. Nae bother. No need to worry".

When will the Scottish Government tell us if it has any legal advice? And will it let us know what that advice tells them ..and us?

In the meantime...??   http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/09/jose-manuel-durao-barroso-alex-salmond-scotland-eu-membership/

Nat lack of ambition. No 99 and counting...

I've had a wee summer break.

Last week, after Alex Salmond's speech on the brave new world of Tartan TV, in which the bold First Minister made this vaulting claim...

"The First Minister said in a speech at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that a new public sector broadcaster would be modelled on Ireland's RTE station if his Government wins the 2014 referendum.

The new Scottish broadcaster would still take popular BBC programmes such as EastEnders but have a more distinctive voice through nationally focused shows, added Mr Salmond, citing the success of the Gaelic-language channel BBC Alba."

I tweeted this;

"So Eck wants to replace BBC with "Scottish RTE". Doesn't this just go to show the pathetic lack of ambition the Nats have for my country?"

So I have no hesitation in pointing you to this analysis by Brian Wilson, ex-MP and Government Minister, successful businessman in many spheres, and above all supreme journalist and scourge of all things dismal and Nationalist.

Wilson's a man who always gets to the heart of the matter and an excellent writer on top. Almost every time I read him I think; "Dead right. I wish I had thought of that first". So often he gets to the nub of the response while people like me are still mulling over the the question.

So, for once, it's nice to see I beat him to the punch on this single occassion (although he no doubt had to wait for his weekly deadline while I could shoot off as soon as Eck's "thoughts" were public).

But we're both right. To replace the BBC with an RTE clone with BBC Alba as the programming model.... it's just nuts. And it says so much about the parochialism of Nationalist thinking and the total lack of ambition they have for Scotland and its people.

Who in their right mind would substitute RTE (no offence to my Irish relatives) with its small budgets and small borders and small vision for the broad reach and rich depth of the BBC?

And who, wishing to do so, would dare to call it progress?

How the London Olympics show we are better together

Today's Herald has a great cartoon by Stephen Camley. It shows a radiant sun made of GB gold medals over a sunny meadow with, in one corner, a  glum Alex Salmond soaking under his own personal rain cloud. It neatly encapsulates the Nationalists' problem with the Olympics: it represents a great UK achievement, with Scots, English, Irish and Welsh competitors playing for team GB. And the Scots are doing well, winning medals and even singing God Save the Queen. But how do the Nationalists react to this obviously good news story?

In contrast, the letters page is full of Nationalists claiming that it's all fine by them, there's no sour grapes and anyway it's not that important. The letter by Ruth Marr, a veteran Nat, is representative. She says;

".... would appear to have a touch of Olympicitis if he seriously believes the frenzy over London 2012 being whipped up by the media on a daily basis will seriously impact on the independence debate and result.......I cannot believe many voters will be lulled into the belief that the biggest factor in deciding whether or not Scotland should regain her independence is Team GB's performance at the Olympic games."

For me the cartoon is nearer the mark: the Games are giving the Nationalists a headache. If they ignore them or are dismissive it looks mulish and adolescent. If they endorse the spirit of the games they risk admitting that the Scots are part and parcel of the whole team, and team GB is doing great things. Since it's a foundation of Nationalist dogma that nothing good can come from anything UK, this is a real problem for them. Seeing the likes of Andy Murray and Chris Hoy, the pre-eminent Scottish sportsmen, fighting and winning and giving their all for team GB, bursting as gut and showing evident pride and emotion in their own and their team's achievements, must be galling for the party that thinks if you're not a Nat you can't be Scottish.

As for Ruth Marr: she's right that voters will not vote on sporting success or failure, but she's wrong to dismiss the Games, because the results are just part of  their significance. Andy Murray winning a tournament isn't really news. Andy Murray winning the Olympic Tennis Singles, draping himself in the Union Flag and even singing (or mumbling) the words of God Save the Queen are another thing altogether. It says: I'm the champ, I'm Scottish and British and I'm perfectly happy with that, thankyouverymuch.

And, crucially, the games are providing a narrative and reasons to be British with added emotional content.

In the context of the "independence" referendum the emotion, the feel-good factor, is vital. It's generally acknowledged that the Nats (like the Devil) have all the best tunes. Emotion rules their case. For them history = Braveheart, with nasty Englishmen in britches cheating and flogging honest Scots in kilts. Every Nationalist broadcast has skirling bagpipes and swirling kilts and people climbing Scottish hills to cry from the topmost point: Freedum! For Nationalists the facts are subsidiary to the conviction, and the conviction is cemented by the raw emotion. "I love my country, therefore I'm right and the majority is wrong".

The case for the UK tends to be more reasonable, less emotion-based. The logic is with the better together camp, now the Olympics are adding emotion to the case for the UK, making it the full package: head and heart.

Which can only be a good thing, IMHO.