McKee, Swinney, £400,000 & Greenfold Systems Limited

Ivan McKee is a "Director" of Business for Scotland. BfS is described as a "business network for pro-independence business people and professionals".  Business for Scotland produce highly biased "analysis" on a broad range of topics (not just business related). BfS are a key part of SNP's #YesScotland, and often share meetings with leading members of the SNP. For example, McKee and John Swinney recently ran a  meeting together in Dunfermline - I am sure Swinney was very grateful for McKee's support.

Other than his links with BfS, it is not clear what wee Ivan's business experience is. Wonder no more! It turns out that he is based in Morpeth (England) and is the Director of a company known as Greenfold Systems Limited which is registered in Leigh (England). Nothing wrong with that.

In February 2013 it was announced that the Scottish Government had given Greenfold Systems Limited a £400,000 RSA grant. Following this, the SNP's John Swinney visited their Dunfermline base on 1st of May 2013. Lovely. 

(Swinney & McKee are in the middle)

What is interesting is that it was around this time that Business for Scotland was registered (23rd of August 2012) and launched (14th of May 2013). Nothing wrong with that.

I am sure that this is all above board, but one has to wonder why McKee is so shy about his links with Greenfold Systems Limited? Perhaps it is simply because the other directors think we are #BetterTogether?

Nationalists Love Scotland More than Unionists.

Let's measure that love. 

Business for Scotland - Who are these people?

Hardly a week goes by without a major Scottish employer raising concerns about Scotland leaving the UK. These range from massive employers like Standard Life and the Weir Group, to smaller outfits like the Orion Group. Even CBI Scotland has raised concerns with MSPs. Support for the SNP case is less clear. We know that tax exile Jim McColl  and "devout capitalist" Brian Souter support the nationalist cause, but other than that support is thin on the ground.

To paper over this crack, SNP's #YesScotland have Business for Scotland. BfS is described as a "business network for pro-independence business people and professionals".  Business for Scotland produce highly biased "analysis" on a broad range of topics (not just business related). They also claim to have 1700 members. Out of the reported 1700 members, their website lists a modest 60 or so. Who are these people? What companies do they run? How many people do they employ? Lets take a look:

Oops, let's remove the unknowns:

I have listed the members at the bottom of this page. It appears that most are shy about the name of their company and/or its size - I am sure they are all genuine. Perhaps I should have heard of some of the others, but I have't. Inspection shows that many are very small - either sole traders or perhaps part-time efforts. This is not a bad thing, but it shows that Business for Scotland is no counterbalance to the detailed and independent judgements made by companies such as  Standard Life and the Weir Group, or even smaller outfits like the Orion Group. Remember this. 

What about the other 1640 members BfS claim to have? Without any information, we can only make assumptions. To avoid this uncertainty, I would like to challenge BfS to list all of their members, the name of their companies and their size. Why wouldn't they want to do that? 

Postscript: Since publishing this blog, Douglas Fraser has said "Business for Scotland says it's got more than 1700 individuals signed up as members, though it's a long way from having them all named on its website... 'yes' support is largely coming from smaller businesses, and typically ones that trade only in Scotland.".

List of BfS members (let me know if you spot an error)

• Richard Arkless runs LED Warehouse Ltd (established May 2013)  - number of employees not noted, but he has "over 13000 fans on Facebook".
• Tony Banks runs Balhousie Care Group which "employs over a 1000 staff" (not all full time). However, despite being a BfS director, Banks insists Balhousie Care Group is “neutral” in the independence debate.
• Bruce Alexander runs Xeroshield - it appears to employ him and one other person. 
• Ian Blackford - non-exec director of a number of companies, including Ricky Nicol’s Commsworld - number of employees not noted.
• Ken Cairnduff - no company name noted. 
• David Cairns - no company name noted. 
• Chris Chirnside - no company name noted.  
• John Cooke - no company name noted.  
• Adam Davidson runs a BoConcept franchise- number of employees not noted. He doesn't trust the BBC, but does trust all manner of nationalists bloggers. 
• Ron Dickinson - no company name noted. 
• Fraser Duff - no company name noted.  
• David Dwyer runs Inspire Web Development (Inspire IT Services) - number of employees not noted
• Eric Flannigan - no company name noted.
• Paul Fletcher - no company name noted. 
• Alex Grant - Retired from BMI.
• Rachel Homes is a lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University. She asserts that “to compete and flourish, Scotland’s financial services sector needs the fiscal powers that Luxembourg has in the taxation regime for investment funds".
• David Hood - no company name noted. 
• Martin Jack - no company name noted. 
• Joe Lafferty runs Lifetree - it appears to employ him and one other person. 
• Mark Lister - no company name noted. He feels "Thatcher purged inefficient industries, but didn’t tackle the causes or instigate alternatives. Neither has anyone else since her".
• Andy Lamb does not run his own company but works for ECCS Group. 
• Paula Livingstone - is the founder of Rustyice Solutions and Apogee Internet - number of employees not noted.
• Andy Lythgoe - no company name noted. 
• Helen MacDonough - no company name noted. 
• Ian McDougall is MD of McDougall Johnstone - number of employees not noted.
• David Macfarlane - no company name noted.
• Donald Maclean runs Business Cost Consultants (not listed with Companies House) - number of employees not noted.
• Dave McGrath is Managing Director at Richard Irvin Sustainable Energy Limited - number of employees not noted.
• Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp  - no company name noted (other than BfS).  Interestingly, Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is a failed SNP candidate. 
• Eric McLean runs McLean CC (not listed with Companies House) and e-Diligent Ltd (established May 2012) - number of employees not noted.
• Ivan McKee - no company name noted (other than BfS).
• Catherine McLean - self-employed.
• Sheila McLean - no company name noted. 
• Ken McNeil is the principal of McNeil Stevens Financial Planning (not listed with Companies House) - number of employees not noted.
• Les Meikle run Wise Property Care - number of employees not noted.
• David Morrison - no company name noted. "He knows the signs of a dying business and GB plc is certainly that." - strong case for currency union! 
• Brian Murray - no company name noted. 
• Jil Murphy is a partner ThinRedLine Design (not listed with Companies House) - number of employees not noted.
• Ricky Nicol runs Commsworld  - number of employees not noted.
• Douglas Norris - no company name noted. 
• Eunice Olumide - no company name noted, but she is a "global super model"!
• Jim Osborne is a retired insurance claim investigator.
• Jamie Rae - no company name noted.
• Andrew Richardson - no company name noted.
• Susan Robertson - no company name noted.
• Ben Rogers does not run a company, but is  is currently Digital Lead at GFI Software.
• Michelle Rodger runs Tartan Cat Communications (not listed with Companies House)  - number of employees not noted.
• Thomas Scott - no company name noted.
• Gary H Sutherland runs EmployEasily HR Services Limited and Business Hub Limited (not listed with Companies House - may be based in England) - number of employees not noted.
• Philip Stewart runs Kangaroo Print and Advertising (not listed with Companies House)  - number of employees not noted.
• Peter Syme - no company name noted.  
• Iain Taylor runs e-corporate which is a "virtual law firm" (listed with Companies House as a Dormant Company).  
• Michelle Thomson - no company name noted (other than BfS). 
• Malcolm Wadia is a Director of Plysim  - number of employees not noted. 
• Kenneth Wardrop - self-employed. 
• Sarah Jane Walls runs The Residence Glasgow and Transdynamic. "The Residence is Scotland’s first fully equipped Pilates facility offering Mr Pilates’ full range for the first time in Scotland at this level."- number of employees not noted.
• Gerry Wallace is Managing Director of GEM Lift Services Ltd - employs less than 10 people. 
• Charlie Watt - no company name noted. 
• Willie Wilson - no company name noted.
• Ekaterina Zelenkova - no company name noted. 

A No Vote is a Vote for the Status Quo

Erm, no. Even if #indyref did not happen, Scotland is guaranteed more powers in 2016 under the Scotland Act (2012). Before this Act, Holyrood controlled 70% of public spending in Scotland, but only 12% of taxation. The Scotland Act sees this significantly increased. To be clear, this is the "biggest transfer of financial powers from London to Scotland since the act of union in 1707". 

In addition to bringing in a new Scottish rate of income tax and borrowing powers worth, the Scotland Act (2012) provides powers over air guns, drink-driving and speed limits to Holyrood. It will also devolve stamp duty, land tax and landfill tax, and give the Scottish Parliament a role in appointments in broadcasting and the Crown Estate. Lastly, Holyrood will have the power to introduce new taxes. With these powers, Holyrood has the power to raise taxes to fund policies to, for example, reduce inequality. 

Where are the SNP's proposals to use these powers? They don't exist as they know that greater discussion of these powers will undermine its case for independence. They also know that talk of raising taxes to help the vulnerable will worry the regressive element in their core support.

So is this all we will get if we vote No. Absolutely not! Although there is a strong argument for fully implementing the Scotland Act (2012) before we consider more devolution, the public and political parties are keen to increase what is on offer. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories have all said more devolution is on offer: 

• Labour have pledged that Scotland will have more tax and welfare powers. Labour have designed this offering to "bolster, defend and energise" devolution. A summary of their "Red Paper" will be distributed to every household in Scotland. 
• Way back in April 2012 the Liberal Democrats were the first party to offer Scots more powers. Their "home rule" proposals will give us "control over most aspects of our domestic affairs but we will still enjoy the protection and strength that come from being part of the United Kingdom". They propose a federal UK with a distribution of powers among the nations, for joint action where that is necessary and effective, and for parliaments and assemblies across the United Kingdom to have substantial powers.
• Even the Tories have been clear that a "vote for No is not a vote for no change". They have pledged to increase Holyrood's tax raising powers - firm plans will be published before the end of May.

It is therefore very clear that a No vote is not a vote for the status quo. However, don't expect Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories to publish a tax payer funded White Paper like Salmond's "Argos Catalogue without Prices". Nonetheless, it is clear that the three #BetterTogether parties will make a core common offering to us which will deliver significant benefits without the risks involved with leaving the UK.

A Yes vote means saying goodbye to the Tories!

Now the first thing to remember is that quite a lot of people in Scotland vote Tory. It is like masturbation: a lot of people do it, but only a few admit to it! The image below shows that at the last General Election the Tories, the SNP & the Lib-Dems all had about the same vote share.

So why all the fuss about the Tories then? The answer is simple: the SNP need Labour voters on their side if they are to win #indyref.  It was not always like this. Indeed, in the 2007-11 parliament the SNP relied on Tory support to pass each of its budgets. This is because, there is a synergy between the "conservative" polices both SNP and the Tories aspire to. Ruth Davidson on SNP voters: "A significant proportion of them have voted Conservative in the past, the Tartan Tories that exist within the SNP as they call them". The key to Salmond's success has been his ability to dress up his regressive polices as something which benefit the working class. Some would call it dishonest. Lastly, never forget that Salmond has claimed Scots "didn't mind" Margaret Thatcher's notorious 1980s economic policies.

Indyref is not about the SNP.

We know that #YesScotland is dominated by the SNP in terms of staff and funding. No other party has given money to #YesScotland - in fact, they benefit from the extra exposure #YesScot gives them. On this very point, a former #YesScot executive went on the record and revealed that the: “organisation has become little more than an SNP front in recent months, which is ironic given the amount of effort that was put into fighting that perception in the early days.”

Nonetheless, this tweet from the SSP tells us that for #YesScotland, #indyref is about Salmond v Cameron, or perhaps SNP v the Tories.

It also shows us that the SSP have forgotten they are socialists. Take a look at the SNP policies SSP are keen to protect - none help the poorest Scots. For example, 

• The Council Tax Freeze has given the wealthiest Scots £2.5b and is funded by cutting services to the poorest in society. 

• No tuition fees has not helped the poor. 

Also, never forget that Salmond has claimed Scots "didn't mind" Margaret Thatcher's notorious 1980s economic policies.

Scotland is the 6th / 8th / 14th Richest Country in the World.

In September 2011 the SNP's John Swinney said "Scotland would be the 6th wealthiest country in the world" if it was independent.  Furthermore, the SNP's #YesScotland claims that "Scotland is the 8th richest country in the world". In March 2014 John Swinney said Scotland "ranks 14th in world league tables" in terms of wealth.  Spot the trend?

So what's all this based on? You guessed it, it was taxpayer funded analysis undertaken by the Scottish Government for the SNP/#YesScot Government. Although the method is not clear, it estimates Scotland's GDP and compares it to other nations. 

GDP (Gross domestic product) is the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a year. For most countries it is quite a crude but usable measure of the value of their economy. However, where a country earns a lot money overseas or where its industries are owned outside its borders, it does not tell us much. As Scotland's oil and whisky industries are substantially owned/licensed outside the country, GDP is less relevant. Indeed, independence will mean that about a quarter of all Scottish jobs and about a third of Scottish GDP (including North Sea GDP) will be in foreign hands. This point was made quite publicly by Alex Salmond's former economic advisor Prof John Kay who said it is a "mistake" for voters to think claims Scotland will be one of the world's wealthiest nations after independence would leave them with more cash and "Scots would make a mistake if they thought that calculation showed independence would make them better off.". 

The conclusion that Scotland's finances are not as SNP/#YesScotland like to pretend can't be a surprise.  SNP/#YesScotland Goverment's own data show that Scotland has a huge deficit -  £12.1 billion (including oil). That means we spend far more than we earn. Our deficit is 8.3% of GDP (and rising), whereas for the UK as a whole it is 7.3% of GDP (and falling). If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would need a plan to reduce the deficit to zero. To do this taxes could be increased or public spending could be cut... or perhaps both. That reality is rather different to the  SNP/#YesScotland pledge to cut taxes and improve services. 

Vote Yes to get rid of Trident

Wrong! If Scotland leaves the UK it would be the 2016 parliament that decides what could happen to Faslane and the 6000 Scots who work there. Although Trident is a hot topic within the SNP, there is no real evidence that Scots like/dislike it less than the rest of the UK. If the submarines were to leave, it could take decades and then the site would then have to be made safe at an "enormous" cost. But don't worry, anonymous sources within the SNP have said keeping "Trident on the Clyde will be price of keeping the pound".

At the same time as negotiating the removal of the submarines, the Scottish Government will be negotiating membership on the NATO and its policies of "Nuclear Sharing" and "Nuclear First Strike". Salmond's plan is that an independent Scotland would allow submarines and warships armed with nuclear weapons from the US, Britain and other Nato countries to dock in its ports. Indeed, he has also said he'd welcome the USA establishing bases in Scotland!

When all this is happing Scotland will be seeking a site to store its long-term nuclear waste (from power plants the SNP Gov have used beyond their design life - "sweating").
Clear?

University Education in Scotland is Free

In March 2011 Alex Salmond said "The rocks will melt with the sun" before the SNP allow tuition fees in Scotland.  Under this policy Scottish and EU students pay no fees, but English, Welsh, Northern Irish & non-EU students are charged. Fair enough. However, the question is how is this policy funded?

We know that around 85,000 college places have been cut by the SNP/#YesScotland government and that Audit Scotland say further cuts may be needed. This is counter-productive as Scotland's colleges are key to giving vulnerable people a second chance by getting them back into education. 

A second area which has been hard hit is the Student Grant paid to the very poorest Scottish students. The bar chart below shows how the nationalist government is short-changing the poorest Scots. Note that the poorest Scots get the lowest grant by far. Perhaps this explains why the abolition of tuition fees has not encouraged more Scottish children from poor families to go to university. Indeed, St Andrews University accepted just five students from most deprived areas in 2012.

The low Student Grant in Scotland means that those students from the poorest backgrounds have to take out large student loans just to live. The table below shows the typical debt for students who have used up all of their student loan entitlement. Note that although fees are not charged in Scotland, debt is still high. This data assumes that poor students elsewhere in the UK do not apply for the many university fee reduction scholarships available to poorer students (typically worth ~£5,000). 

It should also be noted that Graduates in England repay their loan once their income exceeds £21,000. In Scotland the threshold is just £16,910. This is really important as the loan expires (paid or not) after 30 years. It is possible to look at what Scottish and English students would repay over the 30 year period if they start work on a salary of £17,000 per year and receive an increment of 3% per year (not bad!). As the plot shows, the poorest Scottish students pay more than comparable English students until 2049(!) - by which time the debt has been written off.

So it appears that education in Scotland is only free with this SNP/#YesScotland policy if you can afford to pay for it. 

For a more detailed look at this paradox, please read this. 

Some thoughts on #BetterTogether's Scaremongering and Negativity.

We all know that #BetterTogether's #indyref argument comprises scaremongering and negativity. Right? Well, not really. Both SNP/#YesScotland and #BetterTogether have a positive message when it comes to arguing that voters should back them. However, they also use negativity when talking about their opponents. Sadly, this is how politics works.

What is different about #indyref is that SNP/#YesScotland have been allowed to answer reasonable arguments by simply accusing  their opponents of scaremongering. Although this makes life easy for them, it is lazy and does not inform the debate. Three examples: 

• When Duncan Smith said an independent Scotland would have to raise taxes or cut services to afford current welfare spending levels, Sturgeon could have explained how he was wrong,  but instead she accuses him of "blatant scaremongering".
• When  Angus Robertson is asked about the impact of independence on the defence jobs he could have explained how his defence plan would support jobs in Scotland, instead he simply says it's "a scare story".
• When Asda’s chief executive confirmed that being part of the UK keeps costs down, Salmond could have made a counter argument, but instead he accused Asda of "ridiculous scaremongering".

Scaremongering in its true form has no place in politics. Parties, employers, experts and the public have the right to ask questions without being shouted down by people who are trying to hide the truth.

So what about SNP/#YesScotland's scaremongering and negativity? Perhaps the most negative piece of baseless #indyref scaremongering came from Nicola Sturgeon when on 18th of October 2013 she claimed that Westminster would "turn the screw" on Scotland if we voted no. More recently Scots have seen a series of highly negative massages being published on-line and in print by SNP/#YesScotland. Three examples are below. 

Some thoughts on SNP / #YesScotland's latest flyer.

Some thoughts on SNP / #YesScotland's latest flyer.

Mistruth and assertion? Let's go through it point-by-point:

1. The UK is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. We have the fastest growing economy in the western world and will soon have the EU's largest economy.  

2. The FT report is superficial and now quite dated. The SNP Gov's own GERS report shows that our deficit (inc oil) is higher than rUK. We spend about £12.7bn more than we earn. 

3. That's not how democracy works. You don't always get who you vote for. I voted for neither Cameron nor Salmond.

4. Trident actually costs £170m per year and employs 6,500 people. There have also been persistent reports that the SNP may want us to keep Trident.

5. After the euro crisis, no rUK PM will be able to convince the public that a currency union with a foreign country with a huge banking sector is a good idea.

6. Everyone agrees on this. The question is when and on what terms. 

7. Not guaranteed.

8. We can do this right now - childcare is devolved. Nonetheless, Holyrood civil servants say Salmond's childcare plans are not funded. 

9. This is 100% correct, but Salmond will run the 2014-16 negotiations.

Oh dear, SNP/#YesScot have been caught fibbing again!

Oh dear, SNP/#YesScot have been caught fibbing again!

SNP/YesScotland published a Panelbase poll yesterday. Along with the results this was also tweeted:

Now anyone who bothered to go to school will spot that there are no data points on the plot, but there are wobbly trend lines. Let's look at the actual data:

Note that on the second plot #bettertogether have a 10 point lead, whereas on the first one this is reduced to 5%. Lets add the SNP/#YesScot trend lines in bold for fun:

No doubt this was a genuine error or perhaps the SNP/YesScotland  plot only refers to Panelbase data. After all, it tends to flatter them a little. This shows Panelbase only data with the SNP/#YesScot trend lines shown in bold.

So no matter how we look at it, SNP/#YesScot have been trying to fool the people of Scotland.

#indyref Myths

Myth #1 - Vote Yes to get rid of Trident 

Wrong! If Scotland leaves the UK it would be the 2016 parliament that decides what could happen to Faslane and the 6000 Scots who work there. Although Trident is a hot topic within the SNP, there is no real evidence that Scots like/dislike it less than the rest of the UK. If the submarines were to leave, it could take decades and then the site would then have to be made safe at an "enormous" cost. But don't worry, anonymous sources within the SNP have said keeping "Trident on the Clyde will be price of keeping the pound".

At the same time as negotiating the removal of the submarines, the Scottish Government will be negotiating membership on the NATO and its policy of "Nuclear Sharing" and "Nuclear First Strike". Salmond's plan is that an independent Scotland would allow submarines and warships armed with nuclear weapons from the US, Britain and other Nato countries to dock in its ports. Indeed, he has also said he'd welcome the USA establishing bases in Scotland.)

When all this is happing Scotland will be seeking a site to store its long-term nuclear waste (from power plants the SNP Gov have used beyond their design life - "sweating").
Clear? 

Myth #2 - Indyref is not about the SNP.

We know that #YesScotland is dominated by the SNP in terms of staff and funding. No other party has given money to #YesScotland - in fact, they benefit from the extra exposure #YesScot gives them.

Nonetheless, this tweet from the SSP shows us two things:

• For #YesScotland, #indyref is about Salmond v Cameron, or perhaps SNP v the Tories.
• SSP have forgotten they are socialists. Take a look at the SNP policies SSP are keen to protect - none help the poorest Scots. For example, the Council Tax Freeze has given the wealthiest Scots £2.5b and is funded by cutting services to the poorest in society.  

Myth #3 - A Yes vote mean saying goodbye to the Tories!

Now the first thing to remember is that quite a lot of people in Scotland vote Tory. It is like masturbation: a lot of people do it, but only a few admit to it! The image below shows that at the last General Election the Tories, the SNP & the Lib-Dems all had about the same vote share.

So why all the fuss about the Tories then? The answer is simple: the SNP need Labour voters on their side if they are to win #indyref.  It was not always like this. Indeed, in the 2007-11 parliament the SNP relied on Tory support to pass each of its budgets. This is because, there is a synergy between the "conservative" polices both SNP and the Tories aspire to. Ruth Davidson on SNP voters: "A significant proportion of them have voted Conservative in the past, the Tartan Tories that exist within the SNP as they call them". The key to Salmond's success has been is ability to dress up his regressive polices as something which benefit the working class. Some would call it dishonest.