Osbourne says no to currency union.

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

People are voting for independence for a lot of different reasons and there are groups coming at it from all sorts of different angles. Yes Scotland is only one of those groups. It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

Not really – I’m not a member of Yes Scotland, I’m a member of the Green Party. We all want independence, we don’t all walk in lockstep on every issue of policy. I know the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are totally interchangeable, but up here we actually have different political parties with different views.

Is my point of view so odd? Everyone who’s not a loon agrees that climate change is probably the most serious issue facing mankind, and one big thing we can do to help is to stop burning fossil fuels. So yes, I think the oil should stay safely locked away under the sea.

But I accept that that is a minority view – humans aren’t good at leaving resources alone. So if the oil is going to be extracted, I want the money we get from it to be put to the best possible use – and that use isn’t for giving tax cuts and launching hugely expensive wars.

If we’re going to screw up the planet for our kids by burning the oil, the least we can do is give them the money we get.

It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

Not at all. I can see that is exactly what Ben wants. I still however think it’s rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don’t you ?

not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben.

Er, I haven’t.

No.

Once the oil is gone/left in ground/stolen by foreign powers we could have a renewables sovereign wealth fund instead.

ernie_lynch – Member
…I still however think it’s rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don’t you ?

Ernie, sometimes the bow is too long for even you to stretch it… 🙂

Er, I haven’t.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere – unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn’t need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere – unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn’t need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Oh, good grief – I’m not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms, but here goes:

– I think we should be using less oil.
– So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
– That isn’t going to happen.
– So we’re going to get some money from the oil.
– Therefore that money should do the most good.
– So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.

Oh, good grief – I’m not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms

I understood exactly what you said, it was written in simple very easy to understand English :

if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option)

You would prefer if it was left where it is, which unless I’m very much mistaken is under the sea.

Your preferred option in effect makes the rather sensible and valid argument offered by the Scottish government in “the case for independence”, with regards to a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, redundant.

So I repeat my comment, when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045117/No-Thanks-independence-posters-defaced.html

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Ernie you are clutching at straws here, take a step back ffs.

What am I “clutching at straws” about ? Do tell me.

“This government will make the creation of a Scottish Energy Fund an early priority,” the devolved government, which favours independence said in its report

Independent Scotland would create oil and gas wealth fund

The sovereign wealth fund is a fairly central argument which is being offered by those who favour a yes vote and one of the ways in which they suggest the future prosperity a separate Scotland lies.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed it this week, but there appears to have been a surge in support of the yes side of the debate. Many many people who I know who were staunch no voters have decided that they are definitely now voting yes.

Confirmation bias?

I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer “don’t knows” though.

Strolls in for a brief un-flounce

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Yep, lots round here too. Only one opinion allowed by some. That said I’ve seen Yes signs forcibly removed, but nothing in comparison.

I’ve heard of more serious things tbh. Nothing nasty, just examples of where only one voice is allowed.

Confirmation bias?
I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer “don’t knows” though.

I’d imagine so. I know of more no voters now than before. And no increase in yes voters. Which I put down to my increasingly overt cynicism. And some assumptions being made on my voting intentions based on my accent. I’d also suggest the circles I move in leading to a distorted view.

I do know of a number of no voters that are borderline intimidated to admit it.

Anyway – re-flounces

Someone (who posts on STW) reported on Facebook that they’d seen at least one defaced “Yes” banner in the borders, so both “sides” are at it.

Defacing political posters isn’t exactly new though, is it? I mean, we all had a laugh at some of the UKIP ones very recently.

To be honest I’d not seen that one. I much preferred the ‘vote ukip, the friendly face of racism’

Anyway, I said “re-flounces”

And what are you doing in here anyway. You’ll rot your brain.

I also think that a great number of the don’t knows are going to abstain from voting. There are a lot of people who don’t like the arguments from either side and if given the choice would choose “none of the above”, preferring a Devo Max option.

A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to “no thanks” posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

Even yes supporters that are honest with themselves know that no thanks posters are more likely to be attacked, and many no voters would be wary of displaying pro UK sentiment openly.

government by SPAD, the future for iS?

Special advisers, the political appointees who brief journalists and enforce ministers’ wishes, are in many cases the instruments of that pressure. In a pamphlet for the Institute for Government, Sir John Elvidge, Peter Housden’s predecessor as permanent secretary, described how SNP special advisers now sit round the Scottish cabinet table and contribute freely to discussions, even as the number of elected politicians in the cabinet has been reduced. “There is no such precedent, as far as I am aware, for special advisers being at the table or allowed to speak as part of discussions at cabinet,” he said.

big-n-daft – i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?
what are the pros of government by SpAds?

athgray – Member
A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to “no thanks” posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

There’s bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

So judging by what you are saying the Yes side has more bampots.

Following from that there must be more Yes voters, so the referendum is as good as won. 🙂

Although if it’s No, maybe this is what will happen

There’s bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

On the issue of poster defacing I completely disagree with that statement.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable.

Well, if you won’t answer your emails….

wanmankylung – Member

big-n-daft – i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?
reinforces “group think”, anti democratic, changes cabinet so that the decisions in cabinet are not made wholly by the democratically elected representatives of the government

what are the pros of government by SpAds?

you can keep the circle of trust small, when the elected representatives aren’t much cop you don’t have to bring any into cabinet

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

Well, if you won’t answer your emails….

Well, I have ordered something from On One.

Will be in touch in the next few days.

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit. Naive to think that I know, but we can live in hope.

So I repeat my comment

Meh, whatever 😉

I’ve not seen any vandalised Yes or No signs. But the only No signs have been a couple of big ones out Strathblane way, and that’s a long way to go.

From what I’m seeing, the campaign in real life is much more civilised and respectful than it is online.

athgray – Member

There’s bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

On the issue of poster defacing I completely disagree with that statement.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable. [/quote]

Hmmm, from this very thread,

hels – Member

Somebody in a village near me put up one of those big white Yes signs on their property next to the road. Local wag has already drawn pubic hair on the Y. This could get entertaining….

and here is your funny and acceptable

jambalaya – Member

@hels – we need a photo

Also perhaps that could be the symbol for the new Scottish currency

and

hels – Member

I will try and get a pic – was driving and didn’t have time to stop. Will take a can of spray paint just in case.

and

hels – Member

Although in reflection, for maximum amusement he should really put up a series of Yes signs, as in Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh Yes, Yes etc.

Given how humorless most of the Yes folk are, I won’t knock on the door and suggest it.

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit.

It has nothing to do with merit. The question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The important word in your sentence is “could”. It “could” be packed with extremely talented people selected purely on merit and that would be a big improvement on the current set up, but that “could” unfortunately is not an “is”.

SPADS dependent for their continuing employment on their political master, HoL once you are in you can say what you want

SPADS all in line with the party in power, HoL lots of people of all political persuasions

SPADS sat in cabinet helping a single tier system of government make decisions, HoL second chamber review of legislation

SPADS sat in cabinet unnamed, UK cabinet members all publically known

which system is more open and democratic?

I think election poster defacing is an entirely acceptable practice, if anyone’s counting votes on the topic.

“”- I think we should be using less oil.
– So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
– That isn’t going to happen.
– So we’re going to get some money from the oil.
– Therefore that money should do the most good.
– So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.””

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future…what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

who should be in charge of the investment decisions? what kind of investment policy should it pursue? how do you avoid the fund’s capital being invested in ways that suit the political interests of the government of the day?

The important word in your sentence is “could”.

I like to think that all the words in my sentences are important, including the ones that point out that the question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The definition of democracy has nothing to do with “a big improvement on the current set up”.

Establishing parliament was a big improvement on the existing set up but until common suffrage was introduced it wasn’t democratic.

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future…what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

Trident, HS2, Crossrail, misc foreign wars, House of Lords expenses – there’s loads of stuff we won’t have to pay for after independence.

I accept we might not be able to put all the oil revenue into a fund and maintain current spending levels. Any oil fund is better than no oil fund. I’ve got no idea how it would be administered – how do the Norwegians do it? Some kind of system independent of government would be a good idea.

Public spending in Scotland: £64.5 Billion
Tax revenues (including geographic share North sea revenues): £56.9 Billion

You need to make £7.6 Billion worth of savings (approx 5% of GDP) before you can save a single penny of that oil money in a wealth fund!

White paper points to an approx £500m saving on defence, HS2 & Crossrail spending offset by infrastructure in Scotland (like, ahem, trams…) any other savings are rummaging down the back of the sofa!

what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

North Sea oil and gas should be seen for what it is – a bonus, a bonus which most countries do not enjoy in equal measure, and a bonus which ultimately has a limited life.

It is unreasonable to assume that without North Sea oil any UK government would be unable to maintain the current levels of expenditure.

An article which makes some interesting points :

Thatcher and North Sea oil – a failure to invest in Britain’s future

Had Thatcher been a truly visionary politician, she would have established a wealth fund for the oil windfall, not squandered it on tax cuts and current spending.

Any oil fund is better than no oil fund.

But according to you even better than an oil fund is no oil at all.

Let’s not forget that 🙂