Scots Must Take Control of Their Own Future
Nicola Sturgeon
Aug. 28, 2014

This is a historic time for Scotland. The eyes of the world are on our nation as we prepare for the referendum on Sept. 18 that will determine whether we become an independent country.

It is the opportunity of a lifetime—and the biggest democratic opportunity any generation of people living in Scotland has ever had.

Scotland may be a small country, but it has given a huge amount to the world. Scottish inventors made the first television and the first telephone. A Scottish biologist discovered penicillin, and a team of scientists based in Scotland produced Dolly the sheep, the world’s first mammal cloned from an adult somatic cell.

And we continue to boast a huge array of natural and human resources, making us perhaps the best-prepared country in history to become independent.

With a population of about 5.3 million, Scotland has only around 1% of the European Union’s population. However, it has roughly 60% of the E.U.’s conventional oil reserves, about a quarter of the continent’s offshore renewable-energy potential and some of the richest fishing waters in Europe.

Allied to that, we have fantastic strengths in life sciences, creative industries, food and drink and tourism—and we have more top universities per head of population than any other country.

There is no doubt that Scotland can more than afford to be an economically successful independent country. It is more prosperous per capita than France, Japan and the U.K. itself—and the global credit-rating agency Standard & Poor’s recently concluded that even without North Sea oil and gas, an independent Scotland would be a wealthy nation and would qualify for its “highest economic assessment.”

The problem is that, despite that great native wealth, too many people living in Scotland today do not feel the benefit of it.

Parts of Scotland still have life-expectancy statistics that lag well behind those in the rest of the U.K. and Europe, and the U.K. as a whole has become one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.

And for as long as Westminster continues to control Scotland’s economy and other key policies, we will continue to have a situation in which all the people of Scotland do not benefit from our inherent strengths.

The case for independence is fundamentally a democratic one, meaning that decisions affecting Scotland will be taken in Scotland by the people who live and work here.

A Yes vote will mean investment in priorities like child care, and substantial savings by not spending on Westminster priorities like Trident nuclear weapons. Independence will also allow us to protect our vital public services, including Scotland’s National Health Service, at a time when the privatization of the health service in England threatens Scotland’s budget.

An independent Scotland will have a seat and a voice at the top table in Europe for the first time ever. The alternative, if we do not vote Yes, is risking seeing Scotland dragged out of Europe against its will in an in-out referendum as Westminster dances to a Euroskeptic tune, led by the U.K. Independence Party. That would have disastrous consequences for jobs and investment, cutting us off from a single market of more than half a billion people.

A vote for independence will also be flowing with the tide of history. When the U.N. was formed, it had 51 independent members—in the past 70 years or so, that has grown to 193. Of the 10 countries that joined the E.U. as new members in 2004, more than half had become independent in the years after 1990 and more than half are smaller or about the same size as Scotland.

Scotland’s referendum is a defining moment for our nation. Polling day itself will be a time when Scotland is sovereign for the first time in more than three centuries—and the decision the people make that day will determine whether we hand that sovereignty back to Westminster or move forward in a new 21st century partnership of equals.

Scotland’s national bard, Robert Burns, penned the lyrics to “Auld Lang Syne,” which has been adopted as a festive anthem for millions in every corner of the globe as people herald the dawn of each new year—yet another example of Scotland’s contributions to the world.

We must make sure that 2014 is the year when we take responsibility for shaping our own future, and that when Scotland next greets a new year, it will be as a nation poised to rejoin the international community as an independent country.

Scots must take control of their own future.
















スコットランドの国民的吟遊詩人ロバート・バーンズは、スコットランドが世界に誇るもう一人の人物だ。彼の詩はAuld Lang Syne(懐かしい音:邦題は蛍の光)の曲にのせられて、人々が新年を迎える時、世界の隅々で何百万人もの人々に歌われる祝賀の歌になった。


We’ll Be Stronger Together
Rory Stewart
Aug. 28, 2014
The Scottish National Party (SNP) is one of the most attractively crafted nationalist movements in history. It has cloaked itself in progressive liberal language; it claims to be in favor of higher immigration; it professes great friendship for neighboring nations; it is anti-militarist; and instead of focusing on the past, it champions “the future.” But in the end, like all nationalisms, it has a reactionary core. It assumes that one people—the Scots—are somehow, although they would never state it, intrinsically separate and superior; and that the answer to their problems is to cut off a group of fellow citizens, and treat them—the English, Welsh and Northern Irish—as foreigners. All the bewildering, appealing and contradictory claims of the Scottish nationalists ultimately rest on this foundation.

Take their manifesto. The SNP, the main party behind the Yes Scotland campaign, has avoided much discussion of identity and has tried to make the referendum into a party political campaign, emphasizing economic policy. Its manifesto focuses on a pension guarantee, adjustment to housing benefits and a lower corporation tax rate. But none of these proposals requires independence to become law. Some could be implemented immediately by the existing Scottish government. All could well be introduced by a Labour government in Westminster, should the left-of-center party win the next election. The only challenge is to persuade all British voters, not just Scots, to vote for such policies.

But this is not what the Scottish nationalists have in mind—apparently because they believe that political attitudes are permanent, fixed aspects of national character. (They call this idea—that political views coincide exactly with ancient borders—“civic nationalism.”) Their solution is, therefore, to simply exclude the “English”—whom they perceive as a fixed bloc of right-wing voters—from voting by changing the electoral boundaries. This is gerrymandering on a national scale. In order to achieve more “progressive” policies in areas such as welfare and taxation policy, they wish people to renounce their citizenship and create a new country. Not only is this bad democratic process, it misrepresents the reality of broader British political attitudes.

There is no evidence in social-attitude surveys that the English are—as nationalists like to suggest—more xenophobic, reactionary and right wing than the Scots. England and English thinkers have shaped and continued to define many of the progressive policies in Britain, from feminism to civil rights and the environmental movement. Scotland is in many ways less “modern” than London, which has become one of the most rapidly changing, cosmopolitan and global capitals on earth (7% of Scots were born outside the U.K., compared with 37% of Londoners).

Which is why, for all the talk about the future and progressivism, the nationalist project is in fact reactionary. Nationalists blame Scotland’s problems—which are almost indistinguishable from the problems of most Western democracies—on their relationship with the rest of Britain. Instead of trying to harness the potential of a diverse, connected and rapidly expanding London, they treat London as a threat—and attempt to segregate and protect themselves from it. Instead of continuing to share national resources and assets with fellow citizens, they hope to achieve their utopia by scapegoating the English, treating them as foreigners and keeping the resources—particularly the North Sea oil and gas reserves that have long benefited all of Britain—for themselves. In short, their response to the fundamental problems of a 21st century democracy is to try to shut the complexity out by drawing in their borders.

The U.K. can be improved—it needs much more local democracy, it needs to rediscover a belief in politics, and it would benefit from a new written constitution—but it retains great strengths. The three-century-old union between different nations is unique proof of the power of solidarity, tradition and democratic process. And there are good economic arguments for remaining together—not least in currency, trade and support for the banking system. In the end, however, the referendum is about identity: Should people continue to be both Scottish and British, or become only Scottish?

For nearly two months now, thousands of English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have gathered on the Scottish border at Gretna. They are bringing rocks, which they have collected from every corner of the U.K., and are piling them in a giant traditional stone cairn, in honor of the Union. The cairn records its builders’ respect and affection for their fellow citizens and demonstrates that different nations can build together in a single country. Such structures have been built on both sides of the border for more than 6,000 years. The building of the cairn may be an ancient tradition, but it is a far healthier and more truthful response than nationalism to the challenges of the modern world.








≪Leap of Faith≫
Catherine Mayer
Aug. 28, 2014

Will Scottish voters decide they’re better off saying goodbye to Britain?

Yes, proclaims the sign above a former shop in Dennistoun, a down-at-heel district of Glasgow. Since July, this has been the local outpost of the independence campaign Yes Scotland. The shop next door has been boarded up for renovation work, and every millimeter of plywood is plastered with posters offering a diametrically opposing message, in local vernacular—vote naw. The posters appeared overnight soon after the Yes campaign opened its doors ahead of what has become possibly the most impassioned vote in modern British history. Scotland has always been a scrappy nation, determined to stick up for itself and punching above its weight on the global stage, but as the country’s Sept. 18 referendum nears, those fighting instincts have been directed inward, pitting Scot against Scot. “Communities are divided and families split,” says Ken Taylor, a 69-year-old retired health worker who volunteers in the Dennistoun campaign outpost, explaining the issues as he sees them to anyone who asks how independence could benefit Scotland.

Taylor has supported his country’s nationalist movement for 50 years. The Yes campaign “still has a hill to climb, but at my age, hills don’t look so bad,” he says. He and his fellow activists are out every day trying to climb that hill by winning waverers over to their cause. Most opinion polls suggest Better Together, the organization striving to keep Scotland in the U.K., still has the edge, by as much as 14 points in some polls and as little as 4 points in one recent survey, but Yes Scotland continues to narrow the gap. A swath of Scotland’s nearly 4.2 million voters are still undecided or refusing to divulge their intentions. Any victory threatens to be narrow. Churches have begun planning for all that passion curdling to rancor by scheduling services of reconciliation on the Sunday after the result is announced.

There will be just a single question on the ballot paper: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”—in other words, Should Scots break the 307-year union that forged Great Britain? Scottish nationalism has often harnessed the Braveheart version of history to its cause. Mel Gibson’s 1995 movie is littered with inaccuracies, from the ubiquity of kilts four centuries before the garment became popular to the notion that perfidious English aristocrats subdued Scotland. In fact, England may have held the stronger hand at the time, but the 1707 union between the Scottish and English crowns was consensual, creating benefits and liabilities on both sides. Britain’s current coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats still supports that union. As does the opposition Labour Party, which won power in 1997 and the following year legislated to create a regional Scottish parliament in the hope that the move would siphon off any residual desire for independence.

But the powers the Scottish parliament enjoys—it determines health, education and housing policy and other Scottish matters, while U.K.-wide issues such as defense and foreign policy are set by the British government in London—have not dampened the yearning many Scots have for full autonomy. In 2011, elections to the Edinburgh-based parliament gave the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) an overall majority that not one polling organization had predicted. The SNP owed much of its success to the clever leadership of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, who exploited his compatriots’ anger about Scotland’s rough ride under former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives and the Labour Party’s unpopular decision to enter the Iraq War. But the SNP has long stood for independence and campaigned on the promise of holding a referendum. The U.K. government agreed to legislate for a vote, gambling that Scots would opt by decisive majority to stay British, reinforcing the status quo and bringing the debate to an end, once and for all. That is beginning to look like a serious miscalculation.

Global Repercussions

However it plays out, scotland’s referendum is already causing shudders well beyond Britain’s borders. As the Yes campaign gained on Better Together, the British government, working in rare concert with Labour, tried to shore up Scotland’s fealty to the union by promising a further devolution of powers in the event that a majority of Scots vote No. But their pledge to Scotland—of greater tax-raising powers and more say in how to structure the Scottish welfare system—is feeding appetites in other parts of the U.K. for greater autonomy, not only among the citizens of Wales and Northern Ireland, but also in the cities and regions of England that feel themselves poorly represented in the British Parliament and overshadowed by the economic and political powerhouse that is London. Dave Sparks, head of the Local Government Association, a body representing more than 300 local authorities in England and Wales, said in an interview with Total Politics magazine that the ramifications of the referendum for expectations of greater decentralization of powers in those countries “are massive no matter what happens.”

Meanwhile, independence movements overseas are watching Scotland’s vote closely. In May, Belgium’s separatist party, the New Flemish Alliance, performed strongly in the country’s parliamentary elections. The long-restive Spanish region of Catalonia, emboldened by the Scottish example, has scheduled an independence referendum for November—though Spain’s central government says the poll will lack constitutional force. International change looks certain to flow from Scotland’s day of reckoning even if Scottish voters opt for business as usual.

But a Yes would unleash a much greater transformation—and would immediately pose crucial questions that currently lack answers. Scotland would likely have to reapply for the membership of the European Union it currently enjoys as part of the U.K. Nobody can say for sure how long this would take in the face of likely opposition from Belgium, Spain and other countries that would not wish to see a fight for independence rewarded and could veto Scottish membership. Then there’s the matter of which currency an independent Scotland would employ. Scots use the pound, but keeping it may not be a viable option because the three main British political parties have ruled out a formal sterling union. Scots would potentially find themselves using a currency over which they had no influence or, when and if the E.U. accepted an independent Scotland as a member, be forced to sign up to the crisis-ridden euro instead. Nor does anyone know how much debt the independent country would inherit in the breakup or how much it would earn from the North Sea oil and gas it would claim as its own. It’s also unclear whether the Queen would remain head of state or if the majority of Scots would even want her to.

That’s all before you get to the puzzles that a Disunited Kingdom would inevitably take years to solve: how to retool its political system and public finances and storied national broadcaster, the BBC; what to call itself (Lesser Britain?); whether to redesign the iconic Union flag, which currently incorporates Scotland’s cross of St. Andrew, the Saltire.

And then there’s the question of how this nation of William Wallace, Robert the Bruce and storied army units like the Black Watch and the Scots Guards would go about defending itself. A standalone Scotland would likely have its own military, retaining some troops and assets that currently serve the wider U.K. But supporters of independence strongly favor a move that could fundamentally alter the standing of a rump Britain’s military. The Yes campaign has long promised to boot out Britain’s four submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles from their base in the deepwater harbor at Faslane, 65 km northwest of Glasgow. Salmond said this would signal a “guarantee that never again would [Scotland] be spilling and wasting our best blood in illegal wars like Iraq.” It’s a largely symbolic stance, but the SNP argues that Britain’s nuclear deterrent is also largely symbolic, a show of force not intended for use. The lack of a suitable alternative harbor means Lesser Britain might be forced into decommissioning its Trident program. It has no land-based nuclear weapons.

“The outside world has got a stake in [Scotland’s referendum],” says George Robertson, a Scot and a Labour politician who served as NATO’s Secretary-General and now sits in the House of Lords. He fears the U.K. minus Scotland and its regiments and battalions would be less capable of joining in military or diplomatic interventions. In a world going through a particularly volatile period, he says, now is not the time to show disunity and fragmentation. “We have a confrontation with Russia that is now boiling up; we’ve got the Middle East in meltdown; we’ve got forces coming out of Afghanistan; we’ve got the South and East China seas becoming the arena for the next great global confrontation. If the U.K. breaks in two, it effectively goes into lockdown for the next two or three years, unpicking 300 years of integration. [Independence for Scotland] removes a key component of the global security framework.”

Hope Street

Nationalists characterize such bleak pronouncements by union supporters as scaremongering. Better Together “is running a deeply cynical campaign, probably the most negative in British political history,” says Blair Jenkins, a former television executive now spearheading Yes Scotland from its headquarters on Glasgow’s Hope Street (an office selected in part for its resonant address). “The oil’s going to run out,” says Jenkins, mimicking his opponents. He insists that “there are at least 50 years of highly lucrative oil revenues to come to Scotland, which is the period during which we need to transition into a different kind of economy largely based on renewable energy.” He cites another small oil-producing country, Norway, as a role model for Scotland. “All the signs are that small independent countries are doing better in lots of ways [than larger nations], not just in terms of the strength of their economies but also in terms of social outcomes.” (It’s worth noting, though, that Norway, with about the same population as Scotland, today produces twice as much oil as the entire U.K.)

Since coming to power in 2010, Britain’s coalition government has pursued budget-cutting policies and worked to trim the size of the state. The devolved Scottish government has taken a contrasting higher-spending route. Tuition fees had been introduced at universities across the U.K. before devolution. In Scotland higher education is free to Scottish and E.U. students (with the controversial exception of students from the rest of the U.K., who are liable for fees). Universities everywhere else in the U.K. charge tuition. Older Scots receive subsidized personal and nursing care at home despite the spiraling costs of the scheme. There is deep disagreement about who exactly is paying for this: the British government calculates that Scotland accounts for 8.3% of the U.K.’s output but 9.3% of public spending. Nationalists argue that revenues of oil and gas from Scottish waters have benefited the whole of the U.K. at the expense of the Scots.

Many Scots also see the referendum as a contest between two economic models. The Yes campaign paints a vision of an independent Scotland as a social democratic, oil-rich utopia—Norway with good whisky. Better Together draws a very different picture, of a country without sufficient revenues to support its profligate habits, shorn of the financial backstop provided by the U.K. that saw the British government ride to the rescue of the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008. Yes Scotland estimates that every citizen will be better off to the tune of £600 ($995) a year if the country becomes independent, not just because of oil revenues but also the boost to productivity and growth the change would deliver. Better Together says each basic-rate taxpayer would have to shell out an extra £1,000 ($1,658) to maintain public spending.

A few blocks from Hope Street, perched in his own cramped operations base above a shopping mall, Better Together’s chief Alistair Darling chooses his words carefully. As a Scot, he knows how his compatriots react to being lectured, especially by perceived outsiders. Though Darling has represented an Edinburgh constituency since 1987, he has done so in the British rather than Scottish parliament, serving as Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007 through the global banking crisis and until Labour’s 2010 ouster. To some Scots, that makes him almost a foreigner. When English cultural heroes David Bowie and J.K. Rowling urged the case for the union, they earned vitriolic responses from “cybernats”—pro-independence users of social media. In June, President Obama finally risked a similar intervention, saying the U.S. backed a “strong and united” U.K.—but only after months of behind-the-scenes discussions about whether to do so risked provoking an unhelpful backlash among Scottish voters.

So Darling is measured, even a little mournful, responding to a question about his own feelings with a plaintive “It’s my country too.” The subject of oil, however, provokes a brief flash of anger. The Yes campaign keeps exaggerating the riches that would accrue to an independent Scotland from the North Sea, says Darling. “You think, ‘Come on. Grow up.’”


グラスゴーのさびれた地域、デニスタウンの廃業した店の軒先にYes!のサインがかけられている。7月以降、ここは分離独立運動Yes Scotlandの地域拠点になっている。隣の店は建て替えのために板塀で囲まれているが、ベニヤには真っ向から対立する反対派のポスターがスコットランド訛りでVOTE NAW!とかかれて、隙間なく貼られている。英国現代史で最も激しい運動が予想される投票を控えて、分離派の運動が始まったとたんに、一夜にしてこのポスターが現れた。スコットランド人は常に喧嘩っ早い民族で、自国に絶対の自信を持ち、国際社会でも自分より強い国家に対して突っかかっていく。しかし9月18日の国民投票が近づくにつれて、この戦闘本能は身内に向けられ骨肉の争いになった。「地域は分裂し、家族は仲たがいしています」と元医療労働者で、ボランティアとしてデニスタウン支部で運動している69歳のケン・テイラーは言う。分離独立すればスコットランドにどんな利点があるかと尋ねる人たちに、様々な問題をあげて自分の考えを説明する。

テイラーは50年間この国の愛国運動を支援してきた。分離派の運動は「まだまだ先が厳しいのですが、私くらいの歳になれば苦労もさして厭いません」と言う。テイラーと仲間の活動家は毎日街頭に出て、浮動票を取り込もうと頑張っている。ほとんどの意識調査では、UKにとどまるべきだとする統一派Better Togetherが有利と見ており、幾つかの調査では14ポイント差と出ていたが、最近の調査では4ポイント差となり、分離派が追い上げ続けている。ほぼ420万人の有権者が、未だどちらに投票するか迷っているか、本音を話そうとしない。どちらが勝利するにせよ僅差になりギリギリまでわからない。そんな情熱が憎しみへとこり固まってしまうのを怖れて、投票結果が発表された後の日曜日に、教会が和解の礼拝を計画している。



投票がどのように展開しようと、スコットランドの国民投票はすでに英国を越えて世界を震撼させている。分離派は統一派を徐々に追い上げてきているので、英国政府は労働党と珍しくも共働行動をとり、スコットランド人の統合に対する忠義を強化するために、統一維持を決定した暁には更なる権限を与えることを約束した。しかしスコットランドに対する締約は――より大きな課税権限やスコットランドの福祉制度をいかに組み立てるかの意見をもっと聞くというもの――ウェールズや北アイルランドだけでなく、英国議会が自分たちの代表の役割を果たしていないとか、ロンドンにある経済的政治的権力の府に抑圧されていると感じているイングランドの都市や地方などのUKの他の地域からも、更なる自治権限を付与せよという希望を育てている。イングランドやウェールズの300以上の地方政府を代表する機関である地方政府連合の代表をしているデイブ・スパークスはTotal Politics誌にインタビューに応えて、これらの地方へのより大きな権限移譲を求める国民投票が引き起こす問題は「結果がどうなろうと大きいものです」と言う。

とにかく海外の分離独立運動はスコットランドの国民投票を凝視している。5月に、ベルギーの分離主義者党の新フランダース同盟(the New Flemish Alliance)は国会議員選挙で強力な役割を果たした。長い間政府に対抗してきたスペインのカタロニア地方は、スコットランドの模範によって勇気を得て、11月に分離独立を問う国民投票を計画している――片やスペイン中央政府は、国民投票には憲法上の拘束力はもたないとしている。たとえスコットランドの有権者がい今まで通りの状態を選んだとしても、スコットランドの投票の日を契機にして、国際的変化は確かに起きていくだろう。


分裂したUKが解決に嫌でも何年も費やすような問題に取りかかる以前に、まずあるものがこれだ。政治制度や国家予算や有名な好況放送であるBBCを如何にして再構築するか。国の名称をどうするか(Lesser Britainとでも呼ぶのか)。由緒あるユニオンジャックの模様を、今の重ね合っているスコットランドの斜め十字・聖アンドリューのデザインを変えるのかどうか。

ウィリアム・ウォレス、スコットランド王ロバート一世、そしてスコットランド近衛師団のような名高い軍隊を有する国が、どうやって自国の防衛を行っていくのかという問題がある。現在は統一UKの配下にある幾つかの部隊や装備は維持しつつも、独立スコットランドは自身の軍隊を持つ可能性はある。しかし分離独立支持者たちは、英国軍隊の残存部隊を根本的に入れ替えるような変化を強く望んでいる。分離独立運動は長きにわたって、グラスゴーから北西に65km離れたファスレーンの深海港の基地からトライデント核ミサイル搭載潜水艦を撤去する約束をしてきた。「イラク戦争のような不法な戦争に、スコットランドの最良の血を再び流すことを決してしないという保障を示すものとなるでしょう」とサルモンドは言った。それは大方は姿勢を示すシンボル的なものだが、英国の核抑止力もまた大方はシンボル的なものだとSNPは言っている。実際には使うつもりがない、力の誇示だ。他に適した母港がないと言うことは、小さくなったUK(Lesser Britain)が、そのトライデント政策を止めざるを得なくなるかも知れないことを意味する。スコットランド以外では、英国は地上核兵器を保有しない。


愛国主義者はこのような統合支持者による暗い宣告を、恐怖のばら撒きだと一掃する。統合支持者たちは「非常に悲観的な運動を行っています。おそらく今までの英国政治で最もひどいネガティブ・キャンペーンです」と元テレビ局重役で、現在はグラスゴーの希望通りにある本部で分離独立運動Yes Scotlandを指導しているブレア・ジェンキンズは言う(運動にピッタリの名前を持つ住所を選んで事務所を構えた)。「石油はそのうち枯渇する」と、反対派の口真似をしながらジェンキンズは言う。「少なくとも50年間は非常に豊富な石油の利潤がスコットランドに入ってきます。その時期に、ほとんど再生可能なエネルギーを基礎にして、新たな経済へと移行する必要があります」彼は小国でありながら石油生産国であるもう一つの国、ノルウェーを、スコットランドのお手本として引き合いに出す。「小さな独立国は大国よりもあらゆる意味でずっと上手くやっている事実を示しています。単に経済力だけではなく、社会的成果と言う点からもです」(ただ特筆すべきことは、ノルウェーの人口はスコットランドとほぼ同じでありながら、UK全体の石油生産高の2倍を生産していることだ)


多くのスコットランド人はまた、今回の国民投票は二つの経済モデルを問うものだと考えている。分離派Yes Campaign側は、独立スコットランドを社会民主主義的で石油が豊かなユートピアだと考えている(まるでノルウェーにウィスキーを加えた豊かさだ)。統一派Better Together側はまるで違った見方をしていて、贅沢に慣れた生活を支えるに十分な収入もなく、2008年には英国政府がスコットランドのロイヤルバンクを救済してくれた、そんなUKの財政支援がなくなってしまう。Yes Scotlandの概算によれば、スコットランドが独立すれば、1年に1人当たり600ポンド(995ドル)も豊かになれる、それは原油からの収益だけでなく、独立によって生産性や成長を押し上げるからだと言う。Better Togetherの言い分は、国民1人が支払う基礎税率は、国家財政を支えるために1000ポンド(658ドル)増えるという。



inserted by FC2 system