We are looking to recruit a team of Better Together Youth Reps to put forward the case for keeping Scotland’s place in the UK. 

Who? Young Scots aged between 15 - 21 who support Scotland's place in the UK

What? A chance to be a youth representative and spokesperson for the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK

Why? Because this is the biggest decision  we will ever take as a country and all voices must be heard.

16 - 17 year olds will be voting in this referendum. The first time this will happen in Scottish and British Politics. We want to ensure that this large group of young people are given all the facts about the Independence question. However it's not politicians who will win this referendum, it's you. It's young people who will convince their peers. Better Together want to empower young people to have their say in this campaign so we will actively support all campaign activity undertaken by our group of youth reps.

That's why we want to recruit a large group of young Better Together representatives who will be spokespeople and key campaigniners for Better Together across Scotland.

If selected Better Together will;

Provide expert public speaking training

Provide expert media training

Provide expert campaign and organising training

Provide expert digital campaign training

Ensure that weekly campaign briefings are sent to you

Invite you for bi monthly meetings with our staff team

Arrange regular away weekends to discuss your views and the views of young people you are speaking to

What we want from you?

Be spokespeople for Better Together in  the print and broadcast media

Blog regularly for the Better Together website

Ensure a social media presence (on twitter / facebook) publicising your work in support of the campaign

Organise Independence discussion  events with young people in your area

Take part in independence debates in schools or at events centred around young people

Provide campaign ideas for young people

Provide feedback from events with other young people

Apply with a CV and a 300 word cover essay explaining why you believe Scotland should remain in the UK. Email Ross MacRae at ross@bettertogether.net to apply by 9th June 2013. 

 
Want more information?

Want to read more about the impact independence would have on the single British energy market and your energy bills? Read the reports referred to in this article in full on the David Hume Institute website.
 
Agree?

If you agree that when it comes to energy, we are Better Together, please share this article.

John Swinney has once again attempted to assert his way out of a problem – this time over the future of the National Lottery if Scotland decides to go it alone.

In response to a letter from Conservative MSP Nanette Milne, a spokesperson for Mr Swinney is quoted as saying that there was “absolutely no reason” why the National Lottery should not continue to operate exactly as it does today.

However, the National Lottery Terms and Conditions clearly state that players – even those who play the Lottery online – have to be resident in the United Kingdom.  The future of the National Lottery would therefore be subject to negotiations between the two Governments following the referendum – rendering Mr Swinney’s assertion as completely baseless.

The latest blunder from the Finance Secretary comes as the Institute of Fundraising Scotland release a report that shows that charities are deeply concerned about the impact of separation on their ability to raise funds.

Victoria Jamieson, who leads on Better Together’s engagement with the Third Sector said:

“Like so much of this debate so far, when confronted with a problem the nationalists have simply asserted that it will all be fine. John Swinney cannot say that the National Lottery will continue as it is. It is not in his gift to do so. 

“Just as with the pensions issue last week, he has said there is no problem caused by the creation of a national border between Scotland and the UK. Just as with the pensions issue, even a basic understanding of the issue shows that isn't true.

“If there is a solution to this problem, then let us know what it is rather than treating us like fools. Otherwise we will assume he doesn't have one.

“This is not just about whether or not people will be able to play the Lottery if we decide to go it alone. This is about the thousands of arts groups, charities and sports clubs that rely on the Lottery funding. If we are not in the UK and not contributing to the good causes pot, how can we expect the UK Lottery to continue providing much needed cash to the groups that need it most?

“Charities are growing increasingly concerned about the impact of separation on their ability to raise funds. UK trusts pump millions of pounds into Scottish good causes each year. It is extremely worrying to hear that Scottish charities are already been warned off applying for UK wide funds due to the uncertainty being caused by the referendum.

“This is another example of the nationalists not thinking about the impact of separation on real people across Scotland. On pensions, currency and now the lottery and funding for our third sector they are making it up as they go along.”

'O let us not, like snarling curs,
In wrangling be divided,
Till, slap! come in an unco loun,
And wi' a rung decide it!
Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang ourselves united;
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!
No! never but by British hands
Shall British wrangs be righted!'

Not my words but the words of one Scotland greatest sons, the bard, Robert Burns. Just as all the world's finest writers' word transcend time and changes in the world and still ring true to the modern ear. His words still have resonance and reflect simple but constant truths no matter the time we find ourselves in.

Admittedly this poem was written about another challenge to the UK, a potential French invasion of our country. Robert Burns realised that when we in this island are united, we are able to meet and overcome challenges due to our collective strength.  This is a belief I share.

The challenges we have faced have often been great; creating a welfare system to protect those in need, establishing a Health service that treats those based on need – not ability to pay, ensuring our financial system was not destroyed in the midst of a global banking crisis; eliminating that fascism from our continent – we have faced these challenges and overcame them all, together.

I believe that in the years to come the challenges we will face will become global, requiring a larger united response. Being a part of the United Kingdom allows us to meet these challenges, as a voice on the world stage, with a confidence and vigour knowing that our country is safe against even the strongest of threats to our future.

That is why I will be voting to renew the Union in 2014 and why I will continue to work hard campaigning for Better Together to ensure that our Union continues. So that we can meet the challenges of tomorrow together.

If you agree with Lachlan, join us.  Become a Better Together Volunteer today

Leader of the Better Together campaign Alistair Darling, said:

“This is the biggest decision that we will make as Scots in any of our lifetimes. Deciding whether we stay part of our 300 year old Union, or go it alone is a choice of unrivalled importance. The impact of the vote that we cast in September next year will be felt for generations to come.

“We have achieved so much together as part of the UK. Scots have changed the world in a way that few other countries can reasonably expect to match. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight against fascism. We have raised families together, started businesses together and stood up for each other through good times and bad.

“If we are to give all of this up, there has to be a good reason to do so.

“So far, those who want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom have relied on bluster and, sadly in the case of the EU, outright deception in order to try convince Scots to give them their backing. This, simply, is not good enough.

“This debate is too important to be based on anything other than cold, hard facts. Unfortunately, we find ourselves living in a country where legitimate questions are met with bluster and assertion, rather than detail and debate.

“Experts, businesses and trade unionists who raise their concerns about what independence means are often shouted down. Anyone who raises any questions about the wisdom of leaving the UK is accused of scaremongering.

“Over the next 500 days we will seek to change this. We will give voice to the millions of Scots who want to know exactly what separation would mean for their jobs, their pensions and their country.

“Today we have published 500 questions that have been submitted to us by individuals, organisations and businesses over the past few months. Taken alone, many of these might not feel like ‘deal breakers’, but taken together they paint a picture of just some of the issues that the SNP must address before asking us to vote to leave the UK.

“We shall continue to ask questions until we start to get answers.

“I passionately believe that we are better and stronger together with our friends, families and workmates from across the UK. We take so much of what we have for granted. It is only when you start to ask questions of the nationalists that you realise just how much we have to lose by leaving.”

You can read the full 500 questions here.

If you agree with us that it is time we started getting some answers from the nationalists then why not help us by submitting your own question and we will ask it for you.

With your help we can keep Scotland a strong and proud part of our United Kingdom.

Thank you.

We are a key part of the G7, G8, and G20 and the World Trade Organisation which helps Scottish trade flow as smoothly and freely as possible.

We are key players in the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank.

Everybody knows that it is the big countries in Europe that call the shots. As part of the UK, Scotland has a more powerful voice in Europe.

We are safer and more secure as part of the UK too.

Scots are represented by over 270 consulates and embassies overseas – the world’s largest diplomatic network. There for us if we get in to trouble when abroad.

The UK is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – sitting alongside China, France, Russia and the United States.

However, the nationalists’ plans for independence put the strength, influence and security at threat. 

A report published today by an influential committee of MPs has stated that with just over sixteen months to go before the Scottish referendum there are still significant gaps in the nationalists’ plans for security and proposed foreign policy.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee was deeply critical of the nationalists’ stance on Scotland's future membership of the bodies such EU and NATO, saying it was based on little more than assertion and assumption.

The report makes clear that “it is one thing arguing for a position and another securing it”, adding that if the nationalists continue to pursue this policy approach there is a likelihood that it “will undercut its attempts to position itself as a constructive and helpful European partner and therefore may not receive the unanimous support of EU Member States it would require.”

More widely, the committee expressed concerns about “the extent to which seemingly unfounded assertions and what are essentially initial negotiating positions are being presented as incontrovertible facts and conclusions.”

The nationalists’ reliance on assertion is becoming an increasingly troubling trend – and follows similar assertions on what currency a separate Scotland would use and how pensions would operate and be paid.

The Committee also said there is an urgent need for greater clarity and candour on the international challenges an independent Scotland would face.

Its report highlighted the fact that the nationalists had so far failed to provide any analysis of the costs of setting up new intelligence and diplomatic services.

It also said that the nationalists had so far failed to do much of the basic legal and political groundwork on its foreign policy, its embassies network or its new intelligence agency.

Why does this matter?

It matters because Scots shouldn’t simply be expected to rely on guesswork. It matters because protecting the safety, security and interests its citizens home and abroad – should be a top priority of any government. It matters because if something goes wrong abroad, Scots deserve to know that somebody will be there to look out for them. 

Once again the nationalists are unable to answer on the detail of what independence would actually mean. Telling us everything is going to be okay, doesn’t make it so.

If the nationalists are serious about independence it is time they get serious and start providing answers to the ever rising number of questions.

As the report concludes, “Scottish people do, however, have a right to have the full facts, not just aspirational policies, at their disposal before they make that decision.”

As part of the United Kingdom, we can have the best of both worlds: significant decision making powers here in Scotland together with the strength, stability and security that being part of the UK brings in an unstable world. Let’s keep it that way – vote to keep Scotland a strong and proud part of the United Kingdom in September 2014.

Key extracts from the report:

“There is an overwhelming body of evidence that endorses the UK Government’s view that the RUK would be considered by the international community to be the continuing state and that it would inherit the vast majority of the UK’s treaty obligations, while Scotland would essentially start afresh at an international level.” (p.17)

“We conclude that the RUK would retain the UK’s permanent seat in the UN Security Council.” (p.19)

“The idea that Scotland would inherit automatically NATO membership in the event of independence, with access to its collective security umbrella, is an overly optimistic assertion which does not fully take account of international law or NATO’s membership rules. We conclude that while the RUK would continue to be a member  of NATO, Scotland could expect to face robust negotiations and would not necessarily be in a position unilaterally to shape its membership terms in line with its domestic political commitments on nuclear weapons.” (p.20-21)

“The Scottish Government argues that in the interests of continuity, Scotland should retain the UK’s EU opt-outs, and that new ones could be added, if it becomes an independent EU member. However, it is one thing arguing for a position and another securing it. The fact that the Scottish Government has confidently done the first does not mean it will be able to do the latter, given the existence of strong forces in whose interests it would be to reject such a claim. If it continues to pursue this policy approach, there is a likelihood that the Scottish Government will undercut its attempts to position itself as a constructive and helpful European partner and therefore may not receive the unanimous support of EU Member States it would require.” (p.28)

“in the absence of a coherent and costed diplomatic vision, Scottish voters should be under no illusion about the significant resources that would be required to fulfil the Scottish Government’s aim of replicating the quality of the business and consular support currently provided by the FCO and UKTI.” (p.40)

“It takes more than good will and soft power to seal deals internationally and Scotland would be starting from scratch in this regard, a fact that would not be lost on the many Scottish businesses that currently benefit from the FCO’s support and the many Scottish nationals who use the FCO’s consular services.” (p.41)

“With just over a year to go before the referendum takes place, it is not at all clear that the Scottish Government has a costed and coherent vision of the security and intelligence infrastructure it needs to put in place to protect Scottish citizens, businesses and economic interests. Much more than just NATO support would be needed. Creating a Scottish domestic intelligence service would be possible, but establishing an external service from a standing start would be expensive, and neither could be created overnight. It would take years before the necessary systems were in place to enable allies to trust Scotland with information relevant to its needs. In the meantime, there appears to be a working presumption on the part of the Scottish Government that the RUK would fill the intelligence shortfall that would emerge at least in the short term, but possibly over a longer time frame too. The basis for this position is not at all clear. Scotland would undoubtedly remain of strategic interest to the RUK and in the vast majority of cases it is likely that it would be in the RUK’s interests to assist Scotland. However, it is crucial that Scots are aware that the RUK’s intelligence and security help would be discretionary, based on self-interest and could not be taken for granted, particularly where the RUK faced competing interests or priorities.” (p.56)

“with the information currently available to us, Scotland’s foreign policy would in many key, practical respects, be very similar to that currently pursued by the UK but without access to the many benefits that derive from being part of it.” (p.57)

“Over the course of our inquiry it became evident that little over a year before the referendum, much detail and clarity on key aspects of a future Scottish foreign policy remains absent.”

“Much more needs to be done to articulate Scotland’s future foreign policy as well as the risks involved, particularly when it comes to security and intelligence provision, and more generally, what Scotland could realistically expect from the RUK in terms of cooperation on a wide range of issues.”

“We also have concerns about the extent to which seemingly unfounded assertions and what are essentially initial negotiating positions are being presented as incontrovertible facts and conclusions. For instance, on the specific issues of state succession, opt-outs to the EU Treaties and whether EU Treaty change would be required to facilitate Scotland’s EU membership, we are concerned that the Scottish Government is strenuously advocating legal positions without the benefit of official legal advice from its law officers. Indeed, we are perplexed that legal advice has not been sought at all on these issues.”

“A number of policies also seem to be underpinned by a belief that where problems emerge, goodwill for Scotland will trump difficulties. However, this will not always be the case. There is a pressing need for more clarity and more candour about what Scots would lose and what the Scottish Government could realistically deliver in foreign policy terms with the resources available to it. None of what we have concluded should be construed as an anti-independence viewpoint. As the Edinburgh Agreement makes clear, Scots will hold their destiny in their own hands in September 2014. It is Scotland’s decision to make, no one else’s. The Scottish people do, however, have a right to have the full facts, not just aspirational policies, at their disposal before they make that decision. So far these facts have not been presented by the Scottish Government.” (p.58)

Want more information?

‘Foreign policy considerations for the UK and Scotland in the event of Scotland becoming an independent country’ – Click here to read the full report

“How on earth can they ask people to vote for independence when they can’t even agree amongst themselves the most basic and fundamental things like what currency we would use? As their confusion over currency has escalated their credibility has evaporated.”
 

The comments from the Chair of the anti-UK campaign come just a day as other senior nationalists broke ranks to oppose the SNP’s currency plans.

Yes Scotland board member Colin Fox earlier this week called for an independent Scotland to abandon the pound and create a new Scottish currency.

Former Deputy Leader of the SNP, Jim Fairlie, has also criticised the SNP’s currency policy saying that “the most sensible currency option for an independent Scotland would be a Scottish currency.”

With five Yes Scotland board members arguing for a separate Scottish currency, how can the nationalists credibly claim their policy is to keep the pound?

With every passing day, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to guarantee that Scotland keeps the strength of the UK pound is to vote to stay part of the United Kingdom.

Key quotes from Yes Scotland board members

Dennis Canavan, Yes Scotland chairman, said

“My preferred option is for Scotland to have its own currency because I think that would give us more flexibility, more freedom. It would give us a wider range of economic levers” (BBC News, 30 April 2013)
   

Pat Kane, Yes Scotland board member, said

“Sterling Zone might be solid first step for independence but it is in no way final.” (Twitter, 30 April 2013)
  

Colin Fox, Yes Scotland board member, said:

“It goes without saying that keeping the Pound or establishing a 'Sterling Zone' means handing over a considerable amount of power and control over Scotland's economy and spending options to the Bank of England and the City of London. And many will inevitably ask what then is the point of Independence?”

“So, on balance, after weighing up all the issues involved and recognising that many other small Independent countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland prefer to use their own currency - because it gives them more control of economic and financial decisions – this option seems to make most sense.”

“And I notice the ‘Greens’ agree. The SSP’s other partners in the 'Yes Scotland' coalition however, the SNP, currently prefer the 'Sterling Zone' option. They have it’s fair to say changed their mind on this issue often but their latest view seems to me entirely in keeping with their softly, softly, and dare I say conservative approach to selling Independence as a whole to those they believe are frightened by the concept of change. The SNP argue, as I understand it, that the transition to Independence should involve as little disruption as possible to people's day to day experience. I suspect they may well advocate a new Scottish currency being established in Scotland in due course.” (Blog post, 28 April 2013)
   

Patrick Harvie, Yes Scotland board member, has repeatedly argued for a separate Scottish currency:

“We need to keep the Scottish currency option open, and the government should be prepared to do the groundwork to ensure that we don’t leave ourselves forced to accept unreasonable terms in relation to Sterling. Scottish Greens have said an independent currency should be an eventual goal, even if we maintain a Sterling union as an interim stage.” (Scottish Green Party Press Release, 21 February 2013)

“Some other countries Ireland, for example, did continue to use the pound and then gradually separated, it wasn’t a one-off moment of change, it was a gradual separation towards monetary independence. It might take a generation, it might take longer than that but I think we would be on a trajectory towards a more independent currency.” (Scots Politics, 2 November 2012)

“To be clear, my preference would be that the scenarios would still include at least the possibility over the long term that a separate currency could be put in place … I would personally prefer to see any period of continued use of sterling as a transition period leading to something separate. It might be a matter of years or it might be a matter of a generation, but I would prefer to see it in those terms of a slower separation of process rather than a one-off moment of independence.” (Evidence to House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee inquiry on independence, 24 October 2012)

“An Independent Scotland should seek to have as much control over its economy as possible, and so we support a timetable for transition away from Sterling towards its own currency.” (Scottish Green Party Briefing Note, November 2012)
  

Blair Jenkins, the head of the anti-UK campaignhas also published a paper acknowledging that the prospect of a separate currency is a real one:

“Some, as part of the Just Scotland process, have questioned whether Scotland, by retaining Sterling, would lose influence and crucial control over key aspects of monetary policy. The Fiscal Commission Working Group sets out what it sees as the balance of advantage for Scotland in the immediate post-independence period. It would, of course, be open to Scottish voters in the future to seek a different currency choice if they felt, at that point, it would be in Scotland’s best interests” (Yes Scotland response to STUC’s A Just Scotland interim report, 22 February 2013)

Want more information?

• Click here to read the full UK Government analysis of the impact independence would have on currency and monetary policy.

• Click here for an infographic that demonstrates why keeping the pound as part of the UK is best possible option for Scotland.

• Click here to read a summary of what some of the UK’s leading experts have to say about the nationalists’ currency plans.

This isn’t just a bad week for the nationalists. It is a crisis of credibility for the independence argument.

When you think of the big moments of the campaign so far they have been the SNP cover-up and dishonesty over Scotland’s membership of the EU; John Swinney’s secret cabinet paper which showed the gap between what they say privately and what they say publicly; their inability to answer the most basic questions on what currency this week and their failure to plan for the security of our pensions post-independence.

The common theme in every case is that the nationalists have sacrificed policy for politics and have put their cause ahead of their credibility.

Why do they find themselves in such a difficult position? At root it is about their whole worldview. Scottish nationalism is a fundamentalist position. The SNP belief in Scottish independence starts from an article of faith that does not depend on evidence. The belief in separation is absolute. The supporting facts, economic, political or social, are presented, after the fact, to support the conclusion.

It explains why they feel no embarrassment arguing positions that are at odds with basic facts:

- They say EU membership will be automatic and that no negotiations are necessary. The leaders of the EU, the President of the European Commission and Council, say that Scotland would have to reapply as a new member.  But facts aren’t important to their belief, so the nationalists carry on regardless.

- They assert that we will continue as NATO members and will be able to lay down the law to the rest of the Alliance on the issue of nuclear weapons. NATO says they will have to reapply. The nationalist response was simply to go into denial.

- They says pension arrangements will be unaffected. Scotland’s accountants say there is a multi-billion black hole. John Swinney just ignores their analysis.

- The nationalists say the rest of the UK will create a Eurozone-style Sterling zone so we can keep the pound. The UK chancellor says that is unlikely. They say we will use the pound anyway.

- Their Fiscal Commission says using the pound without the agreement of the rest of the UK isn’t an option. But they ignore this and just refuse to say what our currency would actually be. When you are arguing for setting up a separate state because you believe it as a matter of faith even the most important details like what currency that new state would use are secondary to the cause.

The basic reason the nationalist campaign is in such difficulty is that the vast majority of Scots don’t think like they do.

A small minority of people in Scotland are conviction nationalists.  Alex Salmond is one of these people. He has said that, for him, the primary argument for independence is not an economic one.  Whether independence will make Scotland a better country, whether it will improve the lives of Scots, is incidental.  Even if they knew that it would make them personally poorer, or make Scotland less powerful or prosperous they would still vote for it.

However, most of us find absolutist political positions risky and unattractive.

Most of us prefer devolution to separation.  Most of us are comfortable being both Scottish and British. Most of us understand that working together and compromise are likely to achieve more than division and conflict. In our day-today lives most of us aren’t interested in making history, we concentrate on making ends meet.

Poll after poll has shown the nationalists on the wrong side of the argument, yet they remain, at least on the surface, utterly convinced that they will win. Why?

In 2011 the nationalists won a landslide victory. They won that with the votes of around a quarter of Scots. That is fewer voters than support independence in current polling. The lesson for the referendum that they will have drawn from that election is that if they can get their opponents to stay at home and turnout their hardcore supporters, then they can win. This is why their strategy is now one of negative attack rather than positive persuasion.

That is why as Better Together we will be utterly focussed on identifying those vast majority of Scots who either want to remain in the United Kingdom or who are undecided on how to vote. It is why while we take confidence from the chaos on currency, the EU and pensions, we know we cannot be complacent for one moment.

For all that nationalist credibility is in crisis, they remain completely committed to their cause. So must we.

Scots are not going to vote for separation before they've read the small print -  click here to share our new online ad camapign on Facebook

Better Together Youth Rep and Orcadian, Sandy, tells us why he believes Orkney, Scotland and the UK are better together.  Complete with authentic Northern isles wind!

If you agree with Sandy, become a Better Together volunteer today!

The text message was sent to you by our digital mobile marketing agency. They work with a number of clients to send out messages to people through their mobile or smartphone.

I’m sure that the most obvious question you will have if you have received this message is ‘where did they get my mobile number from?’

If you have received a text message today it is because you have filled in a form in the past and ticked the option to allow you to be contacted by different companies and organisations. Data management companies hold databases of information from people like yourself and can make it available to groups such like our mobile marketing agency.

All of this information is held in strict accordance with the law. The company that our agency got your mobile number from are reputable and are compliant with every rule and every regulation.

If you dont want to receive further messages, you can opt out. Your details will then be deleted. If you have any problems, then the data company are on hand to deal with them. You can contact them at olivia@informedstore.com. Please ensure that you supply appropriate contact information so that they can be certain that they are correctly opting you out. You can also text BTSTOP to 64446 to opt out of future text campaigns. Standard network rates apply.

Making sure that any information we hold is looked after properly is hugely important to us. We have had a privacy policy in place since we started the campaign. You can read it by clicking here

I hope that this provides you with a bit of background on this innovative new way of political campaigning. If you received a message, I hope you find the time to take part in the poll. This is the biggest decision that we will ever be asked to take as Scots. We are committed to providing you with the facts that help you make the decision.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Shorthouse

What the experts say...

Professor John Kay, one of Alex Salmond’s former economic advisers:

“If I represented the Scottish government in the extensive negotiations required by the creation of an independent state, I would try to secure a monetary union with England, and expect to fail. Given experience in the eurozone, today’s conventional wisdom is that monetary union is feasible only as part of a move towards eventual fiscal union. But desire to break up fiscal union was always a major – perhaps the principal – motive for independence in the first place.”

“So Scotland might be driven towards the option of an independent Scottish currency. This would impose costs on business on both sides of the border and inconvenience travellers every time they cross it. The same inconvenience suffered by residents of Denmark and Sweden, countries that are not members of the eurozone but whose economic fortunes are closely bound up with those of the currency bloc.”

“Whether or not an agreement on formal monetary union with rUK could be reached, an independent Scotland would have bargaining power only if it held open the option of a separate currency. And that is the only option that campaigners for a Yes vote can commit to deliver.

“The question that remains is what to call the new money. Perhaps the Scots crown, or the pound Scots. But I prefer the resonance of the coin first minted by the father of Mary Queen of Scots – the bawbee.”

John Nugee, former Chief Manager of Reserves Management at the Bank of England:   

"This is a valuable paper because it avoids making prior assumptions, is prepared to consider the full range of options that an independent Scotland would have to choose between rather than just analysing a "preferred solution", and approaches the question from the viewpoint of what is best for what would be two separate countries, each with their own interests.

“In particular, the paper makes the valid point that the London government would be duty-bound to consider what is in the best interest of the remaining UK; it is not obviously the case that this automatically coincides with the optimal solution for an independent Scotland and not clear what an Edinburgh administration which wished to use rUK's currency could offer London as negotiating points in any ensuing dialogue.”

Dr Angus Armstrong, Director of Macroeconomic Research at National Institute of Economic and Social Research:

“If they [the nationalists] really want to have fiscal levers - full fiscal levers - then the only real way to have that is to have an independent currency, if they want to have full fiscal levers for themselves.”

“When you think about the other states in Europe which are about the same size to Scotland - so Norway, Denmark Switzerland, Sweden - you know broadly similar in population, some of them have decent size financial systems; Switzerland of course has a very big financial system. Now they have independent currencies. Now they also have very little debt of course to start off with. One of the things that isn’t been discussed is how much debt would an independent Scotland inherent from the existing UK. So those countries that are similar in some sort of magnitude to Scotland do have an independent currency.

“But then the difficulty is the transition: how did you get there; from where you are here today. In other words, to go from Sterling which you have had for the last 300 years, to all of a sudden to having an independent Scottish pound well that involves tremendous risks of capital moving of Scotland - how are we going to convert whatever Sterling debt an independent Scotland takes over and so on and so forth? But if one wants to have full fiscal levers, if that’s the proposition, then you need your own currency.”

Charles Nolan, Professor of Economics at University of Glasgow: 

“The Treasury analysis of the currency options facing an independent Scotland highlights the complexity of what’s involved. The preferred option of the Scottish Government is to do a deal and establish a formal Sterling zone. But it takes two to strike a deal and it now seems that a deal over a Sterling zone will be difficult to achieve.

“The argument that it would be in the continuing UK’s interest to form a Sterling zone because Scotland contributes to the UK balance of payments loses force when one recognizes that the Pound is a floating currency. All that is likely to happen if the continuing UK loses those foreign exchange revenues is that the pound falls, boosting exports and curbing imports until a balance is one again restored.  Balance of payments constraints only matter when you cannot adjust your exchange rate as Greece is currently finding.

“The argument that we trade a lot with the rest of the United Kingdom, and vice versa, is true and that is why having a single currency is a good idea. But countries sharing a currency whilst operating separate fiscal policies face two difficult issues; they don’t help insure one another when things go wrong, and they can infect one another if one runs up excessive debt. Again, these elements are apparent in the Euro area today. That is why the euro area is pushing hard to establish something close to a fiscal and banking union.

“It seems likely that, in the event of a vote for independence, at a minimum the continuing UK would want powers to intervene if necessary in the fiscal policy of Scotland in order to protect Sterling. It also seems likely that such powers would raise fundamental issues of sovereignty such that they would be rejected by the Scottish Government. There is therefore real uncertainty about what a vote for independence would mean.  Uncertainty over questions of currency can be highly destabilising; they can lead to reduced investment and capital flight."

Ronald MacDonald, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Glasgow Adam Smith Business School:

 “For a currency to be successful it must be credible and offer a country a means of exchange rate adjustment in a time of crisis. Does the currently proposed regime of forming a monetary union with sterling offer these two key ingredients? I believe not.”

“But this lack of an effective means of adjustment to oil and other shocks means Scotland would ultimately have to leave the monetary union since its exchange rate would become so misaligned it would not be a credible arrangement.”

“Additionally, it is now clear that the Scottish Government is prepared to undermine the credibility of its proposed currency regime. It states: ‘The Scottish Government is clear that post-independence it will always be up to the people of Scotland, and their elected government, to decide what our currency should be’ (Currency Choices for an Independent Scotland, April 2003). This is a clear statement to financial markets that although the people of Scotland may vote for independence with a sterling currency union, post-independence the Scottish Government may pick a different regime.”

“Financial markets are forward looking and the combination of a non-credible exchange rate regime with questions over whether the Scottish Government has a credible commitment to its preferred currency option mean capital flight will precipitate a Scottish financial crisis in the wake of a Yes vote and, in all probability, with catastrophic effects for the Scottish economy.”

Want more information?

• Click here to read the full UK Government analysis of the impact independence would have on currency and monetary policy.

• Click here for an infographic that demonstrates why keeping the pound as part of the UK is best possible option for Scotland.

This week we spoke to Scots and asked them how they felt about the Nationalists’ currency plans for a separate Scotland.

In these tough economic times Scots are concerned about their pensions, mortgages and savings. 

The Scots we spoke to don’t want to put their pensions and savings at risk and believe the nationalist plans could do just that. Stephen, Pat, Louise and Gary want to keep the safety and security of the UK pound and know the only way to do that is to stay in the UK.

If you and are concerned about what separation would mean for you and your family, you can help;

Donate your pounds to help us keep the pound

Become a volunteer and help us campaign to keep the pound

After this week it’s clear that Alex Salmond is asking us to take a huge gamble with our money, don’t let him, support us today.

• What currency would a separate Scotland use if a formal currency union could not be agreed?

• Would they use the pound without a central bank?

• Would they join the euro?

• Would they create a new unproven currency?

The nationalists are still arguing we could use the pound without the agreement of the rest of the UK. This morning John Swinney said “nobody can stop us using Sterling.” Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have said the same.

However, John Swinney announced this morning that the SNP Government accepted the recommendations of their Fiscal Commission which explicitly ruled-out using the pound informally. The Commission recognised, as any sensible person does, that operating without your own currency, and without a central bank backing up our savings and mortgages, is not a viable option.

If the rest of the UK won’t enter into a currency union, or if the terms of a currency union are unacceptable to Scotland then the likelihood is that we end up with a separate currency from the rest of the UK. That is why this morning John Swinney twice refused to rule out setting up a new currency.

Alex Salmond is asking us to take a huge gamble with our money. The only way to guarantee that we keep the UK pound is to vote to stay in the UK.

In their own words - what the nationalists say on currency

The nationalist won't even consider a plan B

• When asked by the BBC’s Brian Taylor: “Do you have a plan B [in the event that a Eurozone-style currency union could not be agreed]?” Nicola Sturgeon replied: “Why should we plan for something that we don’t think is in the best interests of Scotland?” BBC Scotland webcast, 23 March 2013

The nationalists have refused to rule out Sterlingization

• “The UK government can't stop an independent Scotland using sterling for a number of reasons. Sterling is not owned by George Osborne … He couldn't possibly instruct people not to use Sterling … He doesn’t own sterling; he can’t prevent Scotland from using sterling” Alex Salmond, First Minister, 15 January 2012, BBC Politics Scotland

• “The pound is every bit as much Scotland's currency as that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland” Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, 18 April 2013, Aberdeen Press and Journal

• “Our preference is to use sterling and nobody can stop us using sterling” John Swinney, Finance Secretary, 23 April 2013, Radio 4

• “the Scottish Government intend that Scotland should continue to use sterling after independence, and as sterling is a fully convertible and floating currency there is precisely nothing to stop that. While it makes far more sense to have a formal union, does he not agree that a stability pact based around debt and deficit levels is perfectly sensible” Stewart Hosie, SNP Treasury spokesperson, 9 January 2013, House of Commons

The nationalists' own Fiscal Commission report dismisses Sterlingization as an option, stating that the “drawbacks” would include:

• No “central bank or lender–of–last–resort”

• “Monetary policy set for UK only.”

• “no input into governance of the monetary framework and only limited ability to provide liquidity to the financial sector - this would depend on the resources and reserves of the country.”

• “The amount of currency available would depend almost entirely on the strength of the Scottish Balance of Payments position.”

• “International evidence suggests that informal monetary unions tend to be adopted by transition economies or small territories with a special relationship with a larger trading partner (e.g. between the “UK and Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man). Advanced economies of a significant scale tend not to operate in such a monetary framework.”

• “it is not likely to be a long-term solution.”

Donate your pounds to help us keep the pound

This morning John Swinney repeated again what the nationalists have been claiming for months. That Scotland would be guaranteed to keep the pound if we vote to leave the UK next year.  “You can bank on it,” he assured Scots. In fact the nationalists can offer no certainty on what currency Scotland would use if we left the UK.

Let there be no doubt: the SNP Government cannot promise that we would keep the pound.

The nationalist currency policy has changed several times in the last few years creating total confusion. For years they said we should join the Euro because the pound was, in Alex Salmond’s words, “a millstone around our necks”. Then the Eurozone went into crisis and the European currency became too unpopular. So, with no sense of irony, they proposed creating a Eurozone-style Sterlingzone between Scotland and England as separate states.

Nicola Sturgeon has said that we own the pound as much as the rest of the UK.  But the pound is not a physical asset, it is a system. This isn’t like dividing up a record collection after a break up. If we leave the UK and the UK’s monetary institutions, like the Bank of England and UK Treasury, we leave the UK pound.

There is no Sterlingzone now, we are one UK with one UK currency, the UK pound. The notes are different sometimes, but the pound is a single UK currency, our interest rates are set by the Bank of England.

To keep the UK Pound after we have left the UK, we would need to ask the country we had just walked away from to set up a messy Eurozone-style Sterlingzone. After the failings of the Eurozone, and given that the rest of the UK would already have the pound and the security of the Bank of England, would they go out of their way to set up Eurozone type arrangements? We have no way of knowing whether it would.

To be clear: this is not about England saying that Scotland couldn’t stay in the pound. If we choose to leave the UK, it would be us leaving the UK pound. There is no easy or certain way to get back in. After having been found-out on NATO and EU membership, the SNP should stop pretending that Scotland will automatically inherit things.

Of course it may not be the Government in London that decides a currency union isn’t a good idea. Alex Salmond’s former economic adviser, Professor John Kay has said that the tight controls placed on Scotland by such a deal would be incompatible with the idea of independence.

So, even if both a separate Scotland and the rest of the UK could agree a deal to create a Eurozone-style currency union, we would be giving up control of our taxes, our budget and our interest rates to what would then be a foreign country.

The nationalists have refused to plan for any other currency plan other than getting a deal with the UK. This is hardly a strong position from which to enter into negotiations. We would have to accept whatever conditions the Parliament in London demanded, a Parliament that we would no longer send representatives to.

We cannot, as the SNP have said in the past, just use the pound informally, in the way Panama uses the Dollar. That would mean no central bank standing behind our banks or our mortgages.

So, the unattractive choice the nationalists are offering us is losing the pound or losing control of our economy. It is little wonder many nationalists are now calling for there to be a separate currency.

It is not sustainable for the SNP Government to pretend they have no plan B. Even they would not be so irresponsible as to leave us without a workable currency policy. They should tell us what the plan B is.

It is now a month since I wrote to the First Minister asking questions on this. Why won’t they give us answers? Because a separate currency would be a disaster for Scotland’s economy. It would be bad for jobs because we would have to change currency at the border with our biggest trading partner, the rest of the UK. It is bad for our mortgages and credit cards. It means higher interest rates because a new currency backed by a smaller economy would not command confidence in international markets.

The only way to keep the UK pound as Scotland’s currency is to stay in the UK.

Want to keep the pound? Become a Better Together volunteer today

Alistair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign

Speech to Scottish Labour Conference, Inverness

Friday 19 April 2013

 
Thank you very much for your warm welcome.

One of things I have noticed in the three years since I stood down from frontline politics is just how nice people are about you when they are absolutely certain they are not coming back. But I am back, back for this referendum, back because it is one of the most important decisions that we will take at any time in our lifetime. Where Scotland will take one of the biggest decisions that it has taken in the last 300 years.

Remember this, we are not electing another government for five years, where if you don’t like it you can kick it out. You are voting on something that - if we decide to vote for independence - is irrevocable. There is no way back. They only have to win once, by one vote. And there is no going back.

Now, as people have said in the last debate: this isn’t just about constitutions or intuitions. They are there to serve us. This is about values and we believe that we are better and stronger when we stand together. That’s why we joined the Labour Party, that’s why we joined trade unions; because we can achieve so much more together than we can as individuals. And look at some of the things that we have set up that have given effect to that belief:

The NHS – there when you need it, no matter where you are in the United Kingdom.

Or the minimum wage – avoiding a race to the bottom, where workers in Dundee are pitted against workers in Durham.

Or as some people have just been saying in relation to corporation tax – we do not want to get in to a race to the bottom, where the Scottish Government cut corporation tax then the rest of the UK does it and it gets lower and lower. The losers in that are the people in this country who would have to pay the taxes to make up the difference. We are better and stronger, when we stand together.
 
We are proud to be both Scottish and British. We don’t have to choose. We do not want to choose between the two.

And there is another element too – the influence we have to shape the world to be a better place. In the first debate that we had this morning we talked about developments in the world. Why walk away from the influence the UK has in the World Bank, in development, and the United Nations when we can be a force for good.? We are better and stronger, when we stand together.

But of course, the key to this debate will be the economy. It’s about standards of living. It’s about the money that we could afford to spend on health and education. It’s about jobs. It’s about what we are leaving to our children and their children.

Now, Douglas Alexander when he spoke earlier this morning talked about the changes that are taking place across the globe – where people are coming together, rather than breaking apart.

We are part of the single market of the United Kingdom – tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on their firms being able to sell goods and services in to the rest of the UK. So we are sharing opportunities, and yes, we are also sharing risks. Anas just mentioned what happened four years ago. I know from my own experience that when I heard that RBS was within three hours of closing its doors and switching off its cash machines I had the strength of the United Kingdom to say: we will not let that happen.

Now, I don’t argue that Scotland couldn’t go it alone. Most countries can. I do think, though, that we would be very heavily dependent and very exposed to North Sea oil. Nobody is saying that the oil is going to run out tomorrow. We are not saying that. But it does not go on forever and we know that its price is volatile and if you are dependent on nearly 20 per cent of your tax revenues from one source you are very exposed if something goes wrong.

And it’s no wonder that John Swinney in his private moments told the Scottish Government cabinet that he was worried about the volatility of the North Sea oil price and the fact that ultimately it will decline. It’s no wonder that he was having to question how much he could spend on public services and the sustainability of the state pension. The only problem was that is what they are saying in private. In public, they are saying something quite different. And when they were confronted with this, rather than saying to the people of Scotland: let’s be honest about the choices we have to make, let’s be honest about the realities that we are so dependent on North Sea oil. What did they do? They cooked the books and inflated the oil price - something their own financial advisers told them they shouldn’t do.

Now, central of course to the economic argument is the question of currency. But you know there is a pattern emerging with the nationalists – the more you ask questions, the more you find their arguments fall apart.

Look at Europe, when they told us hand on heart they had a legal opinion that said that we would automatically remain members of the European Union. What happened? When we pressed, we found there was no legal opinion. Scotland had been quite deliberately deceived in to believing that nothing would change when of course the reality is that we would have to apply again to become members of the European Union.

The same thing with NATO.

And critically, when we came to the question about currency they are being evasive. They are not being straight with the people of Scotland. In the last 12 months alone, they have gone from being in favour of the euro (which is as popular in Inverness as it is in Essex), to using the pound (like Panama uses the dollar, where you would have no central bank which would completely undermine the financial services industry in this country), to now saying they will have a currency union.

And when you think about it, the practicalities of this - if we actually voted to leave the UK - we would actually then have left the bank that prints the currency that we presently use. The pound sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom. That is what it is at the moment – it’s not a currency union. In order to keep the pound, what the nationalists now say we would have to enter in to a currency union. Now yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon was saying that of course within a currency union you could do what you want, there would be no constraints, you could spend money on what you want. That is utter nonsense. Imagine what would happen. Just look at what has been happening in the Eurozone for the last four or five years. We know that in a currency union it is the large economies that call the shots. We also know that a currency union would mean that another country – which would then be a foreign country – would have to approve our budget, our taxes, our spending and our borrowing. That is not freedom. If you vote for independence you are voting yourself into a straightjacket from which you can never escape and the consequences of that would be very bad for Scotland.

It’s no wonder, when this squeeze comes on, and we start facing the challenges of an ageing population in Scotland or if you suddenly had a drop in oil prices, or if you had another banking crisis sometime in the future – you’re on your own. The burden, far from being shared across the United Kingdom, falls on six million people living in Scotland. Where is the sense in that? We are better and stronger, when we stand together.

Now, of course, some nationalists have twigged this. Some nationalist supporters and some academics now realise exactly the blind alley they are going down and what they are saying is lets have our own separate Scottish currency. Well let’s just think about that for a moment. Every time you go and visit somebody south of the border you would have to change your currency. Every time your granny, or your uncle, or your auntie came up here they would have to get their currency in order to come and visit you. Or business is trying to trade with the rest of the UK would have to factor in the cost of the exchange rate. And of course, launching a new currency now in arguably the most turbulent economic times we have seen in modern times – that is what they would say in Yes Minister terms is “truly courageous”. You would be asking people to take a gamble on a currency that is wide open to manipulation and open to speculation as oil prices rise and fall. It is an absolutely ridiculous policy that would be gambling with Scotland’s future in a way that I think is totally unacceptable.

Now, of course, Alex Salmond has said that he won’t debate the currency issue with me. The reason for that is that he does not have the answers to these questions but he cannot hide for the next 17 months. Scotland is entitled to an answer. What currency would we use? What will the consequences be? And Scotland will be entitled, as I suspect it will, believe that the nationalist stance on this is – as on so many other things – is incredible and is falling apart.

I believe there is a much better choice for our future than separation. The last thing we need at the present time is more uncertainty and division.

If we walk away from the UK, we give our children a one way ticket to a deeply uncertain destination and that to me is totally unacceptable.

You know, as Scots, we know that there is nowhere better but we understand that there is something bigger.

That is why we are better and stronger together.

But Better Together Orkney isn’t about me or about politicians. It’s about folk who live in Orkney and their reasons for wanting Scotland to remain as part of the UK. We know there’s huge support in Orkney; you only have to speak to the people to get a real sense of that. And the Press & Journal’s own poll shows that, in the Northern Isles, 70% of those asked want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, with only 8% wanting Scotland to go it alone.

People in Orkney know the advantages being part of the United Kingdom brings. For example, Orkney benefitted from the North Sea oil boom, largely thanks to the deal by which the UK Government ensured the island authorities benefitted from the throughput of oil from their offshore reserves by supporting local economic development. This reversed the decline in the population and led to the growth of local businesses. With the Revenue since 1972 estimated at over £0.5bn, would an independent Scottish Government, heavily reliant on oil income as the SNP/Yes campaign makes clear they would be, have allowed Orkney to benefit as we have done? I don’t think so. Perhaps that’s why, in a recent survey of North Sea workers, only 16% believe the industry would be better run if Scotland was independent.

And now there is a second energy windfall for the islands, with Orkney ideally placed for the development of marine renewables. And this windfall is not only being supported by the UK Government, but encouraged and promoted by it through initiatives like the UK’s Green Investment Bank. With Edinburgh chosen as its headquarters, the Bank has £3 billion to invest in sustainable projects.

But it’s not just the new industries. Farming is one of Orkney’s most important sectors and one which would be hugely affected if a newly-independent Scotland was forced to negotiate entry into the EU. The SNP seem oblivious to the concerns some farmers have over the real uncertainty independence would create for Orkney farming.

What’s increasingly clear from the referendum debate so far is that the SNP/Yes campaign simply doesn’t understand Orkney, our history and our unique identity. Orkney has always seen itself as apart from Scotland and, in the devolution referendum, Orkney voted only marginally in favour. We have a natural suspicion of centralist governments like the SNP, controlled by central belt politicians.

I’m looking forward to putting our case in front of local people. As well as the economic, political and social arguments, it’s also a real issue of the heart for me. I’ve always felt very proud to be Orcadian, proud to be Scottish and proud to be British. I’ve never felt any conflict between them.

For more information, please email Orkney@bettertogether.net , follow us on Twitter at @OrkneyTogether or follow us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/BetterTogetherOrkney

The poll has shown that support for separation across the Highlands and North East Scotland has fallen while support for Scotland’s place in the UK has increased by 5.3% since the Press and Journal commissioned a similar poll at the start of last year. 

In SNP heartlands support for staying in the UK is on the increase. In Morayshire support for staying in the UK has risen by 16%, up to 54%.  In Aberdeenshire, support for the UK is currently at 48.7% and in Aberdeen support for the UK is 15% higher than support for separation. 

In the North of Scotland the polls show similar levels of support for remaining in the UK.  In the Highlands support for the UK is 24% ahead of support for going it alone when people in Inverness were polled that figure rose to 31%.   

These figures were welcomed by North East MSP and Better Together Director, Richard Baker;

"This is yet another encouraging poll. It shows that the people of the North East and the Highlands and Islands are completely opposed to Scotland separating from our friends, families and workmates from across the UK.

"However, the only poll that matters is the one that will be held in September next year. We have just over 500 days to win the arguments and win the referendum.
"People from across the North East and Highlands and Islands have a crucial role to play in this debate. Our message is clear, if you believe in what better together is trying to achieve, then now is the time to get involved."

Get involved today

When I came to University, I got involved in the clubs and societies, the University community.  This has allowed me to expand my horizons, challenge my beliefs, push my boundaries and make new friends. It is those friends who I have shared my happiest times with, those friends who have been there for me when I needed them most, and those friends who always push me to keep going. Without them, I most certainly wouldn’t be who I am today. That is community.

The way I see it, the United Kingdom is a community.  I have friends and relatives all over the United Kingdom. From Prestwick to Peckham. From Cardiff to Cardonald. We work together; provide each other with opportunities and support, and when things go wrong we are there for each other. Being part of the United Kingdom means we are able to stand strong on the world stage, have our voice listened to and respected. The United Kingdom means a lot to me. It means supporting and understanding each other. It means being that neighbour I had in Kilbirnie who helped me when I was locked out. It means being that friend in London who I can always rely on for support and it means recognising and celebrating our differences while understanding that each nation can flourish as part of a bigger picture.

As one united community. As one United Kingdom.

Fiona is a Better Together Youth Rep.  If you're aged between 14-21 and are interested in becoming a Youth Rep please email info@bettertogether.net for more details

There is a co-ordinated dirty-tricks campaign by the nationalists. They should stop it.

Allegations were made about one of our donors in a nationalist blog a few days ago. These were only covered in the press after a fresh and cynical attack by SNP MP Angus Robertson as they desperately tried to create a story. We understand that the claims are now being dealt with by lawyers representing Ian Taylor. As such we are limited in what we can say on this. However, they have made it clear to the media that the reports are inaccurate.

What we are happy to say is that Ian Taylor is a respected figure internationally, in the UK and in Scotland. He has a long history of philanthropy and his personal investment has revived the Harris Tweed industry in Scotland.  He set out his own reasons for supporting Better Together in an article last Sunday.

While this is disappointing it is not surprising. Other supporters of Better Together have faced personal attack, hate mail and boycotts - all because they dared to oppose the break-up of the UK.

This is part of a coordinated pattern of behaviour by the independence campaign:

- Journalists who expose holes in the nationalist case come under sustained attacks from every level, from SNP ministers to anonymous cybernats.

- Depressingly the Scotsman Newspaper building was yesterday spray-painted with the word ‘Traitors’. We hope the SNP politicians who attacked the Scotsman so vehemently will join us in condemning this.

- Business people complain of a culture of fear created by the nationalists to prevent them from speaking out.

- Better Together events are disrupted by militant nationalists.

- And our campaign HQ comes under attack with almost daily attempts of sabotage from SNP activists.

Why are they doing all this? Because they know the vast majority of Scots disagree with them and to win the referendum they need to silence the voices of the majority.

This was confirmed today as Yes Scotland, under pressure following our disclosure, finally published their own donors. Embarrassingly for them they have not named a single non-SNP donor.  Despite all their denials, this provides inescapable evidence that Yes Scotland is simply an SNP front. They have failed to build a broad base of support in the country because the vast majority of Scots oppose their obsession with Independence. Better Together, by contrast, have raised all our own funds. We did not receive a penny from any political party. We also received far more small donations from grassroots supporters than Yes Scotland.

This is too important an issue to have a campaign where people are afraid to have their say. We can’t go on like this. Scots deserve the debate to be better than this.

Have your say, join Better Together today

The choice of currency would be "perhaps the most important economic decision an independent Scottish Government would face,” according to a new report published by the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords.

The report said that the decision on which currency would be used would have "far-reaching consequences for economic policy."

The Scottish Government's current proposal is to continue to use the UK pound as part of a currency union. 

However, by doing this, the Nationalists would be handing control over our mortgages, our interest rates and our savings to what would be a foreign country.  It would also mean that all of Scotland’s budgets would need to be signed off by the government of a country that is much larger than us.

We need only look to the Eurozone to see what happens in situations like that.

If the nationalists are wanting Scotland to be independent, then their economic plan does not deliver it. In fact, it destroys all the influence that we have now and will make things worse for Scotland, not better.

Other points raised in the report are:

- A separate Scotland would start life in debt to the tune of £185bn

- A separate Scotland would have a lower credit rating than the UK – which would impact on mortgages and savings

- The volatile nature of the production and price of oil would mean that “Oil alone will not ensure that an independent Scotland is a prosperous nation."

You can read the report for yourself here

George Robertson, the former Secretary General of NATO writes for us and highlights the hypocrisy of the nationalists defence policy. They claim to be anti nuclear, but they say that they want to join a nuclear alliance. He makes a straight forward point: “Either the SNP accept the central nuclear role of NATO, and show that they will shed any principle to buy votes for separatism, or they reject the nuclear role of NATO and ensure that a separate Scottish state stays out of the world’s most successful defence alliance."

Here is the full statement from George Robertson;

“ Now that NATO have made it clear that a separate Scottish state will have to apply for NATO membership there is a huge dilemma for the SNP.

“Any state applying for NATO membership has to accept NATO’s Strategic Concept agreed unanimously in 2012 at the Chicago Summit. This states quite explicitly that NATO is a nuclear alliance. It says “As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” All members of NATO, including Norway and Canada, accept this statement.

“Does the SNP accept this unambiguous acceptance of the nuclear umbrella?

“I supervised the entry of seven new members to NATO in 2002 and every one of them had to accept the Strategic Concept.

“If the SNP cannot accept the NATO Strategic Concept then it will simply not get in.

“The Strategic Concept has other deep problems for an SNP government.

It goes on to say this;

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly of the United States; the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies”.

“Can the SNP, and its rank and file membership, swallow this unavoidable obligation? And where does the immediate expulsion of the Trident fleet from Scotland fit in this condition.

The Concept further says this

“We will ensure that NATO has the full range of capabilities necessary to deter and defend against any threat to the safety and security of our populations. Therefore we will maintain an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces.”

“Acceptance of the nuclear role in NATO is a fundamental part of NATO’s strategy and no country can be a member of NATO without accepting that responsibility.

“Either the SNP accept the central nuclear role of NATO, and show that they will shed any principle to buy votes for separatism, or they reject the nuclear role of NATO and ensure that a separate Scottish state stays out of the world’s most successful defence alliance.”

Contract to October 2014.

Salary: Commensurate with experience

Based at Campaign HQ, Glasgow

The referendum on Scotland’s future is the biggest campaign in the history of our country. With seventeen months to go until voters go to the polls, Better Together is looking for an organised, efficient and energetic administrator to join the team at our headquarters in Glasgow. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to be directly involved in the most important decision we will ever take as a country.

The successful candidate will have experience of working in a busy office environment, delivering tasks to the highest standard within demanding time constraints. You will be proficient in the use of Microsoft Office, have impeccable attention to detail, the ability to handle confidential information with utmost discretion and excellent written & verbal communication skills.  

Your first-class organisational skills will be fully utilised in this diverse role as you will be responsible for maintaining various databases and ensuring the necessary follow-up communication with stakeholders, external organisations, and individuals is conducted in coordination with the appropriate member of the team. Due to the often prominent and high profile contacts you will be required to liaise with regularly, you must be articulate and personable with the confidence, professionalism & diplomacy to manage relationships at all levels.

Working within a campaign environment you should be prepared to juggle competing priorities efficiently. It is therefore crucial that you be a highly-motivated, individual with the ability to respond to last minute changes gracefully. Our campaign is non-hierarchical so you must be a responsive team player with good cooperation and awareness skills.

While a background in politics is not mandatory for this role, the successful candidate should have good background knowledge of, and interest in, the debate on Scotland’s constitutional future. You will passionately believe that Scotland’s best future is within the United Kingdom and will share our commitment to ensuring Scotland remains within the UK following the referendum in 2014. Both an understanding of the issues relevant to the referendum debate and knowledge of the key positive messages on why we are better together within the UK, are invaluable for potential applicants.

To apply, send a CV with covering letter to kate@bettertogether.net by Friday 19th April 2013.

The countdown to the referendum has begun.  In 18 months time we will go to the polls to make the biggest decision in the history of our country. That is 18 months to make sure that we take our positive message to every part of the country.

We are determined to win this referendum – and win it well. We want to take on every argument and show people just why it is that we are better together with our friends, families and workmates from across the UK.

All international experience tells us that when a question of this importance is put before the people, then turnout is exceptionally high. We are working on the basis that around 80-85% of people will vote next year.

That so many people will take part in the referendum is hugely exciting, however it also presents us with significant challenges. None more so than building the infrastructure that allows us to speak directly to around 4.5million people.

It is a challenge that we are tackling head on.

Our campaign started in June 2012 since then we have been building capacity, information and resources to ensure we can effectively run the campaign. This means recruiting activists, setting up groups and holding events.

Setting up a new campaign is not easy. However I have been overwhelmed by the drive and support from activists who are not associated to any party and the foundation the parties have been.

Over the past few months I have been travelling the length and breadth of the country,  meeting volunteers, and supporting them to start their local Better Together groups. This is a big part of our grassroots campaign.

To date we have signed up over 120 Local Leaders who will be vital in ensuring our positive message is reaching the people who matter the most…..voters. These local leaders will feed into local Better Together Groups which will be a focal point for public meetings, door 2 door canvassing, leafleting, street stalls, and so on.

Scotland had a glimpse at the capabilities of our campaign machine. In February we held our 3rd National Campaign weekend, we delivered 1 million leaflets across this vast country and held 258 events making it the largest political campaign weekend Scotland has seen.  Our next national campaign weekend will be the 26th to 28th of April. Details of events in your area will shortly be up on the website. Keep an eye on this and play your part, this won’t be won with people watching from the side-lines.

I was proud last on Wednesday night to see our first Better Together group set up in Linlithgow where the four local leaders arranged and ran a successful public meeting. We had 50 members of the community there, some voting no, some voting yes and most importantly some were undecided. This event highlighted for me the importance of taking the debate to local communities.

It’s pointless just holding events for people who already agree with us. This is not a vanity exercise. We need to be speaking to the undecided voters and those thinking about voting Yes. Only by having vast amounts of activists involved in the campaign can we do this.

Groups are going to be appearing in every part of our country. Our Better Together Orkney group is being led by local teacher and Big Brother Winner Cameron Stout. It is great to see that Cameron will be investing a lot of time visiting parts of Orkney speaking about why he thinks we are better together and getting new activists involved.

What is clear to me is our campaign is neither central belt focused nor is it focused on politicians. The Better Together campaign is being led from those in local communities across Scotland, from St Boswells to Tarbet, Peterculter to Whalsay.

We have just over 500 days to ensure Scotland remains part of our family of nations. If you can get involved, please do so. Don’t sit on the side-lines, visit our website to sign up to deliver leaflets in your street, phone people across the country or join your local group.

This is your country, your referendum, play your part.

My decision to help with the funding of Better Together arose out of a conversation with Alistair Darling on the Isle of Lewis last autumn. 

I admired the fact that Alistair had agreed to give political leadership to the campaign to keep the UK together. We both knew that a campaign of this importance and  scale would require significant funding. High profile donations to the SNP had been well publicised. I was delighted to be in a position to help.

My story is similar to many others who feel proudly Scottish, are very relaxed about our dual identity and do not wish either ourselves or our children to be forced into making a choice that I believe to be both unnecessary and undesirable.

Like many who worked with ICI, my father – who died only last year - moved south from his native Ayrshire because of his employment.  He remained passionately Scottish until his dying day and brought up his family with the same values.

The nature of my work means that I am based in London, like tens of thousands of  Scots  now facing the same prospect of becoming  foreigners in our own land. 

We have a family home in Scotland and my son has just finished university in Stirling.

When a great Scottish industry, Harris Tweed, was in crisis, I was proud to help turn things round by investing in a new company– considerably more, incidentally, than I put into Better Together!  Hence my presence on Lewis and conversation with Alistair.  Harris Tweed Hebrides has been a great success due to the skills and commitment of those who live and work there. 

My usual business for the past 30 years has involved trading oil.  This helps explain why, when it comes to the constitutional debate, my heart and head are in exactly the same place. I have found some claims made by the First Minister, frankly, astonishing.

Oil trading depends on managing risks around price volatility and production. Contrary to what some may think, success in my business is not achieved by speculating or taking chances. In fact, more often than not, the opposite is true. Wherever we can we try and bet on the sure thing.  We are a big company with lots of employees. It would be reckless of us to risk their livelihoods by gambling big stakes on what the future might hold. It is our duty to act responsibly. Sadly, when it comes to their language on oil, I see no sign of this responsibility coming from the Scottish Government.

A permanent decision about independence demands a serious longer-term view. Production of North Sea oil has declined sharply in recent years. There may be a blip on this downward curve from 2017 onwards with some new fields coming online, especially west of Shetlands, but no huge rebound is being forecast.

No oil trader or government can predict the price of a barrel of oil. Nor can we control it. Those of us around in the 1970s remember Middle East oil producers attempting to push up the price of oil by reducing production. With around 1% of world reserves in the North Sea, this is not an option open to us.

A crucial point -   price per barrel and profit margins are not the same thing.  In the same way,  the price and the revenue for Governments vary vastly  due to  tax breaks and incentives involved. In short, talking about the retail value of oil – as the First Minister often does – is a red herring. It is the tax revenues that matter.

We have a spate of large-scale capital investments in the North Sea and potentially West of Shetland. However, these have only been made possible by targeted incentives from the UK Government.  Field allowances make difficult extraction projects cost effective – but also impact upon revenues for the nation’s coffers.

The oil futures exchange based on Brent Crude enables producers, governments and consumers to manage risks. A Scottish government could lock in, say, a 2020 oil price. But the price today on the curve for 2020 anticipates a fall from approximately $106 per barrel  to $91 in 2020. The reasons are many: such as increased US production from shale oil and rising output from countries with huge reserves.

So Scotland could be leaving the UK against  a background of declining North Sea production, declining prices worldwide, increased costs to extract, and increased costs to the exchequer to encourage investment.  This doesn’t sound like the oil boom Alex Salmond has been promising.

Oil represents 1.6% of UK tax-take but as much as 17% of an independent Scotland’s finances.  Yo-yo prices over the past decade have made oil and gas revenues the most volatile of the main UK tax streams. The impact on Scottish tax receipts, by removing the cushioning of a larger, more diverse economy, would be dramatic.

Companies seeking investment in oil have vested interests in talking up the long-term profitability but a small nation planning its finances based on oil should be more cautious.  That is what the First Minister’s own Fiscal Commission recommended - but seems to have been buried by the necessity to make a political case.  Norway, so often held up as an example,  are planning on an oil price of $77 a barrel in 2014 compared to the SNP’s ‘cautious’ estimate of $113.

Make no mistake – such over-optimistic assumptions would come at a real cost.

The cash gap between peak and trough of oil revenues in the last decade  is equivalent to the entire budget of the NHS in Scotland. I ask everyone reading this to consider one question. What if the Nationalists’ optimistic projections are simply wrong?

I love Scotland and want only the best for the country and its people.  I believe that Scotland gains most by having a distinct voice while able to share both opportunities and risks by being part of the United Kingdom. In short, I believe that we are Better Together.

Ten thousand supporters have contributed to our campaign. Will you join them?