Scotland – praag.org

Scotland warns Britain over Trident

Alex Salmond has given warning that it would be a “fatal mistake” for the UK government to proceed with its plan to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent, refusing to rule out calling a second independence referendum if it does so.

“This government would be making a fatal mistake if they believed that for the sake of this costly trumpery that this useless, expensive, unlawful and inherently dangerous military plaything is going to be tolerated by these benches, this party or this country any longer,” said Mr Salmond.

Asked by reporters after the debate whether he saw the renewal of Trident as a possible trigger for a second independence referendum, he said: “You would have to ask Nicola Sturgeon [the first minister] whether this counts as a change in material circumstances.”

Referring to the SNP’s landslide election victory in Scotland, which gave his party 56 out of 59 seats, he added: “The government will have to take notice that they cannot go forward with the position that they used to.”

Mr Salmond was speaking during a debate about a military investigation into allegations made by William McNeilly, who worked on the Faslane base.

Mr McNeilly, a submariner, made a series of claims about the Trident weapons programme in a long online report.

He said it was harder to get into most nightclubs than into the area housing the submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles at the Faslane naval base. He said there were significant technical defects on the boats themselves, catalogued potential fire risks and leaks, and added that safety checks were rarely carried out on contractors working on the boats.

He called the system as a whole a “disaster waiting to happen”.

Source: FT

Tories’ repeal of Human Rights Act could spark constitutional crisis

Newly appointed Justice Secretary Michael Gove will push ahead with Conservative plans to repeal the Human Rights Act – a move experts warn could spark a constitutional crisis and blight Britain’s reputation on human rights worldwide.

Conservative Party sources, fresh from last week’s general election victory, told the Guardian the human rights reforms are imminent.

Civil liberty advocates warn the soon-to-be implemented measures would erode the right to life, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, the right to protest and the right to freedom from torture and discrimination.

Although the Tories were keen to push ahead with the legal changes during their last term in government, the move was blocked by the party’s ex-coalition partner the Liberal Democrats. But as a majority government, the Conservatives are now poised to push ahead with the reforms.

Central to the Tories’ election manifesto was a pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) and significantly curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Britain. The legal reforms are expected to surface in PM David Cameron’s plans for his first 100 days, which will be outlined in the Queen’s Speech on May 27.

Under these changes, the Conservatives would replace the HRA with a Tory-styled British Bill of Rights. Britain’s Supreme Court would no longer be answerable to the ECHR, with the Strasbourg-based court losing the power to order changes to UK law.

The plans were drawn up in 2014 by then-Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling. At the time, Grayling proposed Britain withdraw from the ECHR if the Council of Europe rejects the Conservatives’ British Bill of Rights.

Constitutional crisis

Considerable doubt exists among experts that the Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog responsible for ensuring the Convention is upheld, will accept the Tories’ proposals. As a result, it is widely believed Britain will disengage from the European Convention on Human Rights and undermine Europe’s’ civil liberties framework in the process.

Britain’s withdrawal from the ECHR has been strongly opposed by former Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke and the UK’s ex-Attorney General Dominic Grieve. Grieve has long condemned the proposal, warning its consequences would be devastating.

In December, he said the government’s threat to potentially abandon the Strasbourg court undermines international law and could fray the constitutional fabric that holds the United Kingdom together. Echoing grieve, analysts warn such a withdrawal would spark a constitutional crisis in the UK.

They suggest the move would be flatly rejected by Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and would mean the Conservative government has violated Northern Ireland’s 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Kicking Scotland in the teeth

Prime Minister David Cameron on Sunday ruled out giving Scotland another independence referendum despite spectacular gains by Scottish nationalists in a UK-wide election, saying Scots had “emphatically” rejected a breakaway only last year.

Cameron, who was re-elected with a surprise outright majority last week, said he would ensure that further powers would be granted to Scotland according to an existing plan. But he dismissed the idea that Scots might get another independence referendum anytime soon.

“We had a referendum. Scotland voted emphatically to stay in the United Kingdom,” Cameron told Channel 4 News.

“There isn’t going to be another referendum,” he said, saying the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), which won 56 of 59 parliamentary seats in Scotland last week, had made clear that election was not about securing another vote.

Scots rejected independence in September 2014 by 55-45 percent after a lengthy and divisive campaign. Some nationalists said afterwards that the question had been decided for “a generation.”

The startling success of the SNP, which all but wiped out the Labour Party in Scotland last week, has renewed speculation it might push for another referendum, perhaps in the run-up to a Scottish parliamentary election next year.

Source: Reuters

Disunited Kingdom as Scottish nationalists on course for landslide

Scottish nationalists were on course for a landslide win north of the border in Britain’s national election, obliterating their opponents and setting the stage for a new battle over independence.

Early wins for the Scottish National Party (SNP) included the ousting of the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, the defeat of a senior Labour figure in Paisley and taking former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s onetime stronghold in Kirkcaldy.

“There’s a lion is roaring in Scotland tonight; a Scottish Lion. I don’t think any government of any political complexion is going to be able to ignore it,” former SNP leader Alex Salmond said as he awaited results in the Gordon constituency he is tipped to win.

But the SNP could still be shut out of any role in the British government, a scenario likely to bring a new confrontation over Scottish aspirations for independence.

An exit poll showed Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives were on course to win the most seats in parliament with 316, just shy of an outright majority, with Ed Miliband’s Labour Party trailing on 239.

If confirmed, such an outcome would deny the SNP the kingmaker role it had sought in the House of Commons and kill off the prospect of a leftist alliance with Labour to force Cameron out of office.

But it would dramatically highlight the political divide between England and Scotland.

In a stunning victory for the SNP, Labour’s Douglas Alexander — the shadow foreign secretary and campaign co-ordinator — lost to a 20-year-old politics student, Mhairi Black by nearly 6,000 votes.

Black becomes the youngest British Member of Parliament since the 19th Century.

The leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Jim Murphy, also lost his seat to the SNP.

Other early results from Scotland gave victory to the SNP in 26 seats, heralding a huge sweep of Scottish seats for the SNP, which won just 6 seats in 2010.

“This is history written as we watch and speak. We have never seen swings of this magnitude in any British election,” said Murray Stewart Leith, senior lecturer in politics at the University of West Scotland.

“It has serious implications for the United Kingdom as a political union. Whatever government is formed after this election will need to seriously consider its constitutional structure.”

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon said in Glasgow the results showed a historic shift in opinion in Scotland.

“We said during the campaign that the SNP MPs would be elected to make Scotland’s voice heard, and that’s exactly what we intend to do,” she said.

The results could bolster Scots to push for a new referendum on independence after separatists lost one last September.

Source: Reuters

Independent Scotland ‘feels inevitable,’ says Murdoch

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says Scottish independence “feels inevitable” and predicts a hung parliament following the UK general election next week.

In a series of Tweets the chairman of News Corp, which owns The Times and The Sun, expressed a range of opinions on British politics, Scottish self-rule, and rising inequality in the UK and US.

Murdoch, 84, suggested “dirty” deals would be made between the political parties after the general election if no party wins a clear majority.

He also predicted Prime Minister David Cameron would be dropped by the Conservative Party if he failed to gain a majority against Labour leader Ed Miliband. He said this was “open talk” among Tories.

The Australia-born press baron has been viewed as a kingmaker in British politics because of the influence he wields through his newspaper outlets.

Murdoch’s tabloid the Sun had a weekly readership of 5.4 million in the UK last year.

Murdoch has previously backed Alex Salmond, former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), praising him as a cunning politician.

Salmond’s close ties with Murdoch were first revealed in 2012, when private documents were released detailing the extent of their relationship.

Letters published shortly after Murdoch shut down his popular tabloid News of the World exposed how Salmond had more than two dozen meeting with Murdoch or his executives.

The media mogul also commented on the likelihood of no political party wining the general election, a situation known as a hung parliament.

Murdoch also indicated the SNP were “cleverly hurting Miliband” by hinting at their support of Labour in the election.

Cameron’s future as leader of the Conservative Party is at stake in this election, Murdoch suggested.

In a surprise comment for a man estimated to be worth over $14 billion (US), Murdoch also weighed in on the Sunday Times 2015 Rich List, published on the weekend.

His claim that the economic turmoil gripping “advanced” economies has been caused by “regulations and power crazed lawyers” received a barrage of responses on Twitter.

The rise of nationalism in Britain

As the eurozone crisis continues, anti-establishment insurgencies like the Scottish National Party, SNP’s, are surfacing all over Europe: nationalist, populist, separatist, left or right.

As the British empire was gradually dissolved after the second world war and its industrial base attacked by younger, nimbler economies, the cohesion of the British state weakened.

There was an impulse towards supra-nationalism in the shape of membership in the European Union, but Britain joined late, in 1973.

English people – steeped in Britain’s maritime, imperial traditions – felt hostile towards the EU.

At the same time, long-smothered regional nationalism was reviving on Britain’s Celtic fringes. In divided Ireland, it was violent; in Scotland, political, emboldened by newly discovered North Sea oil; in Wales, initially, cultural, based around the preservation of the Welsh language.

That was in the 70s. Forty years on, these rival strands are much stronger, and testing the concept of “Britishness” to destruction.

The Scottish national party has barely paused for breath since losing last September’s referendum on independence for Scotland – immediately declaring itself the moral victor and demanding greater powers for Edinburgh.

Since the referendum result – 55% no, 45% yes – disaffected working-class Labour voters have flocked to the SNP. Polls suggest the Scottish nationalists, now led by Scotland’s new first minister, the formidable Nicola Sturgeon, will slaughter Labour north of the border, winning dozens of Scotland’s 59 seats and perhaps holding the balance of power in London. If she finds herself in that position, Sturgeon promises to block Cameron and prop up a minority Miliband administration.

Britain’s Tory newspapers are busy denouncing Sturgeon as “the most dangerous woman” in the country. Cameron – whose Tories have only one seat in Scotland – warns of a Scottish veto from the people who want to break up Britain. Miliband is embarrassed.

Meanwhile, in England, the populist anti-European right, in the form of the UK independence party (Ukip), has evolved under the skilful leadership of Nigel Farage.

Ukip’s proven ability to win protest votes at four-yearly elections to the 28-nation European parliament is now threatening the status quo at Westminster. It has two MPs (both defectors from the Tories) and hopes to win more on 7 May.

If that sounds familiar, it should. Though Ukip portrays itself as free market and libertarian, it is also deeply nostalgic, socially conservative, and suspicious of immigrants and big-government bureaucracy, especially from the EU’s Brussels headquarters.

Racist, homophobic and authoritarian? Certainly not, says Farage. We just want to be a self-governing sovereign state again. But Ukip’s “little guy” rank-and-file is not always quite so on-message. This is disruptive Tea Party Republicanism with added potency.

Ukip’s threat to the status quo is twofold. It may take enough votes away from Cameron’s Tories to deny the prime minister his slim hopes of a Commons majority on May 7, or even to stop him being the largest party, which would make it hard for him to form another coalition.

In a tight race, with both main parties polling at around 34%, Ukip’s rise may also hurt Miliband’s prospects by peeling off Labour’s equivalent of blue-collar Democrats, working-class voters fed up with stagnant wages and gay marriage, underfunded public services and “unpatriotic” liberals.

Source: The Guardian

Cashing in on British sexual deviance

UK firms are cashing in on British sexual deviance. Meanwhile, emergency services are on standby for a spate of “bedroom antics-gone-wrong.”

It was revealed Tuesday that hardware store B&Q was preparing its staff and stocks for a spike in cable tie, rope and duct tape sales, as featured in Fifty Shades, a pornographic film to be released on mainstreet.

Another company is actually tapping into the nation’s unhealthy fever, meanwhile.

The “intense female Viagra ice cream,” or “Vice cream,” as the company dubs it, contains a pleasure enhancer Lady Prelox. The company says they hope to see women “screaming for Vice Cream on Valentine’s Day.”

The London Fire Brigade say they are “concerned” the release of Fifty Shades of Grey in cinemas will lead to a “spike” in cases of people stuck in handcuffs and rings.

They attended nearly 400 such incidents since April last year, including 28 involving entrapment in handcuffs and the removal of nearly 300 rings, some from male genitalia. They have also been called out to aid men whose penises have been trapped in toasters, vacuums and other household equipment.

“The Fifty Shades effect seems to spike handcuff incidents so we hope filmgoers will use common sense and avoid leaving themselves red-faced,” he said.

The land of the brave however, should be renamed as the land of the proprietous. Scotland, was revealed to prefer “spooning” to actual sex in a recent poll.

The South East of England ranked themselves 9 out of 10 on a scale of how “kinky” they are.

Majority of Scots would now vote ‘yes’ to independence

Just six weeks after the referendum in which Scots rejected independence by 55 to 45 percent, a new YouGov poll for the Times has found that 52 percent now back a split from the union, as Labour sees its support in Scotland gradually diminish, RT reported.

The YouGov poll put support for the union at 48 percent. The figures will give more momentum to the pro-independence Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), which wants to see another referendum as soon as possible.

Another vote on whether Scotland should remain in the 300-year-old union with England may be triggered in 2017 if the UK votes to leave the EU. The Scottish are much more pro-European than the English, and want to stay in the European Union.

While Scots believe the results of the last referendum have left the country divided, a separate poll for STV found that two-thirds of Scots want another referendum within a decade.

The United Kingdom consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. England is home to about 85 percent of the population, but Scotland – with a small population of just under five million – is richer in natural resources and has about one-third of the UK’s land mass.

Ron Paul joins secessionists

Secessionists across the world were inspired by Scotland’s energetic attempt at independence from the United Kingdom earlier this month. Ron Paul, as it turns out, joined them.

In an essay on his eponymous institution’s website Sunday, the former U.S. congressman from Texas wrote that any supporters of freedom should cheer secessionism because it allows for smaller government—a constant mantra for the libertarian and perennial presidential candidate, who didn’t previously realize there were more than a handful of secessionist groups in the United States.

“I was real pleased with that, and a bit surprised,” Paul told National Journal. “But then, on second thought, you think, ‘Why not? Why not more?’ ”

Fringe groups calling for states and regions to secede from the U.S., such as the Second Vermont Republic and the Alaskan Independence Party, gained more publicity in the weeks leading up to the Scottish referendum. As the outsized federal government continues to encroach on individual rights, Paul said, he thinks there will be a groundswell of these movements.

“It’s something that I think is going to grow, because the failure of the federal government is going to get much worse,” he said. “When the bankruptcy evolves, and maybe some of these pension funds are confiscated, and the wars never end, and bankruptcy comes forth, people [will say], ‘Hey, we’re getting a bad deal from this. Why don’t we leave?’ ”

He added: “I think it’s inevitable people wanting to leave will be there, and the numbers will grow.”

Realistically, though, Paul said he doesn’t think any of these groups could actually succeed. Despite the founders’ own deep belief in secession—they gained America’s independence from Europe, after all—he said the Civil War set the precedent that secession would carry “very, very bad” results.

“By our history, the heavy hand of the federal government would come down,” Paul told National Journal. “They’d probably shoot ’em.”

In typical fashion, Paul argued that the principle of secession was more important than what could actually happen in reality. It’s the threat, he said, that’s important to keep the federal government in check.

“I think what is most important is we have a concrete right to secede,” Paul said. “Even if we never had any secession, or any state declare independence, we would be so much better off, because there would always be this threat. Once the threat of a state leaving was removed, it was just open-door policy for the federal government to expand itself and run roughshod out over the states because the states couldn’t do much.”

Given that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., will likely run for president in 2016 with a much better chance of winning than his father ever had, the elder Paul’s willingness to share his reasonably radical views seem imprudent, if not unexpected. In an election cycle that has often equated the politics of Ron and Rand, this latest remark is sure to annoy the potential 2016-er’s supporters.

For Rand’s sake, it’s fortunate that Ron didn’t express his support for the Texas Nationalist Movement or any other secessionist groups in the U.S. Before he’d back Texan independence, he joked, “I better check out and see who’s running Austin before we decide about that.”

Source: nationaljournal.com

Afrikaners need ‘Devo Max’ too

It is clear that SA is in dire need of an honest debate about what it means to be ’South African’

Scotland wasted an opportunity to become fully independent of the UK, yet the resultant national debate and soul-searching during the referendum had lasting effects on both Scottish and British identity. I was struck by septuagenarian designer Vivienne Westwood’s declaration: “I hate England. I like Scotland because somehow I think they are better than we are. They are more democratic.”

Looking at the kind of ethnic discourse dished up by Jonny Steinberg and Nomalanga Mkhize on what they see as white or Afrikaner identity, it is clear that South Africa is in dire need of an honest debate about what it means to be “South African” (if such a thing exists) and whether we would not relate better at a greater distance from one another. “Devo max” was the term coined during the “Indyref” and Afrikaners definitely require it, at least as far as our schools and universities are concerned.

As I have argued recently in my ebook essay, Raiders of the lost Empire: South Africa’s ‘English’ identity, this society apes everything that Britain and the British do. Even Mandela said that he aspired to be a black Englishman. As Hendrik Potgieter expressed to the Natal governor circa 1840, I can think of no fate worse than becoming English, yet so many people here are absolutely besotted with the British royals and regard South Africa as a Little Britain, smelling of bacon and eggs, especially at the breakfast table. Robin Cook’s speech on multicultural “Chicken tikka masala Britain” would also define how this Little Britain sees itself, although its national dish is probably a Spur flame-grilled hamburger, with that touch of American ambience.

From the English point of view, Afrikaners may be a moribund minority best forgotten about unless they can be slurred with perennial caricatures of apartheid or seeing Oscar Pistorius as an Afrikaner, despite the fact that only his surname is Afrikaans. However, just like “wee Scotland”, we have a right to exist, to speak our language and not to be murdered by the thousands every year.

Until now, our Afrikaans state schools have managed to avoid the depth of the crisis in education, triggered by all the fatal experiments with “outcomes-based education” and other English or Commonwealth fads. Before it gets any worse, control over Afrikaans education at all levels must handed over to us. The notion that an English person could decide what my child should be taught, how and in what language is absolutely preposterous!

As American author Jared Taylor said, there is no such thing as “white identity”. Whites are too browbeaten by constant accusations of racism to have a racial identity. But the Afrikaner nation has a strong and enduring cultural identity, much more so than that of the Scots, in fact.

Great Britain and its leaders were at equally great pains to “embrace” Scotland, lest it flees the union. Locally, Little Britain is so contemptuous of Afrikaners, Afrikaans, boerewors, Steve Hofmeyr, Die Stem and everything that goes with it, that there seems to be a mutual feeling that more separation is not only desirable, but inevitable.

We also want Devo Max, and the first step would be to return our schools and universities to us. We made them, paid for them and still administer them. They do not belong to Little Britain.

A shortened form of this column appeared as a letter in Business Day under the title Afrikaans identity needs autonomy.

Lesotho and other African countries look comical

Journalists have been having a field day ridiculing the recent “coup” in Lesotho.

For African journalists, it turns out to be a joke on themselves — especially the notion that Lesotho should be SA’s 10th province.

Unlike SA, which was decided by the colonisers — the Boer republics and the areas annexed by the British Empire — the King of Lesotho was significant in the founding of his country. King Moshoeshoe 1 got on a ship to England to negotiate that the Queen of England should refrain from any attempt to annex his land.

The result was an undertaking by the British Empire not to do so and further to protect Lesotho from other colonisers — hence Lesotho was a British protectorate, not a colony.

The tragedy is not whether Lesotho exists on its own, but the fact that there is minimal development of its citizens to be sufficiently creative to buttress poverty and want in their land. Africans seem obsessed only with power. Occupying positions of power is seen as the only means by which they think one can secure income, status and prosperity.

Had Lesotho been in Europe, it would have publicised its history. King Moshoeshoe would be right up there in the consciousness of the world as one of the greatest diplomats of his time. With fewer than 2-million citizens, it would have unleashed the creative potential among themselves through proper education, and poverty would be minimal.

Conflict, if any, would have been about incorporation of the area dubbed the Free State as their ancestral land. Similarly, Botswana would be reclaiming what is called North West. AmaZulu would be fighting the “war” Scotland is engaged in.

The desire for nations to own and control their own land is not for any other reason than to engage in self-development, entrench their language, their culture and their history, which they would “sell” to the world.

The incorporation of Lesotho into the white-created and black “managed” SA will not bring its citizens any improvement in their lives as leadership in SA is still about hogging power and not human development.

If African countries concentrated on their own development and strove for excellence, they would not look so comical.

– Dr Kenosi Mosalakae, Houghton

Russian observers suspect ‘special’ voting technologies in Scotland

Russian observers have suspicions over the “special” voting technologies used during the Scottish independence referendum and expect the announcement of results that will either confirm or disprove their suspicions.

“The absence of lines at voting offices could indicate the use of special voting technologies. About 20 percent vote in advance, via post. From our experience, we know that in 2012 Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney during presidential elections in early [stages of the] voting. That is, he won prior to the day of the election. Whether this technology was used during the referendum, we will know when the votes have been counted,” Igor Borisov, the chairman of the Council of the Russian Public Institute of Election Law and the head of the Russian observation mission, told RIA Novosti.

“If the organizers of the referendum announce the results of the postal votes separately from the results received on the day of the election, then it will be possible to assess how great the influence of technologies on the vote was,” he added.

Borisov noted that voter turnout is very high. According to members of the polling offices, by 10-11 a.m. BST (09:00-10:00 GMT) as many people came to vote as there were during the European Parliament elections in spring.
“At the same time, I cannot say that people wait to vote. I haven’t noticed anything like that. Although, there are lines of two-three people to take to the ballot,” Borisov said.

The Russian observation mission arrived in Edinburgh yesterday evening, comprising four specialists to monitor the Scottish independence referendum. Russian representatives will also monitor the vote count.

Source: RIA Novosti

Massive oil reserves off Scotland’s west coast to be examined

Massive oil reserves off of the west coast of Scotland are to be examined after the Scottish Government announced it is to set up a review along with top academics and experts.

The area which includes the north and west coast of Shetland down to through the Hebrides and into the Firth of Clyde will be the subject of a review in order to determine the true scale of the oil and gas reserves.

According to the Sunday Post, the Scottish Government will, this Autumn, co-host a workshop with Heriot-Watt University’s Institute of Petroleum Engineering to examine the potential for conventional oil and gas resources in the waters off the west coast.

The announcement follows increasing speculation that a massive field to the west of Shetland has been discovered.

The field, located in the Greater Clair area around the islands, has already witnessed a huge investment from BP with the company set to employ advanced techniques in order to maximise production output. A promotional video for the Clair field has explained how the company plans a “major transformation” to the field which BP itself describes as a “truly giant field”.

The company estimates that the field will begin production in 2016, and be able to produce over 100,000 barrels of oil per day.

Commenting last month, BP chief executive Bob Dudley said: “We remain very enthusiastic about Clair Ridge – appraisal wells are looking good. It is helping us to define the structure out there.

“[Clair Ridge] will be a project once we get it on in the next few years that has the potential to produce until 2050.”

Rumours that a massive new oil boom might be imminent grew when UK Prime Minister David Cameron made an unannounced visit to Shetland three weeks ago.

Islanders were surprised when the PM stepped off of a plane on one of the islands airfields.

The 1600 mile round trip from London had been kept secret from journalists. Downing Street refused to be drawn on why the visit had not been publicised beforehand.

Speculation that there is massive oil reserves around Shetland follow revelations that there may be huge untapped reserves under the Firth of Clyde.

It recently emerged that surveys carried out in the seventies found evidence of significant reserves of oil, but further drilling was blocked by the Ministry of Defence because the waters were crucial to the movement of nuclear submarines.

There are also claims that fields to the West of Lewis are not being developed due to objections from the MoD as the area is used for war games involving nuclear subs as well as for the test firing of missiles from the Uist range.

At a recent energy meeting in Stornaway, local people spoke of exploratory work conducted over several decades to the West of the Western Isles. Those who had been involved in the surveys were reporting back locally the there was a massive oil field there which “comes right up to the shore”.

Speaking to the Sunday Post, John Howell, Professor of Petroleum Geology at the University of Aberdeen, said: “The offshore area to the west of Scotland includes several major basins with hydrocarbon potential.

“While over 3,000 exploration wells have been drilled in the North Sea and West of Shetland, only around 20 have been drilled to the west of the Scottish mainland.

“This provides significant future potential which can only be appraised with detailed scientific study.”

Energy minister Fergus Ewing said: “Stimulating oil and gas activity to the west of Scotland could create employment and further increase the longevity of the industry in the country.

“Any activity will be supported by Scotland’s world-class indigenous supply chain with 40 years of experience in the North Sea.”

Source: http://newsnetscotland.com/

Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession

The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama’s handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority – such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada’s Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights – is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

Source: Reuters