[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

teamhurtmore - Member

NW nothing fibbing about the election results at all.

JY showed you the numbers and you've made no attempt to rebut. They simply don't say what you claimed. I could accept that as a mistake at the time but to maintain it now is clearly dishonest.

seosamh77 - Member
...I won't need to use the NHS much in the next 30 years, touch wood. So facts as they current are are fairly irrelevant to me...

If you have parents they may be.

Check out the costs of aged care and also the costs of dying of something like cancer in a privatised system.

Or a child needing a heart operation.

If you have parents they may be.

Check out the costs of aged care and also the costs of dying of something like cancer in a privatised system.

NW - I just ignore trolls*. There are plenty of articles showing what I said from across the political spectrum. The democracy deficit is another myth.

* TBF, didn't even bother to read, so not sure what was said to rebut anyway and have no interest.

The ironical thing is that in one case where Scotland voted labour and got Tory was dear Maggie and now they are copying RW policies that would make even her blush. Still that was a good example of how being exposed to NS Oil can be a double edged sword. But at least there was a simple hate figure to blame instead. Nothing new there.

Oh good, we're back to the BBC scare story - apparently we'll have to pay for BBC shows that we currently get for free 🙄

Yet again deliberately confusing matters. The currency is not an asset to be shared, never has been ,

Thanks for the troll claim for using actual facts against your unevidenced claims 🙄 Really when all you have left is pathetic name calling when presented with facts- really why not counter the actual election results and prove your claim to be true. Have you noticed how many posters on the last few pages have mentioned your MO , your posts and content? - how many have criticised mine?You are getting a lot of trolling here - well either that or you are telling porkies in your posts. Its not hard to work out which it is.

NW nothing fibbing about the election results at all. The democratic deficit is another misrepresentation used by yS.

Will someone just ask him for the data [ third time he has made the claim with no evidence at all to support it - the thing he accuses AS of doing] then re post what I showed. We all know its is a BS claim

There are plenty of articles showing what I said from across the political spectrum. The democracy deficit is another myth

teamhurtmore - Member

* TBF, didn't even bother to read, so not sure what was said to rebut anyway and have no interest.

I think I'll use that policy- anyone that provides hard facts that contradict my bullshit, I'll just declare a troll and not bother to read it and therefore I will be right. FFS.

Noam Chomsky backing Scottish independence:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-noam-chomsky-backing-yes-1-3387174

The i/Independent this morning publishes a poll conducted in England by a Welsh academic, purporting to shoe that only 19% of English people want Scotland to leave the Union amongst other points.
The important point though, is the majority view that should Independence happen, then Currency Union is strongly opposed by the people in this survey (haven't got my copy to hand, will show actual figures later).
For me personally, these figures are encouraging as i suspect it will help to drive up the yS vote. As i believe Independence is going to happen at some point anyway its best that it happens sooner rather than later.
I am puzzled though as to why the majority of yS supporters think politicians are lying about CU, when this poll shows that the largest electorate in the UK is strongly opposed to that course of action?
Why is it acceptable for Scots to want to protect their interests, but if the rest of us wish to do the same its 'bullying' ?

Oh good, we're back to the BBC scare story

I would have thought not getting Eastenders was a real bonus......being able to pick and choose will mean not funding a lot of the dross hence why the Beeb grandee's are so unhappy at the likely budget cut. You will be able to put the money into "Clydesiders" or similar

The "scare story" is that a Yes vote will mean the end of the licence fee in it's current form in rUK and a different model will need to be created to enable access for rUK and non-rUK residents. Some may argue that it's going to happen anyway but a Yes vote makes it a near certainty

you may get a World Service broadcast though 😉

muddydwarf - Member

I am puzzled though as to why the majority of yS supporters think politicians are lying about CU, when this poll shows that the largest electorate in the UK is strongly opposed to that course of action?

The 3 questions there are why, how informed it is, and how strongly. Or to put it another way, what was the english electorate's opinion on currency union, before westminster and the media started telling everyone it was a bad idea. And, you have a strong majority, but how much do they actually care? My nonscientific survey of a dozen or so english people who're against currency union revealed none of them really knew what it was, no idea how representative that may be of course.

And its almost universally accepted that the NHS will be privatised in England in the not too distant future.

With regards to the NHS an independent Scotland will lose many of the benefits of scale the UK NHS enjoys, the service will be more costly to provide with a higher bureaucratic overhead.

@Nothwind, I would say most of us in the UK thought currency Union was a bad idea as soon as we heard about it, nothing to do with Westminster. If Scotland votes for independence I hope all the UK parties re-assert their position on currency union and other Scottish issues so we can make sure we vote for the party at the UK general election which stands for the values we believe in. If necessary I would be very happy to have a referendum on the issues.

The 3 questions there are why,

how informed it is,

and how strongly

The currency costs argument for rUK is minor: I went to the North Devon Agricultural Show on holiday this year and you could get get in paying in Euro's, in pre Euro europe Dutch/ German currency was interchangeable at the border. If a small county show can get it's head around it I'm sure the big boys can

bencooper - Member
Oh good, we're back to the NHS scare story - apparently we'll have to pay for NHS treatment that we currently get for free

Or would you call that 'project fear'? 😉

Why is it acceptable for Scots to want to protect their interests, but if the rest of us wish to do the same its 'bullying' ?

I think it's the total refusal to even negotiate on the matter that's poorly received. Even the most adamant voices on here point out that iScotland would never sign up to the term that would need to put down for it to be acceptable to rUK, but we'll never find out. The stance of not discussing what will happen after a vote, but only when it suits us is in bad faith and lot of people don't like it.

I would say most of us in the UK thought currency Union was a bad idea as soon as we heard about it, nothing to do with Westminster.

Anecdotally, most folk I know living in England want as few barriers as possible so were quite happy at the idea of the CU. I've not asked them about it again recently but it certainly wasn't as clear cut as you'd seem to think.

Or to put it another way, what was the english electorate's opinion on currency union, before westminster and the media started telling everyone it was a bad idea.

This would be interesting to know.

jambalaya - there is no UK NHS

I think it's the total refusal to even negotiate on the matter that's poorly received. Even the most adamant voices on here point out that iScotland would never sign up to the term that would need to put down for it to be acceptable to rUK, but we'll never find out. The stance of not discussing what will happen after a vote, but only when it suits us is in bad faith and lot of people don't like it.

as soon as Mark Carney stated that currency union requires the ceding of sovreignty it was a dead duck.

The whole premise of the independence vote is that Scotland has a different political direction than rUK and different spending and taxation priorities. The whole essence of the Yes campaign is the desire to create a divergent economy to that in rUK

you can't have that and a successful currency Union, and rUK isn't going to risk the stability of the pound for the convenience of not having to have a few Euro's/tartan pounds in your pocket

A hardening of English attitudes

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes

big_n_daft - Member

you cede sovreignty in a currency union, decisions on monetary policy are directly influenced by a separate state,

You should take that one up with the No campaign tbh, they insist Scotland would be giving up all influence on monetary policy...

muddydwarf - Member

I am puzzled though as to why the majority of yS supporters think politicians are lying about CU, when this poll shows that the largest electorate in the UK is strongly opposed to that course of action?
Why is it acceptable for Scots to want to protect their interests, but if the rest of us wish to do the same its 'bullying' ?

jambalaya - Member
And its almost universally accepted that the NHS will be privatised in England in the not too distant future.

Quite simply not true. It isn't going to be privatised and its not universally accepted. The NHS does many things very well but it does many things very poorly and very inefficiently. The French service isn't free at the point of use, do we say that is a privatised service ?
With regards to the NHS an independent Scotland will lose many of the benefits of scale the UK NHS enjoys, the service will be more costly to provide with a higher bureaucratic overhead.

The truth of it wasn't really my point, I'm not particularly qualified to comment.

The point was about the perception.

that's the problem with this particular debate, it's overly concerned with facts and has very little concern with the emotion.

A hardening of English attitudes

I'm not really surprised. Most of the time, for most English people, Scotland is an irrelevance - we're this wee country up North which makes whisky and fried Mars bars.

But now the English media is filled with stories about Scotland, and lots of it is about how Scotland is richer than the rest of the UK, has more spending per head, and wants to leave the UK but wants to keep the Queen, the BBC and the Pound.

Or to put it another way, what was the english electorate's opinion on currency union, before westminster and the media started telling everyone it was a bad idea.

**** 'em , it's our ball and we are taking it home.

If you don't want to be friends anymore get your own ball.

it's our ball

It's a shared ball that we helped pump up.

(That popping sound was a metaphor stretching to breaking point...)

If Scotland leaves the UK and joins Europe why would you not want to have the euro.

I'm not really surprised. Most of the time, for most English people, Scotland is an irrelevance

for most people anywhere outside their normal "world" which may be as small as a village in the middle of nowhere or as large as a city is an irrelevance

- we're this wee country up North which makes whisky and fried Mars bars.

you should see what people say about Liverpool, and visa-versa,

But now the English media is filled with stories about Scotland, and lots of it is about how Scotland is richer than the rest of the UK, has more spending per head, and wants to leave the UK but wants to keep the Queen, the BBC and the Pound.

a lot of English media is the Yes campaign implicitly/ explicitly telling rUk (mainly the English) that we have been awful to the Scots and that it's all our fault, that we are now bullying poor Scotland and continuing the Westminister "yoke" that has stopped Scotland being a Utopia

can't think why attitudes are hardening

I think I'll use that policy- anyone that provides hard facts that contradict my bullshit, I'll just declare a troll and not bother to read it and therefore I will be right. FFS.

I am puzzled though as to why the majority of yS supporters think politicians are lying about CU,

when this poll shows that the largest electorate in the UK is strongly opposed to that course of action?

Why is it acceptable for Scots to want to protect their interests, but if the rest of us wish to do the same its 'bullying' ?

I think the argument here is it harms both countries. The issue against is that rUK bears the burden of risk not iS. However I would also point out that the US bailed out the Uk, the UK bailed out Ireland. Ie if one of your major trading partners goes belly up it is still in your best interest to bail them out whether in a formal union or no union at all.

The stance of not discussing what will happen after a vote, but only when it suits us is in bad faith and lot of people don't like it

1) is anyone considering moving savings to English banks? Been considering this and noticed the scotsman covered it the other day http://www.scotsman.com/news/how-likely-would-run-on-banks-be-after-yes-vote-1-3511906

2) is now a stupid time to consider buying a house in Scotland?

Still interested in anything fact based about the above if anyone works in these kind of areas

Still interested in anything fact based about the above

Good luck with that - on here we tend to deal more in wild speculation 😉

You should take that one up with the No campaign tbh, they insist Scotland would be giving up all influence on monetary policy...

Insist? That is just what happens. The reason why there may not be much angst about CU is that many people including the DO do not know (or in the latter's case pretend not to know) how they work.

But yet again, here is the elephant in the room. The DO ultimately wants a CU with £ as a precursor to joining the €. He does not feel comfortable with having an independent currency with independence policy, supervision, etc. How odd, and here I was thinking that this was call for independence. Central to each of the yS recommendations is the need to CEDE SOVEREIGNTY. When this gets pointed out, people get accused in bullying or bluffing. But that is a smokescreen.

The heart of the yS campaign is the desire to cede not take on sovereignty. There can be no escaping that fact. This is not a vote for independence since the main proponents clearly do not think it's in Scotland's interests. In that regard, they are correct. There own analysis shows why two countries we such integrated economies, free labour movement etc are best suited as a union. It's all there in the fiscal commission. The rest is pure vanity and ego.

me
There's no such thing as EU citizenship, properly understood. there's only citizenship of a state that is a member of the EU.

junkyard

There's no such thing as EU citizenship

Well that is just plain wrong
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/
Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. It is for each EU country to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality of that country.

I can only read what you read if you provide it, can you cite the document ?
I was not trying to misrepresent your position and I dont think I have

The idea that the US bailed out the UK is just another example of people not understanding how any of this works. * During the crisis the FED acted as the lender of last resort. It did not bail out the banks. It provided emergency funding at penal interests to those who needed it. They are completely different things, naturally confused together by YS to deceive the public in their ridiculous poster posted here a week or so ago.

But it is an issue that is worth bringing up. Why? Because the DO is now proposing the best option is for Scotland with its large banking sector to have no lender of last resort. That is folly in the extreme and another clear example of how badly thought through yS campaign is. Shameful as well as deceitful.

* currently reading Tim Geithner's book about how this was actually managed. YS supporters should try it despite the uncomfortable narrative! Like Carney, Geithner has no need to BS the public.

The whole premise of the independence vote is that Scotland has a different political direction than rUK and different spending and taxation priorities.

During the crisis the FED acted as the lender of last resort. It did not bail out the banks. It provided emergency funding at penal interests to those who needed it. They are completely different things,

[b]Anyway[/b] you missed the point THM , I thought I would just do a wee test [ using economics as you struggle to resist] to see if you did read my posts and now we all know you do.
THANKS

Shot yourself in the foot again there THM and we all know that NW assessment of your MO is indeed the truth and your account is not.

teamhurtmore - Member

Insist? That is just what happens.

Argue with Big N Daft (and the English electorate, and Mark Carney apaprently), not me... Welcome to Team Yes.

During the crisis the FED acted as the lender of last resort.

Because the DO is now proposing the best option is for Scotland with its large banking sector to have no lender of last resort.

😀

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/08/20/dr-brooke-magnanti-i-want-to-live-in-a-country-based-on-hope-for-the-future/

The dutch prepare for independence! 😆

[img] [/img]

😀

bigjim - Member
...1) is anyone considering moving savings to English banks?...

I keep the bulk of my funds overseas.

I expect the UK sector to tank again.

Too many lies in the press just like the lead up to the GFC. A recovery isn't a recovery if debt money is increasing - a bit like one of Jerry Springer's TV guests thinking they are rich because they got a new credit card.

Yes, is a vote for divergence of the two economies

Currency union requires convergence

Do you want independence or the pound?

Anyone can feel free to understand how a lender of last resort works or simply display ignorance (yet again). The funds were not given, they were lent at penal tax of interest and paid back to the FED. That is how it works. Oh and given to US subsidiaries of foreign banks too.

So plenty of fails in the alternative view.

"Stress Test - Reflections on financial crisis" by Timothy Geitner - non economic and tells you all you need to know and why the DOs proposal is folly. 558 pages worth more than all the 600+ of garbage in the BoD.

B n D - yS will keep ignoring this until well after the vote. But it's as clear as day. AS wants convergence not independence.

I keep the bulk of my funds overseas.

Anyone can feel free to understand how a lender of last resort works or simply display ignorance (yet again).

So the UK's lender of last resort is the US Federal Reserve. Fine, that's simple - a lender of last resort in a completely different country is fine with you in that situation.

Bailouts - during the financial crises there where two types, loans and equity. Loans where made as the normal markets closed down so the FEB/BoE etc stepped in. The loans have in the large part been repaid (certainly in the US, some still outstanding in the UK). The equity investments in the US have been rapid and as far as I am aware no UK banks had equity investments made by the FED into their US subsidiaries. Loans yes, but now repaid.

The relevant point here is that without a central bank Scotland cannot do the same.

We did discuss this a bit a while ago with regard to the Australian / New Zealand situation where there are no independent NZ banks as they are all owned by Austrian Banks and there was legitimate concern that the Aussies might not step in to save NZ banks/subsidiaries in the future. There is little appetite for sending taxpayers money abroad to save foreign banks even if they are owned locally.

No Ben, that is not correct

No Ben, that is not correct

I just copied and pasted what you wrote - so which bit is not correct?

So the UK's lender of last resort is the US Federal Reserve.

So THM was wrong when he said that:

During the crisis the FED acted as the lender of last resort.

?

If providing £640bn of loans to prop up UK banks wasn't acting as a lender of last resort, how would you describe it?

I think Ben is referring to the fact the FED was lender of last resort to UK PLC as shown by their records*. that is they lend us money so we coudl bail out the banks [ in this sense we nationalised in all but name rather than kept them liquid]
* there was a link a few pages ago to this but i did not read it to be clear.

I am not sure why THM thinks the lender of last resort does not charge interest on the money.
The IMF, for example, does the same.

No, the loans were direct to banks:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed

OTT ben can you drop me an e-mail re a bike issue

Not sure if kinetics is just you or where you work
If just you I will mail you there if that is ok

You may just get some of my English pounds if you act quick enough 😉

YGM - it is just me 😉

what, no one frothing at the mouth and accusing Sir Ian of not knowing anything yet?

jambalaya - Member
"I keep the bulk of my funds overseas."

@epicyclo - really ? UK bank deposits are very well insured by the government (£50k I recall)

It's not the banks I am taking precautions against (but I do spread the cash around), but the possibility of the £ going into freefall. I don't care about economics, just arithmetic, and nothing seems to be adding up.

I have done nicely out of being careful like this in the past. I could be wrong this time, of course.

bigjim - Member

what, no one frothing at the mouth and accusing Sir Ian of not knowing anything yet?

He certainly doesn't know his own head- in February his Wood Review gave a range of 12-24bn boe (though stated that the range of industry forecasts gives a high end of 34bn), with recommendations which he predicted would increase this by another 3-4bn at the low end. Now the likely best outcome is 16.5bn not 24bn? Barely above his low end estimate.

Wonder what's changed?

Ben, the FED provided liquidity to the US banking system. At the time, that included the subsidiaries of UK banks (not the UK banks themselves). In return, they are now asking for the UK subsidiaries to be separately capitalised which is causing a lot of aggravation/stress for the UK banks. Indeed many are simple scaling back their US operations.

Your quote of my words was merely making the distinction between acting as a lender of last resort and bailing out the banks. They are not the same thing at all despite what yS and others would like you to believe. That is merely a tactic to deceive as is claiming that I did not say that they charge interest. Not only interest but penal rates. Hard to misunderstand really.

...a bit like one of Jerry Springer's TV guests thinking they are rich because they got a new credit card.

I like that analogy. 🙂

Glad to see you still read my posts when it suits you -it was an intentional error done to prove this point.
Thanks
Twice now you have read my posts when it suits you. However when I posted up the democracy claim evidence you do not read trolls post and you never saw it - even when others commented on them you missed it.You are still repeating the claim you know is false and still offering no evidence for it.

As NW said FFS you expect people to believe you? Really do you expect folk to believe you did not read the "troll" on democracy?

And you have the nerve to call AS the DO I think we all know what you are on this thread and I think ducks was spot on.

Ninfan, Beveridge is merely 8k pages too late. He is just saying what we knew from the outset. Just 8k pages of denial of what is blatantly obvious ever since.

The FC work is a give away from the start. So now his advisors are saying that you cannot (in effect) walk away from debt obligations and plan D is at best only a very short term solution, what bit of magic will the DO try to pull off next. Do they still print comics in Dundee? He could have new source material.

His list of enemies is extraordinary - now even his advisors are distancing themselves from his nonsense. That is some skill (sic)

I just copied and pasted what you wrote - so which bit is not correct?

Fantastic work bencooper.

Fantastic indeed - but as one meaning of that word suggests, incorrect, The FED has specific responsibilities, it doesn't even cover all US financial institutions and it certainly has no responsibility to the UK.

THM in his heyday

FWIW I think you are doing a sterling [ see what I did there] job of explaining this to us all and now we all know the lender of last resort never helps foreign owned banks except for when it does.

this thread just keeps giving 😆

Hows aboot you lot stop calling each other names? any chance of that happening or do I need to shut this down?

[IMG] [/img]

THM's frustration has shown for some time. The rational explanations given much earlier in the thread which attempted to explain why the nonsense was nonsense have slowly been replaced by the sort of ridicule which our leaders probably deserved in the first place.

So, back to Oil. Sir Ian Wood says Scottish Government's estimates are too high. If there's one man who should really be listened to on the subject, it is probably him.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28867487 ]BBC linky[/url]

http://dickwinchester.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

fwiw he is not impartial

“I believe the debate should not be about nationalism*, but growth and economic success, and the quality of life for citizens and all that goes with that. Against these measures, it’s very hard not to conclude the case is heavily weighted towards Scotland remaining in the UK and getting the best of both worlds – I want the best for future generations of Scots.”

* IMHO that is a playing the man

He says what is best to get the political outcome he wants JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE

From BBC article

The figure of 24bn barrels is quoted in the White Paper as an estimate from industry body Oil and Gas UK.

and

Sir Ian claimed there are about 15bn to 16.5bn barrels of recoverable oil left, and that the figure from the White Paper is 45% to 60% too high.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-offshore-oil-and-gas-sir-ian-woods-interim-report-published ]from UK Goverment regarding his interim report November 2013[/url]

41 billion barrels of oil and gas have already been produced from the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS), and 20 billion or more could still to be produced. Sir Ian believes that implementing the recommendations of the review will deliver at least 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) more than would otherwise be recovered, worth £200 billion. The report comes five months in to Sir Ian’s review with a final report to be published in early 2014.

Doesn't add up does it? Three different estimates, two of which are supposedly from the same source.

45% to 60% too high.

Spin there for sure

Not a particularly useful addition WML as it plays the man, not the ball. The Oil & Gas Commission recommends implementing in full the conclusions of the Wood Review. Hardly undermines the Wood position.

There's a difference of opinion on the volume of recoverable oil. Differences of opinion on investment incentives and earnings to flow from it are to be expected because that's what stimulates debate and forms policy. Differences of opinion on how much of the stuff there is to have a policy on ought not to be so far apart.

[quote> http://www.energyvoice.com/2014/08/sir-ian-wood-breaks-silence-ahead-scotlands-independence-vote/

fwiw he is not impartial

"Faced with depleting reserves and costly renewables, an independent Scotland could ultimately be forced to import energy generated from onshore fields from its English neighbour."

Aye, right!

two of which are supposedly from the same source

oldbloke - Member

So, back to Oil. Sir Ian Wood says Scottish Government's estimates are too high. If there's one man who should really be listened to on the subject, it is probably him.

As I explained earlier today, his statement today disagrees with his [i]own[/i] review never mind other people's. So what the hell is going there I do not know but clearly something is wrong.

They also disagree with the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's reporting, which he references in the review (which places the [i]proven[/i] reserve at no less than 30.3 billion barrels- 20% higher than the white paper figure and almost twice Wood's new estimate. That's leaving aside the probable reserve, let alone likely future strikes)

Who's right? I don't know. But if you've got to pick one person to believe, it's probably not the guy who's disagreeing with himself. In this case, maybe i'll go with the UK government's version, which is by far the most optimistic 😉 Yet weirdly it's the much lower white paper figure which is described as optimistic.

which places the proven reserve at no less than 30.3 billion barrels

Are you sure you've not got a decimal wrong there? 404 million T at 7.5 barrels to T = 3030M barrels = 3.03billion barrels.

[url= https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-uk-field-data ]https://www.gov.uk/oil-and-gas-uk-field-data[/url]

But if you've got to pick one person to believe, it's probably not the guy who's disagreeing with himself.

I like that 8)

yet strangely enough their OBR released a far more pessimistic account this week, with far more publicity. Hmm

oldbloke - Member

two of which are supposedly from the same source

That says it is from his interim report. Go to the final one.

http://www.woodreview.co.uk/ Final Report (24th February)

Page 3 - Forward section 7 he says this is potentially 24 billion boe.
Page 5 - Executive Summary he says between 12 and 24 billion boe
Page 5 - Footnote 4 states between 12 - 22 - 35 billion boe (where he based his 12 - 24 boe fig from above).

Is there a more final version than this before I read any further?