Lies, Deceit,Fraud,Attempted Robbery,and Grand Scale Theft. These are all the actions of one group of people,and for some of them It was and Is an Inside Job!
Who and What am I talking about? I am talking about not a bunch of Great Train robbers, or a Massive Diamond Heist,Nor even an American Financier, but the Westminster Governments of both Labour and Conservatives,and now the Condemd, stretching back to at least 1974,and very probably long long before that too. They have been ably assisted by Scots MPs and since devolution Scots MSPs.
Now I know from the Labour,Tory and Liberal reaction in Holyrood today,that they didn’t like the anti Scottish tag placed upon their actions by Joan McAlpine,but really what is to be made of their behaviour over attempting to hijack the Scottish Governing bodies mandate on a referendum,other than that?
My accusation is directed on the Wesminster they all pay ultimate homage to,and its behaviour in not only being Anti Scottish,but having committed fraud and Grand Larceny on a quite incredible scale!
So settle back, put your feet up,and have yourself a coffee,while I recount this tale.
Back in the early 1970’s with Scottish Nationalism at a peak,Oil was being found and brought ashore for the first time from Scottish territorial waters.Britain was in a mess and heading rapidly for bankruptcy yet again! Scots were getting restless. The revitalised SNP were beginning to claim that we would be much better off without being hog tied to the UK parliament.
The response that came back from the Labour government of the day was that there was not much oil,that Its value wasn’t worth all that much,and its costs to extract made its value much less. They also told Scotland that it was very uncertain how long it would last for.
Enter Prof Gavin McCrone and his Economic Report to the Westminster Labour Government.
I will include a link to the original report in my footnotes, but here are some selected things it said. I will desist from comment,as the report really says it all.
“Can one be certain that the oil is without doubt a Scottish asset or, even if it is, that these substantial revenues and balance of payments advantages would indeed accrue to an independent Scotland? Clearly these questions raise complicated issues in international law which could, if allowed, occupy the legal profession for many years. Two possible lines of argument may be expected: either that Scotland should pay England some compensation for appropriating the most productive part of the Continental Shelf, or that the
whole shelf should be regarded as the common property of the nations of the former United Kingdom with revenue distributed in accordance with some population based formula irrespective of where oil is discovered. As regards the first of the arguments, the prospective return from oil revenue would at the very least be one of the factors taken into account in determining the financial
settlement between the two countries when they become independent. To
argue the second would be directly counter to the line that the UK
Government has taken with the EEC, that the resources of the continental Shelf are as much a national asset as are those on land, like coal mines, and that there is therefore no question of the Europeanisation of North Sea oil.
Disputes on these matters might well occasion much bitterness between the two countries, but it is hard to see any conclusion other than to allow Scotland to have that part of the Continental Shelf which would have been hers if shehad been independent all along.”
“There might be some argument about where the boundary between English and Scottish waters would lie. At present this is considered to be along the line of latitude which lies just north of Berwick on Tweed, and it might perhaps be held that it should run NE/SW as an extension of the Border. This could have the effect of transferring the small oilfields in the south, Auk and Argyll,
to the English sector, but would not affect the main finds”
“It must be concluded therefore that large revenues and balance of payments gains would indeed accrue to a Scottish Government in the event of independence provided that steps were taken either by carried interest or by taxation to secure the Government ‘take’. Undoubtedly this would banish any anxieties the Government might have had about its budgetary position or its balance of payments. The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in
Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so nowwould the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.”
“North Sea oil, however, by giving the country a chronic
balance of payments surplus, would rule out any possibility of devaluation.Indeed, it is hard to see how an upward valuation of the currency could be avoided. Obviously this pressure should be resisted as far as possible; but unless there was a remarkable change in the strength of sterling, it must be expected that the Scots pound would rise in relation to it fairly soon after
independence, especially if the latter continues its downward slide. A revaluation would give rise to none of the difficulties which were argued earlier to apply to a Scottish devaluation. Since the effect would be to reduce prices and raise incomes there would not be the same resistance to making it effective in Scotland. An exchange rate of £1 Scots to 120p sterling within two years of independence therefore seems quite probable”
“it would be essential to try to keep the surpluses
on the balance of payments down and thereby reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. This could involve extensive lending abroad, whether to England, the EEC or under-developed countries. Such lending could well be in Scotland’s interest rather than face the prospect of an intolerably exchange rate; it might also do much to help cement relations with other EEC countries and, coupled with the supplies of oil for export, would make Scotland a highly desirable member of EEC with a strong bargaining position”
Output per head in most sectors of Scottish industry is well below
European levels. This is largely because the British economy has
invested much less than other European countries over the last 25
years. A substantial increase in manufacturing investment is
therefore necessary if this is to be put right. Only then will Scottish
industry be able to compete effectively with other members of EEC
at anything other than low exchange rates.
Part of the reason for the low investment in Scotland in the past has
been the persistence of ‘stop-go’ in the UK economy. Every time
investment has begun to rise satisfactorily, as it was doing in 1973,
the emergence of a balance of payments deficit has forced the
Government to take strong deflationary measures with the result that the investment boom has petered out again. Scotland made good progress in 1973, but ideally from her point of view the 5 per cent growth rate needed to go on for another couple of years.
As an independent state, Scotland’s balance of payments position would enable her to break out of the ‘stop-go’ cycle and a sustained rate of growth could be planned on the basis that it could be carried on for at least a decade.
The strength of the currency coupled with the budgetary surplus would help to keep interest rates down and there would be no need for sudden increases in taxation or massive cuts in public expenditure. Admittedly, since Scotland is so closely tied to the English market, her economy would continue to be affected by measures taken in London, but this effect would diminish the more
Scotland expands trade with other EEC countries. Furthermore, it would be quite proper for a Scottish Government to take countervailing measures to stimulate the Scottish economy at times when England was going through a recession. Such measures would help to keep Scottish output up and would help the English economy by reducing the Scottish balance of payments surplus. It can be expected therefore that the prospect of sustained expansion
and an end to ‘stop-go’ would do more than anything else could both to raise investment in domestic industry and to encourage foreign investment to come to Scotland”
“The European Community
Membership of the EEC affects the economics of Scottish independence in several important respects. It guarantees access to English and Continental markets in a way which would not be possible otherwise. Without EEC Scotland would always run the risk that England might find it expedient to impose an import surcharge, a quantitative control or even a tariff on goods coming from Scotland. It was largely to eliminate this that Scotland accepted the Union of 1707. New EEC rules would have the same effect and for all nine
member states. In the unlikely event of England leaving the EEC, Scottish access to the other countries could in time largely compensate for any restrictions that might arise on English trade.”
“Access to EEC should also help to provide a major stimulus to Scottish industrial investment. The EEC is not only a bigger market than the UK but its economy has been much more buoyant than that of Britain. There is no doubt that the exclusion of the United Kingdom had a damaging effect on investment and that foreign firms in particular preferred development within EEC. To gain the full advantage of this stimulus from membership it will, of
course, be necessary to have a stable domestic economy. High rates of
inflation and a declining currency such as the UK has had recently would do much to discourage foreign companies from coming to Scotland”
“North Sea oil could have far-reaching consequences for Scottish membership of EEC because of the tremendously increased political power it would confer. Without oil other members might pay little enough regard to Scotland; her voting power would not be large and it might indeed be argued that she could exert more leverage on the Community as part of the United Kingdom. As the
major producer of oil in Western Europe, however, Scotland would be in a key position and other countries would be extremely foolish if they did not seek to do all they could to accommodate Scottish interests. For Scotland the net cost of Common Agricultural Policy, which features so large in British discussions would be at most some £40m. a year, a small sum compared with the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil. The more common policies come to be decided in Brussels in the years ahead, the more Scotland would benefit from
having her own Commissioner in the EEC as of right and her own voice in the Council of Ministers instead of relying on the indirect, and so far hardly satisfactory, form of vicarious representation through UK departments”
This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely
overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish
nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive
surpluses both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long timeinto the future.
Wealth does not automatically mean full employment and the end of net
emigration. But provided sensible policies are pursued, it is possible to see how this situation could be used to re-equip Scottish industry and renew outworn social capital thereby providing the expansion necessary to absorb Scotland’s excess labour and the increase in productivity required to raise incomes. Thus, for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now
be credibly argued that Scotland’s economic advantage lies in its repeal”
“When this situation comes to be fully appreciated in the years ahead, it is likely to have a major impact on Scottish politics, since it is on social and political grounds alone that the case for retention of the union will in future have to be based.”
“Even with greater
diversification of Scottish trade to Europe and to North America, an
impoverished England or one perpetually suffering the rigours of demand restraint would have most serious consequences for the Scottish economy.
Britain is now counting so heavily on North Sea oil to redress its balance of payments that it is easy to imagine England in dire straits without it. The oil prices since the Yom Kippur war make this a much more serious matter than could have been imagined before; and it is now likely that transfer of North Sea oil to Scottish ownership would occasion much bitterness in England if
not an attempt to forcibly prevent it. England would, of course, be no worse off than most of the Continental EEC countries in this respect; indeed, probably there are better chances of finding oil in the Celtic Sea or the English Channel than are open to most of them. If therefore the other countries can adjust to the new energy situation, England should be able as well.”
“If, in five years’ time North Sea oil is contributing massively to the UK budget,while the economic and social condition of West Central Scotland continues in the poor state that it is today, it would be hard to imagine conditions more favourable to the growth of support for the nationalist movement. Very determined steps to urgently transform economic conditions in Scotland will
therefore be necessary and the Scottish people will have to be persuaded that their problems really have received the attention and expenditure they deserve if this outcome is to be avoided”
Had this report been made readily available, Scotland would have been Independent by 1979. Everything taken out of the Sea since then to fund Britains Bankruptys of the 70’s, 80’s and Now, Is therefore nothing more than Grand Theft through Fraudulent Dishonest Means.
This Report was hidden away for 30 years, and would still not have seen the light of day without an SNP Freedom of Information request.
Please feel free to Comment and state your opinions below.
I feel sure the document speaks for itself without my further Interpretation.
But In short, this One document alone is enough to Convict.
If such evidence were to be placed in front of Jury In a Court of Law,where One Individual had been accused of Fraud,and Grand Scale Theft. They would be Banged up on a very long sentence and the Key thrown away.
The perpetrators of this Fraud, has been the British Governments,both Labour and Conservative,and every single MP and Minister who knew about it,and continued to perpetrate the Lies told by the British State to the people and Nation of Scotland.
I nearly wept when I first read it, and It does not make me any happier with subsequent readings. As far as Trusting Unionists and Westminster to run a fair Referendum…They have Long Lost the credibility and trust to do so.
Many more Oil related facts are to be found at the Oil of Scotland website.