It must be no to Devomax

Robert Henderson

The leader of the Scots Numpty Party  (SNP) Alex Salmond has a secret love. He has a long-time partner Independence , but also  a burgeoning  affair with  the siren Devomax.    No, this not a relative of the cyber personality Max Headroom, although  it is just as artificial and improbable a creation.

Like all lovers with two mistresses who know of the others existence the SNP leader has been drifting into a fevered incoherence as he tries to keep both the objects of his affection satisfied. Only the other day he said that if Scotland votes for independence  it will still be part of the UK:  “That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence.”  ( 2085533)

Exactly what finery  Miss Devomax   should be clothed in when he finally presents her to the world, Master Salmond  has not crystallised  even in his own mind, but he knows that her garb would indubitably involve a skirt of full fiscal autonomy.  As Scotland under the reign of Mistress Devomax would be technically part of the UK,  her political clothes  would also mean  keeping the Queen as head of state, continuing to use the Pound and  sharing defence,  foreign affairs,  EU membership   and the servicing of the  National Debt and all other financial obligations in the UK  including Foreign Aid.   (Strangely,  when speaking of his ever less secret love,  the SNP leader  always omits to mention the  “servicing of the  National Debt and all other financial obligations in the UK”).  In short , it would be Home Rule more or less.

The biggest fly in the Devomax   ointment  is fiscal autonomy which  would mean Scotland raising all its government revenue from taxes which it imposed and collected itself. Some of those  taxes would have to be used to pay a share  proportionate  to Scotland’s fraction of the UK population (around 9%) of the UK defence budget, the foreign affairs budget and the servicing of the  National Debt and all other accrued financial obligations in the UK.   (Devomax would also mean that Scotland would have to fund the  cost in Scotland of  welfare, education,  housing,  the arts, the NHS , transport,  roads, the environment, PFI and PPP projects in Scotland, policing and  justice .  Some of this is already funded from the Treasury disbursement to Scotland but much is not, for example, most of Scottish welfare. )

A fiscally independent  Scotland would radically change the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.  If  the Scots were  paying part of  the expenditure on UK projects such as defence  and Foreign Aid  they would expect to have some say in those projects.  This would cause immense difficulty both in terms of the level of expenditure and  how the UK project  expenditure was deployed.

How much would Scotland have to contribute to the UK budget under Devomax?  It would be a substantial. Let us have a look at the financial year 2011/12. The UK defence budget for  2011/12 is £40 billion,  National Debt interest is £50 billion, p6), Foreign Aid is £8.7 billion ( ), the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is £1,6 billion (go to and click on Business Plan).  The net UK contribution to the EU in 2010 (the latest figure available) was £9.2 billion with the gross contribution being a whopping £19.7 billion. (   The total (taking only the net contribution to the EU into account)  is £110 billion. That would mean Scotland’s share would have been £10 billion. If the accrued liabilities of UK taxpayer funded pensions  at the point of fiscal separation were dealt with at the UK level  as well that would add billions more Scotland would have to put into the UK pot.  In addition, there is the question of how much of the financial chaos created by the Scottish banks RBS and HBOS should be laid at the Scotland’s door.  The headline amounts involved in rescuing the banks are large enough (£45 billion for RBS and £20 billion  for HBOS via the Lloyds Banking Group rescue (, but the  true figure runs into hundreds of billions ( and

That is the position now. By the time a referendum is likely to be held and a decision made, it is likely to be 2015. By then the national debt is projected to be around £1.4 billion as against £1 trillion in 2012. That would add something like £45 billion for Scotland to service.  Foreign Aid is due to increase to £11.5 billion by 2014 (  The EU net contribution is also due to rise after 2013.

Although it is impossible to give more than a rough  approximation of what a Scottish government would have to be handing over to the UK Treasury under Devomax,   realistically it would  be in the region of £20 billion per annum, a sum which would probably represent  at least a quarter of the total Scottish budget by the time Devomax was a fact.  That would  put great pressure on domestic Scottish government spending and heighten the already natural desire of a Devomax Scottish government to demand a strong say in the UK’s affairs.

The general difficulty with UK projects is obvious. Scotland would expect a say on the amount spent and the nature of the spending ,  but the rest of the UK  – which is 91% of the UK population – would overwhelmingly outweigh the Scots  in any democratic procedure to make decisions.  It is impossible have an arrangement which did not have one of two outcomes that  would be unpalatable to one of the two parties. Either Scottish wishes  would be ignored  or the Scottish tail would  wag the rest of the UK dog by giving them a disproportionately powerful  say.

The situation would be exceptionally sharp in the case of defence. The SNP is ideologically against a nuclear deterrent.  There is probably a  majority of the Scottish public who support this view.  Any likely Scottish government for the foreseeable future  will  have the SNP as at least a strong partner in a coalition. This state of affairs has three possible consequences.  If things stay as they are  with the  nuclear facilities  in Scotland continuing,   they would be a  high value bargaining chip for a Scottish government to extract substantial concessions  from  Westminster on other subjects, for example, the servicing of the UK national debt.  Alternatively, if the  nuclear deterrent facilities were placed entirely in England  the Scots will  cavil at paying a proportionate share of its costs even though they would  benefit from the protection it offers.  More generally, a Scottish government ideologically opposed to a nuclear deterrent might try to refuse to  pay anything towards it.

The other great military problem  would be action overseas which would have profound foreign policy implications.   It would clearly be absurd to get into a situation where  Westminster decided on foreign action and the  Scottish government  could  veto the deployment.   There would  also be occasions where even if a fighting role was not being contemplated  disputes could arise, for example,  over the military being used in policing roles such as those in the Balkans or substantial amounts of the military budget being used to defend the Falklands. In addition,  Scotland might well  try to engineer a situation where there were military assets  such as Scottish regiments which,  while they were not formally under the control of the Scottish government,  were in practice always stationed in Scotland or at least in the UK , with an understanding that they were not to be deployed overseas .

The second  immediate and pressing problem would be  foreign policy in general and the EU in particular. Apart from foreign policy relating to the armed forces,  there would also be many points of potential conflict  between Scotland and the rest of the UK.  For example, Scotland might object to funding  or facilitating the British arms trade while the UK government was in favour or the  UK government could be in favour of restricting immigration and Scotland for increasing it.

But those problems would be nothing compared to the  perpetual wrangles over the EU.  Assuming  the UK remains a member of the EU and the EU is not dissolved by the economic acid bath which is the Euro collapse, how would the UK’s relations with the EU be decided with a quasi-independent  Scotland  paying part of the annual membership fee?   Scotland would undoubtedly ask for some form of official representation and however that was delivered it would weaken the hand of the UK government because it would seem to the rest of the EU that the UK was speaking with two voices.  That could provide a lever for the EU to weaken the UK by playing Scotland off against the rest of the UK.

In any discussions of new policy or bargaining over such things as the UK rebate,  fishing  quotas  or the disbursement of that part of the money from the UK EU budget contribution which is returned to the UK in various ways, the UK could find itself in a similar position  to that UK domestic politics is presently in with the coalition government:  no clear  public voice but one perpetually moving as deals are done behind the scenes. Most dramatically, imagine a situation where there is a new EU treaty which greatly increases the move towards a United States of Europe.   Scotland would be in favour: the UK government probably would oppose such a treaty.  Even if the decision  was left to a UK referendum would a quasi-independent Scotland  accept  such a referendum? Would they not seek a referendum for Scotland only?  In the medium term the likely response by the EU would be to try to expand their  long-held regionalist  plan to dissolve the power of nation states  within the EU to allow places such as Scotland  a large and ever increasing autonomy within  the EU while  Scotland  remain legally part of a member state.

The other great immediate Devomax  problem would be the management of the Pound. Many of the problems associated with a supposedly  independent Scotland continuing  to use the pound also apply to Devomax– see Foreigners at both the business and government levels would  begin to see the UK not as single economic sphere but  as two separate economies.  That would create uncertainty which would  of itself weaken the Pound.

If Scotland had a much weaker economy than the rest of the UK under Devomax,  which is probable because of the dangerous narrowness of the Scottish  economy and its massive public sector,  something similar to the Euro situation  would arise. The  value of the Pound against other currencies would be suppressed, just as the Euro  has not reflected the strength of the German economy because of the other weaker vessels such as Greece and Italy.     An artificially low Pound might sound attractive for exports,  but it also means more expensive imports and creates a risk that the currency may slip into the dangerous territory of precipitously devaluing until the credibility of the  currency itself is in danger.   At the very least a Pound dependent on  two separate fiscal policies would mean that the massively larger entity  – the UK minus Scotland – would  to some degree be dependent on the behaviour of the much smaller entity – Scotland.

Fiscal autonomy also means, in theory at least,  no transfer of money from the rest of the UK (in practice from England)  to Scotland if the Scottish economy runs into serious  trouble.   This could easily happen because of the size of the tax take Scotland would have to generate to meet their present  obligations under Devomax.

The quick way of getting a quick approximation of the  amount of money a Scottish government under Devomax would have to raise to fund present expenditure . The total budget projection for £2011/12 is £710 billion ( p6). 9% of that is £64 billion.

In 2009/10 – the last year for which there are official Scottish government figures for public expenditure in Scotland : Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland ( GERS)  –  Scottish tax revenues were  £42,201 billion excluding North Sea oil and £48,132 billion with what are coyly called “an illustrative geographical share “ of North Sea oil revenues  with expenditure for the year of  £62.086 billion ( Even with the Oil revenues included there was a shortfall of £14 billion in  tax revenue.

But there  are problems with GERS which could well substantially understate public expenditure in Scotland.  For many items there are no official statistics collected for Scotland alone. Consequently, the GERS figures are often based on extrapolations from UK statistics with methodologies which even the GERS compilers warn do not produce objective data:  “… these methodologies are subjective and therefore the figures should be viewed accordingly” (  The other  problem is the treatment of North Sea Oil revenues.  The “illustrative geographical share  of North Sea oil revenues”   are based on a study by the University of Aberdeen (

The fact that both the GERS estimates and the North Sea oil revenue estimate have been made in Scotland rather than by non-Scottish bodies puts a large question mark against their impartiality.   If there is partiality favouring Scotland in the GERS  estimates it does not have to be conscious.  It is human nature to always put the best appearance on things from the individual’s point of view.  That is particularly true when a study is commissioned by those with political power.

Even if there is no overestimating of the bare figures they would not tell the whole story.  Scotland’s GDP is dangerously  dependent on public spending.  By 2012 it will be in the region of 67% of Scottish GDP ( The important thing to understand about  tax collection is that tax collected from those drawing their pay from the public purse is that it is simply recycled taxpayers’ money. It is only the money derived from private enterprise which drives an economy.  We can see this graphically in the present UK financial position. Only the private sector can grow the economy to allow larger tax receipts to reduce the deficit.  To have two thirds of an economy dependent on public expenditure is profoundly precarious because the tax base can shrink radically very rapidly. It is doubly dangerous for a small country of only 5 million people which does not have much diversity in in the little there is of a private sector.

Even if 90% of the oil tax revenues were allocated to Scotland this would not, on average,  compensate for the loss of a subsidy of some £8 billion pa which Scotland presently receives from the UK treasury through higher per capita funding  resulting from the Barnett Formula.   Not only that but revenues veer about wildly. In 1991/2 they were a paltry £647 million; in 2008/9 £13 billion; in 2009/10 they dropped dramatically to £6.4 billion.   (  The remaining oil in Scottish waters is also declining  rapidly and becoming more expensive to extract as the major oil discoveries run down (  While it is true that overall oil consumption is rising because of the countries such as China and India,  which might be expected to keep the price of oil high, there are also dramatic developments around shale oil and gas so there is no guarantee that the price of oil will remain high or continue to rise.  In any event it would be a rash government to base its future on a single crock of gold.

There is also the strong possibility under Devomax of  the English public sector jobs exported to Scotland being repatriated (  and of  companies in Scotland moving out of Scotland if a Scottish government cannot afford to offer them financial incentives to say.

There would also be a problem  with new  national debt. With a  fiscally independent Scotland  neither England nor Scotland would  wish to run up new UK National Debt.  After Devomax Scotland would have to take sole responsibility for any new finance raised by the Scottish government, while the rest of the UK would assume responsibility for any new post Devomax  debt it incurred. There is the risk of Scotland being unwilling to cut its public financial cloth much closer because it has become substantially poorer and running up unsustainable Scottish debt.

It is only to easy to imagine Scotland getting into the same mess that the Republic of Ireland and Iceland got into by a mixture of reckless spending and a failure to control credit or risky financial operations generally.   The rest of the UK (essentially England for reasons already given) would either have to bail out the Scots or see Scotland go effectively bust with the dire  effect that would have on the Pound  and the UK international financial and political credibility. The latter  would also bring large numbers of Scots to England after jobs, housing, schools and welfare which their own government could no longer afford.  Which option would a UK government take? Almost certainly the bailing out of Scotland with English money because of the damage anything else might do.   This might be done as a supposed loan, but there would be no guarantee that  it would be repaid.

The best that could be hoped for from Devomax  from an English perspective would be that Scotland would not be reckless and would pay their share of UK projects such as defence.  But along with that would come a perpetual uneasiness and clashing of democratic wills. It would be, as mentioned previously, akin to the situation we have with the coalition government  with no clear position on anything.  Unlike the coalition government there would be no end to it.   If Scotland is to leave the UK, it must be as a fully independent state asking no favours from England.

This entry was posted in Anglophobia, Devolution, Nationhood and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to It must be no to Devomax

  1. JamesS says:

    As usual, we hear one side of the debate. Your articles would have more credence Robert if they were remotely objective.

    The focus of your articles is what happens when the “Numpties” need a bail out to pay for their dole and deep-fried Mars bars. You never consider the fact that the English economy is a train-wreck and far more in need of remedial work than the Scottish economy which has been relatively strong when compared to the rest of Europe and constituent parts of the UK.

    Lets compare the regions in England against Scotland in terms of GVA (Gross Value Added) for 2009/2010:

    1 Greater London 34,200 ($52,776)
    Scotland £24000 ($37,035) incl. share of oil
    2 South East England 20,923 ($32,287)
    Scotland 19 744 ($30,468) excl. oil
    3 East of England 18,591 ($28,689)
    4 South West England 18,211 ($28,102)
    5 East Midlands 17,349 ($26,772)
    6 North West England 17,263 ($26,639)
    7 West Midlands 16,788 ($25,906)
    8 Yorkshire and the Humber, England 16,569 ($25,568)
    9 North East England 15,621 ($24,106)

    In 2009/2010, which was a poor year for oil revenues for Scotland as you pointed out above, Scotland would have been better off than every area in England outside of London by a long way. If you consider Scotland such a basket case, what of all of the other areas of England outside London which are well behind Scotland in terms of adding value to the UK? Even if oil stopped pouring tomorrow, they’d have been third richest in this list.

    Now any observer with even a modicum of common sense will know why the London figures are always so much higher than the rest. Scotland and the English regions in this list outside London contribute to the London total due to so many medium and large companies paying their corporate and personal taxes through their head offices in London. A patently obvious skewing of the figures that has never been addressed and hugely discredits the regions.

    Interestingly, England without the London anomaly, has a GVA figure of £17664, substantially lower than the Scottish total without it’s oil and a country mile off the Scottish figure when it’s share of oil is included. This shows the total inbalance in the English economy: £34,200 generated by London, £17,664 generated by the rest. The madness of Thatcherism’s de-industrialisation and centralisation laid out for all to see!

    According to the treasury, 22% of London’s take of corporation tax in 2009/2010 was generated from Scottish territory which London obviously would lose so that might help to balance the London anomaly out a bit!

    Your suggestion that the GERS figures, government kite-marked figures, are somehow manipulated in favour of the Scots is laughable and shows how late you are to this debate.The GERS report originally was a blatant unionist propoganda exercise to bash the SNP with. It was this annual report that heralded all of the subsidy junky myths purported by the trash media in England. Thankfully they were shown to be farcical in the early 2000s and the report is improving though it’s assumptions are still weighted against the Scots. I’ll list a few examples:

    1) As mentioned, the Treasury’s own estimates for corporation tax raised in Scottish territory varies between 20-22% year on year. The GERS report credits the Scots with just 8.3%

    2) The entire cost of the UK’s Trident system is billed to the Scots in GERS yet they represent just 8.6% of the population.

    3) No corporate or personal taxes raised by companies operating within Scotland that have head offices in London are included in the revenue figures as they are credited to London.

    4) An example of how cheeky the Unionist dominated civil service can be, the assumptions for Olympic and Commonwealth games expenditure show that bias still underlies these figures:

    “In PESA, the London Olympics is considered to benefit all UK residents and businesses
    equally, whilst the Commonwealth Games is only considered to be of benefit to Scotland only.”

    This is how Scotland was billed for the entire cost of the upcoming commonwealth games yet had to pay their per capita share of the Olympics. Worst of both worlds for Scotland! As I said, farcical.

    Personally I agree that Devomax will be a bad idea but not for the reasons you cite. Any further devolution is at the behest of Westminster and based on their track record which, from a historical perspective, has been both immoral amd amoral. I would not trust them to deliver it in a fair and timely manner and it would allow them to prevaricate and milk the Scots for another generation.

    Based on the figures above and the fact England, upon Scottish independence, will have the largest per capita debt in the world and the second worst balance of payments in the world, maybe you should pay more attention to highlighting problems within your own country. The more I read on this subject, the more I believe that Scotland is shackled to a corpse.

    • Antony says:

      A corpse? You may be right, at least if the predations of Scottish bankers are taken into account. Scottish nationalism began striking poses in the ‘fifties, when empire was being dismantled and you saw a bigger gravy train pulling into the sidings in the form of European Economic Community. Hurrah! Someone with even deeper pockets we can live off. Who needs the ‘bastard English’? The greater frustration for me is the sheer inability of my countrymen and women to acknowledge Scottish shamelessness as in any sense characteristic, or the necessity of a parasite to find a richer host once the pickings diminish. We owe no money though. The debt is the figment of bankers’ imaginations. Since a Scottish Jew named Pattison (I believe) led a delegation offering to finance William of Orange’s French wars in 1693 or thereabouts – cue the world’s first Central Bank, the ‘Bank of England’ – these vipers have had us by the short and curlies. What they got for ‘their’ money was an exclusive and unlimited right to issue currency – which they would of course lend back to government at interest, calling it ‘National Debt’. There’s more to it of course – a deeper story that lies in European financial operations shifted from Amsterdam to London, the English Civil War, the ‘Glorious Revolution’ (yeah, right) and the like, yet the shackles we wear were undoubtedly forged in Scotland, and we can say as much with certainty. The sooner you are gone the better for us all believe me.

  2. E Justice says:

    Well it is very easy to get free from a corpse “shackled”or not just vote out!! but then Salmond doesn’t quite want to leave the corpse does he ? A whiff of Devo max and the corpse doesn’t smell as bad.

  3. jamess says:

    Oh he does friend.

    But why waste a good opportunity to put the cat amongst the pigeons of the opposition, especially when he knows from the polls Devomax has overwhelming support. The arguments over that subject will inevitably reveal the differing opinions amongst the unionist parties who are in dire need of electoral support.

    What better way than for the opposition parties to openly discuss fiscal autonomy and reveal the true financial position of Scotland in the process while their big wigs at the same time tell the Scots they’re being denied the ability to express their own democracy.

    More and more unionists are now admitting Scotland would be fine on it’s own but………we’re stronger together yada yada. Exactly what Salmond wants to hear. Get the population comfortable with the finances, then have someone from a foreign land say “No!”. Then see what happens.

    “Briton of the year” Alex Salmond is no numpty. Until recently I was a staunch unionist. I admit it, but I know if I were still in that position I’d be keeching myself.


  4. William Gruff says:

    If the Jocks could take off their tartan tinted spectacles for just a short while they might see how to be a bigger people than they are or are likely to be. It’s more than a little amusing that those Jocks who have cited GERS to prove your ignorance, Robert, come back to prove the same by your use of GERS to confound them. It’s also more than a little amusing to see, yet again, a Jock asserting confidently that the Scotch will stagger drunkenly away from the ‘union’ unencumbered by any of the problems their incompetent politicians have created for England in the British parliament.

    Perhaps there’s something in the water up there, or their mothers’ milk, but whenever I read anything written by a Jock I can hear either the pompous tortured whine of the formerly English city of Edinburgh trying desperately to assume command of a situation all too clearly beyond its control or the grudging, guttural grunts of invariably drunken Glasgow, and nothing sensible.

    We tell them time and time again that we want rid of them yet they insist on playing their pointless ‘will we or won’t we, ye’ll be sorry if we do’ game. Perhaps that’s why the more loquacious of them come here and waste so much time and effort trying to show us up, to embarrass us, unaware that they can’t. We don’t care if what we write about them is true or not; it doesn’t matter. We want them gone, the border re-instated, visas required, and we don’t care how much richer they might be or how much poorer we. We’re confident that, having built the greatest empire the world has known, we can survive and prosper and we know that the surest way to ensure they leave is to fan the flames of Anglophobia that burn in the heart of every Jock, and that is not hard for an Englishman to do.

    So we say, loudly and with confidence, fuck off Jock and go your own way, and pay for yourselves, if you have balls, which we doubt.

    • JamesS says:

      Coward Gruff wrote: ” trying to show us up, to embarrass us “. You do a perfectly fine job of that all on your own little man. You need no help from us.

      Your assertion that it was “our empire” as in English demonstrates to anyone with half a clue about the subject that you are simply inadequate. I regret to have to admit we Scots had a very big part in that shameful period in our joint history. The rape of foreign countries and the insidious abuse of their peoples could only be celebrated by a intellectually challenged bigot like you. Not one of the countries that freed themselves from inept and parasitic Westminster control have asked to come back. Wonder why!!!

      If we choose to end our country there will be a few things no doubt we’ll all miss to some degree or other. Having to call racist cowards like you a fellow countryman will not be one of them.

      • William Gruff says:

        How typical of a Jock to resort to ‘shaming language’ and infantile abuse in his risibly witless efforts to take the intellectual and moral high ground, and how typical of the beast to claim for Scotland English achievements. The empire that came to be called British was in the process of formation a good century or more before the dreadful act that gave you parasites access to English assets and was considered English for some decades after, as you would know if you had half a clue about the subject. As I recall, the single Scotch attempt to form a colony, by stealing one from England’s ally of the time, Spain (much as your forefathers took advantage of English difficulties to steal what is now the southern part of your vile little country from us) came to nothing through Scotch greed and incompetence (nothing new there), although, as usual, you whingeing McBuggers have resented us for not stepping in and sorting out your mess, even though England and Scotland were far from being on the best of terms at the time, as you would know if you had even half a clue about the subject.

        Try again Jock, but try harder, and try to avoid that oh so Scotch effete disdain that merely makes you sound like a seedy Edinburgh schoolmaster trying vainly to maintain his rapidly evaporating authority over a class of jeering schoolboys or some mincing old pederast of a ‘minister’ of the CoS displeased by the sodomised wailing of his daily choirboy, although I suppose we should expect nothing more, nor nothing less, from a nation that thinks pleated skirts, lace blouses and velvet jackets a manly form of dress.

        I note that like some capricious old maid you cannot resist indulging your wee self in the habitual Scotch party game of ‘will we or won’t we’ over the fate of a union that we would end tomorrow if the British government was to give to us what it has given and is giving to you.

        Don’t worry about calling me a fellow countryman of yours; I have thought of you and your detestable ilk as foreigners for a very long time and will be more than happy were you to do likewise.

      • Antony says:

        Scots are vain, and driven by a need for praise, so they will often take the temperature of a room before deciding which side of an argument to be on. This is especially true of topics like western imperialism. My judgement of the English Empire (I do not recognize a ‘British’ identity) is necessarily qualified. Here I simply enjoy the way it tears at the Scottish soul to assign ‘blame’ for something they secretly admire and believe they should be praised for creating – all by themselves of course. I remember George Galloway boasting indignantly of how ‘Scots BUILT the empire!’ in front of a mostly white, mostly sympathetic TV audience. Mr Galloway is usually the first to condemn the exploitation of nations. Interestingly the English constituency for which he is (or was?) MP has the smallest number of English people of any London borough, in a city that is no longer really an English city. About the rape of England, in which Scots play a very prominent role, we hear very little.

        A Scottish mentality exists we owe it to ourselves to understand. It is very like the Irish. Both use the language of abuse, of martyrdom, to get what they want, and to distract attention from advantages it’s all ready brought them. Scots know they do well under present arrangements, but are too savvy to let you know they know it. More than this we must acknowledge Scottish vainglory. A Scotsman who is not the centre of attention cuts a sad figure, and will likely feel himself ill-used. Since he does not willingly hide his light under a bushel he is inclined by native dishonesty to whatever language, whatever legal recourse, he can find to excuse the envy and rancour that govern his chapped spirit. Fashionable references to human rights thus permit synthetic outrage, allowing him to denounce the ‘rape’ of foreign countries, which he does while condemning any deviation from a point of view he feels no actual sympathy for as ‘bigotry’ or – predictably – ‘racism’. You see even her he cannot tell the truth. Race and ethnicity are not the same, but professionally affronted scotchmen do not care about that. They use whatever weapon is to hand – like the airline pilot, teased by English colleagues about Scotland’s financial reliance on its southern neighbour, who enlisted the Human Rights Act to pursue a case through the courts.

        Best a Scotsman at anything and he will immediately cry ‘foul!’ or whine ‘fer tha’ po-lis’. This is a deluded, contemptible little country, its people the scum of the earth who consider themselves rightful rulers of it. We must be literally mad to let them run our affairs. I hope we learn to hate our enemies at some point. Hating enemies may just keep us alive. Scots are enemies.

    • Laugh@Racists says:

      What a Norman no friends, boorish Angerlish Oaf!!!! Put your white singlet back on and give your wife another slap, you uneducated foul mouthed buffoon… Sorry your wife probably left you years ago along with anyone who associated with your disgusting bombastic beliefs!!!

      All you have is to continue to go on with some nonsense and dribble about a silly Scottish central American colonisation attempt. However you fail to remember that every colony the English was involved in, also proved to be a failed venture with the local population kicking your sorry backside out due to your racist and condescending attitude towards everyone who was not white or without an English accent. Once the US stopped the bullying tactics of England after WWII it has been down hill all the way for ole blighty and its Empire. Sadly you will fade into history as an Empire akin to that of the Aztec, being the the author of your own demise and economically bankrupt.

      Woe be tide the Welsh if the Scots leave your rather bitter union, they will be the next target of your hate speak.

      • William Gruff says:

        I said try harder but you obviously can’t. Just another girly Scotch tirade. Don’t break your McNails dear.

        The Scotch will never vote for self-reliance. Yet again we get the ‘will we or won’t we, ye’ll be sorry if we do’ tease but the truth is we won’t and you won’t, and you know it. We’ll have to kick you buggers out ourselves, and our overwhelming majority at Westminster, even despite the disgracefully large number of Jock carpet baggers allowed to represent English seats, means that we can, whenever we wish.

      • Antony says:

        Is searching for a language sufficient to express your feelings leading you to abuse the one we have? ‘Hate speak’? The introduction of hate into jurisprudence is one of the most evil and insidious in legal history. Dimwits of every stripe characterize as hate arguments they simply disagree with. Even asking someone to be a bit clearer in what they’re saying isn’t without its risks. The kiddie society we now inhabit seeks to outlaw human emotion, to create thought crime, in which people are prosecuted for what they think rather than what they do.

        It’s quite a departure. Hate is involuntary. As such it is not a moral concern. Equally criticism is not ‘hate’. It is not ‘racism’ either. The Englishman and the scrote – I mean ‘scot’; were you aware that ‘scots’ is an anagram of ‘costs’ by the way? – are of the same genus. Read Orwell. His description of how elites play fast and loose with language is the best I can remember. It’s sad some rather desperate English nationalists dance to the puppet-masters’ tune by confusing ethnicity and race but confusion reigns where common standards go out of the window.

        Do grow up.

  5. JamesS says:

    The more I read William’s posts the more I am certain he has had a sad and pitiful life, such is the hate and projection that is there for all to see. A keyboard hero full of verbal violence is always the sad type that wouldn’t say boo to a goose face to face.

    With regard to the insults re our habit of adorning kilts, may I remind you that the most typically English dress I can think of is those men who like to dress up in victorian womens wear adorning bells and tapping their sticks together. I had to see it with my own eyes in my local village, a true English tradition that had me and several around me on the floor with laughter.

    William, with regard to your other comments: as I said, go and do some reading. Until then, you’re dismissed little man.


    p.s. sorry for reacting to this pimple of humanity, shall we get back on track re the subject in hand?

    • William Gruff says:

      There you go again, with the effete shaming language and the pathetic taunts, and the adolescent abuse. Really it won’t do: you must try much harder, and please do try not to use the Morris Dancing jibe (we know that you’re just envious of the superior skill and stamina of Morris Dancers over the sad and barely civilised efforts of that bizarre twirling yelping, skirt swirling, pinky cocking affair you Jocks call Heeland Dancing.

      As fun as it is making fun of you girls, an adult knows where to draw the line and so I must advise you that this thread is ended for me. You carry on getting back on track if you wish (what a howler), I’m done with this one.

  6. Pingback: The complete “Wages of Scottish independence” | England calling

  7. Pingback: All you could ever want to know about Scottish independence | England calling

  8. Fiona says:

    I lived In London for 15 years. I love England and English culture. You are, however, as George Orwell pointed out, a people of massive hypocrisy. Your Britishness was only ever skin deep and your continual reversion to bigotry against the minority people in these islands has damaged the Union more than the SNP ever has. What the world hates about the English isn’t the fact that they are more self seeking than other peoples, they aren’t, but the fact that they dress any self interest they have up in ‘fair play’. No country builds an empire up through fair play. Empires are built up through ruthless expansion and brutality. It would have helped Engand more if you had conquered Scotland more fully and expunged it completely. Our consequent refusal to die as a nation and to maintain our own identity and interests as long as you held on to yours is very irksome. but one that all you, as fairly rabid English nationalists, ought to understand. Europe is slowly but surely in ascendency and I have my own sadness that my own nation was not able to have it’s individual voice before we all merge into it. I will not really get any satisfaction out of hearing you all jumping up and down using all the justifications us Scots have against your own final extinction as a nation state. What a sad lot we are in these islands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s