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.