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!
Habba,
For some nationalists devolution is a progression, not a single event, and devolution was a natural stepping stone on that progress from United Kingdom to Independence.
The lesser-spotted Scottish Tories, who were as usual on the wrong side of the Devo Campaign, also used as the main thrust of their argument that Devo would irrevocably set Scotland on the path to independence, so we can presume it was very much an issue for the Establishment at the time.
I find the Independence movement mystifying. Personally, I just don’t care; bigger fish to fry etc. Wee Alec’s chuminess with Rupert should cause everyone to raise an eye-brow, for one. However, wheeling out Blair is bad idea. Oligarchs, Media types, Tories, and US Policy Elites may still fawn over Blair, but everyone else knows his for what he is: a wanker. I mean the war-crimes need to be proven at the Hague, the ‘being a massive wanker’ part clearly does not. It’s dead obvious. A few votes for Wee Alec there, I think.
For me, there is no such thing as an ‘Independent’ Scotland. Our choices are limited by US Empire, regardless. But if Blair doesn’t like, it can’t be all bad, I suppose.
@Fred
“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.”
What evidence did you find to refute Craig’s claim that her claims of French government opposition to Scottish independence were lies?
Put up or shut up, Fred. Give us your links.
I’ve just done a Google search on Google France … here’s the only article I could find that gives a detailed analysis of any political problems for Europe arising from Independence and a résume of French/European attitudes to it. (It appears to be an official publication … of the European Parliament?)
http://www.taurillon.org/L-Ecosse-sera-t-elle-un-defi-pour-l-Europe,05250
As it’s in French I’ll loosely translate two quotes from it:
“Ainsi, il semblerait que juridiquement, une Écosse nouvellement indépendante du Royaume-Uni serait de facto membre de l’UE à moins de dénoncer le trait”.
Thus, it would seem that, legally speaking, a newly independent Scotland would be a de facto member of the UE unless it renounced the treaty.
“L’Union européenne, cela ne fait pas de doute, ne s’opposerait pas à un mouvement sécessionniste émanant de la majorité de la population concernée, et cela en vertu du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux mêmes …”
The European Union, would in no way oppose an independence movement supported by the majority of the population concerned by virtue of it’s recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination …
Habbabkuk, you engage in doublespeak. You claim that there was “no talk of independence”, so how do you support your claim that “The Scottish parliament was conceived as the alternative to independence”?
You’ve neatly contradicted yourself. Was that your “intellectual firepower” or do you take everyone for idiots who’ll fall for such rubbish? The broom cupboard is ready for you; go and have an argument with yourself.
Courtesy of Stuart Campbell;
So what’s really going to happen to oil revenues in the next few years?
“An independent Scotland would begin with a £4 billion black hole in its finances due to a fall in oil revenues, UK Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said yesterday.” (The Scotsman, 2nd March 2013)
“”Oil production should revive from recent levels for a period of several years, particularly with the higher-price scenario, where the increase could be substantial,” the study by Alexander Kemp and Linda Stephen [of the University of Aberdeen] concluded.” (Reuters, 5th December 2012)
“Oil prices could rise to anywhere between $150 and $270 a barrel by 2020 as demand growth in emerging markets like India and China outpaces expected supply, the OECD said Wednesday.
“I think people have been calmer about oil prices given the new supply, but if you really look at the implications of rising demand, you see this isn’t true,” said Isabelle Koske, economist at the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development and one author of a report on oil prices published Wednesday.” (The Wall Street Journal, 6th March 2013)
“Oil & Gas UK reckons oil receipts will be £3bn higher in 2017 than forecast last year. While Brent crude prices are now around $110 per barrel, by 2017, the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change predicts they could hit $130 a barrel, while the latest OECD predictions put them higher, at an eye-watering, record $150 a barrel.” (The Guardian, 7th March 2013)
We just can’t decide who the most reliable authority is. What a puzzle.
A lot of English opposition to Scottish independence seems like simple envy of Scotland’s superior social provision; “we pay for their free prescriptions” etc.
Scottish independence would be very beneficial to England eventually. The Conservative majority in parliament, uninterrupted by distracting periods of (fake) Labour government would be revealed as a disaster, and a majority of English voters would finally agitate for an electoral system that made some sense.
Scotland and England were at one time two different land masses that came together, the point that they came together is for all intent and purpose the line that Hadrian’s Wall follows.
Not a lot of people know that.
“I would hazard a guess that Craig has more experience on the legality of maritime borders than yourself.”
Then he can download the correct map from the government web site, print it off as I did, measure the nearest point in each country to the line as I did then tell me where I went wrong.
At the moment the Westminster government can legally set the boundary where the hell they want, if Scotland becomes independent then they can negotiate but as far as I can see the line has been drawn according to international conventions.
If I’m missing something just tell me but otherwise I have to go with the facts not the hype.
“The Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is failing the people of Scotland”
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/03/07/bedroom-tax-the-scottish-government-must-stop-playing-politics-with-disabled-peoples-lives-black-triangle/#comment-25736
I’ll just make an observation, if I may.
If Westminster wishes to hold Scotland, then that desire must ultimately derive from the economic or other strategic benefit to Westminster.
Is that a fair assessment?
“For some nationalists devolution is a progression, not a single event, and devolution was a natural stepping stone on that progress from United Kingdom to Independence.”
Devolution, just like evolution only in the other direction.
Fred, this comment above could be a useful starting point for your investigation:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/#comment-397879
“What evidence did you find to refute Craig’s claim that her claims of French government opposition to Scottish independence were lies?
Put up or shut up, Fred. Give us your links. ”
I posted the link to the Herald article.
Now you post your link that shows only one person in France supports independence.
You put up or shut up.
FAO Fred;
http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/dundua_0607_georgia.pdf
“Fred, this comment above could be a useful starting point for your investigation:”
No, that looks irrelevant.
Hey Border, I think that was many ice ages ago Scotland was separate, millions of years if at all discernable. It is only an ice age or three since the North Sea was forested with a big river running through it.
I think Scottish Independence has many hurdles and losses, but the attraction is not breaking up locality or neighbourly affairs, it is breaking up our warmongering and exploiting old empire.
Fred, you may also find some useful sources here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil#Reality_of_the_claim
crab:
I strongly agree.
@ Brian Hill Exelent post, Great info Cheers
“FAO Fred;”
Thank you, that seems to back up what I said nicely.
@Fred i have read you make good sense, but this is poor from you – sticking on the “only person in france” phrase which was of course an exaggeration.
And this:
“At the moment the Westminster government can legally set the boundary where the hell they want, if Scotland becomes independent then they can negotiate but as far as I can see the line has been drawn according to international conventions.”
You previously wrote this:
“Same with the claims about England stealing maritime territory from Scotland, I checked it out, it’s just Nationalist propaganda.”
I dont think it is just that, i think the map is clear it is an unfair boundary which needs corrected. You cant just say you figured out something different, our eyes can see the 1999 border cuts into the sea off Scotlands coast obliquely from Englands. The other countries which you mentioned are too far away to persuade, and you could arguably draw many lines in relation to them. The case is a simple one in essence that the 1999 border is not acceptable.
“Fred, you may also find some useful sources here:”
Yes that seems to cover it. The first act covers legal jurisdiction, that is if a crime is committed which laws will apply. The second seems to be to do with fish quotas, which country do the fish belong to. Neither of them governs who owns the oil as it all belongs to the UK. Should Scotland become independent then they will have to negotiate a maritime boundary but to my mind it will be based on equidistance like the second act not some inane belief that lines should run east west.
“I dont think it is just that, i think the map is clear it is an unfair boundary which needs corrected. You cant just say you figured out something different, our eyes can see the 1999 border cuts into the sea off Scotlands coast obliquely from Englands.”
On the map posted by Craig it does.
On the map included in the act of parliament it doesn’t.
“On the map included in the act of parliament it doesn’t.”
Can you make allowances for me and post a link to that map or document.. sorry if it has already been posted.
“You cant just say you figured out something different, our eyes can see the 1999 border cuts into the sea off Scotlands coast obliquely from Englands.”
It’s an extension of the boundary on land. This is an internationally recognised convention.
There are better fairer conventions than accepting the twist of a land border as it hits the coast. Only people who dont care about the Sea off their coast or who could be bullied into it would accept that. There is no way england would except it if the land border happened to turn to the South as hits the coast.
And it would be unfair to expect them to.
Its easy to miss because we survived European conflict and built and empire out of being unfair, but it is long overdue the age to put an end to it.
“There is no way england would except it if the land border happened to turn to the South as hits the coast.”
Like it does on the West Coast you mean? It does and they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scottish_waters.png
In that image the sea border goes through the middle of the firth actually a bit closer to Scotlands coastline than Englands again. It also many times smaller than the division on the east coast.