Someone doesn't want this on the web...

...but it can be found here, at least for now.

"subrosa,26/11/2008 09:25:33
# 2 'Thank goodness we still have privately owned bed and breakfasts. Oh no - they tend to be owned by English people opting out of the rat race.'
>You're not far wrong there. I own a bed and breakfast and in this small town nearly 50% of them are run by incomers from the south east of England. They're on every committee connected with tourism and the locals have just given up. We keep ourselves to ourselves now."

Now we can't be surprised at this Cybernat being a touch embarrassed about the staggeringly repellent hypocrisy of someone who's prepared to make money out of people as tourists, but then complains about them as "incomers" if they become neighbours.

What's even more amusing is that she gets all upset and offended when these unpleasant and self-published remarks are pointed out. Also that she's apparently clueless about to how to remove them.

Too bad, and too late. They're out, they're up and they're staying there, because I've got a screengrab.

Defence, continued - cosmic, comical timing

I am prompted by a contribution to the previous thread from my occasional interlocutor Indy to start a new one afresh.

"I can't believe you can have so many comments on this. The NATO issue does not, in itself, matter. It is one of the things that will be negotiated and decided on at the time.

What matters is the way it is spun in the here and now in the run up to the election.

That's the politics of it which you guys don't seem to understand."

Hmm. Let's see, shall we?

"Re the spending issue - this is a totally dead duck for you unionists. Scotland does not benefit from UK defence spending. There is in fact a massive underspend. You can bet the SNP will go large with that one."

(Metaphorically rolling up sleeves while trying to stifle a snigger and conceal a feral grin.)

First of all, this is a total misconception of the notion of defence spending. It's supposed to buy you defence and security - it's not supposed to be pork-barrelled up into spending in particular bits of the country for political reasons. The spending happens where the defences need to be for strategic reasons.

We don't need naval bases at Scapa Flow, Invergordon, Tobermory and Rosyth - or for that matter Harwich or Chatham - any more, so we don't have them. Similarly, East Anglia is no longer full of bomber bases sited for maximum proximity to the Soviet Union (or Germany, for that matter).

But even if you wish to pursue the "underspend" argument, it's so wrong it's comical. On this of all days. (Cough. Splutter. Hee!)

Defend And Destroy: Navy's Latest Ship Launched on Clyde

"Thousands turned out on the banks of the Clyde today to cheer on the latest ship to make up the Royal Navy’s formidable new Type 45 destroyer class. Defender sailed for the first time today.

Chief in Command Fleet Admiral Trevor Soar said:

“The thousands gathered here today to witness the launch of Defender is testament to the pride Scotland rightly takes in its shipbuilding industry which has seen a resurgence in recent times with the Type 45 build programme and the manufacture of the Aircraft Carriers that they will defend.

“Defender’s affiliation with her ‘home town’ of Glasgow will ensure these strong links live on and gives the Royal Navy the chance to give something back to the community that worked so hard to deliver her and her sister ships.

“The launch of the fifth ship is an exciting milestone as we draw nearer to the first of class HMS Daring entering into service in the New Year to begin her duties with the Royal Navy.”

Defender was launched amid a cloud of balloons and fireworks by Lady Julie Massey, wife of the Deputy Head of the Navy Second Sea Lord Sir Alan Massey, to the fanfare of the Band of the Royal Marines.

Chief of Materiel Fleet Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews said:

“The Type 45 class is a most formidable ship. Her world-class Sea Viper missile system which can defend against multiple attacks by the most sophisticated anti-ship missiles bears out the title ‘destroyer’, while Defender’s name hints to her main future role in providing air defence to the Navy’s new aircraft carriers.

"Defender will be capable of carrying out a wide range of operations, including anti-piracy and anti-smuggling activities, disaster-relief work and surveillance operations as well as high intensity warfighting.”

As versatile as they are powerful, the Type 45s will have a range of capabilities. They will be able to carry up to 60 Royal Marines Commandos and their equipment, and operate a Chinook-sized helicopter from the flight deck. The standards of accommodation are also able to exceed previous classes thanks to the ships’ size.

Defender is the fifth ship of six in the Type 45 destroyer class. Good progress is being made on the programme: HMS Daring (ship one) has been commissioned into the Royal Navy and is on her final trials prior to her entering service, planned for February 2010.

Dauntless (ship two) has recently completed two very successful sets of sea trials while Diamond (ship three) has just begun her sea trials. Dragon (ship four) was launched in Scotland at the end of 2008 and Duncan (ship six) is under construction in Govan."

Sorry Indy, you were saying?

Possibly you also missed the announcement that the Navy is moving all its submarines from Devonport to Faslane.

That's Faslane, the rather large naval base which really does employ 6500 people directly and another 3000 indirectly:

"The Base is the largest single site employer in Scotland with an integrated workforce of around 6,500 personnel – drawn from the Royal Navy, Ministry of Defence civilians, Babcock Marine (the MOD's industrial partner at the Base) and external contractors. A further 3,000 Scottish jobs are supported indirectly by HM Naval Base Clyde and more than £250 million is spent in Scotland on wages and contracts awarded each year, directly related to the Base."

Where do you think those 6500 people live and spend their wages, Indy? What do they eat and drink?

I apologise for having to mention the construction plans for the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

"The ACA has approved the following decisions under the developing build strategy:

• Lower Block 1 (the bow section) will be built by Babcock’s yards at Appledore and Rosyth;
• Lower Block 2 will be built by BVT Surface Fleet in Portsmouth;
• Lower Blocks 3 and 4 (the stern section) will be built by BVT on the Clyde;
• The sponsons (the overhanging upper hull structure) will be manufactured by Babcock Marine;
• and the two superstructure Islands will be built by BVT in Portsmouth.

Final assembly and integration of the two warships will be undertaken by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance partners at Rosyth."

I believe someone was saying something about "underspend in Scotland".

Let's look at the RAF at Kinloss, Lossiemouth and Leuchars. According to the RAF squadron list, we currently have 55 operational squadrons. A quick look at the station list shows that something like 9.5 of them are based at the three Scottish stations, going up to 10.5 next year as the Typhoons come into Leuchars.

9.5 / 55 = 17%. Got a problem with that?

I can't even be bothered to look at the Army's basing. It will be the same story.

So please, please, please let it be true that the Nats are planning to "go large" on the issue of defence spending in Scotland.

It will only prove the existence of a substantial Union benefit for Scotland from UK defence spending, and utterly discredit the idea that an "independent" Scotland could somehow sustain anything like it.

We were promised a "defence policy paper" from the Nats. Where is it?

Surely not delayed because they realise it will be a disaster?

Defence - the worthy thoughts of Macleod and Cochrane

Following the pompous Angus Roberton making an erse of himself and his party over their non-defence non-policy, I was impressed by the thoughts of the Times' Angus Mcleod:

SNP blueprint for English military bases to stay in independent Scotland ‘a fantasy’

"Defence has always been the SNP’s Achilles’ heel. The party has never been able to square the desire to leave the United Kingdom with the expense of providing an independent Scotland’s defence requirements.

Even then, they have tied themselves in knots explaining why an independent Scotland would need an Army, Navy and Air Force in any case and how exactly these soldiers, sailors and airmen would be equipped.

Neither has the party ever adequately explained how they would meet the social and employment cost of closing these bases they do not want to see in Scotland. It is an inescapable fact that the Trident nuclear submarine base on the Clyde employs, directly and indirectly, thousands of people and provides a key part of the economic backbone of a good part of West-Central Scotland.

Now, we learn from Angus Robertson, the party’s defence spokesman, that while Trident would go, the SNP’s latest thinking on defence would see other UK military bases in stay. So an independent Scotland which, according to the SNP, would not be a member of Nato would play host to the forces of a country which would very much be a part of Nato. It is a strange ambition to want to see your newly independent country reduced to the status of a base for another country’s forces. Not exactly Braveheart.

But the Robertson doctrine should not be seen in isolation. It comes after recent SNP policy documents that have envisaged Scots in an independent Scotland having shared citizenship with, we presume, what what is left of Britain: shared Scottish/British embassies abroad; a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation which would access programmes from what is left of the BBC at no extra cost; even a shared monarchy. The only thing this financially independent Scotland would not share would be the revenues from North Sea oil.

It’s all to do with the SNP’s new mantra of a “social union” between Scotland and England. The old notion of independence where brave little Scotland would go its own way and for which generations of nationalists campaigned is dead. Long Live the Social Union is the new cry.

In all this no one in the SNP has shown the English the courtesy of asking their opinion. Why would the rest of the UK, free of turbulent Scots, want to share anything with a country that had turned its back on them. Perhaps the SNP know that they wouldn’t like the answer."

And then we turn to the inestimable Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph:

With military thinkers like Angus Robertson, who needs enemies?

"Arguably the daftest aspect of the SNP’s policy portfolio has always been its attitude to defence. How to disentangle an independent Scotland, which they say should be non-nuclear and non-Nato, from one of the world’s leading military powers — which in spite of everything is what the UK still is — has always been a huge imponderable for the Nats.

However, as we head for their annual conference in Inverness, they have tried to find a way out of this difficulty. In doing so, they have come up with an even bigger load of nonsense. It should come as no surprise that they have managed to make things worse — the man they charged with finding a way out of this particular hole has been happily digging them deeper into the mire for years.

I refer, of course, to Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray, who rejoices in the twin titles of SNP defence spokesman and leader of the party’s seven Westminster MPs. Given that he has the major UK airbases of Kinloss and Lossiemouth in his constituency, Mr Robertson prides himself on his expertise in all matters pertaining to the defence of the realm, even if this interest is conditioned by his desire to hold the seat.

We are well used to Mr Robertson’s pompous declarations on military matters, but he has excelled himself with his latest pronouncements. I have often asked the Nats what they would do with those bases — Kinloss and “Lossie” included — currently dotted all over Scotland. They are home to elements of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, almost all of which the SNP says it would retain.

What would an independent Scotland do with all that military hardware? Were they planning to wage war against someone? For several years, there has come no answer. Until yesterday … Mr Robertson says the bases can indeed stay and the English can continue to use them, presumably on a rental basis. Only the Trident submarine base at Faslane on the Clyde would be booted out. An accommodating SNP government in an independent Scotland would allow its English, warmonger, next-door neighbours to continue to use their current homes.

There is no reason, says this latter-day Clausewitz, why Scotland and England couldn’t remain as “friends and allies”. No reason? I can think of lots. For one — why would the rest of the UK wish to reward Scotland, which wanted nothing to do with Nato and a united defence posture and wanted to pick and choose which bases it would allow on its soil, by stationing its servicemen and women here?

Mr Roberston added that it would be “perfectly possible” for the two countries to “share basing, procurement and training facilities”. He is clutching desperately — and ludicrously — at straws because he knows full well the effect losing all UK bases would have on Scotland’s economy, never mind its defence. If we are to have bases such as RAF Leuchars, as well as Kinloss and “Lossie”, won’t they remain targets for potential enemies, just as they are now?

Des Browne, the former Labour defence secretary, delivered a withering analysis of Lance Corporal Robertson’s plans last night, suggesting that they must have been drawn up on the back of an envelope. He added that the Nats “seem to want Scotland to be just a big military base for the remainder of the UK”, adding that in the absence of any idea of how to defend Scotland, “they simply want the rest of the UK to do it for them”.

They may have convinced the voters that they can govern reasonably competently but can only watch in despair as support for independence remains resolutely stuck at about one third or less. As a result, they try every trick to win the rest of us around.

They have accepted that they must keep the Queen. They have now agreed that we can individually choose which nationality we will be after independence — Scottish or British. And now they are admitting that they need the bulk of the bases. Why don’t they just admit defeat and say we might as well stay as we are? Better that, surely, than any more of this hokum from Angus Robertson."

Quite.

The Nat paper on foreign affairs, continued

[This would have been a reply to the comments thread on the previous post, but it's too big. Never mind.]

Observer

Let's have a go, shall we?

“You just so completely don't get where we are coming from Smee it's almost comical.”

I do, actually. It's just that what you call “aspiration” I call “half-baked, ill-informed naivete”, and I start from objective, quantifiable facts while you don't.

“We will be a small European nation that yeah doesn't play with the big boys, we'll be in with the smaller nations”

Right. With as little influence as they have.

“The reason why we want to be independent is because it will bring government closer to the people.”

Non-sequitur. You can have closer, more responsive government without “independence”. That's what devolution does. You could even try devolving more power down to the local tier – although I keep detecting a Nat tendency towards having smaller, larger councils. Are we going to get the Regions back again?

“The big boys are all mega capitalists and in the nuclear club. We want to join the other guys. The ones who have options.”

What “options” would these be?

On the economic front, you are ignoring the fact that it is not 1905 or 1922 or even 1973, it is 2009. Corporate globalisation has happened. There is no Scottish currency, central bank or stock exchange. There is no such thing as a “major Scottish company” - they are all “British” at least, if not international. (There might be an exception or two to that, but I doubt it.)

The cold, hard, unpleasant fact is that Scotland is and will be a “branch-office” economy. The choice is between staying part of the Union and having some entrenched say at head office (or at least at one of them), or having none.

Politically, I also fail to see where there are any “options” that we don't currently have. Oh, we could do an Ireland and choose to free-ride our security on other people's efforts. Morally despicable and also pretty dangerous, if you have any idea at all of the quantity and quality of intelligence-sharing which happens under the UKUSA agreement. (Hint: look it up.)

This argument seems to rest on the notion that once “independent”, the nutty bits of the world will somehow leave us alone, just because of that.

Hmm. Lockerbie. Glasgow Airport. Denmark. Do I need to say more?

“We have done Empire and power for so bloody long and what has it got us?”

No, actually we stopped doing “Empire and power” around 1956 (if not earlier). Since then, what we've done is a bit more than our fair share of defending and securing the liberal democracies against the various totalitarian / theocratic threats facing them. And where we've felt that our Septic chums have gone off on a bit of a tangent (e.g. Vietnam), we've left them to it.

Similarly, on the economic and social front we have developed a solution which is balanced between the high-tax, high benefit situation of Continental Europe and the free-for-all of the US. Personally I quite like it. What's your problem?

“My finger will be pointing to Norway - not an Imperial power any more. Never was.

But who do you wanna be like? A big bad nuclear power or Norway?”

Nothing like a false choice as a poor debating technique.

I don't want to be a “big bad” nuclear power, I think continuing as a “small and cheap-as-possible” nuclear power is quite appropriate, thanks.

As for “being like Norway”, that is simply not possible for Scotland. It is 2009, not 1905 or 1973. Norway has always had, and continues to have, a lot more oil and gas than we do. (See here and here.)

And as pointed out above, globalisation has happened. The next-door-neighbour isn't the small and inoffensive Sweden / Stockholm, it's England / London. Oh, the alternative is to do what the Irish did and put Germany / Frankfurt in charge of their economic policy. That worked for a while, but didn't turn out too well, did it? I assume you've taken on board the incontrovertible fact that if we had joined the Euro back in the 90s then our property / equity boom-and-crash would have been even worse than it is.

Norway was independent in 1905, Ireland in 1922. Pre-globalisation. Entities like Bank of Ireland, Den Norske Bank, StatoilHydro could be set up and protected. No more. Look at who really owns and runs corporate Belgium, Slovenia, Lithuania, etc etc. It's French, German, Swedish, Austrian companies. So what does those countries' “independence” really mean?

As you say, “D'oh.”

The other thing I'd like to point out is that no-one has challenged my main point, which is that an “independent” Scotland wishing to join the EU will find itself paying more than £300m a year than it currently does.

Can I just write that one up as a “hit, a palpable hit”?

The Nat paper on foreign affairs - weasel words and unintentional hilarity

Mike "Michael" Russell

A weasel

I was astonished to read in the SoS that our precious Nat devolved Executive planned to put out papers on issues including Europe and foreign affairs, and defence.

My immediate reaction was "Great - this is going to be hilarious."

His Immensity and his troupe of poltroons merrily charging off into all the policy areas which will show them up as naive and incompetent. Brilliant.

And the paper on Europe and foreign affairs, put out by the inimitably pompous Mike Russell, has not disappointed me.

There are bits of this document that have had me laughing more than I've done in ages.

Let's have a look at a few of the gems.

"2.22. ... Mechanisms exist for Scottish interests to be fed into the decision making process, directly and via the UK. However these are often lost or diluted during their incorporation into the UK negotiating line, even where Scotland's carry a disproportionate share of the UK's interests."

[Sic.]

Apart from the dodgy grammar, this is asinine drivel and a frankly offensive attempt to mislead.

Exactly how "often" are Scottish interests "lost or diluted"? Can we have some specific examples? Around, say, six ought to be enough. Oh, we can't.

"5.4. A Scottish Foreign Service and embassy network could and should look very different from the FCO model."

It certainly would. As discussed previously, it would be a lot smaller, less effective and would cost more, pro rata, than the existing UK network of embassies and consulates does. Who wants that?

"5.6. Under current arrangements, Scottish Government officials working on Scottish Affairs are accredited with UK diplomatic status and work alongside, or within, UK representations overseas. That reflects the fact that in many policy areas Scottish and UK interests coincide. Independence would not change that and there is no reason why close co-operation on policy and representation, up to and including shared services, should not continue"

Quite. So if in many areas Scottish and UK interests coincide, why do these morons want to secede? And if "independence would not change that", then what exactly is the point?

I'm glad they realise that "close co-operation and policy and representation, up to and including shared services" is a good thing.

What they don't seem to realise is that we already do a lot of "close co-operation" and "shared services". We have this "Union" thing, see - the UK has one of the largest networks of embassies and consulates in the world, they represent us just as much as the rest of the UK, and we only have to pick up 8.5% of the cost. OK?

(Continuing on these lines, the Nats provide an Annex A which gives comparisons of the costs of foreign ministries & embassies, as well as UN, Commonwealth, World Bank etc memberships.

Hilariously, when you do the maths, you find that 8.5% of the UK's costs always comes to quite a lot less than the costs incurred by the likes of Norway, Denmark and so on. So the Nats have actually gone and provided us with the evidence that "independence" would actually cost us quite a bit more in duplication and loss of shared economies of scale. Well done, Agent Russell, the Union thanks you for your help.)

"5.7. An independent Scotland would be recognised as a state in its own right by the international community... ...it would be able to develop its own foreign policy to promote Scotland's interests internationally, and engage with other states as an equal partner."

"Equal"? About as equal as Iceland, Malta, Upper Volta, Laos and so on. In other words, ignored, just as they are.

"5.8. Small countries can and do take lead roles in international organisations and policy development. Key positions within the United Nations including that of Secretary-General are often filled by individuals from smaller nations."

The Hootsmon led on the prospect of Fatso becoming UN Sec-Gen. Laugh? I nearly became incontinent.

How can I begin to respond to this dross?

Power at the UN resides with the Security Council. As part of the UK, Scotland has influence over the UK's permanent membership of that body - which carries a permanent veto.

The job of Sec-Gen, however, is a powerless sinecure. That's why the big, powerful countries are happy to see it go to people from small, puny countries. They don't care.

For comparison, look at the treatment of posts like the top jobs at the World Bank and the IMF. They matter. They are split between the US and the big countries in Europe.

"Small countries ... have all made significant global contributions to security, peace and reconciliation initiatives. New Zealand, for example, hosted a major conference on cluster munitions"

The mirth continues. Wow, the Kiwis hosted a conference! Clearly a massive contribution to global security and world peace. On that basis, the Hilton Hotels Group must count as the world's leading superpower, since it must host more conferences than anyone else.

Now here's the real corker:

"5.17. An independent Scotland would continue membership of the European Union, fulfilling the responsibilities which membership brings."

WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALERT!

Note the pathetic attempt to slide and whitewash past the fact that there is a huge amount of controversy and uncertainty over this one.

I've covered some of this before, but let's do it again.

There are no precedents for a secession from an existing EU Member State.

There is, however, a precedent for a secession from an existing member of the League of Nations. That happened when the Irish Free State left the UK. And in that case, the UK carried on happily as a member, while the IFS had to apply to join.

But the precedents are irrelevant, as is the fine detail of the UK's internal constitutional legislation. The EU writes its own membership rules. If the other Member States wanted to treat Scotland as "inheriting" the UK's membership, they could. If they wanted to treat it as a fresh applicant, they could do that too.

Which would they choose?

Whichever suited their own interests, of course.

Now, let's recall that the UK isn't just any EU Member. It has a special status in a number of areas, most notably the Budget Rebate secured by the Blessed Margaret when she said "I want my money back" in 1984.

The rest of the EU don't like this special status. It costs them money. They keep trying to find ways of ending it.

So in the event of a Scottish secession, the rest of the EU could choose between two options:

A) recognise both Scotland and the UK as inheriting the UK's previous membership. Both would inherit their respective shares of the budget rebate. The total cost of the rebate to the rest of the EU would stay the same.

B) decline to recognise Scotland as inheriting the UK's previous membership, and insist instead that it make a fresh application. Scotland would, then, not inherit its share of the UK rebate. The total cost to the rest of the EU would go down, by about 8.5%.

Add to this the political factor, that various countries like Spain, Belgium, Italy and so on are likely to feel a certain inclination towards not "rewarding secessionism", in case one day it's turned against them.

So let's think about it. I'm an EU State, I might not feel too disposed to reward secessionism, and I can choose between reducing my costs or leaving them the same. Hey, I'm going to go for B. Trebles all round!

But not for us, of course. Incredibly, the Nats provide an analysis of all this in Annex B. (I'm starting to think that the Annexes are actually the output of a Unionist mole. Cracking stuff, whoever you are.)

Here we are:

"Depending on the treatment of North Sea GDP in the analysis, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution of between €742 and €991 million before accounting for the UK rebate in 2007. When a population share of the UK rebate is included, Scotland is estimated to have made an illustrative contribution to the EU of between €263 million and €512 million in 2007."

But there would not be a "population share of the UK rebate", as we have established above, so one immediate consequence of "independence" would be to cost us €479m, or £328m.

Christ on a bike, that's getting on for 10% of the entire devolved Scottish budget, and nearly 6% of total Scottish public spending.

Yikes.

And on top of that, we have to add the extra costs of the new "independent" foreign ministry and membership of international bodies. I'm not doing the detailed sums now, but it has to be heading for £500m.

Once again, let me propose a vote of thanks to Agent Russell - Codename "Weasel" - for doing such a good job at exposing one of the immediate, bottom-line costs of "independence".

Well done.

"The Economist" on the end of the Nat dream

An article from "The Economist" which deserves a bit of an airing.

Lockerbie and Scottish politics

A dream fades

Sep 3rd 2009 | EDINBURGH
From The Economist print edition

The release of the bomber has dampened the nationalists’ appeal

Reuters

Salmond and MacAskill need divine aid

IT WAS supposed to be so different. Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland’s devolved government and leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), must have expected to grab the limelight this week with the launch of a bill to permit a referendum on Scottish independence next year. Hardly anyone even noticed. The long shadow of Lockerbie has dimmed prospects for both independence and Mr Salmond himself.

Two weeks after the Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, announced the release of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the row shows no signs of abating. On September 2nd the Scottish Parliament refused to support his decision. Opposition MSPs defeated the proposed expression of confidence by 73 votes to 50. Fortified by polls suggesting that more than half of all Scots object to Mr Megrahi’s release, they argued that it was a bad decision, badly made.

Whether bad or good, the decision remains mysterious. Official correspondence released on September 1st shows that Scotland fought tooth and nail for almost two years to have Mr Megrahi excluded from the bilateral prisoner-transfer agreement that Britain and Libya were negotiating, only to let him go last month under a 1993 law that permits compassionate release in Scotland.

Explaining it, Mr MacAskill clung as much to the rules as to the compassionate moral high ground. There are certain conditions for release, one of which is that a prisoner has only three months to live. The unanimous view of Scotland’s prison and medical authorities was that Mr Megrahi, suffering from prostate cancer, met that and other requirements. (The quality of the medical advice is being questioned as Mr Megrahi’s plans to write his memoirs are aired.) Previously, 30 prisoners who applied for compassionate release were freed; none of the seven who were refused had unanimous backing from the authorities.

Yet doubts remain. Mr MacAskill rejected a bid to transfer Mr Megrahi to a Libyan prison because, he said, the American government and victims’ families believed the British had agreed before the trial that anyone found guilty would serve his sentence in Scotland. MSPs wondered why this reasoning had not ruled out compassionate release.

Rumours of some secret deal are rife. But though Scottish firms do have interests in Libya, and Scotland almost certainly wants a bigger subsidy from London, politics may matter more than economics. One of Mr Salmond’s first acts on taking office in 2007 was to complain that Tony Blair had promised Libya a prisoner-transfer agreement without telling him, though Scotland is autonomous in judicial matters. Relying on Scottish law instead to release the Libyan may have satisfied nationalist feeling.

But that does not explain why Mr Megrahi was let go under any law. Some argue that it may have seemed a chance to stake out an independent foreign policy. Though attention has focused on America’s hostile reaction, the Libyan view is also striking. In an interview with the Herald, a Scottish newspaper, Saif Qaddafi, the son of Libya’s ruler, said Mr Megrahi’s release had made Libyans and Arabs think of the British and Scottish as more “merciful and more civilised” and less as Islam-hating “crusaders”.

A nice thought, but it is not doing Mr Salmond much good. A YouGov poll on August 27th found that only 28% of Scots would vote “yes” on independence and 57% “no”, a much wider gap than when the question was put in April. In another YouGov poll, support for the SNP itself was also down, to 26% on August 30th in national elections from 31% in June. So dies the dream.

Some sensible, moderate thoughts on the finances of "independence"

Stumbled across this piece from the Adam Smith Institute:

"Spending on Scotland

Written by Tom Clougherty

Thursday, 03 September 2009 06:02

In his Daily Telegraph column yesterday, Simon Heffer stated that, "As far as one can tell... the subsidy from other parts of the Kingdom (ie, England) to Scotland is currently at least £22 billion a year." This is something you often hear English people saying, much to the annoyance of many Scots, who insist it isn't true. Who is right? Well, the truth – as usual – is slightly complicated.

On the one hand, Heffer is right: Scotland does get 22 percent more public spending per head than England. Indeed, it even gets more spending per head than comparatively poorer areas of England, such as the Northeast. Interestingly, this disparity is not explained by higher levels of welfare dependency in Scotland – if you were to exclude spending on 'social protection' then the public spending gap would rise to 28 percent. It is simply a matter of government being bigger and less efficient north of the border.

But on the other hand, if you factor in Scotland's geographic share of North Sea Oil revenues (about 83 percent), then Scotland pays just about as much in tax as it receives in spending. That isn't to say that public spending in Scotland isn't too high (it is) or that it is sensible to base current spending on natural resources revenue (it isn't) – but those are separate issues.

So perhaps Scotland is – just about – pulling its weight at the moment. However, this should not distract from the fact that it won't be able to for much longer. North Sea Oil production peaked in 1999, and is now declining at an increasing rate. Meanwhile, Scotland's public sector wage bill has risen by 55 percent since 1999, with 1 in 4 Scots now directly employed by the state. Public spending has risen from 50 to 56 percent of GDP in the same period, and on current trends is set to reach 67 percent by 2012/13.

According to the Centre of Economic and Business Research, that would make Scotland the third most state dependent country in the world, after Iraq and Cuba. And what a sad accolade that would be for Adam Smith's homeland!"

What's not to like about this?

Mild, moderate, factual, and dishes both Eng Nats like Heffer and the Scot Nats at the same time. Couldn't have put it better myself. (In fact I'm fairly sure that I have used the phrase "pulling its own weight" in various places, but I have no monopoly on common sense.)

And also making the telling point that the current situation is only temporary, and that we really, really need to do something about improving productivity, entrepeneurship and economic growth up here. (Please could no-one suggest that "green energy" can come close to replacing oil in either physical or financial terms, or I will be forced to direct them here. And anyone mentioning fresh water or fish will be deleted without mercy.)

The answer to this problem is, of course, out there, and it's blue. Hopefully it won't be too long before that's got through to Scots as well as the rest of the UK.

This article does give a good summary of the core of my own position. Even if we set aside all the subjective stuff about feeling British (or not), if someone could show me that we would be significantly better off - say, due to a currently "hidden" oil surplus - after "independence", then I might be prepared to entertain the idea.

But this isn't the case. "Independence" would mean we were no better off than now, and when you add on the costs of transition, disruption, duplication and diseconomies of scale, and then consider the subjective issues, the whole idea stands revealed as a ludicrous vacuity.

Still off-topic: CVF porn

Sorry, blog activity light due to discovery of other things to do.

Still laughing my ass off at combined incompetence / untrustworthiness of both Nats and Labour over Megrahi.

Enjoy pics of the future flagships of Her Britannic Majesty's Royal Navy.

Which will, of course, be substantially built in Scotland (some blocks on the Clyde, and final assembly at Rosyth), unless a certain idiotic separatist party gets its way and manages to destroy both a major Scottish industry and the integrated defence of the United Kingdom.

But it's not going to happen, so why worry?

Off-topic: submarine porn

Now isn't the Astute seriously cool and sexy?

There are all sorts of features on that hull which make you want to sit down with the designer and ask "Why that?"

Except, of course, that all he could do would be to shrug and make slitting motions near his throat.

Creeping sort of back on-topic, it is of course highly gratifying that as part of the UK we will have babies like the Astute defending us. Not something an "independent" Scotland could afford by any stretch.

And, of course, the Astutes are a bit late and over-budget. This is because there was too much of a gap between the last order for the Vanguard-class bombers and the first for the Astutes, which meant that the one yard in the country which can build subs (Barrow) suffered significant de-skilling.

Which leads on to further thoughts about Trident replacement. If this is cancelled or delayed, then we might find ourselves having to order extra Astute-class SSNs. Otherwise, Barrow will shut and the UK will lose, for ever and ever, the capability to build nuclear-powered subs. Which are literally in a different order-of-magnitude class of effectiveness from conventional diesel-electric boats.

This feeds in to the Trident-replacement debate, as you can see. A huge chunk of the apparent cost-saving from not replacing Trident disappears, unless you are also willing to see Barrow close and the loss of a UK SSN construction capability. It's not just about morals or costs, it affects industrial strategy.

Enough of this. Enjoy the sub porn as a distraction from the boring froth about Megrahi and "Thicky" MacAskill.

Megrahi - jings, cripes, crivvens, crikey

Eh?

I go away for a week , cut off from all home media, and this happens?

So the Nats not only manage to make themselves look like hopelessly inexperienced and naive idiots who shouldn't be trusted to run a whelk stall, but they bring down the ridicule and derision of the entire English-speaking, nay Western, world on the collective heads of us all.

Agent MacAskill strikes again. Well done, that man.

National stereotyping

This is something which was almost, but after a bit of discussion and thought, not posted to Scottish Unionist's thread on Suppressed anti-Englishness.

Clearly it doesn't belong there, because that's turned into a serious and lengthy discussion, while this is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek hooliganism. Nonetheless, it does illustrate some of SU's points about the fairly unique nature of British national identity.

This isn't new - you'll have seen it knocking around before - but I've added a Scotland-specific coda.

For those who are offended all I'd like to say is: Hee!

"European Terror Alert Status Update

The British are feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance". The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

Also, 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 "Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

It's not only the British and French that are on a heightened level of alert. 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 also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs". They also have two higher levels: "Invade Several Neighbouring Countries" and "Lose".

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

Meanwhile in Edinburgh, the devolved SNP Government has also been forced to respond. After initially declaring that it could not do anything because it lacked the full portfolio of policy levers available to an independent state, it has now declared that it has delegated the matter to its local councils via a "Historic Concordat" which does not actually commit them to do anything, but serves the purpose of deflecting any blame away from the SNP.

Well-placed sources indicate that more robust measures have been discussed, but these depend on funding being available from something called the "SFT", which unfortunately does not exist.

The same sources indicate that in the last resort, First Minister Salmond will communicate directly with any terrorists, blaming their grievances on the English and quisling, traitorous, lickspittle Scottish unionists, and beg them to restrict their activities to south of the border."

I'm away for a few days. TTFN.

A cost of "independence"

For folks like me, aside from the facts that

(a) we don't want to turn the rest of the UK into a foreign country; and

(b) the numbers (now endorsed by the SNP) show that Scotland would be, at best, no better economically out of the Union than in it;

...one of the things that is bothersome is the inevitable and unnecessary costs of duplicating stuff that is currently done on a shared basis through the UK.

It occurred to me that it ought to be relatively easy to get a handle on the numbers for one aspect of this, namely diplomatic representation: embassies, consulates and the like.

Let us look at some facts.

As part of the UK, we are represented abroad by 261 embassies, high commissions, consulates and so on.

The total FCO budget seems to be around £1.7bn. So, very crudely, dividing one number by the other (and ignoring the fact that not all the costs are associated with the embassies and so on) the cost per overseas mission is £6.5m. Of which Scotland's share (at around 8.5%) is only £550k per mission, for a total of £144.5m.

For comparison, Ireland has only 75 missions abroad. Applying the same methodology, the Irish DFA costs €207m, or £178m - £2.6m per mission.

So, Irish embassies, consulates and so on are cheaper than British ones. Not surprising - not only will they be in less grand and expensive premises, but they will be more lightly staffed and less effective. After all, the smaller and more insignificant a country is, the less the rest of the world cares what it thinks - and so the less point there is in that country paying people to explain what it thinks!

The point is, of course, that Scotland currently gets representation by 261 missions abroad for £144.5m. An "independent" Scotland would, like Ireland, have to pay £34m more to achieve less than 30% of the representation it currently gets. (Oh I know, "independent" Scotland ought to be entitled to 8.5% of the embassy estate. This would no doubt be expressed as a cheque for the capital value, offset by the rental of a couple of portakabins in the embassy grounds until the new Scottish diplomats found new digs.)

Now these are only small numbers, but they are illustrative. Multiply these sort of effects across the health, education and social security systems and suddenly you're into billions. And as the saying goes, "A billion here and a billion there, and before you know it you're talking real money."

Divorce is an expensive business.

A Burns' metaphor for Salmond's Scotland (thanks to the Grumpy Spindoctor)

I was a bit tickled by this post from the Grumpy Spindoctor:

"The Grumpy SD has taken our First Minister at his word and decided that in this year of homecoming he will take the road north from London to see Scotland as a foreign visitor might see the country.

Mr Salmond you'll remember called on Scots the world over (and non-Scots like President Obama)to come home, stating that in this special year: "It will be a fantastic year to come home for presidents and citizens alike."

He went on: "Scotland will honour the Bard with the biggest party our country has seen.

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime celebration of the lasting legacy of Robert Burns and of the country he loved.

"A celebration of our literature and language, of our culture and history, our sport, our national drink...and whisky as well."

So where better to start in Salmond's Scotland, than to take in the birthplace of his favourite Scot - Rabbie Burns.

Sadly despite the rhetoric, a visit to Burns birthplace in this 'Year of Homecoming' is not quite the celebration of the Bard that Mr Salmond may have wished for.

Burns cottage in Alloway is open for business but the museum next door is closed for refurbishment with far from attractive scaffolding and building work ongoing within yards of the cottage. Visitors have to travel to a museum in Ayr to view key Burns memorablia rather than at the birthplace.

Sadly they can't see any artefacts at the slightly tawdry Tam o' Shanter Experience also in Alloway and in walking distance of the Burns Cottage - aside from acres of embarassing tartan tat in the extensive shopping area, the building is virtually surrounded by another very large building site as work continues on the new Burns Museum (completion date 2010).

Signage to carparking near the 'Experience' and Burns Cottage is also far from ideal.

But at least the Kirk of Alloway which features prominently in Tam O'Shanter is unchanged.

A few yards away though the Burns Monument lies little visited - damp destroying the interior plaster work, with no one on hand to give any interpretative information about the Bard or his poetry.
Even climbing the stairs to the viewing level is a disappointment, as the view to the old brig of Alloway is completely obscured by two large trees.

And a visit to the brig, only metres away - famous from Burns Tam O' Shanter - finds a historic monument which has visibly suffered from the attention of less than reverential visitors.

It's clear numerous cobbles on the roadway of the bridge have been sporadically removed, presumably for souvenirs.

In short, this visitor's experience - to this, the focus of Burns commemorations, was hardly 'once-in-a-lifetime' - rather, at times, it was a pedestrian, uninvolving, experience, bordering on the shambolic.

Those nationalists who pour scourn on Scotland's capital city because of the disruption caused by the tram building work - might also like to consider - how is it in this 'Year of Homecoming' that Burns' birthplace looks like a large building site?

Hardly the advert for the new confident Scotland that Mr Salmond likes to boast to the world about.

And what message does it send out to the world that when we have a First Minister who brags about the importance of Burns and about Scotland, only for the visitor to discover 'Closed' or 'under construction' signs at the very places that were supposed to attract visitors to the place in the first place?

Obviously the blame for the fact that various organisations and institutions have failed to get their act together to ensure that at least when it comes to Burns, that the visitor experience can be the best it can be - cannot be put at the First Minister's door.

However it does speak volumes about the reality behind the Salmond rhetoric about the Scotland visitors see on their arrival.

In short, it is not quite as advertised. A bit like the great man's own government. "

Ordinarily I would just write a comment, but the GSD doesn't do comments. Too grumpy.

So I have to do it at one remove.

What I would say is that while the GSD might think that Salmond and Co have assumed a commitment to deliver a quality Burns-related Homecoming experience for visitors, that is not in fact the case.

Instead, they agreed a "Historic Concordat" with the NTS, Ayrshire Council etc etc which made THEM responsible for delivering said experience, subject to this, depending on that and with reference to the other.

Any failures are thus not the SNP's fault.

I hope that's clear.

Myth and moonshine about "oil funds"

This week John "Hapless" Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Economics, Finance, and Nearly Everything Else, made a speech and put out a paper about what a jolly fine thing it might be for Scotland to have an "oil fund".

(I have been referring to Swinney as "Hapless" ever since his disastrous stint as SNP leader. I (very) occasionally feel (a little bit) guilty about this as he is supposedly nice in person, but then he regularly does or says something which reminds me that:

a) he is just as much of a duplicitous lying liar as his boss; and/or

b) he is just not very bright.

The SFT debacle being the clearest illustration of this.)

So let's turn to the latest confirmation of the status of "Hapless" as a waste of oxygen.

The paper is quite sizeable at 64 pages. It is much better written and presented than the recent Scotland Office paper on oil. There are a few things in the paper's Chapter 2 which are quite welcome:

• the marine dividing line between Scotland and England used is the "median line", as used in the 1999 Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order and the Kemp & Stephen work done for GERS - so the nutcases howling that "the Tweed is the border" should take note;

• the estimates used for the remaining reserves left show that, at best, we are slightly more than halfway through the total - so the other nutcases claiming that there are vast undiscovered fields out there which would give rise to a "new boom" can also take note (i.e. shut up). (Amusingly, the "Nationalist cringe" of the authors / editors is illustrated by the fact that they give pride of place to the reserve estimates from the trade body Oil & Gas UK, relegating the UK Government ones to a secondary position. Despite the fact that the official ones are higher.)

Further evidence of "spin and cringe" is provided by the fact that they're happy to show Kemp & Stephen forecasts of a rising Scottish share of oil & gas tax revenue. But not the fact that those revenues will be declining in absolute terms, as a rising share of a decreasing total still means decreasing revenues. Curious, hmm?

The rest of the paper treats us to an exposition of the purpose of an oil fund, international experience of same, connected policy issues, and so on.

The perceptive reader will note that one key question is ignored:

• Where is the money for this fund coming from?

That's a good question, and I like it so much I'm going to repeat it:

• WHERE IS THE MONEY FOR THIS FUND COMING FROM?

(If you want to add a 7-letter swear-word starting with "f" before "money" and "fund" then be my guest.)

To answer the question, let's look at the ever-popular GERS report. (Incidentally, one of the few benefits of having the Nats in "government" is that it's forced them to quit whining that "GERS is distorted". They've now had two years to look in detail at its data and methodology. They've made no real changes and now quote the thing. Guess it must be near enough on the money after all, yes?)

• "In 2007-08, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a... ...surplus of £219 million (0.2per cent of GDP) including an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue.
  

• In 2007-08, the estimated fiscal balance in Scotland, that is the estimated current budget balance plus estimated net capital investment, was a deficit of... ...£3.8 billion (2.7 per cent of GDP) when an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue is included."

Now Swinney, who is clearly arithmetically challenged, likes to quote the first of these bullet points but not the second. This is, clearly, absurd. Try that one at the bank: "I know it looks like I'm overdrawn, but I used the money for capital spending so it doesn't count".

Let us help Swinney by using an example: the Annual Report of the Government of Alberta, which has an "oil fund" called the "Heritage Fund".

"2007-08 Annual Report Highlights

• The 2007-08 surplus was $4.6 billion. This is $550 million higher than last forecast (April 2008).

• $1.8 billion of the surplus was allocated to savings.

• $1.4 billion of the surplus has been allocated to the Capital Account for future requirements.

• Another $312 million will be allocated to savings and another $616 million will be allocated to the Capital Account in 2008-09 from the higher-than-forecast fourth-quarter results."

Spot the difference?

Alberta was lucky enough to have a true bottom-line surplus - even after allocating money to the capital account, there was still surplus left over to allocate to "savings" - which includes their Heritage Fund.

I say "was" because they went into deficit in 2008/9 - but that followed a continuous 14 years of annual surpluses.

The hard, unpleasant truth is that Scotland is not in such a favoured position. There is no bottom-line surplus. There has not been one since the late 1980s. Now "Hapless" treats us to some hypothetical calculations of what might have happened if an "oil fund" had been created back then.

What is the point in this? It wasn't done. And one of the main reasons Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson didn't do it was because they took the view that the State (at that time) had proved itself to be spectacularly bad at making investment decisions, and they preferred to give the money back to individuals and companies (as tax cuts and interest rates which were lower than they would have otherwise been) and let them decide how to invest it.

Not a particularly fashionable view to take right now, of course, but one that looked pretty good in 1980. (One can just imagine the politicians and civil servants running the UK State Oil Fund hemming and hawing for years about investing in technology stocks, and then piling in big time in December 1999...)

Now I hear the cry, "Ah! But the benefits of oil were spread over the entire UK, instead of being kept for Scotland! Thievery!"

Er, no. Au contraire, mon frere. As that Scotland Office oil paper showed, over the years the higher level of per-capita public spending in Scotland has done the job. (The SO paper is a bit ham-fisted, but I've already shown here that their conclusion is fundamentally correct.) In effect, Scotland has already had - and continues to get - its "oil fund" in the form of higher public spending. It is, if course, arguable that it would have been better to get this benefit in the form of lower taxation, or indeed in the form of an explicit "oil fund".

But all such speculation is irrelevant and futile, as it didn't happen and there is no surplus today to create this miraculous fund!

(The paper claims that oil revenues are on an "upward trend". Yes, they're up from £7.8bn in 2007/8 to nearly £13bn in 2008/9. But they were over £9bn in 2005/6 and 2006/7, and we already know they're collapsing back to under £7bn for 2009/10. Some "trend". And my own fag-packet calculations suggest that even £13bn won't give a bottom-line surplus for 2008/9, given the way that other tax revenues have fallen and spending has gone up.)

So, the only way for "Hapless" to put some pennies aside into an "oil fund" piggy-bank would be to increase taxes and/or reduce spending to create a genuine surplus.

And he is, of course, at liberty to do this. He could use the "Tartan Tax" power. Or he could cut spending, perhaps by reversing some of the decisions to "make stuff free" (or at least "cheaper than England") which have been taken over the years when life seemed easy. Bridge tolls, prescription charges, university fees, all spring to mind.

But of course we see no signs of any proposals for any of this.

Which means that the entire exercise is simply a total waste of time, effort and money, other than (of course) being another excuse for the Nats to stoke their "grudge and grievance" agenda.

Well done, "Hapless".

The Homecoming and CyberNat Buffoonery

Today the Scotsman ran this story noting that the Homecoming thingy at the weekend had been pretty successful. Not a sellout, but good nevertheless.

Now I'm sure we're all aware that the thing was kicked off by the previous Lib-Lab administration but was seen through by the Nats. You may not also be aware that the head organiser, Lord Jamie Sempill, is a Tory. So all the main parties are sort-of behind the thing.

I think most Scots regard the whole clans-and-tartan thing as "All In Good Fun", but sigh a bit at some aspects of it. The tartan tat shops infesting Princes Street and the Royal Mile. The fact that a lot of this stuff was more-or-less fabricated by Walter Scott & co in the 1820s. The slight loopiness of some of the devotees, both Scots and from abroad.

So you might find the following comment fairly innocuous:

"Good grief, the lid of the shortbread tin still makes money.

Still, if it sells, it sells..."

...which was posted on the Scotsman website three times today, by someone I know.

It was not only deleted three times, but that person's ID was locked up three times.

Almost certainly due to a deluge of complaints from immature, over-sensitive, chip-on-both-shoulders CyberNats who see insults where none exist.

Curious behaviour.

Now do you see why I'm an anti-Nat and have a bit of fun busting their little myths?

Yes, the Nats' Referendum IS rigged...

It's not just the wording of the question - an exchange of comments on my last post:

Observer said...

I've just read my own post and need to amend it. The referendum the SNP wish to pursue now is not the formal question that needs to be asked to establish independence. The first referendum will be to open negotiations. After that, there would need to be some other formal question posed by way of Scottish GE or referendum again (I don't know) to establish independence.

23 July 2009 23:26

sm753 said...

Now as for your second post.

I was initially astonished that you think there would be more than one referendum.

The Nats have made it clear over and over again that as far as they are concerned, it would be a one-time, irrevocable choice.

At least verbally.

But now I've looked at the relevant section of

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/7

"5.11 It has been suggested that there might be two referendums: on the principle of independence, to give the Scottish Government authority to negotiate; and following Acts of Independence being passed by the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. A second referendum would recognise the significance of the decision for Scotland to become independent and allow the people of Scotland the final say on the matter. On the other hand, there are strong arguments against such an approach. One referendum on the principle of independence could give the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government sufficient clarity and confidence that the people wish Scotland to become an independent state. The prospect of a further referendum could reduce the certainty of the choice facing the people at the referendum, and reduce the impact of the decision that the people make. As a democratically representative legislature, the Scottish Parliament could carry forward the people's will to conclude the arrangements to deliver independence."

So now I can see why you're confused. When it comes to putting it in writing, they don't quite come to a conclusion, do they?

There's a strong hint that there would only be one referendum, but no actual unambiguous statement.

And that ambiguity is clearly working, since it managed to confuse even you.

Which is one of the reasons why people like me think that the whole referendum scheme is rigged and fraudulent.

And, therefore, that the Nats are bunch of shifty, dishonest con-artists.

24 July 2009 08:24

No need for me add anything, really.

Scottish "popular sovereignty" - II

Yes, it's time to plunge boldly back into the past.

Where had we got to?

In the previous post, we'd established that the source of this myth is the Declaration of Arbroath, but noted that the problem lies in what the signatories of said document meant by "we".

Did they mean "we, the people" or "we Men with Fancy Titles and Hats"?

We left off with the suggestion that subsequent history ought to give a guide as to which of these alternatives was true.

One commenter on the last post suggested that I ought to look at the events of 1488, and I agree. So did a chap called George Buchanan around 1560, and we'll get around to him next time.

So what happened in 1488?

Scotland was being run by James III, who had been making a bit of hash for things for some time. This meant he was not too popular with the nobility.

In latter years he had also embarked on the rash course of favouring his second son over his eldest and heir - not usually a smart thing for a medieval monarch. (Both sons were named James, which seems to be carrying the idea of "an heir and a spare" to the limit. Maybe he just got confused between them?)

Anyway, this inevitably led to a spot of insurrection and civil war, with James the elder son and many of the nobles taking up arms against the king, culminating in the Battle of Sauchieburn, which James III lost.

He also ended up dead, although the exact circumstances remain something of a mystery.

A bit later, with the elder son safely on the throne as James IV, the Scottish Parliament got together and issued a proclamation containing the following:

"These articles being seen and read, it was plainly evident that the desire and the tenor of those articles had on many occasions been satisfied, but broken by the perverse counsellors of that most illustrious late king, who were with him at that time, [and] who assisted him and gave him advice on the inbringing of Englishmen, to the perpetual subjection of this realm, and that the same illustrious late lord the king, under cover of deceit, offered and refused them; because of which things, the earls of Huntly and Erroll and [the Earl] Marischal and the said Lord Glamis, and many [and] various other barons and faithful lieges of the realm withdrew from the same said late king and the aforesaid perverse counsel, and attached themselves to our present king and to his faithful party, for the common good. All and sundry of which things having been discussed, examined, and fully understood by the three estates, the entire body of parliament, fully advised, declared and concluded that the conflict at S[tirling], where the aforesaid most illustrious late lord the king, on account of his faith in battle, was killed, with many barons and inhabitants of the realm at that place, [was] entirely the fault of them, and the false deception [which] emanated from their perverse counsel; and that our present serene king and his faithful lords and barons who were with him in this conflict were and are exempt and innocent of the conflict and suffering and killings perpetrated there."

[The "articles" referred to were a set of rules for the conduct of a king and his relations with his heir, and the nobility; you can see for yourself via the link.]

So what does this amount to?

Clearly a retrospective legalisation and legitimisation of the change of regime. Pretty standard for the time.

Also, an assertion of the rights and powers of Parliament, and a denial of the idea of absolute monarchy. Again, standard for the time.

What I do not see is any notion of "popular sovereignty". There is a repeated use (here and in other declarations around the same time) of the phrase "for the common good", but again we have the uncertainty of what this meant at the time - "good of the commons" or "common good of the people (men) who mattered"?

And moreover, whatever that meant, the declaration was made, and the actions were taken, by Parliament. There were no mass referenda or plebiscites. So it's hard to interpret all this as evidence of "popular" rather than "parliamentary" sovereignty.

It's equally difficult to see anything "distinctively Scottish" in all of this.

This is 1488.

Three years earlier in England, Henry Tudor (Henry VII) defeated Richard III in battle, ending the Wars of the Roses. A very similar (although longer-lasting) intra-dynastic, crown-versus-nobility squabble. As noted in another previous post, this merely cemented the fact that England was much more given to deposing monarchs than Scotland was, on a statistical basis.

So once again, we find little or no evidence in this episode to support the ideal of a "distinctively Scottish" notion of "popular sovereignty".

Onwards we go, towards Mr. George Buchanan.

"The Union has failed Scotland economically"

On top of the flawed, but still basically sound, Scotland Office demonstration that Scotland's oil revenues (and more) have been spent in Scotland over the years, this graphic in The Economist caught my eye.




Interesting numbers, aren't they?




Sourced from ONS and Treasury data.




I thought I'd a do a little bit of ranking analysis on the figures for GVA (gross value added) and public spending (PS) per head.

GVA Rank PS Rank

East 3 12
E Mids 6 10
Lon 1 2
N East 11 5
NI 10 1
N West 7 7
Sco 4 3
S East 2 6
S West 5 11
Wal 12 4
W Mids 8 9
Y & H 9 8

So what's the problem? Scotland ranks 4th for GVA and 3rd for public spending. Seems about right, and lines up with the other published statistics. Looks like the wily Welsh and Norn Irish are doing much better out of public spending than we are, and the folks in East Anglia and the South-west should be most concerned.

But I hear the cry "Aha! I bet these numbers ignore the North Sea!"

And so they do. Those figures have been calculated excluding the "Extra Regio".

But fear not. Our [irony on] hated Westminster colonial masters are so keen to hide Scotland's true economic situation [irony off] that it is rather easy to compensate for this, from the published data.

If you do that, then Scotland's GVA (assuming a geographic split of North Sea revenue) goes up from £19,200 per head to £24,000 per head.

So, while I can't be sure what the corresponding values for the GVAs for the bits of England & Wales ought to be, the equivalent of the above table would look something like this:

GVA Rank PS Rank

East 4 12
E Mids 6 9
Lon 1 2
N East 11 5
NI 10 1
N West 7 7
Sco 2 3
S East 3 6
S West 5 11
Wal 12 4
W Mids 8 8
Y & H 9 10

Again, what's the problem?

Scotland is more or less given public spending in accordance with its economic contribution - and let's remember that this is just a snapshot for one particular year.

We should also reflect on the wider unionist morality of this. Do the Americans think "let's kick out Mississippi, Arkansas and the like because they get more spending than they contribute in taxes"? No they don't, because they consider them all to be American.

Similarly, do we think we should kick out the Geordies, Welsh and Norn Irish for the same reason? No we don't, because they're Brits too.

Just like us.

The Nats and their rigged referendum question

Following up Scottish Unionist's raising of the rigged nature of the Nat's proposed referendum question, in the light of John Mason's admission that their 2007 election ballot paper entry was "a bit naughty".

Let's remind ourselves of the proposed question, which can be found here:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

Now, the Nat claim put about (the myth to be busted, if you will) is that this is the "only possible" form of question which gets to the root of the matter, and also gets around the fact that the existing Scotland Act reserves all constitutional issues to Westminster.

This ought to raise the hackles of anyone with Standard Grade Maths, of course, because just as there is an infinite range of lines which can be drawn connecting two points, there is a near-infinite range of collections of words which can meet a simple legal requirement.

Why do we care?

Well, we now know that, as long suspected, the Nats' particular collection of words is designed to obscure and minimise the impact of the notion of "independence" and so increase the chances of a "yes" vote.

How do we know?

Well, from this ICM poll, which suggested that 42% of people would vote for the SNP’s proposition, whereas only 28% would vote for independence if the question clearly set it against the other main constitutional options.

So is this actually the "only possible" question?

According to the Nats' own consultation paper,

"3. The competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum would depend on the precise proposition in the referendum Bill, or any adjustments made to the competence of the Parliament before the Bill is introduced. At present the constitution is reserved, but it is arguable that the scope of this reservation does not include the competence of the Scottish Government to embark on negotiations for independence with the United Kingdom Government. "

[Bold in original source.]

(We can note in passing that this is all a bit weaselly. We're not given a court ruling or an opinion from a leading QC, we just get "arguably". Aye, right.)

But let's take it at face value. Apparently, "negotiations" is the magic word which solves all those ultra vires problems! Hurrah!

So that means the following would also be legally OK:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the total secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

or:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the complete separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

or indeed:

"I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate with the Government of the United Kingdom the irrevocable divorce of Scotland from the United Kingdom."

OK?

Personally I think a referendum in the current circumstances would be an enormous waste of time, space, effort and money.

But if events force it to happen, then the Unionist parties should be determined to vote through a question which fully reflects the enormity and finality of what is being proposed.

Some variation or combination of the above ought to do. I won't ask for royalties.

"There's no such thing as UK law"

Since we're on a roll at the moment, here's another quick and easy "penalty kick" courtesy of some CyberNat or other.

It is sometimes asserted that the continued existence of "Scots Law" means that the UK Parliament and/or Government can't do this, that, or the other.

It is indeed true that the 1707 Union provided for the continued existence of a separate Scottish legal system, and that this (along with a few other things, such as the status of the Kirk) is "entrenched" and can't be changed by the UK Parliament.

But some folks seem to think that this means that any "UK law" has to be accompanied by a separate "(Scotland)" version, or even (bizarrely) that the UK Parliament can't legislate for Scotland.

Have a look at the Statute Law Database.

Look at the "Legislation Type" box of their search engine at top right.

Select "Act (UK Public General)". Hit "Go".

You will get a screen beginning with:

"Matching legislation

Your Search for: type Act (UK Public General);

Your search produced 3715 results of which 500 are displayed below.

If you do not find the results you are looking for please search again."

So much for there being "no such thing as UK law".

OK?

The Nats' Kerevan talks bolleaux about shipyards

Thanks to Scottish Unionist for pointing out the Newsnight Scotland interview with George Kerevan, high-up at the Hootsmon and prospective SNP Westminster candidate.

Proof positive that Nattism, or at least politics, rots the brain. Here we have a reasonably-respected journalist suddenly spouting utter, factually-incorrect tosh in pursuit of office.

I shall leave SU to deal with Kerevan's unpleasant references to the "English" government, and concentrate on the fact that he was talking ordure on the factual front too.

"The Norwegian navy has 70 ships"???

According to the Royal Norwegian Navy:

"Important materiel in the Navy:

Vessels:
2 Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates
6 Ula-class submarines
14 Hauk-class missile torpedo boats
1 Skjold-class missile torpedo boat
4 Oksøy-class mine hunters
4 Alta-class mine sweepers
1 Vidar-class mine layer (supply vessel until 2008)
Coast guard ships

New materiel:
5 Skjold-class vessels and 4 Nansen-class frigates (within 2010)"

I make that 2 (with 4 being built) "ships", 6 (small, slow and short-ranged) submarines and a bunch of what amount to wee boats.

And the total comes to 30-odd, not 70, George.

(And other sources indicate only a total of 5 frigates, BTW).

"Only the SNP can guarantee the yards after the carriers are finished"???

How?

Sub-building is an incredibly specialised art, the Clyde yards have never done it, and there is massively well-entrenched competition - e.g. ThyssenKrupp.

Wee boats will not keep the yards open.

Even if "independent" Scotland were to order as many as 5 frigates/destroyers, they only take 3 years to build, and have a service life of 25+ years.

Do the math. Even if you built them sequentially at one yard (militarily stupid, of course) hoping that the wee boats could keep the other yard busy, after 15 years you have nowt to do.

The UK, on the other hand, *has* to place an order for up to 18 new frigates to follow on from the carriers, as the current T23s will be wearing out.

Crossed-fingers that we can afford them all, of course. But the fact that the UK is finding it hard to keep its naval yards in work - e.g. if we stop the regular ordering of submarines, then the one yard at Barrow shuts - illustrates the total nonsense of the idea that Scotland could sustain the yards on its own.

After this display of nakedly biased hogwash, we should treat anything from Kerevan with even more suspicion than previously.

"'God save the Queen' is anti-Scottish"

You know, because for about a week in the 1740s some people added an extra verse with the line

"Rebellious Scots to crush".

This is an easy one. Like a free kick or a penalty.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/NationalAnthem.aspx

"There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition. Additional verses have been added down the years, but these are rarely used.

The words used today are those sung in 1745, substituting 'Queen' for 'King' where appropriate. On official occasions, only the first verse is usually sung."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012518

"'God Save The King' was a patriotic song first publicly performed in London in 1745, which came to be referred to as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. The words and tune are anonymous, and may date back to the seventeenth century. There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition."

No "official version" with an extra "anti-Scottish" verse.

Got it?

"Threat of sanctions forced UK into devolution"

I was reminded in the Scotsman today about one of the more goggle-eyed Nat myths.

"Dr. James Wilkie, Isle of Barra 27/06/2009 10:07:14

Yes, Labour and Conservatives are all admitting now that devolution has been a great success, but none of them is prepared to come into the open and admit that it was finally introduced only after threats of international sanctions against the UK. The vile methods used by Labour in particular in their unsuccessful attempts to kill the devolution project are a stain on British politics. I would suggest celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Scottish Parliament by opening all the relevant records of the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, since that would effectively indict those responsible I am not waiting in anticipation."

Now this is on the list to be myth-busted, but that will have to be later.

For the moment, let's just contemplate the sheer bonkerosity of it.

So, supposedly devolution was "forced" on the UK by "threats of international sanctions" - from the Council of Europe, so the claim goes.

So this must be known about by hundreds of politicians and diplomats across Europe. Yet not one of them has ever blabbed to a journalist. The only people who know the "truth" are our friend "Dr Wilkie" and his pals in the "Scotland-UN Committee". Curious, isn't it?

Then there are "the vile methods used by Labour in particular in their unsuccessful attempts to kill the devolution project".

Well stone me. I thought I had this recollection of Smith, Dewar and Brown being keen devolutionists, Labour being active in the Constitutional Convention, making a manifesto commitment, bringing forward a bill, holding a referendum and all the rest of it.

Turns out I was mistaken - the whole thing was an illusion.

There are some odd people in the world, aren't they?

(Mind you, this is because some of them are really disguised, alien shapeshifting lizards.)

The new Scotland Office oil paper

...is now available on-line.

Now this ought to be useful for number-crunching and myth-busting, but let's first comment that the standard of written English in it is dire. What happened to the smooth, Oxbridge-educated Humphrys and Bernards of legend?

Another thing is that the data presented is in "money of the day" rather than "real terms" - it is unadjusted for inflation. Compare their oil price v. revenue chart:


...with my one from a previous post, in which the numbers were expressed in real 2007/8 terms:

Now this makes no difference for statements like:

"• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only
have been 9 years out of the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have
been in surplus.
• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year of surplus was in 1988-89
and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s
spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland."

(NB there is a "sic" applying to the second bullet point here.)

However, if they have come up with:

"• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would
have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81."

..by adding up a time series of money-of-the-day numbers, it is bolleaux.

(And I think I need to put a "sic" against this one as well. I think what they meant to say was "Even if all oil revenues since 1980-81 had been... ...the total deficit would...".)

I think I'm going to fire up the spreadsheet and check this. Back later.

...

And we're back.

There are indeed a bunch of balloons at the Scotland Office.

Using their charts (so a bit rough and ready, since I don't have access to the underlying data) I have been able to replicate their claim of a "£20bn cumulative deficit".

They did, indeed, get to this figure by adding up a time series of money-of-the-day numbers.

Twits.

When you convert to real-terms 2007/8 money (using the Treasury's GDP deflator series), it turns out that on these numbers, over the period Scotland was a net contributor to the tune of nearly £12bn.

But this assumes 100% assignation of oil and gas revenue to Scotland, which we know is not true.

The other figure used in the paper is 82.5%, which is probably broadly right given the GERS / Kemp & Stephen work (see here).


On the 82.5% basis, Scotland looks like having a cumulative £44bn deficit using money-of-the-day (which is wrong), and £29bn in real 2007-8 terms.

Which is broadly the same bottom-line answer the Scotland Office paper got to, but by using the right data and the right sums rather than the wrong ones (sigh).

Despite the shoddy and politicised analysis, there is useful stuff in this paper. It demonstrates that, even if you go right back to the beginning of North Sea oil, "Scotland's oil revenues" have stayed in Scotland. That is a powerful fact.

I'm thinking of emailing the Murph, though, and recommending that he re-issue this paper with the right sums done on the right data...

New GERS 2007/8 - total Scottish deficit deepens

The new version of GERS - covering 2007/8 - came out today.

The bottom line is that

"In 2007-08, the estimated fiscal balance in Scotland, that is the estimated current budget balance plus estimated net capital investment, was... a deficit of £3.8 billion (2.7 per cent of GDP) when an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue is included."

This compares to last year's

"In 2006-07, the estimated fiscal balance in Scotland, that is the estimated current budget balance plus estimated net capital investment, was... a deficit of £2.7 billion (2.1 per cent of GDP) when an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue is included."

Hilariously, "Hapless" Swinney is still attempting to spin things up by quoting only the current budget figures which show a tiny (~£200m) surplus. Always helps to only show half the result, doesn't it?

This change was utterly unsurprising as we already knew that North Sea tax revenues had fallen from £9.1bn to £7.8bn between 2006/7 and 2007/8.

Similarly, we already know that the 2008/9 North Sea revenue position will be a lot better - £13bn. The question for the overall balance is what effect the recession will have on other revenue sources and on spending, of course.

Another quick point to note that the Scottish geographic share of North Sea revenue is up from 84.5% in 2006/7 to 93.5% in 2007/8: this is a larger rise than expected last year, indicative of a faster-than-expected change in the balance of northern vs. southern production.

Of course, an increasing share of a decreasing quantity is not necessarily a good thing. All this means is that "Scottish" oil revenues were down 4.5%, while those of the UK fell by 13.8%.

The reported Scotland Office paper looking at overall historic oil revenues isn't on-line yet. Looking forward to this as it could be a valuable data source; previous work in this area (e.g. Taxpayers' Alliance) cut off around 1985 so omitted the oil revenues of the early 80s boom years.

Scottish "popular sovereignty" - I

Having tasted the delights of contemporary politics, let's go back to this notion of "the distinctive Scottish doctrine of popular sovereignty".

Now let us be clear. The claim we are contesting is not just that in Scotland (as in England and most of Europe) there was a process of shifting power from an absolute monarchy to the nobility and then to a parliament, the electorate for which gradually became more and more universal.

No, the claim is that in pre-Union Scotland there was an established "doctrine" that the "people" were sovereign, unmediated by any form of parliament.

Let's go back to the original fount - the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath (which for convenience I shall henceforth label the "DoA").

The first part of the DoA is a totally fictitious recitation of the historic roots of the Scots, together with a made-up list of ancient monarchs - these are the non-existent folks whose portraits you can see at Holyrood. (And yes, I do know that this sort of thing was par for the course in medieval declarations of independence, and that the Pope and the other senior people in the Church - to whom the DoA was addressed - were probably perfectly aware that it was cobblers.)

For our purposes, the important bit is this:

"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Stirring stuff. An assertion that "we" would overthrow a king and choose another, in order to assert "freedom".

The problem with reading nearly 700-year-old documents is that the meanings of words change. (And this one was written in Latin, so there is a translation issue as well.) What did the authors of the document actually mean by "we" and "freedom"?

We can never really know. We do know, however that the "we" who attached their seals to the document were 49 nobles, sons of nobles and clerics (in those days, again sons of nobles). As I like to call them, Men with Fancy Titles and Hats.

It is as likely as not that, when this lot wrote "we" and "us", they meant "Us Men with Fancy Titles and Hats" rather than "The People" in the modern sense. And that by "freedom" they meant "Freedom of Us Men with Fancy Titles and Hats to choose which of us gets the Fanciest Title and Hat of all".

At this point we have to note, of course, that in England Magna Carta was in force, starting from 1215 and fully adopted as statute in 1297. This document also contained a lot of stuff about nobles having the power to decide who should become monarch, but also had much more specific and comprehensive rights for "freemen". The DoA may have had more stirring rhetoric, but Magna Carta gave much more protection for non-Fancy Hat wearers.

Which sort of trashes any claim that Scotland was "distinctively" ahead of England in the field of "popular sovereignty", does it not?

But we can look further at the historical record. If the DoA really was a declaration of "popular sovereignty" for "the people" as we currently understand it, then surely there will be further expressions and articulations of this over the succeeding centuries.

And as the pre-1707 Records of the Parliament of Scotland are now on-line and indexed, we should be easily able to find laws, decrees, speeches and resolutions attesting to this.

So, we've got the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, and then we've got the...

...ah

...er

...um.

To be continued.

Calman Report published

Well well, the Calman Report is now out - all many hundred pages and multiple documents.

Nothing very surprising - devolution of a big chunk of income tax and some other small specific taxes, corresponding borrowing powers, a bit of adjustment of which things are devolved versus reserved, and some recommendations to make Holyrood work better itself and for better coooperation with Westminster.

The tax recommendation is quite clever. It isn't the level of the devolved rate which matters as much as the fact that the Scottish Parliament will have to make a positive decision in every budget about what that rate will be - the current option of doing nothing and just accepting the Barnett grant will no longer be possible.

I like the fact that the report puts things in a global context - despite the usual idiots (e.g. Mike Russell) shouting about "messy fudges", it is evident that most of the rest of the world operates multi-level government, and they are all fudges of various sorts - there is no unique "logical solution".

I have a couple of wonderings about the implementation. Firstly, legislation needs to happen at Westminster, and it will be interesting to see how Calman fits into all the other constitutional tinkering now being considered - term limits, PR, Lords reform, "English votes for English laws", and so on.

The other one is on the taxation and borrowing power. Having a power to borrow is all jolly and nice, except for the fact that we are already borrowed to the hilt against our existing revenues - so any additional Scottish borrowing will almost certainly need additional Scottish taxes. That would be an interesting argument for someone to try and make.

The key thing to watch for now will be whether the parties which sponsored the report now accept the results, and what they say about committing to implementation - both in Edinburgh and more importantly London.

If implementation commitments make it into all three of the main parties' General Election manifestos, then we wouldn't need to muck about having a pointless referendum, would we?

The "Saudi Arabia" of renewable energy

Grrr.

Here we go again. The potential of the Pentland Firth to produce electricity from tidal energy.

Gratuitous use of a phrase of meaningless Salmond / Nat spin which is guaranteed to get me reaching for my calculator.

"Saudi Arabia". Nice phrase, isn't it? Evoking images of us all wafting around in armoured limousines and never having to work.

Shame that it's utter crap, when you look at the numbers.

The Sustainable Development Commission - which is a pro-renewables government body - estimates in this report that the entire power production potential of the Pentland Firth is some 12.7 TWh per year.

That would require over 1600 separate tidal turbines totalling almost 3000 MW in capacity, operating at a load factor of around 50%. This would, of course, take decades and multi-billions of pounds to develop, since tidal stream turbine technology is not yet commercial.

Oh golly gosh. That's as much power as a new 1700 MW baseload conventional power plant (coal, gas or nuclear) would produce, running at 85% load factor. (1700 x 365 x 24 x 85%...)

So, far from being the "Saudi Arabia" of renewables, the Pentland Firth is more accurately the "Peterhead", "Longannet" or "Torness" of renewables. (1600 MW gas, 2300 MW coal, 1300 MW nuclear power stations, respectively.) Obviously worth having and providing a few high-tech jobs in the locality, but hardly a "Saudi Arabia" with the spin-worthy images of sheikhs and limos, no?

Can I rub it in a bit more?

According to BP, in 2008 Saudi Arabia produced 515 million tonnes of oil. Burning that would produce 6012 TWh of heat energy, which a 45%-efficient power station could transform into 2705 TWh of electrical energy.

So the "Saudi Arabia of renewables" equates to less than 0.5% of the real Saudi Arabia.

It's also only 3.35% of the UK's oil production (72.2 Mt in 2008).

Shall we look at the money side, too?

In 2008 oil prices averaged $97.26/bbl, and Saudi production in barrel terms was almost 3.8 Bn bbl. So the market value of that Saudi oil was $367bn. (The UK's production was worth $51bn.)

Using a wholesale electricity price of $100/MWh, the total market value of a year's Pentland Firth output would be $1.27bn. Only 0.35% of the real "Saudi" again.

And let's consider government tax revenues. Oil is specially taxed and yields large amounts of government revenue, while electricity is not. The only revenue the UK government sees is ordinary corporation tax from the owners of power plants, and as we know there is quite a lot of flexibility in where these multinational companies declare their profits have been earned.

On top of that, not a single tidal machine will be deployed in the Pentland Firth or anywhere else without the generous subsidies provided via the Renewables Obligation and paid for by consumers, i.e. us. So far from being a source of revenue, tidal power would be an additional cost for us all.

The point of this? Tidal power and other renewables may, possibly, be a good thing. But do not let shifty politicians like Salmond con you into thinking they could be some sort of energy or revenue substitute for North Sea oil as it declines, because it just ain't so.

A teaser on "Scottish popular sovereignty"

Conscious that I've not posted much for a couple of weeks, and won't do so for another couple as I'm off on hols.

Something I'm working up is a demolition of the idea that there is some kind of "distinctively Scottish" "doctrine of popular, not Parliamentary, sovereignty". But give me strength, it's dull. (The very topic, not my demolition of it, natch.)

But here's a wee teaser.

One of the key sources for this nonsense was one George Buchanan, early Church of Scotland cleric and tutor to James VI/I. He wrote an account claiming that Scotland had this tradition of removing unsatisfactory monarchs. Thing is, most of the cases he mentioned were entirely fictitious - deriving from the same source that led to all those portraits of non-existent monarchs in Holyrood Palace.

And a quick glance at the real historical record shows how much codswallop this claim really was.

Between 1320 and 1603, Scotland had 11 monarchs. 3 of those (James I, James III, and Mary) were removed through assassination, civil war or deposition.

In the same period, England had 18 monarchs. Of which no fewer than 7 (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, and Jane) were removed through civil war or deposition. (Hint: "Wars of the Roses".)

So who, exactly, had the richer tradition of overthrowing monarchical power?

The UK nuclear deterrent is not "independent"

Right, let's do something involving the 21st century and which doesn't have any graphs.

In fact, let's get bang up-to-date.

Nuclear weapons. Boom-boom! (Sigh. Stop it.)



It is an article of faith for the SNP, CND etc. that the UK's nuclear deterrent is "useless" because it is not "independent" - "the Americans have the launch codes" and so on.

This would mean that every Prime Minister since Harold Macmillan, who negotiated the Nassau Agreement with Kennedy in 1962, has been lying. You might think, as I do, that this is a little far-fetched.

In fact there shouldn't really be any room for debate on this topic any more (apart from the fact that SNP and CND adherents base their position entirely on emotion, and not facts) because some enterprising soul made an FOI request to the MOD back in 2005. The key passages of the response are:

"2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the
answer to your second question."

In 2006 the the Commons Defence Select Committee went into all this in more detail.

The key testimony was from (the now late) Sir Michael Quinlan, former Permanent Secretary at the MOD, and Commodore Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the MOD.

"80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto—legal or physical—if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, "very low" and that, ultimately, "one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated".[71]"

Now this is good as it really does cover all the issues (and you can also read the various witterings from Greenpeace, CND etc elsewhere in the report, and note that they do not actually disagree in anyway on the topic of operational independence).

The UK nuclear deterrent is entirely independent of the US in the operational sense - i.e. we can fire the thing if and when we like.

However, it is also "less independent" than the French one, since we do not own, and have not designed and built, our own missiles. Instead, we have title to 58 missiles at any one time out of the combined US/UK Trident missile pool, on a sort of leasehold basis. The missiles are maintained at the USN base at King's Bay, Georgia. We have, however, designed, built and own our own submarines and warheads. And at any instant, 32 (i.e. two sub-loads) of missiles will be physically present on UK-owned submarines, plus an unknown number at Coulport.

This would only become relevant on a longer timescale. I.e., if we fell out entirely with the Septics, then over the course of a few years the UK deterrent would gradually become less usable as the Trident missile bodies became due for maintenance in the US. Eventually - after four-five years? - the UK deterrent would be unusable in its present form.

One can imagine various forms of emergency - and expensive - remedies. Crash-development of indigenous UK missiles. Purchase of French missiles and mating to the Trident subs. Conversion of ex-Trident warheads to air-droppable form. All technically possible.

The upside of this capability-sharing with the Yanks is that we've ended up with a deterrent which is much cheaper than the French one, and also much better - i.e. more throw-weight, longer-ranged, more warheads per missile, etc. The French are only acquiring a similar capability to Trident as they replace their M45 missiles with the M51 - which is only due to happen over the next decade.

Now I realise that some may not believe either of the above two sources as they both emanate from the UK government. You know, it's the usual "It's all lies!" response.

So it might also be beneficial to look at some media coverage of the issue, in particular the Radio 4 / Peter Hennessy documentary "The Human Button" broadcast in December 2008. This contained some very interesting, sensitive and even sensational material. It is notable, for example, that the UK regards ministers as being outside the military chain of command, and so PMs and Defence Secretaries cannot "order" nuclear strikes, only authorise them. It's also interesting that, in the context of the Cold War threat from the Soviet Union, the UK had such a fatalistic view of things that we assumed that if deterrence failed, the PM and the cabinet would be gone. The decision to retaliate (or not) thus fell on the captains of the bomber subs at sea, hence the "Last Resort Letters" locked in their safes.

More pertinent to this topic, though, is the statement by Denis Healey (Defence Secretary in the late 60s) that he would not have authorised a British nuclear retaliation, even if the Soviet strike was already on its way in or, indeed, landed. By contrast, Jim Callaghan would have retaliated, although with a heavy heart.

The key thing is that neither of them say "Of course it wouldn't have mattered because we'd have needed American permission anyway." Clearly because that simply wasn't the case.

Those interested in more are directed to the recent Peter Hennessy book "Cabinets and the Bomb", which includes a vast amount of declassified PRO documents on the UK deterrent over the years. Again, no mention of any "US veto". Various chunks of the book and a transcript of an associated discussion meeting - involving a bunch of former Defence Secretaries and MOD Perm Secs - are available here.

So, the only conclusion I can reach is that, whatever one thinks about the morality and/or cost-effectiveness of UK Trident, it really is "independent" in the sense that the UK government has the technical ability to fire the thing off as and when it likes.

That makes it an effective deterrent.

It is less "independent" than, say, the French one only in the sense that if we fell out with the US over missile maintenance then we would lose our deterrent capability over a timescale of a few years. That's the price for getting a deterrent which is both cheaper and qualitatively better than the French one.

Given that it's something we hope never to use - and indeed if we had to use it, it would have failed - that looks like the right choice to me.

The Scotsman's David Maddox on Cybernats

Not exactly "Mythbusting", but I felt this deserved a bit of an airing.

"Cybernats highlight dangers of web anonymity

Hazel Blears has lambasted Labour's keenness on the Internet but the SNP has a problem too

David Maddox

HAZEL Blears, the fiery haired Communities Secretary, is not the first person you would think of as mistress of the elegant put down. But her disdainful "YouTube if you want to" swipe at her boss's cringeworthy appearance on the web to promote his plans for MPs' expenses was a killer and may be written into his political obituary.

Her comment reflected frustration with the obsession of Mr Brown's hangers-on and spindoctors with blogging and the internet which infuriates some traditionalist door-knockers and leafleteers such as Ms Blears.

Her point was that it puts a distance between politicians and voters, unlike meeting them, and it underlined serious concerns about internet campaigning, its poisonous and guerrilla nature carried out usually by anonymous snipers.

This was pulled into the public glare with the "noxious pair"- as former Home Secretary Charles Clarke calls them - Damian McBride and Derek Draper, caught planning anonymous attacks on leading Conservatives using lies, rumour and innuendo.

In Scotland, too, the blogosphere and on-line comment sections of newspaper websites are getting a dubious international reputation as being among the most vicious in the world.

And the issue that has not been properly addressed north of the Border is that the overwhelming number of producers of on-line bile, bigotry and hatred are sympathetic to the Nationalist cause.

There are a handful of others - including the pro-Labour Leaky Chanter and somebody pretending to be Alex Salmond on Twitter - but they are engulfed by the tidal wave of Nationalist angst.

This army, dubbed cybernats by Labour MSP Lord George Foulkes - a favourite target - launch daily, sustained attacks on journalists, politicians and anybody else perceived to stand in the way of their cherished aim of independence, or who raises even the mildest criticism of Alex Salmond or the SNP.

One of the more vitriolic cybernats last week posted a piece entitled 'David Maddox is a c***' because of a piece I had written on Faslane. While I, like many other journalists, take these attacks as abadge of honour, comments about Jewish Labour MPs allegedly blocking coverage on Gaza is an example of the anti-semitism that creeps into these extremist sections of the Nationalist community.

His suggestion that English-born people whom he names should be sent home once Scotland gets independence is a far cry from the "positive Nationalism" that the modern SNP stands for. It is only not racism on a legal technicality.

The Scotsman no longer allows comments on pieces about the Holocaust and Gaza because of such offerings. One of our last allowing comments, on school trips to Auschwitz, drew a classic cybernat remark: "Scottish children should be learning about Scottish history not Polish history."

The SNP always maintains that any member caught doing this sort of thing would be thrown out and insist that it has nothing to do with them.

But it is never able to say whether anybody has been disciplined and I have yet to hear a leading figure in the party disown them publicly.

There was a half-hearted SNP comment about a pro-Nationalist blog that made infantile allegations about Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray's private life which condemned "all such blogs" but mostly attacked Labour and McBride.

There are, though, MSPs who privately take pride in the number of pro-Nationalist postings and agree with some of their lurid comments.

The lack of action is, of course, because the bleary eyed brigade who stay up until midnight to be the first to post vitriol on newspaper websites, always hide behind pseudonyms.

There have been allegations that some of the cybernats work for the party at Holyrood, but that has never been proven.

The SNP quite rightly points out that McBride's plans for an attack blog were the one casewhere a leading spin doctor has been caught at it and as such was a cause for the party leader to apologise, even if Gordon Brown took his time about it.

But there is an issue that the SNP needs to tackle. While Hazel Blears is probably right that YouTube and blogs are no substitute for meeting people on the doorstep, one of the internet's greatest uses is that it provides a window to the world.

The Nationalist window is distorted by daily rantings of supporters as badly as if not worse than the integrity of Labour was damaged by McBride and Draper simply because of its volume.

A reader of many of these blogs or the web comments on Scottish newspapers' political stories would conclude at different times that Nationalists are bullies, filled with hate, anti-English, anti-semitic and obsessed with a 13th century world view.

So while Alex Salmond trots around the globe trying to explain that his party is unlike most nationalist outfits and is interested only in "talking up Scotland", his anonymous supporters on the web portray the SNP as something akin to the BNP.

The doctrine or positive nationalism has been a bedrock for the modern SNP because without it the party would be in danger of becoming a home for bigots who define themselves through their anti-Englishness.

There is no doubt that the leadership of the party has adopted that view, almost to the extant that it is a mantra.

But there are many supporters, who may or may not be party members, who clearly have not accepted this view and, with the safety of anonymity, let their true feelings be known. The uncomfortable question is how many supporters present one face in public which hides a much darker side in private.

Nothing suggests that Mr Salmond is not genuine in what he says about "positive nationalism,' but he and the SNP need to find a way to publicly separate themselves from these cybernats. Otherwise, they risk being tarnished by association."

The "20 firsts" meme

I have to thank Stuart Winton of Planet Politics for nudging me into doing this. I was a bit cautious about the possible risks of identity exposure to start with, but it seems OK. I'll think a bit further about who I'm going to "tag" in turn.

First job

Temporary casual postie.

First real job

Graduate trainee at the same nuclear power company (and the same building) where Sir Terry Pratchett worked. We didn't overlap, though.

First role in politics

This one, if that's what it is.

First car

Metro 1.3S. W-reg, blue. Dreadful.

First record

Either "The Best of Jean-Michel Jarre" or "Sky Five Live". (Actually, I think they might have both arrived simultaneously as Xmas presents.) I was not cool or trendy. However my musical taste improved / descended later - see below.

First football match

The old man took me to some games, but I never really got into footie.

First concert

Oh dear. I was hoping it was Black Sabbath on their "Headless Cross" tour, but I've checked the dates and it looks like it must have been Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force. (Who even then were known as "Whinging J. Malmsteen's Risible Farce".) Malmsteen was/is a sub-Ritchie Blackmore twiddly guitarist, and his singer at the time was Joe Lynn Turner, who had been with Blackmore in Rainbow. Then, three years later, Turner was (briefly) back with Blackmore in the "Mark V" line-up of Deep Purple - seeing them at the Hammy O was one of the best gigs I've been to. (Other contenders being the Scorpions at Wembley in 91 and Journey at the Edinburgh Playhouse a couple of years ago.)

First country visited

Taiwan.

First TV appearance

Did one or two brief talking-head bits on BBC World a few years back.

First political speech

Never.

First girlfriend/boyfriend

The crush of my late primary school days was a girl called Linda. Then I discovered she'd been quite keen on me. But I didn't find out until AFTER we'd left at the end of P7 and were going to different secondaries. Bugger!

First encounter with a famous person

Slightly drunken conversation with Tony Hewish (Nobel prizewinner) at a tutorial sherry party. I was drunk, he wasn't.

First brush with death

Had a bit of a spin / offroad expedition in a car once, but it was fairly minor. Still don't know what caused it. Wet leaves?

First house/flat owned

2-up / 2-down terrace in the southwest of England.

First film seen at a cinema

Dumbo. Still haven't recovered from the bit where his mum is taken away.

First time on the radio

Interviewed by Ed Stourton on Radio 4 "Today" a few years back. I remember telling the researcher beforehand "Do not ask me about X because I'm not legally qualified to answer." Guess what the first question was...

First politician I met

I don't think I actually met him, but at college went to a dinner and lecture given by Denis Healey. I think the first one I met in person was my cousin-in-law's husband, who is a Liberal MP. Met a few since: Brian Wilson, Tim Yeo, Murdo Fraser.

My mum was a civil servant; only a (very) junior one, but at one point she was working on a fairly high-profile project, so at various times met Malcolm Rifkind, Ian Lang and Michael Forsyth. I think she had a bit of a crush on Rifkind - the voice, apparently - and was a bit disappointed to find him a lot shorter than she thought.

First book I remember reading

The first book I remember getting my folks to buy for me was "Volcano Adventure" by Willard Price. I liked the cover - an exciting picture of an, er, volcano. My folks thought there was no way I was going to read it - a proper novel, no pictures - but I did.

First visit to the London Palladium

Never been. Have seen bands at (talking London venues only) Hammersmith Odeon (now called something awful - Labatts Apollo, or something?), Brixton Academy, Wembley Arena, and Wembley Stadium (the old one), however.

First election

School sent a few of us to help out at the count for the 1986 local elections, but the first I voted in was the 1987 General Election, I think.

Phew.

EDIT TO ADD:

I've had a think about who to tag about this, and I'm going for mild-mannered cybernat Brownlie and (with some trepidation) the Grumpy Spindoctor.

Refuting "Dr Wilkie"

I admit I do enjoy tweaking the tails of CyberNats, and I was delighted to cause a new eruption on Sunday from "Dr" "James Wilkie" of "Vienna", who is one of the leading lights of the nutty historicist wing of Scottish nationalism. He has been connected with both the delusional / hoaxer "Scotland-UN Committee" and the risible "Scottish Enterprise Party", although the SNP don't seem to want to have much to do with him, for obvious reasons.

The topic, incredibly enough, was the ownership of Berwick. Again.

Anyway, since this is the best he is able to do, I am going to indulge myself by knocking down all his little straw men one after the other.

"#314 sm753: The facts on Berwick are these:

1. The English occupation of Berwick was military aggression with no constitutional force, and furthermore was in violation of the previous treaty establishing the border at the River Tweed.

2. The subsequent compromise of leaving Berwick under English administration while remaining part of Scotland did not alter the Tweed border.

3. Berwick remained de jure subject to Scots law until 1746, 39 years after the Union."

Hey! So far we're in agreement.

"4. The 1746 act imposing English law on Berwick was a panic measure in reaction to the 1745/46 Jacobite scare (like banning tartan and bagpipes) and was later repealed."

"Panic measure" or not, it was law. And it wasn't repealed until the Interpretation Act 1978 (see below).

"5. English law did not apply in Berwick at the time of the Union in 1707."

Yes yes, we've done this. Although we have to note that Article XXV of the English version of the Act of Union makes an explicit reference to Berwick being included in the remit of the Church of England. There is no corresponding counter-claim in the Scottish version.

"6. The Tweed border was accepted by the UK government up to 1999, and the marine border was officially fixed as running due east from the Tweed."

The UK did not define any internal marine boundaries until the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which set a line at 55deg50min North.

A quick check on Google Earth shows the mouth of the Tweed at just south of 55deg46min North.

Oh dear, Doc. Bonggg!

"7. This was confirmed and archived by the 1968 UK submission to the United Nations on the law of the sea."

There was no "submission to the UN" in 1968. The only 1968 document which exists is the Order mentioned above - a piece of internal UK secondary legislation. It is on display at the UN's website because it also gives UK legislative effect to the true international boundaries which were agreed by treaty between the UK and Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway etc.

The 1968 order, by the way, is no longer on the statute book. It was repealed and replaced in 1987, and then there was the 1999 order setting up another boundary for fisheries purposes.

All covered on this blog here and here.

"8. No record exists of Berwick having been formally transferred to England. It never happened. The drafters of several pieces of legislation simply assumed in error that the administrative boundary at Lamberton represented the border."

There are plenty of records. Representation of the People Act 1883 abolished Berwick as a borough constituency and incorporated it into Northumberland. Local Government Act 1888 incorporated it into Northumberland for local government purposes. Local Government (Scotland) 1889 did not include it in Berwickshire. Then for the benefit of any pedants, the Interpretation Act 1978 confirmed that Northumberland was part of England.

(And the same act repealed the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, as there was no further need for it.)

"9. None of this intermediate legislation (including the 1999 Order) is of any relevance to the status of Berwick in the event of Scotland becoming independent.

10. If and when independence happens, the Scotland/England border will be on the line that existed at the moment of union on 1 May 1707, i.e. from the middle of the Solway Firth to the middle of the Tweed estuary - a border that has stood for almost eight centuries until covetous southern eyes focussed on the oil and other resources in Scottish waters."

Bolleaux. Which planet are you on, Doc? You're claiming 300 years of legislation would vanish overnight? In fact the converse is true - merger of two states means that pre-existing treaties between the two states simply become part of domestic legislation, and hence alterable by the Parliament of the merged entity.

As was done.

Now, if you still disagree, go put yourself up as a candidate for any sort of election in Berwick. The SNP have never done so. I wonder why?

(Previously done in more detail here.)

Debunking the mythology of oil, part II

I'd originally intended not to do any more graphs, but I belatedly thought of another one - illustrating "how far along" the North Sea is in terms of how much has been produced so far versus how much might be left.

The idea was to check on the popular quote that we're "about halfway" through the North Sea - that might well be true, if the high end of expectations on ultimate reserves are borne out. Otherwise, we might be about two-thirds of the way through. As before, Norway's position is much better.

I ought to point out that I've been carelessly using the words "North Sea" when I actually mean the "UK Continental Shelf (UKCS)", which includes the bits to the west of Scotland and the Shetlands. The ultimate reserve estimates I've been using include numbers for those areas (as you can see if you use the link given).

Now, why have brought this topic up? I'm certainly not implying that the oil & gas business is not important to Scotland or indeed the UK. And it's about much more than the direct upstream tax revenue, but also the employment, corporation and income tax which arises from all the onshore support business.

The purpose is simply to put some numeric background behind the useless and content-free phrases which are flung around about how long the oil will "last", or spurious comparisons with other countries.

So, some conclusions:

• Comparisons such as "we have as much as Kuwait or Norway" are pointless. Yes, we are currently producing a similar amount to those countries; the difference is that we are on the way down and they have a lot more left. Tough.

• Oil & gas will indeed "last" a long time. 30 years - easy; 50 years - probable; 100 years - possible (albeit a trickle). But we are looking at a declining production profile; no-one, but no-one, thinks we are going to return to the production levels of the past.

• There will, no doubt, be Nat howls that "the companies understate the prospects to reduce tax, and the UK Govt understates the prospects to dish the SNP". No, they don't. A few years back Shell was clobbered in the markets for over-stating its reserves, and the UK Government has an incentive to over-state reserves to bolster its credit ratings. It balances out. The official estimates are a true best guess, which is why they are in the format of a range.

• So what about the future revenues? As the charts make clear, these depend heavily on the level of world oil prices, which nobody can sensibly predict. But it's also clear that any upwards move in oil price would be fighting against the downwards gravitational pull of declining production volumes. So it seems that for the foreseeable future tax revenues will start at around £10bn plus or minus £3bn, gradually sliding downwards as production does.

• And as we know from GERS, that level of oil tax revenue would only serve to keep the Scottish budget deficit to manageable levels, with perhaps the odd small surplus in good years (e.g. 2008/9).

• That means there won't be any "oil fund". As an "independent" Scotland would be inheriting its per capita share of the (sadly) vast UK national debt, and revenue levels would only be enough to support a manageably small deficit in most years, the odd surplus in good years would go towards paying off debt, not setting up any sort of fund.

• It could be argued that taxation levels could be increased. Thing is, the oil industry already says UK taxes are too high, and are choking off investment. So raising taxation further could well have the effect of reducing revenue for the medium and long term, and causing production to decay still further.

• Another Nat shibboleth is the idea of introducing a "depletion policy" - capping short-term production to eke out the reserves for longer. Norway has one. But as we have established previously, Norway has a lot more reserves than we do, and their production isn't declining as fast as ours is.

• And of course if we did have a depletion policy capping production at less than the "all-out" levels the companies are now using, then production would be lower. So would tax revenue. So the budget deficit would be higher. So there would be even less chance of any "oil fund".

Concluding, it appears that (as in many other areas) apparently well-intentioned Nat policies on oil fall apart when one looks at the numbers. There isn't enough there. We don't produce enough to ensure a reliable a budget surplus - and in any case we would inherit our share of the horrific UK debt - so there won't be an "oil fund".

Sorry, but that's it.

PS

Since we've just had the "debt forever" budget, I ought to mention the measures it contained "to unlock 2 billion barrels" of additional reserves.

2bn barrels = 280 Mtoe.

Already included in the estimates of ultimate reserves used above.

[BTW, if anyone wants to check the spreadsheets I've used in these posts, I'd be happy to mail them out. Let me know.]

Debunking the mythology of oil, part I

North Sea oil looms large in the debate over the future of Scotland, and correspondingly so in Nationalist mythology.

You see claims thrown around like "We have as much oil as Kuwait!" and "North Sea oil will last another 30 / 50 / 100 (delete as appropriate) years!".

These claims are, of course, so devoid of content as to be absolutely useless for anyone interested in the matter of whether "independence" would be a sensible option for Scotland. What matters is the annual level of production which can be sustained, and the associated levels of tax revenue. How long production will "last" is irrelevant, and comparisons with random foreign countries are spurious.

So I thought I'd fire up the spreadsheet and illustrate the facts and contexts behind the myths, in chart format - "picture telling a thousand words" and all that. The raw data come from the excellent BP Statistical Review for international comparisons, and BERR / DECC (or whatever they're called this week) for UK oil & gas production, and tax revenues.

Let's have a look at the production numbers. I've converted oil and gas production to million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) and added them together, and plotted the numbers for the UK, Norway, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. As we've established before, the geographic share of the UK total was some 83% in 2006-7, rising to just short of 90% in the next few years.


Well, the chart certainly does show that UK production was almost identical to Kuwait's in the last couple of years. Between 1980 and 2000 (with the exception of 1991), the UK was actually the largest oil & gas producer of the group selected. (Note also the dip in Kuwaiti production in 1991, when the Iraqi army came on tour.)

But this is a backward-looking picture. Decisions about "independence" are about the future, and it looks worrying that UK production peaked in 1999 and has since been in a fairly steep decline.

What indications do we have for the future?

We can look at remaining oil & gas reserves. The BP stats allow a comparison of proved combined oil & gas reserves across the UK, Norway and three of the Gulf states.


Oh dear.

While the Arabs all have over 15 billion tonnes of oil equivalent (Bn toe) left and Norway has over 3.5, the UK has only 0.85.

Let's express that another way - the reserves/production (R/P) ratio. Quite simply, you take the reserves number and divide by the most recent annual production.



Again, we get a similar answer. While the Gulf states have ratios of over 100 and Norway's is 18, the UK's is only 6.

That means the UK's proved reserves are only 6 times the 2007 level of production.

Of course, the oil won't really stop in 6 years. On the one hand, production is falling, and on the other hand more reserves will be added to the "proved" category.

So we really need to do a comparison of more than just the "proved" reserves. This isn't really possible for the Gulf states as they simply claim that all of their reserves are proved (although in fact there is a widespread suspicion that their numbers are overstated). However, we can do so using the official estimates for the UK and Norway.

(There are still some data issues here as the two countries use different units and categorise their reserves in different ways. What I have done is to extract the ratios between ultimate total and proved reserves in each case, and apply those to the figures from BP for proved reserves.)


This makes things a little better. Total UK reserves are estimated to be between 2.9 and 5.6 Bn toe. However Norway's reserves are much larger - between 5.2 and 10.7 Bn toe.

R/P ratios show the same story, of course: 20-39 years for the UK, 39-54 for Norway.


The hard facts are that the Norwegians have a lot more oil & gas than we do, however you do the analysis. So it makes the casual comparison between the two, which is often made, largely spurious.

So how does this all translate into a forward-looking view of production and tax revenue?

Well, here is the current official UK forecast, out to 2020 for production and just one year (2009-10) for tax revenue.

I've also done a plot of tax revenue against oil price - again, the final (2009-10) value is the HMG forecast.

I'm going to save most of my conclusions for a future "part II" post, as this one has gone on long enough.

But it's clear that production is in inexorable decline, and that tax revenues - while dependent on the vicissitudes of the oil price - are never again going to hit the bonanza levels of the early 1980s. And since we know (from GERS) that the current levels of oil tax revenue are already being eaten by the current higher-than-the-rest-of-the-UK levels of public spending. 2008/9 might be an exception to that, but we'll see.

Which goes to expose Nat claims that there is some huge hidden "oil surplus" out there which could be used to build up any sort of significant "oil fund" in meaningful time as being fanciful.

More thoughts and conclusions next post.

A Scottish Quisling?

This isn't strictly "mythbusting", but it's my blog and I'll stray off-topic if I feel like it.

I have to thank the justly-renowned Grumpy Spindoctor for bringing to my attention the wartime travails of one Arthur Donaldson, a Nat who later became leader of the SNP in the 60s.

With my interest piqued, I was able to follow the trail to Wikipedia and to a 2005 Sunday Times article.

A quick inspection of the PRO catalogue shows that there is indeed a file entitled:

"HO 45/23801

WAR: Arthur Donaldson, Scottish nationalist extremist engaged in formation of United Scotland Party and Scottish Neutrality League: organiser of National Aid Society to assist conscientious objectors to evade military service by going into hiding; detention under Defence Regulation 18B"

(As well as a similar one dealing with a Mathew Hamilton.)

I periodically go to Kew to look at other (non-political) stuff. I'm planning a trip in the next couple of months. I think I'll have a gander at these files.

Why am I bringing this up?

Pure amusement. CyberNats are notorious for throwing around "Vichy" and "Quisling" as insults.

So isn't it deliciously ironic that one of their own founding fathers was apparently caught entertaining the prospect of becoming, quite literally, the Quisling-like leader of a Vichy-type regime?

Priceless.

Border barminess, part IV - Berwick (coda)

Today the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed ceased to exist, as it is now an integral part of the County of Northumberland.

(See previous post.)

"Diomhair" demolished

It's about time I got round to the promised overall review of "Diomhair". I've been delayed by the farrago over Dunfermline Building Society; while this is obviously a sad event, I have to admit to being amused by the predictable (and predicted) reaction of the CyberNattosphere, which has been to try and portray it as some sort of conspiracy-theory sabotage of "independence". Oh well.

In the interests of fairness and balance, I will open up with a (very) condensed summary of the "Diomhair" show's claims, and leave the comments for later. If I've missed something out, let me know.

1) Back in the 1940s and 50s, MI5 and Special Branch kept an eye on the SNP and wider Nationalist movement.

2) In 1947, 2 million people signed the "National Covenant" - a petition asking for some sort of devolution / home rule - but nothing really happened until the mid-70s.

3) At the time of the Queen's coronation in 1953, there was Civil Service concern over the political sensitivity of making any use of the Scottish Crown and regalia.

4) At around the same time, a few bombs went off in post-boxes. In Edinburgh 4 young Nats were arrested and convicted for related crimes. It was acknowledged at the time that they had been supplied with dummy explosives by the police, and it seems that the main prosecution witness (a John Cullen) may have been a police provocateur.

5) As the first attempt at devolution approached in the 1970s, various Civil Servants noted concerns about the possible impact on the rest of the UK, especially regarding oil revenues. Various options were suggested, including altering the Scotland-England maritime border, and/or encouraging the Orkneys and Shetlands to detach themselves from Scotland.

6) The UK government kept secret the amount of oil in the North Sea and the associated possible economic benefits; in particular, it suppressed the "McCrone Report".

Now for the review and response.

This programme displayed a truly shocking lack of context and balance. Nowhere was there an attempt to put its points against the background of all the other political and economic stuff which was happening; instead, just a pure presentation of Nat gripe after Nat gripe.

The only person interviewed who had participated in any of the events described was Gavin McCrone. There was no attempt to interview any one else "official" (and no disclaimer saying that any such interviews had been sought). Other than the presenter, four individuals were interviewed: an Edinburgh ex-copper, a "solicitor", one of the Stone of Destiny abductors and some other old buffer. Their main qualification for being interviewed seemed to be that they spoke Gaelic. OK, it was a Gaelic medium show, but this seemed to be restricting the interviews just a tiny bit.

The English subtitles were awful: poor grammar and punctuation, and when the presenter switched to English the subtitles did not match what he was saying.

Now for the point-by-point review and response:

1) Good. It's MI5 and Special Branch's job to keep an eye on fringe groups, and it is clear that the Nationalist movement did and does include some nutters. I hope and expect they're still keeping a discreet eye on some of them.

2) The "National Covenant" does sound impressive, but the thing with petitions and referenda is that you can always get people to sign up for something if you word it right.

However, this is one of the clearest examples of the programme not putting things into context. The Attlee Government had quite a few things on its plate in the late 40s: building the NHS and social security, the worst winter on record, Indian independence, disastrous finances, the Berlin Airlift, the Cold War, etc etc.

The programme tries to make something out of Attlee's declining to meet John McCormick (SNP leader and leading Covenant advocate) when he attended the Cowal Gathering in August 1950. Well, the Korean War had broken out in June 1950 and it might be thought that Clem had a few other things on his mind. However, none of this background was referred to by this supposed "documentary".

The facts are that the heat went out of the home rule issue for a good 20 years after 1950. People had more important stuff to worry about.

3) Yawn. Who cares which baubles are used in the Coronation?

OK, I'll bite a little because I do like this history stuff.

First, let us note that the Scottish sceptre and sword are considered to be too fragile to be used in any case.

Secondly, the Coronation ceremony already uses two crowns - the Crown of St Edward for the actual crowning itself, and the Imperial State Crown for the exit from the Abbey and return to Buck House. It's a bit difficult to see how you could work in a third crown.

The Scottish crown is older (by around 160 years) than the St Edward, but - frankly - by comparison it looks dull. The problem with substituting it for the Imperial State is that it is 80% heavier - the point of the Imperial State is that it is the "working" crown which can be worn for extended periods and is used for run-of-the-mill occasions like the opening of Parliament. So while it might be nice for the Scottish crown to be used, there are a few practical reasons for it not to happen.

And to return to the start, who cares?

4) Mildly interesting. It certainly looks to be true that this case - involving a sting where the police supplied the incriminating material - would never have made it to court today. But it also seems that our 4 brave Nat lads, on being given the dummy HE, responded with "Great! We can do St Andrews House!" Too bad, chums. Lucky you only got a year.

5) We can summarise this as "35 years ago, various Civil Servants suggested various things which never happened." Remember the phrase "Civil Servants advise, Ministers decide"?

As someone who periodically uses the National Archives at Kew, I am well aware that all sorts of weird and wacky options get suggested by Civil Servants, advisers, backbenchers, and so on. Most die the moment they are written. Some are meant to. Big deal.

The bias of the programme was also illustrated by the graphical sequence they used to illustrate this. The former maritime boundary - set up by nothing more exalted than a 1968 statutory instrument, and running east-west at 55deg50' N - was described as "accepted". Accepted by whom, other than the UK parliament, we ask? The answer is, of course, nobody.

Then the graphic purported to show the effect of the suggestion to re-align it to run north-east. Only the line was shown turning well beyond north-east, to exaggerate the effect. Pathetic.

6) Well, we've done this one in previous posts.

McCrone myth refuted

BBC Alba repeats Nat lies

There is little to add to that. It is difficult to "lie about" or "cover up" facts (actually forecasts) which were made public, in Parliament, in 1974/75. Either the programme-makers did no research or consciously chose to repeat and perpetuate falsehoods.

The only interesting aspect is Gavin McCrone's comments that he wrote his paper consciously to shake things up within Whitehall; to make the point that politically, Scotland had to see demonstrable benefits flowing from the North Sea. And the record shows that exactly that happened; the disappointment is that it's all flowing into a bloated public sector which doesn't seem that much more effective than the one in the rest of the UK.

"DIOMHAIR": BBC ALBA REPEATS NAT LIES

Well, well.

Last night I made it to the end of the BBC Alba "documentary" "Diomhair" ("Secrets").

The overall impression is that I have not come across something which made so little effort at impartiality and objectivity since Radio Moscow's "Sidelights on Soviet Life."

However, the content of the first 45 minutes is more or less "ho hum", so I will leave my general review for later.

I'll concentrate on the last 15 minutes or so. The producers clearly thought they were building up to a big climax. Which consisted of.....

....the same old lies about McCrone, straight from the Nat playbook. On this occasion they were stated in more stark terms than usual, which is actually welcome since it makes them easier to debunk. In fact, we've already done it here.

So, at around 48:20, our jolly Gaelic presenter claims:

"The UK government had quite a simple strategy. They wouldn't tell the Scots that the North Sea oil riches were vast."

This is repeated at 52:02:

"The truth about the the amount of oil that lay in the North Sea and the wealth it could create was kept hidden for 35 years."

There is just the tiny problem that the "amount of oil" was announced in Parliament on 23 October 1973 - that's before McCrone ever wrote his paper.

Let's have a look at Hansard:

“HC Deb 23 October 1973 vol 861 cc488-9W 488W

§ Mr. Sillars

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest estimates of the output from North Sea oil by 1980.

§ Mr. Tom Boardman

The report on production and reserves of oil and gas on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf which I presented to Parliament in May forecast a most likely range of oil production in 1980 of 70 million-100 million tons. Recent discoveries should ensure that the lower end of this range is reached; with further discoveries in the next year or two it should be exceeded.”

And in fact, oil production in 1980 turned out to be 80.5 million tonnes.

The programme also noted that McCrone's paper expected £100m of North Sea tax revenue in 1980, while the SNP claimed it ought to be £800m and, according to McCrone, "if anything this is too low".

Those bothering to read McCrone properly will realise that £100m is the correct figure under the old taxation system, designed in the days of $2/bbl oil and still in operation in early 1974. The SNP were indeed arguing for a more onerous tax system. So were Labour, the important difference being that they got elected and in 1975 introduced it as the new Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT).

“NORTH SEA OIL (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX)

HC Deb 25 February 1975 vol 887 cc290-9

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell):

The hon. Member asked for an estimate of revenues on the basis of certain figures of oil production in—I take it—the 1980s. He will understand that in the early years the revenue from North Sea oil will be relatively small but growing fast. In the early 1980s, at a figure of 100 million tons, it should be £2,000 million or £3,000 million. Of course, the higher the production the greater the consequent revenues. However, all figures in this respect must be treated with some caution because they depend, first, on the price of oil and, secondly, on the cost of exploration and development. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we wait to see what we get before relying on it too much. “

So, there doesn't seem to have been much of a “secret” here either.

I can only conclude that the intrepid producers of "Diomhair" are guilty either of a failure to discover, by the most basic research, that two of their prize "secrets" were actually a matter of public record, or of a conscious decision to parrot and repeat the brazen falsehoods of the Nats.

Given the content and tone of the rest of the "show" (to which I will return later), I know which explanation I favour.

Debunking "Diomhair"

It can't have escaped observers of the CyberNattosphere that the wee loves are all in a twitter about a Gaelic-language BBC Alba documentary called "Diomhair".

This, it is claimed, provides "proof" of the evil, dastardly machinations of the Unionist establishment against Scotland.

Sounds like just the sort of thing in need of a bit of Mythbusting. So I've sourced a YouTube copy and am going to settle myself down with a pen and notebook to transcribe the claims.

Back later.

Border barminess, part III - the sea boundaries again

I've come back to this one as a result of the latest media and Nat hysterics over maritime boundaries.

These have centred on FOI disclosures of various never-were policy options suggested by various Civil Servants in 1974-75 in the face of the apparently rampant (but in fact short-lived) SNP surge of the day. As usual, the standard of reporting is dire; it is stated that these suggestions led to a delay in the introduction of the first attempt at devolution, whereas those of us with knowledge of the real world know that in fact Labour made a procedural hash of their first Devolution Bill and had to withdraw it and start again. But, in any case, here is the Times' treatment of the issue. Personally I would summarise it as "Some stuff which didn't happen 35 years ago". Yawn.

The particular thing I want to tackle is contained in this Times graphic. Note the pink east-west maritime border line entitled "Line accepted by UN 1968".

Yes, we have another Nationalist Myth! This is total and unmitigated crap. Dear Reader, the UN has not, does not and will never have any authority over the UK's internal administrative boundaries.

I know exactly how this one came to be. A previous - and now, in terms of internal UK boundaries, entirely superseded and obsolete - 1968 version of the 1987 Civil Jurisdiction Order is "lodged with" the UN and on display at their website.

Why is it there? Convenience, basically, and because the 1968 order gave UK legislative force to the genuine international boundaries which were agreed by treaty when the UK, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium etc split up the North Sea.

The fact that it's on a UN website does not imply that the UN has somehow approved or been given any say over the UK's internal administrative boundaries.

Don't believe me? Do have a look at the bottom of the UN webpage:

"The designations employed and the presentation of the material on this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries."

So we return once again to the message of previous posts on this subject. International bodies have no say on the UK's internal boundaries. And the Acts of Union don't say anything about them either. So the UK Parliament can put those boundaries exactly where it likes.

...and Scotland and the UK would be treated "equally" by the UN / EU... not!

Following on from the last one:

Just as a UK sans Scotland would happily carry on calling itself, and being recognised as, the UK, it would also happily carry on with the UK's existing international rights, responsibilities and club memberships. Because like country names, those things are determined by the recognition of the rest of the world, not the minutiae of a state's internal constitutional documents.

There are many precedents for this. In 1920 the UK was a member of the League of Nations; in 1921 the Irish Free State seceded from the UK. The UK continued as a League Member and Ireland had to apply to join.

Same thing when the USSR broke up. Russia inherited the Soviet Union's status, the rest of the republics had to fill out the application forms. (Except Ukraine and Belarus, which bizarrely already had UN membership due to certain odd features of the way the UN was set up in 1945).

It is true that when Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia broke up they were treated as having been dissolved and there was no automatic inheritance of membership by any component - a voluntary arrangement for the Czechoslovaks, imposed by the UN for the Yugoslavs. But the notion that this would apply to the UK (with a hypothetical loss of 8-9% of its population and GDP) is ludicrous.

So in the event of Scottish "independence", the UK would carry on with its membership of the UN and EU and Scotland would be an applicant. This would not matter at all in the case of the UN - "they let anyone in, darling".

I would not suggest that there would be any major obstacles to EU entry either. But neither would there be any special deals; it would be "by the book". Which would mean no deals over fish; loss of the Scottish share of the UK budget rebate; loss of the remaining UK opt-outs; a commitment to join the Euro as soon as possible. Scotland would be treated as any other new entrant.

Why? As well as being the letter of the law, just about every existing EU Member State has potential separatists to worry about and none of them would want to encourage them by making it easy for secessionists to join. Spain is probably the most obvious example of this, and it also has to be recognised that Spain would also not be keen on any special deal over fish!

Moreover, EU entry - or even membership of the wider EEA, which includes Norway and Iceland - would require the unanimous consent of every existing Member State. Including the UK. So a hypothetical "independent" Scotland would presumably have to make sure there were no major breakdowns in its UK exit negotiations (perhaps over its share of the UK National Debt, or Faslane) or else find itself isolated on the wrong side of tariff barriers from all its major markets.

A sobering thought, I would hope.


PS

Hat-tip to DG, who pointed me in the direction of this CER paper (which basically covers most of the same stuff I have).

The UK would "cease to exist" if Scotland left

Well that's two posts in a row on issues which are modern and relevant. Time, surely, for another plunge into the ancient history of the constitution – although it turns out that this one does have some interesting modern and relevant implications.

It is often asserted by various Nats that the UK would “cease to exist” if Scotland seceded. Often this seems to be an example of what I have taken to calling the “Nationalist Cringe”: it's not enough to want the best for Scotland, one also has to want to do down the rest of the UK – particularly England, of course – too.

The claim is utterly vacuous nonsense. The 1707 Acts of Union only created the “Kingdom of Great Britain”. The “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” did not come into existence until the 1800 Acts of Union. The Irish Free State left in 1921. Did the UK “cease to exist” then? No, it added one word to its name - “Northern” before “Ireland” - and carried on.

So even according to the strict logic of its own constitutional law, the UK would remain in existence as long as any part of “Great Britain” is in “union” with any part of “Ireland”.

But that's actually irrelevant.

What states can call themselves isn't determined by their internal constitutions, but by what the rest of the world is prepared to recognise. Consider the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The only state I know of which has had trouble over its name is Macedonia, as the Greeks have vetoed the rest of the EU into recognising it only as “FYROM” on the grounds that its chosen name could imply a potential claim to the Greek province of Macedonia.

So a future hypothetical truncated UK could continue to call itself the UK as long as it wanted to. Even a toute seule “United Kingdom of England” - it would be a kingdom, and united, after all! The only possible obstacle to this would be, say, if an “independent” Scotland were somehow able to persuade a large number of important states that the UK should not be recognised under that title.

Dream on, Nats.

So why is any of this remotely relevant today? Well, just as for names of states, the same rule applies for their international rights and obligations, and membership of international organisations like the EU and UN. It's determined by the recognition of the rest of the world.

To be continued in the next post.

It's Scotland's oil! (But how much?)

Well actually, technically and legally it isn't Scotland's oil right now, it's the UK's and the tax revenues from the North Sea (and Irish Sea) oil and gas are attributed to an entity called the “Extra Regio”.

However, thanks to the SNP (a combination of words you will not often see here) the June 2008 edition of the Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland report (GERS) examined how the Scottish public accounts would look if a geographic share of North Sea tax revenue was attributed to Scotland. This was based on some research commissioned from the respected Aberdeen University oil expert, Professor Alex Kemp, and his associate Linda Stephen.

The Kemp & Stephen paper does all the work for me so this blog entry will be mercifully short!

Now, the particular Nat myth we are debunking is the often bandied-around figure that, on a geographic basis, Scotland would get 95% of North Sea revenue. As an example, here is where someone spoils an otherwise serious bit of work back-checking the GERS numbers by arbitrarily “correcting” the Scottish share of North Sea revenue to 95% - an error worth almost £2bn on the surplus / deficit calculation.

As usual, the myth is based on a grain of truth. A look at page 11 of the Kemp & Stephen paper shows that the historic Scottish geographic share of physical oil production is indeed close to 95%, and that it rises to 97% in the future.

But the North Sea doesn't just produce oil, it also produces gas. And that gas produces tax revenue, too. A look at page 12 of the Kemp & Stephen paper shows that the Scottish share of gas production is much lower, 58% rising to 67%. This is due to the fact that a lot of the gas is produced from the Southern North Sea and the Irish Sea.

Put all this together and you end up with the picture on page 29 of the Kemp & Stephen paper, showing that the Scottish share of total North Sea oil and gas tax revenues has averaged 80-something-% for the last few years and will stay around 90% for the future.

Why is the difference between the factual number of 90% and the mythical one of 95% important? Well, it makes a billion or two of difference to the fiscal balance calculation, which is after all the small difference between two large numbers.

So the next time some Nat claims Scotland has some kind of huge surplus of North Sea tax revenue which is being hidden away, beware. It just ain't so.

Myths needing busted, part III

Continuing my public aide memoire as to future topics:

"North Sea Oil will last another 50 years"

"An independent Scotland and the UK would be treated equally as regards EU / UN membership"

"Scotland has no enemies"

The McCrone myth refuted

There is a gent called Gavin McCrone – now a fully paid-up member of the great and good: full title Professor Gavin McCrone CB FRSE, chairman of the enquiry into reforming teachers' pay and various other things. He was, formerly, an economic adviser to the old Scottish Office, and in that function he wrote a little paper back in 1974 called “The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined”.

In 2006 this was the subject of an (apparently) SNP-originated Freedom of Information request, and was released into Nationalist legend and mythology.

According to the myth, the “McCrone Report” “proved” that “London” (or often, “Labour”) had “lied for over 30 years”, “concealing the extent of North Sea oil”, “hiding the wealth it could yield”, etc etc etc. Here is a particularly lurid example.

When I first came across all this I was genuinely interested. What shocking revelations could I expect to see? The result was rather disappointing.

Firstly the McCrone paper (18 pages plus a covering letter) contains, as far as I can see, no actual facts – just some forecasts from 1974 looking forward to 1980, and some opinions about the implications of those forecasts.

It will be appreciated that it is conceptually difficult for anyone to “lie” about forecasts and opinions – they might turn out to be right or wrong, but nevertheless genuinely believed when made.

Secondly, we can exonerate the Red Rose Brigade from “lying” in either of the 1974 General Elections. As McCrone's own 23 April 1975 covering note states:

“The Paper was written over a year ago in the weeks immediately before the February 1974 Election.”

I.e. the paper was written in the final days of Ted Heath's 1970-74 Conservative government. There is a Civil Service convention that an incoming Government is not ordinarily or immediately shown papers commissioned by its predecessors, so April 1975 is quite likely the first time anyone in Whitehall was aware of McCrone's paper. The overall tenor of his covering note seems to confirm this.

Next, let's look at the actual alleged “lies” and “deceptions”. Did anyone conceal the true extent of North Sea oil from the public? This suspicion seems to centre on the following passages:

“So far all that Minister have said is that they expect North Sea oil to be yielding 70-100m. tons of oil per annum by 1980...

...All the above figures are, of course, based on the estimated output of 100m. tons of oil in 1980. This was the DTI’s revised estimate in the early summer of 1973. Already it is beginning to look as if these estimates may be too conservative.”

Hmm. Let's have a look at Hansard:

“HC Deb 23 October 1973 vol 861 cc488-9W 488W

§ Mr. Sillars

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest estimates of the output from North Sea oil by 1980.

§ Mr. Tom Boardman

The report on production and reserves of oil and gas on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf which I presented to Parliament in May forecast a most likely range of oil production in 1980 of 70 million-100 million tons. Recent discoveries should ensure that the lower end of this range is reached; with further discoveries in the next year or two it should be exceeded.”

And in fact, oil production in 1980 turned out to be 80.5 million tonnes.

So we can dismiss this one easily – in fact the expected extent of North Sea oil was put on the record in Parliament in 1973, and the forecast was if anything a little optimistic, since the 1980 outturn was towards the lower end of the predicted range.

Next, the question of North Sea tax revenue. McCrone gives a long and involved discussion of this on pages 5-6 of his paper, starting from the position that under the existing (1974) taxation regime, 100 million tonne production in 1980 would mean that:

“the Government revenue from rent and royalties from the whole of the Continental Shelf including the gas fields in the southern sector may be of the order of £100m. per annum at that time.”

McCrone notes that the existing North Sea tax regime had been recognised as inadequate and grossly over-generous to the production companies – although we have to remember that it had been set up in the pre-1973 oil shock days of $2/bbl oil! The tax system had been the subject of SNP and Labour criticism and was being reviewed by the Conservative government of the day. McCrone goes through various possible reforms and changes, ending up with:

“Government revenue following adoption of these measures would have been between £800m. and £1,200m. a year in 1980 depending on the system used and the prices prevailing in 1980; today, following the huge increase in international oil prices of recent months the corresponding figures are in the range of £1,500m. to over £3,000m.”

Once again, this was hardly a “secret”. Labour were elected to power in 1974 with a manifesto commitment to increase North Sea taxation, and in 1975 introduced the new Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT).

“NORTH SEA OIL (PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX)

HC Deb 25 February 1975 vol 887 cc290-9

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell):

The hon. Member asked for an estimate of revenues on the basis of certain figures of oil production in—I take it—the 1980s. He will understand that in the early years the revenue from North Sea oil will be relatively small but growing fast. In the early 1980s, at a figure of 100 million tons, it should be £2,000 million or £3,000 million. Of course, the higher the production the greater the consequent revenues. However, all figures in this respect must be treated with some caution because they depend, first, on the price of oil and, secondly, on the cost of exploration and development. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we wait to see what we get before relying on it too much. “

So, there doesn't seem to have been much of a “secret” here either.

The problem with relating these projections to reality is that neither McCrone nor Mr Dell made it explicit what money values they were using – which is a rather important point, given the rates of inflation and fluctuations in exchange rates and oil prices prevalent in the 1970s.

However, using Treasury data I have derived some figures for North Sea tax revenue in the early 1980s, expressed in 1973 £s. In 1980-83, North Sea tax revenues were £1.2-1.3bn. So it seems that both the McCrone and ministerial revenue forecasts were actually too optimistic by quite a long way. However, the most important thing is that the forecasts were public. Again, there was no “lie” or “concealment” about the extent of North Sea tax revenues.

The bulk of the rest of the McCrone paper consists of qualitative opinions about the economic impact of an independent Scotland keeping the bulk of these revenues for itself – budget surpluses, a strong currency and so on. These are not terribly earth-shattering; the proposition that divvying up X billion of oil revenue amongst 5 million people rather than 55 million would result in the 5 million having a larger share invites the response “No sh*t, Einstein.”

But again, how was this a “secret”? The SNP manifestos for the 1974 elections made exactly that case. Remember “It's Scotland's oil”? Nevertheless, although the SNP reached a pre-2007 high water mark in the October 1974 election (30.4% of the vote and 11 seats), they failed to achieve any sort of majority. The Scottish electorate of the 1974 elections had all the facts before it and still rejected independence. Presumably, scepticism about the narrow economic grounds of the SNP case played a part – at this point in time all these future oil tax revenues were hypothetical. This scepticism acted together with concerns about the wider social, political, and security issues. One might remember there was this minor gig called the “Cold War” still ongoing in 1974.

So what actually was kept secret? One thing. The fact that a (then fairly junior) civil servant had written an internal briefing paper in which he expressed an opinion that some of the narrow economic aspects of the SNP's (public) case for independence had some merit. Big deal; civil servants write briefing papers all the time, most of which never see the light of day. (Presumably right now there are briefing papers in St Andrew's House warning the incoming SNP administration that their plans for LIT and SFT were overwhelmingly likely to be ruled as ultra vires under the Scotland Act.)

And of course we have no idea if this opinion would have turned out to be correct. Would the level of investment in the North Sea have been higher or lower under an “independent” Scottish regime intent on higher taxes and restricting production? You choose.

So, to recap:

• the physical extent of North Sea oil was never a secret – it was announced in Parliament;

• the potential volume of North Sea tax revenue was never a secret - it was also announced in Parliament;

• the potential, hypothetical economic impact of such revenue was also never a secret – it was the centrepiece of the SNP manifestos of 1974;

• despite that, the SNP failed to achieve a majority for independence as the electorate evaluated their economic claims and rejected them;

Case dismissed. Next!

Agenda - myths needing busted, part II

Thanks for all the suggestions so far. Just splitting the list into a new post:

Scotland's "under-representation" in the UK parliament

The UK would "cease to exist" if Scotland left

"God save the Queen" is anti-Scottish

The UK's nuclear deterrent is useless because it is not "fully independent"

BTW, the McCrone piece is nearly ready.

Menu - myths needing busted

Just thought I'd put up a list of future myths to be busted, and invite any suggestions for more:

McCrone
Council Tax Benefit - "Scotland's money"?
"It's Scotland's oil" - but how much?
The "Green energy powerhouse"
The "distinctively Scottish" doctrine of "popular, not Parliamentary, sovereignty"

"It is normal for nations to be independent states"

The "Scotland-UN Committee" fantasy / hoax - that the UK was "forced" into devolution and moving the Stone of Destiny

Further suggestions welcome.

The HBOS / RBS saga

One of the things about business stories is that it can be very difficult, at the time, to get a true picture of what is really going on. Simply because the people with the real knowledge are forbidden to talk about it until some time later.

We now seem to have got to that point with HBOS, as the Lloyds flag was hoisted over the building on the Mound on Monday. The saga is also made all the more topical by the way that it both illuminates, and is illuminated by, the current travails of RBS. But the has already generated a whole new set of Nationalist myths, making it ideal fodder for this blog.

Let's think back to autumn 2008. Fears about the viability of the banking sector were crystallising – in public at least – around HBOS. Its shares led the sector in the downward plunge, reflecting the fact that it had the second-highest exposure to short-term wholesale funding after Northern Rock. Short-sellers naturally began to focus on the stock, although it subsequently appeared that their influence was much less than supposed at the time. As the shares plunged, a run on HBOS deposits also threatened, with a number of large depositors reportedly clearing their accounts.

In short order, HBOS announced that it had agreed a takeover by Lloyds TSB, and the Government announced a £37bn recapitalisation programme for the banks. £20bn of this was for RBS, making for a state holding of around 60%. £11.5bn was for HBOS and £5.5bn for Lloyds, to be implemented after their merger and amounting to a state holding of over 40%. The Government said that it welcomed the LTSB/HBOS merger and intended to override the competition concerns which would normally have prevented such a move, on the grounds that the stability of the banking system took precedence.

For the next few weeks and months, much of Scotland appeared to go bonkers. Strangely, the majority-nationalisation of RBS seemed to cause little stir. On the other hand, the prospective “loss” of HBOS was greeted with consternation and outrage. Some of this was had a rational basis: the prospect of branch closures and job losses arising from the substantial overlap, the likely loss of head office functions in Edinburgh, the reduction in banking competition and a possible reduced focus on the Scottish corporate sector.

On top of this, however, was overlaid a froth of emotion – something reacting to the apparently “iconic” status of HBOS. It seemed important to some that the original Bank of Scotland had been founded before the Union, in 1695; that back in the 18^th century it had been seen as a “Jacobite” bank while the younger Royal Bank had been “loyalist”; some seemed to think that some sort of “National Institution” was involved, rather than a medium-sized High Street bank.

The Scotsman launched itself on a “save HBOS” campaign. So did the SNP's “licensed unofficial rentamouth”, Alex Neil MSP, together with Tavish Scott's Lib Dems. Various shadowy alternative deals were mooted, one apparently brokered by Jim Spowart, founder of the HBOS subsidiary Intelligent Finance. Bank of China appeared, and quickly disappeared, as a potential buyer. No concrete alternative offers were ever presented.

One of the more loopy of these was the initiative of the “banking knights”, Sir George Mathewson and Sir Peter Burt, former bosses of RBS and BOS, respectively. Their proposal was that management of HBOS should be turned over to them. Why? On their say-so, apparently. One of the odder features of their approach was their emphasis on the fact that the £11.5bn recap of HBOS was proportionately less than the £5.5bn recap of LTSB, relative to their total capitalisations at the time of their last interim results, months before.

Which is a lot like saying that the patient who's just had a heart attack doesn't need surgery, because he seemed fine at the checkup six months ago.

All through this period, the stock market displayed what it thought by consistently valuing HBOS' shares at a discount to the Lloyds offer of 0.605 of their shares for one of HBOS. And so the deal has duly, eventually, completed, voted through by massive majorities of the shareholders of both banks.

Meanwhile, the CyberNatosphere flew into hysterics. Brown and Darling were castigated as traitors who were deliberately orchestrating the takeover of HBOS as some sort of blow against independence. (The relevance of the ownership status of a mid-sized High Street bank was never made clear.)

Jim Murphy's statement that he was meeting with Spowart to discuss his abortive alternative bid was blown up into some sort of spoiling tactic, as was the anonymous leak of Bank of China's possible interest. (As far as I know, this leak has never been sourced. And in any case, companies with a serious interest in a transaction do not run away if their name is leaked. They say “We do not comment on rumour” and get on with it.) Even the fact that the BBC's Robert Peston is the son of a Labour peer was given hysterical significance by the myth-makers of CyberNattery.

With the benefit of time and a little hindsight, however, we can now garner a better view of what was going on. The excellent BBC Panorama documentary on the issue included interviews with Chancellor Alistair Darling, Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir John Gieve, FSA CEO Hector Sants and Barclays CEO John Varley.

From this it is now clear that while the outside world was focusing on HBOS, it was actually RBS which was the biggest and most urgent concern, and the worry was that its probable inability to roll over its short-term funding could crash not only it, but the entire banking system. It was also clear that bailing out RBS alone would not solve anything, but that an initiative covering all the vulnerable banks was needed.

Thus the recapitalisation programme, the sums of which showed that RBS would become majority-nationalised. Recapitalisation of HBOS on a stand-alone basis would also leave it majority-nationalised, but there was an alternative here in that the Government was aware that Lloyds TSB and HBOS had informally discussed the possibility of a merger. (And there is nothing wrong or suspicious about this; companies do this all the time.)

So the options were:

1. Recapitalise RBS, HBOS and LTSB on a stand-alone basis. Most expensive option for the taxpayer. Results in two large state-controlled banks.

2. Recapitalise RBS, merge LTSB and HBOS and recap the merged bank. Cheaper for the taxpayer. Results in only one state-controlled bank, as the state share in the merged LTSB/HBOS would only be a minority.

3. Let the banks fail and nationalise them for nothing. Cheapest option for the taxpayer. Destroys the banking system, with all that's left of it in state hands, and probably wrecks the economy too.

It shouldn't be too hard to work out why option 2 was selected. By getting LTSB in to do some of the heavy lifting on HBOS, it not only reduced the cost of the exercise but also avoided the competition nightmare which would result from having two big state-controlled banks operating side-by-side, which balanced out the competition concerns which would flow from letting HBOS and LTSB merge.

The Treasury's reported reluctance to give any more than pro forma encouragement to any alternatives for HBOS also looks much easier to understand. The crisis in confidence in the banking sector was so great that nothing less than a fully-funded bid from a strong, existing player would be running great risks; any bids involving uncertain funding, management inexperience or unclear strategy would lack the necessary credibility to calm the market. This applied to all the putative alternative bids which were floating around.

The travails of RBS in the last week – share price collapse, and conversion of the government's preference shares to ordinary ones, taking the state holding to 70% - provide further support for the Treasury's view. Is there any doubt that, if HBOS had been “saved” and recapitalised on a standalone basis, it would not now be in an equally bad or even worse position?

It is also noteworthy that the now state-controlled RBS is embarking on a cost- and job-cutting programme, following in the footsteps of the state-owned Northern Rock, which is in the process of reducing headcount by one-third. Again, it seems pretty clear that a “saved” but state-controlled standalone HBOS would also be cutting costs and jobs – possibly even more so than the merged Lloyds/HBOS will do.

So with hindsight and better information, it looks pretty clear that there has been no machiavellian Nat-dishing strategy at work in the HBOS / RBS saga. Rather a rational attempt to balance out the various competing interests at stake while trying to limit the economic damage as far as possible.

There is, of course, plenty of blame to go round for getting us into the mess in the first place, and as the guys on the bridge at the time Labour have to share more blame than most. But all the other parties bar the Lib Dems were also signed up to the same policy approach – including Alex “light touch regulation” Salmond – and we as individuals have to take some responsibility too.

And we're not out of the woods yet. Continued turmoil in the bank sector could yet mean state control or even outright nationalisation for both RBS and the merged Lloyds group. Which would mean the nightmare of even more of the banking sector being run by the government, with all the competition and conflict-of-interest issues that would entail.

We can only hope.

Wrong number, ma'am?

Thought I'd celebrate my HTML victory over blogger putting up my comments in black-on-black with a quick post. This one is a bit trivial, but at least it's 20^th century.

Literally and mathematically speaking, Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, isn't. I.e. she is not the “Second” Elizabeth to hold that title, she's the first. Similarly, Edward VII and VIII were really the first and second, and William IV was the first.

What's going on here is that in all these case the “regnal numbers” used reflect the count of monarchs of England, not that of the UK or Great Britain. Why has this been done? Presumably because England has always massively outnumbered everyone else and the capital and court are usually there, so it was felt that starting the count again would cause too much confusion.

This has always annoyed some people in Scotland. Particularly Nats. To the point that in 1953, the then-leader of the SNP John MacCormick took the Government to court over it. This was the MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate case (1953 SC 396), some side remarks from which are often quoted in the context of the constitution (a matter we will leave for another blog).

The court threw the case out. Essentially they ruled that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative; in effect, Auntie Betty could call herself Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, or Brenda Queen of Sheba if she liked.

The case also led to an exchange in Parliament, between a Glasgow (Tory!) backbencher and the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill:

“ROYAL STYLE AND TITLE

HC Deb 15 April 1953 vol 514 cc199-201 199

§ 46. Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

asked the Prime Minister whether, in advising the Sovereign to assume the title of Elizabeth II, he took into consideration the desirability of adopting the principle of using whichever numeral in the English or Scottish lines of Kings and Queens happens to be the higher.

§ The Prime Minister

The decision to assume the title of Elizabeth II was of course taken on the advice of the Accession Council and the form of the proclamation was approved by Her Majesty's Government.

Since the Act of Union the principle to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers has in fact been followed. Although I am sure neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter, I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher. Thus if, for instance, a King Robert or a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession, thereby emphasising that our Royal Family traces its descent through the English Royal line from William the Conqueror and beyond, and through the Scottish Royal line from Robert the Bruce and Malcolm Canmore and still further back. Her Majesty's present advisers would for their part find no difficulty in accepting such a principle. From this it naturally follows that there should not in their view be any difficulty anywhere in acknowledging the Style and Title of Her present Majesty.”

So Winnie was saying that although in theory the Crown can do what it likes, in practice the idea is that the higher of the regnal numbers deriving from either the Scottish or English counts would be used. So any future James would be James VIII, and a Robert would be Robert IV.

Sorted, then?

Almost.

I have a suspicion that this little exchange was a put-up job, that Winnie's words were chosen very carefully (lessons perhaps for Mr Salmond in how not to mislead Parliament), and that the real thought process was “just use the English number because that's what we've always done.”

However I can't see that it matters in practice. The matter has now been put on record in the highest forum of the land, and that ought to settle it.

It would be nice if we could see an actual test of the rule, say by one of Princes Charles or William taking the throne as, say, James VIII. Or they could be really daring and use one of the more outlandish Scottish names – anyone for Macbeth II?

Border barminess, part II – “Scotland's stolen 6000 square miles”

Might as well finish up on the “borders” theme, since I've started it.

Having dealt with Berwick and the eastern end of the land border, we now move out into the North Sea.

One can find various lurid Nat rantings about the “theft of 6000 square miles” of North Sea from Scotland – here is an example. Now if the rather hysterical-sounding claim that “In 1999 Westminster moved Scotland's Marine Boundaries from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie. Illegally making 6000 miles of Scotland's waters English.” was true, then one might justifiably feel that it was a little unfair. So is it true?

First, we have to note that, as with Berwick, the Acts of Union don't actually say anything about the position of the border. So it is open for the UK Parliament to set its internal boundaries where it likes.

It appears that the situation is complicated by the fact that Parliament has set up (at least) two different sea boundaries for different purposes.

One was set up by Statutory Order in 1987, and defines in which sectors of the UK's surrounding seas Scots, English and indeed Northern Irish law will apply.

On the North Sea side, this line starts off at the coast and heads off north-east, continuing the line of the land border. Then it takes a jog south-east for a bit, before heading due east along the 55°50' latitude line until it reaches the international dividing line in the centre of the North Sea.

The reason for the south-easterly jog is not entirely clear but may well have been deliberately drawn around the Berwick Bank fishing ground, in order to keep that in one jurisdiction.

Another boundary was set up by a new Statutory Order in 1999, specifically intended to apply to fisheries regulation. This sets off on a similar (but not identical – see below) line to the 1987 one, but has no south-easterly jog, but instead gradually curves around to a roughly easterly heading, until meeting the international dividing line some way north of the 1987 line.

According to the then-Scottish Office Minister responsible for the Order, Henry McLeish, the new line was based on the “median line” methodology recommended by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLoS) to define international maritime boundaries – each point on the line is equidistant from the nearest points of the English and Scottish coasts. (I have to confess that I have printed out a map and verified this with a pair of old compasses.)

The new line provoked some genuine dismay and puzzlement since, despite being intended to apply to fisheries regulation, it somewhat less-than-helpfully cuts through the Berwick Bank area.

There is also something of a mystery in the inshore sector. A close examination of the co-ordinates given in the two Orders show that the two lines run almost, but quite, together – there is a gap of around 80m. As far as I know this has never been explained, and may simply be due to more accurate cartography in 1999 than in 1987, and a decision to stick rigorously to the “median line” methodology.

So, where are we with our hysterical Nat claims?

Clearly, the maritime boundaries have not been moved “from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie”.

That is claptrap, or even a blatant lie.

“Illegally making 6000 miles of Scotland's waters English.”

Well it's not “illegal”, since the UK Parliament can set its internal boundaries where it likes.

The 1999 line does run well to the north of the 1987 line (except, bizarrely, in that odd little inshore sector where they don't quite run together), and the difference in areas covered may well be 6000 square miles.

But as long as Scotland is part of the UK it makes little or no difference to anything, and if Scotland does ever leave, then the line has been put in the place where international law would most likely put it anyway. So I see no “theft”, either.

There does remain the question of setting up a new boundary line for fishery regulation which isn't entirely suitable for the stated purpose, and which doesn't match up with the 1987 boundary even where it looks like it ought to.

Well, I can only think of it as a price of “devolution in action”. A corollary of the process means that the UK's internal boundaries become more significant than before, and the government of the UK ought to be impartial between its various parts. So applying the principles of international law to the internal boundaries can hardly be objectionable.

The inconsistency between the 1987 and 1999 lines is a bit ridiculous, though. Any chance of a new order to line them up?

Edited to add:

For background, a Scottish Parliament Committee Report and Briefing Note. There's also a full debate, but frankly I wouldn't bother.

Border barminess, part I – Berwick

It's taken me some time to get going on this blog, so I'd better make a start. I had intended to kick off with something just a little bit more modern and topical, but this one has come up recently so I thought I'd give it a go.

Believe it or not, there are nutters in the world who think the fair town of Berwick-upon-Tweed is still part of Scotland. I have no idea why these people think this is important, but they exist.

As usual, the myth is founded on a couple of grains of truth. The first of these is the 1237 Treaty of York, which defined the Anglo-Scottish border as stretching from the Solway to the mouth of the Tweed. This put Berwick on the northern, Scottish side of the river.

However, history moved on, and wars, skirmishes and general unpleasantness continued to occur. Berwick changed hands several times, and was captured by England for the final time in 1482.

There it has stayed ever since.

However, we now come to the second grain of truth which has fed the myth. For several centuries Berwick had a curious and anomalous legal status - “of England but not in it”, under the sovereignty of the English crown and parliament but not formally incorporated into the kingdom. This is reflected in references in legislation to, for example, “Great Britain, Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isle of Man” (from a law passed in 1841).

Indeed, there is one such reference in the English version of the Act of Union:

“to maintain and preserve inviolably the said Settlement of the Church of England and the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government thereof as by Law established within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland the Dominion of Wales and Town of Berwick upon Tweed “.

There is no corresponding counter-claim in the Scottish version of the Act.

We thus have the English Parliament asserting sovereignty over Berwick, and the Scottish Parliament failing to. This suggests that the Scottish Parliament of the day no longer wished to pursue any claim to Berwick.

Other than this reference, the Acts of Union make no mention of the Anglo-Scottish border. Since the purpose of the acts was to establish a new state with, nonetheless, two separate jurisdictions within it, it might be thought a bit careless not to define exactly what the boundary between those jurisdictions was.

But since the Acts of Union do not define the border, it is thus open for the Parliament of Great Britain (or later, of the UK) to set its internal boundaries where it likes, by simple legislation.

The next significant development is the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, which explicitly stated that legislation applying to “England” included Berwick. (Apologies for sourcing to wikipedia, but sometimes it's unavoidable; making obsolete legislation available on-line is not a priority for anyone, understandably).

Then, in the 1880s the borough of Berwick was incorporated into the county of Northumberland by the Representation of the People Act 1884 for Parliamentary purposes, and the Local Government Act 1888 for local government purposes. (For completeness, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 also defined the Scottish county of Berwickshire as not including the borough of Berwick.)

So, by 1888 we have Berwick legally incorporated into Northumberland for all political, administrative and fiscal purposes, as well as being subject to English law since 1746. Enough, surely, to conclude that by this point Berwick was most definitely part of England.

However, for good measure the Local Government Act 1972 made some revisions to the local government arrangements, and the Interpretation Act 1978 defined “England” as being:

“subject to any alteration of boundaries under Part IV of the Local Government Act 1972, the area consisting of the counties established by section 1 of that Act, Greater London and the Isles of Scilly.“

So if there were any doubts that being “in Northumberland” also meant “in England” these were now finally removed. The Interpretation Act could thus also repeal the Wales and Berwick Act.

The motivation for these final clarifications was no doubt the imminence of the first (abortive) attempts at Scottish and Welsh devolution, which meant that questions of boundaries between jurisdictions would become more significant.

So to recap:

• Berwick became de facto English in 1482;

• It became de jure – by an act of the UK Parliament – subject to English law in 1746;

• It was incorporated into Northumberland in two stages in 1884 and 1888, again by acts of the UK parliament;

• As if being “subject to English law” and “in Northumberland” didn't equate to being “English”, then this was given final legal confirmation in 1978.

Berwick is English.

Edited to add:

Later in 2009 the borough of Berwick is to be abolished into the new unitary county of Northumberland. Although this is in line with a national policy of promoting local government simplification, the actual option chosen was developed and selected locally, in Northumberland.

I'm sure, however, that this will not stop some from claiming this to be the latest Machivellian attempt to stop Scotland recovering "her" territory.

Further edit:

Inspired by some of the comments, I checked to see if the SNP have ever put up candidates in Berwick. They haven't.

The implication is that even the present-day SNP have accepted that Berwick is English.

Introduction

Inspired by the efforts of others, I have decided to start my own blog.

My political bias should be obvious, but a bit more explanation is necessary.

Over the years I have found that a vast proportion of the Scottish cultural and political outlook – particularly that of nationalists – has been based on myths. Too often have I come across things which have been “generally accepted” - sometimes things I have wanted to believe in – and found that in fact they are based on made-up hooey.

So I am setting up this blog as an archive of debunkery of these myths. This blog will necessarily be less topical and newsy than usual – that territory is pretty well covered already – but I hope it will nonetheless be of value.

Some of the topics to be covered will be modern and topical. Some will delve back into ancient, mostly irrelevant history – that, sadly, is the nature of some of the myths driving present-day nationalism. However I have unbounded faith in the capacity of Scot Nats to generate new myths on an ongoing basis, so I see no limit to the utility of this blog.

Let the fun begin.

Comments Policy

I intend to open the blog with a free comments policy. I have a declared political standpoint but I regard the search for truth as a higher duty, so I welcome comments and factual corrections from all quarters.

However, judging by the experience of others, this may well lead to the comments threads being overwhelmed with nutters calling me a cringing, traitorous, self-hating, lickspittle, Quisling Uncle Tom, combined with accusations of being someone else entirely. Such is the open, tolerant mindset of the modern Scottish Nationalist.

If this happens, comment moderation goes on. It's my train set. If anyone wants to call me names on the internet, they can set up their own blog and do it there.