[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

the three main parties agree on more devolution

This isn't about honesty (or otherwise) from the likes of David Cameron, it's about him making promises he is unable to fulfill.

Exactly. No-one is proposing more devolution other than of income tax which is, as I've detailed, a poisoned chalice.

Can we just put this one to bed? There is no agreement for additional devolution.

The killer is infrastructure - infrastructure spending per head in London is around £5000, and that's not quoted in the normal public spending figures.

Those figures are meaningless until you know what the histrorical and future infrastructure plans are for the various regions. FWIW I do think spending should be more widely spread, I thought the new 'Wembley' should have been built in the midlands for example.

But the whole topic is whataboutery really.

big_n_daft - Member
project feart

Haha, surprised it's took 2 years for someone to come up with that, very good! 😆

I have my moments of genius 😉

bencooper - Member
Exactly. No-one is proposing more devolution other than of income tax which is, as I've detailed, a poisoned chalice.

Ah, so that is why the likes of tartan taxes have yet to utilised 😉

bencooper - Member
If only that were true - sadly the Future of England survey showed that it's ordinary English people who want to punish the Scots for even trying to get independence:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/leader-comment-english-opinion-on-independence-1-3514693

I haven't seen the poll, just this article but it sounds like what they/you view as the English 'punishing' the Scots, is the English 1 protecting their own interests regarding a potentially disastrous currency union and 2 wanting greater fairness - spending levels equalised across the UK and preventing the Scots voting on English only matters, much as the Scots already enjoy with their own parliament. Is that it or have I misunderstood?

spending levels equalised across the UK

I'd be delighted to see spending levels equalised across the UK. We spend far more on tax up here than those of you south of the border.

Why is it surprising that "ordinary English" (not forgetting rest of rUK) are peed of with the DO. He makes irresponsible comments that are detrimental to our future, he proposes (understandably) things that are only in Scotlands best interest and then cries foul when rUK do the same. Having your oatcake and eating it grates very quickly.

So when he comes out to play in the big boys playground he quickly gets put in his place, even by the Mild Darling. He would have benefited from boarding as a kid.

Whatever happens Scotland will have a greater (disproportionate in the ST) level of representation and yet many will still moan like spoilt kids. And then folk wonder why that makes them unpopular in rUK?

The spending levels equalised thing: How much does it cost to collect someone's bins in, say, Luton? How much does it cost in Tobermory? How much does it cost to provide methadone treatment in, say, Chorley? How much in Glasgow? The whole point of the block grant is that it costs more to provide services and other things in some areas, and some areas are in greater need. It is a nonsense to try to equalise that.

He would have benefited from boarding as a kid.

You would benefit from boarding now - waterboarding.

The whole point of the block grant is that it costs more to provide services and other things in some areas, and some areas are in greater need. It is a nonsense to try to equalise that.

There's only one vote which keeps the block grant.

There's only one vote which keeps the block grant.

Correct. However there's one vote which means we get to control all our revenue instead of handing most of it over to Westminster and getting some of it back if we ask nicely.

Charming wan..., remember what you said a few pages back about losing an argument. You were right. But I guess defending the indefensible gets to everyone in the end.

But the result is Scotland will have less to spend than it currently has (or it has to increase borrowing).

That bit about the 'ordinary English punishing the Scots' really makes my case for me. If the Scots try to protect their (perceived) interests by attempting to gain Independence then that's a good thing, if the English attempt to protect their interests by denying a CU, stopping Scots MP's voting on internal English matters and demanding 'fairness' it is not only bullying but a vindictive punishment for attempting Independence.

Scots may be fed up of a lot of things, I'm fed up constantly being accused of being vindictive bully.

But the result is Scotland will have less to spend than it currently has (or it has to increase borrowing).

Not true. Scotland is the second-richest area of the UK after London - we'll have more to spend than we do at the moment. And that's before you add in the savings from not renewing Trident etc.

Muddydwarf, the problem is how you define "fairness" - it seems that public opinion thinks Westminster taking Scotland's oil revenue is fair, but Scotland receiving higher public spending is not fair. I'd say neither is particularly fair.

http://harddawn.com/if-scotland-were-independent-timeline-tragedy/

😀

Oh, and Better Together are still up to their trick of pretending party people are ordinary members of the public:

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/502545898657034240

They really are embarrassingly bad at lying...

Still, Jim Murphy got a good crowd on the Royal Mile today

[img] [/img]

Shame most of them were waiting for him to do some juggling..... and can't vote anyway

bencooper - Member
The spending levels equalised thing: How much does it cost to collect someone's bins in, say, Luton? How much does it cost in Tobermory? How much does it cost to provide methadone treatment in, say, Chorley? How much in Glasgow? The whole point of the block grant is that it costs more to provide services and other things in some areas, and some areas are in greater need. It is a nonsense to try to equalise that.

This is a complete red herring, the English of course do not expect to exactly equalise spending per capita all across the union.
What is expected is that spending is brought into line and made equal based on need and not an arbitrary ratio, which is what it currently is based on. Your example of Glasgow, compare spending there to Blackpool or Clacton, compare it to Merthyr Tydfil. Scotland gets more than it strictly should, based on need. That is what people want equalised.

Look up the HoL write up on the 1993 Needs Assessment studies from the treasury for and indication of the numbers involved.

Poor old AS. First one of his advisers on the FC highlights that he is talking bllx on the currency and now here comes the second, Stiglitz, commenting as Europe is entering a Japanese-style depression (his words not mine) that the very system that the DO wants to take Scotland into combines a "flawed structure with flawed policies."

As he puts it simply, the Euro zone is not (unlike the UK) and optimum currency area (no **** Sherlock)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64217ffa-2946-11e4-baec-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3B1Kyrcfh

"So people of Scotland, let me extracte you from an optimum currency area that works, and take you into a flawed transition and then into a system that my advisers tell me has flawed structures and flawed policies......don't worry about me, I will have banked my pension in time. Nae probs...." You couldn't make it up.

bencooper - Member

http://harddawn.com/if-scotland-were-independent-timeline-tragedy/

So that's where Baron Robertson of Port Ellen gets his material from. 😆

This Stiglitz?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-20/stiglitz-says-u-k-would-drop-denial-of-pound-to-scotland.html

The U.K. government’s refusal to grant a currency union with an independent Scotland is a bargaining chip and will be dropped if voters back independence in next month’s referendum, Joseph Stiglitz said.

I have a suggestion for all of you who think Scotland is getting an unfair share of your tax money.

Contact your MP urgently and ask him to get the UK govt to support Scottish independence right now, so that the referendum succeeds.

Then you'll be rid of us. Win win.

teamhurtmore - Member
Poor old AS. First one of his advisers on the FC highlights that he is talking bllx on the currency and now here comes the second, Stiglitz, commenting as Europe is entering a Japanese-style depression (his words not mine) that the very system that the DO wants to take Scotland into combines a "flawed structure with flawed policies."

As he puts it simply, the Euro zone is not (unlike the UK) and optimum currency area (no **** Sherlock)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/64217ffa-2946-11e4-baec-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3B1Kyrcfh

"So people of Scotland, let me extracte you from an optimum currency area that works, and take you into a flawed transition and then into a system that my advisers tell me has flawed structures and flawed policies......don't worry about me, I will have banked my pension in time. Nae probs...." You couldn't make it up

epicyclo - Member
I have a suggestion for all of you who think Scotland is getting an unfair share of your tax money.

Contact your MP urgently and ask him to get the UK govt to support Scottish independence right now, so that the referendum succeeds.

Then you'll be rid of us. Win win.

Or this Stiglitz?

THE Nobel prize-winning economist who helped draw up Alex Salmond's fiscal and economic blueprint for independence has warned Scottish economic growth would suffer unless the country broke away from the UK pattern of growing inequality.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz served on the Fiscal Commission and its working group under chairman Crawford Beveridge, which reported this week on how an independent Scotland within a Sterling zone could flourish.

The US expert is understood to have pressed for the inclusion of a section in the report making the direct link between social and economic inequality and stunted economic growth.

Mr Stiglitz said countries which are more unequal do not grow as well and are less stable. A concentration of income restricts economic growth by limiting the potential of people to contribute productively.

At the same time inequality may restrict government investment in infrastructure, education, and technology.

The working group report pointed out that since 1975 the income gap had grown faster in the UK than in any other developed country. It added: "Such patterns of inequality will continue to have a negative impact on growth and prosperity over the long-term."

But it concluded that "without access to the relevant policy levers – particularly taxation and welfare policy – there is little the Scottish Government can do to address these trends".

saw an interesting thing on Ch4 news showing letters from AS to electricite de france saying they will allow them to continue running their nuclear reactors in an independent scotland rather than create the nuclear free scotland they campaign about.

got to say I'm really leaning to the better together side in the last couple of weeks, too many lies, too few facts to be comfortable.

AFAIK the plan has always been to run the existing reactors until they reach end-of-life. Have you a link regarding anything to the contrary?

no but their end of life will be after mine, they keep them going for so long these days. can't make my mind up about nuclear power either. Hmm.

Looks like we could have them for another 10-15 years max. I hope to live at least that long 🙂

I'm more concerned that Ch4 are presenting these letters as some sort of secret deal when SNP policy on this changed years ago.

I don't remember anyone promising that on the day of independence our nuclear reactors would be shut down. Of course they're going to run until end of life. No-one has ever suggested any different.

It's the nuclear weapons we want rid of ASAP. Completely different thing, impossible to confuse the two.

I'm all for nuclear power if needed, I'm completely against paying for nuclear weapons. I'd imagine most would be the same.

Completely different thing, impossible to confuse the two.

Are you sure it's not possible to confuse the two ?

SNP-CND seem to link both issues together :

http://www.snpcnd.org/power.php

[i]Nuclear power was introduced as a cover to produce nuclear weapons. The tritium booster was made at Chapelhall near Dumfries and the plutonium explosive was made at Calderhall near Sellafield.. New nuclear power facilities would likely fuel the nuclear arms race. [/i]

The same Stiglitz - so two Fiscal Commission advisers in the past couple of days either distancing themselves and (more importantly) their credibility and reputation from AS's inability to articulate what they have told him (it must have been very embarassing to be professionally associated we such BS) or just rats leaving a sinking ship?

Joined later today by the Chairman of HSBC. The impressive list of people alienated by AS grows by the day. Good job they don't employ lots of Scots locally. Oh dear, my mistake.....

Those aren't the figures I've seen. The killer is infrastructure - infrastructure spending per head in London is around £5000, and that's not quoted in the normal public spending figures.

but in any case, so what? obviously it costs more to build Crossrail in London than stick in a new bypass for a Central Belt town. it doesn't mean that Central Belters are worse served.

The tritium booster was made at Chapelhall near Dumfries

Not true. Scotland is the second-richest area of the UK after London - we'll have more to spend than we do at the moment. And that's before you add in the savings from not renewing Trident etc.

Whether Scotland is better or worse than London is neither here nor there – London is not aiming to become independent. What really matters is whether Scotland can meet its current spending commitments, or will an iScotland have to introduce its own austerity measures.

Do you have any figures to back up the claim that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend? – all of the analysis that I have seen has been to the contrary e.g.

Obviously Salmond had his ‘independence bonus’ but the SNP have had to admit they had no analysis to support their claim.

Those Trident savings are going to be spread very thin when you consider the plans for iScotland to delay PIP, meet the renewables obligations, set up revenue and other government depts. etc. And that’s before you consider the reduction in revenue from the finance sector and the loss of revenues from ‘foreign’ owned companies which are currently allocated to Scotland.

I don't remember anyone promising that on the day of independence our nuclear reactors would be shut down. Of course they're going to run until end of life. No-one has ever suggested any different.

Hmm, interesting that you chose the phrase [b]end of life?[/b] there Ben

mind you, this seems to be old news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17266084

Again, so what? Those are civilian power stations, not military nuclear weapons - and unlike Chapelcross they're not able to make materials for nuclear weapons.

Blimey, it's amazing how all those independent countries in Europe survive. They must all queuing up to come under Westminster rule. Are the Scots the only folk in Europe too dumb to run their own country - you'd think so from the comments on here.

Arguing over the details of how we are going to run Scotland is irrelevant to the question of independence.

Why is it irrelevant? Because a Scottish govt will be just as capable of sorting out any problems which arise as a UK one. Not better or worse, but more in accord with what the voters of Scotland want.*

The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it's a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange.

26 days to go

Vote Yes. 🙂

*Now before we get the jeremiad of how all politicians are corrupt etc, we will have at least got rid of the corrupt and undemocratic overlayer of the House of Lords, so the only representatives we will have in our parliament are those we have actually voted for, so there's more chance of them listening to us.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.

Exactly.

"Why did you vote No, Daddy?"

"Because a TV show had these letters from the guy who was First Minister to a French energy company saying that they could run their power stations for a bit longer, so I decided that Scotland couldn't run its own affairs."

Why is it irrelevant? Because a Scottish govt will be just as capable of sorting out any problems which arise as a UK one. Not better or worse, but more in accord with what the voters of Scotland want.*

what people are doing is pointing out the gapping holes in the sales pitch for the Yes campaign. Why? because actually despite the banter we quite like being a united kingdom and don't want to see it destroyed by a set of people selling independence in the style of a second hand car dealer

The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it's a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange

for a substantial number of yes voters it's a financial driver for yes (hence the polling on "if you were £x better off" etc hence the importance of the £/iS£/groat/euro in your pocket post independence

big_n_daft - Member
'The currency issue looks like it is not regarded as major by the voters because we will still have money, and whether it's a groat or a pound, it will still be a unit of exchange'

...if its not important why does the yes campaign cling to the obvious red herring of a CU which is a dead duck...

Probably because it is a red herring.

An inordinate amount of BTs efforts are going into combating the CU idea, which just shows how out of touch they are with the Scottish population. The more we can keep BT concentrating on a dead duck, the better.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.

The more people think that the currency is a dead duck, the greater the ultimate sense of disappointment. As Europe has shown, get that bit wrong and the rest merely unravels around it.

Why did your vote for the euro daddy?

Because I ignored commons sense son. Sorry about the lack of job prospects, I was told it was a canard mordu.

Hence AS's own advisors pointing this out now. The lack of planning over the currency is also symptomatic of shambolic preparation for which yS should not be excused. It's embarassing.

Good to see that the Chairman of HSBC is briefed better

Of the potential Plan Bs open to a newly independent Scotland, Mr Flint said introducing a new currency would be “an enormous challenge”, while an informal link to sterling, so-called sterlingisation, would result in monetary policy being imported from the rest of the UK. He said: “Scotland would be faced with monetary policy implementation without representation – a very odd form of independence.”

You heard it here first! Very odd indeed, but the elephant is now getting too big for the room.

The Yes declaration passed one million signatories yesterday.

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.
Being independent means Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands.

There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today.

I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world: a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.

Yes declaration passed one million signatories yesterday

Very nice - but the only numbers that matter will be counted after the voting has concluded. Like the vote forced through the Scottish Assembly yesterday - this is just noise.

The film Scotland Yet is now online in full:

Very, very well worth a watch.

What's the Scottish Assembly?

There is a lot of talk on here regarding the HoL in Westminster [a lot of which I agree with i.e Life peers, heredity peers & clergy. My preference would be a wholly elected chamber] but I believe the second chamber is a necessaty. However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?
In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered. e.g. What checks would there be to stop a majority party declaring the country to be a one party state ? Would there not be a need for an elected or otherwise enabled "upper chamber" ?

Not trying to stir up an argument just interested in how the governing of Scotland may/will have to change come independence.

In an Independent Scotland surely any party who has an overall majority can force through any laws they want unhindered

Is there not a quirk in Westminster that lets the government there do that at the moment?

Either way I assume there would an elected upper house put in place, but tbh it's never really registered on my radar.

Vaguely remembered from history at school The HoL has the power to block / stall legislation for upto 4 yrs (stems from legislation in early 20th C when Lords refused to pass Budget*.).

* Parliament Act 1911 [thanks Wiki !!]

Surely how a truly Independent Government is going to be run should be high on the list of things for the Scot voters to be concerned with, especially considering how the Westminster model has been slated in this discussion.

This is why a proper written constitution is a good thing to have.

Ben I agree with that. Is a written constitution part of the White Paper recommendations ?

Yes - also see here:

www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

konabunny - Member
'Democracy is a wonderful thing. The UK should try it some time.'
get a grip, mate, you're being melodramatic. there are few countries in the world in which nationalist separatists could successfully and peacefully execute a lawful campaign to break up the state and for no state harassment to occur.

Don't think I don't appreciate it. If we get independence I'll be the first to subscribe to a bronze statue of that great statesman David Cameron for his part in this.

But don't forget, our side is peaceful too, and that's a major achievement because at one stage there were many who believed we would have to go the Irish way. There's no doubt a few bampots who still think this (our version of EDL?). Salmond and his predecessors should get due credit for culling this sort out of the SNP.

But nothing will convince me that a system with an overlayer of hereditary, appointed, and Anglican clergy who are not subject to the electorate is any way a proper democracy, especially when they are there for life.

If you were starting from scratch, founding a brand new country, what kind of government would you set up?

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists - it's a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Nevertheless, the UK has a long unbroken tradition, which has evolved into a democracy and which has persisted a lot longer than in a lot of countries which have a written constitution.

Yup, the UK got lucky - being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

Of course Scotland also had a parliament before 1707 - and in fact because of Winnie Ewing's wee bit of mischief when she reopened the Scottish parliament, Scotland's parliament is technically older than Westminster's:

😉

Ben you could look at it as a 1000 yr period of evolution [the optomistic view]. For such a flawed system an awful lot of countries have used the basic template to create their own parliaments.
The (r)UK parliament will change / evolve in time, no established government changes overnight [except by revolution - normally armed !!] The Scots have a chance to use past systems to create an "ideal" government if such a thing exists and for that you are fortunate.

carlossal - Member

However as the Scottish Parliament has only the one chamber who puts in the checks and balances for new legislation ?

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/committees.aspx

Committees made up of members from all the parties.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/12422.aspx

How it works.

How it works

I'm not surprised that people think it works ok. That's one of the benefits of being an entrenched oligarhy that owns the press. They say it's all good, and the press they own agrees.

If we are to have an upper house to do the checks and balances, then let it be an elected upper house, because then the ultimate system of checks and balances is the ballot box, not some high heid yin.

In a joint statement issued before their press conference, the opposition MSPs said it was the [b][i]first time[/i][/b] the public audit committee had failed to reach a consensus.

Hardly the norm then is it?

Remember that the Scottish Parliament system was based on the electoral system that was supposed to ensure that no single party would have a majority. Therefore the fact that you needed a coalition government would in itself implement a form of checks and balances. Without that then you can end up with a single party state. Which is often what Westminster is accused of. An unelected second chamber can act as a balance because it dies not have to worry about being elected.

The problem with an elected second chamber is take away the primacy of the HoC. See the US for when the two houses, Congress and Senate, compete.

No system is perfect, both the system at Westminster and Edinburgh work and both have their faults.

Was there not an act passed relatively recently (last few years) probably by the Blair government around the time of the Iraq war which made it so that when push came to shove the House of Commons could overrule the House of Lords and prevent them from blocking legislation?

Parliament Act has been around for over a century. Limits the Lords to delaying.

As above - the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it's bills if needed

jota180 - Member
As above - the 1911 parliament act allows the commons to force though it's bills if needed

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Then the House of Lords is redundant.

Not really, the commons allow the Lords to debate and offer amendments, it's very rare for the commons to invoke the parliament act and force a bill through.

So was it more a case of the house of commons invoking the parliament act before the iraq war?

No

The 1911 Act was used three times before its amendment in 1949.[4] These were:

Welsh Church Act 1914, under which the Welsh part of the Church of England was disestablished in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales.
Government of Ireland Act 1914, which would have established a Home Rule government in Ireland; its implementation was blocked due to the First World War.
Parliament Act 1949, which amended the Parliament Act 1911 (discussed above).
The amended form of the 1911 Act has been used four times.[4] These were:

War Crimes Act 1991, which extended jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War (the only time that the Parliament Acts have been used by a Conservative government).
European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the system of elections to the European Parliament from first past the post to a form of proportional representation.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities with that for heterosexual and female homosexual sexual activities at 16.
Hunting Act 2004, which prohibited hare coursing and (subject to some exceptions) all hunting of wild mammals (particularly foxes) with dogs after early 2005.
The Welsh Church Act and the Government of Ireland Act were both given Royal Assent[37] on the same day as the Suspensory Act 1914, which meant that neither would come into force until after World War I.[38]

More rats leaving the sinking ship today. Only Alex Bell (Edinburgh agreement anyone) now seeking to cover his reputation

He adds: ‘The fact that Scotland will not have her own currency is a significant restriction on what she can do. The referendum asks ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ but what the White Paper describes is arguably not independence, because of the currency union.’

Is anyone still behind the DO or have they now seen sense just at the last minute?

26 days until we find out...

No-one would dream of setting up a system like Westminster. The only reason it exists is because it already exists - it's a thousand years of bodging one bit on top of another, fudging things so they work, and hoping everyone behaves decently.

Yup, the UK got lucky - being an island (harder to invade) and having plentiful natural resources probably helped.

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

are you a religious man, Ben?

Um, no?

the UK is not an island.

I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen maps and everything.

was the UK particularly rich in natural resources before the 1970s and North Sea exploration?

Yes, abundant coal and mineral reserves close to the surface were essential for the industrial revolution.

Thanks Nigel.

That will convince a few more switherers... 🙂

[img] [/img]