Not in the News - 6th of September Edition

Welcome to another edition of our weekly series looking back at the stories which the main stream media in Scotland didn't offer much attention to, and comparing them to those that hit the front pages. Our last edition can be found here.

  

Do you hate your children? You must be a Yes voter!

The No campaign, which had previously claimed that "the key factor (in determining how to vote) is the love of our families", made what is quite possibily the most ridiculous campaign poster since Mayor Quimby's disasterous "he'd vote for you" promise. "We love our kids. We're voting no thanks" (the obvious conclusion being that everyone voting Yes does hate their kids, even the ones who don't have kids!).

 

 

#Hamatime, #PatronisingBTLady and now #ilovemyfamily. The No campaign has been nothing but entertaining (really, they have been nothing!). We can confirm that this trend will continue, as we have seen a preview of their next poster campaign:

 

 

Taking it to the Max

Max Keiser, star of the internationally renowed Keiser Report and On the Edge, has previously stated his support for Scottish Independence. He confirmed that again with his website adding the following post: "YES! An independent Scotland would have the highest GDP per capita in the world. A 'No' vote is asinine".

 

 

No wonder he and his partner Stacy Herbert are considered the most dangerous people to the establishment in the financial media. Well done Max and keep up the great work you do!

 

Checking your purse before they check your pulse

The UK Government confirmed that the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (also known as TTIP) will affect the NHS. The details can be found in these articles by Unite the union and International Business Times.

 

  

Independent EU nations have the right to safeguard their health services if there is an existing state monopoly (i.e. if privatisation is not already taking place). Scotland can only have this protection if we vote Yes on the 18th.

  

The Pot and the Singing Kettle

Yes supporters in Scotland were buoyed by the latest figures from polling agency YouGov. Whether or not you believe the initial figures isn't very important (or even the notion of polling altogether) the evidence that the movement is towards independence is very encouraging.

  

And we know this is important because the BBC (that bastian of impartiality [sarcasm]) considered the massive jump in support for Yes as being less news worthy than the music group the singing kettle announcing that they will stop touring in 2015. Maybe they could have squeezed them both in by dropping the 'New Paranormal Festival for Scotland' story...nah [sarcasm, extreme sarcasm].

 

The reason why this is important is because belief regarding how most other people will be voting is a consideration made by a very large proportion of the electorate at every election. If our fellow Scots believe that Yes can win, then this will translate into more votes. It shouldn't be this way (and with independence we will gain a representative parliament where every vote carries the same value - unlike Westminster) but it is a reality we should recognise.

 

Heartless Vandals!

Evidence has emerge of terrible acts of vandalism against 'no' campaign signs! First Minister Alex Salmond has had to deny personal involvement! Additional statement which hints at, but doesn't make a specific allegation which would need to be justified or could be subject to scrutiny, the Yes campaign being evil and bad!

 

Have these cows fully appreciated the choice facing Scotland?

 

Scotland has value (something the 'no' campaign doesn't appreciate)

We wrote a while ago in our blog 'Nobody wants you so please stay with us' how the primary tactic of those opposed to independence is to portray Scotland as a land which has no intrinsic value. Westminster wouldn't want to treat us as equals because we have no value. The EU won't try to keep us in the club because we have no value. And then NATO would expel us because we have no value. Just follow the links to see why each of these arguments are nonsense.

 

In each case we have shown that this just isn't true, and today we had more evidence of this as a former UK ambassador to NATO, Mariot Leslie, stated her intention to vote Yes and her confidence in Scotland being warmly welcomed within the military alliance.

 

And on a little side story which Russia Today mentioned: a country can be a member of the EU and use the currency of another. Luxembourg, which was a founding member of the EU, continued to use Belgian Francs until 2002. Of course, to the 'no' campaign, Luxembourg has value but Scotland does not. There are only obstacles and problems facing us and no-one will do anything to make things easy or fair.

 

I'm not ready for my closeup, Mr Ponsonby

David Cameron spent Prime Minister's Questions accusing STV of chickening out of hosting a debate between himself and undecided viewers. His exact words were: "On the television programme, I offered them [STV] a date and indeed a format but they seemed to run away themselves which is a great pity."

 

Mr Cameron made a few interesting demands:

No questions from a journalist

No representatives from the Yes Campaign (which STV would have agreed to)

And only 'genuine' floating voters, which Downing Street would arrange (ie, Dave's team would pick the audience)

 

  

Despite attempts to put pressure on the channel by claiming that this 'debate' would take place on Sky News or the BBC (Mr Cameron has so far taken part in nothing), STV refused to surrender editorial control.

 

The offer for Mr Cameron to speak to undecided voters on STV is still available, but we suspect he won't be ready for 'genuine' scrutiny any time soon...

 
Every little hinders

The no campaign used a frankly bizarre claim in their literature recently that the cost of food in supermarkets would increase following a Yes vote. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons (most of which are explained here and here) but the interesting part is the use of Tesco. The image below was taken from a no campaign leaflet and clearly shows that the supermarket will increase every price by 16%.

 

"I can confirm that this [16% higher prices] is not true as we've got a great business in Scotland and our job is to create the best offer for customers whatever the outcome of the referendum." Sue Whitaker, Tesco Customer Service

The problem for the no campaign was that someone asked Tesco, and they confirmed that this story was a lie. So, the no campaign have been caught making up nonsense (again) and hiding their scares behind someone else. I guess in their world, every little hinders.

  

This fake story, which has been introduced whilst votes are being cast, is clearly against election rules. But fear not! Below is a photograph which shows all the work we have seen that the Electoral Commission, who describe their own objective as achieving "well-run elections", is doing to ensure a free and fair contest:

  

  
Strategically positioned paperwork jobs

This map below, which was shared by the Wings over Scotland's twitter account, shows where civilian jobs for the UK military are based.

 

Civilian jobs within the military are very important but they can by and large be located anywhere. Why do these jobs (and remember that a population share of their associated costs are attributed to Scotland despite the obvious shortfall in jobs being based here) have to be concentrated in the south of England? Does this map look fair to you?

 

It reminds me of this article by Business for Scotland. The maps there don't look very fair either.

  

Eh...mass canvas?

We at Sign for Scotland do not share links to the Scotsman newspaper (see our blog 'I read it in the paper' for the main reason why), but even they were highlighting how hopelessly unsuccessful Johann Lamont's mass canvassing attempt in Govan was on Friday.

"But despite an army of Labour supporters knocking doors, only three residents engaged in conversation with her - while several even came outside to return the leaflets pushed through their letter boxes." Scotsman Newspaper

Ouch! The reason why senior Labour politicians are finding such a hard response from people in Govan and other predominately working class areas is because they are campaigning to keep a Tory government in Westminster in power over Scotland. The argument that we should 'vote no and then hope people in England vote Labour next year, (just ignore our commitment to matching every Tory public service spending cut)' is not as strong or as reliable as 'vote Yes and the people will always get the government they vote for'.

 

We can even save a fortune by not paying for what we don't need!

 

But if you are an undecided Labour voter, then please compare any speech by Johann Lamont to the words of Jeane Freeman and decide which one more accurately reflects the founding principles of the Labour Party. What future would you rather have?

  

Join us again on Sunday for our final look at what's 'not in the news' before the referendum!

Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Illogical logic

Illogical logic, or more accurately ‘logical fallacy’, is when an argument is presented as being based in logic when it is in fact devoid of reason.  This is something which voters in Scotland are being subjected to in our referendum campaign.  But how can we tell what is self evident and what is self interest?  We at Sign for Scotland have made a basic guide.

Step one: write down all the arguments you come across.  This applies to both the Yes and no campaigns.  Step two: check through the list below and remove the arguments which fail.  Step three: weigh the options of what remains.
  

1) The personal attack 

The football term would be ‘playing the man and not the ball’.  This is when you are asked not to believe something because of who said it. 

  

2) Tradition

Just because something has ‘always’ been a certain way doesn’t mean that it is right.  It is traditional in many countries for women to be paid less than men for the same job however few would suggest that ‘tradition’ makes this valid. 

  
3) I don’t like the idea of that

This fallacy is to refuse to believe something simply because you dislike the conclusions.  An example would be refusing to believe that successive UK Governments actively hid the value of North Sea Oil for generations.

  

4) But what if they…

This is when someone is threatened to support a point of view. This can be explicate (we’ll bomb your airports) or implied (wouldn’t it be terrible if none of us bought products from your country anymore).

  

5) Big Lie 

This is when a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth is repeated over and over again until people believe it without evidence.

 

6) I support my party 

Believing an idea because that is what your favourite party, politician, celebrity or individual believes isn’t logical. Logic is coming to your own conclusions, not blindly accepting the conclusions of others.

  

"Can you prove that the moon isn't made of cheese?  There's too much uncertainty..."

7) Equivocation

Using words in a specific way to suggest something without actually lying. For example, suggesting that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to use the pound without stating how that's possible.

  

8) It's just like...

Comparing one thing to something very different in order to draw a false conclusion. An example would be saying that ‘Scotland would have been like Greece if we have been independent', when our economies are different.

  

9) Statistics, damn statistics and lies

Using numbers to prove unrelated claims. An example would be asking people in Scotland whether the UK should have a nuclear deterrent and then claiming that those who support the notion automatically support keeping Trident at Faslane.

 

  

10) We don’t know enough yet

Claiming that all information needs to be presented before a conclusion can be made is an example of logical fallacy. This is because it is impossible to have 'all' information on a given subject (especially on something as complicated as how a future government that is yet to be determined will run a nation).

  

11) What about the children?!

Arguing purely on emotion isn't logical. An example would be saying 'think about our shared history'. History won't change based on where political decisions are made.

  

12) A rose by any other name

Using a different term to give a positive or negative spin to a story. If a celebrity were to say 'I'm pretty sure an independent Scotland would be successful', then a negative spin would be 'celebrity has doubts as to how successful a separate Scotland would be'. The statement isn't untrue, but changes to the wording or context give a different impression from that intended.

 
13) Red Herring
Bringing up another topic to distract away from the issue at hand.
   
14) Shifting the Burden of Proof
In the referendum debate, both sides need to state the case for their viewpoints. Stating 'the other side has questions to answer' but offereing no answers from their perspective, is an example of logical fallacy.
   
15) You can't say that!
Saying that certain viewpoints or topics cannot be discussed is a type of logical fallacy. This includes banning discussions in public forums.
 
Both sides have used some if not all of these tricks, but that doesn’t mean that they are as bad as each other.  It is up to you to do your own research and to come to your own conclusions.
   

It is said that truth is one but wisdom is many.  I believe that to be a good place to start when critically evaluating opposing viewpoints.  It is easily possible for two seemingly incompatible opinions to be party or wholly truthful.  And it is possible for people to be honest, even when they slip one of the above fallacies into their statements.

There are many reasons to vote Yes which don't rely on logical fallacies, including a written constitution which will safeguard our rights, a more representative democracy and the removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish territory.

 

So before you vote in 2014, remember to check whether the arguments you come across fall into one of the categories above.  Ignoring the ones that do is the only logical choice.

  

And if that doesn’t convince you, I have a muffin cannon.

 

Drew

If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

Plans A, B, C, D and E (I know you don't care about currency but it's the only thing the Westminster Defence League talk about)

We at Sign for Scotland were recently asked about the best way to respond to people who bring up the topic of currency. So here is our handly little guide. Just remember that the best references  to this subject can be found in the 'Wee Blue Book' (starting on page 11) and on the Business for Scotland website (especially the article 'Euro, Pound Sterling or Scottish Pound'). The different options available to us are also listed on the Scottish Government's White Paper on Independence (starting page 109).

 

If the show 'Spice and Wolf' can use a wolf deity to explain economics then so can we!

Currency Union

The term ‘Currency Union’ can be a bit mis-leading. It has nothing to do with using the £ itself (as options 2 and 3 below will prove), it only means that the Bank of England will continue to act as ‘lender of second last resort’ (see reference [1] and [2]). The main feature of this approach is that things remain the same for people on both sides of the border. There will be no transaction costs and banks operating in Scotland have a local lender with the ability to shore up their finances. This option gives the Scottish Parliament no direct control over the supply of money, although we have the flexibility to set our own tax types and rates [3] [4].
  
This approach was successfully used by Luxembourg and Belgium for over 7 decades [5] and could be replaced with any of the other options listed at a future date. Below is a video in BSL explaining why Westminster will want a currency union, and why they are pretending to be against it during the referendum campaign.

 

Sterlingisation

Sterlingisation means using a currency without having a central bank. This is the same as ‘Dollarisation’ and is a popular choice around the world [6]. In our case, Sterlingisation results in us using the £ as normal, as well as reduced debt payments to Westminster. This is because the Bank of England holds a number of assets that would be withheld from us [7], and thus we would not be liable for any debt that was accrued to secure those assets.

  

Sterlingisation would not affect the guarantee on savers, which means savers with up to €100,000 in their accounts will continue to be protected [8]. Banks operating in Scotland would not be guaranteed bailouts should they fail, which will force them to act more responsibly [9]. This can be achieved without agreement with Westminster and be replaced with any of the other options listed at a future date.

Scottish Currency pegged to the Pound

The third option is for Scotland to have its own currency that will have the same value as the £. Bank of England notes would continue to be accepted in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament could, at a future date, decide to remove the peg (see option 4) giving much more freedom of choice to future generations.
 
A Scottish Central Bank would be formed (or an existing bank in Scotland could be changed into a central bank) which would adopt the same functions that the Bank of England currently has. The strength of this central bank would depend upon the post-referendum negotiations: if our share of the Bank of England’s assets were transferred, then the corresponding levels of UK debt would be transferred too. If no assets were transferred, then Scotland would have vastly reduced debt payments. This is the option that Switzerland successfully uses today [10]. Any transaction costs would be small as a Scottish Pound and a Bank of England Pound would have equal value.

The new no campaign poster

Scottish Currency that floats freely

This approach would see Scotland have its own Central Bank and currency. There would be transaction costs when trading with the UK if we picked this choice similar to those we have when trading with the rest of the world. The advantage of this option is that full control over the supply of money would be held by the Scottish Parliament. The result of this option would be that Scottish bank notes would have a higher value than those produced by the Bank of England [11], which means that anyone holding Scottish currency (i.e everyone in Scotland) would become wealthier, as our money could purchase more goods from abroad than before. The downside is that our exports would become more expensive to others and tourists would view Scotland as a more pricey place to visit.

We're pretty sure Holo is not refering to this story here

Euro

Scotland cannot officially use the Euro due to ERM2 [12]. ERM2 demands that any country that wants to join the Eurozone has to be using a currency that is ‘pegged’ to the Euro for at least 2 years. Scotland can only meet this qualification if we adopt option 4 for at least 2 years (which isn’t physically possible as our independence day will be the 24^th of March 2016 [13]). Scotland could unofficially use the Euro in the same way as we could use the £ in option 2 however there are few immediate advantages with this approach.

 

  

After Independence there will be even more options to pick from however those will be discussed and debated at elections. We, the people who live in Scotland, will get to decide what we want. That's the spirit of democracy and something that Westminster doesn't offer. And it's one of the best reasons to vote Yes.

Drew
 
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland

List of references:

[1] Crisis, Conditions, and Capital – The Effect of International Monetary Fund Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment Inflows [Nathan M Jensen, Department of Political Science, Washington University, St. Louis] - http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/48/2/194

[2] U.S. planned British economic bailout in the 1970s, newly released documents reveal…with haunting echoes today [Dan Atkinson, Mail on Sunday Economics Editor] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266871/A-warning-British-economy-haunting-echoes--34-years-on.html

[3] The race that’s never run [Reverend Stuart Campbell, Wings over Scotland] - http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-race-thats-never-run/

[4] Tax rates online [KPMG, international audit, tax & advisory company] - http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/tax-tools-and-resources/Pages/tax-rates-online.aspx

[5] Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union [Encyclopaedia Britannica] - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/59408/Belgium-Luxembourg-Economic-Union

[6] Dollarization [How Money Works, William F Hummel] - http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/dollarization.html

[7] Bank of England Assets - total [Bank of England official website] - http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/FromShowColumns.asp?Travel=NIxAZxI3x&FromCategoryList=Yes&NewMeaningId=ACRTOT,ATOTL,AFCAS,ATOTAL&CategId=6&HighlightCatValueDisplay=Assets%20-%20total

[8] Deposit Guarantee Schemes [The EU Single Market, EC Europa] - http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/guarantee/index_en.htm

[9] An independent Scotland should use the pound without permission from rUK, says new ASI report [Adam Smith Institute] - http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/money-banking/an-independent-scotland-should-use-the-pound-without-permission-from-ruk/

[10] Swiss National Bank pegs franc to euro [The Week, Business magazine] - http://www.theweek.co.uk/business/2433/swiss-national-bank-pegs-franc-euro

[11] Scottish independence gets boost from Hong Kong’s money markets [South China Morning Post] - http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1224903/scottish-independence-gets-boost-hong-kongs-money-markets

[12] Euro, Pound Sterling or Scottish Pound? [Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, Business for Scotland] - http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/euro-pound-or-scottish-pound/

[13] How will Scotland become independent? [Yes Scotland] - http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/how-will-scotland-become-independent

The Negotiator

The strength of Scotland's position in post referendum negotiations is completely dependant upon the outcome of the vote. A Yes makes us much, much stronger. A no makes us weaker. Here are the reasons why:
 

 

 

Strength of Yes

Scotland as a country is fundamentally self-sufficient. We produce excesses of electricity, have abundant supplies of water, export food and textiles and generally have most of the other essentials of life. We have a balance of trade surplus as a result of our natural resources as well as other industries, and with a significant tourism sector we have no problems with brand recognition or sources of revenue.

 

The things that the UK offer aren't important. We don't need a vast military as we have no nearby threats, we don't need a permanent seat in the UN security council, and we certainly don't need nuclear weapons. Our largest market is provided by the EU (and which the EFTA could equally offer) and the currency is fully tradeable. There isn't anything that we need to have from Westminster.

 

The UK however has a debt problem that isn't getting better, and the £ needs more exports to guarantee its value. The UK also has significant trade with Scotland that it will need to protect and the prospect of leaving the EU is very real, making good relations a priority. And, strictly speaking, the liability for current pensioners will not change, as their national insurance contributions were paid to Westminster. Starting with no debt or pension payments will mean Scotland will begin with a very lucrative budget surplus.

 

Finally, the Westminster negotiators are rubbish. Because the path to power is guaranteed, the people who gain high politicial office don't require any special talent or skill. The Westminster system is a lazy system that lacks the competitive nature of a proportional parliament. We will have the more skillful negotiators, and we will be giving them the best possible hand.

  

All of this means that Scotland holds the advantage in any negotiations. And there are plenty of things that could be done to make Westminster squirm (like demand the immediate removal of Trident or insist on an audit of the UK's debt - both of which they will not want).

 

Weakness of no

A no vote leaves Scotland vulnerable. With independence no longer an option (thus making us dependent on Westminster) there is no incentive for any further devolution. Indeed, both halves of Westminster have an incentive to reduce the importance of Holyrood.

 

A no vote also means a cut to the Scottish budget is not only a possibility but a likelihood. The fact is, Scotland more than pays its way and is a net-contributor, but that won't stop Westminster politicians from demanding that spending is cut here. The current system makes no allowance for where money is earned and the only UK 'region' which will be viewed as an exception is London and the South East.

 

With no means to defend ourselves and every reason to cut, Westminster will view a post-no Scotland as a means to secure more votes in England, and deny reform for a generation.

 

You don't have to be a great negotiator to see the difference. A Yes vote means that Westminster is left over an oil and whisky barrel. No leaves us open to no end of cuts and the prospect of a weakened Holyrood. Even if you don't want Scotland to be independent, you can see how independence is the best way to protect our interests.

Drew
  
If you like this blog, then please consider visiting our other sites:
Facebook - Sign for Scotland
YouTube - Sign4Scotland
Twitter - Sign4Scotland