Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NaRvIcK DeViL

The Blatant Lies The Scottish People Have Been Told For Decades By Uk Governments

Recommended Posts

A Top secret Whitehall dossier which was written over 30 years ago revealed that Government ministers at the time were extremely concerned about loosing the resources of Oil and Gas from the North sea if Scotland managed to achieve Independence.

So certain information including this Dossier was kept Top Secret at the time to deny the Nationalist movement any fuel for Independence.

The paper was recently revealed and obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.

It was written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies and economies in Europe.

The report by Professor Gavin McCrone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.

The report also shows how officials advising ministers about how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".

Kenny MacAskill, of the Scottish National Party, said the report was proof of over 30 years of official lies, cover-ups and betrayal.

He added that it showed how much Scotland would have flourished from the benefit of their natural resource under Independence.

He said that in the 34 years since the report, Scotland has suffered low economic growth and manufacturing decline while at the same time oil wealth had "transformed" Canadian provinces and Arabian shiekdoms.

"Some have chosen when they've discovered oil to make the desert bloom and the tragedy was that in Scotland, the UK Government has created an industrial desert,"

Mr. MacAskill insisted that, with prices rising rapidly, oil was now "on the agenda" and he claimed an independent Scotland "would never be richer".

He added: "I would first of all like to have an apology from the UK Government for blatantly lying and deceiving the Scottish people.

"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years - that we were too wee, we couldn't do it, that the oil was going to run out - when they knew along that Scotland was sitting on a bountiful resource that would have transformed our economy and the lives of the Scottish people for the better."

However the Scottish Secretary has dismissed the document.

He responded by saying: "This is typical, looking back to the past. This document is well over 30 years old.

Well that's alright then!! I'll just carry on like the rest of the Scottish people being patted on the head and being told 'we subsidize you 'and every now and then being threatened that the Barnet formula is unfair and may have to come to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Top secret Whitehall dossier which was written over 30 years ago revealed that Government ministers at the time were extremely concerned about loosing the resources of Oil and Gas from the North sea if Scotland managed to achieve Independence.

So certain information including this Dossier was kept Top Secret at the time to deny the Nationalist movement any fuel for Independence.

The paper was recently revealed and obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.

It was written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies and economies in Europe.

The report by Professor Gavin McCrone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.

The report also shows how officials advising ministers about how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".

Kenny MacAskill, of the Scottish National Party, said the report was proof of over 30 years of official lies, cover-ups and betrayal.

He added that it showed how much Scotland would have flourished from the benefit of their natural resource under Independence.

He said that in the 34 years since the report, Scotland has suffered low economic growth and manufacturing decline while at the same time oil wealth had "transformed" Canadian provinces and Arabian shiekdoms.

"Some have chosen when they've discovered oil to make the desert bloom and the tragedy was that in Scotland, the UK Government has created an industrial desert,"

Mr. MacAskill insisted that, with prices rising rapidly, oil was now "on the agenda" and he claimed an independent Scotland "would never be richer".

He added: "I would first of all like to have an apology from the UK Government for blatantly lying and deceiving the Scottish people.

"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years - that we were too wee, we couldn't do it, that the oil was going to run out - when they knew along that Scotland was sitting on a bountiful resource that would have transformed our economy and the lives of the Scottish people for the better."

However the Scottish Secretary has dismissed the document.

He responded by saying: "This is typical, looking back to the past. This document is well over 30 years old.

Well that's alright then!! I'll just carry on like the rest of the Scottish people being patted on the head and being told 'we subsidize you 'and every now and then being threatened that the Barnet formula is unfair and may have to come to an end.

Just think how the Scots would have thrived under the masterful selfless leadership of people like Alex Salmond.

I'm sure they'd have been on a par with Norway by now with him in charge.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Top secret Whitehall dossier which was written over 30 years ago revealed that Government ministers at the time were extremely concerned about loosing the resources of Oil and Gas from the North sea if Scotland managed to achieve Independence.

So certain information including this Dossier was kept Top Secret at the time to deny the Nationalist movement any fuel for Independence.

The paper was recently revealed and obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.

It was written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies and economies in Europe.

The report by Professor Gavin McCrone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.

The report also shows how officials advising ministers about how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".

Kenny MacAskill, of the Scottish National Party, said the report was proof of over 30 years of official lies, cover-ups and betrayal.

He added that it showed how much Scotland would have flourished from the benefit of their natural resource under Independence.

He said that in the 34 years since the report, Scotland has suffered low economic growth and manufacturing decline while at the same time oil wealth had "transformed" Canadian provinces and Arabian shiekdoms.

"Some have chosen when they've discovered oil to make the desert bloom and the tragedy was that in Scotland, the UK Government has created an industrial desert,"

Mr. MacAskill insisted that, with prices rising rapidly, oil was now "on the agenda" and he claimed an independent Scotland "would never be richer".

He added: "I would first of all like to have an apology from the UK Government for blatantly lying and deceiving the Scottish people.

"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years - that we were too wee, we couldn't do it, that the oil was going to run out - when they knew along that Scotland was sitting on a bountiful resource that would have transformed our economy and the lives of the Scottish people for the better."

However the Scottish Secretary has dismissed the document.

He responded by saying: "This is typical, looking back to the past. This document is well over 30 years old.

Well that's alright then!! I'll just carry on like the rest of the Scottish people being patted on the head and being told 'we subsidize you 'and every now and then being threatened that the Barnet formula is unfair and may have to come to an end.

Fair play. But I am now skint thanks to one of of your fellow countrymen. [unmentionable] So please dont request any back taxes as compensation from south of the border in recompense. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years - that we were too wee, we couldn't do it, that the oil was going to run out - when they knew along that Scotland was sitting on a bountiful resource that would have transformed our economy and the lives of the Scottish people for the better."

Even under the barnett formula that argument desn't hold water.

that's all getting pished up the wall on re-pebbledashing the high rise flats and keeping the neds oiled up with buckie!....and thats WITH EU assistance(paid for by UK..primarily england's contributions)

no point in spending any more on them.

they've got the free healthcare and tuition fees,but they've buggered up the relationship with the US/Canada(who are primarily scottish!!!) because of their lack of diplomatic nouse,and small niceties like lockerbie.

they can now be educated up to the eyeballs,but marketing is not their strong point.

If they seriously think that scotland will in any way influence franco-german EU policy,then they really do need to just shut up shop and emigrate en masse to somewhere a little less politically stressful.....like bikini atoll.

scotland/ireland...and basically the whole UK has a choice to make now.

do you want to be ruled by the US or germany?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even under the barnett formula that argument desn't hold water.

that's all getting pished up the wall on re-pebbledashing the high rise flats and keeping the neds oiled up with buckie!....and thats WITH EU assistance(paid for by UK..primarily england's contributions)

no point in spending any more on them.

they've got the free healthcare and tuition fees,but they've buggered up the relationship with the US/Canada(who are primarily scottish!!!) because of their lack of diplomatic nouse,and small niceties like lockerbie.

they can now be educated up to the eyeballs,but marketing is not their strong point.

If they seriously think that scotland will in any way influence franco-german EU policy,then they really do need to just shut up shop and emigrate en masse to somewhere a little less politically stressful.....like bikini atoll.

scotland/ireland...and basically the whole UK has a choice to make now.

do you want to be ruled by the US or germany?

Your missing the point (although it's a moot point!). Given independance in the 70's, the ned culture simply wouldn't exist now. Our industrial heartland would still be alive and kicking, and the benefit culture wouldn't have emerged.

As to the earlier comment on Alex Salmond, well he wasn't SNP leader in the 70's, was he? Unfortunately, if a Scot want's independance, then he has to vote SNP. Doesn't mean he likes they're policies in other areas, but all other parties are pro-union.

Once we get independence, then we'll look to a political party that's good for Scotland, not the UK. Although, as has been posted by another member on the forum, the creation of a new Scottish Socialist Republic is always a possibility given our political history :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like to see the newly independent scotch having a 3 way ruck with Norway and Holland over who controls the oil...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your missing the point (although it's a moot point!). Given independance in the 70's, the ned culture simply wouldn't exist now. Our industrial heartland would still be alive and kicking, and the benefit culture wouldn't have emerged.

Why would the industrial heartland still exist? If anything it would have disappeared faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion Scotland would have been able to buy off its demons with petro dollars is a bit,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdtoACmhMz4&feature=related

Of course Scotland might have washed up like Saudi or Nigeria or it might have a higher suicide rate than Norway, I suppose.

And if I was a Scot I think I'd find the suggestion that my people have bought a 30 year lie sold by Westminster and Whitehall quite insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people of Scotland already knew this, in all the papers was the argument that Scotland could self govern and the SNP

had the simple slogan "It's Scotland's Oil". The Labour government in didn't want to break up the United Kingdom.

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22it%27s+scotland%27s+oil%22&scoring=a&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1975&as_hdate=1979&lnav=hist1

William Wolfe

William Wolfe, who died on March 18 aged 86, was a lifelong Scottish Nationalist who chaired the SNP during its first great surge that brought the party 11 seats in the October 1974 election and forced the Labour government to hold a referendum on an elected Scottish assembly.

Even before oil was discovered, Wolfe – who fronted the SNP's first television broadcast in 1965 – was asserting that Scottish taxpayers were subsidising the English. But the bonanza enabled the SNP to campaign in 1974 on the simple and tempting slogan: "It's Scotland's Oil". Wolfe declared that with oil "we can now afford self-government in Scotland", and the SNP wrought havoc at that year's two elections.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/7494353/William-Wolfe.html

More interesting I just read the 20,000 Shetland islanders were going to secede from Scotland and predicted they would make

$180 Million from the oil by going it alone over 2 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic slightly, but, I've always been a little confused about Scottish Independence. I'd genuinely like to understand the view of advocates with regard to their sentiment towards the UK Government and the English.

From what I understand this 'revelation' about '30 years of lies' has been public knowledge for months and has done nothing to further the independence cause. The only people I have ever met that have an opinion beyond a shrugged shoulder, are Scottish people and, at a guess, I'd say 75% of those express the opinion that they don't want independence and from my understanding opinion polls are aligned with this - or English people who would happily allow Scotland to become independent (granted this is far from scientific).

I guess my question is: why whine about the UK Government and 'the English'? The only people that are clearly opposing independence are Scottish. Why not reserve vitriol for them?

Edit to add: In the vain hope that some advocates may read and respond - I've also wondered for a long time (but can't figure it out) what the SNP plan is for National Debt - if we assume that the debt is £1trillion - which is not unfair given the time it would take to implement independence even if it was voted for today - then per head debt would give Scotland (if we conservatively assume 5 million population) around £81Billion by 2015 it would be something like £121Billion. How do the SNP suggest that is addressed?

Edit: Can't add up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's be honest.... they got their own back by inflicting certain politicians on us......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish independence wouldn't necessarily have preserved its industry, as often the exploitation of natural resources can have a negative effect on manufacturing (also known as "Dutch disease" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease )

Ultimately how well the Scots would have done as an independent oil state would have depended on the competence, wisdom and far-sightedness of their politicians. If they were like the Norwegians, they would have prospered. If they were like most other oil-producing states, they would have ended up with a lop-sided economy with huge wealth disparities.

On the whole, I'm not sure the North Sea Oil bonanza was a good thing for the UK. The money just got pissed away on paying benefits and generally putting off the restructuring of the UK economy that still awaits us even today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scottish independence wouldn't necessarily have preserved its industry, as often the exploitation of natural resources can have a negative effect on manufacturing (also known as "Dutch disease" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease )

On the whole, I'm not sure the North Sea Oil bonanza was a good thing for the UK. The money just got pissed away on paying benefits and generally putting off the restructuring of the UK economy that still awaits us even today.

Not even that really. If you consider just how much has actually been pulled out of the UKCS, in the order of 800 Gbo or so, its shocking to see what hasn't happened here.

If you price that in today's terms, that roughly 50-60 trillion $. What the hell happened to it all?

Most of the 'wealth' and profit has been run of the country and tax never paid.

It's been a huge rape of our natural resources yes, and to nary a Briton went the profit.

Shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shetland Islands would have declared independence too leaving Scotland with nothing whilst every Shetlander became a millionaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the industrial heartland still exist? If anything it would have disappeared faster.

Why do you think that?

Given independance, I see oil dollars being used to set up a corporation tax regime that encourages inward investment to Scotland. A power generation infra-structure set up to service these businesses with incentives to use viable renewable sources (hopefully encouraging this emerging industry to Scotland) and an education system that encourages science/engineering studies. I don't see why this model (with obvious changes re. emerging technologies) wouldn't have worked in the 70's.

As to the question of UK debt, the UK still exists. As has been made apparent, the UK has milked oil revenues for decades, take the debt out of that and keep the change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously written by a moron who can't even press the spell check button.

Quoting a **** who doesn't know the difference between a spell check and a grammar cheque...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that?

Given independance, I see oil dollars being used to set up a corporation tax regime that encourages inward investment to Scotland. A power generation infra-structure set up to service these businesses with incentives to use viable renewable sources (hopefully encouraging this emerging industry to Scotland) and an education system that encourages science/engineering studies. I don't see why this model (with obvious changes re. emerging technologies) wouldn't have worked in the 70's.

As to the question of UK debt, the UK still exists. As has been made apparent, the UK has milked oil revenues for decades, take the debt out of that and keep the change.

Right - I do see your point. However, even if we ignore the fact that what you are saying is debatable, I still fail to understand the stance on debt and oil revenues.

Scotland IS part of the UK and has been part of the UK well before the oil was first exploited. At no point (unless I am mistaken?) have a majority of the Scottish people indicated a desire to become independent since oil was discovered in the North Sea. Even if a majority now decided they Do want independence (and again unless I am mistaken independence advocates are still very much a minority) I do not understand the justification for claiming that oil revenues realised as part of the Union the majority wanted, should somehow now be compensated for. If, for example, the Scottish people had been suppressed through military action to quash the majority calling for independence since oil, then fine.

I'm quite genuinely trying to understand the issues here, I'd really like to understand the justification - maybe I'm misunderstanding? It's just at the moment it sounds like Alex Salmond et al are the political equivalent of Heather Mills - sans ice skates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

I'm quite genuinely trying to understand the issues here, I'd really like to understand the justification - maybe I'm misunderstanding? It's just at the moment it sounds like Alex Salmond et al are the political equivalent of Heather Mills - sans ice skates.

If an independent Scotland gets its share of the assets - embassies, military equipment, etc then we should take our share of the debt. However, some argue that an independent Scotland should be cut loose with none of the assets. In those circumstances, I doubt we'd take any of the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously written by a moron who can't even press the spell check button.

This.

It has to be the most moronic mistake and it's depressing that I see it every single day. Makes me want to smack my head on a very hard surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right - I do see your point. However, even if we ignore the fact that what you are saying is debatable, I still fail to understand the stance on debt and oil revenues.

Scotland IS part of the UK and has been part of the UK well before the oil was first exploited. At no point (unless I am mistaken?) have a majority of the Scottish people indicated a desire to become independent since oil was discovered in the North Sea. Even if a majority now decided they Do want independence (and again unless I am mistaken independence advocates are still very much a minority) I do not understand the justification for claiming that oil revenues realised as part of the Union the majority wanted, should somehow now be compensated for. If, for example, the Scottish people had been suppressed through military action to quash the majority calling for independence since oil, then fine.

I'm quite genuinely trying to understand the issues here, I'd really like to understand the justification - maybe I'm misunderstanding? It's just at the moment it sounds like Alex Salmond et al are the political equivalent of Heather Mills - sans ice skates.

You are correct, support for independance is in the minority in Scotland. I was a Labour voter for many years but the Labour party no longer exists, replaced by the freak that is New Labour. I also find that the older I get the more right-wing I get, but simply cannot bring myself to vote for the tories, no matter how much they water down their own principles. Not relevent, just outlining where I'm coming from.....

I suppose it depends on what you take from the OP. It suggests to me that suppression of the true oil revenues available has undermined support for independance down the decades. If we were fully aware of the income generated, and soaked away by Westminster, compared to the amount of Government spend per head in Scotland, then my support for independance would have started in the 80's. Ms Thatcher would have ensured that.

It could be argued then, that all events after the date of that document (including the debt/deficit) should not apply to Scotland, as we (the Scottish voters) were denied the full facts at that time. In fact, it appears we have been lied to for decades. It sounds like a cop-out, but I don't believe so. We were sold a pup in the 70's, have fed the dog for 30 years, and are now being asked to pay the vets bill for putting it out of it's misery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We were sold a pup in the 70's, have fed the dog for 30 years, and are now being asked to pay the vets bill for putting it out of it's misery!"

If it was as cute as that, it would never have happened.

If Scotland's problems were so superficial as to be cured by money, petrol dollars, they would never have happened.

There are plenty of countries that have lots of oil and are still a mess, not just Scotland.

How about Venezuela?

In fact aren't most countries with lots of oil or other natural resources a mess.

Not as much a mess as Scotland but mess none the less, eg Russia.

The idiots guide tells me Roumania was the seventh largest producer of oil in the world prior to WWII.

It seems to me that the Scottish "emphasis" on petro dollars as a panacea for the ills of the place show that an independence based on oil would not have been a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite

It seems to me that the Scottish "emphasis" on petro dollars as a panacea for the ills of the place show that an independence based on oil would not have been a solution.

What Scottish emphasis on petro dollars? Most independence supporters, myself included, view oil revenues as a very minor issue in the larger scheme of things. The UK government's behaviour over oil is another matter though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an independent Scotland gets its share of the assets - embassies, military equipment, etc then we should take our share of the debt. However, some argue that an independent Scotland should be cut loose with none of the assets. In those circumstances, I doubt we'd take any of the debt.

Tell you what, you can have BP!

They'll help you find any more deepwater oil in Scots waters!

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 142 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.