It’s certainly true that time flies – we’re already a couple of weeks into 2014 and it definitely feels that the pace is quickening towards the referendum.
September 18 will be here before we know it and that’s why it’s so important that people have the facts they need to make an informed choice. I’m committed to making the most of every minute between now and then to make the positive case for Scotland staying in the UK. This week I’ve been doing just that.
I kicked off my week at Stirling Uni, in the shadow of the Wallace monument, giving a speech to a packed audience about why Scotland is better off as part of the UK. I gave a list of factual things that we gain from being together and I also pointed out all the things that we've built together and shared together - and how much more we can do together in the UK family.
In my speech, I made the point that we have just over eight months to decide whether we stay in the United Kingdom family or go it alone. Eight months to choose between remaining part of this four-nation partnership that we have built together or to break away and to start from scratch. That is our choice.
This week also saw the launch of the latest Scotland analysis paper, on EU and international issues.
The focus stays on Europe into next week as I head to Brussels on Monday to make a speech to the Centre for European Policy Studies.
4 comments
Comment by Alistair White posted on
UK Population (2012, official estimate) 63,705,000
UK Govt Debt £1,258,741,425,000
UK Govt Assets £1,268,000,000,000
UK Unfunded Pension Obligations £7,100,000,000,000
UK Debt inc Unfunded Pension Obligations (that's Trillions £) £8,358,741,425,000
Debt per person (UK) £131,210.13
UK GDP (Aug 2013) £405,274,000,000
UK GDP/Debt (inc Pensions) 20.62
UK GDP/Debt (excluding Pensions) 3.11
UK has debts (including the obligation to fund pension liabilities) equal to 20.62 its entire economy or GDP. The equivalent for the EU is 17.8 (better) and the US 34.8 (worse).
Scotland Population as % of UK 8.31%
Scotland Population (2011, official estimate) 5,295,000
Scottish Govt Debt (Population share) £104,623,433,724
Scottish Govt Assets (Population share) £105,392,983,282
Scotland Unfunded Pension Obligations (Population share) £590,134,212,385
Scottish Govt Debt inc Unfunded Pension Obligations £694,757,646,109
Debt per person (Scotland) £131,210.13
Scottish GDP (inc. NS oil (geographic share)) £146,020,000,000
Scottish GDP/Debt (inc Pensions) 4.76
Scottish GDP/Debt (excluding Pensions) 0.72
Independent Scotland (population share split of Debt/Assets from the UK and including the obligation to fund pension liabilities) has a figure of 4.76 to the UK 20.62.
Excluding the pension liability the UK has 3.11 times its economy in Government Debt, whereas Independent Scotland has 0.71 times its economy in Government Debt.
Viewed another way the UK has 4.3 times the amount of Govt Debt / GDP that an Independent Scotland would have based on population split of Debt / Assets and geographic share of oil".
Comment by Ian Mitchell posted on
Mr Carmichael, how much is the UK taxpayer coughing up for all this Westminster misinformation?
This http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273403/content_pack_1.pdf so-called factual "information pack" is so packed full of nonsense that people are openly laughing at the Scottish Office and HMG. Was it sponsored by project fear aka bettertogether?
The whole thing is completely taken apart by http://www.wingsoverscotland.com/eleven-words-of-truth/
Comment by David Steele posted on
I am an ex-patriot Scot and served in a Scottish Regiment for many years, what is being done to get people like me get the vote? I would be happy to present my case in person and indeed that of many other Scottish Veterans.
Comment by mr johnston posted on
x pats don’t live in Scotland. Why any thing would be done to get people like you votes, people that do not live or pay tax in Scotland. Also not quite sure what volunteering to kill people under licence for British government has to do with voting a contractor may have worked in Iraq yet does this give a right to vote in Iraq or indeed the united states if choose to work for a united states contractor? Not that I know of to be arguementative. ( i sort of see what you mean but its not really an objective postion more an emotive one as far as can figure as the regiment thing would have no bearing on voting rights, can a gurka vote in uk when does not live in uk etc etc, so its of no relevance that your served in scottish or other regiment in its self.
As an ex pat ex pats are not given a vote, this would seem correct, as why given someone a vote that does not live somewhere, what would the critiera be someone born in scotland someone that lived in scotland for a period etc. As someone chooses not to live in scotland, then would seem reasonable for them not to vote in scotland. You can not vote in a conistancey you dont live in, why a region etc.
Of course the argumentive style is highly offense to army people, as buy in to some mystic that doing some thing great for the people, but many gangs have this aspect. Indeed the terrorists that go out to fight from the uk have this view also. It not that would not do army etc my self. Its just interlectually dishonest agruemnts that are used as in many cult like activties.
But objectively what is it, because a government is always correct, highly doubtful. Governments lie kill people, private buiness does likewise. To play devils advocate the terrosist belive they are doing gods work, as does some army people, etc american particulary. The fact that people die or get injuryed doing an activity and the fact that they choose to do it, does not make it more or less correct etc. Could sacrfiece for anything etc in theory.
Of course people claim offensive the terrorist may claim offense also if dismiss there views and belives, as the offense is in choose by the one to claim offensive more to do with there personal view than external factor. Thereforce not cause offense means adjusting views sothe least irrational peoples views would be those that are you are least likly to critiizce as they would find it more offensive than thinking type that challeges everything.
Part of what wrong with british civil service the offensive argument that those that claim most offensive are least to be critized. When people can find the views more offensive if they are never challegened so get adverse selections of views. Those cult based ones that people find offensive to scuritivity are above question, yet the rational scietific views are allowed to be critized as scientists dont mind.
So get critizem of sensible things, yet sacred cows of the irrational are non questions views take disprotate weighted as no one is allowed to point out the weakness. The more stupid the view the more offensive is to critize in a sense.