Letters: Stop squandering Scotland's oil wealth

The backing for an oil fund by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Newsnight Scotland on Tuesday night was truly jaw-dropping dynamite regarding Scotland's future.

Professor Stiglitz, a colossus in economics, said our oil wealth is an asset being squandered.

He explained it was an asset moved from below ground to above ground but it was being frittered away, just like the folly of selling your house and living like a king for a period to then find yourself homeless and penniless.

Norway, Scotland's most similar neighbour, has done the opposite with its oil asset. The SNP has advocated an oil fund for about a decade, but Labour, Tories and Liberals have frightened people into not taking action. Prof Stiglitz states, by implication, that they are leaving "future generations impoverished", by blowing an asset in one generation.

In my political memory, since the early 1990s, according to Labour or Tories, it has always been too late to do anything about our situation in Scotland. However, Prof Stiglitz argues for the fierce urgency of now.

As for Labour MPs and MSPs, none have said they would prefer the route of an oil fund and to be independent of David Cameron's cuts.

Instead they belittle Scotland's potential and spread fear, apparently ignorant of the fact that Ireland and Iceland have a higher GDP per capita than the UK and that the Icelandic unemployment rate is in fact lower than the UK's. Politics and the wealth of nations are about looking at evidence and argument and making the best decision for the country and future generations regarding our assets.

In essence, Stiglitz's message echoes Robert Burns: "Now is the day and now is the hour."

Angus Brendan MacNeil MP

SNP Na h-Eileanan an Iar

Tangasdale

Isle of Barra

Jim Sillars (Letters, 25 August) is right to point out that in the debate about "dirty oil" much of the zealotry is based on doubtful science.

On Tuesday night I attended the fascinating Book Festival debate on "Powering the Planet", and the assumption that imminent "dangerous climate change" is the settled consensus of science underpinned many of the arguments. This assumption is a fundamental flaw which underpins much of our public policy, including our "groundbreaking" Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Cllr Cameron Rose

City Chambers

Edinburgh

In HIS letter (24 August) Robert Dow claims that the only fair way to delineate a sea boundary is by means of a line parallel to established lines of geographical latitude. However, if this were applied to the boundary between the UK and Norway it would mean that both countries would have territorial waters to the other's coast, ie Scotland below a certain latitude and Norway above.

In my opinion the fair way is by equidistance.

Thomas Murray

Cairns Crescent Perth