Scotland – Page 2

Project Fear pays off

The British establishment is breathing a collective sigh of relief. The people of Scotland have chosen Westminster rule over political sovereignty, and the Union remains intact.

Scotland’s pro-independence campaigners, bent on separatism and self-determination, claimed they had the momentum to realize an independent Scottish state. But they were mistaken.

The No campaign’s marginal victory has devastated thousands of Scots who had hoped Thursday’s referendum would pave the way for radical political transformation. It has also undercut the notion that vibrant grassroots movements can cultivate peaceful change in a seasoned democracy.

Many argue the passion, motivation and determination harbored by the Yes camp failed to appease fears roused by its rival ‘Better Together.’ The No campaign’s unyielding forecasts of economic peril, dwindling national security, an EU membership in jeopardy, and ruptured NATO relations ultimately eclipsed the pro-independence movement’s messages of positivity, hope and empowerment. And all the while ‘project fear’, as it was dubbed by budding Scottish secessionists, was bolstered and backed by the wider British establishment.

In the run up to September 18, unprecedented collaboration across Westminster’s divisive political terrain was apparent. It was interpreted by many as a frenetic effort to salvage a Union in jeopardy, and preserve a set of political and economic interests pertinent to the status quo.

While collective pleas and ominous warnings have secured a marginal victory for Better Together, Scotland’s independence referendum has rattled the very foundations of the UK’s socio-political design. As Scots’ hopes for a sovereign state evaporate, Salmond’s government must forge an alternate path for Scotland and prepare to negotiate the prospect of devolution.

Whose victory march?
In the run up to the referendum, Westminster pledged to enhance Scotland’s powers if a No vote reigned supreme. Following the No campaign’s victory, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg’s recent promise is foremost in Scots’ minds. All three parties pledged to deliver new powers to the Scottish parliament in accordance with a concrete timetable. But whether they will now act fully upon their pre-referendum rhetoric remains to be seen.

Commenting on the prospect of devolution, Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander told the BBC such a move would pave the way for “a stronger Scottish parliament but with the strength, stability and security of the United Kingdom.”

But Scotland’s deputy first minister, SNP MSP Nicola Sturgeon, has expressed serious doubt over Westminster’s conciliatory overtures, emphasizing specific and explicit details were absent from the tentative pledge.

At present, the fate of Scotland appears to hinge on a set of ambiguous, ill-defined, assurances by an array of establishment figures unable to agree on the details of their collective vow.

And because Cameron, Miliband and Clegg battled stringently to keep the option of devolution off the referendum ballot paper, cynicism and doubt over the long term benefits of their proposition hang heavy over Scotland today. Ed Miliband stressed prior to the referendum that a No vote was a vote for change. But whether this change will rupture the foundations of the status quo many Scots fought so hard to overturn is debatable.

Prior to the referendum, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg warned Britain’s political establishment required a fundamental overhaul should Scotland acquire further devolution. The deputy prime minister cautioned it made little sense for Scottish MPs to garner the same degree of leverage over solely British matters if their devolved powers increased.

Clegg’s consideration of the matter relates directly to the so-called West Lothian question, a concern that English MPs should hold more sway over English legislation in the event of Scottish devolution. Should Clegg’s suggestion come to pass, Scottish MPs could lose the right to vote on vital issues such as the budget.

But dissatisfaction with devolution is unlikely to remain confined to Scottish borders. Such a legislative change could undercut Labour’s political leverage in Britain, which draws a considerable degree of support from Scottish MPs. And many argue Westminster has given little consideration to how such a power shift will affect the wider United Kingdom.

Although the coalition has attempted to appease widespread fears that devolution would reap a democratic deficit for the English, their actions have had little impact. Despite having conducted a special report which examined its potential ramifications entitled the McKay commission, the coalition subsequently shelved it for 18 months. As a result, many Conservative backbenchers have expressed deep concern. Former cabinet minister John Redwood has called for a separate English parliament, while MP Andrew Percy has urged voting rights be addressed.

Conservative rumblings
Cameron refused to define his position on devolution in the run up to September 18. But in a live address on radio, Clegg recently emphasized that once the legislation is passed to grant significant new powers on borrowing, welfare, and taxes to Scotland, decisive action must follow on how votes are organized in Westminster.

Clegg backs the McKay commission, which stipulates Scottish MPs should continue to vote on new legislation in the wake of devolution. The commission also emphasizes, however, such a shift in the Union’s political and social fabric should be accompanied by the allocation of greater powers to English MPs over matters relating to their immediate jurisdiction.

David Cameron will likely expect some very tough questions in coming weeks, following Scotland’s independence referendum. As the ballots were counted on Thursday night, many MPs began to break their silence on further devolution for the Scottish Parliament. Caustic and disgruntled rumblings from Conservative backbenches gathered pace, as Tory MPs warned of the dangers of handing too much power to the Scots.

Before the results were out, Conservative MP Claire Perry warned calm, measured analysis was required in negotiating devolution. The last minute pledge, tentatively offered by Westminster’s three party leaders, entailed a vow to devolve tax-raising powers to the Scottish parliament. But Perry has denounced such a policy shift as “hardly equitable.” Her perspective was recently echoed by Conservative MP for the City of London, Mark Field, who claimed his constituents will strongly oppose devo-max, many of whom are driven by financial and business interests.

On October 16, Gordon Brown is expected to reveal his plans for devolution in Britain’s parliament, with a view realizing the power shift by January 2015. Should Tory MPs attempt to block devo-max proposals to offer more political autonomy to Scotland, a heated leadership battle is expected to infiltrate the Conservative’s stronghold.

Changing political horizons
Headed by First Scottish Minister Alex Salmond, Scotland’s pro-independence campaign politically engaged tens of thousands of Scots, many of whom reportedly felt marginalized and disenfranchised by Westminster rule. It succeeded in mobilizing the young, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, progressives, nationalists and idealists who had grown weary of the status quo. Although it failed to secure independence, it succeeded in highlighting a potent appetite for political change in Scotland.

The recent Scottish campaign for self-determination illustrates how mounting frustration with a far-removed centralized government can build over time into a forceful drive for political sovereignty. The Yes campaign’s near-victory occurred primarily because the politics that characterize the Union had changed in recent decades. Westminster rule appeared increasingly removed from, and out of kilter with, Scotland’s interests, prompting socio-political space for nationalist ideals to develop in Scotland’s public consciousness. Many critics and commentators suggest that an aversion to Tory conservatism and Labour’s broken promises provided a fertile fulcrum for the SNP’s pro-independence campaign.

Following Better Together’s narrow victory, Alex Salmond conceded defeat in an emotional public address on Friday morning, emphasizing he accepted “the democratic verdict of the people.” But the SNP leader also cautioned that Britain’s three primary pro-union parties had to “live up” to their devolution promises.

PM David Cameron intimated that while the Scots will garner more power over their affairs in the future, so too will English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens. In what was a deliberately ambiguous reference to plans for devolution, Cameron insisted the interests and rights of all UK citizens must be “preserved and enhanced.” Inherent to these words, was a veiled promise to the City of London and the wider British establishment that while the status quo would be subject to a few cosmetic changes, it will ultimately remain steadfast.

In the wake of a referendum that almost terminated a 307-year-old political union, Westminister faces many challenges. Thursday’s poll results marked a watershed moment both in British and Scottish politics, the legacy of which will play out for decades.

As the UK coalition and Salmond’s government embark on discussions regarding the tentative process of devolution, the stakes remain high. The negotiations mark a significant remodeling of the UK’s political landscape. The Yes campaign’s vision of Scotland as a revised Scandinavian-style state characterized by inclusiveness, egalitarianism, clean energy, and global peace has been denounced by critics as utopian.

But against a backdrop of devolution, Scotland’s future remains unwritten and everything including the very fabric of Westminster itself is still on the table.

Sarah Jane Brennan, RT

238 Years of the Disunited Kingdom

Projecting from the rate of territorial decline over the last two centuries, experts predicted Thursday that the British Empire will be reduced to an area of eight acres surrounding Buckingham Palace by as early as 2050.

“Considering the loss of its colonial possessions around the world over the years, as well as Scotland’s current independence campaign, we project that the once vast and mighty British Empire will soon reach only a few hundred feet beyond the property lines of the royal palace,” said Oxford University political science professor Patrick Withers, adding that within 35 years, the sum total of British-held territory will likely extend from Upper Belgrave St. a few blocks west of Buckingham Palace to just a small fraction of St. James’s Park to the east.

“According to even the most generous estimates, the England of 2050 will no longer include the British Museum, most of the River Thames, or the Houses of Parliament, which will present extraordinary difficulties in governance and sustaining British identity at all.”

Withers went on to say that within 100 years, the British Empire may be reduced to the Queen’s throne room and part of the hallway outside.

Source: The Onion

Scotland rejects independence

Scotland has rejected independence in Friday’s referendum count, with declared local authority areas so far choosing by to stay within the U.K. by around 55%. The 307-year-strong union seems to have survived, although increased powers will be devolved to the territory.

A total of 32 local authority are being tallied up, and although the key constituency of Glasgow voted for independence, it was not by a particularly large margin, in a near-fatal blow to the Yes camp.

A final outcome is announced early Friday morning local time, but with Edinburgh voting No by a huge margin, there is little doubting victory for the Better Together campaign.

Pubs across the country were staying open throughout the night with customers both anxious and excited to see whether the 307-year-strong union would be consigned to the history books.

Greg Waddell, a doctor working in Glasgow, tells TIME that he voted Yes “because disempowerment breeds dependency; because the current extent of social inequality in Scotland demeans every one of its people.”

Source: Time

St. Andrew’s flag flies over Scotland and Donetsk

By Dmirti Minin.

That’s the way the history goes. The St. Andrew’s flag is flown in two places in Europe situated at great distance from each other. Scotland and Novorossia are struggling for their national identity under the same colors. The two peoples divided by different history and cultures are addressing the issue of independence. They are going different ways; a peaceful referendum is to take place in Scotland while Novorossia is going through the horrors of civil war. But they are united by the same goal and its symbol – the St. Andrew flag.

The New Testament states that Andrew the Apostle was born in the village of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee. He was a fisherman by trade to become the first disciple to follow Jesus. The church history says Andrew preached in Scythia, along the Black Sea, including Crimea and the Dnieper River as far as Kiev and from there he traveled to Novgorod. Hence, he became a patron saint of Ukraine, Romania and Russia. According to tradition, he founded the See of Byzantium (Constantinople) in AD 38. Since then Andrew was recognized as Russia’s patron saint. Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras (Patræ) in Achaea, on the northern coast of the Peloponnese.

The St. Andrew flag was the ensign of the Navy of the Russian Empire from 1712 to 1918. It was first hoisted in 1712 to be formally adopted as Navy Ensign in 1720. From 1692 to 1712 Peter I personally drew eight flags projects that have consistently been taken into the Navy. Here is the description of the flag’s final version by Peter I: «The flag is white, across it there is a blue St. Andrew’s cross, whom he baptized Russia». After the Russian Revolution, the Russian Navy Ensign was changed to be reintroduced in the Russian Navy in 1992, and is still used today. Novorossia made St. Andrew its flag in May 2014 adding some red field to it. It emphasized the important role of the Navy in adding these lands to Russia and the association with the Great Victory Banner. It also symbolizes the unity of Russian people. The current flag of the Federal State of Novorossia was adopted on August 13, 2014. It resembles the Romanov flag, the national flag of the Russian Empire from 1858 to 1883. Formally the St. Andrew flag now is a symbol of Novorossia’s self-defence forces. But the changes have not taken root. The people of Novorossia, civilians and fighters, maintain their allegiance to the St. Andrew’s flag.

First the Saint Andrew’s Cross or the Saltire, the flag of Scotland, also known as the national flag of the country. But then it was the white cross on a blue field. According to legend, Saint Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, was crucified on an X-shaped cross at Patras (Patrae), in Achaea. According to legend, in 832 A.D. Óengus II led an army of Picts and Scots into battle against the Angles, led by Athelstan, near modern-day Athelstaneford, East Lothian. The legend states that whilst engaged in prayer on the eve of battle, Óengus vowed that if granted victory he would appoint Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland; Andrew then appeared to Óengus that night in a dream and assured him of victory. On the morning of battle white clouds forming the shape of an X were said to have appeared in the sky. Óengus and his combined force, emboldened by this apparent divine intervention, took to the field and despite being inferior in terms of numbers were victorious. Having interpreted the cloud phenomenon as representing the crux decussata upon which Saint Andrew was crucified, Óengus honoured his pre-battle pledge and duly appointed Saint Andrew as the Patron Saint of Scotland. The white saltire set against a celestial blue background is said to have been adopted as the design of the flag of Scotland on the basis of this legend. The St. Andrew’s flag has been a symbol of opposing the aggressive Anglo-Saxon civilization in the lands stretching from the North Sea shore to the Black Sea region.

By signing the Acts of Union in 1707 Scotland ultimately lost its independence but preserved its soul. On September 18 an independence referendum is held and people may say «Yes». London makes a lot of promises to cozy up to Scottish voters. It goes to any length just to make them remain part of the United Kingdom. But even if the majority says ‘No» at the referendum, the time is on the side of those who advocate Scotland’s independence.

Saying «Yes» by the voters will inspire the people of Donetsk and Lugansk. They will welcome the outcome and ask – why should we be refused the rights that other peoples have, are we different, do our children cry in some other way?

When London agreed to the referendum, the idea of independence was supported by no more than 30%. The changes in public sentiments were neither expected, nor predicted. If it were different, perhaps the English would have done their best to prevent the event. What made influence the public opinion in such a short period of time? Has the drama of other European people making sacrifices for the ideas symbolized by the St. Andrew’s flag impacted their mindset? The link between the events in Scotland and Novorossia is only symbolic. Backed up by powerful Washington London is directly involved in activities aimed at quelling the expression of people’s free will in Novorossia. By doing so it kind of lets the Scots know that, if not the circumstances, they could be treated the same way. It only spurs the pro-independence feelings. Actually there is no difference between the happenings in Scotland and Novorossia from a legal point of view.

In fact, the only formal argument against the self-determination of Novorossia is that the referendum is held in agreement with London while the referendum in Novorossia took place without Kiev’s consent. The Spanish diplomacy tries to take advantage of this fact as the referendum on Catalonia’s independence is slated for November 9. The Spanish government never gave its agreement on organizing the event and never said it would recognize its results. In Madrid they say the Catalonian vote should be treated the same way as the plebiscites in Crimea and Novorossia with no recognition of referendum results to follow. But if Scotland votes for independence nothing will stop the Catalonians on the way to self-determination. The stubbornness of Madrid may lead to the repetition of the events in Ukraine. The attempt to substitute the rights of people with the rights of governments challenges the international law and may lead to new conflicts.

The energy of the collapse that hit the USSR and East Europe in the late 1980s – early 1990 was, to large extent, stimulated by London to backlash today. The West started to talk about the boomerang effect of re-Balkanization. Scotland is just a start. Wales and Northern Ireland may follow. It’s an irony of fate that Donetsk was founded by John James Hughes, a Welsh engineer and businessman. This is one more historic event linking Donetsk with Great Britain and its people.

The chain reaction is to move far beyond the UK’s borders. In Europe the leaders of political movements struggling for autonomy status or independence are closely watching the event. Perhaps Catalonia in Spain and Flandria in Belgium are next. The support of Western capitals for the Kiev repressions does not scare them; to the contrary it makes them more adamant on achieving the aspired goal. The logic is simple: the national issue should be tackled before they are treated the same way as in Ukraine.

The European Union will not avoid the crisis of identity. George Robertson, former NATO Secretary General (1999-2003) who is a Scot by origin, said, «A dangerous historic event might soon be upon us — with few people outside the U.K. even noticing». According to him, if the separatist government gets its way in a referendum planned for September 18, the 300-year-old union of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland — the United States’ oldest and closest ally — will be on the road to disintegration. The rest of the country will hold a referendum on the European Union membership. There is a great chance the advocates of leaving the Union will win as Scotland is largely pro-EU. The Eurosceptics will strengthen their position in all countries. The window of opportunity for the states striving for the European Union membership to save their feeble economies will probably be closed. And the Ukraine’s prospects for European integration, which are dim enough anyway, will vanish in the hays.

Scots spur separatists

For Kurt Ryon, the mayor of Steenokkerzeel, a Flemish village 10 miles northeast of Brussels, watching the Scottish independence campaign in the final days before the referendum is like watching a good soccer match. “They were losing for the first half and most of the second half,” he said, “but now we’re in the 85th minute and they could be winning.”

Mr. Ryon, who wants his native Flanders to split from Belgium, is rooting for Scotland to do the same from Britain, and like a faithful soccer fan he has all the gear: a T-shirt from the Scottish pro-independence “yes” campaign, a collection of “yes” pins on his denim jacket and copious amounts of a beer specially brewed by Flemish nationalists to express their solidarity. The label says “Ja!” next to a Scottish flag, Flemish for yes.

From Catalonia to Kurdistan to Quebec, nationalist and separatist movements in Europe and beyond are watching the Scottish independence referendum closely — sometimes more so than Britons themselves, who seem to have only just woken up to the possibility that Scotland might vote next Thursday to bring to an end a 307-year union. A curious collection of left and right, rich and poor, marginal and mainstream, these movements are united in the hope that their shared ambition for more self-determination will get a lift from an independent Scotland.

In the Basque Country, an autonomous community in northern Spain, the leader of the governing nationalist party has been known to dress up in a kilt and jokes that Basques would rather be part of an independent Scotland than remain part of Spain, which has ruled out any kind of vote. In Veneto, a region of northern Italy, nationalists have held a Scottish-inspired online referendum and now claim that nine in 10 inhabitants want autonomy.

Busloads of Catalans, South Tiroleans, Corsicans, Bretons, Frisians and “Finland-Swedes” are headed for Scotland to witness the vote. Even Bavaria (which calls itself “Europe’s seventh-largest economy”) is sending a delegation.

“It would create a very important precedent,” said Naif Bezwan of Mardin Artuklu University in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Across the Iraqi border (“the Kurdish-Kurdish border,” as Mr. Bezwan puts it), where a confluence of war, oil disputes and political turmoil has renewed the debate about secession, Kurds pine for the opportunity of a Scottish-style breakup.

“Everyone here is watching,” said Hemin Lihony, the web manager at Rudaw, Kurdistan’s largest news organization, based in Erbil, Iraq.

History offers few examples of nations splitting up in a consensual way. The velvet divorce between the Czechs and the Slovaks in 1993 is one, the Norwegian referendum on independence from Sweden in 1905 another. But mostly, nation states go to war over their borders.

The United States fought a civil war to preserve the union. Turkey fought Kurdish nationalists for decades and still denies them the right to Kurdish-language education. Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia only after a war in the 1990s.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who annexed Crimea after a stealth invasion and a referendum there, and who has been accused of aggressively aiding separatists in eastern Ukraine, has happily supported Scotland’s independence bid. But his attachment to self-determination is selective: In the Russian republics of Chechnya and Dagestan, he has deployed savage force to crush Muslim separatists.

In some cases, the referendum in Scotland is fueling new hopes, however improbable, among separatist fringe groups. When the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller, was invited to the University of Stirling in Scotland this year, he said the Scots were paving the way for an independent Texas. In others, the vote is re-energizing debates with considerable geopolitical importance.

In Taiwan, which China claims as part of its territory even though Taiwan is effectively independent with its own currency, military and democratically elected government, some hope a Scottish “yes” vote could prompt a more careful deliberation over the island’s future.

Wang Dan, a student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, wrote in a recent column for Taiwan’s Apple Daily, “If the Scottish vote succeeds, it will be worth considering by those who advocate deciding Taiwan’s status through a referendum.”

But it is in Europe that a Scottish “yes” vote would probably create the largest ripples.

It would be the first time that a member of the European Union faces secession by a region eager to become a member in its own right. If Scotland succeeds in negotiating its own membership in the bloc, it would suddenly make the prospect of independence seem safer and more attractive elsewhere in Europe, said George Robertson, a former secretary general of NATO.

“There is a serious risk of a domino effect,” said Mr. Robertson, himself a Scot and an opponent of independence. A “yes” vote, he warned, could trigger “the Balkanization of Europe.”

Nationalists, however, say that a bit of Balkanization may be just what Europe needs.

In the slightly dilapidated Brussels office of the European Free Alliance, which groups together 40 parties representing Europe’s “stateless nations,” a busy map shows what Europe would look like if they all became independent. François Alfonsi, the president of the alliance and a proud Corsican, admits that it would be messy, but “democracy is messy and democracy is what Europe needs.”

Across town, Mark Demesmaeker, a Flemish member of the European Parliament who has decorated his office with a Scottish flag and keeps a copy of the Scottish white paper on independence on his desk, speaks of “failed nation states.”

In his view, Britain has failed to give the Scots and Welsh proper representation in Parliament, and Spain has failed to deliver democracy to Catalans and Basques eager to have their own independence vote. Other nations, like France and Italy, have been mired in political and economic stagnation. Mr. Demesmaeker’s own country, Belgium, cannot even form a government. (Belgium had elections in May and is still deep in coalition talks; the last time it took 541 days.)

Pro-European national movements like his own, the New Flemish Alliance — now the biggest party not just in Flanders but in all of Belgium — are the best antidote to the far-right, anti-European and anti-immigrant nationalist movements that did so well in European elections earlier this year, he said.

“If Scotland votes ‘yes,’ it will be an eye-opener for many people on the street,” Mr. Demesmaeker said. “Most people think it’s our fate to be part of Belgium. But Flanders could be a prosperous nation. It’s a democratic evolution that is going on in different states of the European Union. Eventually we want Flanders to take its place in the E.U.”

If plenty of nationalists have pledged their solidarity with Scotland, the reverse has been less true. The Scottish referendum takes place just days before the regional government of Catalonia is expected to confirm that it will hold an independence vote of its own on Nov. 9, which would override legal and political objections from Madrid.

Alfred Bosch, a Catalan lawmaker, said his counterparts in Scotland had shown little interest in being associated with events in Catalonia.

The Scots “probably want to distance themselves from anything that they see as not as ripe and as mature as their own process,” Mr. Bosch said. “They don’t want to create any hostility from Spain or other countries that might also have pro-independence movements,” not least because those governments will have to recognize an independent Scotland and consider whether to allow it into the European Union.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, many nationalists say Scotland has already won.

“They have the opportunity to decide their own future,” said Andoni Ortuzar, the president of the governing Basque Nationalist Party, who wore a kilt in the 2012 carnival to celebrate the announcement of a Scottish referendum that year. “That’s what national self-determination is,” he said. “That’s all we ask.”

Source: NYT

UK mismanaged Scotland’s oil wealth

A leading oil economist has predicted a potential North Sea bonus of 99 new discoveries in the next 30 years.

Alex Kemp, from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, has used detailed financial modelling to set out “commercially viable” projects for the industry following the Wood Review.

The sector has been one of the key battlegrounds in the independence debate, with varying projections on just how many recoverable barrels remain.

In the new academic paper, Prof Kemp argues the 99 finds could be made by 2045, and also outlines an additional 58 which he says will be “uneconomic” by 2050 but could become viable as a result of technological improvements.

He further points out 147 already discovered fields which are not yet at the detailed planning stage and 25 fields currently “being assessed” for development.

Prof Kemp, who factored in expected government tax relief for new exploration, said oil prices are likely to be “much higher” by 2050.

The latest predictions were welcomed by Energy Minister Fergus Ewing, who said the figures proved the North Sea has a “bright future”.

He said: “Whilst the No campaign like to talk down Scotland’s oil wealth – despite enjoying the riches that flow from it into the London Treasury – this expert opinion makes clear that Scotland’s oil and gas story is far from over.

“Under the UK’s poor stewardship of North Sea oil and gas we have seen frequent changes to the tax regime, a lack of focus on value creation and mismanagement of revenues.

“These are all mistakes which cannot be allowed to continue for the decades of oil and gas recovery which remain ahead.”

In the paper, Prof Kemp said: “New commercially viable developments triggered over the period to 2050 include not only 25 fields currently being assessed for development, but 147 discovered fields not yet at the detailed planning stage, and 99 further discoveries resulting from new exploration over the period to 2045.

“At the year 2050 in our model there are also 58 new discoveries made between 2014 and 2045 which contain well over 1 billion boe (barrels of oil equivalent) but are uneconomic. Again, it can be expected that, with higher oil prices, some will become economic.

“But, even the most bearish commentators on the oil market would agree that by 2050 real oil prices are likely to be much higher, and thus more developments should be triggered by that time.”

Source: energyvoice.com

Will Scotland get their gold if they vote ‘Yes’?

An independent Scotland could lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom’s 310-tonne gold reserves if votes go in favour of the “Yes” campaign this month, with ownership of Britain’s bullion hoard up for negotiation along with other assets.

“The distribution of the UK’s assets in the event of Scottish independence would be subject to negotiation between an independent Scottish Government and the continuing UK government,” a spokesman for the United Kingdom Treasury said on Monday.

The United Kingdom, whose reserves are worth 7.84 billion pounds ($12.6 billion) at today’s prices, is currently the world’s 18th largest official sector gold holder.

A decision to break away from the United Kingdom when Scotland’s voters go to the polls on Sept. 18 would be followed by negotiations with London over a raft of assets, including the pound and North Sea oil.

Supporters of Scottish independence over the weekend took their first opinion poll lead since the referendum campaign began, with a YouGov survey for the Sunday Times newspaper putting the “Yes” to independence campaign on 51 percent against the “No” camp on 49 percent.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has faced persistent criticism for disposing of almost 400 tonnes of the United Kingdom’s gold via a series of auctions between 1999 and 2002, when prices were at their lowest in around 20 years.

Gold prices surged over the following decade, topping out in September 2011 at $1,920.30 an ounce, nearly five times their end 2002 level.

Brown returned to frontline politics this year to campaign for the preservation of Scotland’s 307-year old union with England.

Source:Reuters

Independent Scotland would ditch the Queen

Some 63 per cent of voters called for a ballot on Scotland’s next head of state in the event of separation, with only 22 per cent saying the royals should be retained without question.

Scottish independence could lead to Scotland ditching the royal family and becoming a republic, according to constitutional experts.

Although the SNP has said that it wants the Queen as head of state, independence could lead to divided loyalties for the sovereign, experts said.

Stephen Haseler, director of the Global Policy Institute in London, said: “Alex Salmond has overcome the issue of the monarchy initially by saying ‘Look, we will keep the Queen’, but of course the Queen won’t be around for very long, and my absolute conviction is that once the Queen goes the Scots won’t wear Prince Charles, and they will go for a republican system within the European Union.”

The movement contains many republicans, particularly in the Scottish Green party and among the Scottish Socialists.

This majority view is shared by people who are intending to vote against independence, as well as by supporters of all political parties.

Although many voters would support the monarchy in any such referendum, the very fact that Scots clearly want a say on the issue will be deeply worrying for Buckingham Palace.

The Royal Family has been enjoying a surge in popularity recently, thanks to the public affection for the baby, George.

However, our poll shows that repeated demands for an independent Scotland to become a republic have obviously shaken confidence in the Windsors north of the Border.

First Minister Alex Salmond has insisted the Queen and her successors would automatically remain as heads of state if Scots vote for independence next year.

However, influential figures within both the SNP and the Yes Scotland campaign are in favour of holding another referendum on retaining the monarchy.

Yes Scotland chairman Dennis Canavan welcomed our shock poll results, which support his personal view.

He said: “I am pleased to see such widespread support for the sovereignty of the people. This poll shows that the majority of people agree with my earlier suggestion that the people should decide whether the monarchy should be retained.

“It is also very significant that my proposal has cross-party support, with a clear majority amongst Labour, SNP, Tory and Lib Dem voters.

“Some of the party politicians seem to be out of touch with their own voters on this issue and trivialise the debate by mouthing sycophantic platitudes about the Queen.

“The present monarch may be popular but any would-be successor should not simply inherit the job of head of state without some form of democratic vote.

“The sovereignty of the people is far more important than the sovereignty of any monarch and a hereditary head of state should have no place in a modern society based on democratic principles such as equal opportunities.”

The strongest support for a referendum on the monarchy comes from Labour voters – 72 per cent – and those who did not vote in the last Holyrood elections – 88 per cent.

The party’s spokesman for constitutional affairs, Drew Smith MSP, said: “Talk of further referendums should come after the Scottish people have had their say on independence.”

Source: The Express

Oz leader’s comments on Scotland ‘foolish, hypocritical, offensive’

Alex Salmond, the First Minister for Scotland, has said that comments by Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minster, that the world would not “be helped by an independent Scotland” are “foolish, hypocritical and offensive”.

Mr Abbott who is on a visit to London told the Times newspaper that it was “hard to see how the world would be helped by an independent Scotland.”

“I think the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom, and the countries that cheer at the prospect are not the countries whose company one would like to keep,” he said.

Scottish voters will go to the polls on 18 September and will be asked the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Alex Salmond jumped on Mr. Abbotts’ comments and told BBC Scotland they were hypocritical and “offensive to the Scottish people” considering the benefits Australia has got since becoming independent from Britain after the Second World War.

“They are foolish, actually, because of the way he said it. To say the people of Scotland who supported independence weren’t friends of freedom or justice, I mean, the independence process is about freedom and justice,” he said.

He added that even the British government could recognize the need for a democratic vote on the issue and that the referendum was a “model of democratic conduct”.

The Scottish premiere also said that Abbott was gaffe prone and had put his foot in it, with his comments.

One of his previous gaffes involved referring to Canada as Canadia during a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa in June.

Source: RT

Enemies of West will cheer Scottish independence – Oz PM

The Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, has warned that Scottish independence would be “cheered” by the enemies of the West in the most outspoken foreign attack in the campaign so far.

“As a friend of Britain, as an observer from afar, it’s hard to see how the world would be helped by an independent Scotland,” Abbott said in an exclusive interview for The Times, London.

“I think that the people who would like to see the break-up of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, not the friends of freedom, and that the countries that would cheer at the prospect of the break-up with the United
Kingdom are not the countries whose company one would like to keep,” Abbott added.

“Independence seems to be working well for Australia,” responded Gail Lythgoe, a spokeswoman for the official pro-independence campaign, Yes Scotland. “The decision about Scotland’s future is one for the people of Scotland to make – a point that even UK Prime Minister David Cameron asserts,” Lythgoe said.

“After a Yes vote, Scotland will take her place as a normal and valued member of the international community – just as Australia did when she gained independence at the turn of the century.”

Abbott, who spent two years at Oxford University, is no stranger to controversy and has previously insulted native Australian aborigines, housewives and immigrants despite the fact he moved to the country himself as a child.

Abbott’s comments on Scottish independence follow those by US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who both gave veiled support for the continuation of the United Kingdom as a whole following approaches from Downing Street. But the Australian Prime Minister’s comments represent the most explicit rejection of Scottish independence yet made by an international leader.

Scots will go to the polls on September 18, and will be asked one question, “Should Scotland become an independent country?”

Source: RIA Novosti

‘Scotland to become wealthier than UK after independence’

While Alex Salmond encourages his compatriots to vote “Yes” for Scottish independence, painting a picture of the bright prospects of “sustainable prosperity” across the whole country, skeptics have several questions for the First Minister. They want to know about the future nation’s currency, pensions, and funding for schools and hospitals if Scotland was to leave the UK.

According to Alex Salmond, Scotland will become independent “in more promising circumstances than virtually any nation in history,” the Scotsman reports. “We would be among the wealthiest nations in the OECD. Scotland would be 14th on the list, with the UK at 18th. Seven out of the ten wealthiest countries in the developed world have populations similar to, or smaller than, Scotland,” says the First Minister.

“Scotland has contributed more in taxes, per person, than the rest of the UK for every single one of the last 33 years. Over the past five years our public finances have been healthier than the UK’s by £8.3 billion ($13,96 billion), that’s nearly £1,600 ($2,690) per person,” Alex Salmond explains. He believes that Scotland possesses an “extraordinary potential” in such spheres as engineering, life sciences and energy, stressing that independence will help Scotland create a competitive and fair modern economy.

There are skeptics, however, who do not share Mr. Salmond’s optimistic position. Scottish Labour MSP, Jackie Baillie claims that the First Minister’s independence project lacks realism and pragmatism:
“Maybe if the First Minister had credible answers about what would replace the pound, how our pensions would be paid and what would happen to the funding for our schools and hospitals if we left the UK, his campaign wouldn’t be trailing so badly in the polls,” she said, cited by the Scotsman.

“As part of the UK we can have the best of both worlds; a strong Scottish Parliament, with the guarantee of more powers, backed up by the strength, security, and stability of being part of the larger UK. Only separation puts that at risk,” Jackie Baillie added.

Source: Voice of Russia

Where’s America’s right to referendum, secession?

by Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

From a node in the neoconservative network, a Fox News studio, Charles Krauthammer has complained about the eviction of the Ukrainian Navy from the city of Sevastopol, where it was headquartered. Not a word did the commentator say about the city’s location: Sevastopol is on the Crimean Peninsula. It would appear that the city now falls within Crimean jurisdiction – starting March 16, the day the people of Crimea voted to secede from Ukraine.

By most estimates, between 97 and 93 percent of Crimean voters said yes to a reunion with Russia. High too was voter turnout. McClatchy pegs it at 83 percent of registered voters in Crimea. BBC News was agreed, also reporting a ballot of “more than 80 percent.” Zerohedge.com counted a “paltry” 73 percent turnout, still “higher than every U.S. presidential election since 1900.”

As rocker Ted Nugent might say, the Russians and Crimeans are blood brothers. Nugent got into trouble for using this perfectly proper appellation to describe his affinity for a politician, of all people: Texas Republican gubernatorial hopeful Greg Abbott. Notwithstanding that in the land of the terminally stupid, linguistic flourish can land one in hot water – blood brother is a good, if colorful, turn of phrase that denotes fealty between like-minded people. Steeped in state-enforced multiculturalism, America’s deracinated, self-anointed cognoscenti have a hard time grasping the blood-brother connections between the people of Russia and Crimea.

For no apparent reason other than that it is pro-Russian, Americans have reflexively aligned themselves against the swell for secession in southern Ukraine. Separatist referenda in Kosovo, Catalonia, South Sudan and Scotland have been accepted without demur by a political and media establishment unprepared to countenance a similar referendum in Crimea.

Guided by the pack animals of politics and punditry who seldom fail to shed darkness on whatever topic they tackle, a nation that struggles to locate the disputed territories on the map has been convinced of the menace posed by Russia. According to a CNN poll, 69 percent of Americans say they see Russia as a threat. A Rasmussen Report poll indicated that “52 percent support U.S. diplomatic action against Russia over Crimea.”

Helping to drive American Russophobia is the implacable logic exemplified by Bill O’Reilly of “The Factor,” yet another node in the network mentioned. At the suggestion that there are similarities between Russian and American military bellicosity, the TV host foams at the mouth. Fulmination is followed not by argument, but by a form of ad hominem or psychologizing.

It is absolutely verboten on this popular and powerful show to compare Russia’s “excursion” into Ukraine to America’s naturally illicit and illegal occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In defense of their reflexive rejection of the reasonable, if inaccurate, comparison – for decades the U.S. has been far more aggressive than Russia in its forays abroad – Bill and his gang “argued” (on March 3) as follows:

President Vladimir Putin is a thug. That’s why his actions can’t be contrasted with the actions of “a good country” like the U.S. By “logical” extension, George Bush and Barack Obama are never to be fingered as thugs.

Why, Billy, some of you will inquire? Is it because these thugs are American? Precisely.

Next, Bill O’Reilly’s mind-reading gifts were galvanized to negate the juxtaposition of the actions on the ground of the Russian and American governments. Putin, it would appear, seeks the recrudescence of the Russian empire. On the other hand, the U.S., with a military presence in 148 countries and 900 bases worldwide, has neither sought nor achieved empire status.

Why, Billy, some of you will ask? Is it because the U.S. is a good country? You got it!

Be it in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Japan, Bahrain, Djibouti, South Korea, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan and Kuwait – even Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru – wherever it plants its military boot, a “good country” is never an empire, only a force for good.

Me, O’Reilly would dismiss as “anti-American.” But what of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger? While Kissinger has condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, he excoriated “the demonization of Vladimir Putin.” This antipathy “is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” “The United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington,” wrote the statesman in the Washington Post.

Is Henry Kissinger anti-American or simply smarter than some Americans?

At least Secretary of State John Kerry hung on to his sense of humor. “Unless you are the United States of America, you just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” Kerry lectured the congenitally incurious David Gregory, of “Meet the Press.”

I ad-libbed. Except for the first eight words in quotation marks, Secretary Kerry did indeed say the foregoing. Given America’s military record, the missing words are implied.

The O’Reilly school of “thought” could – and does – counteract that Crimea’s vote to join Russia was tainted by fraud. This is certainly possible. Nevertheless, it is none of our business. Americans have their own tyrants to dethrone.

We’re supposed to be the freest people in the world, aren’t we? Is this claim not the moral basis for America’s we-know-best global meddling? But if we Americans are the freest people in the world, where’s our right to a referendum on, say, that “little” legislative “blip” called Obamacare? And if we’re so bleeding free, where’s our right to secede from D.C.?

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

Scottish independence to derail 2015 election?

Fears grow in Britain of a “constitutional crisis” which would put the election in doubt, as legal expert warns that Scottish independence could bring down the next government

The 2015 general election will be thrown into turmoil if Scotland votes for independence in September’s referendum, according to government legal advice.

An election is scheduled to be held on May 7 next year but by then Scotland could already be preparing to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom.

The leading lawyer who wrote the Westminster government’s legal advice on Scottish independence is now warning that a “Yes” vote in the referendum would have major ramifications for the election, and could destabilise the next British government.

Cabinet ministers fear that if Alex Salmond’s independence campaign succeeds, the general election would be in grave doubt, plunging Britain into an unprecedented “constitutional crisis”.

In a memorandum for the House of Lords, Professor Alan Boyle, a specialist in international law at Edinburgh University, outlined two options for the election if Scotland chooses independence on September 18.

Source: The Telegraph

Springboks en route to Paris after 28-0 victory over Scotland

The Springboks move on to Paris on a roll of two wins out of two from their November tour of Europe, and with their try-line yet to be breached.

Having succeeded in shutting out Wales on the try front in their 24-15 victory in Cardiff eight days previously, South Africa managed to prevent Scotland from scoring a single point in a clinically-executed 28-0 victory at Edinburgh’s Murrayfield on Sunday.

“You’ll always take four tries to nil in Test match rugby,” said South Africa coach Heyneke Meyer.

“The great thing for me is that we wanted to work harder on our defence. Last week was awesome; we didn’t give away any tries against Wales. And this week we didn’t give Scotland any points.

“I was very happy with that — especially at the end, when we were down to 14 men (replacement flanker Marcell Coetzee was in the sin-bin for the final 10 minutes).

“We had a back-line player on the scrum (centre Jaque Fourie).

“That’s what I like about this team. They don’t like giving points away. They put their bodies on the line. It was awesome defence.”

The Springboks effectively had victory in the bag at half-time. Tries from Willem Alberts, Willie le Roux and JP Pietersen, making his 50th Test appearance, plus three conversions from Patrick Lambie, put them 21-0 up at the interval.

A fourth try 13 minutes into the second half, scored by replacement prop Coenie Oosthuizen and converted by Lambie, completed the routine victory as Meyer’s charges looked ahead to their final tour match against France in Paris this Saturday.

There was, however, some collateral damage to the South African squad.

Tighthead prop Frans Malherbe limped off in the 33rd minute and is unlikely to feature against the French, whom the Springboks have not beaten away from home for 16 years.

“Frans has got a ripped cartilage,” Meyer reported. “We’re not sure if he’s going to be fine. The doctor will make a decision tomorrow (Monday) but at this stage we’re not very hopeful that he will be able to continue.”

Blindside flanker Francois Louw was stretchered from the field in a neck brace with four minutes remaining but Meyer said: “I’ve spoken to the doctor and it was precautionary. He’s injured his neck but he should be fine. We’re still monitoring him.”

On the subject of his squad’s form, having followed up their impressive second-place in the Rugby Championship with two clinical victories in Europe, Meyer commented: “I’m very proud of the guys and the way we’ve been playing. There are a lot of youngsters coming through and there’s a great blend. To have a 75 percent winning record this year is awesome. I’m very, very happy with our consistency.

“We’ve scored seven tries to nil on this tour so far. If we win next week, I think it will be an 80 percent win record for the year, which hasn’t happened a lot.

“But we have to keep our feet on ground and stay humble. I believe we’re on the right track but there’s still a long way for us to go.”

As for Scotland, they were left licking the wounds of their first blank on the scoreboard since a 40-0 Murrayfield defeat by New Zealand during the 2007 World Cup.

“We let ourselves down early on and put ourselves under a heap of pressure,” Scotland’s interim head coach, Scott Johnson, reflected.

“We were up against a clinical side who took all of their chances.”

Scotland finish their November home series against Johnson’s native Australia at Murrayfield this Saturday. – AFP