A particularly sickening trick from the BBC a few weeks back raised my blood pressure whilst in hospital and almost finished me off. A French Euro MP was asked for “the French view” on Scottish independence. She said that France would oppose it and the French government takes the view that an independent Scotland would be outside the European Union. I was absolutely astonished that the BBC had managed to find the only French person in the entire world who is against Scottish independence, and that she was telling an outright lie about the position of the French government.
Then I realised who she was – the former research assistant (and rather more) of New Labour minister and criminal invoice forger Denis Macshane. She worked for years in the UK parliament for New Labour, in a Monica Lewinsky kind of way. All of which the BBC hid, presenting her simply as a French Euro MP. There are seventy million French people. How remarkable that the one the BBC chose to give the French view of Scottish independence was a New Labour hack!
Today the news came out that Scotland contributes a net £3.6 billion a year to the UK government finances. Scotland’s fiscal deficit is an extremely respectable 2.6%, compared to 6% for the UK as a whole, or 6.3% for the rest of the UK excluding Scotland.
But even that is not the full story. These figures are based on a geographical allocation of oil revenue – but that geographical allocation is based on New Labour’s incredible gerrymandered 1999 England/Scotland maritime border which gives eight major Scottish oil fields to England, including two North of Dundee.
On a realistic maritime boundary, which an independent Scotland would undoubtedly win from the International Court of Justice, Scotland would actually have a budget surplus of £1.9 billion. Hurray, boys and girls, we are in the black! Remember I was Head of the FCO Maritime Section and I personally was involved in negotiating most of the UK’s maritime boundaries, including with Ireland, France, Denmark and Belgium.)
I know it is hard to believe, but that really is the England/Scotland maritime boundary which the revenue figures in the GERS report are based on. That is why England’s oil revenues are surprisingly high in the report – and Scotland’s surprising low.
But even on that boundary, the GERS report shows beyond any argument that Scotland’s public finances would be much better outside the Union.
Yet this morning the BBC choose to present the report as showing that because Scotland has a fiscal deficit, an independent Scotland would not be viable. Despite the fact that deficit percentage is less than half that of England. Despite the fact that every country in the Western world has a budget deficit.
The BBC have simply become addicted to the Big Lie when it comes to Scottish Independence. Talking of big lies – now they are even wheeling out Blair!
JA has been revisiting the undisclosed docs for a while, but I didn’t understand the reasoning, until I saw that, Herbie.
Someone has to assist our underclass of whistleblowers, and I am happy to see Manning’s plight receives some consideration.
If jemima’s dad wasn’t a billionaire – and a complete turd – nobody would ever have heard of her. Who cares what she thinks (to use that verb very loosely).
Fred
7 Mar, 2013 – 12:34 pm
“I found no evidence that the French government would support independence…”
Well Fred you wouldn’t if you rely on Herald Scotland for your information
.
It is as biased as the BBC.
What about us diagonal drilling into your oil? The 45 degree angle of the oil rigs might be a bit of a giveaway I suppose.
Mad Mel is on QT. What’s the betting for an attack on Hugo Chavez and even Julian while she’s at it?
07/03/2013 22.35
Duration: 1 hour
David Dimbleby chairs Question Time from Dover. On the panel are Conservative cabinet minister, Ken Clarke MP; Labour’s shadow education secretary, Stephen Twigg MP; Diane James, UKIP candidate in the Eastleigh by-election; Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union; and Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips.
That make’s two female racists then. Ms James does not like Bulgarians or Romanians coming here due to the crime they commit.
Arbed, you are a gem as is that letter. Thank you for pulling it out for us! That woman, who gets attention solely because she was born a Goldsmith deserves to be humbled. Strange that she threw away all her realisation and respect for what Wikileaks does and Julian’s personal courage to make that happen. I am glad that it is all out in the open. The only question now is how to get everybody to read such a, necessarily, long letter.
Btw i am cognisant that i owe you a response from the last chat we had. Thank you for clarifying and i did understand you, eventually. I hesitated to respond to you immediately because when it comes to Mohan Das Gandhi, i had to have a think about the issue of his sleeping with young girls in order to test his own celibacy. But what about those poor young girls? I still don’t know what to make of it.
—
CE, i hope you do read that email that Arbed linked to, just for context to Jemima’s actions. I’m not expecting you to change your mind re Assange, yet.
As this question comes up frequently, i am pasting an extract from the subject email:
“I explained to you how the argument that “he is no more vulnerable to
extradition to the US from Sweden than he is from the UK” is a red
herring. I explained why the US had not already requested his
extradition from the UK, because this would create a case of competing
extradition requests that the Home Secretary would have to judicially
review and prioritise one over the other, thereby creating political
embarrassment for a major ally whichever way the decision went. I cited
the US Ambassador’s own admission that the US would wait to see what
happened with the Swedish case before they made a move. I was careful
to explain this with Jennifer Robinson present to add a legal
perspective if needed. However, in spite of this explanation, you
allowed this claim not only to go into your article but also to remain
in Gibney’s film – expressed in remarks made by Baroness Helena Kennedy
QC that have been misleadingly edited to remove their proper context.
She has since said that she “did not expect that he [Gibney] would
fillet my interview” and also says “I regret thinking I could present a
sensible perspective”.
—
Btw, Arbed do you know where one can find Assange’s defence committee’s response to DAG’s piece?
Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)
7 Mar, 2013 – 12:49 pm
“I remain to be convinced that an independent Scotland would be financially viable, at least if it maintains its present social policies.”
Again Habbabkuk you make statements without any justification or logic or explanation for what you say.
If you are not “convinced that an independent Scotland would be financially viable…”
Tell us why.
Craig re Jemima, exactly my sentiments as included in my comment written independently of yours as i took a long time over it due to parallel distractions.
I put this info about the Herald Scotland on the preceding thread by mistake.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/scotland-for-chavez/#comment-397873
Weary. I was 45 mins waiting to be answered on a call to the BT call centre in India. In the end a lovely polite young man called Pratik sorted out the problem. Most charming. That was after half an hour waiting for a chat line service to be answered! They transferred me to India. I am sure that British Telecom could be giving some jobs to the unemployed here.
The BT woman throughout said ‘We are extremely busy. Your call will be answered as soon as an agent is available.’ Thankfully there was no musak only the ringing tone.
“That woman, who gets attention solely because she was born a Goldsmith deserves to be humbled”
Good grief. I can’t see Krishnamurti resorting to that.
The BBC have just said that Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law has been arrested and taken to America on terror charges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21706645
On and on and on.
As you will know Craig Scottish, English and European waters have been decided by International Laws which no one country can arbitrarily change, not even within UK waters.
For those who don’t know, the underwater mountain range known as the Continental Shelf is the dividing line between European/Scandinavian waters and UK waters. The Act is the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Act 1964 (Geneva)- where it was signed.
Then Scottish lawyers raised the prospect of legal jurisdiction in the Scottish part of the North Sea. The UK Government and Europe agreed on a second Act, the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Act 1968 (London) which drew a line from Berwick straight across to the Continental Shelf. The line is parallel 55degrees 50 North.
The signings in Geneva and London were by all parties involved and can only be changed by ALL parties.
The real disgrace here is how every single Labour MP and every single member of the Labour hierarchy in Scotland let this attempt at cheating Scotland out of some of its Oil and Gas wealth go without a single cheap of protest.
BETTER TOGETHER? Do you really think so?
VOTE YES in 2014
Mary…I think I can beat that..I was on a satellite phone ($10 per min) from Tindouf in Algeria, to a call centre trying to sort out my Diners Club payments…2 hours 17 mins if I remember correcty…they asked for my current location..I asked them if they had Google Earth ! I totally sympathise..me and Craig will have a wee whisky for you tomorrow night ! Oh, and I can never listen to Bohemian Rhapsody without grinding my teeth and supressing an urge to punch something !!
Cheers Frazer and Sláinte to all the Murrays.
I saw the other day that Craig has a titled namesake!
Lord Craig John Murray (born 1963), who in 1988 married Inge Bakker, the second daughter of Auke Bakker, of Bedfordview, South Africa. They have two children: Carl Murray (born 1993) and
Shona Murray (born 1995)
Third son of 11th Duke of Atholl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murray,_11th_Duke_of_Atholl
Craig
This is where the fight is. Welcome.
The BBC does “ma nut” in every night. Most english people would be shocked to witness their behaviour.
There’s been a leaked Scottish Government document doing the rounds for the last 24 hours. In all that time I’ve heard only one SNP person allowed to comment on it on BBC TV or radio. He was up against 2 Unionists plus a BBC Interegrator, Gordon Brewer tried to limit the SNP spokesman to less than 10 words.
Every news bulletin had Unionist politicians discussing the document without any SNP input.
The NAW camp are on a war footing caused by the latest economic figures that show the scottish economy is doing much better than the overall UK economy to the tune of over £800 per person per year.
Check out
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6885-bbc-scotland-hard-core-on-war-footing-as-the-battle-for-minds-heats-up
“Well Fred you wouldn’t if you rely on Herald Scotland for your information
.
It is as biased as the BBC.”
It’s looking to me like “biassed” just means “not Nationalist” round here.
The claim was that the BBC had found the only French person in the entire world who is against Scottish independence and that her claims that the French government were against it were lies. I could find no evidence to support this claim and I found evidence to refute it.`Do you have any evidence or are you just going to make claims of bias against everyone who doesn’t agree with you?
Same with the claims about England stealing maritime territory from Scotland, I checked it out, it’s just Nationalist propaganda.
I don’t even think the majority of people in Scotland are in favour of independence.
@Villager, 10:00 pm
“…do you know where one can find Assange’s defence committee’s response to DAG’s piece”
In Arbeds absence,
I wonder if it not is this document, that is referred to at the end of Joseph Farrell email, as published in the pastbin link
http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html
Fred
Can you explain why you’re against independence, if you are.
Is it nationalism or economy or what.
@ Fred (23h05) – you said ;
“…or are you just going to make claims of bias against everyone who doesn’t agree with you?”
You’d better get used to it, Fred, if you dare question the general line agreed by the Eminences.
Fred,
I would hazard a guess that Craig has more experience on the legality of maritime borders than yourself.
With relation to ‘Scotland’s Oil’, in 1999 Westminster moved Scotland’s Marine Boundaries from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie. Illegally making 6000 miles of Scotland’s waters English.
Scottish MSP’s who belong to the parties who allowed this order must be ashamed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/contents/made
This unjust act secretly passed, without the consent of the Scottish People, took approximately 15% of oil and gas revenues out of the Scottish sector of the North Sea taking £2.2 Billion out of the Scottish economy. This lost revenue is more than the proposed £35 Billion Scottish budget cuts for the next 15 years (£2.16 Billion per year)
@ Herbie (23h16) – you posted as follows to Fred :
“Fred
Can you explain why you’re against independence, if you are.
Is it nationalism or economy or what”
A good question, which reminds me that I don’t think I seen any explanation at all on this thread from the pro-independence brigade of why they’re FOR independence (I may have missed one or two, but certainly not more).
If I were Fred, I think I’d reply to Herbie asking him (and others) to explain why they’re for independence. After all, it is for those seeking to change the status quo to explain why.
@ CE (23h21) – you wrote :
“With relation to ‘Scotland’s Oil’, in 1999 Westminster moved Scotland’s Marine Boundaries from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie. Illegally making 6000 miles of Scotland’s waters English”
What, in your opinion, was the motive and what, if any, were the practical consequences of this (bearing in mind the year : 1999, when there was no talk of independence) ?
“This unjust act secretly passed, without the consent of the Scottish People, took approximately 15% of oil and gas revenues out of the Scottish sector of the North Sea taking £2.2 Billion out of the Scottish economy.”
Can you talk us through the practical consequences of this? Did the “Scottish economy” exist other than as a statistical concept? If not, what was the practical use of calculating it (if you’re thinking inter alia of the application of the Barnett formula, the Scots would presumably have got a higher allocation?).
Habbakuk
I really don’t have a strong view on the matter. I’m inclined to the view that independence might be good for the Scots, in a number of ways, but am happy to listen to unionist arguments against this.
“the claims about England stealing maritime territory from Scotland, I checked it out, it’s just Nationalist propaganda.”
Could elaborate Fred, what did you find which refutes these claims (which are quite confident)?
The 1987 boundary does look a bit angled unfairly off the coastline however. It might be standard practice to follow l??ditude? but going perpendicular to the lump coastline, seems fairer to chop up the earths precious ancient savings.
Herbie
OK, fair enough if you’re fairly open-minded. But there seems to be a few pretty convinced separatists on this thread and they don’t seem to have given any reasons.
So I withdraw my comment in respect of yourself but maintain it for others.
Habba,
I believe the 1999 borders were moved in order to weaken the possible independence argument in a devolved Scotland, the main practical consequence has been the underrating of Scotland’s economic performance and of her contribution to the UK economy as a whole.
We’re made out to be the scrounger of the UK, but thanks to Scotland’s oil revenues(some of which have been unfairly reclassified as English) we have been massive net contributors to the UK economy.
The Barnett Formula also intrinsically works against Scotland as it bears no relation to actual money raised in Scotland. The BF works by taking the money spent in England on services and allocating an equivalent percentage (based on population and devolved service provision) to the Scottish Government.
A truly fascinating post from Vronsky at 20h18 which bears reading and re-reading.
Vronsky has got his conspiracy lined up on both fronts and ready to meet all eventualities :
– if the vote is NO to independence, then it’s the result of propaganda and misinformation by the media (BTW, that’s a real vote of confidence in the intelligence of the Scottish electorate – thanks, Vronsky)
– if the vote is YES, then there will be false flag operations orchestrated by the British and the military will intevene.
I was going to comment on this paranoid nonsense, but on reflection I think I’ll let it speak for itself.
Are you seeking election to the Egregiousness of Exellences, Vornsky?
**********
La vita è bella, life is good! (don’t let a conspiracy spoil it)
Clark :
Nonsense! The Scottish parliament was conceived as the alternative to independence.
Here in the south of England, people parrot the unionist propaganda with no thought of how little sense it makes. They say that Scottish independence would be a bad thing, but simultaneously bemoan (though the claim is false) that England subsidises Scotland.
Then, if not Conservatives themselves, they complain that without Scotland, Westminster would be permanently under a Conservative government; how’s that for blaming your problem on those who wish to break free of it?