Sunday, December 01, 2013


Office of National Statistics, 2013. Published in the Glasgow Herald 27 November 2013.

If Scotland becomes independent its citizens will be richer than those in England.

This might explain why a number of people from England have already moved to Scotland.

Between 2007 and 2011,  820,000 people from the rest of the UK moved to Scotland.

Scotland becoming the place to live

Office of National Statistics, 2013. Published in the Glasgow Herald 27 November 2013.

"Television property shows used to be full of English couples moving to the Med for a better life. Now an increasing number are looking north - to Scotland.

"No prescription charges, an efficient health service, good schools and no university fees are all being cited by those moving north of the border. Add to that far cheaper property prices than in the South, and the attraction becomes even more potent."

No university fees, free prescriptions and a cheap house

The richest countries in the world, in terms of wealth per person, are mainly countries with small populations and a moderate degree of socialism:

Singapore, Norway, Sweden, Denmark...

Scotland already has its own parliament, but it has limited powers.

Scotland, since it got its parliament has been attracting more foreign direct investment than all the other parts of the UK apart from London.

Foreign investment: Catching the Scots | The Economist

Scotland's top politician Alex Salmond says that if Scotland became independent 'next week', it would be the eighth most prosperous country in the world for GDP and have an income £2,000 per head higher than the UK average.

Scottish independence 'could lead to job creation'

The mainstream media tries to tell us that Scotland will have 'adebt problem' if it becomes independent.

An independent Scotland would of course take on a share of UKdebt.

It is estimated that if Scotland took on 'a population share of UK public sector net debt', this would be equivalent to 72% of Scottish GDP.

This would be lower than the equivalent UK figure of 77%.

An alternative way to determine Scotland’s share of UK public sector debt could be to base the calculation on an estimate of Scotland's previous contributions to the UK’s public finances.

According to the economists, this would mean that Scotland’s share of UK debt would be 27.6% of Scottish GDP, lower than the population share calculation.

What about the UK's national debt? | Yes Scotland

According to Scotland's Alex Salmond:

"The one-size-fits-all economic policies of successive Westminster (London) governments have failed and are continuing to fail the people of Scotland.

"We perform well at the moment, but we should be doing so much better.

"A simple glance at many other European countries of similar size to Scotland, some without the natural advantages Scotland has, shows that we have lagged behind their growth rates for decades."

Scottish independence 'could lead to job creation'

According to Alex Salmond:

Scottish independence could lead to the creation of lots of new jobs.

According to Alex salmond, an independent Scotland would:

1. Focus on exporting more to countries such as China and Brazil.

2. Cut taxes on businesses.

3. Revive manufacturing.

There would be a revival of Scotland's engineering.

Scotland would copy Germany's Mittelstand model - promoting small firms with fewer than 250 employees.

There would be an expansion of the renewables industries, pharmaceuticals industries, financial services, food and drink, tourism and energy.

Industries would be helped through tax breaks, investment and the easing of red tape.

4. Make full use of its natural resources and huge human talent.


It is England that has the debt problem.

It is England that does not have vast oil wealth.

It is England that goes in for expensive foreign wars.

Vote YES for Scottish independence.


shirlz007 said...

don't forget the deep fried smack! (im only playing to any Scottish readers that may take offence... BRAVEHEART!)

Anonymous said...

This was a very interesting read, and you are correct about Scotland's oil wealth, because "England" has nothing, except what is off the coast of Northern Ireland, if I am not mistaken.


Anonymous said...

England's figures are highly distorted and skewed anyway. Take London out of the equation and England would probably be a third world economy.

dognamedblue said...

say there is a YES vote
and then things go really well
there turns out to be 96 billion in oil
and they decide to divide it up amongst the 5 million
they end fractional reserve banking
printing money as a debt to a private banking cartel
the government decides to print the money it needs spending it into the system by whatever budgetery means it wants rather than borrowing it as a debt

wouldn't it be a good idea to have some kind of border control?
there's going to be some of the worse kind of english looking over the border with greed in their hearts
60 million + of them
they'll bleed this country dry
and you can bet they'll send some subversive black ops over just to destroy whatever they can to bring it down
maybe it would be an idea to rebuild hadrian's wall again?
this time to keep them out

Anonymous said...

Hullo Aang,

Surely it should be "Vote Aye for Scottish Independence"?

yours (aye) etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:37

London is the most subsidised entity ever devised.

Do not mistake the fact that London collects and counts all the tax, and all the head offices collect and count revenues, for London GENERATING these revenues.

London's new sewer system has been designated UK spending, meaning everyone in the UK is paying a share. ie 90% of it is paid from outside London.

The BBC collects £4bn in license fees each year and spends £3bn of that in London! London contributes only a fraction of that.

Whitehall costs £12bn+ a year to run, with 90% of that paid from outside London.

The UK Govt subsidises the arts in London to the tune of £67 per head of population, but in the rest of the UK it is £2 per head.

All the "national" galleries, "national" museums, "national" sporting venues, "national" opera/theatres etc etc are classed as UK spending and therefore are subsidised by the UK taxpayer.

The Jubilee Line was another thing paid for by the UK taxpayer, Crossrail, HS2, the list goes on.

Public transport is subsidised to the tune of hundreds of £ per head in London, whereas elsewhere it is a few £ again.

But perhaps the worst subsidy is the talent that London sucks out of the rest of the UK because all the opportunity is monopolistically kept in London and the South East.

Take off those rose tinted spectacles and don't do the rest of England such a disservice.

john said...

I really hope Scotland votes for independence. This is worth a look though.

Anonymous said...

Hi Aang,

When I meet people from Scotland I use to ask them what their vote for Schotish independence would be. So far every one has given a clear NO for answer. My next question then is WHY? The answers to that varies: Military men are obviously worried they no longer will be able to see the world while doing some rightfull killing together with the British army. Other answers seem to originate in a lack of interest and a profound trust in England as their master. It is very strange. Perhaps my method of sampling has something to do with it.


walkingintodarkness said...

There's no independence from a 'yes' vote. How can Salmond in all seriousness claim to be independent whilst wanting to be part of the EU? Pointless, and by the way to join the EU now, you have to join the Euro, not heard Salmond comment on that. The EU will one day nationalise the oil reserves, only a matter of time.

Anonymous said...


One step at a time. Scotland at present has no power to leave the EU. An independent Scotland would have. At least Scotland can then make her own decision.

As for having to join the Euro, this is nonsense. Czech Republic for example didn't adopt the Euro when they joined a few years ago and still haven't.

Site Meter