Interview with Lewis Whyte, Resident of Dundee

P.T.:  Today we’ll be speaking with Lewis Whyte, resident of Dundee. Good afternoon, Mr. Whyte.

L.W.:  And to you!

P.T.:  Could you tell me a little bit about your background?

L.W.:  Well, I’m 16 years old and am currently in my last year of high school. I live in Dundee, and I’m both Scottish and British, but British first and Scottish second.

P.T.:  So would you be in "Bonnie Dundee" territory then? As in, the Jacobite leader who was killed at Killiecrankie?

L.W.:  Yes, "Bonnie Dundee" territory, lol! Although I have to say I'm not all that clued up on the Jacobites.

P.T.:  Aw, considering your geographical location, you should make it a point to broaden your knowledge on it!

L.W.:  Ha! I should get clued up on my old, old history at that!

P.T.:  So are you connected with any political party, and do you consider yourself “European” in addition to your other identities?

L.W.:  I’m not a member of any political party, but I do support the Labour Party. I just consider myself to be a British Scot, and have no opinion on the European Union mainly as I'm unsure of a lot of things about it.

P.T.:  Will you be voting in the upcoming Scottish Independence Referendum?

L.W.:  Yes, I will be voting in the referendum, and I will be voting No as I don’t see the point of independence.

P.T.:  What are your main reasons for voting No?

L.W.:  I'm voting No so Scottish shipyards will stay open and to keep Scotland defended properly. I don't want any future prospects that may ruin me and my fellow Scots through independence.

P.T.:  What does being British mean to you, and what would be lost if Scotland were no longer part of Britain, on an emotional level?

L.W.:  Being British to me means being part of something bigger and better than just an individual country on its own. Being British also means we can achieve more and tackle problems a lot better together than separated. I think what would be lost if we weren't part of Britain is taking pride in being British, especially in things such as the Olympics or when it was the queen’s diamond jubilee, where it was a great British feeling.

P.T.:  In general, do you think a general lack of patriotism has a lot to do with the way the referendum was able to be launched with any hope of success at all?

L.W.:  I suppose that a lack of patriotism could be to do with the referendum, but the real reason is due to the rise of nationalism even though it is dying out elsewhere. But as to restoring British pride, I am unsure of how to go about doing that.

P.T.:  What do you think that Alex Salmond and the other high-ranking SNP members hope to gain for themselves in this push for independence?

L.W.:  I think Salmond and the other thigh ranking SNP members hope to gain the reputation as the people who freed Scotland from so-called English rule.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on the contrasts in the way Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling are running their campaigns?

L.W.:  The Yes Campaign is more active than BT (better Together) which is a shame, but it is full of negatives. The yes voters constantly say it isn’t about Alex Salmond, and yet he is constantly seen leading on their behalf. Their campaign is another thing all together. As for Alistair Darling’s campaign, room for improvement, I would say.

P.T.:  What improvements would you suggest?

L.W.:  BT needs to get more active campaign wise, more people out on the streets canvassing, more people talking to the public to let them know the benefits of the UK. Sadly, I haven't seen BT at all where I live. If people got more motivated, that might get more people out there campaigning

P.T.:  What did you think of the recent debate between Salmond and Darling?

L.W.:  It was a complete shambles for Salmond's side; never doubted Darling for a minute on currency, the EU, healthcare and education and the like. Salmond was failing on each one, especially currency. I would say the nationalists are still licking their wounds after the TV debate, and the result has given us the perfect chance to promote the union and for people to become more vocal.

P.T.:  What do you think of Salmond giving 16 year olds such as yourself the right to take part in this referendum, even though you cannot vote in regular elections?

L.W.:  From the perspective of the Yes Camp, I think that it was a mistake for giving 16-17 year olds a vote. I believe most of them have not been take in by the yes/SNP lies, ifs, buts and maybes and have sided with Better Together. At the same time, the ability to participate in the referendum has encouraged more teenagers to take an interest in politics.

P.T.:  What do you think about the importance of history as portrayed by different camps, especially with regards to 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, etc? Do you think voters swayed by the nationalist perspective of history, such as portrayed in films like Braveheart?

L.W.:  In regards to Bannockburn, yes, it is important from a historical point of view, its part of Scottish legend and folklore, but it really shouldn’t be used as a case for independence from a political point of view as it has no relevance in this regard. False history in films such as Braveheart gives many people the wrong view of the past, but I think people are more likely to be swayed by the lies ifs, buts, and maybes that Salmond is promising than history, if I'm honest.

P.T.:  What level of influence do you think pop icons like R.K. Rowling and Sean Connery make when they take sides in the debate?

L.W.:  Hopefully celebrities won't sway many voters for either side, although they are allowed their opinions.

P.T.:  What would you say to an American audience, which, I'm sorry to say, is often under the assumption that the Scots are somehow oppressed by the English and yearning to "breath free", or otherwise connect American independence with Scottish independence?

L.W.:  I would say: "Don’t just look at what is being said to you, look into to it to see for yourself that Scotland is in no way oppressed by our English neighbors". For the so-called Scottish independence movement to be linked to America’s movement in the 18th century is just ridiculous. America was a colony then, while Scotland was a willing partner of the Union and British Empire.

P.T.:  What is a good example showing Scotland as a willing partner in the British Union/Empire historically?

L.W.:  Many to the British Empire’s ships were built in Scotland, mainly on the Clyde, so this shows we were quite willing.

P.T.:  What do you think about the issue of nuclear waste and "the rape of Scottish land" that some nationalists blame on Westminster and use as a reason to advance independence?

L.W.:  If there is nuclear waste, like at Dalgety Bay, then everything should be done to deal with it. But I don't see it as a need to separate from the United Kingdom. As for the so called "rape of the land", I would like to see some solid FACTS from the Yes side about the misuse of Scottish land.

P.T.:  What do you think might be the result if an independent Scotland is unable to use the pound?

L.W.:  I have no clue what the result would be, but I'm guessing it would be for the worst as we need a strong currency.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on “Scotland’s Oil” that is often advanced as a monetary security for a newly independent nation?

L.W.:  As for our oil, the yes voters claim that the largest oil field has been discovered off of Shetland. Now if this is even remotely true, they will be snookered as Shetland doesn't want anything to do with an Indy Scotland but would want to remain with the UK. Therefore Scotland would be short of oil.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on the monarchy, and what is your reaction to some Scottish Nationalists who claim current Scottish monarchy has been “illegitimate” since the time of the Stuarts?

L.W.:  We have always had a monarch. I have no problem with the monarchy, unlike most nationalists. I wouldn’t say our current monarch is illegitimate as the Queen of Scotland since she can trace her ancestors back to Robert the Bruce.

P.T.:  What do you think about security and the armed forces, and the future of Scotland without the British army?

L.W.:  The issue of defense is another one of the main reason I'm voting No! The SNP have no proper defense plans, other than we would have a £2.5 billion defense budget which is pathetically small and would be of no use to us. Salmond also maintains that The UK would give us defense assets, but I really can see this at all. In a word, The SNP plans are laughable.

P.T.:  What are your thoughts on Yes supporters insisting that Scotland would be more of a force in the world “going in alone”?

L.W.:  I think it is complete nonsense to say we will not be better off in the union. I have not seen any convincing evidence that we would be stronger, but only the nationalist victim card.

P.T.:  What do you think about the way that the referendum question is phrased, putting “Yes” for independence and “No” for the Union?

L.W.:  I think the question is fine, straightforward and to the point: yes for "independence" and no for unity.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion on David Cameron and his encouraging English people to call their Scottish friends and relatives to urge them to stay in the Union?

L.W.:  I think David Cameron is right to rally support from the rest of The UK. After all, it is a United Kingdom versus a separate Scotland, so it’s only right that The UK as a whole speaks up. I think many throughout this country would be saddened by the loss of the union, as it has worked so well for the past 300+ years.

P.T.:  What was the latest public opinion poll ratio with regards to pro-union and pro-independence factions, and when all is said and done, which side do you think will be the victor?

L.W.:  I think the last poll was Yes 37% and No 55%, if I remember correctly, but apparently the No lead has stalled according the STV and that may allow the yes side to gain ground. I never read the article just seen the headline, but I don't see any reason for our side to have stalled. I have a feeling it may be a close race, but I hope it won't be too close. It’s a bit nerve racking, but I have full confidence we will win. Scotland will not be stupid enough to vote for separation.

P.T.:  "Keep calm and vote no", what?

L.W.:  Ha-ha, yeh, lol!

P.T.:  What will you be doing as the referendum heats up?

L.W.:  As the referendum heats up in the next few weeks, I will be trying to get my friends to vote and will continue to debate with the nationalists online.


P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you talk a little about your personal plans for the future, interests, hobbies, and goals in life? What type of career might you be aiming for?

L.W.:  Personal plans for the future are hopefully to go to university and take politics and geography, then try and seek a career in politics and have a family. I don't have many hobbies, but I like to go out with friends, play video games, and build models. And that's all, really!

P.T.:  Thank you for doing this interview with me, Mr. Whyte. I know crack-down time is approaching soon for this referendum, and the fact that people like you are still active is of great comfort.

L.W.:  Thanks very much.

  

Interview with Alan Jack, Resident of the Stirling Area

Pearl of Tyburn: Today we will be speaking with Alan Jack, a resident of the Stirling Area and online Unionist activist. Good afternoon, Mr. Jack.

Alan Jack:  And to you.

P.T.:  First off, could you tell me a little about yourself, your background, and your political involvement with Unionism?

A.J.:  My parents both came from mining families originally from this area. This place is where I have always considered my "roots" to lie, even though I was born in a military hospital in Aldershot in England.

My father left his small mining village in Scotland when he became a soldier. He went into the army with conscription and decided to stay a while. When he left the military, he then moved to Corby with lots of others for the Iron and Steel industry. However, after about a year with various strikes in between, he re-enlisted and we were back on the move again.

I enlisted while he was still serving and joined as a boy soldier at 16 and did 24 years finally leaving on my 40th birthday. I have returned to live in the Central Belt of Scotland and to Stirling in particular. I now work as a postman and am totally against the idea that Scotland would somehow be a better place outside the Union.

P.T.:  How did you get actively involved in unionism?

A.J.:  Through Facebook and pages such as Vote No to Independence and Protect the Union. Having become involved in various debates on certain pages, I kind of got more and more involved as I tried to explain to people why I thought it was a bad idea to aim for independence from the Union. It is splitting families and friends apart.

 My own Father is an ardent Nationalist and the SNP is strong in my extended family. My father and I simply argue with each other now each time we meet. I have written a couple of pieces which have been published under the "Calgicus" blog spot trying to explain why it is a bad idea.

P.T.:  Are you a part of any political party?

A.J.:  I am not a member of any political party, although I am a member of the Communication Workers Union through my work, but I have always voted Conservative all my life.

P.T.:  As a member of the CWU, one would think you would lean towards the Labour Party. What drew you to the Conservatives?

 A.J.:  I am a member of the CWU because I believe that workers need an organisation which is able to stand up for them in the workplace. You would think that with a historical family back ground based in the coal mining industry and as a member of one of the most militant Union organisations left in the UK my political leanings would be towards the Left. I do to a large extent support the general aims of a political system which supports those less able than others to get by. As the saying goes "There by the Grace of God go I".

I am in favour of such a system which is there to provide a safety net. Having said that, I have always voted Conservative. This no doubt stems from my time in the military where the Conservative Party were the party which kept our military strong and made sure it was adequately funded for the most part. I believe in those who are prepared to risk their own capital starting up businesses and trying to make a success of themselves. If they are successful and make money, the country also makes money through the taxation raised on their efforts. Everyone benefits.

I also support the fact that if they are hugely successful they are therefore entitled to reap the benefits of their efforts and amass huge wealth for their personal and family gain. That is the purpose of life, to make it easier for your progeny to succeed after you, through your personal previous efforts to survive in life, we all want a better life for our children, that is why some strive to succeed to make it easier for their successors is it not.

I do not subscribe to the idea that those who have huge wealth or earn large pay packets should have it taken away from them based purely on the "it is obscene that some have far more than others creating huge inequality" line. They worked for it, they are entitled to it. But to come back to my "safety net", the success of those who have created a money earner is then spread through the nation in public expenditure via the government taxation on it.

P.T.:  As a Scottish Tory, how would you respond to the anti-Tory scare tactics used in the SNP?

A.J.:  The SNP and the Yes brigade currently like to use the line "There are more Pandas in Scotland than Conservative MPs at the moment". They encourage the untruth that there are no Conservatives in Scotland. This is a fabrication. You only have to look at the total numbers of individuals who vote for each party at each election to see the actual breakdown of support for each party in Scotland.

The fact that we now have four main political parties in Scotland and operate a First Past the Post system means that the party in power may only have the electoral support of just over 25% of the cast votes. The line about "Governments we did not vote for" is laughable when 26% of the population voting for one party can take the day when the other 74% of the votes cast are divided and spread across the other party's. Clearly the majority do not in this circumstance vote for the winning party. However, we live in a democracy and I would have it no other way.

P.T.:  Personally, what are five of your main reasons for supporting the union?

A.J.:  1. The fact that staying in the Union allows the part of it where I live (Scotland) to retain the Currency Union we currently have.

2. The fact that the current Free Travel Area the Union operates within the UK without the need to have border controls etc between Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, (The Republic also) and the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands.

3. The fact that 60+ million people contributing overall to an economy is far better than just 5 million can contribute and short term shocks due to one part of the economy being affected are less so due to the larger scope of the UK as a whole.

4. The fact that I do not like the idea of different rates of benefits being applicable within the UK for example the planned higher rate on the Scottish Old Age Pension, I foresee huge problems as "pensioners" decide to emigrate to Scotland in later years which would place a bigger burden on a Scottish Treasury.

5. Allied to the previous reason, the potential for "free higher education at university" coming back to "bite" Scotland is enormous in my view as the courts would certainly rule it illegal to bar students from the rUK if students from across the EU could study for free.

P.T.:  With regards to The Free Travel Area, if The ROI is part of this zone even though she is outside the UK, why wouldn't an independent Scotland?

A.J.:  Regarding the current FTA operated between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, it works because we have very similar immigration controls across our two nations. An independent Scotland under the SNP have consistently stated that our population base is far too small as an independent nation coupled with our growing pensioner base which needs a far larger working age group to generate the tax revenue benefits this group requires.

The result is a plan to open up our borders and encourage inward migration to boost our population by up to an extra million workers to provide the work force which will generate that tax revenue and boost our economy. An open border between an independent Scotland and the rUK would potentially see massive immigration into Scotland which then disappears across that open border into the rUK. This is why an FTA will not work.

P.T.:  What is your opinion of the University system/student help within the UK now? Are there any ways you would improve upon it?

A.J.:  I did not go to University myself; instead I went to an Army Apprentice College to learn an Artisan Trade in the military. I believe education and schooling is key towards "knowledge is power". I support the ideal of everyone having free access to that education. Of course the education itself is never free is it? Someone has to pay for it and here in the UK that has been via the public purse for a very long time.

A population which is educated goes further than one which is not. The compulsory education of everyone to a certain standard is for the benefit of not only the individual but the entire country at the end of the day. Extra levels of education which are provided by the State and make an individual more employable or demand a higher wage packet should therefore be repaid back to the State via those wages in the taxation placed upon them commensurate with the level of education provided by the State.

P.T.:  Having been a member of the armed forces, did that affect your perspective on the union?

A.J.:  The Armed Forces of the UK certainly have influenced me in seeing the bigger picture that a United Kingdom is better than an independent Scotland could ever be. I believe the same is true for the majority of ex service personnel but not all ex service personnel feel the same way, my father for one.

P.T.:  Does having been born in England with roots in Scotland make you feel more "British" as well? Also, what national/cultural/religious identities are the strongest for you, if any?

A.J.:  I definitely feel more British than Scottish because my entire life has been one of constantly moving every two to three years until my fortieth birthday when I left the forces. My father was always playing Pipes and Drums music where ever we lived when I was a child so I always had "Scotland the Brave" fixed in my head growing up. But I also had a mind of my own and was inquisitive enough to research stuff and read up on stuff as the years went by. I discovered from an early age that Scotland was far from a hard done by place as the nationalists would have me believe.

To be honest with you, my Father is a racist bigot who although he does not believe in God, is prejudiced against those who do not share the same faith he does (which is stupid in the extreme as he is a non believer). I also do not believe in God but do not think it is a reason to think less of those who are not the same faith as I am supposed to be (Protestant). My first wife was Catholic and both our parents only found out when we got married that we were from opposite sides of the tracks so to speak. No one spoke to each other for ages because of it, stupidity because of a perceived difference in our religious back grounds.

P.T.:  That's truly unfortunate. I think it is much more of a cultural as opposed to religious prejudice. I am Catholic myself, so am very interested in religious/cultural divides in British history. Had you ever believed in God?

A.J.:  No, never believed in God, but as a member of the RBLS I obviously have to attend a lot of services in churches all the time especially for Remembrance Day etc.

P.T.:  What do you feel it means to be Scottish, in comparison, contrast, and union with being British?

A.J.:  What does it mean to me about being Scottish? I was born in England to Scottish parents. My life was spent constantly moving from one location to another for the first forty years of my existence. Being Scottish to me is "where my parents grew up as children". It is nothing to do with where I grew up, because that was all over the place.

I wonder how my eldest son feels about his nationality. After all, he also was born in England in a military hospital. His early years were spent in Germany and when my first marriage broke up, he returned to Scotland briefly before see-sawing backwards and forwards across the border for a number of years with his mother. He now lives in England and I wonder how he regards himself? Scottish or English? I simply prefer to think of myself as British currently living in Scotland.

P.T.:   What do you think the rationale is of for most nationalists seeking independence, including your father?

A.J.:  I believe most nationalists simply believe the line about being richer because of the oil and the fact that Scotland is not some super rich oil state bugs the living daylights out of them. They forget that because the oil wealth was spent as it was earned, our personal taxation levels were kept lower than they would have been. The benefits paid out in pensions and unemployment etc were higher than if the oil money was not there and the amounts of money borrowed were not as high as they could have been.

Having said that, they totally ignore the fact that the Barnett Formula gives Scotland more public expenditure spending per head than elsewhere which is money which would have to be borrowed in an independent Scotland just to maintain current spending levels. They believe things like not spending money on Trident will cover this extra expenditure while ignoring the fact that the cost of Trident is already included in Scotland's share of the Defence Budget and if for example it joined NATO, its Defence Budget would still be as large if not larger due to the percentage of GDP each member is required to contribute.

My father's reasons for independence are the same as a lot of others. The perception that Scotland has been robbed of its oil wealth and that it would have been rich beyond believe if we had been independent. Trying to explain that it was the UK which paid for the oil to be found and exploited in the first place is lost on him. Trying to explain that if Scotland HAD been independent before the oil had been found would probably have meant that it would not have been able to afford the cost of exploiting it in the first place.

Trying to explain that if the oil revenues had been saved in an oil fund meant that it would not have been available to spend therefore just to have what we had would have meant higher taxation all around. A circular argument in which no matter what I say, it is wrong and he is always right, even when he cannot have it both ways, he always wants it.

P.T.:  What’s your opinion of Alex Salmond and the way he is running the YES campaign as compared to Alasdair Darling and the NO campaign?

A.J.:  I have met Alex Salmond a couple of times, at functions such as the Poppy Scotland Appeal and when Stirling awarded the status of Freeman of the City on Lt Col Frank Saunders who was the President of the Forth Valley Royal Engineers Association of which I am also a member. What do I think of him? I think he is a chancer.

I am aware of his untruths for which he has strangely been cleared, such as the claim he had legal advice about Scotland's position regarding membership to the EU which he made on TV to Andrew Neil, a claim which Nicola Sturgeon had to stand up in Holyrood and state the Scottish Government was now going to submit, after the SNP spent public money through the courts trying to hide the fact the advice did not exist, Freedom of Information requests which were constantly refused, and yet when Alex Salmond referred himself to a committee to investigate this matter, it strangely cleared him.

I think Alex Salmond simply wants to get himself in the history books as the man who "freed Scotland" even if we do not think we need freeing. Alastair Darling, on the other hand, should be doing more in my opinion. He does not appear on the TV as much countering the SNP line. I would like to see him do more.

P.T.:  What do you think are Alex Salmond's weak spots, if his untruths are defended or brushed over?

A.J.:  Alex Salmond's weak spot is his simple desire to break Scotland out of the Union. This is to be achieved regardless of the damage it could cause to the country. I say "could" because we all know that Scotland has the means to go it alone. The salient point however, is would we be better off if we did so? I do not believe so and therefore see no reason to leave the Union. I do not look at this United Kingdom and see one section being looked down upon by other parts. Only the separatists think like this.

The same argument which has the SNP claiming Scotland is not adequately represented in Westminster can be used to claim that those parts which have elected a Labour, Conservative or LibDem representative have not got the government those areas voted for. The obsession with the SNP to leave the Union ignores the extra costs which will be incurred setting up a new country. It will not exactly be from scratch because a lot of the infrastructure already exists. But a lot will have to be created to cover that which will no longer be available to us which we already have inside the Union.

For example, the current Social Protection Budget swallows approximately £22 Billion pounds annually in Scotland. The systems which are required to continue delivering that money to people already exist in Scotland because the Scottish Parliament are already responsible for the delivery of around £5 Billion pounds worth annually. However, £17 Billion pounds is delivered directly by Westminster. Just to take care of that is going to need a massive upgrade in current IT systems alone to take care of the administration. Recently we have had reports that the start up costs would be in the region of £200 million for the entire country. I remember that the new Parliament building we call Hollyrood cost more than that. So you see I along with a lot of other people wonder at these start up costs for an entire country when a single building to house our politicians cost more.

P.T.:  If you could give advice to the unionists as to how they should run this campaign in the final months, what would it be?

A.J.:  Interesting! To be perfectly frank, I would begin to hammer home some hard truths. Such as telling the people of Scotland that things such as the banks which are majority owned by the tax payers south of the border WILL move. No nice prettying it up, but a simple statement, leave the Union and the banks HQs leave Scotland. The SNP have been trotting out various messages to make it look as if nothing much will change.

I know this will not go down well with a lot of people but I would start with the hard ball stuff to let people know without a doubt that if Scotland leaves then do not expect the rUK to be Mr. Nice Guy after the event. The rUK will have its own population to look after, if Scotland is no longer a part of that equation, Scotland should not expect the rUK to act nicely any more towards it. It may seem strange, but being "nice" about it (independence) may not be the best approach. I believe the people need to know for certain what they are in danger of losing with no sugar coating.

P.T.:  What are some of the main economic facts that you think the No campaign should hammer home? 

A.J.:  Taking a hardline stance is the only way forward in my opinion. I know it sounds "negative" but unless people have it spelled out for them they are in danger of believing nothing much will change. Far too many individuals appear to believe we will still be best friends forever if independence happens. I listened to John Swinney on the BBC News last night re-iterating the line that a Currency Union would happen because it would be in both countries’ interests. How many times do the SNP have to be told that their will be No Currency Union if the vote is Yes. I hear all the time that this would be tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face. The simplest answer to this is "So what?"

If this is true and the rUK refused to enter a currency union with an independent Scotland and made themselves worst off as a result how on earth does Scotland stop them doing it? It cannot! Scotland simply cannot force the rUK to enter a currency union with it if the rUK does not wish to do so. If it is pointless trying to explain to the people of Scotland that we are Better Together, then why is it so hard to believe that it is pointless to believe in return the rUK would enter a Currency Union. Those who make off the cuff remarks about things like the Balance of Payments where imports and exports are concerned totally ignore the basic fact that along with the missing GDP from Scotland on the UKs export balance sheet, the UK will also be missing all those imports which have to be paid for which are destined for Scotland.

P.T.:  Could you please elaborate about the issue of trade for Scotland?

A.J.:  The current internal trade between Scotland and the rUK becomes international trade between our countries. In the bigger picture things like all the Whisky Scotland would export to the rUK will clearly earn money for a Scottish Treasury in exports. But remember, most of the grain used to distill that whisky is imported from England. The huge amount of whisky Scotland exports has long been seen as a sore point by some due to all the "lost revenue" Scotland should be enjoying from it. This is stupidity in the extreme because I always remind people that with independence Scotland will still sell the exact same amount of whisky to England as it currently does. What will change is the alcohol duty (VAT) placed on each and every bottle sold in England stays in England and is only available for public expenditure in England.

After all, if the USA places taxation on an imported bottle of whisky it is the American authorities which collect that taxation for public expenditure, it is not forwarded back to the country of manufacture is it? I have lost count of the number of times I have had this discussion with people who believe that the tax placed on a bottle of whisky by the government of Westminster should be counted as Scottish tax revenue even if it is sold in England or Wales or Northern Ireland. Using a country outside the UK to try and explain why Scotland would not benefit with independence usually brings forth rubbish such as "Export Duty" which simply does not exist but is firmly embedded in some peoples minds. Import Duty yes, Export Duty No, where on earth is there a government which makes its exports more expensive to buy?

P.T.:  What about banking in the UK/Scotland?

A.J.:  The financial sector in Scotland is another case in point. Certain banks were bailed out by the public purse and are therefore majority owned by the population south of the border. Who would leave such institutions north of the border to enrich another nation's Treasury? Clear cut messages about what would be lost. University funding for research purposes is another area where the UK government can simply state that in the future all this money will only go to Universities in the rUK immaterial of where the current locations leading certain research are located. It is too easy for the individuals conducting that research to pack up and move if they want their funding to continue in a specialised field.

The pound in our pockets is similar, no one can stop an independent Scotland using the Pound Sterling as its common currency but without a currency union (which we enjoy now), the economic needs of a foreign nation mean nothing to the country controlling the currency do they? Does the USA consider Panama's needs when setting interest rates considering Panama also uses the American Dollar? I think not. Those who say the rUK will be destined to crumble without the contribution of the Scottish economy towards the value of the Pound Sterling forget that if Scotland informally uses that currency and it fails, then by default Scotland's economy which would also be using the same currency also fails.

P.T.:  Can you tell us something about the situation with military ship building in Scotland?

A.J.:  Military ship building has been almost exhausted to death with the claims from the SNP that the Clyde is the best place to build our warships. Facts such as the UK has never commissioned or built a warship outside its borders should be hammered home. Again, it is too easy for those with the skills to pack up and move to where the ships will be built in future is it not? It is also the case that in such a situation where we would be two separate nations, the rUK would be looking to provide employment opportunity's to its own workforce based in its own geographical area and where the wages paid would be subject to income tax which flows back to its own Treasury is it not?

What makes the SNP believe that somehow Scotland has the right to build another nation’s warships? They may as well make the claim that in future all of the warships France or Germany or the USA need, will be built in Scotland, and that is simply not going to happen is it? Besides it only takes a simple line in a tender contract which states "any company bidding for the work MUST construct the vessel in the rUK" and with that line, Scotland is excluded from the work.

Remaining in the Union has advantages. But let’s be clear here, with war ship building for example, Scotland remains in the bidding process but it does NOT confer an automatic right to secure the work. There are other ship yards in the UK which will also be trying to obtain that work.

P.T.:  In the course of this ongoing political race, have some of the past fluctuations in the poles concerned you at all? And at this point who do predict will win? Also, in the event of a close decision in favor of NO, do you think the SNP will try to launch another referendum in a few years?

A.J.:  The polls are pretty constantly in favour of a No Vote. I also believe No will win, but I want it to be by a large majority to put it to bed for good. If the margin is small, I believe the SNP may try again in a few years and it will be like the Canadian Quebec scenario which was only recently finally put to bed after what 30 years when they were finally told the hard facts, this is why I believe the same hard ball tactics should be used regardless of the shouts of "scaremongering" which will inevitably go up, they should be countered with "no this is a fact".

P.T.:  You said you feel predominately British. What does Britishness mean to you, and what do you think it means to the world?

A.J.:  Being British is a sense of fair play and helping each other. Clearly it is a good thing because so many people who live else where in the world want to come to Britain and be British themselves.

P.T.:  Could you elaborate what you mean by “a sense of fair play and helping each other”? Could you elaborate on that? And what do you think Scottish people would lose in the way of identity by no longer being British?

A.J.:  The UK is like a large business, some parts do well while other parts may face a down turn.  In a large business this is immaterial because it is the performance of the group as a whole which matters.  A well performing sector makes up for the shortfalls in other sectors.  That kind of thing.  The loss is easy.  Three hundred years of shared history.  Some will no doubt continue to remember what was achieved as a Union.  The separatists are only concerned about what they perceive as injustices. 

The truth is that from the point of independence if it happens, there will be no more shared identity.  It will be a case of "Us and Them" from that point on wards.  After all the people of Northern Ireland are still British citizens, the people in the Republic are not.  Americans are our closest allies but they are not members of the Commonwealth.  There will be divisions which will creep in.  Canadians are members of the Commonwealth but the Quebec question and the fact they speak French is another division for example.  No matter how it is looked at, people will find a way to differentiate between those who are British citizens those who are commonwealth and those who are our friends etc, they will be sub consciously placed into certain groups whether we like it or not.

P.T.:  Do you think that, for average people, these distinctions would matter one way or another? What do you think is the benefit of being a part of “a big business”?

A.J.:  Well to me as an "average person" I would like to be part of a "business" which is large enough to be able to weather any down turns in a particular part of the Union.  Those aiming to split the "business" (i.e. our Union) do not appear to be bothered that a smaller business is more likely to face a larger shock if the area of the former business which experiences a down turn is the part which has split.  To me, this instantly equates to the business facing the prospect of bankruptcy or a very long period of debt while borrowing to carry the business through the lean period.  Either that or we all carry on working for no wages.

P.T.:  What will you be doing in these last few months before the referendum, and what do you see for the future of the UK?

A.J.:  In these last few months I shall be continuing the fight across the internet because I believe the referendum needs to be won by a massive majority, which ever way it goes, to put it to bed for good. I do not want to be here fighting this fight in twenty years time again. I see the UK continuing to be a power to be reckoned with in the world. That is not just a measure of our military but the inventiveness of the individuals who live on our islands to come up with world class inventions to bestow upon the rest of humanity.

P.T.:  What do you see for your personal future? Also, what are some of your hobbies, interests, goals in life?

A.J.:  I personally will remain in Scotland, regardless of the outcome. I spent 40 years travelling the world, and I am not intending to make one more journey now I have finally put roots down. I hope to retire within the next 15 years and with enough of my health still available to me to enjoy a bit of relaxation in those later years. My hobbies at the moment consist of some DIY on my house and I enjoy pottering around in my garden. I also am a member of The RBLS and take part in ceremonial functions. I suppose my ultimate goal in life at the moment is to simply retire to an easy life in a United Kingdom.

P.T.:  What exactly is the RBLS, and what type of ceremonies do you take part in?

A.J.:  The RBLS is The Royal British Legion Scotland. It is a membership organisation for ex Servicemen in Scotland. Lots of various military organisations have their own individual Regimental or Corps Associations which can be joined on discharge from the Forces. These organisations exist to provide a sense of comradeship in civilian life which only those who have served will understand. Not all branches of the military are well represented across the entire country though. For example in Stirling the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruited for the Infantry. There are lots of ex A&SH living in the local area. They have their own Association in Stirling. I spent most of my military career in the Corps of Royal Engineers.

I am a member of the Royal Engineers Association which meets regularly throughout the year in the local area. Some branches of the military are not represented strongly enough to form a separate organisation in the local area. The Legion is a Tri Service organisation which takes everybody in. We provide that comradeship to all those without its own local organisation. The Legion are the "custodians" of the Annual Remembrance Day commemorations which take place all over the United Kingdom on Remembrance Sunday where homage is paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in the service of their country to keep it free. The current perception of the Legion nowadays however is "those old age pensioners who come out of the woodwork once a year with the Poppies to collect for charity". We are seen as an old mans organisation and are slowly dying a death I am afraid. The new kids on the block "Help for Heroes" now have the public eye.

However, it is still the Legion who parade under a Standard which carries a Union Flag in its top right corner, which marches from the local church to the local war memorial and which places a Poppy Wreath in remembrance to the Fallen to the words of Laurence Binyon: "They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning/We will remember them".

P.T.:  I just noticed on your FB Page that you took part in ceremonies for “Armed Forces Day.” Could you explain a little about that?

A.J.:  A few years ago in the UK a move to also honour the servicing military was introduced. This was to provide the civilian population with a means to say thank you to those still serving and not just those who died. An annual event was organised to be enjoyed up and down the entire country. Local communities would organise individual parades and events on a scale to suit each locality. For some this may have been nothing more than raising the Armed Forces Day Flag in a Flag Raising ceremony for others such as Stirling a large parade and military show was organised by the local council with a days worth of entertainment laid on.

One location would be selected by the Ministry of Defence to be the focus for the whole nation. This year, Stirling was selected. The official date for Armed Forces Day is the 28th June each year, this is the day allocated on calendars. For convenience, the actual parade is moved to the closest Saturday. Around the country, individual parades take place either weeks before or weeks afterwards. You cannot have veterans taking part in a local parade and also travelling to the National event at the same time can you? Stirling has held its parade on the Saturday before the National event for some time. This allows the Standards to attend the Stirling event and then travel to the National event the following week.

This year the 28th June actually fell on a Saturday, and with Stirling being selected for the National event we were not going to hold the event a week early were we? The separatists did not like this because they planned to commemorate the Battle of Bannockburn on the same day. I believe it is important to remember though that National Armed Forces Day is allocated to the 28th June each year. The Battle of Bannockburn took place over the 23rd and 24th June in 1314. The closest weekend to those dates this year was the weekend of the 21st and 22nd. They claim Stirling was selected for National AFD to disrupt their event.

I would counter that if Stirling had not been selected and instead had held its normal small scale AFD parade on the Saturday before as normally happens which this year would have been Saturday 21st June, we would be still facing accusations of holding a United Kingdom event at the same time as an important date in Scottish history. Remember also that AFD is a single date, the Bannockburn event was originally planned for three days and was then cut to two days. At the end of the day, the economy of Stirling benefited from the massive influx of individuals who came here to take part in one or the other or even both.

I do not know if you have seen any of the AFD events from Stirling at the weekend, so here is a little video clip to give you a flavour of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITCnuDfFck

P.T.:  Wow! That’s really fascinating. Thank you so much for sharing the link, and for helping me with this interviewing project!

A.J.:  You’re Welcome.

Interview with “Bonnie Lass”, Resident of the Edinburgh Area

Pearl of Tyburn:  This evening we have with us “Bonnie Lass” from the Edinburgh area of Scotland. Thanks so much for taking the time out to do this.

Bonnie Lass:  My pleasure!

P.T.:  First, could you give me a brief overview of your background and what national/cultural/religious identities you might see yourself as having?

B.L.:  I was born in Scotland and have lived in Scotland all my life. I think of myself as Scottish and not British - if I'm filling up forms, for instance, and am asked for nationality, I always put Scottish. I'm a member of the Church of Scotland, but prefer to call myself a Christian.

P.T.:  Do you belong to any particular political party?

B.L.:  I am not a member of any political party, but I have voted Labour for many years now (including today at the European elections).

P.T.:  What was your first impression when the Scottish Independence Referendum was announced?

B.L.:  I wasn't entirely surprised, as I thought it had been on the cards for a while. But when it was announced, I realised this would be a big step, whichever way it went.

P.T.:  As a person who sees herself as primarily Scottish as opposed to British, how will you vote in the referendum come September, and what are your reasons? 

B.L.: Well, although I think of myself as Scottish in all things, I will NOT be voting for independence when the time comes.

It seems to me that the UK is a small enough country as it is without being fragmented further. And there are SO MANY imponderables when it comes to independence. Do we get to keep the pound sterling? What about EU membership, and maybe even the need for passports to cross the border into England?

P.T.: What do you think the result will be now that an independent Scotland may be unable to keep the pound? Also, what’s your opinion on Scotland’s overall financial well-being should she become independent?

B.L.:  Many big companies are talking about relocating in England if we became independent because we may no longer have the pound.

I don't know if we have enough financial resources to 'go it alone'. The big cry has always been (since drilling started in the North Sea) "It's Scotland's oil" - but how long before the oil runs out?

P.T.:  What do you think of the Scottish Parliament and other home rule bodies within the UK? And what’s your answer to the claim that complete independence would make Scotland more of a force to be reckoned with on the world stage?

B.L.:  Well, I was delighted when we got the Scottish Parliament as it meant we were able to concentrate on purely Scottish issues, some of which Westminster doesn't know or doesn't care about. But I don't think that independence would make us more a force to be reckoned with.

Having “home rule” doesn’t necessitate independence from the Union. One alternative which is spoken about is 'devo-max', which seems to mean we would keep the status quo but, that the Scottish Parliament would also be given more powers, perhaps in taxes etc. That could be a good alternative in my opinion.

P.T.:  What are you thoughts on Alex Salmond and his independence campaign?

B.L.:  A lot of us wonder if Alex Salmond has some self-interest at heart. Perhaps if someone different was in charge, I would feel differently about it all, but such is the case. The question is how much are people swayed by personalities?

P.T.:  Do you think that celebrities who outspoken on the issue of Scottish independence are affecting are affecting the opinions of the Scottish people at all?

B.L.:  Is it really supposed to sway us? It doesn't alter my views. It annoys me the way that this host of ‘famous’ people - from film stars to comedians to personalities – are stating their views, for or against. For example, Sean Connery is all for Scottish independence, which, of course, is countered by the fact that he doesn't even live here!

P.T.: Now I hear that his Agent 007 counterpart, Roger Moore, is vouching for the preservation of the UK. The War of the Bonds seems to have begun!

B.L.: Oh, dear!

P.T.: Do you think there is something of a different tone in the Scottish nationalist movement of today and nationalists in past generations?

B.L.:  There was a difference in the nationalist cause back when they 'liberated' the Stone of Scone, and now. Somehow they seemed quite different but can't identify quite exactly how. It was more historically based than politically back then, I think.

P.T.:  What do you think about the way that the referendum question is phrased, putting “Yes” for independence and “No” for the Union?

B.L.:  I think it's quite confusing. Even now, when people ask if I'm going to vote yes or no, I sometimes have to say, er....what's the question again?! It's quite loaded making the positive answer the one for independence, isn't it?

P.T.:  Indeed. In fact, I would think it would be more natural for "yes" to be in favor of the status quo.

B.L.:  You're right! Perhaps that's why I get confused. Also....it's such a long time since it was brought up. Is the question do you want Scotland to be a separate STATE or a separate COUNTRY?

P.T.:  Good point. Or, going further, what's the difference between a "country" and a "nation", as it seems that a lot of people identify Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as "nations" within the "country" of the UK!

B.L.:  I think they did try out several wordings before they decided. There were also all sorts of 'joke' replacement questions circulating, such as "Do you want these mealy-mouthed, penny pinching Sassenachs to take over the education of our wee bairns?"

P.T.:  In the midst of all this red tape and wild gags, how would you have liked to have seen the referendum question worded?

B.L.:  I think something along the lines of "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish as an independent nation?" or "Do you agree that Scotland would flourish keeping in the union?" Although I suppose that would be two questions instead of one.

P.T.:  Well, it could have been linked thusly: "Do you believe that Scotland would flourish more staying in the union, or becoming an independent nation?"

B.L.:  Yes, that sounds good, although then people couldn't answer just yes or no. Of course, I’m not sure if that’s mandatory.  I’ve never been in a referendum like this before.

P.T.:  What do you think of Salmond giving 16 years olds to right to vote in the referendum?

B.L.:  Many of us are also annoyed (and incredulous) that Salmond has given 16 year olds the vote! I mean, they are not eligible to vote in general elections. I feel that many of them will be influenced by 'Braveheart' and Freeeedommm!

However, I did watch an interview on TV with a group of 16 year olds, and I must say they spoke very sensibly and seemed very clued up about it all. They also had a mix of opinions.

P.T.:  Have you watched any referendum debates, live or on TV? If so, what are you thoughts about them?

B.L.:  There was a televised referendum debate on this week in our area. They are holding them round Scotland. I really only put it on to see if I recognized anyone in the audience, and I didn't know a single soul! I think a lot of folk must have been out-of-towners. It went on for an hour, and it was so BORING, I don't think it would make anyone change their mind.

P.T.:  From you interaction with people in your area, how high is the percentage of undecided voters you encounter now?

B.L.:  I don't know the percentages, but a lot of people I speak to still haven't decided. The 'letters' columns in all the papers are full of people giving their perspectives, but again I don't think people would change their mind because of what other people say (famous or 'ordinary'). Actually a lot of us think we will be heartily fed up with the whole thing by September!

P.T.:  How do you think people might be affected emotionally, since Scotland and England are very much intertwined at this point? What about those with families and jobs that transcend the border?

B.L.:  I don't know. As I said before, there are so many imponderables. Of course, there must be people very close to folk from across the border. You know David Cameron appealed to people in England to phone up their Scottish friends and say "We want you to stay with us!"

P.T.:  What do you think of that method he suggested? Have you or anyone you know received said "calls"?

B.L.:  Well, no one in England has phoned me! I thought it was a bit silly really and counterproductive, trying to force an outpouring of “love” that no one has brought up before now!

P.T.:  I think Mr. C. was trying to imitate something that went on during the Quebec Independence Referendum, when the people of Canada basically pleaded with the people within Quebec to remain a part of the country.

B.L.:  Oh, yes, I think someone else told me that.

P.T.:  I'm not sure if it helped directly, but the result did turn out favorable for them, and Quebec is still part of Canada to everyone's benefit, as time has revealed. But it was quite a close vote!

B.L:  I do wonder what the general English reaction is. I wouldn't be surprised if they think we should just get on and make up our own minds. Or maybe a lot of them would be happy to 'get rid' of us. Have there been any polls in England to ask that?

P.T.: Yes, there have been. Generally, 60% in favor of the union, 20% against it, and the rest not caring either way. Personally, everyone I know in England would be heartily depressed to lose you! So you are "loved" by some “southies”!

B.L:  Well, that's nice!

P.T.:  What do you think about the system allowing only those currently living in Scotland to vote?

B.L.:  It seems a bit odd. After all, I have several friends who were born in Scotland and now live in England, so they can't vote; but people born in England who live and work in Scotland can!

P.T.:  It does sound strange, especially since the "trans-border" commuters have the most to gain from the union in concept and reality. Lots of them have relatives north or south of the “dividing line”, as well job commitments.

They feel very much connected with the place as a part of their "country" and see their Scottish friends and relatives as "compatriots" But this is just one of the many complications in trying to "segregate" people who have been so intermixed by being considered one people for so long!

B.L.:  Yes, I agree. I think there are a whole lot of complications raising their heads now, which originally weren't thought of. The really worrying thing is that, whatever the outcome of the vote, it will (presumably) be irreversible.

P.T.:  Actually, some are predicting that if the pro-independence party loses by a slight margin, they may try to launch another independence referendum in as soon as two years!

On the other hand, should the pro-union party lose by a slight margin, the "Yes" people are insisting that we better shut up and sit down or else be branded as enemies of democracy!

B.L.:  I’ve often thought the worst result would be almost a dead-heat, but I hadn't heard that about another go in two years time...aargh!

P.T.:  The suggested “Round 2” for independence is speculative, mind, but some of the "Yes" people are definitely pushing for it, and the “No” people worrying about it, and most average people just dreading having to go through another neverendum in their lifetimes!

B.L.:  Yes, I don't think I could bear to go through it all again! I think it's important to emphasize that 'we' (I mean my friends and acquaintances) are NOT talking about it all the time! Perhaps come September we will, but at the moment we are just getting on with our lives.

I don't know how strongly people think about it just now. For instance, I know my sister is going to vote yes for independence and has a badge saying so, but she didn't ask me how I’m going to vote, so I didn't say!

P.T.:  What's your random prediction of the outcome in September? My guess, at this point, is that the union will win, but only by a slight margin.

B.L.:  I think marginally that the status quo is the one most people seem to think will win, but that’s just my (uninformed) opinion!

P.T.:  To wrap things up, could you tell us a little about your personal interests, hobbies, and goals in life?

B.L.:  I am passionately interested in local history and in collecting oral history from older people, and have written several books on this and hope to do some more. I would like other people to look back at their own local history roots. One of my immediate goals is to get the book I'm working on (people's memories of their working lives and daily living) finished and out in the public domain. It is SO important all these memories don't get lost when the folk go.

P.T.: I agree. History and heritage is so important to development of culture and all the good things in life.

B.L.:  Yes, that's it. It's very encouraging to me that you (at your age) think like that because more often it's when folk get older that they get interested in their heritage.

P.T.: Thank you for that! In addition to being a preserver of local heritage, do you have any other interests or goals in addition?

B.L.:  Well, I also have a passionate love of cats! In the area of goals, as a great granny, I am grateful to find I am still alive the next morning! My goals SHOULD be to exercise more and leave the car at home but never seem to manage this very well (blame the Scottish weather)!

P.T.:  You have a good enough excuse! Scottish weather blamed, lol! Thank you again for agreeing to let me interview you, “Bonnie Lass”, and I look forward to catching up again in the near future.

B.L.:  Speak again soon!

Interview with Calum Crichton, Student at The University of Strathclyde

Pearl of Tyburn:  Tonight we have Mr. Calum Crichton coming to us from Glasgow, Scotland. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Crichton.

Calum Crichton: My pleasure.

P. T.:  First, could you tell me a little bit about your personal background, and if there was any particular political/cultural/religious or other prevailing identity you grew up with?

C.C.:  Certainly. I was born in Manchester, England, to Scottish parents, and lived there until I was 7 years old. After my parents split-up, I moved to Glasgow and have lived here ever since. I am 22 now.

I would say I am a Protestant, but I do not really practice the religion as such. It's such as I believe, and that's it. I have always been proud to be from Glasgow; and I've always been proud to be Scottish. But at the same time, I've always been proud to have a British identity too. I have never seen any conflict with this.

P.T.:  You sound you have a very well-rounded sense of national identity. Do you think having been born in England contributed to a feeling of cross-border Britishness for you at all?

C.C.:  It might have done so, but I was very young when I moved to Scotland. In all honesty, I cannot remember most of my time in England. I've just thought, ‘yea, its great being Scottish - but I love saying I'm from the UK too.’ My passport has always said British citizen, and I'm proud and comfortable with that.

P.T.:  I feel similarly about being a Marylander and an American. I know it's different in the general feeling here in the USA. The union takes precedence in most people's minds to the individual 50 states. But it was not always that way. Obviously, in our Civil War, the union almost split up, and Maryland was on the border. Hence, she was one of the states that made special efforts to assert her sense of independence during the war.

I think that fits, since Maryland was always had a unique individuality since the time the Catholic Lord Baltimore introduced religious toleration for all Christians here. I'm very proud to be a Marylander, especially given my Catholic heritage, but I am also equally proud to be American and happy that my state is part of the union.

C.C.:  I think that it’s good you have multiple identities. That's a strength, not a weakness. And that's how I feel, too.

P.T.:  So how did you first became involved in Unionist politics? And aside from being a Unionist, do you belong to any mainstream (or otherwise) political party yourself?

C.C.:  Through studying Finance & Economics at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, I began to take an interest in current affairs, because my studies helped me understand topical issues more. Obviously the referendum is a major issue in Scottish politics just now, so I have taken an interest in the subject.

I am not a member of a political party, but I take a high interest in politics. I vote as I see it, although on most issues I agree with the Conservatives. If there was a general election tomorrow that's who I'd vote for. But no party has a monopoly on perfect policies.

P.T.:  How did you locate and get involved in writing for “Open Unionism”? Also, are you involved with Better Together, the official pro-union campaign in Scotland?

C.C.:  As for OU, I was invited to join pro-UK groups on Facebook where we chat about the campaign. Through one of them I met Henry Hill and became quite friendly with him. I showed him my own blog, and he asked if I'd like to write something for “Open Unionism”.

As for campaigning with Better Together, I have not really, no. I mean, I support their cause and I will campaign for the UK at BT events. But I do not work for Better Together if that's what you mean.

P.T.:  Being a student of economics and finance, what are some of things that have convinced you to support the NO campaign in the upcoming referendum?

C.C.:  Well, I think there are 5 main reasons why I will vote NO:

POINT 1: Being part of the United Kingdom allows Scotland to maximize the potential of its human and natural resources.

POINT 2: Scotland's opportunities to engage with the international community are far greater as part of the United Kingdom.

POINT 3: The fiscal challenges lots of developing countries face can be better faced by pooling and sharing our resources across the United Kingdom.

POINT 4: Scotland has the best of both worlds as part of the United Kingdom.

POINT 5: Scotland has strong cultural and emotional ties with the United Kingdom that are not worth throwing away.

P.T.:  Regarding your first point, what human and natural resources are enhances for Scotland within the UK? Aren't the Nationalists campaigning under the banner of making more natural resources available to the Scottish people?

C.C.:  In relation to my first point, here are 3 examples:

a) Scotland receives 13% of UK research council funding; yet we have 8% of the population. We get this funding because our universities are world class - but it's something that would be lost if we separated because our universities would not longer get UK funding. 

It's the perfect example of how we get the best of both worlds. We can be proud of the fact that we have our own parliament that has control of our education system. But d'you know what? We can also be proud to be part of the larger UK education & research network. That helps Scotland get the very best out of its education system and its students.

I can particularly relate to this point. I went to primary and secondary school here in Scotland; I did my undergraduate in Scotland; and I am doing my postgraduate in Scotland, where one of my courses is funded by the ESRC, a UK research council. Now I have this funding, but I do not want future generations of Scots to miss out on this opportunity.

b) In order to encourage investment in the North Sea the UK government has committed to decommissioning tax relief of £35 billion. This massive cost is spread across a population of 65 million in the UK as whole, rather than just 5 million in Scotland. It means that every single drop of oil can be squeezed out of the North Sea at the lowest possible cost to the Scottish and UK population.

c) Given renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce, to incentivize production. To help companies meet the additional cost, the UK Government provides a green energy subsidy to energy companies.

Around one-third of the UK's renewable energy is generated here in Scotland, but all 26 million households across Britain pitch in - not just Scottish households. In line with Scotland’s 8% population share of the UK, Scottish consumers contribute around one-tenth of the cost of the green energy subsidy. However, Scotland’s immense potential means we receive around one-third of total British investment.  That is a good deal by anybody’s reckoning.

P.T.:  You purport that Scotland is able to have more clout in the international community as part of the UK. But some would insist that being an independent nation, in and of itself, would make Scotland more of a force on the world scene. Your thoughts?

C.C.:  I don't think so. We can currently punch above our weight internationally as part of the UK. Let's look at what we have now, and what we know for a fact:

If we want to engage with advanced economies and emerging markets, and engage with countries on global issues such as tax avoidance: the UK is a member of the G7, G8, and G20. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to improve global financial regulation: the UK is the 4th largest shareholder in the IMF. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to tackle global poverty: the UK is the 4th largest shareholder in the World Bank, and has the world's second largest aid budget. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to enhance global security: the UK is a permanent member of the UK security council and is part of the 'five-eyes' security arrangement with the US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. An independent Scotland would not be.

If we want to tackle climate change and encourage business investment around Europe: the UK has the same number of votes as Germany in the European Union. An independent Scotland would have less than Greece, in accordance with its population size.

If we want to establish fantastic opportunities for our businesses: the UK is the 6th largest economy in the world and has one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world, with over 270 embassies and 169 UK Trade & Investment offices globally promoting Scottish businesses. This allows our firms to be part of a country with an unrivaled reputation of unique skills and a strong legal framework; it allows our businesses a truly global reach and an unparalleled network to tap into; and it allows our firms to promote their products, their services, their ideas, in every single part of the world.

We know for a fact that an independent Scotland would not have this vast resource to offer. The Scottish government is proposing only 70 - 90 embassies and only 26 Trade & Investment bodies.

P.T.:  What are some of the other "best of both worlds" aspects you enjoy as a Scottish Brit in the form of national institutions?

C.C.:  Loads of things. Bank of England (BoE), British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), National Health Service (NHS), Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMR&C), Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (D&VLA), National Savings and Investments (NS&I), Trade & Investment (T&I), etc. The list is endless.

P.T.:  It seems as if many of the Nationalists seem the emphasize the Scots having to share their resources with England and the rest of the UK, but deemphasize the fiscal burden the rest of the country helps bear, lightening the load on Scotland. Is there a blind spot here for Alex Salmond and his supporters?

C.C.:  Well, I believe that pooling and sharing resources is a positive concept. But Nationalists want independence at any price. I respect that, but it is not an ideology I share.

P.T.:  In a brief summary, what do you think is the Nationalists' main reason for seeking independence "at any cost"? Is it emotional idealism, political opportunism, love of Scotland, hatred of Britain, pride, guilt, or a little bit of each?

C.C.:  I don't know because I'm not a Nationalist, but I believe it is mostly emotional idealism. Nationalism means the emphasis on national goals, not international goals. It means restricting sharing sovereignty with other nations as far as possible. I think this is a negative concept in a globalized world. And I don't feel my Scottish identity is oppressed by being part of the UK. I like what we achieve together in the world.

P.T.:  It's interesting to think about the word "nationalist" as used in other contexts, such as in Germany during the World Wars or in Britain and France during their Imperial Expansion projects or America with her "Manifest Destiny".

Most of the time, the inward-looking, nationalistic cult resulted in disaster and atrocities against those who didn't "fit the mold." It became a religion of the state, and a religion of intolerance. The worst case of this was Nazi Germany. Do you think the Scottish Nationalists should be wary to "look and learn" from past nationalist projects gone awry?

C.C.:  I'm not accusing them of wanting to start WW3, but what they should take from history is that nationalism is regressive and creates borders where none exist. That is still true today, which is why I will vote NO. I see nothing positive or progressive about turning our back on a country that we have helped to shape and enormously contributed to; of walking away from people with the same values as us.

P.T.:  I'm not accusing them of wanting to start WW3 either, but I do think that the nationalistic ideology, starting out relatively innocently, can sow seeds of a dangerous mindset. Especially when "my country -- right or wrong!" is adopted. Or "do such and such at ANY cost", etc.

From my own interaction with Scottish Nationalists online, many of them seem quite unstable in their manner of arguing their (comparatively insipid) points and seem determined to turn the issue into a personal battle, trying to paint their opponents as "fascists", "elitists", etc.

C.C.:  Yes, I get that too. For Nationalists it’s about focusing on the few differences we have - not the many things we have in common. It's about making out that Scots are fundamentally different to English, Welsh, and Northern Irish people; that we have superior values, which is false.

P.T.:  The lack of common courtesy is really quite unfortunate. I think I have interacted with only one truly polite Scots Nationalist, a person about whom I could actually say, "Hey, he's not so bad. We disagree, of course, I think he's using bad arguments, but he seems like a decent guy. I can respect him for himself, if not for his beliefs."

But the divisive attitude the “YES” campaign is grounded in strikes me as being deeply repulsive and, I dare say, morally wrong. Many of them go at it with animosity akin to someone trying to break up another couple’s marriage. Frankly, I think their activities can succinctly be summed up as treason against their country, even if they don’t acknowledge the UK as such. The facts still stand on their own.

C.C.:  They don't view it that way. They think a NO vote is a vote against Scotland.

They think you are anti-Scottish if you vote NO. In fact, an SNP MSP actually stood up in parliament and said people who vote no are "anti-Scottish."

P.T.:  Do you think they really believe that, or are they just pushing it to goad people into voting their way?

C.C.:  No, I think they actually believe it.

P.T.:  Why would they actually believe that, considering the evidence against such an assertation is overwhelming?

C.C.: Because they are nationalists.

P.T.:  Meaning, they just can't see past their own perspective on what they think is best for Scotland, even when many of their own countrymen disagree?

C.C.: Yes, exactly. For example, I fundamentally disagree with independence. I think it would be bad for Scotland and the rest of the UK. Hence, I will vote NO. But I can respect that people disagree, and that independence could be the democratic will of the Scottish people. If that's the case, I would want us to make the most of it.

P.T.:  If that should happen, would you stop considering your "British"? Emotionally, where do you think that would leave many Scottish Brits?

C.C.:  No, I would not stop being “British”. I mean, I was born in Manchester, England, so I guess I've always been proud to have multiple identities. But certainly, for everyone, the feeling would not be the same. The UK is the main entity associated with being British.

P.T.:  Judging from the data coming in at this point, which side on this political battle do you think is more likely to win, and what are your reasons?

C.C.:  Hmm, it's hard to say. I'm not sure. There are many variables. But I believe the case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom is positive and strong. And I am confident that Better Together will win on the day.

 P.T.:  I see on your blog that you recently attended an interview with First Minister Alex Salmond in Glasgow. What are some of your thoughts about him personally, his intents, and his ability to argue his case?

C.C.:  Normally in TV interviews or in First Minister's Questions, Salmond comes across as really smug, a big opportunist, and generally an unlikable person. But he has an extraordinary ability to articulate his case very well to appeal to voters.

Yet in this interview on Friday night Salmond was away from the TV cameras. The interview was a discussion, not a situation where one question after another was fired at him. So he didn't need to think about beating his opponents or providing witty answers.

He actually came across as quite a likable, charming character.

P.T.:  That's an interesting dynamic. I think our President Obama varies in the way he comes off in interviews. Sometimes he can be arrogant and insensitive, sometimes funny and rather likable.

When you say Salmond has an extraordinary ability to articulate his case to voters, what exactly do you mean? What points does he particularly emphasize or deemphasize, and how does he handle the question of dual identity on the whole?

C.C.:  Hmm, good questions. Well.....you would have to watch clips of him. But basically when he gets asked a tough question he always attacks the opposition. And quite often finds statistics or quotes to back up his view. Misleading quotes and statistics, I might add, for the informed voter. But for the average voter it appeals to them.

On the question of identity he says it's not dependent on the constitution. But I do not buy this. Recently a former SNP leader was in the press emphasizing the need to attack British identity for the SNP to win. Salmond wants to break up the United Kingdom, the main foundation British. He tries to avoid the question of identity because many Scots are comfortable with being seen as British too.

P.T.:  In essence, he’d either have to be extremely naive to disassociate Britishness with the constitutional reality of the UK, or a liar, plain and simple, trying to rob people of their identity without letting them know it. Ultra "identity theft", wrapped up in the pretty paper of political rhetoric.

C.C.:  That's it.

P.T.:  What do you think would happen if he went up against David Cameron in televised debates? Which one of them do you think would gain the upper hand, with appearance, personality, debating skills, and all the other accessories needed to clinch live, TV broadcasted debates?

C.C.:  The scenario won't happen. David Cameron refuses to debate with Salmond, and rightly so. The debates would have defined the referendum. David Cameron does not have a vote in it. If Cameron was debating Salmond, he would lose.

This is not because Cameron’s not a good debater - he is, and could possibly beat Salmond. Cameron often does very well in Prime Minister's Questions against Ed Miliband. But Cameron is English, and he is a Conservative. Salmond would only use the opportunity to try to turn the referendum into a false debate about current UK government policy, not the real issues.

Salmond thinks an English Tory coming to lecture Scots would make people vote YES. Cameron knows this, so he’s refusing to debate him. The debate, in the end, is among Scots. Alistair Darling is leader of the Better Together campaign, he is Scottish, and he has a vote in the referendum (unlike Cameron). So Salmond should debate Darling.

P.T.:  Hmm. Sounds like "Call-Me-Dave" has definitely made a call on this one, although Salmond will probably make a big fuss about him "refusing" to debate. Does this mean that there are no official debates planned yet? Even with someone like Alistair Darling?

C.C.:  Yes, Salmond is making a fuss. Strategists at the SNP and Yes Scotland have been desperately wanting a debate for the reasons I outlined. They would only use it as an opportunity to make the referendum seem like an election choice between David Cameron and Alex Salmond. But Cameron is not stupid, so has ruled it out time and time again – correctly. Hence, no debates planned.

But I reckon Salmond and Darling will go head-to-head before the vote at some point. Remember, Alistair Darling is a respected and clever politician. He used to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He's not normally a witty person. He's not got a range of snappy comebacks like Salmond. But whereas Salmond relies on bluster, Darling is calm, rational, and often sticks to the facts. He's probably the only Labour politician who has had his reputation enhanced since the financial crisis.

P.T.: We would hope calm and rational would naturally win over witty and blustering.

The only problem is, from experience over here, the last presidential election 2012 saw just the opposite result, based on the footage of the vice-presidential debate, at least!

C.C.:  The thing is, though, a referendum is different from a general election. People know that. In an election people vote for the character normally, because they know they can change government in 5 years (or 4 years in the US case). But with a referendum that has an irreversible consequence, people want to know the facts.

P.T.:  True. But I would have hoped Americans voting in an election for the highest offices in the land would have taken a look at Biden's hysterics and shied away from wanting him one step away from the presidency! So people are generally unpredictable. I do hope the referendum "logic" holds in the UK, though.

C.C.:  So do I. But as you say, people are unpredictable. So we must campaign hard for every vote.

P.T.:  Do you know what BT is doing with regards to getting Unionist voters to the polls? I ask because that's another thing that basically sunk the Republican campaign for the presidency (which I continue to refer to merely because it was the most recent major exercise of the voting process we experienced here).

C.C.:  Yes, Better Together has a lot of activists who will be out talking to people and getting people out to vote NO on the day.

P.T.:  On a personal note, where do you see yourself going in the future, regarding your political involvement in Unionism as the referendum gears up and your own career?

C.C.:  As the referendum draws closer, I’ll be doing lots of campaigning around Scotland. With regards to my own career, I'm not sure what that will be yet! Let me get my masters out the way first, and I'll decide after that. Maybe I'll go into politics in some way, like political research or something.

P.T.:  Aside from your political fascination, what are some of your other interests/hobbies? How do you like to spend your free time?

C.C.:  Apart from politics, I obviously enjoy socializing with friends and doing the usual stuff like nights out, cinema, etc. I normally go to the gym 3 xs per week, and I also attend Krav Maga and Filipino Kali martial arts classes. I like loads of things though. I enjoy meeting new people and experiencing different cultures - taking myself out my comfort zone, ya know? 

P.T.:  I do indeed. And I have so enjoyed getting to learn more your own Scottish/British culture from you! Thank you so much for the interview, Mr. Crichton. It's been a real pleasure, and I do hope everyone works out for you personally and politically.

C.C.:  Pleasure; any time.