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.