The final push for Alex Salmond’s land of fantasy, Telegraph

It is Thursday morning on Buchanan Street, Glasgow’s busiest shopping thoroughfare, and Scotland’s First Minister is doing what he does best: smirking.

Working his way through a boisterous crowd of placard-wielding Yes supporters, Alex Salmond revels in the adoration of his fans and poses for countless “selfies” with starstruck Nationalists out to pay homage on the 10th anniversary of his return as leader of the Scottish National Party.

The choice of location for this event, right in the middle of Glasgow, is very deliberate. With less than a fortnight until Scots vote on whether to leave the United Kingdom, Scotland’s largest city has turned into the front line in the referendum battle. To win, the Nationalists need to convert voters in the west of Scotland, where Labour has traditionally been strong.

Mr Salmond, a gambler and racing-loving punter who relishes the thrill of the chase, is confident he has Labour and the Better Together pro-Union campaign on the run. “The ground is shifting below their feet,” he says.

The race has certainly tightened. Last week, a poll by YouGov showed the No lead narrowing sharply to only six points (53 to 47 per cent when don’t knows are stripped out).

It prompted concern at Westminster, and in the City the markets were spooked. Investors who had presumed there was no chance of a Yes vote sold off shares in companies that trade on both sides of the border between England and Scotland. Polls this weekend are expected to show Yes getting even closer.

Read more here;

Kevin Maguire: I'm willing you to vote for us all in Britain instead of Salmond, who wants to be King of Scotland, Daily Record

I’D be gutted, absolutely gutted, if Scotland dumps me. We rub along pretty well and you want to end 300 years of history?

Come on, you can’t be serious.

I’m British and don’t want to be a foreigner when I come to Scotland any more than I want Scots to be foreigners when they go to England or Wales.

We’ve so many ties and been through a lot together so it seems daft to divorce so Alex Salmond can play the big man.

We Geordies have more in common with you Scots than we do with the Surrey stockbroker belt.

I hail from South Shields on Tyneside and grew up reading The Broons and Oor Wullie annuals at Christmas.

I flicked little plastic Subbuteo football players in Celtic and Rangers strips.

I cheered when Archie Gemmill scored that 1978 World Cup goal with that lovely mazy run and gorgeous left-footed finish against Holland.

I wasn’t so happy a few years later, it’s true, narrowly escaping a beating at Wembley by the Tartan Army’s militarised wing.

But we’ll let that pass. Newcastle hoolies chased this Sunderland fan a fair few times so it matters little whether the pursuers were in kilts or black and white stripes.

And I’ll confess when I bumped into Gary McAllister on a train last week I fondly recalled his missed penalty the day England beat Scotland at Wembley in Euro '96.

I’m an England football supporter – though that’s not easy with Roy Hodgson’s dreary excuse for a team – but I still want Scotland to beat Germany tomorrow with Steven Fletcher scoring the winner.

So don’t let Alex Salmond con you into believing us lot don’t care or want to be shot of Scotland.

Read more here:

Surge in support for independence sparks 'great deal of concern' in Buckingham Palace amid fears over Queen's role in a separate Scotland Daily Mail

  Palace aides concerned the monarch will face a constitutional crisis after poll

  Queen may appoint an Australian-style 'governor general' to rule in her name

  Experts fear independence could throw up divided loyalties for the Queen 

  In 1977 the Queen said: 'I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom'

The growing prospect of Scotland voting to leave the United Kingdom has sparked a ‘great deal of concern’ in Buckingham Palace, sources close to the Queen have revealed.

Senior palace aides are increasingly concerned that the Queen will be thrown into the centre of a constitutional crisis in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote on September 18.

Experts have suggested she may be forced to appoint an Australian-style ‘governor general’ to rule in her name.

Prime Minister David Cameron is in Balmoral, Aberdeenshire, with the Queen today and is expected to hold talks over the crisis. Mr Cameron has travelled alone without his wife Samantha.

The Queen has not intervened in the debate on independence, but has previously publicly praised the union.

In a speech she gave to MPs on her Silver Jubilee in 1977 she said: ‘I number kings and queens of England and of Scotland, and princes of Wales among my ancestors and so I can readily understand these aspirations.

‘But I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

‘Perhaps this jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred, at home and in our international dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.’

Constitutional experts fear independence could throw up divided loyalties for the Queen if there was a clash between Scotland and the rump-UK in the future.

Read more here:

Brian Wilson: Border costs post-independence, The Scotsman

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: Sending a letter is just one of the many things a border will make a great deal more expensive, writes Brian Wilson

It’s an old trick to ask if a politician knows the price of a pint of milk. I tried a variation of the same theme this week while debating with a luminary of Scottish nationalism.

A questioner asked about postal charges between Scotland and England in the event of independence. As usual, the Nat response was that life would go on as before. I asked if he knew what it costs to post a letter from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, even just a few hundred yards between north and south.

He didn’t, which seemed as careless as not knowing the price of a pint of milk. The answer is that, because Ireland is treated by Royal Mail as an international destination (as Scotland would become), the cost of postage is between twice and four times greater than the cost of a first-class stamp, for delivery within five days.

Consider the plea of a local politician in County Tyrone who paid £2.38 for a stamp that would have cost, at most, 62p if the letter had stayed within the UK. “It’s crazy,” she complained. “It is very expensive and nobody can understand it”. To which one might reasonably have replied: “It’s the border, stupid”.

In more rational times, quadrupled postal charges would represent quite an important issue and also an illustration of an under-stated truth – that borders are indeed very expensive and the costs are paid in money and jobs. I am not naïve enough to expect this to concern Nationalists but those who would be forced to pay their price might take note.

Read more here:

Gordon Brown vows to lead Scottish campaign to win more powers for Edinburgh if voters reject independence. Daily Mail

Gordon Brown today vowed to lead the campaign for more powers for Scotland if it rejects independence in this month’s referendum.

The former prime minister, signalling his return to front line politics, said he
would push for further devolution within weeks of the September 18 vote.

Mr Brown is among senior Labour figures being deployed in a final push by the party to prevent its supporters being won over by the Scottish National Party.

With polls suggesting a late swing towards the Yes camp, Mr Brown urged voters not to ‘abandon’ the huge value to Scotland of pooling resources with the rest of the UK in areas such as pensions and healthcare.

He told an audience of activists and politicians at Westminster that he had asked Speaker John Bercow to allow him to lead a debate when the Commons resumes business in October to galvanise cross-party support for reforms.

A pledge of extra tax and legal powers for Holyrood in the event of a rejection of independence in the popular vote has been signed by the leaders of all three main Westminster parties.

Read more here:

Canada can show David Cameron how to rescue our United Kingdom. Daily Telegraph

Almost 20 years ago, Britain looked on in amazement as it seemed that Canada was about to come apart. Just two weeks before the Quebec referendum, the “no” opinion poll lead had collapsed from 20 points to just 4 points and momentum lay with the mainly French-speaking separatists. Canada’s prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who had kept a low profile given his unpopularity with the Québécois, decided he had no choice but to intervene.

The overdue panic saved the country – just. The “yes” vote was 49.4 per cent.

Now, it is Britain’s turn to be two weeks from a referendum and Canada’s turn to be aghast. Earlier this week, I met Stephen Harper, its current prime minister, who seemed unable to believe that things had come this far. Canada’s struggle involved a French-speaking province with a different religion and history from the rest of the country. But where is Britain’s cultural chasm? “Canada is a country of many, many cultures,” Harper told me, but “the idea of separating English people from Scottish people in Canada is almost inconceivable.”

From abroad, the idea of Scots being so separate from the English as to necessitate the partition of the country must seem absurd. We have the same culture, the same two main languages (English and Polish) and the same world view. If anything, England should have the bigger gripe. A century ago, The Spectator was bemoaning the influence of Scots in London (a problem that persists) but this underscored an important point. The British state is not something foreign, but something Scotland helps to mould. Our country, its achievements and the world wars won together ought to have left something indivisible.

Read more here:

Brian Wilson: SNP’s NHS scaremongering won’t work. The Scotsman

SOMETHING OF a pattern is emerging, is it not? The Nationalists’ claims have now become so cynically outrageous that non-politicians, who probably did not want to be drawn into the debate, are feeling obliged to rebut them in the plainest possible terms.

Last week, it was the Bank of England that issued a magisterial put-down when an SNP press release in John Swinney’s name claimed that “technical discussions” were taking place about currency union. It was untrue, and Swinney now says that he did not mean to give that impression. Doubtless he will be dealing internally with whoever took his name and reputation in vain.

Then Sir Ian Wood had a good shot at being even more magisterial with his remarkable interview in which he hazarded that Alex Salmond’s fabrication workshop had overestimated future North Sea resources by around 60 per cent and short-term revenues by 40 per cent. Chunky numbers, indeed, when translated into schools and hospitals.

Salmond’s audacity had provoked Sir Ian Wood into going far more public than he might otherwise have done, with his conclusion that, in economic terms, “the case is heavily weighted towards Scotland remaining in the UK and getting the best of both worlds. I want the best for future generations of Scots”. You don’t get much more unambiguous than that.

While currency and oil might be regarded in some quarters as fair game for misrepresentation, it is the Nationalists’ appalling behaviour over the National Health Service that merits the greatest contempt. In this case, the woman who headed the Scottish Government’s own cancer reduction strategy has felt moved to hit back at the pernicious nonsense they are promoting. By her own account, she would not have intervened if the claims had not been so outrageous.

Dr Anna Gregor said: “The thing that made me decide to talk about this subject is that both the politicians and, to my chagrin, some of the clinicians are now scaremongering and telling the voters and patients that the only way to protect our NHS is to vote Yes. That is a complete and utter lie.”

Read more here:

Alex Salmond's former policy chief launches blistering attack on the SNP's plan to keep the pound. Daily Mail

  Alex Bell said the Mr Salmond's currency plan is 'arguably not independence'

  He also claimed Trident nuclear weapons will remain in a separate Scotland 

  Weapons will be allowed to stay for a 'ticket into international community'

  Scotland will also have to implement deep spending cuts, Mr Bell said

Alex Salmond’s former policy chief has launched a blistering attack on the SNP’s currency plans as he lifts the lid on the confusion and deceit at the heart of the independence campaign.

In an explosive political diary, Alex Bell said the Nationalists’ currency proposal is ‘arguably not independence’ and has hinted at a power struggle at the top of the party.

The top adviser, who stood down from government last summer, also claims:

* Trident nuclear weapons will remain in a separate Scotland in return for a ‘priority ticket into the international community’ and a favourable deal with the rest of the UK.

* A Yes vote does not mean Scotland can avoid deep spending cuts and the state ‘cannot afford’ to keep paying pensions.

Deputy SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has championed a ‘re-design’ of the state, but others in the party favour a ‘mini-UK’ form of independence outlined in Mr Salmond’s White Paper manifesto.

Mr Bell was invited into government in 2010 and was in control of the process that led to the ‘Edinburgh Agreement’ – the historic deal signed by Mr Salmond and David Cameron that enabled a referendum to be staged.

But as work got underway on the SNP’s White Paper, the head of policy left his post because the document lacked a ‘big offer’.

In his new book, The People We Could Be, Mr Bell reveals: ‘SNP strategists think the mix of aspiration without perspiration allows room for everyone to join the Yes campaign.

‘As the referendum approaches, people are filling in the gaps to their own liking. In that sense, the Yes vote has escaped the control of either the

SNP, the Scottish Government or the official campaign.’

Read more here:

Independent Scotland Could Fall Into 'Parlous' Financial State, Warns HSBC Boss, Huffuington Post Uk

Scottish independence could lead to "capital flight" as savers rush to move their money out of the country, the chairman of HSBC has warned.

Douglas Flint, head of Europe's biggest bank, said that such a move, brought about by uncertainty over an independent Scotland's currency, would leave the country in a "parlous financial state".

The HSBC chief's remarks come just weeks after another bank, UBS, warned that Scottish independence could trigger a rapid withdrawal of savings.

UBS economists said in a research note: “It probably does not matter that the Bank of England will act as lender of last resort during the transition period - history has shown that small depositors will queue to withdraw their money from a bank even when those deposits are fully guaranteed.”

Read more here:

Former PM Gordon Brown says health service is too vital to throw away its future for independence, Daily Record

GORDON Brown says we must continue to share costs of health care and welfare with rest of the union - or pay the price.

WHY should the people of Scotland throw away a system that we helped create, a system that benefits us greatly to this day?

This question is particularly important when it is often a matter of life and death.

Our NHS is worth £176 a month to every single Scottish man, woman and child.

That is £17 a month more than the £159 that the NHS spends on patients in England and £13 per month more than the £163 it spends on patients in Wales.

It means that over a whole year, £200 more is spent on the health care of each of us in Scotland than on our English neighbours.

But the funding of our NHS in Scotland comes not just from money raised in Scotland by taxes levied here. It comes from money raised from all over the UK by taxes paid by every UK citizen.

Overall, Scotland receives around £950million more for health care than any division of resources based on population share would provide, and for very good reasons.

With more elderly people, more people with disabilities and a wider geographical area to cover, Scottish needs are greater and the share out of resources arises from the founding principle of the NHS which is the best there could be: you pay in based on your ability to pay and you benefit based on your need.

Read the full article here:

UK Ministers want answers on independence currency, The Scotsman

TWO UK CABINET Ministers have today challenged the SNP Government to provide answers on currency after Alex Salmond’s top adviser said that his post-independence plans may be blocked.

The SNP Government wants to share the pound in a currency union with the rest of the UK but this has been ruled out by the Coalition Government and Labour opposition. Crawford Beveridge, who heads up Mr Salmond’s fiscal commission working group, admitted in a keynote speech last night that “politics” could see the plans blocked and suggested using the pound without UK agreement - so called sterlingisation - could work as an alternative.

With only a week to go until postal voting starts in the referendum both Chief Secretary Danny Alexander and Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael are now pressing the SNP Government to set out its currency ‘Plan B’.

Mr Alexander said the Scottish Government is ‘fast running out of time’ to come up with a Plan B on currency.

Liberal Democrats at Holyrood have this morning called for an urgent ministerial statement from Alex Salmond on the currency after Mr Beveridge suggested the SNP’s threat to walk away from Scotland’s share of UK debt after a Yes vote “looks like a default and it smells like a default” to credit ratings agencies.

Read the full article here:

John Swinney sets record straight after claiming Scottish Government were involved in currency union talks with Bank of England, Daily Record

SNP finance secretary John Swinney yesterday made a climb-down six days after claiming the Scottish Government were already having technical talks over the use of the pound after independence.

He set the record straight in Holyrood by conceding he did not mean to make people believe discussions are under way.

Swinney told MSPs: “If by my choice of words last week I have given the impression that the Bank of England has been in negotiating a currency union, I can say to Parliament that was not my intention.”

Technical and factual discussions have taken place between government officials and the bank in the run up to the referendum - but not on the specifics of the SNP’s preferred deal, he admitted.

The bank had taken the highly unusual step of publicly rubbishing his original claim at the end of last week.

At the time, Swinney’s aides said they were baffled by the reaction.

Tory MSP Murdo Fraser - who raised the issue in Holyrood yesterday - said Swinney was at risk of losing his reputation as a “straight talker”.

Fraser said: “I cannot understand why it has taken six full days for the finance secretary to set the record straight on such a critical matter.

Read the full article here:

Scottish independence: John Swinney clarifies Bank of England discussions, BBC News

 

Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney has clarified comments he made regarding discussions with the Bank of England over a currency union.

Last Wednesday Mr Swinney said the Scottish government had held "technical discussions" with the bank.

The Bank of England denied holding talks about future monetary arrangement proposals.

Mr Swinney has since said it was "not my intention" to give the impression the bank had done so.

He faced calls in the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday to explain his initial claim that "the Scottish government has had technical discussions with the Bank of England regarding our proposal for a currency union."

Mr Swinney said: "Following agreement in March 2012 from Mervyn King and as set out to the Scottish Parliament, a number of technical and factual discussions have taken place with the Bank of England.

Read the full article here:

Cameron accuses Salmond of being 'desperate' after claims independence will protect the NHS from privatisation Daily Mail.

  The Prime Minister said health is already devolved to Holyrood

  Mr Salmond said NHS cuts in England would be replicated in Scotland

  Scottish Government's spending on private contractors has risen by 25%

David Cameron has accused the First Minister of ‘desperate’ tactics over his claim that separation will protect the NHS from privatisation.

The Prime Minister stressed health is devolved to Holyrood and controversial changes at Westminster cannot be imposed on Scots.

Alex Salmond, who went green bowling in Arbroath with Scotland's Commonwealth medallists today, has argued that NHS budget cuts south of the border would be replicated in Scotland – despite the fact Holyrood has received an extra £1.3billion from Westminster over five years.

He has persisted with the argument despite claims of hypocrisy after it emerged the Scottish Government’s own spending on private contractors rose by almost a quarter last year to more than £80million.

Mr Cameron said: ‘Health is a devolved issue. So the only person who could, if they wanted to, introduce more private provision into the NHS in Scotland is Alex Salmond.

‘I think this is a desperate man recognising the argument is going away from him making a pretty desperate argument.

‘Actually because of the protection on NHS spending that the UK Government has given that we would not cut NHS spending while we have had to make difficult decisions elsewhere - that has actually made sure under the Barnett formula that money is available for Scotland as well.‘So I think that argument does not stack up at all.’

Read more here:

COMMENT: Desperate Alex Salmond will say ANYTHING to con Scottish voters, Daily Express

THE chances of a Yes vote for independence in the referendum next month may have receded slightly in the past week or so, but they remain worryingly real.

The pro–United Kingdom No campaign may have been bolstered by the victory of Alistair Darling over Alex Salmond in the television debate earlier this month, but they are taking nothing for granted.

Mr Salmond has already proved he is able to execute a last round burst to overtake an opponent seemingly cruising to victory; no one should forget the last Scottish parliamentary election when an expected Labour win was turned into a rout by the SNP.

In London, as here, the possibility of a last–minute surge by the Nationalists is being taken deadly seriously. It is unlikely the Better Together campaign or the UK Government is going to put a foot badly wrong within the next five weeks, but you can never tell.

And what is certain is that Mr Salmond and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, will become ever more outrageous in their wild promises of post–independence riches for all, a last–ditch tactic which will be coupled to their constantly voiced doomwatch scenario should we vote to stay in the UK.

There is no doubt that the Yes campaign is badly damaged, probably irrevocably. Even many of the most diehard Nationalists are all but conceding defeat and looking forward to what can be done about reviving their long campaign after September.

Read more here:

Fears monarchy could be ditched by independent Scotland with Queen forced to send Australian-style Royal representative instead . Daily Mail

Experts fear independence could throw up divided loyalties for the Queen

Solution could be to appoint representative to act in the Sovereign's name

Claims Scotland may eventually ditch Royal family and becoming a republic

Comes amid growing support for independence ahead of September 18 vote

Support for independence up to 43% with 57% backing the Union

The Queen may be forced to appoint an Australian-style ‘governor general’ to rule in her name in Scotland if the country votes for independence next month, it has been claimed.

Constitutional experts fear independence could throw up divided loyalties for the Queen if there was a clash between Scotland and the rump-UK in the future.

One solution would be to appoint a ‘governor general’ in Edinburgh to act in the Queen’s name. This could lead Scotland to eventually ditching the Royal family and becoming a republic within the European Union, claim experts.

The claim comes as a new poll shows rising support for independence with just a month to go before the referendum on September 18.

A YouGov poll for the Times puts support for independence at 43 per cent, with 57 per cent backing the Union, once undecided voters are taken out.

Earlier this month just 39 per cent said they were preparing to vote Yes - with 61 per cent for No.

Scottish Nationalist leader Alex Salmond has insisted that the Queen will remain head of state in an independent Scotland.

But his party is split on the issue. The SNP’s John Mason yesterday called for a referendum to replace the Queen as head of state in Scotland.

He said: ‘The present queen is very popular, but the mood of society may change when she leaves the throne.’

Scotland Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has also raised the prospect this year of a referendum on the Royals. He said it was ‘for the people of Scotland to decide’ on the Queen’s role.

Read more here:

Further Reading:

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective

Why is everything going wrong for the Scottish Yes campaign?, The New Statesman

With little over a month to go until the referendum, the No campaign is buoyant. Alex Salmond’s unexpectedly weak performance against Alistair Darling in the first televised debate has convinced unionists they are winning the argument as well as the vote. The polls are consolidating in favour of the Union. The currency issue is eating away at the SNP’s economic credibility. The Yes activists I speak to are uncharacteristically downbeat as they begin to accept, some of them for the first time in 24 months, that they might actually lose.

Amidst the gloom, nationalists are telling themselves comforting stories. One is that polling companies haven’t picked-up what’s happening "on the ground"; that the network of Yes groups in poor neighbourhoods will deliver a burst of working class enthusiasm strong enough to propel independence over the line on referendum day. Another is that the SNP has been in this situation before – three years ago, as the last Holyrood election approached – and will turn things around now as it did then.

We won’t find out how credible the first story is until the vote itself, but the second one just doesn’t stack-up. "The difference between 2011 and 2014", one senior Better Together figure told me recently, "is that in 2011 [Scottish Labour] knew the fundamentals, like leadership and the economy, weren’t on its side. This time we know they are." This is surely right. At the end of June, 49 per cent of Scots said independence would make them worse off, compared to just 27 per cent who said it would make them better off. It would be difficult for any party to win an election battling against these sorts of numbers, let alone a referendum on something as far-reaching as national sovereignty.

So where did it all go wrong for the Yes campaign, which only a few weeks ago was fizzing with confidence? The left claims Yes Scotland and the SNP have spent too much time trying to persuade voters that independence will be achieved seamlessly, with little or no disruption to Scotland’s economy or its institutions, when it should have been emphasising Scotland’s bleak prospects as part of an austerity-bound UK. Had the SNP made September 18 a referendum on the current state of Britain, rather than the future state of Scotland, Yes support would be higher than it is now, they argue.

It’s a legitimate point. The weakest feature of the SNP’s independence prospectus – its plan for a post-UK sterlingzone – is also the centrepiece of the party’s "continuity strategy" – the various triangulating gestures the SNP leadership has made over recent years to reassure undecided voters that radical constitutional change needn’t entail radical political change. But the public knows, intuitively, that this isn’t true. You can’t sell a grand political vision like self-determination with a series of (supposedly) pragmatic compromises. Why bother with all the upheaval – and, for some, the trauma – of creating a new state if it’s going to look just like the old one?

Read more here:

Scottish Independence essay: Nordic model a fantasy, The Scotsman, Updated, SNP Government Oil and Gas Figures, spectacularly wrong

ADRIAN Wooldridge says there is no evidence the Nordic countries want to engage with Scotland

THE STORY is all too familiar. The marriage grows stale with the years. Those charming idiosyncrasies become intolerable irritations. The unhappy husband or wife catches the eye of a comely stranger. A glance turns into an affair. After a lot of rowing the unhappy couple finally divorces and life begins again.

This is half the story of the possible divorce between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom: a significant number of Scots think they would be much happier with the comely Nordics than with the dowdy English. But the other half of the story is more complicated. The Nordics show no sign of reciprocating the suitor’s affections. And the Nordic model that the nationalists have fallen in love with disappeared 25 years ago.

Evidence of the affair can be found all over the place. The Scottish National Party cannot get enough of the Nordic model. The Nordic model is not only vastly superior to the English model – it provides people with a higher standard of living while guaranteeing a safety net that is so generous that fathers get a year’s worth of paternity leave. It is also more in tune with Scotland’s collectivist and egalitarian tradition. The Jimmy Reid Foundation argues that the Scottish idea of the Common Wealth is the local equivalent of the Nordic ideal of the “folkhemmet” or People’s Home. Lesley Riddoch, a columnist on this paper, has established a thinktank, Nordic Horizons, to push for closer links between the Holyrood parliament and its northern neighbours. Angus Robertson, the SNP’s spokesman on foreign affairs and one of its leading Nordo-philes, says that one of the first things an independent Scotland will do will be to apply to join the Nordic Council, a steering group of Nordic countries.

Scotland’s infatuation with the Nordic model is not hard to understand. The Nordic countries routinely come at or close to the top of every official measure of success, from economic success to social wellbeing. It is common to argue that countries face a trade-off between economic growth and quality of life. The Nordic countries show that it is possible to have the best of both worlds.

Scotland and the Nordics are also drawn together by powerful ties of culture. Some ties are direct and genetic: the Viking raiders of the early Middle Ages left a profound mark on the country. The Shetland islanders still burn a Viking longboat every year. The language is littered with Scandinavian words. Other ties are cultural and geographic. Both Scotland and the Nordics are profoundly shaped by the Protestant religion and a frequently challenging climate and geography (asked to list his nearest railway station on a parliamentary expense form Jo Grimond replied “Bergen, Norway”).

Both the Scots and the Nordics lead the world in extracting natural resources. Both have a marked taste for the grain and the hop. And both excel in producing the modern equivalent of Viking sagas. Henning Mankel’s Inspector Wallender and Ian Rankin’s Inspector Rebus are cut from the same cloth: brooding individualists determined to get to the bottom of the blood-soaked story whatever the higher-ups tell them.

There are all sorts of obvious problems with this Scandimania. The Vikings left a more profound imprint on Northumbria, Cumbria and Yorkshire than on Scotland. Scotland’s west coast is more Irish than Scandinavian. Denmark and Southern Sweden look more like East Anglia than they do the Scottish Lowlands, let alone the Highlands.

Read more here:

Further Reading:

Alex Salmond’s currency dilemma: Climbdown or lose

Daily question: How big is Scotland’s economy and what's important to it?

Empire shadow still hangs heavy over Scotland

Scots Are Divided Over Independence, and Its Economic Costs

Oil forecast 'spectacularly wrong'

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective

Go-it-alone Scotland ‘defenceless’: Nation will be left without any weapons if it votes for independence and refuses to take its share of UK debt, MP warns Daily Mail

  Chairman of Scottish affairs committee said Alex Salmond’s ‘cavalier’ plan to renege on Scotland’s debts would ‘poison’ negotiations with UK

  Mr Salmond has insisted monetary union with rest of UK would go ahead

Scotland  will be left without any weapons to defend itself if it votes for independence and refuses to take on its share of UK debt, an MP has warned.

Ian Davidson, the chairman of the influential Scottish affairs committee, said that Alex Salmond’s ‘cavalier’ plan to renege on Scotland’s debts if he does not get his way on the pound would ‘poison’ negotiations with the UK.

He warned that Scotland would be denied access to military equipment and could be left with ‘a navy with no ships, an air force with no planes and an army with no guns’.

Mr Salmond has been under intense pressure to give details of an alternative if Westminster does not agree to the share the pound, but he has said he has no intention of proposing a ‘plan B’.

All three main UK parties have promised to veto a currency union if Scotland votes for independence on 18 September.

But Mr Salmond has insisted that monetary union with the rest of the UK would go ahead and promised not to help repay British debt if it does not.

Read more here:

Further Reading

Treasury: Tenth of Scots jobs at risk after Yes

Labour question how an independent Scotland would fund state spending after 37% fall in revenue from North Sea tax

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective

Peter Jones: Independence or the pound - which?. The Scotsman by Peter Jones

WHEN POLITICIANS accuse each other of desperation and panic, I tend not to listen, reckoning that it is the usual campaign hyperbole that tries to turn a minor slip of the tongue into a monumental credibility-destroying gaffe.

But I begin to think that it is an accusation that can be fairly levelled at Alex Salmond over the currency issue in this referendum.

There are certain tools that can be used to make the political equivalent of a clinical diagnosis of desperation. One is whether the arguments being used to shore up a position that has come under attack are robust or fatuous. And Mr Salmond is now making claims which, under any serious inspection, are complete nonsense.

In an article in a Sunday newspaper, he wrote that Labour leader Ed Miliband’s “hasty gambit to include a block on Scotland’s continued use of the pound in Labour’s next Westminster manifesto” would be “saying to Scots ‘I will defy the sovereign wish of the people in a referendum’”.

On umpteen grounds, this is gibberish. Actually, the only sovereign wish that will be expressed in the referendum will be the answer to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” If it is Yes, the sovereign will of the people will be that Scotland becomes independent.

If Mr Miliband said he would prevent Scotland from becoming independent, then that would certainly defy Scotland’s sovereign will. But he isn’t saying that at all. He is saying that Scotland can be an independent country if that’s what people want, but they won’t get a sterling currency union.

Read more here:

Further Reading:

Beyond the Scottish Independence Question, Looking at a Greater Devolution in The United Kingdom, A Perspective,

Promise of £348m shipyard contract for No vote

Independence issues: Financial, economy & currency