SCOTTISH 'NO' VOTE MEANS MORE CHAOS FOR ENGLAND.

And so, after an increasingly frenetic few weeks, the people of Scotland have rejected the idea of full independence. The pollsters who told us that the vote was 'neck-and-neck' have, once again, got it horribly wrong and Alex Salmond's dream has been dashed at least for now. By 55.3% to 44.7%, the United Kingdom will remain united for a few more years.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of our problems. Despite saying that he accepts the verdict and that the independence debate is now closed for a generation, or even a lifetime, it's a racing certainty that many of his colleagues won't see it that way; the likelihood of another referendum within a decade or so has to be very high. Even before that, we're now faced with fulfilling the assorted promises made by Cameron, Miliband and Clegg and trying to make sense of these not only for Scotland but also for the rest of the country. The 'West Lothian' question has already come dramatically to the fore with many people now asking how Scotland can be granted virtual independence within the Union while the same privilege is denied to England; the implications for the future of the UK constitution and Parliament are mind-boggling.

Cameron has said that everything should be resolved by the time of the General Election in May of next year. This is clearly nothing other than political bravado as he tries to pretend that he's in control; the simple truth is that he and the other main party leaders panicked and made a raft of stupid promises without having any idea as to how they would be fulfilled or what effect they would have elsewhere. Once reality is restored, there'll be rapid realisation that what we actually have is a nightmare situation which will take years to resolve if, indeed, resolution is possible.

All the main parties are focussed on next year's election and, as the date approaches, they'll become more and more terrified. The winners, certainly in England, may well be UKIP who should be able to profit from the total disarray of the rest allied to an upsurge of English nationalism. Oh, what fun it's all going to be !

SCOTLAND ON THE BRINK.

As we move into the last week of the Scottish Independence campaign, it is increasingly apparent that the result will be very close. Whichever way it goes, the implications for the whole of the UK will be significant and, quite probably, traumatic.

If Scotland votes 'Yes', it raises questions about the future of Sterling and the national debt, the financial services industry, many of our major institutions and businesses, our defence forces, and many, many more areas. It raises possible questions about next year's General Election and what will be done about the 59 Scottish MPs who may then be returned to a Parliament in which they will have no more than a couple of years service. In Scotland itself, decisions will have to be made about the currency, membership of international organisations such as the EU, NATO and the UN, border controls, defence, and so on. It may be many years before all of the questions are resolved.

If the vote is 'No', Scotland will be given much greater control over it's own finances and services and many of the same questions arise. The granting of much greater autonomy to the Scots will lead to an upsurge in demands for similar treatment for Wales and, perhaps, the more remote English regions; there will be questions raised about the future of the 59 Scottish MPs at Westminster and demands for an 'English only' parliament. Worse still, a narrow 'No' vote will almost certainly mean a further referendum within a decade or so, one which will almost certainly result in a 'Yes' vote.

One way or another, Scotland will almost certainly gain independence within the not very distant future and we will have to deal with the issues outlined above, plus many others. Currently, our political masters claim to have made no contingency plans and are panicking greatly. No doubt there are some contingency plans somewhere but it may be that we should hope for a 'No' vote next week in order for there to be some more comprehensive planning for the future. It would also give Alex Salmond and his mates time to work out some proper plans for the management of an independent Scotland, though this would probably not be in their interests as proper plans are the last thing people relying on emotion would want.

Roll on next Friday, Scotland's 'D-day'.

SWINNEY ISSUES STERLING THREAT.

John Swinney, the man who sees himself as Scotland's 'Chancellor of the Exchequer' is in a real panic, so much so that he's now issuing threats against the UK government.

All 3 main UK political parties have made clear that, should the Scots vote for independence in September, they will not enter into a currency union with the newly independent nation. While they acknowledge that Scotland could continue to make use of sterling as its currency, there would be no formal agreement and the pound would continue to be managed from London as now. Swinney and his pals in the SNP don't like this and so are now threatening that no currency union would mean Scotland refusing to accept its share of the UK's national debt, currently estimated to be about £100bn.

Exactly what planet Swinney is living on is a bit of a mystery though it clearly isn't the same one inhabited by the rest of us. Why does he think that Scotland, having rejected its place in the United Kingdom, should be entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits of its old currency in a formal currency union ? Why does he think there is a link between using the currency and national debt ? Why does he think that the government of the rest of the UK doesn't have plenty of routes by which it could take back the £100bn if it chooses to ?

The SNP wants Scotland to be independent and yet is madly trying to reassure its troubled population that nothing will change if it achieves its goal EXCEPT that everything will be much better than now. Poppycock.

If an independent country does not control its own currency it has no financial freedom whatsoever. As a minor partner in a currency union it would have little power and would almost certainly have to submit its budget to the UK Treasury; in an informal arrangement it would have no control whatsoever over the value of the currency and exchange rates as well as interest rates, little control over tax rates and would be entirely at the mercy of the economy of the remaining, and much larger, part of the UK. It would not have its own 'central bank' and would not be able to borrow independently; it would be no more than a vassal state.

With all of these restrictions, why on earth does Swinney want to keep the pound ? The simple answer is that he has no choice as the only alternative for Scotland if it wants to be a member of the EU is the Euro. An independent Scotland would almost certainly have to apply to become a member of the EU and the rules of that egregious organisation require new members to adopt their benighted currency and all the restrictions that go with it. Swinney and his mates in the SNP see sterling as their way out, giving them a degree of bargaining power when it comes to EU membership.

For Scottish voters it's a case of 'the devil you know or the devil you don't'. Swinney, Salmond and the rest know that their people would shy away in their millions if the Euro was the currency of choice, so they've gone for the pound. Sadly for them, the people who represent the nations they want to reject don't like the idea one jot and have issued a resounding 'NO WAY !'. Whether any of this matters will become clear with September's vote, though any Scot with financial sense will surely say 'No' also.

ENGLISH DEVOLUTION A STEP NEARER.

The "Curly, Larry and Moe" of British politics have set themselves up for another right constitutional mess with their latest self-serving pronouncement about Scotland. All 3 of these stooges have committed to devolving more power to the Scottish parliament in the event of a 'No' vote in next month's independence referendum while giving no apparent thought to the implications for the Westminster parliament or, indeed, for England.

It's now being proposed that the Scottish mob will be granted extensive tax raising powers plus some serious autonomy with regard to social security provision. It won't be long before all of the major issues, except for defence and some of the Treasury's higher responsibilities, have been devolved, leaving one wondering what on earth a raft of Scottish MPs will be doing in the House of Commons. It also raises, yet again, the infamous 'West Lothian' question - if Scotland has a large dollop of autonomy, why should their representatives have any say at all over devolved matters when it comes to discussion in the House of Commons ?

Whether or not the Scots vote for independence, it is surely time for this issue to be resolved. It is ludicrous to allow Scottish MPs at Westminster to vote on matters which do not concern Scotland while denying English MPs a similar say on Scottish matters. For that matter, the same applies, though currently to a lesser degree, to the Welsh. In all of this, the English are in danger of being ruled by the votes of Scottish and Welsh socialist MPs at Westminster, while themselves being largely excluded from the government of Scotland and Wales.

This is not right and must be resolved.

SALMOND'S PLANS UNRAVEL.

As the debate over Scottish independence gathers pace, it's clear that the plans of megalomaniac Alex Salmond are unravelling.

Last week, George Osborne made it clear that an independent Scotland would be just that - independent. He ruled out Salmond's plan for a sterling currency union and was backed up in this stance by the principle financial representatives of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as well as by the top civil servant in the Treasury.

Next, the current president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, appeared on television on Sunday and stated fairly categorically that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU but could well be disappointed. Oh, Lordy, Lordy !

A cornerstone of Salmond's attempt to become Prime Minister, President or even King, of Scotland has been his constant claim that independence would change very little; the only real change would be to free it from the unwanted and hated attentions of the government in Westminster. According to Salmond, an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state (though no mention of what would happen once she is gone), would retain sterling as its currency in a currency union with the remains of the UK, and would still be a member of the EU. It is now clear that at least 2 of these claims have 'feet of clay'.

Whatever the people who live in Scotland, for they are the only ones with a vote, decide in September there'll be ructions. If it's a vote for independence, expect a lot of whingeing and whining from the people once they realise the true implications of their choice; if it's a vote to remain in the UK, expect Salmond and his mates to be back arguing for the so-called 'Devo-max', in other words, effective independence within the UK. The second of these would undoubtedly lead to considerable unhappiness in England as Scottish members of the Westminster parliament would continue to tell the English what to do while Scotland was not affected by their decisions.

Ho-hum ! Exciting times ahead.

SALMOND HEADS FOR HIS OWN CULLODEN.

A couple of days ago, Alex Salmond's lot in the chilly wastes of Scotland published their plans for an independent nation. That these plans are peppered with so many assumptions and holes that are worthless has been missed by very few.

 

Salmond wants his 'country' to be independent and yet he also wants to keep almost everything it currently has - the Queen as Head of State, the pound sterling as its currency, membership of the European Union etc., etc. He seems to have a notion that Scotland is the most successful and productive part of the United Kingdom, based on a variety of past issues and the belief that North Sea oil will last forever. What he really seems to want is to turn the clock back some 300 years, to the days when Scotland was little more than a collection of fiefdoms, nominally under the overlordship of a king or queen.

 

Salmond is attempting to con the Scots into voting for independence by promising them that the only significant change they would see would be the cessation of control from Westminster. This is, of course, nonsense. His assertion that a newly independent Scotland would still be a member of the EU has been refuted by a raft of EU officials; they are united in saying that Scotland would have to make a fresh application for membership and take its place in the queue.

 

Whether or not the Queen would wish to remain as Head of State is another question; would she wish to be Head of State of a foreign country which had rejected the old Union ? Would, indeed, the people and government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland wish to share their monarch with a foreign country which had shown such antipathy to the Union ?

 

Regarding Salmond's stated intention of retaining sterling as the new nation's currency, he has again made a claim which ignores European rules. Any new nation wishing to join the EU is required to adopt the Euro as its currency; Scotland would be no different, whatever Salmond might want. Even if this were not the case, would the Government of the reduced United Kingdom wish to share its currency ? What would be the effects on both Scotland and the nation it had left ? Tying itself to a foreign currency would certainly have a significant impact on the ability of a Scottish government to manage its own monetary affairs independently and might well make many of Salmond's other plans for a future economy impossible to achieve. One has only to look at the mess of the Eurozone to see this.

 

Salmond is a fanatic and all fanatics are dangerous. In his case, he is dangerous to the stability and future of a country, the United Kingdom, which has endured since the Act of Union in 1707. Salmond is also dangerous to his homeland, Scotland which, by the way, has not really been a country in an international sense since that same Act; it is part of the United Kingdom in the same way that New South Wales is part of Australia and California is part of the USA.

 

If the Scots want to go their own way, so be it, but let it be for genuine and supportable reasons, not the hyperbole of a mad modern-day Jacobite.  The one good thing about this whole process is that it will all be over by the end of next year, at least for a generation or two.