MIA ASKS THE QUESTIONS AS SHE TAKES US DOWN MEMORY LANE
“The fact that RUK being the continuing UK state” Who, where, when and why decided this is now a fact? The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a bipartite political union between two independent sovereign states. This mean that both of them have, on dissolution of the treaty of union, the exact same right toContinue reading "MIA ASKS THE QUESTIONS AS SHE TAKES US DOWN MEMORY LANE"
“The fact that RUK being the continuing UK state”
Who, where, when and why decided this is now a fact? The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a bipartite political union between two independent sovereign states. This mean that both of them have, on dissolution of the treaty of union, the exact same right to become the continuing UK state and/or to refuse the other one the privilege of remaining as such. When did the people of Scotland agree to the Kingdom of England becoming the continuator state? I don’t recall having ever been asked.
“a complete irrelevance”
I don’t see any irrelevance here. The negotiators acting on behalf of Scotland would be seriously letting Scotland down if they were to hand over to the Kingdom of England the gift of all the perks of becoming the continuing UK State (for example the UN, NATO seats, each and everyone of the UK embassies, the whole structure of government and administration, and the enjoyment of each and every one of the treaties and trade agreements made by the UK while Scotland was part of it), and none of the inconveniences. It is only fair that if the kingdom of England takes on all the goodies that come with becoming the continuing state, it takes also the inconveniences, and that is for example the whole debt.
The proof that Mr Campbell and Saffron Robe are correct is in the Treaty of Union itself, which I invite you to read. In 1706 and within the union, England expected Scotland to pay a fraction of England’s pre-union acquired debt, but in exchange for a payment equivalent to what Scotland would be expected to pay of that debt. That figure is what they called the “equivalent” in the treaty of union. So the idea that England is just going to pass onto an independent Scotland its own debt for free as it has been doing for the last 300 years is ludicrous.
Scotland entered the union with no debt. Scotland never has had, for the entire duration of the union, control over either the UK government, the UK purse, the UK expenses or the UK parliament. It is England who has had that control. Therefore it cannot be credibly said under any circumstance now that Scotland inflicted ANY of that debt. It has been the staggering mismanagement of assets and finances by successive incompetent England as the UK governments and their unwillingness to live within England’s own means what have done so.
I invite you to take a look a the debt generated by England and by Scotland. For example let’s focus on a couple of things. Let’s start with the trade of goods, for example. Who is generating the deficit? Let me tell you: Scotland has not deficit in trade of goods. It actually brings revenue in. England however, generates a deficit in the trade of goods of around a staggering 100 bn per year. According to you we should have to take on an 8-9th (population share) of that deficit created by England, just for the sake of it.
Now take a look at how much electricity Scotland generates and how much it consumes. Scotland generates more electricity than it needs. This means Scotland does not generate deficit. Then look at the same for England. What do you see? Scotland generates an excess of electricity that England takes for free. But still is not enough and England has to import some from elsewhere generating debt. Debt that you expect Scotland to share.
Now take a look at how much Scotland is charged for putting electricity on to the grid and then look at how much England pays. what do you see? The more electricity Scotland puts in the grid, the more disproportionate compared with England is the amount it has to pay. The money Scotland pays goes to the Uk purse to which England’s governments help themselves on demand. In other words, England has an electricity deficit and creates debt. Scotland overproduces electricity and does not see any benefit for it. Instead it is overcharged for the excess electricity it produces to help England pay for the debt it creates due to its deficit of electricity. Meanwhile, England helps itself to Scotland’s electricity for free and makes Scotland pay a proportion of its debt under the guise of “grid charges”. It seems you expect this ponzi scheme to continue after the union has ended. The same applies to the oil.
Remember about the “ghost” ferries saga? Who made that mess? Was it Scotland at the time in control of the Uk government or was the government England elected who nominate the superlative incompetent minister responsible for that fiasco?
What about all those hundreds of millions of Uk revenues put aside “to help with brexit”? How many of those millions did we see invested in Scotland despite Scotland’s taxpayers being forced to pay for a portion of that help, even when we did not vote for brexit? None. Again, England creates the debt and Scotland is expected to help it paying for it.
Remember the 1.5 bn paid to Foster’s party so May could form a government? Scotland’s taxpayers had to contribute to a portion of that payment. Another example of how successive England as the UK govs create debt and then make Scotland pay for it.
Now look at the doings during Johnson’s tenure. All the PPE fiascos and the track and protect, tests, apps etc, etc, etc. Again, England creates the debt and expects Scotland to help paying for it.
Now look at the wars Scotland is being dragged into. There is quite a few for which a majority of Scotland’s MPs voted against. Why should we therefore be paying for that debt created by the Kingdom of England? If England wants war, it should pay for it itself.
And let’s not get started on how much Scotland has been forced to invest for England’s debt due to building infrastructure with no equivalent in Scotland…
So, when you add up all those payments of Scotland to England’s debt over 300 years it amounts to something. I see that you mention the “need” for Scotland to pay England’s created debt, but I did not see you mentioning England paying its debt with Scotland. For instance, take a look at the trillion dollars Norway has in its oil fund and that Scotland, had never entered the union, would have had just for itself too. I consider that part of the debt England as the UK has with Scotland.
And then of course there is the money Scotland has in the Bank of England to back up all the Scottish notes that are currently in circulation. That must of course be added to the England as the UK debt with Scotland. Just out of curiosity, what is backing the English notes currently in circulation? Is is money/gold or whatever they are using and that is owned exclusively by England or is it in reality UK’s so Scotland, besides having to back itself its own currency, is having to also help backing England’s own notes? Well, if that is the case, the Scottish portion needs to be added to the debt, don’t you agree?
“There are only two ways for Scotland to exit the Union.”
I don’t agree with this. I think there is only one way to “exit” the union because “exit” implies Scotland leaves but the “union” somewhat remains in existence, albeit in a different form.
That appears to be the route Sturgeon talks about. In my view this is the worse possible option. This is the British nationalist route, the “one nation” UK route. This “route” is the only one that ensures the kingdom of England will remain as the “successor” state of the UK by default and will pocket all the common assets. The problem with this route is that Scotland needs to demote itself to the rank of region of Greater England and “accept” somewhat England or the crown itself have any right to deny Scotland its legitimate right to end any treaty it entered as a sovereign state.
That route demands the people of Scotland to depose their own sovereignty to embrace the sovereignty of the crown and the sovereignty of a parliament formed by a majority of England MPs instead. That is the worse possible and the most humiliating and indignifying route Scotland could ever take.
Now, if what you want is to END the union, then there are at least two routes :
1. Mutual agreement between the two partners in the union to dissolve the treaty – this is very unlikely because England is so used to siphon the resources of everybody else at will and to exploit everybody else’s markets for free that cannot see itself not doing it anymore.
2. Scotland exercising its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the treaty . The reasons: change in circumstances and consistent violation by successive UK govs and parliaments of the fundamental conditions of the treaty of union, including the claim of right. What Scotland needs is to bring its partner to the negotiating table to divide the assets and this will ensure its attention.
In the context of Scotland being one of the signatories of the treaty of union, UDI does not exist. Scotland cannot declare its own independence without declaring at the exact same time the independence of the kIngdom of England too. Scotland is not a region of the Kingdom of England trying to secede like Catalonia. Scotland is a sovereign state reverting to its original status by ending an international treaty into which it entered voluntarily under some fundamental conditions that should have been respected in perpetuity.
“No agreement is happening without Scotland making a huge contribution to the UK for UK debt and that will be denominated in £sterling”
Don’t be ridiculous. If Scotland terminates the union there will not be a UK left and, without Scotland’s assets to prop it up, Sterling will plummet. Why do you think the establishment types are no so desperate for Scotland to continue using Sterling after independence?
Can you imagine a mini-budget from hell announcement, with tax cuts for the rich by an English chancellor if Scotland would have been independent and nothing was propping up Sterling?
We are having this conversation at the same time as the Bank of England are trying to stabilise the markets as the recent budget has frightened the markets who question the strategy of borrowing huge amounts only to hand out large tax cuts to people, many of which will hastily rush to put it in offshore accounts. The coming weeks and months will feature new and even more serious problems for Westminster. I fully expect and hope Scotland can play a full role in such developments. The “Better Together ” sterling downward spiral continues.
I am, as always
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND
BEAT THE CENSORS
Unfortunately some pro Indy websites are not pro Indy. They are pro SNP sites and ban any content on their sites which dares to question the SNP or the SNP leader. They seek to censor discussion and free expression. Fortunately many of my readers share the articles on Yours for Scotland frequently and because of this the attempted censorship is proving ineffective. This support is very important and I thank everyone who share and protect freedom of speech and choice.
Are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This will ensure you will receive notification of all new posts by email and be the first to get key information when it is released.
The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development of 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. All donations to this site for the remainder of 2022 will be forwarded to Salvo to support them in developing and expanding this valuable work.
Please register at Liberation.scot and join the mass membership organisation that will be the signatories to our application to the UN, and debate and organise a new Scottish Constitution. The membership of Liberation is also where the first members of Scotland’s National Congress will be balloted for selection.