Scottish Independence Vote Triggers Mass Banknote Shift Amid Fears Of Run On ATMs

Millions of banknotes have been rushed to Scotland amid growing fears a Yes vote on Thursday could trigger a run on the country's ATMs, it has been reported.

As the future of the union hangs in the balance, Scottish businesses near the border have also purportedly been moving their money into English accounts in Cumbria.

Fearing people will run to withdraw money and put it into English banks, the cash has been moved to ensure the banks and , ATMs do not run out.

The Bank of England prints bank notes and circulates them in high-security vans to where they are needed, depending on the demand.

One source told the The Independent there had not yet a surge in withdrawals: “We have seen a big rise in customers coming in and asking us what would happen, but there is no sign of any significant flow of deposits from north to south.”

Another said: "We are, of course, monitoring the situation very closely from hour to hour.”

Rob Johnson, the chief executive of Cumbria's Chamber of Commerce, said many firms were transferring funds from banks registered in Scotland to those headquartered in England.

"We know it's happening, but we can't give names," he told The Guardian.

"It's inevitable that people would start to do this because uncertainty is something businesses can't handle … It's not about businesses being pro or against independence, it's businesses saying: 'There are some real issues here and we don't know what's happening.'"

Read more here:

Alex Salmond's Independent Scotland Could Fail In A Year, Warn Experts, Huffington Post

An independent Scotland "would fail within a year" if it kept the pound informally and refused to take on its share of the national debt, according to an influential think-tank.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research warned that such an approach would lead to "unprecedented" austerity in a newly-independent Scotland. Meanwhile, any attempt to effectively default would see Scotland get a "junk" credit rating from international investors, who would then push up borrowing premiums or bar Scotland from capital markets.

The think-tank also indicated that it either risked isolating Scotland in Europe or setting off a "domino effect" of other European nations defaulting on their debts.

The think-tank said: "If Sterlingisation is combined [with] repudiating Scotland’s fair share of UK debt, we expect this regime would fail within a year."

This comes as Mark Wilson, the head of insurance giant Aviva, warned that the cost of borrowing would "almost certainly go up to cover the increased risk of being a smaller independent country".

The three main Westminster parties have ruled out sharing the pound in a formal currency union arrangement, but pro-independence campaigners have insisted that an independent Scotland would still use it informally, which has sparked warnings that it would need to make drastic cuts or tax rises to build up sufficient currency reserves.

Meanwhile, Alex Salmond has reportedly laughed off questions of how the UK government would react if a newly independent Scotland refused to shoulder its share of the national debt, saying: “What are they going to do – invade?”

Read more here:

Scottish independence: Ewan Morrison’s No switch. The Scotsman

AN award-winning Scottish author and screenwriter has defected from the Yes campaign to Better Together, blaming the nationalists’ “Trotskyist” tactics.

Ewan Morrison, who won the Scottish Book of the Year Fiction Prize in 2013 for his novel ‘Close Your Eyes’, joined the Yes camp four months ago, but recently changed his mind after being “berated for not having decided sooner or for having questioned Yes at all”.

Morrison argues on the ‘Wake Up Scotland’ blog that there is “zero debate” in the Yes camp.

The writer claims the “Yes camp had turned itself into a recruitment machine which had to silence dissent and differences between the many clashing interest groups under its banner”.

Morrison, from Caithness, writes that the one-word promise of “Yes” is comparable to the Trotskyist promise of “revolution”.

He wrote: “I noticed that whenever someone raised a pragmatic question about governance, economics or future projections for oil revenue... they were quickly silenced.”

Such questions, he said, were dealt with by comments such as: “We’ll sort that out after the referendum - this is not the place or time for those kinds of questions.”

He added: “Many people are voting Yes just to express their frustration at not being able to engage with politics as it is.

“They’re voting Yes because they want to be heard for the first time. Once the recruitment machine has served its purpose it will collapse and the repressed questions will return with a vengeance.”

He added: “After a Yes vote the fight for control of Scotland will begin.

“That unity that seemed like a dream will be shattered into the different groups who agreed to silence themselves to achieve an illusion of impossible unity.”

Why not read more here?

Home Currencies Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union Scottish independence: The cost of breaking the union, Moneyweek

Could an independent Scotland become the next Singapore, or would a ‘Yes’ vote be an act of national self-harm? Merryn Somerset Webb investigates.

In the late 1690s, Scotland’s government granted a charter to the Company of Scotland to set sail and attempt to establish a colony on the coast of Panama.

The interesting thing about this adventure is not so much its miserable end (most people died and only one ship returned to Scotland)*, but the way in which Scots of all sorts took part in it.

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography puts it like this: “While Williamites and Jacobites remained implacably opposed over the monarchy, they came to be united in a belief that the Company of Scotland offered the prospect of national and personal prosperity. The original joint-stock company of 1695 was now the vehicle for the Scottish colony of New Caledonia, supported by a remarkably diverse group of Scots who had set aside their many and varied differences in pursuit of national glory and personal wealth.”

They didn’t get either, of course. The wealth was lost and the union (which allowed participants to recoup their losses via a payment from England to Scotland known as ‘the equivalence’) was found.

Read more here:

Independence referendum: Top economists spell out 13 ways a Yes vote will hit us in the pocket, Daily Record

Sep 15, 2014 08:25 By Torcuil Crichton

THIRTEEN experts have written a joint letter to the Daily Record explaining exactly why they fear Scotland will not be richer or fairer after a vote for independence.

A BAKER’S dozen of top economists have listed 13 reasons why the people of Scotland will be worse off if there is a Yes vote.

Academics from universities across the country joined forces to spell out why they believe

independence would be a “big mistake”.

The 13 experts include the heads of economics at Edinburgh and Glasgow universities.

They warn a Yes vote would require more austerity and harsher cuts than those planned by the Westminster government – a threat that would see the poor bear the brunt.

In a joint letter issued to the Daily Record, the economists say: “Our main contention is that Scotland is unlikely to be richer and fairer if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.

“The irony is that within the Union, Scotland has a higher level of income per person than the UK.”

The academics add: “When we add up these 13 reasons not to vote for independence, we are extremely concerned that to do otherwise would be to gamble with the economic prospects of the present generation.

“As experienced and respected economists, we would urge you to vote No on September 18.”

Get all the latest independence referendum news right here.

The warning came after a leading think-tank claimed Alex Salmond has severely underestimated the economic risks of independence.

Read more here:

Why destroy a united nation? Sunday Express, John Reid

Do we stay part of the family of nations which make up the United Kingdom or do we take a huge leap into the unknown and the uncertain by setting up a separate state?

I have fought many elections. I have knocked on doors, delivered leaflets, spoken at rallies and manned street stalls in town centres. In that sense, this referendum has qualities that are like an election but this is not like a normal election.

If we vote to leave the UK, it will be for ever, irreversible. There will be no changing our minds in four years if it turns out the promises made by the leader of a political party cannot, or will not, be kept.

That is why it is no time for a protest vote. It is not a time to gamble. This is not a lottery. There will not be another chance next week. The decision we take on Thursday is not just one for ourselves, it is for our children, for our grandchildren and for generations to come.

So, we have to get it right and the right decision is to say "no thanks" to separation. We do not need to take the risks of separation to change Scotland. Change is already coming with a No vote, faster change, better change, safe change.

We can strengthen our Scottish Parliament without losing the strength, security and stability that comes with being a member of the UK. A leap into the unknown with independence would be a huge risk for families across Scotland.

"The nationalists have not answered the fundamental questions. They cannot, or will not, tell us what currency we would use in the event of separation" 

John Reid

The nationalists have not answered the fundamental questions. They cannot, or will not, tell us what currency we would use in the event of separation. Currency matters.

It affects what our wages are worth, how much our mortgages and rents cost, what our credit card and shopping bills cost. It affects how we fund our pensions, how we fund our public services; our schools, hospitals and police. We cannot put that at risk. We can't risk a partnership which has benefited us all for three centuries.

Read more here:

Expert confirms ‘There will be no oil bonanza’,

12 September

The nationalists want us to believe that we are on the verge of another oil boom and that oil will pay for everything.

The problem with this argument is that it is simply wrong. Now one of the experts that nationalists rely on has corrected the record. Professor Alex Kemp the oil expert relied upon by Alex Salmond to give credibility to his oil estimates , has today said that a separate Scotland would have no oil bonanza.

In a letter to the Press and Journal Professor Kemp wrote;

“SIR, - In Wednesday’s Press and Journal, there was a headline attributed to myself predicting an “oil bonanza” from the North Sea. Nowhere did I say this.In our research, our economic model predicts that investment will fall off in the near future, while oil/gas production could increase for a few years, but then enter long-term decline. The total recovery we predict to 2050 is in the 15-16.5billion barrels of oil equivalent.

By 2050, production is in the 200,000-250,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. But production can continue well beyond 2050. Our current estimate of the ultimate potential is certainly less than the 21 billion barrels of oil equivalent which is at the upper end of DECC’s most likely range. There will be no bonanza.”

The timing of this letter will come as a blow to Alex Salmond who in recent weeks has used Professor Kemp’s name to deflect criticism that his oil forecasts have been overestimated .

Why not read more here?

Salmond planning victory parties before polling day even starts, Daily Express

ALEX Salmond was last night ­accused of “planning parties” and taking independence for granted ­after announcing “a day of celebration” on Friday.

The First Minister asserted that Westminster politicians were going to “get their comeuppance” because he believes Scots are going to vote Yes in “very substantial proportions”.

He made the comments in Glasgow yesterday after ­taking time out from his two-day helicopter tour of Scotland in an ­aircraft named ‘Saltire One’.

Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins also predicted that his side would win Thursday’s poll, saying: “I think we’ve got a Yes vote.”

However, critics suggested Mr Salmond’s over-confidence could become his “Neil Kinnock moment”, referring to the infamous Sheffield rally which cost Labour the 1992 general election

Meanwhile, Finance Secretary John Swinney has admitted that a separate Scotland would have to ­increase borrowing to support its ­independence plans. Appearing on BBC Radio Four’s Any Questions? , he was quizzed on how the country would provide free tuition, free ­prescriptions and a free NHS.

Explaining that he was planning to increase public spending by three per cent, he conceded that borrowing would also have to increase.

He said: “The United Kingdom is borrowing up to its oxters just now, so don’t consider it a revelation that suddenly an independent Scotland might borrow some money.

Why not read more here?

Scottish independence: 'Yes campaign every bit as dodgy as Iraq dossier', Daily Telegraph

By Andrew Gilligan

One of the key themes of the Yes independence campaign – I saw it scrawled on a No poster in Edinburgh only last night – is that a “free Scotland” will no longer be tricked into illegal wars based on lies.

But as the BBC reporter who first exposed those lies, I believe that Scotland is being led over a cliff by a dossier every bit as dodgy as the one that took us into Iraq.

Like the whole of Britain in 2003, Scotland in 2014 is being asked to fix a problem that does not exist. Back then, it was an imaginary threat from Iraq. Now, it is an imaginary threat to the NHS, 45 minutes from destruction if you vote No.

Back then, it was the supposed “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West. Now, it is a supposed “fundamental conflict of social values” between two nations, England and Scotland – whose social values, all surveys show, are extremely similar.

And just as in 2003, Scotland is also being asked to tackle another problem that is real and does exist – but in a way that will only make that problem worse, for itself, and for all of us. Back then, we were told that invading Iraq would protect us from international terrorism. In fact, of course, it gave international terrorism a boost beyond al-Qaeda’s wildest hopes and dreams.

Now, Scots are told that independence will protect them from global capitalism. They are told that a new international border at Gretna will form a magic shield against the City, the Tories, and the cuts.

In fact, after a Yes vote the City, the Tories, and the architects of the cuts would have more power over Scotland, not less.

Because what is offered by Alex Salmond and the Yes campaign is not independence. It is sharing a currency, whether formally or informally, with England.

Scotland’s central bank would be in London. All the key levers of Scotland’s economic policy – interest rates, borrowing and spending – would be controlled not in Edinburgh, but by a UK government that Scots no longer had any role in choosing; a government much more likely than before to be Tory, without Scottish votes.

Why not read more here?

Deutsch bank chief warns of dangers of Yes vote. The Scotsman

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: The financial and economic arguments against Scottish independence are “overwhelming”, a leading bank warned as it compared a Yes vote to the mistakes which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In one of the starkest warnings yet issued by a financial institution, the chief economist at Deutsch Bank David Folkerts-Landau said voters and politicians had failed to grasp the potential severity of the negative consequences of separation.

He said he found it “incomprehensible” that Scots were even contemplating withdrawal from the United Kingdom, and pointed to the “recessions, higher taxes, lower public spending and higher interest rates” that had afflicted nations seen as potentially heading for the eurozone exit.

But the Scottish Government accused him of failing to take into account Scotland’s “strong fiscal position”, and said it would start life as an independent nation “from stronger economic foundations than any other nation in history”.

In a highly-critical analysis of the prospects of independence, Mr Folkerts-Landau said: “Everyone has the right to self-determination and to exercise his or her democratic rights.

“But there are times when fundamental political decisions have negative consequences far beyond what voters and politicians could have imagined. We feel that we are on the threshold of one such moment.

Why not read more here?

Brian Wilson: Secession leads to a dangerous end, The Scotsman

THE offer of a package of powers for Holyrood should have happened earlier, but at least it has happened now, writes Brian Wilson

AS, MERCIFULLY, the finishing line approaches, there is one phrase which stands out in my over-loaded recollection of the Scottish referendum campaign. It came from Pope Francis and he was not speaking specifically about Scotland, so much as division of countries and peoples in general.

The critical distinction he drew was between “independence for emancipation and independence for secession”. In a more intellectually demanding age, every nuance of the debate would have been measured against that yardstick. What exactly are we being asked to liberate ourselves from, and at what human cost, risk and precedent?

I was reminded yet again of the Pope Francis test when Alex Salmond, chief architect of division, this week drew an astonishing analogy between people registering for the Scottish referendum and “the scenes in South Africa…when people queued up to vote in the first free elections”. Here, surely, we were listening to a man operating at the delusory limits of self-aggrandisement.

To claim comparison between the suffering of South Africa’s black population, on the basis of institutionalised racism, and the position of Scotland within the UK is ludicrous and offensive. Disappointing though it may be to his followers, Mr Salmond is not the Biko of Banff but a shrewd populist who is adept at pressing buttons which would be best left unpressed and at driving wedges where none need exist.

Having wrapped himself in the flag that used to belong to all of us, Salmond wants us to take sides between “Team Scotland” and “Team Westminster”. Within that not very subtle code lies the insidious folly of what he is promoting. Everyone who follows him is, by definition, in “Team Scotland” while dissenters are branded as supporters of a hostile, alien entity.

Why not read more here ?

How SNP once kicked out 'royal hating' Salmond: Scottish National Party leader was once member of Republican faction expelled from party in the 1980s, Daily Mail

Salmond part of Republican faction expelled from SNP in 1980s

The 79 Group wanted to set up Scottish Socialist republic

Removal of Queen as Scotland's head of state one of its founding principles

Fervent Republicanism contrasts to his current support for the Queen

Alex Salmond was a leading member of a Republican faction that was expelled from the Scottish National Party in the 1980s.

The 79 Group – named after the year in which it was formed – wanted to set up a Scottish Socialist republic and spent several years fighting for more radical policies within the SNP. 

The removal of the Queen as Scotland’s head of state was one of its founding principles.

The group even had links with Irish republican party Sinn Fein at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Mr Salmond was one of its three spokesmen and took responsibility for publicity. He argued for greater militancy among workers, and advocated direct action including civil disobedience, according to his biographer, David Torrance.

‘I think Her Majesty the Queen, who has seen so many events in the course of her long reign, will be proud to be Queen of Scots as indeed we have been proud to have her as the monarch,’ the SNP leader said this week. But earlier this year, Mr MacAskill suggested there could be a referendum on scrapping the monarchy if Scots vote Yes.

He said in March: ‘We will inherit the situation we have with the Queen as head of state in the ceremonial capacity that she has. But it will be for the people of Scotland to decide.

‘If and when that would occur, if they wished to have a referendum, and we would hope we would become the government post-2016, it will be for whoever is in office then.’

The 79 Group, which was formally known as the ‘Interim Committee of the 79 Group Socialist Society’, was formed after the 1979 referendum asking Scots whether they wanted their own Scottish Assembly with devolved powers.

Read more here:

Gordon Brown: This is Scotland's moment of destiny, The Guardian

For some time now I have been arguing that the whole of the UK must respond to the clear demand for constitutional change, and earlier this week I proposed a timetable to deliver a stronger Scottish parliament. But Scots are also leading the discussion on a new idea of citizenship for the global era, one that recognises the strength of national identity and wants to bring power closer to the people. Yet it also understands that, after wave after wave of globalisation, our ability to seize opportunities and make rights come alive is now being shaped within a vast network of global economic interrelationships – a network over which we feel we have too little power.

When I set out plans for a more modern constitution in 2007 I was thinking of a new citizenship for the global era. Our later measures – parliament's power to declare peace and war, MPs to be subject to a right to recall, an end to the royal prerogative, an elected Lords – were about a 21st-century democracy, with citizenship to be founded on a new bill of rights and responsibilities and, in time, a written constitution. There was little public or media appetite for change at that time. The MPs' expenses crisis should have triggered sweeping reforms but, in the wake of the global economic collapse, all talk of constitutional change had to take second place to preventing an economic recession from turning into a full blown depression and to getting us back to growth.

But across Europe we are now seeing the rise of both anti-establishment, anti-immigrant parties of the right and secessionist movements, such as the one in Scotland. It is not just because of the referendum that Scotland has moved centre stage – there are two other reasons. First: because of Scotland's experience of the most dramatic deindustrialisation we have become more aware of how our future rights and opportunities are tied to managing globalisation better. And second: because of our unique experience of being a stateless nation – which has for 300 years seen benefits in cooperation across nations – we have a unique contribution to make to what citizenship means for a more interdependent world.

Twice since 1707, Scots have redefined ideas of what citizenship means. First, the Scots Enlightenment gave the world the idea of civil society, of a citizen who is neither subject nor just consumer, and of a modern citizenship that stands between markets and states. Then, as they confronted the turmoil and injustices of the industrial revolution, Scots led the way to a 20th-century citizenship that guarantees social and economic as well as civil and political rights.

In the post-union, stateless Scotland of the 18th and early 19th centuries, Scots Enlightenment philosophers taught people to think of themselves as both citizens of their local community and citizens of the world. From Adam Smith and David Hume came the idea of the "civil" society, which taught us there was a space between the state and the individual, a public sphere that need not be dominated by markets and where people could come together in their own voluntary associations, from churches and trade unions to civic and municipal organisations.

Read more here:

Senior SNP figure threatens BP with nationalisation and cutting banks down to size for being 'in cahoots with rich English Tories' Daily Mail, The SNP show their true colours

  Former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars lashes out at pro-Union businesses

  He asked: 'Who do these companies think we are? They will find out'

  BT Group chair Sir Mike Rake says 'Yes' would 'inevitably' cause a slowdown

  CBI boss claims this could 'easily' last for a decade because of uncertainty

  Comes after IMF warned separation could result in financial market turmoil

  Five Scottish based banks this week warned they would move to England

  Richard Branson is the latest business figure to oppose independence

  Asda, Waitrose, B&Q and Screwfix say prices would rise after independence

  Marks & Spencer set to join firms warning against 'Yes' vote next week

  Comes as poll shows 'No' campaign four points ahead with six days to go 

  Separate poll released today put the 'Yes' campaign just two points behind 

The former deputy leader of the Scottish nationalists has threatened a 'day of reckoning' for businesses that have spoken out against independence.

SNP grandee Jim Sillars lashed out after a host of banks, finance firms, supermarkets and retail giants warned about the dangers of separation.

Mr Sillars said oil giant BP would be nationalised 'in part or in whole' while bankers and big business chiefs would be punished for 'being in cahoots' with the Tories.

The remarks are likely to increase business anxiety over independence just six days before next week's referendum. 

The 'Yes' to independence campaign's economic case for independence was further damaged after one of Britain's most influential industrialists Sir Mike Rake warned that Scotland’s economy could be damaged for a decade if it votes for independence.

But Mr Sillars vowed to punish big business for siding with the 'No' campaign against independence.

He said: ‘This referendum is about power, and when we get a Yes majority, we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.

Read more here:

Peevish and bristling, Salmond exploded at man from the Beeb. Daily Mail

Scotland do you really want this arrogant,  little man to lead you ?

This was meant to be the day Alex Salmond showed off his statesmanlike qualities to the world.

But instead of meeting the founding father of a brave new nation, the world’s media came to his grandly-named ‘international press conference’ to find a peevish man bristling with indignation over the parochial details of a very inconvenient truth.

For the grandest bank in Scotland had just announced it would pack up the boardroom and move its HQ to London if Scots vote for independence next week.

The RBS has been domiciled in Edinburgh since the days of George II. It could hardly be worse if Scottish Widows became Surrey Widows or Nessie suddenly moved ponds to Windermere.

Not so, according to Mr Salmond. The loss of the RBS would be a footling matter. The real scandal was that the news had been leaked to the BBC.

And they could only have got it from one source: ‘scaremongering’ officials at the Treasury. The fact that market-sensitive information had ended up in the hands of the media, he said, almost quivering with displeasure, was a matter of ‘extraordinary gravity, as serious a matter as you can possibly get’.

As journalists argued that RBS’s vote of no confidence in its motherland was the bigger deal, Mr Salmond was having none of it, particularly when questioned by BBC political editor Nick Robinson.

Arguing that it involved little more than the relocation of a ‘brass plaque’, Mr Salmond demanded that the BBC be dragged before an official investigation and made to blab.

‘Scotland is on the cusp of making history,’ Mr Salmond went on. ‘The eyes of the world are upon us. And what the world is seeing is an energised, articulate and peaceful debate.’ The ears of the world only had to wait five seconds longer before they heard the day’s first attack on ‘the blatant bullying and intimidation of Westminster government’.

Pretty much any irksome statistic could be attributed to ‘scaremongering’, ‘bullying’, public schoolboy politics’ and so on from That Lot.

Until very recently, international interest in this debate had not extended much beyond the provincial press in countries with an ongoing separatist squabble – principally Spain and Quebec.

Yesterday, there were earnest questions about future Scottish relations with Russia, Brazil and India. Perhaps the trickiest came from a German television presenter. She asked Mr Salmond to explain in what ways the English had a different identity from the Scots ‘because our audience don’t see it’.

‘This campaign of ours does not depend on identity,’ he replied.

Out in the streets right now, it seems to depend on little else.

Read more here:

Rattled Salmond launches rant at the BBC after it revealed Royal Bank of SCOTLAND will quit country after 'Yes' vote. Daily Mail

  First Minister lashes out at broadcaster to deflect row over threat by banks

  RBS one of four major banks to turn its back on independent Scotland

  John Lewis, Waitrose and Asda say prices will rise if there is a Yes victory 

  SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves by industry members

  He calls for official inquiry into Treasury source who leaked RBS story 

  Insurance giant Standard Life said it would move south days after Yes vote

Alex Salmond today launched an extraordinary rant at the BBC after the broadcaster reported how even the Royal Bank of Scotland planned to relocate to England in the event of independence.

In a bizarre press conference he launched a series of petulant attacks on the BBC, Westminster leaders and the Australian prime minister.

And he revealed he has called for an official inquiry into the Treasury's 'deliberate attempt to cause uncertainty in the financial markets' by leaking details of RBS's fears about the break up of the Union.

The First Minister presided over an astonishing press conference for the world's press corps in which he was tetchy, rattled and – according to several observers – 'losing the plot'.

Another observer suggested this was Mr Salmond's 'Sheffield rally', a reference to Neil Kinnock's ill-fated cry of 'We're alright!' before he went on to lose the 1992 General Election.

At one point there was an ugly clash between the SNP leader and BBC political editor Nick Robinson over the fate of Scotland's banks if there is a Yes vote in next week's referendum.

Read more here:

Now the Union strikes back: Poll puts No campaign in the lead as Scottish separatists suffer a series of hammer blows on Salmond's Black Wednesday. Daily Mail

  SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves by industry members 

  Insurance giant Standard Life said it would move south days after Yes vote 

  Poll found 53% of Scots would vote against splitting up the United Kingdom

  Will ease panic on Sunday that put the Yes campaign ahead  

  Leading oilman also dismissed Mr Salmond's energy-rich future as 'fantasy'

Scottish separatists suffered a series of hammer blows yesterday in the battle for the future of Britain.

On what was being dubbed Alex Salmond’s Black Wednesday, the SNP leader was accused of lying about oil reserves, a poll put the No camp back in the lead and big firms admitted they were considering moving to England.

The poll found 53 per cent of Scots would say No in next week’s referendum on independence. The Survation survey put the Yes camp on 47 per cent. One in ten are yet to decide.

Mr Salmond’s vision of an energy-rich future was dismissed as a fantasy by a leading Scottish oilman and BP and Shell also came out against independence.

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney piled on the pressure by warning that Edinburgh would have to set aside around £130billion to guarantee savers’ bank deposits.

Read more here:

Further Reading

Exposed, Alex Salmond's great oil wealth fantasy: Experts attack claims that an independent Scotland could become rich on its oil and gas resources

Alex Salmond’s biggest lie, that an independent Scotland could float onward and upward on the strength its oil and gas resources, has finally been nailed.

The greatest authority on Scottish oil, Sir Ian Wood – together with the bosses of BP and Shell – has exposed it as pure fantasy.

Wood, founder of Scotland’s world-leading oil services firm Wood Group, has accused the Scottish Nationalists of misleading voters with ‘highly inaccurate forecasts, false promises and misleading information’.

His intervention, along with that of Bob Dudley of BP and Ben van Beurden of Shell, delivers a devastating blow to claims being made by Salmond and his acolytes that North Sea oil, augmented by unexploited opportunities using relatively new ‘fracking’ techniques, could turn Scotland into the next Norway.

The slogan ‘It’s Scotland’s Oil’ has, in the four decades since the first North Sea crude was brought ashore, been the most powerful weapon in the armoury of the SNP.

Nationalists like to compare Scotland to Norway because the Nordic nation has become rich on its oil and gas revenues, and has built up investment funds of more than £460billion on the back of its energy bonanza.

But the bitter truth is that an independent Scottish economy based on North Sea oil riches is a canard. Even on the most optimistic projections, with the exploration companies using the most modern techniques to frack for oil and gas deep below the oceans, the UK and Scotland’s energy boom is over.

Scotland’s fateful choice The case for union is overwhelming. The path of separation is a fool’s errand, The Financial Times

The United Kingdom ranks as one of the most successful marriages in history. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have survived ancient hatreds, tribal rivalry and war. Each nation has been enriched by a journey of enlightenment, empire, shared energy and enterprise.

In eight days’ time, this splendid mess of a union, to quote Simon Schama, the British historian, risks being separated into its national parts. Scotland will vote in a referendum to decide whether to stay in the UK or sunder bonds stretching back to 1707. Opinion polls suggest the result is too close to call, a prospect which has alarmed financial markets, wrongfooted allies and sent a complacent coalition government scrambling to find a last-minute sweetener to win over the Scots.

Empires and nation states are not immune to break-up, but there is little precedent for a hitherto stable modern democracy splitting apart in peacetime, in the middle of an economic recovery. This is not the time for recrimination. For the moment, it is enough for this newspaper to declare that the path of separation is a fool’s errand, one fraught with danger and uncertainty.

Scotland is a proud and vibrant nation. Scots have contributed disproportionately to the union. They have played a leading role in arts, commerce, literature, the military, politics and sport. But a vote in favour of secession would be an irreversible act with profound consequences, not merely for 5m Scots but also for the other 58m citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (including 750,000 Scots living and working outside Scotland who under the terms of the referendum have no say on the future of their country).

The act of separation would diminish the UK in every international body, notably the EU. It would raise complex – and still unanswered – questions about the common defence of the British Isles, the future of the currency and political arrangements for the rest of the UK. Above all, a Yes vote would ignore the lessons of the 20th century, a chapter in European history indelibly scarred by narrow nationalism.

Read more here:

Ann McKechin: Alex Salmond and the SNP's tax policies will create more inequality in an independent Scotland, Daily Record

Sep 09, 2014 11:238 OPINION BY ANNMCKECHIN

ANN McKECHIN puts forward her view that the economic policies of the SNP will only drive an even greater divide between the have and have-nots should Scotland vote Yes.

SCOTLAND'S future will be decided in just a few days’ time when voters across the country go to the polls.

It’s clear that voters want change – they want to see more jobs paying decent wages and offering security; they want affordable housing; they want a social care system that is fit for purpose; and they want an energy market that works for consumers not the profits of big energy.

The Scottish National Party has been keen to persuade voters that breaking off from the rest of the UK would create a ‘northern light’ for social justice – a Scotland that is more just, more humane and more socially democratic. But their message is deliberately high in emotion but lacking in substance.

However, a Scotland which followed the policies outlined in the SNP’s white paper and ended the system of pooling and sharing resources across the UK would quickly find income and wealth would be more unequally distributed than in the country they wish to break up. SNP tax policies will astonish all those used to hearing the claim that, from the day after independence, it would recreate the social democratic state that London has left behind.

Let’s look at the recent evidence. The SNP has refused to commit an independent Scotland to Labour’s proposal for a 50p top rate of tax. It has also refused to support a new top band of council tax. The First Minister keeps telling top business leaders that he is not planning to change the rates of income tax or business from those that apply currently across the UK.

Independent Scotland won't pay back debt, Alex Salmond says

First Minister reportedly taunted the Westminster government over whether an independent Scotland should take on its share of the national debt, saying: “What are they going to do – invade?”

Read more here:

Why don't we tell the Scots to shove off! In a personal view (which the Mail disagrees with) SIMON HEFFER says what we fear many English people think, Daily Mail

Alex Salmond's offensive comparison of Scots voting for independence to the ending of apartheid and blacks being given the vote in South Africa took the rank dishonesty of the nationalists’ campaign to a new low yesterday.

Mandela went to prison for his beliefs, something that doesn’t appear to have happened to any Scottish Nationalists.

And, far from being victims of a cruel and unjust system, they have been encouraged to participate in the political process, and to live in a Union replete with opportunities — unlike millions in South Africa who were excluded from politics and advancement simply because they were the wrong race.

It was equally offensive to see Mr Salmond embracing immigrants from Eastern Europe and telling them that their intention to vote ‘Yes’ would be the culmination of their own long walk to freedom.

They chose to come to Scotland not because independence promises an extra layer of liberty, but because of the hard won, wide-ranging freedoms already available throughout the UK, and bestowed upon the Scots as they are bestowed upon every other Briton. 

Enough, frankly, is enough. We have long tolerated Mr Salmond’s mendacity, and his twisted loathing of the English, largely because many felt he would be the loser of this fight and should be indulged.

So when he dropped hints that the NHS would be privatised if there wasn’t a ‘Yes’ vote, or made up the rules about Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU as he went along, or exaggerated the wealth from Scottish oil revenues, we felt slightly patronising towards the old rogue, assuring ourselves of his inevitable humiliation in the September 18 vote.

Now that humiliation appears less certain, and the arrogant dishonesty is so overwhelming, it is time to tell him what some of us really think.

Read more here: