SSP Stirling Public Meeting 29th January - "Hear How a Yes Vote Will Benefit You"

On Wednesday the 29^th of January in the Cowane Centre in Stirling, the Stirling SSP branch held a public meeting named “Hear How a Yes Vote Will Benefit You” to discuss how a Yes vote in the upcoming independence referendum will benefit the people of Scotland. The Chair of the public meeting, Hugh Cullen, the branch chair, said that the event was to allow people to hear from panelists giving their own vision for an independent Scotland, and how it would benefit ordinary people in Scotland.

The panelists included: Lorna Binnie, the chair of the Falkirk Trades Council and the PCS Union, on the STUC equality committee, also an activist for Women for Independence, Johnathan Shafi, the co-founder and Convener of the Radical Independence Campaign, and Kevin McVey, the national secretary of the SSP.

The first panellist to speak was Lorna Binnie. She opened by saying she would be delivering her vision on how independence would benefit women and trades’ unions. She remarked that independence gives Scotland the power to make choices which would benefit women and women’s rights. For her, the fight for women’s rights is driven by culture, and independence would help to deliver that cultural change to provide a boost for gender equality. Lorna said that, “A women’s vote is a women’s voice”, and that it is imperative that women vote Yes in the upcoming referendum in order to voice their opinions to Westminster that they are not fully representing women.

An example she used to show how greater control of powers for Scotland benefits women is the track record the Scottish Government has with women’s rights, compared to the Westminster government. From her personal experiences, she remarked that the Scottish government is far more in touch with women in Scotland than Westminster, and meets with the STUC Equality Committee she chairs regularly. The gender pay gap and the severe lack of women in the board room in the UK was also an example she used to show how the UK is out of touch with women's rights.

In regards to the Scottish economy, Lorna used the small nation of Brunei to exemplify how Scotland’s economy will be better off under independence. Visiting Brunei, she found the wealth per head of the small nation a powerful example of how Scotland would be a more successful country per head under independence; it is a well-known fact that Brunei is regularly close to the top of the table when it comes to GDP per head. To sum up this point, she said “small can be successful too”, with independence giving a small nation such as Scotland more control over its domestic affairs.

In the second part of her vision for an independent Scotland, Lorna gave her view on how independence will benefit the people of Scotland from a Union perspective. A more stable pension system and a fairer progressive tax system are aspects she mentioned would benefit the people of Scotland, as anti-trade union laws passed by Westminster would no longer affect Unions in Scotland. She argued that a stronger presence of Unions in an independent Scotland would lead to fairer wages for workers, more reliable pension schemes, and a fairer distribution of wealth; as workers would have more collective bargaining powers.

The second panellist to speak was Johnathan Shafi, the Co-founder and convenor of the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC). His vision for an independent Scotland which would benefit the people of Scotland stems from how Scotland no longer being aligned to the British State would do away with such issues as wealth inequality and the “rolling back of everything working people have won since 1945”. He used the example of nuclear weapons being transported to Scotland in the dead of night to show how the British State is taking Scotland for granted and covertly working against our interests; as weapons the majority of Scotland do not want are being secretly transported through Scotland when no-one is looking. 

Shafi explained how the wealth of the top 200 in the UK since 1980 increasing 100 times is no accident, but a direct consequence of the neo-liberal policies of the UK government which are actively damaging the prospects for working people in Scotland. He also explained how the UN recently launching an inquiry into how food is distributed in the UK due to the rapid growth of food banks, shows that Westminster is not working for Scotland. 

He also said how the UK government is utilising the historic tactic of dividing the people of Scotland against each other, to minimise resistance to their policies; such as the stigmatisation of immigrants and those on benefits. To him, “independence in of itself isn’t a magic wand”, but is a tool the Scottish people can utilise in order to make the right choices to reverse the damaging neo-liberal policies of UK governments which have brought in austerity. 

The third and final panellist to speak was Kevin McVey, the national secretary of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), he gave the vision of how independence and the SSP will benefit the people of Scotland. He started off by utilising the example of how when he was driving through Glasgow and went from Bearsden, a leafy middle-class suburb, to Drumchapel, he noticed a stark wealth-divide present in Scotland. He followed this example by saying that such economic inequality isn’t an accident, but is the direct result of neo-liberal economic policies handed to Scotland by Westminster.

He remarked that he was a former Labour member as was kicked out of the party, something he is proud of, as it went from being a left-wing party, to now a centre-right party devoid of its Socialist roots. He said how the recent announcement from Labour of increasing tax for the wealthy, is but a tiny measure that will not do nearly enough to help working people in Scotland. 

He went on to say how there is clear evidence which shows how support for independence is highest amongst those who are the most deprived in Scotland. He explained how this was due to the British state failing millions of people across Scotland leaving them with no support for the status-quo. McVey then explained how “the largest growth of poverty is amongst those working”, and how independence would fix this issue as we would have greater control over who controls the wealth in Scotland, and how it is distributed in order to benefit the most deprived and those working.

The evening was rounded off by questions being taken from the audience. These included questions on how the Labour party would be able to get back in touch with its roots in an independent Scotland, how a socialist government such as the SSP in an independent Scotland would control the economy, and if independence is primarily a class issue.

Therefore in conclusion it can be seen that from the views given at the public meeting, an independent Scotland really has a chance of benefiting the people of Scotland. Greater control over our own powers will ensure women and Trades' Unions get proper representation in society. It will ensure an end to illegal wars and governments we didn't vote for. And it will also ensure that we can make the right choices to reverse the damaging neo-liberal policies given to us by Westminster throughout the years so we can shrink wealth inequality, and make sure working people are delivered the fair chances in life they deserve.

Scotland Needs a Public Energy Sector

A contentious issue within Scottish society, and indeed the greater world, that affects millions of people across this country, is energy. Right now Scottish energy supply is maintained in large by the 'big six' energy companies: British Gas, N Power, EON, EDF Energy, Scottish Power, and Scottish Hydro. The British media and political establishment devotes much gesticulation towards explaining how well these big six companies are benefiting the economy, and are the only way forward for the energy sector. The reality however, could not be further from the truth.

Anyone who has first hand experience with these companies will know they are nothing but profiteers that want nothing but to squeeze every penny out of the ordinary family they can. Within the past six years, energy prices have doubled. This is whilst one million families across Scotland are now living in fuel poverty. The Westminster government has valiantly attempted to fix fuel poverty; their method however is not what you would think. They essentially redefined what it is to be in fuel poverty, therefore lifting 800'000 people across Britain out of fuel poverty overnight; what a result eh! In real terms though, many people across Scotland are still living in fuel poverty and struggling to make ends meet with the average yearly bill being £1'315; 10% of some people's wages.It does not have to be like this at all. 

Scotland has an abundance of renewable energy potential.

Scotland is one of the most energy-rich nations in Europe. We have 90% of the UK's oil and gas reserves. The wholesale value of these North Sea reserves stands at an estimated £1.5 trillion. 25% of Europe's wind and tidal energy potential, and 10% of Europe's wave power potential. Currently, Scotland meets 40.3% of its energy needs from renewables, and is currently on track to meet 100% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020. It will be bewildering to many that a million families across Scotland are living in fuel poverty amidst swathes of abundance and potential in energy.

The problem lies not in our ability to produce the energy, it lies in how it is maintained, owned, and distributed. Studying economics myself, it is fact that sectors such as energy, which is vital infrastructure, are best run as a monopoly. This is due to the nature of the industry, it would be inefficient for the sector to consist of hundreds of small firms competing, it would lead to much duplication of resources leading to waste as many firms operate different networks that wouldn't link up efficiently. This would mean the traditional model of supply/demand in a free market would be offset as the equilibrium price for consumers would be much higher due to firms wasting capital and labour on unnecessary duplications in the market.

Since the free-market approach doesn't work. The next step would be to establish monopolistic competition, i.e. a few firms competing and offering slightly different services in order to attract customers. From how the current British energy market operates, it can clearly be seen that that approach too, does not work. Having just a few firms competing leads again to artificially inflated prices. Due to the inelasticity of demand of energy (it is an essential good, therefore people are not as flexible about how much they would be willing to pay for it), this lets the huge companies in control set high prices for no good reason.

Fuel poverty in modern Scotland. Affecting even our most vulnerable.

Right now, major energy companies are making record profits yet keep artificially inflating prices for no good reason. Although the British government is boasting tens of billions of investment in UK energy, don't expect the prices to come down anytime soon. Just like the rail industry, energy companies are being subsidised with billions in the hope that it will bring down prices. The exact opposite is happening however. Energy companies are pushing up prices year on year despite 'billions' in worth of investment, and no one is stopping them due to a toothless Ofgem offering no real opposition to their profiteering. It's subsidised corporate socialism for the big energy companies, and monopolistic price taking for the rest of us.

This is why Scotland, following independence, needs its own publicly-owned energy sector. With a publicly-owned energy sector, the government can operate the energy sector efficiently as a state monopoly, setting a price-ceiling on energy prices to make sure that we are paying the amount the energy costs to produce; not artificially inflated prices born out of greed.

 This would also allow the government to effectively invest in the sector. As instead of investment being dictated by how much money can be squeezed out of the ordinary family, it will be dictated instead by how much supply the country needs. Also, since a publicly-owned sector will not be driven by making a profit, it will be motivated to efficiently run in all ways. This will ensure maximum investment in the sector that will drive down costs for both the government and consumer.

Therefore in conclusion, it can be seen that Scotland would hugely benefit from a publicly owned energy sector. It would ensure families across Scotland would be protected from artificial energy price-hikes, driven by nothing but greed. It would ensure an efficiently run energy sector which would be driven to provide equitable energy distribution to the nation, instead of for profit. It would also ensure the much-needed investment into our energy sector. All this however cannot come about unless we in Scotland vote Yes in this year's referendum, to put control over our affairs into our hands.

Knowledge Really Is Power

It has almost become a staple fact in the independence referendum that the more people know about independence, the more likely they are to vote Yes. To some, this will appear an odd fact, as they think that they receive all the information they need about the referendum from the British mainstream media outlets. The information that comes from the mainstream media, however, is unequivocally biased and full of party political agenda, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

 
The main flaw with the mainstream British media establishment, is that it is driven by an agenda funded by wealthy British businessmen and politicians. In our capitalist economy, the media relies on sources of funding to keep itself afloat.Outlets such as the newspapers and tabloids know they are a dying industry, and as a result will do anything to keep themselves afloat as the internet and social media, which is free for the most part, strangles them.


Thus, they will try to appeal to those in the establishment and the wealthiest in society in order to gain much needed revenue. The press will satisy the wishes of what those in the establishment and the masses want to hear. They will often appeal to those in power in society in order to gain revenue from donations. And will equally appeal to the whims of the masses in order to generate more sales. That is why, in the independence referendum, it is important to split the mainstream media from actual informed debate which will help people make up their minds which way to vote.

The debate about Scotland's future should not be held by those driven by wealth and a corporate agenda, it should be held in communities, schools, and universities; by the people actually affected by the issues in the referendum. The reason why this should be the case, is that time and time again debates in schools, communities, and universities have shown that even the information provided by one debate, is enough to sometimes drastically turn the voting intentions around.

A debate hosted by the marketing company Nth Degree in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, showed that after the debate, the Yes vote increased dramatically to 75%, compared to 25% for No. Another debate in Abertay University showed that the Yes vote increased to 51% compared to a No vote of 38%; the pre-debate poll showed a result of 59% No and 21% Yes. Strathclyde University held a debate where the post-debate vote was 60% voting Yes and 24% voting No. What's surprising about this debate was that at the start, Yes was actually winning 56.5%, and aftwerwards Yes rose whilst No and undecided voters shrunk.

At Edinburgh Napier University, the Yes vote attracted a stunning 80% after the debate. To provide balance to counter the inevitable claims that "It's just universities", St Ninians High School in Kirkintilloch showed an impressive swing of 50% to Yes from No and undecided voters. Prestwick Academy provided a swing to Yes after their debate.

As the infographic shows, before the debate, the majority of pupils voted No. Whereas afterwards, the majority turned to a Yes vote. To add further balance, a BBC News referendum debate even showed a turnaround for Yes. After the debate, 62% voted Yes, whereas 38% voted No. As can be seen in the graph below.

 Therefore, it can be surmised from the figures above that the Yes campaign primary need does not lie with trying to woo the population with high-profile celebrity appearances. It lies with informing the people of Scotland about the real facts surrounding independence. From my time writing and reading about the referendum, all the major facts surrounding independence are on our side.

We know that the Scottish economy is indeed not a backwater which cannot survive on its own. But is instead a vibrant, and diverse economy with potential coming out of its ears. The only thing holding it back is an archaic and unrepresentative government that does not pertain to our interests at home or abroad.

 The Yes campaign has to seize upon the advantage it has with facts, and attempt to drive them home by allowing the people of Scotland make up their minds through informed debates where the facts are most certainly on our side. The Scottish independence referendum will not be won through flashy propaganda or celebrity cameos, it will instead be won in communities, schools, and universities. Knowledge is indeed power in this campaign, and the Yes side has to grasp the opportunity to inform people and win them over through reason.

The Hungry Boxer

As the referendum date comes ever nearer, with the turn of 2014 placing it almost on our doorstep, both sides have became more distinct in their differences from one another. Especially with the margins narrowing, creating more uncertainty towards who will win. One aspect of both sides' campaigns which has perhaps the most difference is their grassroots campaigning.

Anyone who has had any first hand experience with both Yes Scotland and Better Together will have seen great disparity in both sides' ground-level activity. Better Together still relies on the manipulation of the media and top-down lectures from those in power telling the people of Scotland how to vote. The most recent, and perhaps most hilarious, example of the No campaign's efforts to mobilise those at the top of the political structure to influence the referendum can be seen in David Cameron's plea to the Russian president - Vladimir Putin ("Really?". Yes, Really).

This latest plea for international support from Westminster shows two things. One, that Westminster has lost any hope at convincing the Scottish people to vote No on their own. They know the people of Scotland are becoming increasingly aware of the disparity that lies between our interests, and theirs. No longer can they appeal to the jingoism of post-war British unity to inspire Scottish people to vote No. And two, that Britain is still locked in the past era of Cold War underhand governmental negotiations to stifle the contrary interests of their people.

Unsurprisingly, the No campaign have been quiet on this subject. Most No mouthpieces simply stating that any criticism of David Cameron's actions is "childish rhetoric". Better Together's silence on such a blatant underhand and dishonest tactic proves that they are still clinging to the powers of the establishment in order to win the referendum. They are so certain in their victory that they see no need to appeal to the Scottish people at a ground level; the people who are actually voting in the referendum.

This is where the Yes campaign differs greatly. As a political activist myself, I have noticed over the years following up to the referendum a great divide in the activity of the two campaigns at a grassroots level. To illustrate this example I took the time to search for both Better Together and Yes Scotland events happening within 100 miles around my home postcode in Coatbridge (the largest distance on both websites). Here are my results:

The top picture shows Better Together's events happening in Scotland. Fear not, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Yes, that is right, in the year of 2014, the last run up to the referendum, Better together have a grand total of three events coming up. Yes Scotland on the other hand have 38 events running at the start of the year. If this evidence does not shine a definitive light on the differences between the campaigns, then I don't know what will.

This can be further portrayed by my experiences living in the city of Stirling. Every week both Yes Scotland and the SSP have stalls running; Yes Scotland on a Saturday, and the SSP on a Tuesday outside the Thistles shopping centre for those of you who are interested. Better Together however are nowhere to be seen on a ground level.

This brings us nicely to the main subject of the article. That being that Yes Scotland, for years being portrayed as being behind and never going to win, is the hungry boxer. The Yes side is more determined to win, more determined to interact with the people of Scotland, and more willing to campaign at a ground level to win people over.

The differences in campaigning can also be seen in the crucial role social media is playing in the referendum. The BBC article referenced here says that a report carried out by researchers at the University of Glasgow have showed that those who support independence on Twitter are more active and spontaneous, and start more conversations concerning independence. Whereas the No campaign on Twitter was more orientated towards top-down interactions and had a smaller network on social-media.

Des McNulty, deputy director of Policy Scotland in relation to the findings said this:

"It's interesting that in this particular snapshot 'Yes' has been more active and spontaneous," he said.

"They use more tweets and hashtags, and have a bigger network of tweeters.

"'No' tweets are coming from the top down, and there is no real network amplifying the debate."




The No campaign know they cannot get the people of Scotland to rally around the union and Westminster as it is a sick, dying giant of a political construct. Britishness as an identity is dying, and the politicians at Westminster who are trying to keep it alive are dying with it. Thus, instead of using real campaigning as a means to winning the referendum, they cling to those in power and the establishment. Utilising both the political structure and the media to portray Scotland as a country which is not fit to run its own affairs and make decisions by itself. That the powers that rightfully belong in Scotland are better managed by those we do not vote for.

What can be gleamed from this is that the Yes campaign must build upon the momentum is has gathered. It has to focus more on grassroots campaigning to reach out to the people of Scotland as to why Scotland will be a more democratic, prosperous, fair, and greener nation upon independence. After all, it has been shown that the more people know about the facts surrounding independence, the more likely they are to vote Yes. 2014 will be the year the referendum will take a sharp turn as people realise that Westminster and Better Together are making no effort to interact with them on a ground level.

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.