[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

"Project feart" again I see. 😉

Imagine a government with Nigel and Boris in the cabinet. The chance of that happening, no matter if only slight for now, should be enough for anyone to vote Yes.

I'm sorry about this, but I do have to ask the question... If the Scots vote for independence, next month, will I need a passport to go up to Islay and Jura in October? Only my wife's has expired and getting a new one is proving a long-winded process.

Yes, of course you will. How else will you get past the security kiosks, sniper towers and barbed wire fences?

More Nigel farage, that's what we need. He should visit Scotland again in the next few weeks! 😆

bencooper - Member

the UK is not an island.
I'm pretty sure it is, I've seen maps and everything.

rene59 - Member
Yes, of course you will. How else will you get past the security kiosks, sniper towers and barbed wire fences?

Sniper towers you say? I'm a decent shot, will there be jobs going after Nige and Boris have gifted you your freedom then?

Here's a strange thought.
My English friend who lives near Elgin & who has made her life in Scotland is going to vote NO, along with all her friends apparently.
The strange point she makes, is that whilst many of them actually like the idea of Independence they are so distrustful of Mr Salmond that they will not vote for iScotland.
I wonder, is Mr Salmond actually a liability for the Independence movement?

muddydwarf - Member
Here's a strange thought.
My English friend who lives near Elgin & who has made her life in Scotland is going to vote NO, along with all her friends apparently.
The strange point she makes, is that whilst many of them actually like the idea of Independence they are so distrustful of Mr Salmond that they will not vote for iScotland.
I wonder, is Mr Salmond actually a liability for the Independence movement?

Fair enough, it did seem strange to support the idea of independence yet turn it down because of Mr Salmond - although he does come across as particularly slimy and untrustworthy even amongst the current crop of politicians.

although he does come across as particularly slimy and untrustworthy even amongst the current crop of politicians.

You sure about that?

[img] [/img]

Elections and the like are always about personalities

Salmond has consistently tried to get CMD to debate with him, refusing to debate with anyone else at one point.
Why should it matter who he debates with if the person is unimportant?

bencooper - Member

the UK is not an island.

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

I ask if you're a religious man because you seem very skeptical of evolution. you probably wouldn't design a human body in the way Homo sapiens is now if you were starting afresh (appendices ffs!) but they've evolved to be a fairly decent machine. and in the same way with the UK and its constitutional arrangements...

in any case, to those who are fans of written constitutions per se - why in practice?

does anyone know who a written constitution would interact with Scottish law? does anyone understand Scottish law for that matter? do judge-made precedent and common law evolution even exist in some way within the system? I'm completely ignorant...

FWIW,any polling shows Alex Salmond to be the most trusted of any party leaders , even amongst non-SNP voters. The press has run a non-stop campaign against him so it's hardly surprising that you might think the opposite.

A no vote will be quite boring! A yes vote will be fascinating, will Scotland join the EU, what will their currency be? Was no to CU just a bargaining position? Will AS lies and bluster unravel into a mess, or will he pull it off! Which economist was right? Who will be able to say 'I told you so' on this thread!! A yes vote will be so much fun 🙂

^this!

No idea of how Mr Salmond is portrayed by the Scottish press, in the media i read (the i/ Independent) he gets quite a balanced level of coverage i think.
However, on TV he's awful, comes across as really unpleasant, slimy and completely untrustworthy - i rank him alongside Osborne and Cameron in those stakes.
Of course, that's just my perception but my friend in Elgin does appear to share some of those views about Mr Salmond.
I don't have a vote of course, so my opinion is worthless.

I don't have a vote of course, so my opinion is worthless.

Correct. 😉

In Scotland. Remember that the rest of the UK has an interest in what happens, it isn't all about Scotland, the UK is our country too and we will have a voice next year.

Yip, and think how you would feel if you were in the following position:- In 2015, it is very likely indeed that we will be governed from Westminster by a Government with absolutely no elected MP's in our country.

technically it's an archipelago plus a bit of Ireland.

Pedants will be first against the wall in an independent Scotland, along with people who talk in the cinema.

People using salmond as an excuse are just picking something to justify what would always be a no vote. There's no convincing them anyhow.

Yup, a friend of a friend on FB is voting No because they haven't dualled the A9 yet. Oh, and because of all the Polish kids in his son's class.

for most of the period you were describing, the UK was two pretty big islands (and a whole bunch of mostly insignificant ones). presently it includes a reasonable chunk of the island of Ireland - and you should at least be aware of Northern Ireland if you're dissecting the constitutional arrangements of the UK; after all, it's a part of rUK with which you'd like to see a maritime border established...you ought to know your neighbours!

My basic point was that one very good reason Britain/UK/England has had a relatively stable system of government for so long is that the English Channel made it a lot harder for rampaging armies to invade. Compare it to the German city states, for example, who were always invading each other or being over-run by Poles or Swedes.

I ask if you're a religious man because you seem very skeptical of evolution.

Good straw man argument there, well done 😉

Charming:

[img] [/img]

scotroutes - Member
FWIW,any polling shows Alex Salmond to be the most trusted of any party leaders , even amongst non-SNP voters. The press has run a non-stop campaign against him so it's hardly surprising that you might think the opposite.

One of the best yet 🙂

Dinner with Scots family on holiday last night - all no across the generations including Mum and daughter who both work in NHS in Glasgow (completely refuted AS comments in NHS). One of their telling lines was, " the English must really hate us/all of this". Overstating it a bit, but at least they got the irritation factor. But then again they were discerning as their voting intentions showed.

AS gets a more balanced presentation that most. The media are happy to cover the bulk of his hogwash without critical comment allowing nonsense like the currency, bedroom tax, oil prices, nukes etc to affect perception/debate. He gets away with "media murder" of the truth (as the fleeing rats are now happy to admit as they swim to shore.)

Love the irony of it's not about Salmond and yet loads of pictures of English Tories. Is it about CMD and Osborne alone?

Thankfully Charles Baillie and his so called Britanniaca Party is an ex-BNP nobody whom almost no-one votes for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannica_Party

I really don't think he is in anyway representative of the No campaign.

True Rene, but Ben likes to keep us all entertained with these photos!

Good straw man argument there, well done

Love the irony of it's not about Salmond and yet loads of pictures of English Tories. Is it about CMD and Osborne alone?

No, it's about this lot too.

[img] [/img]

That wasn't a straw man argument in the slightest.

Sure it is - you came out with that idea that I was skeptical of evolution so I must be religious, and tried to tie that to a discussion about systems of government.

Evolution via natural selection is in no way comparable to the evolution of systems of government - there's just no comparison.

[url= http://radicalindependence.org/2014/08/19/radical-independence-campaign-18k-canvass-sample-released/ ]RIC massive canvass results [/url]
The results of a canvass of 18000 people completely fly in the face of most other polls. Could it be because ric have targeted people in deprived areas.

Sure it is - you came out with that idea that I was skeptical of evolution so I must be religious, and tried to tie that to a discussion about systems of government.

gordimhor - Member
RIC massive canvass results
The results of a canvass of 18000 people completely fly in the face of most other polls. Could it be because ric have targeted people in deprived areas.

While that is encouraging there's still enough undecideds to swing it the wrong way.

I see oil is going to be the next big Project Fear push. Apparently it has run out. I'm off to the shed to eBay my spare cans. I'm going to make a fortune... 🙂

24 days to go.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/20/snp-accused-exaggerating-north-sea-oil-reserves ]SNP accused of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%[/url]

[i]"Sir Ian Wood, the most influential figure in the Scottish oil industry, has accused Alex Salmond's government of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%".[/i]

epicyclo - Member

I see oil is going to be the next big Project Fear push. Apparently it has run out.

I'm sure that silly and childish comments like that ^ which are clearly designed to trivialise and ridicule what is undeniably a highly important and relevant issue in the referendum debate, help to explain why the Yessers are trailing all the credible opinion polls, which unlike the "RIC massive canvass" don't focus on one section of Scottish society.

The need to rely on puerile retorts in response to serious issues speaks volumes.

+1

The Emperor's New Clothes - although emperor only fists the size of the ergo and extent of the vanity involved.

I wonder of there will be any truth re the NHS tomorrow. Best not to hold my breath......

Well sorry to disappoint folks, but it seems our household will be single-handedly determining the outcome of the vote. At least if we get sent any more voting cards.... I'm on three and the other half is on two.

Bidding starts at 50p, all payments by Paypal gift!

I had heard tell of that from somewhere else honeybadgerx - got 6 different polling cards for long gone tenants.

"Sir Ian Wood, the most influential figure in the Scottish oil industry, has accused Alex Salmond's government of exaggerating North Sea oil reserves by up to 60%".

Whereas:

THE UK's leading offshore oil industry body has dismissed claims by Sir Ian Wood that the Scottish Government's predictions for North Sea oil recovery are too high.

It's all too confusing for my little Scottish brain to handle - best leave the oil to Westminster to deal with, it's such a burden.

It's all too confusing for my little Scottish brain to handle - best leave the oil to Westminster to deal with, it's such a burden.

So this need to rely on silly childish comments in place of sensible debate is widespread among Yessers?

And on the 19th of Sept you will wonder where it all went wrong.

From your link Ben :

[i]On Friday Melfort Campbell, the chair of a Scottish government commission into the future of North Sea oil, said the 24 billion figure was an "aspirational scenario" which could be won if there was a radical review of fiscal and regulatory regimes and "improved stewardship" of the North Sea.

But he cautioned: "With current uncertainty, ageing assets, spiralling costs and the challenges of improving production efficiency and attracting investment, we will be hard-pushed to achieve the mid-range scenario of around 15-16 billion let alone the holy grail of 24 billion barrels."[/i]

So the chair of a Scottish government commission into the future of North Sea oil feels it might be a struggle to achieve Wood's claim of 15-16 billion let alone the 24 billion barrels claimed by the Scottish government.

Obviously you will feel that liberated from the shackles of Westminster Scotland will be free to increase investment, efficiency, and infrastructures.

But whatever the uncertainties about future production of Scottish North Sea oil the one certainty is that Scotland should not rely on the certainty of North Sea oil for future prosperity.

North Sea oil is not a magic wand.

So this need to rely on silly childish comments in place of sensible debate is widespread among Yessers?

I don't know - I think it's important to have a sense of humour in this. I also think that sensible debate is beyond the abilities of this forum, so I'm just having fun with it.

But whatever the uncertainties about future production of Scottish North Sea oil the one certainty is that Scotland should not rely on the certainty of North Sea oil for future prosperity.

We're not. If the oil ran out tomorrow, or if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option) then the Scottish economy would still be fine. It's a nice bonus to have and save for the future, it's not a necessity.

....if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option)

So you reject the Scottish government's claim it makes in "the case for independence" that a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund is vital and only achievable through a yes vote.

One of Yes Scotland's central arguments is that North Sea oil has been squandered, a very fair point imo, and that it should instead be invested in the future, again a fair point imo, but you would rather just leave it under the sea.

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

People are voting for independence for a lot of different reasons and there are groups coming at it from all sorts of different angles. Yes Scotland is only one of those groups. It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

So when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

Not really - I'm not a member of Yes Scotland, I'm a member of the Green Party. We all want independence, we don't all walk in lockstep on every issue of policy. I know the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are totally interchangeable, but up here we actually have different political parties with different views.

Is my point of view so odd? Everyone who's not a loon agrees that climate change is probably the most serious issue facing mankind, and one big thing we can do to help is to stop burning fossil fuels. So yes, I think the oil should stay safely locked away under the sea.

But I accept that that is a minority view - humans aren't good at leaving resources alone. So if the oil is going to be extracted, I want the money we get from it to be put to the best possible use - and that use isn't for giving tax cuts and launching hugely expensive wars.

If we're going to screw up the planet for our kids by burning the oil, the least we can do is give them the money we get.

It it really beyond comprehension that someone might want Scotland to be independent, but also want them to leave the oil in the ground?

Not at all. I can see that is exactly what Ben wants. I still however think it's rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don't you ?

not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben.

Er, I haven't.

No.

Once the oil is gone/left in ground/stolen by foreign powers we could have a renewables sovereign wealth fund instead.

ernie_lynch - Member
...I still however think it's rather bizarre that one of the few sensible and valid points made the Scottish government/Yes Scotland, ie, not spunking North Sea oil and having a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, should be rejected by separatist extraordinaire Ben. Don't you ?

Ernie, sometimes the bow is too long for even you to stretch it... 🙂

Er, I haven't.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere - unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn't need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Well you want the stuff left under the sea, and presumably rely on oil from elsewhere - unless of course you think that a separate Scotland wouldn't need any oil derived products, which in effect rejects the Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund.

Oh, good grief - I'm not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms, but here goes:

- I think we should be using less oil.
- So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
- That isn't going to happen.
- So we're going to get some money from the oil.
- Therefore that money should do the most good.
- So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.

Oh, good grief - I'm not sure I can make it any simpler without using pictograms

I understood exactly what you said, it was written in simple very easy to understand English :

[i]if Scotland decided to leave it all where it is for environmental reasons (my preferred option)[/i]

You would prefer if it was left where it is, which unless I'm very much mistaken is under the sea.

Your preferred option in effect makes the rather sensible and valid argument offered by the Scottish government in "the case for independence", with regards to a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, redundant.

So I repeat my comment, when Yes Scotland occasionally offers a reasonable argument with some rather valid points you reject it. How bizarre.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045117/No-Thanks-independence-posters-defaced.html ]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11045117/No-Thanks-independence-posters-defaced.html[/url]

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Ernie you are clutching at straws here, take a step back ffs.

What am I "clutching at straws" about ? Do tell me.

[i]"This government will make the creation of a Scottish Energy Fund an early priority," the devolved government, which favours independence said in its report[/i]

[url= http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/scotland-energy-idUKL5N0JB2MW20131126 ]Independent Scotland would create oil and gas wealth fund[/url]

The sovereign wealth fund is a fairly central argument which is being offered by those who favour a yes vote and one of the ways in which they suggest the future prosperity a separate Scotland lies.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed it this week, but there appears to have been a surge in support of the yes side of the debate. Many many people who I know who were staunch no voters have decided that they are definitely now voting yes.

[quote=wanmankylung ]I don't know if anyone else has noticed it this week, but there appears to have been a surge in support of the yes side of the debate. Many many people who I know who were staunch no voters have decided that they are definitely now voting yes.
Confirmation bias?

I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer "don't knows" though.

Strolls in for a brief un-flounce

Posted this after seeing a series of defaced posters on my way home tonight. Isolated incidents on both sides are regrettable, however this seems to be happening to better together posters across the country. Yes posters and signs, as well as yes stickers plastered across Scotlands road signs do not seem to be subject to the same treatment, despite polls saying there are more no voters.

Yep, lots round here too. Only one opinion allowed by some. That said I've seen Yes signs forcibly removed, but nothing in comparison.

I've heard of more serious things tbh. Nothing nasty, just examples of where only one voice is allowed.

Confirmation bias?
I reckon that those with the opposite view are less likely to let you know how they intend to vote, so you tend only to hear from/about those that agree with you.

I do think that there are fewer "don't knows" though.

I'd imagine so. I know of more no voters now than before. And no increase in yes voters. Which I put down to my increasingly overt cynicism. And some assumptions being made on my voting intentions based on my accent. I'd also suggest the circles I move in leading to a distorted view.

I do know of a number of no voters that are borderline intimidated to admit it.

Anyway - re-flounces

Someone (who posts on STW) reported on Facebook that they'd seen at least one defaced "Yes" banner in the borders, so both "sides" are at it.

Defacing political posters isn't exactly new though, is it? I mean, we all had a laugh at some of the UKIP ones very recently.

[img] [/img]

To be honest I'd not seen that one. I much preferred the 'vote ukip, the friendly face of racism'

Anyway, I said "re-flounces"

And what are you doing in here anyway. You'll rot your brain.

I also think that a great number of the don't knows are going to abstain from voting. There are a lot of people who don't like the arguments from either side and if given the choice would choose "none of the above", preferring a Devo Max option.

A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to "no thanks" posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

Even yes supporters that are honest with themselves know that no thanks posters are more likely to be attacked, and many no voters would be wary of displaying pro UK sentiment openly.

government by SPAD, the future for iS?

Special advisers, the political appointees who brief journalists and enforce ministers’ wishes, are in many cases the instruments of that pressure. In a pamphlet for the Institute for Government, Sir John Elvidge, Peter Housden’s predecessor as permanent secretary, described how SNP special advisers now sit round the Scottish cabinet table and contribute freely to discussions, even as the number of elected politicians in the cabinet has been reduced. “There is no such precedent, as far as I am aware, for special advisers being at the table or allowed to speak as part of discussions at cabinet,” he said.

big-n-daft - i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?
what are the pros of government by SpAds?

athgray - Member
A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to "no thanks" posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

So judging by what you are saying the Yes side has more bampots.

Following from that there must be more Yes voters, so the referendum is as good as won. 🙂

Although if it's No, maybe this is what will happen

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable.

[quote=piemonster ]
And what are you doing in here anyway. You'll rot your brain.
Well, if you won't answer your emails....

wanmankylung - Member

big-n-daft - i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?

what are the pros of government by SpAds?

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

Well, if you won't answer your emails....

Well, I have ordered something from On One.

Will be in touch in the next few days.

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit. Naive to think that I know, but we can live in hope.

So I repeat my comment

Meh, whatever 😉

I've not seen any vandalised Yes or No signs. But the only No signs have been a couple of big ones out Strathblane way, and that's a long way to go.

From what I'm seeing, the campaign in real life is much more civilised and respectful than it is online.

athgray - Member

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

On the issue of poster defacing I completely disagree with that statement.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable.

Hmmm, from this very thread,

hels - Member

Somebody in a village near me put up one of those big white Yes signs on their property next to the road. Local wag has already drawn pubic hair on the Y. This could get entertaining....

and here is your funny and acceptable

jambalaya - Member

@hels - we need a photo

Also perhaps that could be the symbol for the new Scottish currency

and

hels - Member

I will try and get a pic - was driving and didn't have time to stop. Will take a can of spray paint just in case.

and

hels - Member

Although in reflection, for maximum amusement he should really put up a series of Yes signs, as in Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh Yes, Yes etc.

Given how humorless most of the Yes folk are, I won't knock on the door and suggest it.

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit.

It has nothing to do with merit. The question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The important word in your sentence is "could". It "could" be packed with extremely talented people selected purely on merit and that would be a big improvement on the current set up, but that "could" unfortunately is not an "is".

SPADS dependent for their continuing employment on their political master, HoL once you are in you can say what you want

SPADS all in line with the party in power, HoL lots of people of all political persuasions

SPADS sat in cabinet helping a single tier system of government make decisions, HoL second chamber review of legislation

SPADS sat in cabinet unnamed, UK cabinet members all publically known

which system is more open and democratic?

I think election poster defacing is an entirely acceptable practice, if anyone's counting votes on the topic.

""- I think we should be using less oil.
- So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
- That isn't going to happen.
- So we're going to get some money from the oil.
- Therefore that money should do the most good.
- So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.""

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future...what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

who should be in charge of the investment decisions? what kind of investment policy should it pursue? how do you avoid the fund's capital being invested in ways that suit the political interests of the government of the day?

The important word in your sentence is "could".

I like to think that all the words in my sentences are important, including the ones that point out that the question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The definition of democracy has nothing to do with "a big improvement on the current set up".

Establishing parliament was a big improvement on the existing set up but until common suffrage was introduced it wasn't democratic.

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future...what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

Trident, HS2, Crossrail, misc foreign wars, House of Lords expenses - there's loads of stuff we won't have to pay for after independence.

I accept we might not be able to put all the oil revenue into a fund and maintain current spending levels. Any oil fund is better than no oil fund. I've got no idea how it would be administered - how do the Norwegians do it? Some kind of system independent of government would be a good idea.

Public spending in Scotland: £64.5 Billion
Tax revenues (including geographic share North sea revenues): £56.9 Billion

You need to make £7.6 Billion worth of savings (approx 5% of GDP) before you can save a single penny of that oil money in a wealth fund!

White paper points to an approx £500m saving on defence, HS2 & Crossrail spending offset by infrastructure in Scotland (like, ahem, trams...) any other savings are rummaging down the back of the sofa!

what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

North Sea oil and gas should be seen for what it is - a bonus, a bonus which most countries do not enjoy in equal measure, and a bonus which ultimately has a limited life.

It is unreasonable to assume that without North Sea oil any UK government would be unable to maintain the current levels of expenditure.

An article which makes some interesting points :

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-future ]Thatcher and North Sea oil – a failure to invest in Britain’s future[/url]

[i]Had Thatcher been a truly visionary politician, she would have established a wealth fund for the oil windfall, not squandered it on tax cuts and current spending.[/i]

Any oil fund is better than no oil fund.

But according to you even better than an oil fund is no oil at all.

Let's not forget that 🙂