The Wee Blue Book

[The Jukebox Rebel]

“On 18 September 2014, between the hours of 7am and 10pm, absolute sovereign power will lie in the hands of the Scottish people. They have to decide whether to keep it, or give it away to where their minority status makes them permanently powerless and vulnerable.”

 

Jim Sillars

 

Former Labour MP

 

Founder of Scottish Labour Party

 

Former SNP MP

[The Jukebox Rebel]

note: reading The Wee Blue Book takes two hours max.

 

 

“Scotland is served by 37 national or daily newspapers. Not one supports independence. (The only publication to back a Yes vote is a weekly, the Sunday Herald.) Newspapers have no duty to be fair or balanced, but when Scotland faces a decision as big as the one it’ll make on September 18th, the press being so overwhelmingly skewed to one side is a problem for democracy.

 

Our website, wingsoverscotland.com, is biased too. We support independence, because we think it’ll make Scotland a wealthier, fairer, happier place. We think Scotland will be better off choosing its own governments to solve its problems and make the most of its opportunities, rather than hoping that the people of Kent, Surrey and Essex might elect ones with Scotland’s interests at heart.

 

We think the facts comprehensively back that belief up. But we’re not going to ask you to take our word for it.

 

A very great deal of what you’ve been told about independence in the last few years by Unionist politicians and the media is, to be blunt, a tissue of half-truths, omissions, misrepresentations and flat-out lies. We want to show you the truth hidden behind those lies, but using fully-referenced and impartial sources that you can go and check for yourself.

 

We’ll be mostly using the UK government’s own figures, the views of academic experts and Unionist politicians and officials, NOT those who support independence.

 

On September the 18th you’re going to have to make the most important decision any Scot in history has ever made, and it seems only fair that you should be able to do it based on the real and full facts. Scotland’s media has only told you one half of the story. Don’t you at least want to hear both sides before you decide?

 

 

Rev. Stuart Campbell

 

Editor,

 

The Wee Blue Book”

 

 

 

5 Options:

 

The Wee Blue Book - pdf for Smartphones and Tablets

 

The Wee Blue Book - pdf for Desktop and Laptop Computers

 

The Wee Blue Book - as a free E-Book for e-pub, Kindle etc.

 

The Wee Blue Book - as a Website

 

The Wee Blue Book - Listen via Soundcloud audio

[Aberdeenjag]

It's a good read...apparently having a lot of success convincing undecideds.

[Thistlebob]

I am voting no and because of this the guy who wrote this sent me a message on twitter that wasn't very nice, I am not going into it any further as this is not the place

 

[The Jukebox Rebel]

I’m sorry to hear that Thistlebob – there’s no need for rudeness in political debate.

 

Mind you, it starts at the very top – did you see Alistair Darling pointing and shouting at Alex Salmond the other week? Shocking behaviour.

 

Meant to add a picture for the top of the thread but I'm a bit rubbish and I forgot. Doh.

 

I quite like the idea that the Wee Blue Book is sitting about in thousands of hairdressers right now. Got to be better than yer Women's Weekly surely?

 

[kni]

I thought that the Wee Blue Book was a guide to Sevco's share offer.

[jaggybunnet]

I thought that the Wee Blue Book was a guide to Sevco's share offer.

 

just as truthful and accurate

[jaggybunnet]

oh dear 1, 2 and 4 are just wrong, three is an assumption which has variable numbers of how much there actually is and the renewables is dependent on the EU subsidies which i think we all agree is blown out now and five is just fantasy stuff if you think that Scotland will come out of any negotiations well.

[kni]

The howler in 1. is that Scotland has affected the outcome of the UK's general elections. If Scotland had been independent in 2010, the Conservatives would have had an overall majority and the Coalition would not exist. Similarly, Labour would not have had an overall majority in October 1974.

 

3. on oil reserves is highly debatable as this Financial Times article makes clear. My concern is that Salmond just rubbishes any Government figures or EU statements that do not fit in with his views.

 

4. is simply arrogant and ignorant nonsense. The EU has made it clear in many statements that an independent Scotland will have to apply for Membership under the terms of article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union (aka The Lisbon Treaty). An independent Scotland will not be ejected from the EU, it will have chosen to leave the EU by leaving the UK.

 

As for the BBC, Scotland will have to contract with the BBC and TV licensing authority or set up its own alternatives. The current policy is

 

"a Scottish Broadcasting Service, providing TV, radio and online services, will be established as a publicly funded public service broadcaster, working with the BBC in a joint venture. On independence, the licence fee will be the same as in the rest of the UK, and all current licence fee payment exemptions and concessions will be retained. Existing licences for broadcasters in Scotland will be fully honoured"

 

But no agreement for a joint venture with the BBC has been concluded to date. The BBC is not obliged to enter into such an agreement. It can could close down BBC Scotland after independence, especially if Scottish licence fee revenues (capped by the licence fee pledge) are not enough to cover the costs.

 

5. makes the bold statement that the EU would want an independent Scotland to be a Member. Spain, faced with its own Catalonian independence movement, has said that it does not. Spain is likely to veto a Scottish application for Membership under Article 49 which requires unanimous approval by all Member States. The United Kingdom could veto an application if Scotland refuses to take on its share of the UK debts. Another reason for veto could be the precarious financial structure that would result from Sterling-isation and the lack of a lender of resort, i.e. central bank.

 

In summary, the Wee Blue Book's first page is biased nonsense, factually incorrect and cannot be taken seriously. The rest is therefore not worth reading.

 

If Salmond pledged that an independent Scotland would stay out of the EU and have its own currency, I would support independence. However, I will not vote for the economic catastrophe that will result from Sterling-isation. The famous economist Paul Krugman agrees

 

"Krugman is focused on how the Scottish independence movement has seemed to ignore one of the main lessons of the recent past, one that Krugman himself has been sharing repeatedly in his columns for at least the past five years: the danger of not controlling your own currency. The Scottish independence movement has been very clear that it intends to keep the pound as the national currency,” Krugman writes, after noting earlier that voters’ fear of economic dislocation is the main impediment to the independence movement’s victory. “And the combination of political independence with a shared currency is a recipe for disaster".

 

Edited to get rid of unwanted code.

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Oh dear. Talking about howlers...

 

The howler in 1. is that Scotland has affected the outcome of the UK's general elections. If Scotland had been independent in 2010, the Conservatives would have had an overall majority and the Coalition would not exist. Similarly, Labour would not have had an overall majority in October 1974.

 

Sorry kni, I'm not normally one to nit pick but for you I think I'll make an exception.

 

You are, after all, the chief knit-pick around here.

 

Er, did you mean to say "hasn't"?

 

[kni]

^ No as you misread the post. I was pointing what had actually happened in the first sentence, i.e. that Scotland had affected the outcome and then gave examples.

 

Btw, correcting blatant errors or untruths is not knit-picking or even nit-picking to spell it correctly!

[The Jukebox Rebel]

No, I pretended to misread the post since you gave me an opportunity to do so by listing 1. as if you were reading from The Wee Blue Book perspective.

 

Just like you pretended not to understand the general point being made by said book. You do realise that this book is the work of ordinary grass-roots individuals and is not, in any way, shape or form, the work of a governmental department? I think you can cut a bit of slack if every sentence of the thousands printed does not hold up to your standards of excellence. The intention is good and truthful from start to finish.

 

Also, did you miss my wee bit of word play on kni-t pick? Maybe in future I should be more blatant and just say knipick!

 

Banter!

 

You see, this is all very boring isn’t it?

 

Half-truths, misinterpretations, nitpicks, spin – the bane of a good political debate.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Ok, here’s The Wee Blue Book Point 1 in its’ fuller detail.

 

For the benefit of kni (who refuses to read past the bullet point), I promise the Wee Blue Book is following is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

“Scotland rarely - less than half the time, in fact - gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2015 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 38 of the last 68 years.

 

“Whether you support Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats or anyone else, that’s not democracy. With all due respect to Wales and Northern Ireland, 85% of the population of the UK lives in England, and that means that in practice England always decides what government everyone else gets.

 

“Most of the time (roughly six years in every 10, for the entire modern political era dating back to WW2) that’s been a government Scotland has rejected.

 

“We believe Scotland is a country, and therefore should get the governments it votes for every time - not just when it happens to coincide with what a much larger neighbouring country wants.

 

“That doesn’t mean it should be ruled by the SNP. If you don’t like the SNP or Alex Salmond, you don’t have to vote for them in an independent Scotland - Labour and the Lib Dems were in charge for the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament and could be again. But so could brand-new parties that don’t even exist yet - it’s only a few years since nobody thought the SNP would ever win an election.

 

“Scottish votes almost never make any difference to the outcome of UK elections, and when they do it’s a very small and short-lived one. Scottish independence will NOT condemn the rest of the UK to permanent Conservative governments - almost every Labour government since WW2 would still have had a comfortable majority without any Scottish votes.

 

“In 1997 Labour would still have had a huge majority of 139 seats if all Scottish votes had been removed. Even in 2005 it would have had a comfortable majority of 43 seats without Scottish votes, rather than the 66-seat majority it actually got.

 

“Independence isn’t about policies or parties. Those are questions which will be decided at elections, not the referendum. All you have to decide on the 18th of September is who should choose the future governments of Scotland: the people of Scotland, or the people of England?”

[The Jukebox Rebel]

With regards to jaggybunnet - his position on point 1 (underlined from other threads over the year) has been solid and consistent - he believes that Scotland is a region of the UK and not a country.

 

In many ways, I feel this is the crux of the issue. Should Scotland's interests come before Britain's interests?

 

It's a YES from me.

[kni]

"“Scotland rarely - less than half the time, in fact - gets the governments it votes for. Scots have voted for Labour at every Westminster election since 1955, but by the time of the 2015 election will have had Conservative governments they didn’t want for 38 of the last 68 years."

 

Using that logic, Northern Ireland has never had the Westminster government that it voted for. The South East of England region (as defined by the European Union) has never voted for a Labour government. Should they secede from the UK too?

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Sorry kni - who am I to say what's best for the people of Northern Ireland or anywhere else for that matter?

 

I care deeply about the future of Scotland though.

Edited September 10, 2014 by The Jukebox Rebel

[kni]

With regards to jaggybunnet - his position on point 1 (underlined from other threads over the year) has been solid and consistent - he believes that Scotland is a region of the UK and not a country. In many ways, I feel this is the crux of the issue. Should Scotland's interests come before Britain's interests? It's a YES from me.

 

Currently, Scotland is one of four countries, not regions, that make up the United Kingdom. Ironically, England is the only country in the UK that does have its own Parliament or national Assembly.

 

Scotland, like Wales and Northern Ireland, is only defined as a region by the European Union. By remaining a Member (or more likely joining) the EU, the EU's interests will come before Scotland's. Under EU Treaties, EU law has primacy over Member States' laws.

[kni]

Sorry kni - who am I to say what's best for the people of Northern Ireland or anywhere else for that matter? I care deeply about the future of Scotland though.

 

Do you support Sterling-isation, i.e. rUK's currency outside Scotland's control, or Scotland having its own currency and Central Bank?

 

Under sterling-isation, Scotland would be a region of the "Sterling" zone but without the protection of a central bank, the lender of last resort. Scotland's exchange and interest rates and would be determined by rUK's economic performance and the Bank of England. Scotland would have no means of controlling its money supply. and, therefore, inflation.

 

ETA - there is no such thing as real independence if other countries control your currency (rUK) and laws (EU). The vote next week is imply on separation from rUK.

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[The Jukebox Rebel]

Bearing in mind I'm a bloke on a fitba' forum and no' the minister for finance...

 

I'm all for keeping the pound, exactly as we are.

 

The threat from Cameron, Milliband and Osborne is outrageous. They cannot make a case for better together and have therefore decided to adopt these aggresive tactics designed to scare folks.

 

It's in their interest to do so, of course.

 

I concur with the view that, in the event of a Yes vote, it will be in the best interests for all four countries of the British Isles to sit down and talk it through sensibly. I think there's every chance that Scotland will have enough bargaining power to achieve a currency union. No-one will admit to that on the No side before September 18th.

 

And by the way, how will the Westminster gang explain to their elactorate that they've denied Scotland a currency union and as a result have been burdened with Scotland's share of the 1.4 trillion pound debt?

 

But listen, all that aside, there's a helluva lot of financial experts who're saying that using Sterling “unofficially” would be a BETTER plan for Scotland.

 

http://www.theweebluebook.com/currency.php

 

It's all in the Wee Blue Book - which I urge everyone, yes, no or undecided to read.

 

Question for you kni. Scotland's blood, sweat, toil and oil has built up the pound to what it is today. Do you think it's right that rUK should deny Scotland the use of what is already ours?

[kni]

Question for you kni. Scotland's blood, sweat, toil and oil has built up the pound to what it is today. Do you think it's right that rUK should deny Scotland the use of what is already ours?

 

The currency belongs to the UK which the Yes campaign wants to leave. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, the Pound is no longer "ours". The citizens of rUK should have the right to refuse to underwrite the economy of nation (via the Bank of England as lender of last resort) that chose to leave their country. The value of the Pound is more a reflection of the strength of the south of England's economy, especially the City of London. A new Scottish currency would be the best solution for an independent Scotland - constitutionally, economically and morally.

[kni]

The EU Commision's new President has just given Britain's new Commissioner, Lord Hill, responsibility for financial services. Jean Claude Juncker has very poor relationship with David Cameron who opposed his appointment vigorously and very publicly. Hill's role includes overseeing the regulation of banks and other financial institutions. His appointment is, in effect, a huge "get stuffed" from the EU to Sterling-isation.

[The Jukebox Rebel]

The currency belongs to the UK which the Yes campaign wants to leave. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, the Pound is no longer "ours". The citizens of rUK should have the right to refuse to underwrite the economy of nation (via the Bank of England as lender of last resort) that chose to leave their country. The value of the Pound is more a reflection of the strength of the south of England's economy, especially the City of London. A new Scottish currency would be the best solution for an independent Scotland - constitutionally, economically and morally.

I'm not so sure the citizens of rUK would refuse were the cold, hard, facts laid out before them. £1.18 bn debt burden overnight? I wouldn't if I were them.

 

Denying Scotland a currency union is tantamount to economic vandalism and is morally reprehensible.

 

All that said, who knows what the future may hold? I wouldn't be too surprised if we did have our own pound within a decade or two. I know that's your preferred option. Don't you think you'd have a better chance of achieving your objective in an independent Scotland?

[kni]

All that said, who knows what the future may hold? I wouldn't be too surprised if we did have our own pound within a decade or two. I know that's your preferred option. Don't you think you'd have a better chance of achieving your objective in an independent Scotland?

 

Not if an independent Scotland joins the EU. Under the Treaty of the European Union (Lisbon), all new applicants have to join the Euro zone upon meeting the convergence criteria.

 

The EU leaves very little room for negotiation in its Accession Treaties as it has all the trump cards. Keeping the Pound or having our own currency would not be allowed. The EU will deny Scotland a currency union as you put it - it will be join the Euro or stay out.

 

ETA - under current EU Treaties, an independent Scotland would be forced leave a currency union with rUK and eventually adopt the Euro. That's why Salmond sticks to his ridiculous assertion that Scotland will become a new Member State, with no application or accession process, upon gaining independence.

 

An independent Scotland, upon joining, would not have the UK's negotiated opt-outs or its financial contribution rebates. Thatcher's rebates are currently worth £300 million a year to us.

Edited September 10, 2014 by kni

[Norgethistle]

I'm not so sure the citizens of rUK would refuse were the cold, hard, facts laid out before them. £1.18 bn debt burden overnight? I wouldn't if I were them.

 

Denying Scotland a currency union is tantamount to economic vandalism and is morally reprehensible.

 

All that said, who knows what the future may hold? I wouldn't be too surprised if we did have our own pound within a decade or two. I know that's your preferred option. Don't you think you'd have a better chance of achieving your objective in an independent Scotland?

 

Scotland cannot walk from the debt, all financial institutes have stated that, if so the EU EEA etc won't go near them as will any lender, that leaves them with no one to loan from to set up a treasury reserve to set up a lender of last resort or to pay for the start up costs of a new country.

 

If no central Scottish bank with own currency expect savings, businesses etc to move their cash south as there is no safety net for them in an iScotland

 

A currency union does not work when you don't share the same taxes and economical policies, its already been stated that corporate tax will be set under rUK levels to effectively try to poach businesses from rUK, also why would the rUK public through their taxes be the guarantor to the Scottish banks, when the Scottish public would not return the favor to rUK

[kni]

^ Any UK government that concedes a currency union to Scotland will suffer the consequences at the polls. The rUK voters will rightly demand that their Ministers play hardball in the separation negotiations too. A Yes vote would only be the start of a very bloody process that will divide the nations more than ever.

 

Then there will be the EU accession negotiations to follow. Scotland could find it very difficult to meet the accession and convergence criteria, especially on financial issues such as Treasury reserves and banking regulation, e.g. supervision and capital adequacy. Scotland would need to establish a new regulatory framework to meet the huge number of EU laws and regulations. Industry experts estimate that it would take several years to put in place.