Pages tagged with "Believe in Scotland"

The UK Government's plans to sell off Channel Four, alongside regular hints that they want to scrap the BBC licence fee, reveal their unwillingness to support the idea of public service broadcasting.  It also exposes Scotland’s marginal status and lack of decision-making power when it comes to how public sector broadcasting is regulated and funded. 

Programme-makers like Alan Clements of Two Rivers Media and Dorothy Byrne have said selling C4 will damage Scotland’s independent production sector. However, Scotland gets only 4% of C4’s spending and it has a much weaker television industry than most similar-sized EU countries. 

An independent Scotland would be in a much stronger position to support public service broadcasting. An overwhelming majority of Scots (75%) according to a recent poll would like to see power over broadcasting move from Westminster to the Scottish Government.

C4 Spends A Smaller Proportion of its Production Budget in Scotland than even the BBC

Channel Four may be widely respected for its nightly news, but actually spends a far smaller percentage of its content budget in Scotland than the BBC does - less than 4% in 2020, half a UK population share. The BBC spent 6.5% of its production budget in Scotland in 2020 and was still criticised for failing to meet its charter obligation to spend 8%. 

C4’s news team has won plaudits for robust questioning of Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries over Partygate, replacing Boris Johnson with an ice sculpture at a climate debate and so. But they have little presence in Scotland - covering it like a foreign country with just one Scotland Correspondent Ciaran Jenkins. No other member of the news team is based in Scotland, according to the C4 website. 

More C4 Employees Live in Vietnam than in Scotland

According to LinkedIn, more C4 employees live in Vietnam than in Scotland. Also according to LinkedIn, only about 3% of C4 employees graduated from Scottish universities. C4 has committed to spending half its production budget outside the M25 next year, but more than half of its 1,700 UK employees still live in London. Of the 57 job opportunities it currently lists, the vast majority are in London with a handful in Leeds. None is in Scotland. 

C4 doesn’t make any specific Scottish content - the best-known show produced in Glasgow is Location, Location, Location. But it did open a Creative Hub in Glasgow in 2019 and the £19 million it spent on content in Scotland in 2020, despite being a small part of the £550 million total, was nevertheless important funding for production companies in the city. 

Channel Four actually makes much specifically “British” content - for example, the Great British Bake Off (although that show was criticised for lacking a Scottish contestant last series), The Great British Dig, The Great British Truck Up, The Great British School Swap, Great British History Hunters etc. Arguably, in an age where the sense of Britishness appears in decline, C4 is an important engine of Unionist cultural identity. 

Rethinking How Broadcasting is Funded

An independent Scotland would be in a position to rethink how public service broadcasting is regulated, funded and supported. It could consider creative suggestions, such as replacing the licence fee with a universal broadband package which could include funding for content production. 

Scotland possesses a much smaller broadcasting base than most EU countries.  All the Scandinavian countries have thriving broadcasting sectors. The largest is the Norwegian which turns over more than 600 million Euros annually. It was formerly funded by a licence fee but in 2020 that changed to funding through general taxation. 

Denmark is introducing a Netflix tax, mandating that 5% of turnover is re-invested in Danish content and that the streaming service provides insight into how its algorithms serve up suggestions.  In France, rules that gave producers rights over TV shows have been extended to streaming services and companies like Netflix are being forced to invest 20% of turnover back into French content. 

France gives independent producers rights - and companies must reinvest 

The FT reported that Call My Agent (Dix pour cent) was first commissioned and financed in France under a regime where producer rights for traditional television were protected by law. This meant ownership of the show eventually returned to its producers — in contrast to most Netflix originals.  After years of heavy lobbying from producers, France extended the Call My Agent model from traditional television to global streaming services, bolstering local producers who want to retain rights to their work. 

Using powers under an EU directive adopted in 2018, France has required big global platforms to invest at least 20 percent of their French turnover in European productions. As a result Netflix, Amazon and Disney have in total committed to invest at least €250mn in France every year from 2022. Furthermore, 85 percent of those productions must be in the French language — and most must be “independent” works where producers retain rights.

French public sector broadcasting is currently funded by a licence fee - and a debate about its future is part of the current election campaign with President Emmanuel Macron promising to scrap it if elected in order to help with the cost of living squeeze. There is no clarity over how this would be replaced. 

Wales of course, has SC4, a national Welsh-language channel that was launched at the same time as C4 in response to widespread direct action by Welsh protestors who occupied TV studios, picketed and refused to pay the licence fee.  It was originally funded by the Department of Culture but that has now been transferred to the BBC.

Scots producers and viewers rely on scraps from UK companies

At the moment, the Scottish Government has no say over how broadcasting is funded, regulated or supported. Scotland must rely on scraps from the UK broadcasters who spend less than a population share of independent production north of the border. They also have often been guilty of a London-centric perspective which has often failed to serve Scotland.  

During the 2014 independence referendum, crowds of protestors gathered outside Pacific Quay to protest BBC bias against the case for Scottish independence. Channel Four was not subject to those kinds of protests - but it did not produce much coverage.

Veteran BBC journalist Alan Little has reflected on the ignorance of London-based BBC decision-makers about Scottish affairs and the assumption many of them made that the “Yes” side was chippy, foolish or simply wrong in 2014. In the next independence referendum, Scots will probably have to share less well-funded content on social media rather than rely on broadcasters. 

It’s is not unreasonable to suggest that after independence the TV broadcasting sector in Scotland should at least double in size and become a strong pillar of a dynamic Scottish culture.

The House of Lords is currently considering the Elections Bill which would disenfranchise about 2.5% of the electorate by requiring everyone to bring a passport, driving licence or similar photo ID to the polling station. 

This week, the Electoral Commission wrote a strongly-worded public letter to the Government warning that the BIll’s plans for direct Government oversight of political spending and election rules would undermine trust in the electoral system.

The potential effect of introducing voter ID is that more than a million voters across the UK could be turned away from the polling stations at the next general election. The Scottish Government can make sure these rules don’t apply at council and Holyrood elections - but Westminster sets the rules for its contests, and so as many as 100,000 Scottish voters would likely to be disenfranchised. (With the uncertainty over the future of PM Boris Johnson, there is a possibility of another UK General Election before indyref2.) 

People who face the humiliation of being turned away once may be reluctant to try again. They may not realise there are different rules for different contests in Scotland. They make become less likely to vote, and they may even drop off the electoral roll. That could affect turnout in the Referendums (Scotland) Bill soon to be passed by the Scottish Parliament. 

Voter ID targets disadvantaged groups - official photo ID costs money

Research shows it is more likely to be disadvantaged groups who are affected - the young, the disadvantaged, those who can’t afford photo ID. A passport costs a minimum of £75 and a provisional driving licence £35 - sums of money that people feeling the squeeze through benefit cuts, inflation and energy costs won’t be able to find. And these groups are of course less likely to vote Conservative. 

Just a couple of percentage points can make a difference  - for example in Moray and in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine the majority for the Conservatives in the 2019 election was under 1,000 votes and in Dumfries and Galloway, Alister Jack's majority was less than 2,000. According to recent polling by Electoral Calculus, all the Conservative MPs seats are at risk, with the potential for them all to be lost if the current polling was replicated across the country at a general election. 

A robust, address-based system - no evidence of significant fraud

The UK has a robust, address-based system, where experienced teams tick off names against addresses in a small area around each polling centre. Electoral officers are alert for unusual activity - many names against a small flat for example - and there is very little evidence of voter fraud. That's why many commentators believe the real motivation for the bill is to suppress turnout. 

A House of Commons committee has expressed strong concerns about the Elections Bill. It said that the Bill risks damaging trust in the UK’s electoral system, instead of protecting it. There was not enough public consultation or scrutiny of the proposals before bringing in the legislation

The report said: “When the requirement to produce photographic identification at polling stations was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2003, the turnout at the 2004 Northern Ireland Assembly elections dropped by 2.3% as a direct consequence. The introduction of the voter ID requirement will remove an element of the trust inherent in the current system between state and individual, and make it more difficult to vote. We are concerned that the evidence to support the voter ID requirement simply is not good enough. It is likely that it will reduce turnout for future elections.” 

The Electoral Commission's  Letter 

In a strong letter this week, representatives of the Electoral Commission across the four UK nations expressed deep concern about the Elections Bill, saying that its provisions go against the principles of democracy are not found in any other comparable democratic country. 

The Bill also gives the UK Government a direct role in overseeing the work of the Commission, setting political funding rules and regulating their opponents.

The letter said: “It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.

“If made law, these provisions will enable a government in the future to influence the Commission’s operational functions and decision-making. This includes its oversight and enforcement of the political finance regime, but also the advice and guidance it provides to electoral administrators, parties and campaigners, and its work on voter registration...

“The Statement has no precedent in the accountability arrangements of electoral commissions in other comparable democracies, such as Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Indeed, the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters of the Venice Commission, of which the UK is a member, states that ‘Only transparency, impartiality and independence from political motivated manipulation will ensure proper administration of the election process “.

Independence is the only way to protect Scotland's democracy

The Elections BIll is another example of the UK Government diverging from the principles and standards that democratic countries abide by.

We have seen the Conservative Government pack the House of Lords with donors and cronies. It is threatening the independence of the judiciary, placing its own supporters on the boards of public institutions and attacking the rights of immigrants and the right to protest.

Now it is attempting to interfere with the electoral process. There is almost no evidence of electoral fraud. Imposing voter ID rules is a clear attempt to suppress the votes of certain classes of people who are unlikely to vote Conservative. 

The Scottish Government is powerless to refuse to stop voter ID being imposed in general elections. It may be able to mitigate this by giving people free access to an acceptable form of voter ID. But in the longer term, independence is the only way to protect democracy in Scotland. 

Believe in Scotland is two years old - We reach the undecided and soft No voters and we support local Yes groups across Scotland.

Our second year of campaigning got off to a good start with Believe in Scotland being named the Independence Campaigning Group of the year 2020 by the Scottish Independence Foundation and The National Newspaper. It ended with us having distributed approximately two million individual pieces of independence campaigning materials to Scottish voters.

Thanks to the 120 local Yes groups, thousands of online activists, The National, The Scottish Independence Foundation, The National Yes Network, The SNP, and the Scottish Green Party who worked with us (on specific projects) to make it happen.

Here are just a few of the highlights of Believe in Scotland’s independence campaigning activities in our second year.

Burns Supper - Lockdown had led to the cancelation of most of our events and almost halved our revenues. So, we started the year with our Online Burns Supper which was attended by 550 independence supporters raising more than £4,000 for our planned Yes Billboards campaign. The highlight of the evening was a performance of 'A man's a man for a' that' by Brian Cox, Lesley Riddoch, Eunice Olumide and Alistair Heather, which has now been viewed more than 30,000 times on Facebook alone.

Billboards - Next up came our first of several batches of billboard's, two messages alternating on more than 100 electronic billboards throughout Scotland. Simple and effective messages, first, 'Independence is Normal' and second, pointing out that the 'UK Government pays the worst basic state pension in the developed world'. The latter seemed to really annoy unionists and resulted in multiple complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority and to the Electoral Commission both of which investigated and rejected the complaints - As they always do

Believe in Scotland - National billboard campaign 2021 | Believe in Scotland - National billboard campaign 2021 Pledge here: www.BelieveinScotland.org/pledge The first two batches were posted in February and... | By Believe in Scotland | Facebook

Believe in Scotland - National billboard campaign 2021 Pledge here: www.BelieveinScotland.org/pledge The first two batches were posted in February and...

Raising funds – Believe in Scotland is an offshoot of the pro-independence think tank Business for Scotland (BfS). BfS which produced the best-selling book on Scotland’s economy, Scotland the Brief which has now sold 46,000 copies with all proceeds going to support independence campaigning.

A mans a man for a' that - Brian Cox and Friends | Inspiring - Brian Cox, Eunice Olumide, Alistair Heather and Lesley Riddoch recite A mans a man for a' that for Believe in Scotland's Virtual Burns... | By Believe in Scotland | Facebook

Inspiring - Brian Cox, Eunice Olumide, Alistair Heather and Lesley Riddoch recite A mans a man for a' that for Believe in Scotland's Virtual Burns...

Funding – The revenues for the Burns Supper and the Scotland the Brief profits, however, are minuscule compared to the spending power of our opponents who are often fake grassroots groups with dark money sources. This led us to launching our first crowdfunder for Believe in Scotland campaigning and it was a great success. Pro-independence business donors from Business for Scotland agreed to match the first £50,000 raised from the public – pound for pound and in the end, we raised £129,490 which amongst other things paid for free campaigning packs for 120 Local Yes Groups and our Big Day of Indy Action (more on that later)

Become a member of Believe in Scotland for free here, or  become a Stakeholder member here for as little as £5.00 a month – All our funding comes from donations and 98% from micro-donations so please help us campaign for independence.

Social Media to the Lockdown Rescue – With all our events cancelled due to Covid we had to move online and get better at getting our message out via social media. And yeah, we did pretty well! we started the year with an audience of approximately 49,000 followers and ended it with roughly 238,000.

Regional Pages – We also launched our Believe in Scotland Regional Social Media Network on Facebook that will accommodate local Yes groups and ran Free online training for Yes group social media managers with more than 60 volunteers attending. You can find and follow our regional pages here.

Our Facebook Group – Our Believe in Scotland Facebook Group is only about 18 months old but has grown to host nearly 28,000 members. The group alone has had 3,407,049 views in the last 12 months. They will have viewed some of the 10,000+ posts and comments made by the Yes movement. Having started roughly six years after most of the others it is now the second largest Yes group (by membership) on Facebook but it’s by far the busiest and there is no party politicking, trolling or negativity allowed. 

The Wellbeing Newspaper – Time to go big or go home. Business for Scotland has for years championed the Wellbeing approach to economics and later in the year the opportunity presented itself to build upon the success of the Open Mind’s newspaper with a new partnership. Believe in Scotland, The National, The SNP and later the Scottish Green’s teamed up to publish and deliver to homes across Scotland one million copies of an 8-page newspaper focussed on our wellbeing economics approach.

Make no mistake, this publication fired the starting gun on indyref2 but it also started to redefine the purpose of independence in response to the chaos of Westminster, Brexit and Covid lockdowns. The paper also marks a step-change in the key message of the independence movement and starts a conversation with undecided voters about the type of nation we want to build with the full powers of independence. It’s core message was also incompatible with the Sustanable Growth Commision but few seem to have noticed that.

Adding the one million copies of the Wellbeing paper to the Day of Action materials and the approximately 300,000 leaflets and books we distributed earlier in the year and we find that we distributed around 2 million items of independence campaign material between Jan 2021 and Feb 2022.

50,000 copies leaving BiS HQ

Only a snapshot – We could write another 20 paragraphs detailing other campaigning initiatives but you would be reading all day. Frankly we held the line when Yes was slipping in the polls and the SNP were focussed on the health crisis and even the marchers couldn’t take to the streets. We found a way to campaign and to campaign more effectively than ever before and in 2022 we are going to do more.

You should join us - become a Believe in Scotland Stakeholder member by donating just £5.00 a month here. We are the only national Yes campaign group that can reach the undecided, that can deliver major campaigns and if you Believe in Scotland then please join us now – indyref2 is next year!

The Daily Mail today tried to have a go at Believe in Scotland's campaign to end pensioner poverty, but their incredibly muddled attack produced a factually incorrect headline and an article that is incoherent and contradictory.

Let’s be clear, they tried to write an article about Believe in Scotland, but we supplied them with the facts about pensions and they then tried to tie us into an earlier attack on the SNP. First, let’s deal with the claim about Believe in Scotland in the factually incorrect headline which states, “Nationalist Group ‘systematically deceiving OAPs’ after falsely claiming UK “worst in world”.  

The problem with the headline is that the UK pension is the worst in the developed world, and that is what we have correctly claimed. So, we will be writing to the Editor and demanding the paper prints a retraction or allows us the right to reply. 

The Facts

According to the OECD research that we based our claims on, the UK pays the worst basic state pension in the developed world, worth just 28.4% of average income at retirement (based on the net replacement rate). Furthermore, The House of Commons Library confirmed the 28.4% and further revealed that the UK state pension falls significantly below the OECD average of 58.6% but also the EU average of 63.5%.

So, to claim that the basic state pension is the worst in the developed world is wholly accurate. The Daily Mail headline seems to be based on claims that if you include wealthy people’s voluntary pensions contributions then people are better off - but that has nothing to do with the fact that the UK basic state pension is woeful and degrading to those who can't afford voluntary work and private pensions.  

When voluntary pension provision is included, the UK’s net replacement rate rises to 61% compared to the higher 67% EU average but the UK Governments basic state pension still sits at 28.4%. In other words, as many people can’t afford private pensions or to stay opted into voluntary employee pensions, the 28.4% figure is shameful and cannot be ignored.

People who retired before the New State Pension (2019) and the opt-out company contribution scheme came into force or those that were not paid enough and had to opt-out of voluntary pension schemes receive far less than the EU average. The lower replacement rate of the state pension penalises people who have experienced long periods of unemployment, carers (mostly females from less affluent households), women who take career breaks to raise children, people with disabilities or long-term illness and the working poor, all of whom have been let down by successive Westminster Governments.

So, the Daily Mail article (which was triggered by Unionist groups social media trolling) seems to be suggesting that we don’t need to pay enough for pensioners on the basic state pension to live with dignity as wealthy people are not affected - that is a truly disgusting attitude.

Even more of a muddle  

The second part of the article, which is even more muddled, suggests our campaign to raise the basic state pension is SNP propaganda. But our policy of a £210.00 pension is not supported by the SNP and our campaign is clearly partially aimed at persuading the SNP to agree with us. If we were an SNP front, then disagreeing so publicly with the SNP might not be such a priority for us. Also, the SNP are attacked in the article for saying “The UK owes people a pension and will keep paying people pensions after independence”. Let’s be clear, the UK does owe people a pension (if they have made their NIC contributions). However, we believe that an independent Scotland should a) Take on full responsibility for payment of pensions and b) Inform the UK Government that we will subtract the cost of this pensions from any debt settlement (matched to asset settlements) agreed during the independence settlement negotiations that will follow a Yes vote in 2023. So, we are totally at odds with the SNP on pensions and we try to influence them, not the other way around.

They also say that Believe in Scotland is “closely linked to Business for Scotland… the economic think tank set up before the 2014 referendum”. However, we emailed them and explained ahead of the article being written that “Business for Scotland Ltd is a business networking and campaigning organisation that supports independence and champions the Wellbeing approach to economics. It operates completely independently from any political party. Believe in Scotland is the name of one of our campaigns.” How hard would it have been to get that right?

They did carry a quote from our Chief Executive - the only part of the article that makes sense - he said:

Believe in Scotland are campaigning to end the UK’s degrading pensioner poverty in an independent Scotland by paying a Real Living Pension (currently £210.00 per week), then raising the state pension to match the EU average as the economy grows over time with the powers of independence.  

For unionist campaigners to claim that the 28.4% figure is irrelevant because it doesn't apply to the wealthy, simply shows how out of touch they are with the needs of pensioners. Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, Chief Executive of Business for Scotland.

Concluson

The plethora of childish complaints about our campaigns (in papers such as The Daily Mail and The Times) all originate from trolling by the many fake-grassroots unionist front organisations and represents a desperate attempt to deflect from the investigations into their dark money funding and potentially illegal campaigning. 

If they were anything other than smoke and mirrors operations for Westminster's economic and moral failures, they would spend their time pressuring the UK Government to match our call for a £210.00 a week basic state pension to allow our old folk to live with dignity but that is just clearly not on the Unionist agenda.

The UK Government published a Brexit Benefits Policies Document this week. It sets out a vision for the whole UK post-Brexit - which will not take account of Scotland’s unique situation or separate democratic voice. 

The glossy brochure mentions Scotland only in passing. The UK Government plans to legislate over the UK’s post-Brexit direction without consulting with, or gaining the consent of, the Scottish Parliament. The devolved governments were not consulted over this document or the “Brexit Freedoms Bill” that goes alongside it. 

The report is not honest about the issues the UK is facing as a result of Brexit - it slaps whitewash over the well-documented difficulties many are experiencing. There is no awareness of the different needs or views of the four nations that make up the UK. 

Some of the “benefits” the dossier claims the UK has already achieved are things that could have been done in the EU

• Blue passports - EU countries can have different coloured passports if they wish - Croatia does.
• Crown markings on beer glasses - these kinds of marks are allowed in EU countries 
• Freeports - many EU countries have freeports. 
• - the document doesn’t make clear that all but one are rollovers of deals that were already in place with the EU.
• The Turing system - this replacement for the EU Erasmus exchange programme is much more limited and doesn’t fund students and teachers to come to the UK
• Protected Geographic Indicators - the EU already protects food from specific areas. The report doesn’t mention that the trade deal with Australia doesn’t protect these. 

And some of the “benefits” are politically-motivated objectives

1 Replacing free movement with a points-based immigration system 

It has been well documented that Scotland’s food and farming sectors, care, hospitality, and health have all been damaged by the end of free movement. Crops lay rotting in the fields last year; care homes lost key workers; hotels had to cut their hours. 

An immigration points system designed in line with the needs and political colour of the south of England does not meet Scotland’s needs. 

Free movement also allowed Scots to live and work freely across Europe - the report does not mention this or the 90 day limit for visiting the EU. Neither does it mention the reintroduction of mobile roaming charges or the forthcoming charge for a visa to holiday in the EU. 

2 Replacing EU restructuring funds with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

The EU focused restructuring money on areas at the periphery of the EU with high need. In Scotland, they partnered with the Scottish Government to decide how to use that money. The Brexit Benefits document says the replacement, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, “will better align to our priorities”. These are the priorities of the UK Conservative Party, not the Scottish Government. 

It will be up to Westminster to decide where and how - and even if - to spend that money. The UK Government was accused this week of a “straightforward breach of its commitment” to spend the same sums as the EU, by Vaughan Gething, the Welsh economy minister. By convoluted accounting, the UK Government appears to be planning to underestimate what the EU spent, the FT reported. 

3 “Committed £180 million to modernise and streamline our import and export controls”

This is listed as a benefit of Brexit. But much greater sums will have to be allocated to mitigate the snarl ups and snafus caused at Britain’s borders by leaving the single market. Since new import controls were imposed on Jan 1, 2022, queues of lorries entering and leaving the UK have stretched for miles. Many small businesses are now unable to import or export to the EU and Scotland’s economy is suffering particularly, because of its strong food and farming sector. 

The document also lists “taking back control of our waters”. It doesn’t mention that many in the fishing industry feel they were mis-sold and the reality has been little change to fishing rights but much greater difficulty in exporting the catch. 

The report does not recognise the barriers to trade that Brexit has imposed on business. 

4 “£57 billion more for our NHS” 

The report controversially claims that a post-Brexit benefit is increased spending on the NHS. “We are spending more money on our NHS. By the 2024–2025 financial year our yearly expenditure on our NHS is projected to be £57 billion higher in cash terms than we spent in 2016–17, or over £1 billion more per week.” This is misleading. Talking in cash terms hides the effect of inflation. 

The Government plans to raise more money for the NHS budget from its new health and social care levy. It says that will help the NHS catch up with its Covid related backlog. This new money has nothing to do with Brexit - it is a tax increase. 

The document says the UK Government can afford to spend more on health because it doesn’t have to pay money to the EU now. But the loss of easy trade with the single market means that the UK economy is expected to shrink by 4% - that’s more than Covid and that means the Government gets less money in from taxation.

5 A bonfire of regulation

From “reforming and simplifying our public procurement rules”, to reducing driving licence standards for HGV drivers, to changing financial regulations for big mergers and freeing up international capital markets, to getting rid of the EU data protection for private citizens known as the GDPR, the document promises a bonfire of regulation. 

The UK Government plans to replace standards on the environment, animal welfare, chemicals, safety at work with its own regulation-lite approach. The document says the UK Government wants “Regulation only where absolutely necessary. .. This means making the best use of alternatives to regulation.” They want industries to check up on themselves. 

As Ben Chapman in the Independent pointed out: “If ministers want to understand how disastrous and counterproductive this approach can be, they should watch the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.”

Conclusion

The document is vague and lacking in detail. But in general terms it sets out a post-Brexit vision for the whole UK, in line with the values and ambitions of the government in Westminster 

Most of the changes it promises are unlikely to get consent from the Scottish Parliament. The report’s writers seems unaware that parts of this programme (such as the UK Shared Prosperity Fund) are already controversial in Scotland. They do not acknowledge any political differences with the Scottish Government. 

Over time, the approach of imposing unpopular laws on Scotland against the wishes of the democratically elected Government may lead to the sense that the UK Government is ruling without the consent of the Scottish people. That can only increase support for independence. 

In 2018, the UN Poverty Rapporteur Philip Alston issued a damning report on the UK. Then, a fifth of the population was living in poverty and 1.5 million were unable to afford basic essentials. Since then, the combined impacts of Brexit and Covid have significantly worsened the picture. Rocketing energy bills, soaring food prices and regressive tax increases have forced millions more into poverty. Alston warned that the impacts of Brexit, which Scotland soundly rejected, would hit the most vulnerable and disadvantaged the hardest, and he’s been proven right.

Alston identified the root cause of the misery as a deliberate shift, since 2010, in the underlying values shaping UK government policy. “Compassion for those who are suffering, has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach apparently designed to instill discipline where it is least useful, to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping with today’s world, and elevating the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest levels of British society.”

A recent example of this approach was provided by food writer and anti-poverty campaigner Jack Monroe. She demolished the UK government’s claim of a 5% cost of living increase, showing that for those who have long relied on the cheapest supermarket staples to survive such as pasta, rice, baked beans, canned spaghetti and bread, prices have risen by 141%, 344%, 45%, 169% and 29%, respectively. In addition, she points out that many products are smaller but priced the same, a practice known as ‘shrinkflation.’ Yet a particular upmarket supermarket price for a ready-meal hasn’t changed since 2011, and if subject to the same inflation rate as rice, would cost £26 instead of the current £7.50. We are not, as David Cameron claimed, ‘all in this together.’

Alston acknowledged the Scottish Government’s frantic efforts to mitigate the worst aspects of UK austerity policy. However, as helpful as they are, the Scottish Child Payment, free school meals and Best Start Foods cards can only scratch the surface of what’s needed to build a more equal and fair society.

Creating a nation that cares for the wellbeing of all its citizens will only happen once we reclaim our independence.

Fears Are Growing for England’s NHS

Former Conservative PM John Major famously said that the NHS would be as “safe as a pet hamster in the presence of a hungry python” if Boris Johnson and Michael Gove rose to power after Brexit. New developments are causing many to fear that he was right and that bars are being bent on the hamster’s protective cage. 

How does this affect Scotland - surely health care is devolved?
At the moment, health care is devolved to the Scottish Parliament - but the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Westminster only ‘lends’ powers to Holyrood. The UK Government can overrule the Scottish Parliament whenever it wants. There is little that can legally be done to protect Scotland’s NHS without independence. 

FIVE recent developments are causing concern

#1 The Internal Markets Act mandates that any international trade deal the UK Government signs will cover Scotland

The UK Government has made it clear it will not hesitate to override devolution in regard to international trade deals. The Internal Markets Act, which became law a year ago, has the specific goal of ensuring that these deals automatically cover Scotland. 

The UK Gov announcement said the Act would protect businesses, jobs and livelihoods by ensuring there are no “harmful new barriers to trade between all parts of the UK”. It also said “world-leading standards” would be maintained after leaving the EU. However, they have been watered down in many cases - one example was the post-Brexit relaxation of rules on pumping raw sewage into rivers. 

As a result many fear that the UK Government will make deals, especially with US-based, privately owned healthcare providers that impact the NHS in all four UK nations. 

#2  A clause protecting the NHS from being on the table in trade negotiations was removed from the .

The House of Lords inserted a clause into the Trade Bill as it passed through Westminster which would have protected the UK's ability to provide “a comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery”. The amendment would also have restricted “the sale of patient data” and protected NHS drug prices but those protections were rejected.

But 357 Conservative MPs voted to remove this amendment to the government's bill.  Trade Minister Greg Hands said: “We do not see the need for this amendment, as protecting the NHS is already a top priority in negotiations.” The Trade Act was passed last year. 

#3 The UK Government is trying to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

After leaving the EU single market, the world’s largest trading bloc, the UK Government wants to make up for some of the huge loss of trade by joining another trading bloc at the other side of the world - the TPP.

To succeed in joining, it will have to sign up to the bloc’s terms and conditions, which include rules to protect drug companies’ intellectual property. These allow them to bloc generic drugs. That would affect the ability of the NHS to negotiate cheap prices for medicines.

Joining the TPP would be seen as a stepping stone to a trade deal with the US. US officials and businesses have repeatedly said that the NHS must be "on the table" in trade talks, with US pharmaceutical companies and healthcare businesses eyeing the UK health market as a source of profit.

#4 Trade deals are likely to give legal protection to trans-national companies’ profits, tying future UK Governments’ hands

When the Conservative Government enters into new international trade deals it signs legally binding contracts. These deals will enable companies to bid for contracts within England’s NHS “market” for services and products. 

The small print protects these companies’ business and profit - any future Government that wanted to get out of these obligations would find the trade agreements contain multiple obstacles and financial disincentives. This means they could incur massive legal costs and have to pay compensation.

5 The new health and care bill (England) allows private company reps to sit on commissioning bodies

The new health and care bill passing through Parliament is the latest in a series of Conservative reforms which aim to create a pretended free market within the NHS with private companies “competing” for public money which is “spent” by commissioning bodies.

This latest form of this allows people with an interest in these private companies to sit on the boards of the commissioning bodies. The rules and protections that were in place under EU procurement rules will no longer apply. The UK Government’s poor track record on public procurement in the pandemic has caused international comment.  Its lack of oversight of the loan scheme caused government minister Theodore Agnew to resign this week, which does not inspire confidence. 

It is difficult to predict with certainty what effect this will have on Scotland’s NHS. But the concern - which is shared by many in England - over the increasing role of private companies is profound. It may make the provision of health care in the UK more profit-orientated and less universal. While Scotland remains part of the UK it may be difficult to resist that pressure. 

Conclusion

There is a degree of urgency in taking steps to protect Scotland’s NHS. The UK Government under the Internal Markets Act has assumed the power to effectively sign Scotland’s name on international trade deals as it wishes. This could burden Scotland with legal obligations which are costly to escape. 

There are challenges for health care provision in the 21st century - dealing with an aging population; implementing new technology; increasing mental health support. An independent Scotland would be able to plan, budget and make policy decisions in line with its democratic choices.

An independent Scotland would be in a much stronger position to pursue its own course with confidence and clarity.  

The Times, a deeply Conservative and Unionist newspaper has today launched an incompetent and completely self-defeating attack on the nonpartisan Believe in Scotland campaign, in a blatant attempt to provide political and legal cover for a plethora of fake unionist campaigning groups who have been accused of dark money funding.

Why is it "Incompetent and completely self-defeating"? Well, all the evidence required for any reader to understand that Believe in Scotland is 100% above board is contained in the article. The fact is, we discussed our 2021 campaign plans and the money we would spend, with the Electoral Commission, and they agreed that we did not have to register. That should have been the end of the article right there.  However, The Times, desperate to make a story out of nothing, sought a quote from the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) about dark money and the dangers it poses to democracy and added it into the section about Believe in Scotland as to make it look like the ERS was calling for an inquiry into Believe in Scotland dark money donations. We spoke to ERS, and they made it clear that is not the case saying that  "The quote from us doesn’t call for an inquiry” and that it was "Not targeted at Business for Scotland/Believe in Scotland but more a general call we make for improved transparency when it comes to campaign finance laws".  

The article headline is "Call for ‘dark money’ campaign inquiry" but who is calling for that? It's not the ERS as the article tries to make the reader think. In fact, there seems to be no specific call for an inquiry. The headline seems to come from comments made by Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s deputy leader who has a track record of making outrageous claims. In this case, she is clearly trying to deflect on behalf of unionist front groups facing dark money accusations - some of whom have links to the Labour party (you couldn't make this up). In fact, BiS parent company, Business for Scotland, has called for such an inquiry, see our article - Electoral Commission: We'll look into any claims of 'dark money' funding Unionist ads

We want to make it clear that the Believe in Scotland campaign believes wholeheartedly that dark money being funnelled to fake Unionist groups is an affront to democracy and we also call for an inquiry into such dark money groups - the Electoral Commission requires more powers to investigate the bank accounts of such unionist groups.

Dark money coming to BIS - don't make us laugh - we are very open about where our campaign funding comes from and we are completely political party neutral, never campaigning for a specific outcome in any election.

"We simply believe that any government of any political colour controlling all the powers of a normal independent country will be better for Scotland than any government of any political colour making bad decisions for Scotland from Westminster."Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, Chief Exec Business for Scotland Ltd and Founder of the Believe in Scotland campaign.

Our spending was independent of all political parties - we have never and will never accept funds from political parties, neutrality is very important to us.

Our funding comes from four key revenue streams and arrives mostly through micro-donations. See our successful 2021 fundraiser, it's not a secret!

1) You can donate £5.00 a month or more to Believe in Scotland here

2) You can buy a copy of our best selling and game-changing book on Scotland's economy, Scotland the Brief here

3) You can become a member of Believe in Scotland here

4) Our events calendar has been curtailed by lockdowns, but you can join the BIS mailing list here and we will let you know about forthcoming events.

Dishonesty

The Times article was dishonest in four key ways

1) It splits the article in two placing the credible concerns about dark money funded unionist groups in a missable sidebar, whilst the non-credible attack on BiS is presented as the main thrust of the article.

2) It places the quote from the Electoral Reform Society in the BiS section in what seems like a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader into thinking the ERS is complaining about BiS when they have made it clear to us that they were not.

3) The article states that an anonymous campaigner had said our billboard campaign would have cost as much as £30,000 but when they contacted us, they were saying as much as £80,000 and they clearly backed off that ridiculous amount when we told them it was laughable - they are basically making it up as they go along.

4)  The Times will not say who made the claims about BiS or who supplied the estimates. The article was not researched by the journalist in question but seems to be based on evidence supplied by people with links to those accused of being fake unionist campaign fronts. When I asked him (by email) to tell me who was making these false accusations he wrote "I don't discuss any sources for stories".

The facts

We discussed our 2021 plans with the Electoral Commission, explained that we were not campaigning for any party standing in those elections and that our campaign was ongoing - and they agreed that we were not required to register.

We have never and will never accept funds from political parties, our neutrality is very important to us. All our funding comes from events revenues, publication sales, memberships, and donations.

There has been well-documented and justified criticism of potential "dark money" used by unionist campaign groups. They are indeed a threat to our democracy and seem very well funded, potentially from vested interests, whereas almost all our funding comes from monthly micro-donations from ordinary people who simply believe in Scotland.

Believe in Scotland has hundreds of thousands of followers but only a tiny fraction donate to us (£5.00 a month helps massively), we make every penny count and last year we distributed nearly two million items of physical campaign materials to the Scottish public to help them realise that independence is normal. You can see what we are up against - organised fake unionist fronts with questionable and massive funding - please donate now and level the playing field.

A House of Lords report on the Union published last week has gone further than any before in recognising the possibility of Scotland gaining independence. It also criticises the UK Government's “Anglocentric British nationalism”, which it says is undermining the UK’s legitimacy. 

The report says the UK Government has “undermined trust” by continually legislating without the consent of the devolved Parliaments. The committee’s recommendations to increase “respect and co-operation”, however, are general and unlikely to have much effect. 

Report ignores declining legitimacy of the Lords north of the border

The report does not discuss whether the House of Lords’ legitimacy in Scotland is in decline. Since 2007, a majority of Scottish MPs have been from the SNP and they do not sit in the Lords - or on committees such as this. The committee therefore has just three Scottish members  - former Labour MP Tommy McAvoy, former Conservative Andrew Dunlop and law Lord David Hope. The House of Lords is now the world’s second-largest unelected legislative body second-only to China’s - PM Boris Johnson has added around 100 "nobles" since taking office. 

The recent ennoblement of Tory donor Malcolm Offord who was appointed to the Scottish Office after failing to win election in Scotland was also ignored by the committee’s report, although it has a strong bearing on the subject under discussion. 

Growing support for Scottish independence is echoed in rest of UK

The committee notes that support for Scottish independence has increased significantly since their last report in 2016, now polling at about half or above in all parts of the UK. 

The report notes: “In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the SNP won 48 percent of the vote... The Scottish Green Party, which also supports independence, won eight seats…The current level of support for Scottish independence and the SNP—which are not necessarily the same thing—has inevitably had a significant impact on discussions about the future of the Union.”

This support for independence is echoed in the rest of the UK. Professor Ailsa Henderson and Professor Richard Wyn Jones detect “a clear sense of ambivalence about the Union, particularly in England, where around 40% of respondents are happy for one or more other parts of the UK to go their own way. If this is added to the proportion who want independence or reunification, in the case of Northern Ireland and the proportion who hold this ambivalent attitude to the Union, then we reach half or more of the electorate in each of the four parts of the UK.

“Professor Wyn Jones went as far as describing this as the “tectonic plates shifting”, saying: “If you look at public attitudes and if you are a Unionist, you have cause for alarm.”

Insistence on Westminster’s absolute sovereignty has undermined trust in devolution

One view of devolution is that “Westminster has merely lent powers to the three devolved territories, which can be reclaimed at any time…. This view has been generally sustained by the courts, including the Supreme Court,” the report says. 

But “some witnesses” argue that because the devolved Parliaments - especially Scotland’s where 75% of voters said Yes in 1997 -  was established by a referendum with strong popular support, they should be recognised as sharing sovereignty with Westminster.

The Institute for Government warned that: “if the UK government decides to make a habit of legislating without consent in devolved areas, without making serious attempts to secure that consent, then the implications for the stability of the Union could be severe.”

Professor John Denham of Southampton University told the committee that “leadership depends crucially on respecting others within the system who have their own autonomy and their own legitimacy, and leadership becomes one of managing those relationships, not simply of saying that the Union Government decide and that is it.”

Professor Ciaran Martin, Philip Rycroft and Professor Denham referred to the Government’s approach to the UK Internal Market Bill and Northern Ireland Protocol as symptomatic of a predominantly ‘Anglocentric British nationalism’ ”.

First Minister of Wales Mark Drakeford said the Government acted as ‘judge and jury’ on when they wanted to legislate without consent. He said the Government should be required to publish its justification for deciding to legislate without consent, with both Houses then invited to vote on this justification, with the relevant devolved legislature having the right to contribute

However, the report confined its recommendations to asking the UK Government to formally report its reasons for legislating without consent to the House of Commons before doing so. 

Internal Market Act

One example of legislation without consent is the Internal Market Act - before Brexit, the devolved parliaments had a lot of say over how restructuring money was spent, but the UK Government used this Bill to say it can decide how and when to spend that money. 

The report quotes the Scottish Government, which said the UK Government’s approach to the UK Internal Market Bill,  demonstrate it is “willing to reshape the devolution settlement, unilaterally and in the most fundamental way, setting aside any rules of the UK constitutional system that it finds inconvenient”

Report Recommends that Boris Johnson should be “the grown-up in the room” 

Jim Gallagher (a leading figure in the 2014 No campaign) who is a visiting Professor to Glasgow University, said the SNP and other independence supporting parties are looking to use disputes with the UK Government as a political platform. 

The report quotes Gallagher saying: “The obligation of the United Kingdom Government is to be the grown-up in the room. This is the Government of the Union … the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister of the Union, not just of Unionists.”

The report concludes: “We believe the Prime Minister has a critical role to play in making the new intergovernmental structures a success and maintaining strong relationships between the four administrations. Given its importance to the working of the Union, we recommend the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council should meet at least twice each year.”

Looking ahead to Scottish independence and Irish reunification

The report calls for more communication between the UK Government and the devolved Government at all levels, and does raise the possibility that these could be useful in the event of independence for Scotland or reunification of Ireland.

It quotes former Clerk to the Committee Paul Evans and former Chair of the Welsh Devolution Commission Paul Silk, who advocate a formal body to replace the InterParliamentary Forum on Brexit.

They said: “Mechanisms established now, while the Union continues, could form the basis of structures that would be needed if the constitutional position of its component nations were to change.”

Conclusion

The report is interesting largely because of its acceptance of the dominance of Anglocentric British nationalism in Westminster’s approach to Scotland and the other devolved nations. Sue Gray is also mentioned - among her other tasks, she is apparently to play a key role in saving the Union. 

The objectivity of the report could be criticised because of the narrow range of witnesses it called. It also uses some partisan language - Scottish Cabinet Secretary Angus Roberston “claims” while journalist Alex Massie “urges” or “considers” his statements. 

Its recommendations are extremely weak and are likely to be ignored in any case - Boris Johnson is unlikely to meet Nicola Sturgeon as often as twice a year whatever the committee says. The UK Government, having established that it can legislate without consent at will, is unlikely to use “self-restraint”, as the report advises.

There is likely to be a referendum on Scottish independence in 2023 and so this report may be regarded as the committee waking up late only to smell the coffee boiling over.