Syria and the Downfall of Westminster

In recent days, the ferocity of the debate over whether or not western nations such as ours should militarily intervene in Syria has increased exponentially. Almost instantly after it was announced to the world that chemical weapons may or may not have been used in an attack on a civilian suburb killing hundreds, the UK and the US seem ready to invade at a moments notice. Something strange struck me about this conflict however, it seems to be the UK government which is putting the most pressure on the world to intervene.

This may seem rather strange to a lot of people. It is usually the US administrations which are the most gung ho when it comes to military interventions. The threats of Iraq and Afghanistan were almost entirely solely fabricated by the US in order to protect their economic interests abroad. Syria however does not fall into the category that Iraq and Afghanistan does. It contains neither the oil wealth of Iraq, nor the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan. Therefore, it is not as much as a target for the USA as the aforementioned countries.

Whilst there is a clear case to be made that the use of chemical weapons, such as Sarin gas, is morally abject and abhorrent. That alone is not a reason to militarily intervene in the conflict. Discussion and diplomacy are almost always the better options when it comes to conflicts. It is far more beneficial for all sides in the long run for the conflict to be settled with words rather than weapons. An instant resort to violence is a means used by those who are weak of the mind and character.

Evidence of the disastrous effects of military intervention can be seen in Afghanistan. Not only has that country failed to recover in any way from extremism, it has actually become a hotbed for the growth of extremism. A young boy living in Afghanistan will not see the foreign interventionists as liberators, but oppressors.

This fervent support for war shown by the UK government shows just how little Westminster has moved on from the archaic days of projecting power through imperialist warmongering. Westminster is desperately trying to cling onto the last remnants of global military influence the UK still has. This desperation just shows how out of touch Westminster has become with the people of the country they are supposed to be leading; and is further evidence of the dysfunctionality involved with Scotland still being tied to Westminster politics.

The people of Scotland have consistently showed that we want nothing to do with Westminster warmongering. During the Iraq war days perpetuated by the Blair government, a majority of Scottish MP's voted against the war, many Scots took part in the massive two million strong protest in London, and parties such and three SSP MSP's, who were one of the most anti-war parties, were voted into Holyrood.

Hopefully this conflict in Syria spiraling out of control will show the people of Scotland once and for all that the views and actions of Westminster are not ours. Westminster is wholly and completely unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. It does not represent the governments we vote for, it does not represent our views both internally and globally, and it does not work in our interests. Its only function is to prop up a failing archaic system of privilege and elitism that should have died centuries ago.

There is no sense in Scotland being tied to Westminster when we are again and again forced to take part in the wars forced upon us by Westminster. We do not vote for them, and we do not want them. There is a clear course which Scotland has to take in the near future in order to avoid further pointless conflicts being forced upon us. We have to vote Yes in 2014. Not only will this ensure we do not get forced into wars we did not vote for, it will ensure our young soldiers will not be slaughtered in pointless conflicts, and will ensure we can stop spending money on wars and start spending it on helping the people of this country.

The Undecided Hold The Key

Throughout the independence debate, the unionist side has always claimed victory in the referendum in terms of opinion polls. They have consistently trumpeted time and again that opinion polls show that the Yes side is destined to lose, and that as time has went on, support for independence has been falling at a steady rate.

That is not what recent research is suggesting however. Recent polls and studies carried out this year has shown that the Yes campaign has been bucking the trend and are not gaining ground fast over the No campaign. The recent poll carried out by Panelbase on behalf of the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland has found that the gap between Yes and No has narrowed to just 9 points, with the undecided voters (17%) holding the key swinging influence.

Whilst many unionists will still proclaim that this further shows how the No campaign is undoubtedly bound to win in the referendum, it actually shows nothing of the sort. Studies this year have shown that many aspects of the Scottish electorate will provide a significant boost for the Yes campaign when the time comes to vote.

For example, research has shown that those more informed about the issues surrounding independence are more likely to vote yes in the referendum. Why is this? You might ask. Well, from this research it is clear to see that the Yes campaign has the more well-informed arguments that show the potential an independent Scotland would have to deal with many of its problems more effectively than Westminster would. It also solidifies the point that Better Together still relies on fear and ignorance in the electorate to win. Most of their support relies on the people of Scotland not knowing the issues surrounding independence, and just believing whatever the mainstream media tells them, along with the UK government.

Research also showed that those who have an intention to vote yes, will be more likely to cast their vote in the referendum. This could be a key deciding factor in the referendum, as it wholly relies on each side rallying their supporters to cast their vote on the day. This shows the fact that those who have an intention to vote yes in the referendum are more committed to Scotland's future, and are more motivated to change Scotland for the better; a Scotland that cares enough about itself to make a change is exactly the kind of Scotland we want to be running itself. It also shows that Better Together are having a tough time trying to rally their supporters to play and active role and vote on the day; probably because their messages of fear and pessimism can only be heard for so long without being driven to insanity.

So in light if this recent research and evidence, a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum is becoming more and more likely. If Yes Scotland continue to push its positive and progressive message to the undecided voters, support for independence will only grow stronger, as it is the Yes sides' positive message that is narrowing the gap and bringing the undecided to our side. We on the Yes side mus continue to project a positive message that will ensure the Scottish population is well-informed about the issues surrounding independence and is fully aware of the lies and fear being spread by the mainstream media and the No campaign. 

Hypocrites At Heart

There seems to be a common unwritten rule for unionist figures that whatever they say is a bad for Scotland, is good for the union. This rather worrying trend can be seen in almost all aspects of the independence debate. Oil, renewable energy, foreign investments, manufacturing. Almost all facets of the Scottish economy when brought up in the independence debate by unionists are "Volatile, unstable, unreliable, declining, and a bad basis for our economy". Then the very next day, you see the same unionist figures in the UK government reporting that boosts in the Scottish economy show "The benefits of Scotland's position in the union", and are a "Improving and worthy part of the UK economy".

Let us first turn to oil, I know this is a well-beaten path to the point of boredom but bear with me for the time being. It has been recorded multiple times this year that the North Sea oil & gas industry will see record investments. A record amount of £13 billion will be invested this year, and with as much as £44 billion expected to be invested over the next five years. In anyone's eyes, this is obviously a sign that the Scottish oil & gas sector is still a strong industry that continues to attract billions worth in investments year on year. It also shows that oil reserves are not declining at the rapidity which unionists claim they are; there is still as much as £1.5 trillion worth in the North Sea sector alone, with the Scottish North Atlantic sector, extending all the way to Rockall, still untouched. And besides, why would multinational companies be investing so many tens of billions into a "volatile and declining" resource?

Not in the eyes of unionists and the UK government however. They still rattle on that North Sea oil revenues are a "dangerous and volatile basis for the Scottish economy". Yet when they talk about it on a UK level, it not longer becomes a burden but a blessing. This hypocrisy shows the real reason Westminster wants to keep Scotland, self interest. For them, Scotland's revenues are a handy way to finance their primary focus on developing London, leaving everywhere else in the UK trailing behind like provincial backwater's.

It has been known for many years, despite the UK government's best attempts at keeping it secret, that Scottish oil revenues are what kept the Thatcher government afloat in the 80's. They've contributed as much as £300 billion to the Treasury since the first drill was operational. It was the Scottish oil in the 80's which allowed Thatcher to dismantle Scotland's manufacturing base and go ahead with her rapid programme of privatisation.

Therefore it can clearly be seen that in terms of North Sea oil, the UK government are being extremely hypocritical. They know that North Sea oil & gas is still a viable and prosperous sector, and are not afraid to prop it up and revere it as an integral part of the UK economy. Yet when it comes to Scotland, the oil revenues somehow become a burden to us, and are not something we should base our economy on.

Yet here's the thing, Scotland's economy would not be based on oil at all. Scotland's economy is open, diverse and as developed as any other European nation. Scotland has a quarter of the whole of Europe's renewable energy potential and is the epicentre of research and development for renewables  in Europe. We still have a strong manufacturing base in terms of electronics, making 28% of Europe's PC's. And Scotland is also one of the main places in Europe for games development, with leading company Rockstar based in Inverness, and such places as Dundee being one of the games development hubs of Europe.

This phenomenon amongst unionist figures reveals yet again one of the lies in their argument. They state that in fighting for the union, they are working Scotland's best interests. When instead they are only working in one interest, their own. They are using Scotland's open and prosperous economy that could benefit the people of Scotland massively under independence, to finance their obsession with London and the banking sector. Thatcher did it, and the government today are doing it. To stop our wealth and resources being siphoned off in the future to fund a corrupt and greed-ridden system, we have to votes Yes in 2014, for our generation and the many future generations to come.

London Politicans Don't Want us, Why Do We Need Them?

For the Yes campaign and myself, the prime reason for independence we seek is to once and for all unchain Scotland from the greed and corruption that ensues with being tied to London. Many on the unionist side claim that London and Westminster benefits Scotland greatly, allowing us to reap the rewards from the vast wealth generated there from its financial sector. In reality however, nothing of the sort happens. Practically all the wealth generated in London stays in London, is spent in London, and goes straight into the pockets of the wealthy elite residing there.

It has been obvious that after the financial crash of 2008, almost all Westminsters' supposed efforts at repairing the UK economy have went into London, with little to no repercussions for the people who actually caused the financial crash living there, the bankers. We have seen bankers' bonuses skyrocket under austerity, whilst those in other parts of the country are struggling to get by under new draconian policies, such as the infamous Bedroom Tax. We have seen millions being poured into infrastructure projects in London and the South-East such as the HS2 debacle which will only benefit London and the South-East, while infrastructure crumbles in other places. We have seen hefty tax cuts for millionaires and ravenous new privatisation policies being put in place, all the while our public services on which millions rely on throughout the country are buckling under lack of funding.

It is crystal-clear to see that all of Westminsters' interest is focused wholly on London and its financial sector. All other parts of the UK are being neglected and being purely used as a means to finance the governments' obsession with keeping London and the South-East happy. There is even evidence that clearly shows the British political establishment has no interest other than propping up the London financial Sector. London Mayor Boris Johnson said on an interview:

 "a pound spent in Croydon is of far more value than a pound spent in Strathclyde"

And there you have it. That is the exact attitude Westminster has to Scotland, one of neglect and condescension. They think that we are just not important enough to warrant any attention and funding; just give them their yearly pocket money and send them on their way, that'll keep them happy. This is exactly why the people of Scotland need to take control of our own destiny. We are clearly being shown no attention by the British political establishment.

We have already consistently shown we want to take a different path from that being offered by Westminster. Rather than embrace austerity we have chosen to embrace social-democratic policies that will protect our most vulnerable. Rather that go ahead with privatisation we have seen a fierce resistance to the privatisation of our public services in Scotland.

Under the status-quo however, we can do little but resist. Under independence, we could act. We could finally have the governments we vote for, we could finally get rid of trident (with around 80% of Scots opposing it), we could finally stop being involved in pointless and costly wars abroad and put money into our public services and education, and we could finally reject failed austerity and pursue a different path to recovery (like Iceland, the fastest recovering European nation).

All of these opportunities Scotland could take, are only possibly with a Yes vote. Only then will we be untied from Westminster, and the neglect we're shown by its politicians. They obviously don't want or care about us, so why do we need them?

Project Fear Wrong Again

It has seemed that for a long time the crux of the unionist argument in the referendum debate concerning business in Scotland is that the debate itself is damaging Scotland's ability to attract inward investment; with many business leaders pulling their hair out in anguish at the uncertainty caused by the referendum. For unionists, they see the union as the only way Scotland attracts inward investment, with the UK still being a glittering beacon of international influence (never mind the downgraded credit rating). This reverence of the UK's ability to attract inward investment seems to hark back to reminiscence of the British Empire, as if the unionists still think that Britain is a global super-power, that is the only thing which allows Scotland to do business in far-reaching lands.

A recent report however by UK Trade and Investment, destroys this yet another unionist myth completely. The conclusions drawn from the report reveal that Scotland has seen a 16% rise in direct foreign investments over the 2012-2013 period, compared to the UK, which saw an 11% rise. This means that a total of 111 projects have been attracted to Scotland over this period, compared to 96 over the previous period. Further evidence to this rise in inward investment can be seen in a survey carried out by Ernest and Young last month. Which described Scotland's ability to attract inward investment as "Sparkling", with he highest number of international projects going in Scotland over the past 15 years.

 This shows once and for all that the debate surrounding Scotland's constitutional future is not damaging its prospects concerning international investment; it could in fact be said that the prospects that independence is offering to Scotland is actually making our country a more attractive place for companies to do business here. This claim can be backed up, as the SNP have already made the promise to international businesses that under independence they would lower Scotland's corporation tax to a more competitive level in order to attract greater inward investment.

 There is also evidence from actual business leaders that a No vote will in fact damage Scotland's prospects at attracting business. Jim McColl, one of Scotland's leading business figures, revealed in an interview that a No vote in the referendum would sap Scotland's ability to attract inward investment. As we would lack the economic levers that independence will give us to be more competitive, and that all the investments which could have been made in Scotland will instead go to London; as that is the only region of the UK which the UK government seems to be interested in.

This latest revelation has caused embarrassment amongst the members of Project Fear (a term for the "Better Together" campaign, as it has been revealed that people inside the campaign openly discuss it together as "Project Fear"). With George Osborne being called on to apologise to the people of Scotland for lying about the supposed damaging affect the referendum was having on Scotland's ability to attract inward investment.

This yet again reveals that 'Better Together' have no other goal in the referendum other than creating fear and uncertainty. Their one and only goal is to make sure that the people of Scotland are too scared to vote for their country's natural constitutional state, as an independent nation. This recent report only strengthens the point that Better Together is made up of nothing but lies and fear. The people of Scotland must realise now that our country has what it takes to be a successful independent nation that treats our citizens equitably, one that can be a beacon of progressiveness; and one that does not need to be tied to an unrepresentative, archaic, and imperial-structured state to do so.

Apparently Scotland Doesn't Exist.

Recently there has been controversy surrounding the rather extraordinary claim made by a UK government report that states Scotland would not carry on any of the UK's current obligations and treaties, as Scotland was "extinguished" as a country following the formation of the union in 1707. The exact wording used by the report on page 75 states that:

"For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state".

This may seem baffling for a lot of Scots, as we already all know that the UK is a union of nations, not regions, and certainly not an enlarged England. Isn't that why Scotland has its own legal, health, educational sectors and its own parliament after all, as it is a nation? Well, according to Westminster it is not, which certainly reveals a lot about the current attitude Scotland is receiving from Westminster.

The report, as always, is a clear attempt by guffawing Westminster peers to ramp up the scaremongering surrounding Scotland's constitutional future; to make Scots scared that their country is the only nation in the world that cannot become independent. This time by insinuating that Scotland is so entangled within Britain that it cannot possibly be independent without spending millennium renegotiating thousands of international treaties. With some quislings stating that up to 14'000 treaties would have to be completely reworked from scratch.

As always, however these claims have been falsified and found to be nothing but shallow scaremongering. The claim that Scotland would not carry on any of the UK's current obligations, by definition, means that Scotland would not have to shoulder any of the UK's current debt obligations. So that would actually work in Scotland's favour, cheers Westminster! No two countries on Earth would want to go through the situation which Westminster is proposing; as for the rUK that would entail reworking thousands of treaties to exclude Scotland.

This rigmarole brings to light a very important point in the independence referendum. To many at Westminster, Scotland is still considered to be a region; subservient and nonexistent. With independence, this condescending attitude handed to us by a government we did not elect would stop. We would be a nation again, having all the means necessary to run our own affairs to work for the citizens of our nation, and to elect government we actually want; not to be swamped out by millions of votes south of the border.

The dire nature of Scotland's current position within the United Kingdom can be effectively exemplified by referring to the vote by Scottish MP's on whether or not the Coalition should have went ahead with benefit cuts. A total of 81% of Scottish MP's in Westminster voted against the damaging cuts going through, and what happened? Yup, we still received the damaging cuts.

Unsurprisingly, Scotland's only Tory MP was interviewed by Scotland Tonight  and was asked whether or not he felt comfortable with the claim that Scotland was basically no longer a country; he unequivocally replied "Yes". It truly is a sad state of affairs when a democratically elected representative of a country is happy saying that his country does not exist and is subservient to a government which it did not elect. This fully brings to light the damaging relationship some Scottish MP's have with Westminster; fully willing to go against their nations interests and natural state as an independent nature to please the party their country did not elect, and has consistently voted against.

The Path to a Fairer Society

One of my main driving points for desiring an independent Scotland is the prospect of my country being able to properly deal with societal issues issues such as inequality and rampant greed; both of which are extremely prevalent in modern day Britain. It is no secret that the UK is one of the most unequal countries in the modern industrialised world. The UK social equality currently sits at 28th out of the 34 OECD countries ranked on the Gini Coefficient; making the UK the 6th most unequal country in the industrialised world. Since the beginning of the recession, this has been the elephant in the room for Westminster.

Ever since the coalition was formed in the 2010 elections we have heard nothing but "we'll all have to suffer together", and the "Big Society". All the while we have seen every single millionaires earnings rise by £90'000 per year, and working families' incomes decrease by £800 per year. This to me, is a clear signal that Scotland needs full control over its economics, political, and social levers. It has already clearly been shown since Devolution Scotland has pursued a different path compared to the rest of the UK. In England & Wales we have seen public services being privatised; with areas of the NHS being outsourced to private companies, and talks of all Fire Services in England being handed over to private companies.

Gini Coefficient for the UK

This is very damaging for Scotland. Although we do under devolution control an array of powers that help us to distinguish ourselves form the rest of the UK and pursue policies which benefit the people of our nation; it is still not nearly enough. Pretty much all "Big Three" parties in Westminster heavily influence their Scottish subsidiaries, pulling strings behind the scenes to make Westminster policies flow, from a government we did not elect, directly into Scotland. There is clear evidence of these damaging practices happening.

Johann Lamont the Scottish Labour leader recently caused major controversy when she openly opposed universal welfare by stating that "Scotland is the only country in the world where we get everything for nothing". This came as a shock to many Labour voters who felt betrayed by the party they support, as this claim went against pretty much all traditional Labour values of social-democracy. After this rigmarole, Johann was quickly given a seat on the Labour Cuts Commission down in Westminster; I don't know about you but I smell a sell-out. This is a prime example of why Scottish politics need to stop being influenced by Westminster politicians.

Under Independence, all parties operating in Scotland would cease to be influenced by Westminster politics. This would mean that Labour, the Lib-Dem's, and even the Tories, would have to work for Scotland. They would have to put out policies which would appeal to the Scottish population; a population which has already shown to want to pursue a different path than that offered by Westminster. A more social-democratic, equitable path that would ensure that Scottish society, and politics, would not be influenced by the greed and corruption of Westminster.

Independence would also guarantee Scotland the proper powers in order to effectively tackle inequality in our country. It would enable a government, which the Scottish people actually elect, to use the full range of powers to put our views into our society. This claim is backed up by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz who says that without independence Scotland cannot hope to effectively deal with problems such as wealth distribution, welfare, and inequality.

He presented his information, along with other leading economists, in the first Fiscal Commission Working Group Report. The report clearly states that since 1975, inequality in the UK has risen faster than any other industrialised country; and continues to do so. This has a stifling effect on prosperity and growth; it is no surprise that the most equal nations on Earth are among the most prosperous.

In conclusion, it can be surmised that Scotland needs independence if we, the people of Scotland, want to have a hope at addressing the growing problem of inequality in our nation. The full range of powers offered by independence would enable us to fully put to practice our views, and would enable us to build a society around the ideals we hold dear; without them being tarnished and influenced by Westminster.

New Independence March and Rally Website

Last year in September as many of you will probably know there was an independence march and rally in Edinburgh. This was the first of 3 march & rallies that are taking place every year up until the referendum in 2014. Despite a lack of awareness in mainstream media, no doubt thanks to the Beeb, around 10'000 people showed up to show their support for the independence campaign.

Attending the march & rally myself, I have to say it was one of the best days of my life so far. The marchers assembled in the Meadows the marched through Edinburgh until we reached the Princes Street Gardens where the rally took place full of speakers, music, and a great atmosphere. Despite what you may have heard from the BritNats, the march was one of the most civilised demonstrations I have ever seen. Apart from the scuffle in the Gardens that took place when three right-wing SDL members set up camp at the back of the rally with union jacks and proceeded to hurl abuse at the crowd. When one person had enough and went to remove the union flag, he was attacked and the SDL members were taken away by the Lothian and Borders Police.

Now the march and rally in 2013 is set to become exponentially larger than the previous one; which despite its lack of coverage still turned out to be a great success. There is to be a larger venue, more coverage and campaigning to raise awareness, and a host of new speakers and bands to be announced. This however, cannot happen without people who support independence pitching in and all doing their part to raise awareness and funds. The march is not funded by either Yes Scotland or any of the political parties that support independence. It is a grass roots campaign that is wholly reliant on the people of Scotland working together to make it happen.

It is vitally important that all of us who support independence put as much effort as we can into making this happen. It represents the non-partisan collective voice of Scotland that says that we as a nation wants the chance to control our own future and destiny. And that it is a movement supported by the whole length and breadth of our nation; regardless of race, nationality, gender, class, sexual preference. It represents the civic voice of Scotland that says:

 "We have the will and the means to control our own future, and we're not afraid to take control."

MARCH AND RALLY WEBSITE

The Better Together Economy Shrinks Yet Again

Circulating the media today like wildfire there has been the news that the UK economy has shrunk in the last quarter of 2012 by 0.3%. Do you know what that means folks? The double-dip recession could well now turn into a triple-dip; as a recession is indicated by a contraction by at least 0.2% for two consecutive quarters. The reasons for the decline are still a little hazy. The ONS (Office for National Statistics) claims that the dip is largely due to a drop in North Sea oil production.

UK economy growth, as a % of GDP. 

I strongly suspect that the Quisling-sphere is already blazing alight with bold claims that this drastic news foreshadows cataclysmic effects for Scotland's economy if we do vote to become independent in 2014; as this must signify the fall of the oil industry. Further reading into this news however, reveals that this was due to delayed maintenance at the UK's largest oil field off the coast of Aberdeen.; the Buzzard oil field which produces around 10% of the UK's yearly oil output. The company who owns the field, Nexen, said that:

"The shutdowns occur every five years, [they] are planned, and are required in order to comply with regulatory requirements. The shutdowns enable us to repair and upgrade equipment that cannot be accessed when the facilities are operating."

Therefore it can be seen clearly that the drop in oil production is due to scheduled maintenance, necessary in order to keep the fields operational. I would hope that the Unionist imperial keyboard army will read this obvious reason for a drop in production, and steer themselves away from the rhetorical scaremongering about how any drop in production means the doom of the oil industry; sadly however, that is never the case.

It is the nature of an oil industry for it to fluctuate whenever a plant is shut down. It is however a much more secure base for an economy than the current UK economy has; which is 60% reliant on the banking sector. Without the drop in oil production, it has been reported that the UK economy would have only shrank by 0.1%. Not enough the merit a recession, yes, but it is still barely missing a recession, and it does indicate stagnation; which is not good enough.

Evidence to show that the Scottish economy, in contrast, is not failing as some Unionists will undoubtedly try to have the whole country believe, can be found in recent statistics over Scotland's exports. Scotland's worldwide exports have recently rocketed, seeing a £1.6 billion rise in the value of goods sold overseas. A shining example of such growing strength in Scottish exports is the Edinburgh-based electronics firm, MESL Microwave. The company produces components for the growing space industry, including the US agency NASA. The company currently exports 70% of the products they make, and despite a global slowdown, Scottish exports have seen a higher rate than in 2010.

As expected the Coalition government is already reeling in discontent as to why their policy of cutting is still not working, and throwing out the excuses. The best I personally have heard today is that the bad weather, lack of Christmas shopping, and EU sabotage are to blame. It is time for the Coalition government to stop using excuses, and to stop going through with their damaging cuts like petulant children wanting to prove that they were right all along.


An example on how our society could be mended differently can be found in Iceland. Most people when hearing about Iceland will instantly spring to mind thoughts of how Iceland is still a country hit harshly by the recession and is an example of what Scotland would be like following independence .What most people do not know however is that since the financial crash, Iceland has been making a remarkable recovery and is now the fastest recovering nation in Europe; with 7 straight quarters of growth.

What the Icelandic government has done is to pursue a much different path than that taken by Westminster. To start with, unlike Westminster, Iceland tackled the real cause of the crash, the banks. The government, and the people, jailed the bankers who ruined their economy, rewrote their constitution in order to pursue a different path, and most importantly bailed out their population, not the bankers. They have also taken a much different path than Austerity, the Icelandic government effectively slapped taxes on almost everything, even fizzy drinks, to keep a stable stream of income.

This enabled the country to keep their broad welfare state wholly intact. When quizzed about this, the Icelandic government said that it is ultimately important that they keep their welfare state intact, in order to keep their workforce healthy, and educated. Interestingly enough, BBC Scotland interviewed the former mayor of the wealthiest suburb in Reykjavik , who is very much on the right-wing and follows Thatcherite thinking. She says that, even though she believes in the free market, the welfare state is vital, and to harm it would severely hinder recovery. And look at what we have in the UK, no recovery until 2017, and a Prime Minster on course to raise the UK national debt more than any other Prime Minister in history; more than Brown and Blair put together.

If we in Scotland really want to see our country mend, we need independence. There is no sense in saying that the long-term decisions about Scotland are better made by a government which Scotland did not elect, and by a parliament which has shown time and time again that it cannot see further than the edge of its own bridge (to paraphrase Brian Cox at the Yes Scotland launch). We will benefit from being able to plan how we want our society to be managed, and how to prevent our country from slipping into the drastic financial situation which we are currently in again. The UK recovered faster out of the Great Depression in the 1930's, is this recent news not surely a sign that Scotland needs to take back the powers that were stolen from us, and to pursue a path which benefits the people of our country; not the rich few of a corrupt parliament and banking system?

The Horror of £1 for Independence

Recently there has been chaos in the Yes campaign as they try to get their heads around the catastrophic information that every Scot would be £1 a year worse off if we were to be independent. This is surely the sign that our country would be thrown into third-world status, doomed to an existence of poverty and economic turmoil. This is what the No camp will have you believe. Even now the top brass at No HQ are painting a picture of economic disaster for Scotland, claiming that Alex Salmond and his cronies are liars, and that Scotland would be astronomically better off staying in the UK.

Let's take a look at what the cost of £1 a year for independence will be shall we? First of all, that is £1 a year for the removal of trident, a written constitution that would ensure a home for everyone in Scotland, 100% reliance on renewable's by 2020, a government we elect, policies made to benefit Scotland not London, an end to a corrupt banking sector controlling our economy, a more equitable country, an economic asset worth 10 times more than our share of the UK national debt, an end to politics being controlled by the upper classes of society, a more diversified economy, an oil fund ensuring welfare for all generations ,and a chance to represent ourselves 100% on a global scale. All that for £1 a year? Now, I don't know about you, but I'm a sucker for a bargain.

It is clear to me now that the No camp are really scarping the bottom of their already worn-out barrel. Scottish independence is fast becoming the only option to end the plague of corporate-controlled politics poisoning our country today. As the referendum draws closer, it will become apparent to the Scottish population that independence is not an end, it is a means to decide what country we want to be. Do we want to live in a a country where the most wealthy in society control politics? Do we want to live in a country where bankers who have ruined this country keep getting wealthier through recessions, all the while the poor are being demonized by the government? I think it is time to say no to these outrageous practices in our society.

Scotland, with independence, has the chance to show the world that there is a different path to prosperity, than the one offered by the current UK government. We will have the chance to work alongside our European neighbors, to work for the interests of our people. If you were to look at the most prosperous countries in the world, they are all small European countries in Scandinavia, and countries such as Iceland, and Ireland. What do they have that we do not currently? Full control over their economic resources, full representation on a global scale, and policies that are made to benefit the people of their country.

All of the above listed countries have pursued an equitable, social-democratic path, that ensures that everyone in their country has public services that work for the benefit of the people they serve, not shareholders, and a welfare system that ensures no one will fall into destitution and will not be demonized for being less-fortunate than the top 100 of society that made enough money in 2012 to end world-poverty 4 times over. It is time to choose a different path, all you have to do is vote Yes in 2014.