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: