Nat Myth No.5: Everything they say about Trident

Faslane is home to a number of submarines, a bit like the Beatles’ happy yellow one except armed with Trident missiles.

The base – commonly referred to collectively as Trident – is Scotland’s largest single employer and contributes £270million a year to the local economy. It provides 6,700 military and civilian jobs and 11,000 positions are indirectly reliant on it. 

But Trident isn’t there just to look mean. It’s there as a deterrent. It’s there to protect us, not to harm us. It’s like having our own big badass-looking bouncer warning the super villains of the world not to pick a fight.

Why can't all submarines look like this?

Despite it being a massive “fuck off” to would-be attackers, the Nationalists - not content with destroying the soul of Scotland through separation - want to axe Trident.

It’s worth noting that ridding Scotland of these weapons is not as simple as just chucking them over the border (and even if it was, nuclear fallout has never, as far as we know, stopped at national borders and pulled out a passport).

A report by the by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said that moving Trident nuclear submarines out of a separate Scotland would be “very difficult”.

Furthermore, Little Britannia’s very own uncle – now retired – was very high up in the Ministry of Defence and was based for many years at Faslane (we still don’t really know exactly what he did, but never mind). He gave us his expert opinion when we asked if Trident could be relocated: “NO.” That was the end of that conversation.

Let’s just assume that Trident was able to be given its marching orders. The chances are that it would be moved only as far as Barrow in Furness, meaning you could almost stand at the border and give it a friendly wave if you wanted to.

Before we go any further, Little Britannia wants to make it clear that we agree nuclear weapons are not nice. Like most people, they’re not exactly our cup of tea but we do think: would it not be better to have Trident and not need it, than to not have it and need it?

“Oh no, but it’s dangerous,” you’ll hear the Nats cry. The thing is, a nuclear missile cannot go off unless it is armed - and what most folk don't realise is that Trident's weapons are not armed. It’s like that tough kid at school who acts all hard then cries when he forgets his lunch. In terms of being a threat to us, it might as well be a giant cabbage.

When Little Britannia was Little Little Britannia, we had a Super Soaker 2000, the mother of all water-guns. We mostly used it to terrorise the neighbour’s cat. But while it might have made us feel like Rambo, unless it was filled up with water, it was about as threatening to Tiddles next door as a toothbrush in a sword fight.

It’s mind-boggling that the Nationalists use “the dangerous nukes” as a campaign ploy, especially when you consider this: the SNP have agreed with the US to allow American nuclear subs to sail up the Clyde and park in Faslane in a separate Scotland. Don’t believe us? Have a wee swatch at Chapter 7 of The White Paper.

We’re also a bit miffed as to why the apparently anti-nuclear Yes campaign seem completely unfazed by the many radioactive facilities we have around the country - especially when you consider that if a nuclear power station suffered a meltdown, we’d all be toast.  

Scotland has two nuclear power plants (Hunterston and Torness) and one research reactor (Dounreay). Although the risk of one of these exploding is pretty tiny, if they did then the outcome would be cataclysmic (think of Chernobyl and Fukushima). Even more to the point though, disaster is much more likely to strike at a nuclear power plant than from a weapon that isn’t even loaded. 

Why don’t the Nationalists preach about these potentially catastrophic nuclear facilities instead? Whatever their reasons, it seems that the Nats are just as bad as – and in many ways, are worse than - the Westminster politicians they so often berate.

As for the Nats’ argument that Scotland is Westminster’s "nuclear dumping ground,” that could not be more ridiculous.  Nuclear weapons are UK-wide, not just in Scotland. In fact, the majority of the UK’s nuclear arsenal is in England, so the Nats’ bold claim that Scotland is some kind of radioactive rubbish chute is pure fantasy.

Faslane was chosen as one of the UK's nuclear submarine locations during the height of the Cold War – the West’s long dispute with Russia and the inspiration for loads of awesome spy movies. The base’s secluded position at the entrance to the sea and the fact that it's deep enough to house its very own Nessie made it the perfect geographical location for stealth and safety.

Where it lies allows for quick, sneaky access through the North Channel to the sub-patrolling areas in the North Atlantic - the so-called GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, UK) gap to the Norwegian Sea.  

Quite possibly one of the silliest things we’ve heard about Trident has come from the wee mouth of Nicola Sturgeon (we see her so often we’re beginning to think she actually lives inside our TV). When asked what would happen to the thousands of Faslane workers in the event of relocation, the Deputy First Minister – on several occasions – has stated that they would still be employed.

So is there going to be some kind of naval-base-themed amusement park with all these people employed as actors? A sort of Faslane museum about ‘Scotland’s nuclear past’? No. According to the Nationalist Government, the deserted site will become the base for a separate Scotland’s defence force; hence, the workers of Faslane will nicely fall into the new jobs created.

This is mind-boggling. According to this logic, if someone works in the MoD, they can turn their hand to anything defence-related.

When Little Britannia was a struggling student, we had a part-time job selling double glazing. But just because we could sell windows, didn’t mean we could fit them. Or make them for that matter.

Transferring the workers of Faslane into brand new defence-related jobs would be like hiring a plasterer to do a joiner’s job because they both work in the building trade.

Perhaps the most obvious thing to consider is that nuclear weapons exist and ridding Scotland of them will not make them magically disappear from the rest of the world.

From the moment Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission, the technology to develop weapons of mass destruction has been in our hands (unfortunately not always the best hands, mind).

Scotland can’t ignore this fact by sticking its fingers in its ears and legging it. We cannot un-discover atomic bombs so would it not be more logical to use our global influence and power as a strong United Kingdom to help rid the world of these weapons instead?

Nat Myth No.4: An independent Scotland could still use the pound in the same way we do now

As the charming George Galloway beautifully put during his Just say Naw tour: “When you get divorced, you argue over the CDs, the DVDs and even the dug. But never, when that person walks out the door, do they say to you: ‘You can still use the joint bank account.’”

The argument is not whether or not a separate Scotland can use the pound - it can use the tiddlywink if it wants – it’s just that it would be unable to use sterling in the same way it does today.

So far, everyone whose power will determine what currency deal – if any – Scotland would get in the event of separation, has ruled out a currency union. For anyone who is unclear who that is, it includes: Chancellor George Osbourne, the possible future Chancellor Ed Balls (his name still makes us snigger), Prime Minister David Cameron, the possible future Prime Minister Ed Milliband, and Governor Mark Carney of the Bank of England.

The only people who say there will be a currency union are the Nationalists. That is all very nice but what they want is about as relevant as bringing a roll of bog paper to a job interview.

The tiddlywink: not a currency option (image from Hgrobe)

Sure, a currency union has been mentioned as a potential option by a number of experts. But it has been outright rejected by the big guys whose decision it ultimately would be.

Nevertheless, the Nats like to hang on to anyone who says anything even remotely in their favour. Even the tiniest positive 'analysis' for them from anyone – no matter who it is - is latched onto like it's the gospel. If a sheep opened its mouth and said there could be a currency union, the Nats would no doubt cling on to that.

Let’s just think like a Nationalist though and assume that Westminster is pretending. A currency union is not in Scotland’s - nor the UK’s - best interests, so why, in the name of the wee man, do the Yes camp say it is?

Only last week, Mark Carney stated that a currency union is “incompatible with sovereignty.” Then again, he said something similar during his other big speech at the start of the year and the Nats ignored him then.

It seems that even if the sky lit up and a voice boomed from above: "THIS IS GOD. A CURRENCY UNION IS OFF," the Nationalists would still assert they were right. 

As Little Britannia reported after Governor Carney's January speech, leaving the UK would mean leaving behind any influence our Scottish MPs can have on our finances. We wouldn’t be losing Westminster, we’d merely be losing a say in it.

Nobel Prize winning economist, Professor Paul Krugman, described the Nationalists’ currency plans as a “recipe for disaster.” (That’s not a good start, is it?) 

Krugman, who is Professor of Economics at Princeton University, explained that the experience of the Euro-zone had “demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous” and that “an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run.”

And it gets worse. Professor Krugman then went on to say that “if Scottish voters really believe that it’s safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled.” (We wonder who by?)

The next scaremonger, whose sole purpose must surely be to annoy the Nats (like every other expert stating the facts), is one of Scotland’s most senior economists, Professor Ronald MacDonald (no, not that Ronald MacDonald. And yes, we were disappointed too when we realised it wasn’t him).

Professor MacDonald, Adam Smith Chairman of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow, said: “There are good economic reasons for saying that a sterling currency union post-independence is a non-runner for Scotland. 

"This is essentially because a post-independence Scotland would have a different economic structure and profile to that of today because it would no longer share tax and spending with the rest of the UK. All independent economic analysis that I have seen confirms that this is the case.

“So if an independent Scotland were to have such a currency union imposed it would break-up, at great cost to the people of Scotland – I have estimated in the region of £30bn, and that is a conservative estimate.

“The inevitable break-up of the currency zone would also result in a steep upward rise in Scottish interest rates, with the knock on effects this would have for mortgages and the cost of servicing the large debt levels held by households.”

Imagine me in your wallet

And to think that this is the Nats’ preferred currency option. Let’s look at Salmond’s unconfirmed Plan B: sterlingisation.

Imagine the Scottish Government went over to America, acquired a gargantuan cargo of dollars, shipped it back here and said: “Right, we’re using these from now on.”

While it would be pretty cool having the likes of big Abe on some of our notes, we would have absolutely no control over our interest or exchange rates. We would also have no lender of last resort should everything go boobies-up and no say over the flow of our cash. It would also be impossible – not to mention illegal – to print our own money.

In other words, we’d be up crappy creek without even an inflatable flamingo to keep us afloat.

To sum up what Gorgeous George said in his Just say Naw speech: “At least when you get divorced, you can get remarried. Independence is forever.”

Nat Myth No.3: "A government we didn't vote for"

Boris: not your typical Tory

According to popular opinion, the Tory Party is as welcome in Scotland as a Brussel sprout on a seven-year-old’s dinner plate. 

But, like most examples of popular opinion (think spiders coming up the plug, nails growing after death, Elvis being still alive) it’s about as factual as Mel Gibson’s Braveheart.

There are plenty of Conservatives in Scotland. They just don’t openly admit to it (I mean, would you? It doesn't exactly scream 'Mr Cool'). 

Boo-hoo, nobody likes me

Over 400,000 people in Scotland voted for David Cameron’s Conservatives at the last General Election. That’s roughly one in seven of the Scottish electorate.

Consider this number next time you’re squashed against a train window during rush hour. Those noses burrowed in Metros; students absorbed in their music; that angry guy in the suit who groans every time the train slows down; the napping woman whose head keeps jerking back up in panic to check she’s not missed her station; the guy with the bike that takes up half the standing area and the assorted bodies bent around it in some kind of commuter-special Twister.

One in seven of those people voted Conservative. Without sounding like the tagline to a sci-fi movie: they’re all around us.

Sure, we’ve all heard that now famous statement: “More pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs.” This might be true but surprisingly, it is not a true reflection of the Scottish Conservative support.

The very reason for this is the voting system we currently use, Single Transferable Vote. This system is designed to achieve a proportional representation of a constituency. The trouble is that a party can put up as many candidates as it likes and can hence swipe the second place in the voting rounds from under the poor Tory contender’s very moustache.

The SNP got 491,386 votes at the 2010 election, while 412,885 Scots voted for Cameron’s Conservatives. If we add to that the 465,471 folk who ticked the Liberal Democrats, then – ooh, surprise! We’ve got almost twice as many Scots who chose the coalition at Westminster than who voted for the SNP! 

Don’t forget that the SNP got a whole six seats at this election; the Conservatives only got one. This is why the Nationalists can pedal the myth of “nae Tories up here” without anybody questioning it.

If Alex really wants to play this schoolboy game, then we might as well spit it back at him: when it comes to Holyrood, hundreds of thousands of Scots are stuck with a government they didn’t vote for either. But that’s just democracy. There’s always going to be someone who has their day ruined.

The difference between the SNP’s 491,386 and the Scottish Tories’ 412,885 is pretty close in terms of election numbers. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an independent Scotland could end up with a Conservative Government at some point in the near future. Now wouldn’t that be a right bummer if you had voted Yes to get rid of the Tories? 

Bear in mind that in the event of separation, the jobs of the Scots MPs at Westminster – regardless of whether or not they represent a Scottish constituency or an English one – would be put into question. This means that Scotland could end up with the guys the very independence movement pertain to detest – think Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith. (Unfortunately, the remaining UK would get to keep Boris).

Instead of the First Minister trumpeting about ‘invisible’ Tories, perhaps his government should consider talking about alternative ways the electoral system could be fairer in Scotland – one that could be more democratically representative of the voters.

But they’d never do that, would they? This would mean the Conservative voters in Scotland actually being acknowledged. And that would destroy the Nats’ main argument.

Nat Myth No.2: “Staying in the union would destroy Scotland’s NHS”

A few months back, Little Britannia promised to bring you our very own Nat Mythbusters series.  Don’t worry, our long, mysterious absence is not an indication we’ve been brainwashed - we haven't skipped off into the sunset of the Land of Yes. We’ve actually been extremely busy helping to develop and contribute to a new campaign site; so much so that we’ve been neglecting our own poor wee blog.

In all the months since Little Britannia’s last posting, the Yes campaign has still not fully clarified exactly what it is they want us to vote for. One wonders if they even know themselves.

Meanwhile, Little Britannia continues to wait for an answer to that EU question we put to the First Minister back in February. By now, it’s probably reasonable to assume that we won’t get an answer any time before the referendum, so we’ll just need to rely on the 30-year rule instead. By then Eck will either be long gone or too old to care anyway.

Nevertheless, we’re back. And with just weeks to go until Scotland makes either the best or worst decision of its entire existence, we’re on a mission to bulldoze through as many Nationalist myths as possible.

For now, let’s look at the NHS.

A few weeks ago, possibly with no other credible card left to play except from the Joker, Alex Salmond all of a sudden announced that staying in the UK would destroy Scotland’s NHS. His claim manifested out of nowhere like a tidal wave in the bath and seemed to have the desired effect. According to the SNP (and anyone else with a tin hat), those baddies in Westminster intend to privatise the NHS.

'But the NHS is devolved in Scotland', we hear you shout! It is, but who cares about minor details like that when you’ve got tales to tell? Alex’s argument – after the small issue of devolution was pointed out to him - was that privatisation of the NHS elsewhere in the UK would affect the spending on Scotland’s health services.

Eck’s concerns were even backed up by an actual real-life surgeon, Dr Phillipa Whitford, who just happened to be a member of the SNP. Dr Whitford soon became the face of the SNP’s NHS terror-campaign; her passionate speech viewed over 600,000 times on YouTube and her statements cited by Alex Salmond during the heated exchanges in Holyrood.

Now look who is scaremongering

Unfortunately for the Yes crew, Dr Whitford’s speech turned out to be more suited to an episode of Jackanory rather than a campaign based on our entire country’s future.

Firstly, it’s not privatisation. It's outsourcing and it happens up here in Scotland as well. Money for outsourced services still comes from public funds. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the money comes from the UK taxpayer or from the bottom of the First Minister’s toilet; it still ends up in the same place. 

Sir Leonard Fenwick, the Chief Executive of the North East NHS Foundation, described Dr Whitford’s claims as “the biggest lot of crap I have ever heard.” And for extra measure, he added: “It is just codswallop.” (Isn’t that a great word?).

More surgeons and medical profession honchos came forward to trash the apparent tall tales.

Dr Anna Gregor CBE, a consultant oncologist for NHS Lothian who is credited with leading Scotland’s cancer strategy, branded the Nats' health service concerns as “total and utter lies.” 

Professor Alan Rodger, another former oncologist and the man who developed the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, said that the SNP were “deliberately spreading fear about the NHS and its future.” 

There were further outcries from Professor Malcolm Macleod, Professor of Neurology and Translational Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh and David McCausland, Head of Economics at the University of Aberdeen.

And Mike Dixon, Professor of Surgery and Consultant Surgeon at the Edinburgh Breast Unit at the Western General Hospital, wrote a nice piece in The Scotsman that basically confirmed what all his medical colleagues were saying: that the SNP were talking complete jobbies.

Meanwhile, expert analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that if Scotland were to separate from the UK, it would face extra spending cuts of £6 billion - bad news for those of us who like our NHS freebies.

And as if things couldn’t get any more ridiculous, while the Nats slam Westminster for ‘privatising’ the NHS in England and Wales, it turns out that the Scottish Government have been sneakily doing exactly the same thing up here.

So, when a Nat tells you that Scotland’s NHS is at risk from a corrupt government, they’re telling the truth. It’s called the SNP. 

Nat myth no.1: “An independent Scotland could live off the oil”

Little Britannia is on a quest to dispel as many Nat myths as we can over the next few months and first up is that age-old favourite about Scotland’s oil.

Firstly, it’s not technically ‘Scotland’s oil’. The North Sea oil which we benefit from is in British waters and, if you want to be really picky, you could say it is really owned by major companies and investors.

Whilst the UK earns tax from the sale of the fossil fuel, it’s the big guys at the top – the CEOs of BP, Shell and the like - who are the real winners. Think of this guy and you get the general idea . . . .

JR Ewing, played by Larry Hagman (Pic by Glenn Francis)

Unlike Salmond’s favourite country, Norway, the firms which drill for the oil around the UK are not state-owned. Extracting oil is not like dookin’ for apples and, as great as it might be, Britain cannot afford the technology (an independent Scotland, even less so). Oil exploration is a multi-trillion operation that is getting more and more complex as companies have to dig deeper.

No doubt though, Super Salmond is poised to come to the rescue to conjure up a massive power drill capable of sucking the sea dry. Even if that were possible (and in Nat Land, it seems that anything goes), it is unrealistic to expect an independent Scotland to survive on such a volatile resource. Our Norwegian friends do not use their oil revenues to fund current expenditure - which the SNP are proposing for Scotland - and therefore they do not have the same risks in their budget.

Also, despite what the SNP want us all to believe, Scotland is not a major force on the global oil platform. The UK as a whole doesn’t even make it into the top 10 in the list of countries by oil production. 

 

World oil reserves (Source: Wikipedia)

Many Nats we’ve spoken to have pointed out that Scotland should have nationalised the North Sea oil decades ago. The trouble is, Scotland was already part of the union when the oil was discovered so any nationalisation would be by the UK Government. It’s not like the Beverly Hillbillies, where we strike gold, claim the goods and run.

It’s not as simple as scooping up all the rigs and singing “cheerio” while England, Wales and Northern Ireland happily wave Scotland off into the sunset. That wouldn’t be very neighbourly of us anyway, would it? As Dan Snow said recently . . . .

The Scottish Government can't just draw a line around the oil fields and say: "That's oor’s." The share would have to be negotiated; something we can’t imagine the rest of the UK would be unfazed to give up a lot of willingly.

Then there's Orkney and Shetland, who have said that in the event of Scottish independence they would either stay with the UK or go it alone entirely. Whichever way they choose, they have a better claim to the oil than Scotland.

The reason for that is simple and, rather flippantly, never acknowledged by the SNP. Territorial waters of the UK only stretch out 12 miles from the coast. That is not scaremongering; that is based on an agreement between the UK, Norway, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands following the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention.

The map below shows the position of the oil and gas fields in the North Sea. How many oil fields do you see within the dozen-mile distance of the Scottish coast? Beatrice appears to be the only one (unfortunately we don’t even get any of the awesomely named terminals, like Vulcan, but that’s another argument altogether). 

North Sea oil and gas fields (Source: Wikipedia)

A separate Scotland would not only have to agree to boundaries with the UK (and possibly Orkney and Shetland), it would likely have to renegotiate with Norway, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands as new treaties are signed. Things could then start to get really messy, as everyone starts pecking over the oil fields like confused crows. An independent Scotland could, so to speak, be treading in dangerous waters.

While the UK’s offshore oil and gas industry is currently enjoying its highest ever investment levels, there has been a decline in exploration activity and it doesn’t take Stephen Hawking to work out that less exploration equals less output. It’s all very well the oil being there but if you can’t drill for it, it might as well be in outer space.

Oil also has to be found first before it can be extracted and, as Doctor Jones told his students in The Last Crusade, “X never, ever marks the spot.” Oil companies don’t just cruise around like Long John Silver, hoping to stumble upon the treasure; exploration programmes are massive and rely on multi-billion investments. The decline in exploration activity suggests that investors are currently unwilling to take such a risk in an industry that seems to have reached its peak.  

There is also the decommissioning of North Sea oil rigs, which the Nationalists have conveniently ignored in public. Many of the 470 oil and gas installations in UK waters are over 40 years old and so are coming to the end of their lifespan. Incidentally, our beloved Beatrice is scheduled for renewal.  

A big, mean-looking North Sea oil platform

It’s clear that when it comes to oil claims, the SNP haven’t exactly been truthful with the Scottish people. In public, Salmond and co like to tell everyone who will listen that an independent Scotland would have its own sparkling oil fund, without nasty things like tax hikes, spending cuts and extra borrowing to fund the thing.

Behind closed doors however, it’s an entirely different dram of whiskey. In the deepest, darkest corners of the SNP villain lair, the Nats have actually admitted that an oil-reliant separate Scotland would be forced to raise taxes by a substantial amount.

And what scaremongerer informs us of this? The SNP’s very own John Swinney. Unfortunately for the Nationalist Government, one of their secret reports telling the real truth about their oil dream was leaked last year. Whoops.

Better Together published the leaked document, in which the Scottish Finance Secretary actually admits that North Sea oil revenues will sharply decline. He also helpfully acknowledges the volatility of the resource and adds that Scotland would be left with a proportionally higher deficit than the rest of the UK by 2016. Don’t believe me? See for yourself here. 

More recently, the official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report released this month stated that oil revenues dropped by £4.4 billion – that’s more than two-fifths. This puts Scotland’s deficit above the UK’s for the first time in recent years. Over the last five years, Scotland’s average deficit, including North Sea Oil, was -7.24%, which adds up to a shortfall of £51 billion.

And there’s worse news. The Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR) said that this deficit gap will continue to widen and warned that Eck had "skewed” North Sea oil revenues “in an optimistic manner".

The CPPR’s research concluded that a separate Scotland would be far worse off than the rest of the UK unless there were “currently unforeseen” improvements to North Sea oil production. 

Let’s see what the experts say, shall we?

“Everyone agrees that in the long run, North Sea production levels will go down. Revenues will still be worthwhile, but much below what they are now.” – Professor Alex Kemp, University of Aberdeen

“If an independent Scotland intends to rely on oil revenues as the platform for its economy, it is placing a risky bet. Energy is a sector that will require heavy investment, and one where returns will be both volatile and lower than in the past. Alex Salmond’s political career may have been built on the slogan that “it’s Scotland’s oil” but the realities behind this romantic slogan may be more prosaic than he hopes.” – Lead editorial, Financial Times

“In the longer run the loss of these oil and gas revenues would lead to tougher choices than those faced by the UK as a whole.” – Institute of Fiscal Studies

"Affordability is a challenge for many developed countries including the UK, but the demographics of Scotland with a higher projected ratio of pensioners to those of working-age population mean that this is likely to be more of a challenge here." - The Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland (ICAS)

"We have a lot of people in Scotland. We have a lot of investments in Scotland. My personal view is that Great Britain is great and it ought to stay together." – Bob Dudley, Director of BP Oil

What has Alex Salmond’s response been to these warnings? He has mostly laughed off these experts as “scaremongering” or, in the case of BP Chief Bob Dudley, dismissed his professional expertise as a mere “opinion”. Who would you believe? 

An interesting Scottish Government statistic (Graphic by Better Together)

I have no doubt that many Nats reading this blog right now will be yelling at their computers: “Read the McCrone Report, for goodness sake!”

The McCrone Report was written 40 years ago. That was the same year President Nixon resigned, Abba won the Eurovision Song Contest and the current Doctor Who was the guy who played Worzel Gummidge. Meanwhile, the Nats expect the global oil market, which fluctuates daily, to remain exactly the same.

The McCrone Report is almost as old as Dad’s Army, yet the Nats cling on to it like it’s the gospel. If that is the most recent evidence they can come up with, then it raises serious questions about their campaign. Let’s put this into perspective: if you were learning to drive, would you study the latest Highway Code or rely on the 1974 edition? Exactly.

As interesting and well-researched as the McCrone Report is, it is more out-of-date than the Bunty annual - and that went out of print at the turn of the millennium. The document did not predict the banking crisis, nor did it predict there would be a single currency, so why is there so much emphasis on it? Next the SNP will be setting their economic plans according to an Ancient Egyptian papyrus and their budget on cave paintings.

Even Professor Gavin McCrone himself has stated that “the situation has changed enormously since then” and that “the oil has run down quite a bit”. He also said that the peak of oil production was around 1999 and the industry is only just recovering from a crash in the early 80s. Hear it for yourself here.

Unless Alex Salmond has plans to stick us all in a Tardis and send us back to the 70s, we really can’t see how the McCrone Report has any relevance in today’s debate.

The SNP claim that they care about Scotland, yet they don’t respect us, the people of Scotland, enough to tell us exactly what their strategy is.

Even if the oil industry was booming, prices are too unpredictable for Scotland to rely on it as its main source of income – and that's assuming it would be able to take a large enough share of it in the first place.

Alex Salmond might like to put a punt on the horses in his spare time, but we can’t allow him to gamble with the future of our proud nation by risking our finances on such an unpredictable resource. His obsession with independence, in spite of recent events and warnings, is becoming ludicrous.

Oil might not be forever, but independence certainly is. 

Independence debate: Eddie Izzard latest victim of the cybernats' witch hunt

The cybernat witch hunt continues to wield its reign of terror, with Eddie Izzard the latest talented celebrity to undergo a digital auto-da-fé . And what malevolent sorcery is this British National Treasure guilty of? Backing the pro-UK campaign, Better Together.

Within minutes of the announcement that Izzard was to front a gig in support of the union, the baying cybernat mob launched its ugly attack. Just like David Bowie and Kate Moss before him, the multilingual comedian and all-round genius became the newest target of the tartan inquisition; ritually burned at the stake on Facebook and Twitter.

Many Yes-supporting Izzard fans said that they were "disappointed" in their hero, while some resorted to the typical, grown-up personal attacks. One cyber-menace even said that the comedian was probably a reptile "because Izzard rhymes with lizard" (there's always one), whilst other Nats concluded that he must be a Tory.

Why yes! It's all just a big, bad Tory conspiracy. Eddie Izzard, the avid Labour supporter who tirelessly campaigns against poverty, must be a Tory because he sees the benefits of the union. Such is Nat logic.

I suppose Johan Lamont, George Galloway and Red Ed are all Tories too? Somehow, I can't quite see Gorgeous George being unmasked as a secret Thatcherite, but in Nat Land - where crude oil flows from the taps - the inhabitants must believe that anything is possible.

Some members of the Nationalist camp were outraged that an Englishman dared to wade into Scottish politics. It's ok though for Sean Connery living in the Bahamas and Alan Cumming, who is now a US citizen.

We compiled a selection of the rude Facebook comments from the Yes supporters directed at Eddie Izzard. Read them and make up your own mind.

They also started venting their fury on Twitter.

Then we have the lovely bloke who suggested that the comedian he once admired should "die in a fire". Nice.

These are just some of the insults put to the comedian, but believe us when we say there was much worse.

Eddie Izzard's trial by trolls is plain nasty on its own, but it's important to remember that this is in no way an isolated case. Anyone, famous or not, who dares to speak in favour of the United Kingdom is subject to the same online persecution. Wherever there's a positive mention of Great Britain, you can be sure that the cybernat army will rear its nasty head like a jobby that won't flush away.

The Nats DO NOT speak for the people of Scotland, despite what they want the rest of the world to believe. It's infuriating to see such an inspirational man being trashed by scores of our fellow countrymen.

Nevertheless, Little Britannia is confident that the silent majority will prevail. Ignore the Nats, Eddie; most of us Scots are right behind you.

The Scottish Government need to stop wasting money on Gaelic and sort out our real problems

One of the many confusing signs across the country (source: Wikimedia Commons)

Gaelic is enjoying a sort of revival in Scotland these days. What was once to many of us - certainly in the Glasgow area - a language occasionally heard in Dangermouse ('Donnie Murdo') and crooned by the bearded guy from Dotaman, now seems to have crept into everyday Scottish life.

But while Little Britannia believes it's incredibly important to preserve a culture, we don't want it shoved in our coupons like a leaflet from a pushy sales person, especially if it has absolutely no meaning to us and the vast majority of our fellow Scots.

Despite being spoken by less than 2% of the Scottish population (that's less than the number of people who vote Tory by the way, Big Alex), the Nationalist government seem to think it is justifiable to pump more than £2million into an online Gaelic dictionary. 'Faclair na Gaidhlig' will be a digital database on a par with the Oxford English Dictionary. One question comes to mind: why?

This isn't the first time the SNP-led government has thrown money at waving around the rarely-spoken tongue. They've already wasted cash on the made-up Gaelic names for the many road and station signs around the country. Yes, that is correct. Made-up.

Many of our town and city names were derived from Norse or English and hence, have no Gaelic translation. Rather than take this as a sign (no pun intended), the clever people at the SNP decided to invent their own prose. Like The Goons with their Ying Tong Song, the Scottish Government came up with pretend words that sound like Gaelic. So what we have on all these road and station signs is not even a real language; it's SNP nonsense words which just happen to use the Gaelic alphabet. In other words, gobbledegook. Imagine them all sitting round a table creating this mockery. How do we give Saltcoats a nice Celtic ring to it?

Sure, Gaelic should be available to anyone who wants to learn it. It also makes sense that it appears on signs in the country's Gaelic-speaking regions. But for it to feature at stations in the heart of the lowlands, where it's possible that more people speak Polish than Gaelic, is like plonking a penguin in the middle of the desert. Scotland is not a bilingual country.

Furthermore, a report last year suggested that the English/Gaelic road signs could confuse foreign drivers, and might even cause accidents.

Scottish Gaelic is about as relevant to Little Britannia - and no doubt many other Scots - as Ancient Greek. We were born in Scotland but have strong English roots and, going by our recent ancestry (ie, our grandparents and great-grandparents), it would be more relevant for us to learn Welsh, Irish or Yiddish - or, if rumours about our great-grandmother are to be believed, one of the many Romani languages. Should taxpayers foot the bill if we say it is our right to learn one of these? We might be in a minority with regards to the Gypsy language, but then aren't the Gaelic speakers?

Little Britannia doesn't just speak for ourselves here. Today's Scot is not the Scot of 700 years ago. The Scotland of 2014 is part of a small island rich in different cultures, mixed by centuries of immigration and conquering invasions. We are not much different from our brothers and sisters in the rest of the UK and to suggest otherwise is somewhat concerning.

The proportion of people in Scotland with English surnames and the number of Mcs and Macs south of the border speak for themselves. (By the way, the name Salmond is apparently of Anglo-Saxon origin; whilst his 'English nemesis' David Cameron can claim descent from Scottish Freedom Fighters at Bannockburn. Bet that news went down well at the Bute House dinner table).

We are not, as many of the more hardcore separatists appear to promote, in a constant game of 'the Scots versus the English'. Many Scots today could have as much (or more Little Britannia's case) of an ancestral connection with the Norman Language than they do with Gaelic, yet still our taxes are being used to wallpaper parts of the country with made-up words and to create a costly online dictionary, while our public services are stretched.

We have no doubt that there are enough passionate people in Scotland to keep Gaelic alive without the government's dangerous nationalist agenda and reckless spending.The SNP need to stop throwing money at resurrecting a rarely-spoken language and trust the 58,000 or so Gaelic speakers to pass it on themselves.

All we can say is that if the Scottish Government can make up their own Gaelic-sounding words and phrases, then we can too: "O'or càsh 'can-be be'tter sp'ent."

Little Britannia got the chance to ask Salmond a question earlier this week. We’re still waiting on the answer.

A mere stone’s throw away from Westminster, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond preached his independence sermon to a packed audience. The event, hosted by the New Statesman, was Eck’s opportunity to charm those living south of the border, despite his loyal cybernat followers’ apparent dislike for England and everything in it.

Nonetheless, I was keen to hear what The Man Who Wants to Break Up Britain had to say for himself and hoped to challenge him face-to-face. Is there actually any evidence, apart from his word, that a separate Scotland would be the land of oil and money?

I was joined by two of my oldest, dearest friends who, despite being proud Scots from an old Paisley family, are both being denied a vote on the future of their country because they currently live in London.

On our way in, we were offered a copy of a New Statesman issue dedicated to the independence campaign and what looked like a substantially thinner version of the White Paper (it must have been the ‘no-picture’ edition).

We were also greeted with this sight . . . .

I’m not exactly president of the Alex Salmond Fan Club, but even I would agree that the man’s a most articulate and animated speaker. What I saw at the London lecture though was definitely not the confident, capable politician who trumpets to Holyrood every week. His speech style seemed to be more Gordon Brown than Alex Salmond.

The crux of Eck’s speech was that independence would be in the best interest for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for his visionary Scotland. How exactly he could prove this though remained unanswered, as did the question I put to him at the end: why he lied about the EU legal advice.

Referring to London as a “dark star”, Salmond said that an independent Scotland would be a “Northern light” and it would rebalance “the economic centre of gravity of these islands”.

A dark star? That’s hardly a term you would use to describe the home of the people you are trying to ingratiate yourself with. Perhaps he meant a Death Star and was likening David Cameron and George Osborne to Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine. We all know that it wouldn’t be an independence talk without an angry finger jabbed at the Tories, though Alex Salmond is certainly no Han Solo.

He proclaimed in his speech: “The Conservative Party have lost every General Election in Scotland since 1959 but have succeeded in ending up in government for 31 of the last 55 years.”

That might be true Alex, but your party got 491,386 votes at the 2010 election, while 412,885 people in Scotland voted for Cameron’s Conservatives. Add to that the number of folk who voted Lib Dem and you’ve got more Scots who chose the coalition at Westminster than voted for the SNP. Just keep that one quiet though and maybe no one will say anything.

The First Minister also assured us in his speech that Scotland would not be a foreign country in the event of independence, “any more than Ireland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales could ever be foreign countries to Scotland”. Really?

Scotland would likely have a different currency, new passports, a start-from-scratch defence force and would have to build its own embassies. It begs the question: what exactly are the Nationalists offering? It seems to be some kind of flat-packed IKEA package; a sort of pretend independence more alike to a flimsy pop-up tent attached to the UK.
 

After the speech came the Q&A session and it was here that we started to see the 'real Alex' again. Unfortunately for him, his worst nightmare (me) was in the audience, poised with my Union Jack notepad and pen to grill him on the EU.

“I would like to know,” I began, “exactly why you are unwilling to disclose the legal advice regarding the EU.”

No answer. Next question.

A gentleman from The Independent was sitting behind me and tapped my shoulder. "He didn't answer your question,” he said. “That’s not on. Shout down and say to them.”

Jason Cowley, editor of the New Statesman, heard the commotion from the stage and asked if everything in the second-back row was ok. “He didn’t answer her question,” the Independent journalist said.
 

Eck played the innocent. "What question?" he asked. I looked directly at him and said: "The question about the EU legal advice. You haven't answered me."

What came next was a rather defensive waffle - "it's there if you look for it" (where?) and other bold claims – before he tapered off into a completely different subject.

I have since Tweeted the First Minister and watched the tumbleweed blow past as I await a reply. No need; his silence has answered my question nicely.