[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Ben, you did read the whole article in the link including the obvious "disadvantages" at the end?

Yes, read the whole article - I don't see having less risky banks as a major downside TBH.

Hanke is referring to the idea of a currency board. In the simplest terms, Scotland would peg the new Scottish pound to Sterling one-for-one. It would be British pound, for all intents and purposes and there would be little that Osborne can do to stop it.

The BBC buys programmes from around the world, and sells the programmes it makes around the world. The SBC will [s]do the same[/s] buy programmes from around the world.

Fixed that for you 🙂

@BenCooper - The point I was trying to make about the BBC was that the No campaign was labelled "Project Fear" for stating a fact.

What's wrong with fact?

bencooper - Member
Yes, read the whole article - I don't see having less risky banks as a major downside TBH.

Having less risky banks would be great, but that is not the point here. Not having a LoLR function makes them more risky not less. But obviously the banks would not remain "domiciled" in a country that didn't have that function, that would be extremely foolish.

Maybe this is wee eck's intention. Force RBS to relocate and turn the HQ into a new presidential palace. It has a good and appropriate track record in hosting hubris.

Fixed that for you

You don't want Waterloo Road or Question Time, then?

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

I can see your point about Mrs Brown's Boys - I doubt the SBC could give that away...

winston_dog - Member
What's wrong with fact?

It wrecks the script?

@BenCooper - The point I was trying to make about the BBC was that the No campaign was labelled "Project Fear" for stating a fact.

The No campaign labelled itself "Project Fear" - it was an internal name that got leaked.

You don't want Waterloo Road or Question Time, then?

You are joking aren't you?

QT is broadcast from all over the UK, that's half the point.

Waterloo Road I can honestly say I have never watched it and had to google it to find out what it was! I'm not a TV snob either! 🙂

As I stated earlier, it was about turning fact into an accusation of scare mongering not about the detail of TV production.

QT is broadcast from all over the UK, that's half the point.

But produced by BBC Scotland.

But produced by BBC Scotland.

Exactly. BBC not SBC. Why would the BBC stop making it if you vote Yes?

Enough of this silliness.

bencooper - Member

QT is broadcast from all over the UK, that's half the point.

But produced by BBC Scotland.

Which is owned by BBC UK!

Which is owned by BBC UK!

And which would likely be sold off to Scotland or continue to work exactly as it does now but funded from Scotland. Who knows. Maybe there will be a television union. 🙄

Enough of this silliness.

You were the one who brought it up, no? But you're right, suggesting the EastEnders, Dr Who etc wouldn't be available is silliness of the highest order.

You were the one who brought it up, no? But you're right, suggesting the EastEnders, Dr Who etc wouldn't be available is silliness of the highest order.

They wouldn't be unless they are exported and paid for. Besides as an Independent nation why would you want our shitty "culture" for?

As I stated earlier, it was about turning fact into an accusation of scare mongering not about the detail of TV production.

Is that clear?

Wow, BBC/SBC, the big issues! 🙂

Can I just remind people again why currency is quite important - it's not just the usual reluctance to change thing - it's fundamental to proper independence.

Early on in the thread I posted:

Do people understand why shared currency (rather than just choosing to use sterling for example) means that the remainder of the UK wouldn't accept Scotland being able to set its own taxes (or at least not all of them)? If not you really need to read up on it and you'll see that it's nothing to do with being anti-Scottish.

As has been pointed out, for it to work you need a model like that in Europe where individual countries are tied in to a framework of taxes, interest rates and so on so that it works across the whole group. In this instance, that would mean that Scotland wouldn't really be completely independent.

So pegging which obviously can be done would work fine but Scotland would then be at risk should the UK and Scottish economies diverge - if the UK raises interest rates at a time when Scotland wouldn't ideally want to then it would be stuck with a rising Scottish Pound and high mortgage payments and so on whether that suited or not which could mean that in times of recession that it could be far worse than if Scotland had its own independent currency. Imagine where we've just been in the UK if we'd been forced to keep interest rates up at 5% because that was what suited another country.

For me, I think it seems shortsighted to want to take on any link to the pound if independence is the main goal.

Superb,thm accusing somebody of just reading what he wants from an article 😆 must be a bit inconvenient if suddenly Alex turns this round to using sterling as long as it is convenient and showing it as an example of Westminster trying to bully its little neighbour.
And a serious question for you,as you are hot on the financial ins and outs;if we use sterling without your permission,surely the nature of our respective economies is so similar,that England will not be able to spite us without cutting off their own noses? Long term I have no desire to be shackled to Sterling,but if it allows a smoother transition then say a decade would be OK,just until the eurozone implodes.

The No campaign labelled itself "Project Fear" - it was an internal name that got leaked.

And a serious question for you,as you are hot on the financial ins and outs;if we use sterling without your permission,surely the nature of our respective economies is so similar,that England will not be able to spite us without cutting off their own noses? Long term I have no desire to be shackled to Sterling,but if it allows a smoother transition then say a decade would be OK,just until the eurozone implodes.

That's not an unreasonable proposition though it may cause problems with people being willing to invest in Scotland given potential uncertainty.

Whether the UK and Scotland would remain so similar in economy over 10 years though is a question and risk - I'm not so sure it's true - just as we're seeing across Europe, countries slide into and out of recession at different rates and times even if the overall trends are similar.

It wouldn't surprise me if 'Project Fear' was true but equally, it wouldn't surprise me if it was completely made up by the Scottish press...

I certainly can't find anything to back it up beyond it being reported by the Herald.

On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear".[26] The name "Project Fear" subsequently appeared in other news outlets[27][28] and was co-opted by pro-independence campaigners.[29] The following line of the Sunday Herald's article said that "[Blair] McDougall is unrepentant about the tactics", but on the following day's edition of Scotland Tonight McDougall denied ever hearing anyone use the term "Project Fear".[30]

surely the nature of our respective economies is so similar

I thought a major part of your economy was the fact you are a net exporter of oil?
It's also a major reason a lot of Scots want Independence, so they can keep "their" oil.

suggesting the EastEnders, Dr Who etc wouldn't be available is silliness of the highest order.

Did you expect anything different from them?

It's also a major reason a lot of Scots want Independence, so they can keep "their" oil.

I call BS on that...

Duckman, it's all laid out in the Treasury report (I tend to read all this stuff including the whole BoD 😉 ).

On the serious question, the first point is how much independence in economic policy do you want. How flexible are your needs (think exposure to a volatile commodity and financial services among other things) etc. If the answer is a lot and highly, then this steers the debate towards an independent currency. But note, no choice of currency satisfies all needs, each choice has an element of compromise.

Of course, one of the reasons why the status quo works so well if that, unlike Europe, the UK satisfies most of the crisis for a currency union, what boring economists call optimum currency area theory. Of course, here is the elephant, it actually works extremely well as the first paragraph of the supposedly negative HM Traeasury report makes clear. So why change? (Again the answer is "we don't want to" and we want to be tied to rUK policies, but this has to be dressed up as "we do.")

Of course there is the theoretical option of just using the pound anyway but that has been rightly dismissed as unworkable and I have stated why several times. What the link argues is different. It's a new Scottish pound that is pegged. Now there is a case for that (essentially why the CU works in the first place) but if there is going to be tension and anyone suffer it is more likely to be Scotland due to the structure if the economy than the rUK - see the HMT report for a chapter on why. So the suggestion comes with caveats from a Scottish point of view. From a rUK and a Scottish PoV is doesn't address the fundamental issues such as lender of last resort etc.

Hence why the debate continues to go round and round in circles. [b]By design, yS does not want independence. It ties itself in knots precisely because it cannot escape this internal contradiction.[/b] In the past few weeks, this contradiction has been laid bare and salmond is showing his extreme sensitivity to the raw nature of the truth. As a slopestyle skier, he can keep looping and diving for a while, but utlimately he has to come down to earth with a bang. Like the warrior that he is, he will keep going but gravity cannot be ignored indefinitely.

I call BS on that...

I will rephrase it then.

After living in Scotland for 6 years and also working offshore and around Aberdeen for about 15 years, I have lost count to the number of Scots who referred to the oil fields as "theirs" and that they wanted independence to keep the revenues in Scotland and not to feed the Southern English Bastards.

Is that better?

if the UK raises interest rates at a time when Scotland wouldn't ideally want to then it would be stuck with a rising Scottish Pound...

winston_dog - Member

I call BS on that...

I will rephrase it then.

After living in Scotland for 6 years and also working offshore and around Aberdeen for about 15 years, I have lost count to the number of Scots who referred to the oil fields as "theirs" and that they wanted independence to keep the revenues in Scotland and not to feed the Southern English Bastards.

Is that better?

North Sea Oil currently makes up just 1.5% of UK tax revenue - hardly a great loss to the rest of the UK. And anyway with 4/5ths already gone it's a dying resource and even accounting for an estimation of potential new discoveries and a further rise in the oil price making some marginal fields more viable, the oil will still be completely gone within 20-40 years (depending on who's estimates proves to be most accurate). Not really a successful long term formula for independence now is it?

Scotland is not free from prejudice nor does it have a monopoly on it.

Loved the AS speech, Scotland out performing rUk (because of the wonderful scots) but yet treated badly and suffering because of Westminster

The whole they are being nasty now but post YES will come to the table and agree to the BoD line has me thankful that the future is so good I might have to wear shades 😉

Scotland out performing rUk

Surely thats a perfect reason why they [b]wouldn't[/b] want to be tied to sterling? 😕

Scotland out performing rUk (because of the wonderful scots) but yet treated badly and suffering because of Westminster

Their not mutually exclusive. What's to say things wouldn't have been better if Scotland were independent?

... Not really a successful long term formula for independence now is it?

Again, no one is saying its a long term plan, but you may as well benefit from it while it's there.

There is an argument that Scotland is economically viable with or without oil.
3) Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average

Scotland generated £1,700 more in tax per person than the UK as a whole in 2011-12. Scotland has generated more tax per head than the UK every year for the past 32 years. The graph below is for a shorter time period but produced by the UK Government. Even in the years where oil prices were lowest, Scotland tax generation was always been considerably higher than the UK average and England in particular.

[url= ]graph[/url]
from BusinessforScotland

@duckman - yes my point was that you've had a labour government for 10 years which is representative of the political leanings north of the border. As for evidence of the yes campaign using the anti English thing I would have thought that was blindingly obvious, it's so much being bullied by nasty Westminster.

@gordimhor - your inequality link didn't work for me, all I can say is that having lived and worked in the US and Asia as well as in oarts of Europe I see the UK as being one of the fairest societies I have experienced. To say its the 4th most inequitable makes no sense to me, how about Russia, China, India and the US for a start. We have free education and health care for all, unlimited time on unemployment benefits etc etc. If/when Scotland becomes independent you can address that, I think you'll find not much changes but the cost in terms of tax burden will change dramatically.

On a slightly different tack I support Scotland's right to make this choice. I believe in world going forward larger countries or alliances will have an advantage, in fact it's a requirement to flourish, and as such I'd rather see Scotland vote no for the benefit of the UK. I also value the cultural diversity of having Scotland within the UK. However if you vote Yes then I see less compelling reasons to give Scotland a special status as a partner, it's a small country so we in the UK should only enter into any arrangements which are materially beneficial to the UK.

Finally @thm that's a winner on the "house of hubris" 🙂

Right THM,so it essentially comes down to not being truly independent as long as tied to a CU with England,and the important matter of not having anybody to act as lender of last resort. Would it not be a case of Scotland [b]will[/b] go down the route of the Mcpound and peg it? While we are at the mercy of England,is that not something the Scottish Government could do without consent from the rUK? Also on that is there a mechanism for gradually loosening the ties or is it like that wonderous day in La Tania where I bought a Burton snowboard for 150 euros because the new currency had come in overnight and the poor guy in the shop didn't have a clue 😈
Scots would look on a short term plan as an necessary evil tbh, for most people it would remove the biggest uncertainty..Devo max by stealth?

Scotland generated £1,700 more in tax per person than the UK as a whole in 2011-12. Scotland has generated more tax per head than the UK every year for the past 32 years.

But, to be fair, they've also had a consistently higher public expenditure per capita than the UK average, by a broadly similar amount.

@gordihmor - interesting, where does this tax revenue come from ? Any links/breakdown ? I am genuinely interested. You are going to need much more tax revenue to replicate all the government infrastructure, see my earlier point about a foreign office, embassies etc.

Besides as an Independent nation why would you want our shitty "culture" for?

So the proudly independent UK doesn't buy any TV from abroad?

We love British culture. We're part of British culture, after all - Scottish stars appear on UK TV, Scottish bands perform at UK festivals, and Scottish artists win the Turner Prize. This isn't about rejecting everything that's British, it's about where we're governed from - that's it.

Reading through this thread, it seems the Scots are regarded as not capable of running their own country, and that if they get independence they will be tied to a rigid set of guidelines so that they will be unable to adapt to changing circumstances because our new king/dictator "Wee 'Eck", previously known for his ability to take advantage out of any situation and able to turn lemons into lemonade, has suddenly become ossified.

And of course, after having voted for democracy, we suddenly give it up and never have another election, thus becoming unable to put another govt in power if we don't like the way things are going.

Alone and without friends in the world, we'll then spend the next 1,000 years wishing we had remained under the wise and kind guidance of the wealthy elite who govern England and its territories, and who are able to override the democratic process when the plebs get so unwise as to want something that may adversely affect those wise and kind autocrats.

We'll wish we had adopted the model for democracy used in the City of London where farseeing corporations have a vote, because we all know big money has our best interests at heart.

But, to be fair, they've also had a consistently higher public expenditure per capita than the UK average, by a broadly similar amount.

Good luck with getting any acknowledgement of that.

The Scots on here seem to be in denial that a lot of their economy and employment is built around public sector based jobs.

We love British culture. We're part of British culture

Really? How many of your fellow Scots agree?
Are Runrig British?
Rabbie Burns British?
I have rarely heard a Scot call themselves British. Normally only the blue wearing thickheads.

This isn't about rejecting everything that's British, it's about where we're governed from - that's it.

Ben - Make your mind up.

I'm sure you stated you wanted independence because you were concerned the UK would leave the EU and the effect it would have on your business.
Then it wasn't financial it was a matter of self determination.
Then it was making your country a better place for your kids.
Now it's purely to get away from Westminster.

winston_dog
I have rarely heard a Scot call themselves British.

British in the sense a German or Italian is European. If you ask my nationality, it's always been Scottish. Don't English people do the same?

Ben - Make your mind up.
I'm sure you stated you wanted independence because you were concerned the UK would leave the EU and the effect it would have on your business.
1. Then it wasn't financial it was a matter of self determination.
2. Then it was making your country a better place for your kids.
3. Now it's purely to get away from Westminster.

No 3 provides benefits 1 & 2.

Epicyclo - for many South of the Border there is no question that Scotland is more than capable of being successfully Independent. We just don't want our currency/economy tied to such an untried risk. If you want to paint it as sneering anti-Scottishness that's up to you but its far from the reality.

AS has just been on tv. As for his comment that having a Scottish currency would add £500m in costs to UK business I don't see how that makes sense. Any nceeased costs for import/export would be shared equally by both Scottish and UK business. An independent Scotland would initially have a currency pegged to Sterling (most likely) so costs would be minimal and in the short/medium term Scotland would have the euro (assuming it wants to join the EU) and uk business deals with that each and every day. If this currency makes Scotland less attractive as a trading partner then business wil move elsewhere, I do t see this as a major issue,

Some quite entertaining tweets quoted in the Guardian.

I'm sure you stated you wanted independence because you were concerned the UK would leave the EU and the effect it would have on your business.
Then it wasn't financial it was a matter of self determination.
Then it was making your country a better place for your kids.

Um. Westminster determines whether we're in the EU, it decides where we're governed, and it decides what the country will be like for my kid. What Westminster does not do is decide what bits of culture are British.

I am perfectly consistent.

No 3 provides benefits 1 & 2.

That's not by any means a given.

Jambalaya I dont have any more detail both the graph and the text above it which is a quote(I should have made that clear) are from the businessfor scotland website. They in turn took the graph from a uk government source.
It seems fair to me that Scotland should negotiate with the rUK about a financial settlement for loss of access to embassies etc maybe on per centage of population basis.

I ll get my flame resistant suit. 🙂

Okay, my personal position (just for clarity, 'cos it seems to be confusing):

I think the people of a country should be governed by a government elected by the people of that country. Scotland is, despite 300 years as part of a union, a separate country with different values and traditions, though a lot is shared with the other nations of the British Isles, with the other nations of Europe, and with the other English-speaking and Commonwealth countries of the World.

To that end, I think independence for Scotland make sense. We would be governed by a government we elect, and which would therefore be more representative. My vote would matter, and my daughter would not grow up as I have, in a country ruled by politicians with little or no support in her country.

There are side issues - whether Scotland would be rich or poor (my personal feeling is we'll do alright, probably about the same standard of living as every other Northern European country), whether we'll still be British culturally (I think we will - there's so much shared cultural history there, and a shared sense of humour), things like that.

Ben: the problem with your argument is where do you stop in this quest for atomisation? Why take Scotland as being the largest entity that requires self governance? Why not Edinburgh alone, or Shetland alone? All your arguments work equally well for them.

I just don't buy this cultural values point - what material cultural difference is there between someone from Melrose and someone from Berwick? In fact, what material difference is there between someone from Glasgow and someone from Manchester?

You do understand that in a democracy you sometimes don't get the party you voted for? We've had labour for many years, who the Scottish voted en masse for. Now we have the Tories who are (temporarily) less popular. This might change over the course of the next parliament!

muddydwarf - Member
Epicyclo - for many South of the Border there is no question that Scotland is more than capable of being successfully Independent. We just don't want our currency/economy tied to such an untried risk. If you want to paint it as sneering anti-Scottishness that's up to you but its far from the reality.

I'm commenting about the general tone of the debate rather than a currency union.

I don't want to see a currency union, so I'm happy to see it rejected. I could see why it may have benefited both sides, but I think a clean break is politically better for both parties.

Ben, you are trying to debate with somebody who alludes to Scots being racist and tries to foist the Braveheart stereotype on anybody who doesn't embrace the union. Oh, and having claimed to have lived here starts a thread wondering why we don't like being referred to as Jocks...Just thought you should know that for balance before you take the troll seriously.

We just don't want our currency

I just don't buy this cultural values point - what material cultural difference is there between someone from Melrose and someone from Berwick? In fact, what material difference is there between someone from Glasgow and someone from Manchester?

Scotland is already a separate country. Its just been in a political union with England and Wales since 1707. Some in Scotland want this union to end and Scotland to govern itself again.

 

In fact, what material difference is there between someone from Glasgow and someone from Manchester?

Deep frying, mainly.

@gordihmor - I'll dig around a bit on that website later and I like the flamesuit feferemce !

On negotiations I don't really see Scotland have a very strong position, whether that be with regard to embassies or the EU in general. It's a small country, 5m people. What's there to bargain with. Trying to make an argume t youre entitled to a portion if embassies etc is just going to be laughed off. As for being governed by someone else that's exactly the way the EU is going, more government in the centre so you're swapping Westminster for Brussels.

(my personal feeling is we'll do alright, probably about the same standard of living as every other Northern European country)

Agreed.

We would be governed by a government we elect, and which would therefore be more representative.

You currently live in the oldest democracy in the World. You did elect the Government. Until recently you had a Labour Government led by Scotsmen for a significant length of time.

Why do you think that shower in Holyrood will be any better than the shower we have in Westminster?

After independence, you will create a microcosm of the UK. An uneven spread of wealth and population, with distinct cultural identities within it and resulting problems these cause.

bainbrge - Member
...I just don't buy this cultural values point - what material cultural difference is there between someone from Melrose and someone from Berwick? In fact, what material difference is there between someone from Glasgow and someone from Manchester?

About the same as between someone living in London and someone in Paris.

Ben, you are trying to debate with somebody who alludes to Scots being racist and tries to foist the Braveheart stereotype on anybody who doesn't embrace the union.

Not racist but there is a long history of intolerance. You still have major sectarian divides.
Going further back, Culloden was more a civil war than a rebellion against the English.

Oh, and having claimed to have lived here starts a thread wondering why we don't like being referred to as Jocks.

Why would I make it up?

@Epicyclo: you mean everything and nothing? Or are you saying there is a fundamental Scottish identity that needs independence in order to be fulfilled?

Jambalaya We all paid tax to the UK government. Further to that if we take our per centage of the debt,and there is a strong moral argument that we should, then we take our share of any assets. A currency may or may not be an asset but buildings etc have an easily established monetary value.

I think you need to get out more if you think there are major cultural differences between Scotland and the rest of mainland Britain. I've spent many years living in Wales, Scotland and England and at times it's really hard to tell the difference. Go visit France or Spain or Germany and it is clear there is a major cultural difference between them and us.

God this whole thing is getting depressing and we have another 6 months of this cr*p left.

In fact, what material difference is there between someone from Glasgow and someone from Manchester?
About the same as between someone living in London and someone in Paris.

Which is not a lot.

Glasgow and Manchester
Same currency, language, climate, passports, TV and Radio broadcasters,tax rates, I could go on....

Similar sized cities.

The major difference is Manchester has a much more diverse population than Glasgow.

winston_dog - Member
...Why do you think that shower in Holyrood will be any better than the shower we have in Westminster?...

1. Because there will be no unelected upper house with the ability to over-rule the elected house. It's not democracy when you have overlords, just the illusion of it.

2. The current setup is biased towards the needs of SE England. Rightly so, because that's where the bulk of the population is.

I can't think of any reason to not want to live in a democracy.

The [s]current[/s]new setup is biased towards the needs of [s]SE England.[/s] the Central Belt Rightly so, because that's where the bulk of the population is.

FTFY.

So you will be looking at Independence for the Highlands and Islands in a few years?

Why do you think that shower in Holyrood will be any better than the shower we have in Westminster?

Because they don't have to cater to the voters in the SE of England for one? Despite there still being discrepancies between differing parts of Scotland (central belt vs Aberdeen vs highlands/islands/lowlands) I reckon they'll do a better job and the parliament should be more representative.

I'd also argue that in my experience the Scots are a more leftward leaning bunch, sure a Scottish conservative party might rise after independence, it might not, but again it will be representative of how the Scottish as a whole voted, not determined by a few key swing constituencies in England.

dragon - Member
I think you need to get out more if you think there are major cultural differences between Scotland and the rest of mainland Britain.

Ruais

I just googled 'Ruais'. I'm confused

Ruais

What? A French Filipino Beauty Queen?

Where does she stand on the Yes/No question?

I just googled 'Ruais'. I'm confused

Me too. Eh?

Maybe it's a cultural reference that Scotland wants to win the next Miss World contest but that it isn't televised by the BBC but will be by SBC? 🙂

Tha thu ceart gu leor Epiccyclo ach chan eil canan nan gaidheal air STW

He said nonsense.

Maybe it's a cultural reference that Scotland wants to win the next Miss World contest but that it isn't televised by the BBC but will be by SBC?

I assume in a grand statement of cultural heritage the Scottish representative will be eschewing the usual fake tan in favour of second degree sunburn for the swimsuit round?

Tha thu ceart gu leor Epiccyclo ach chan eil canan nan gaidheal air STW

He said nonsense.

Not according to an online Gaelic dictionary he didn't.

I assume the other sentence is highlighting the ignorance on STW?

Isn't there only about 1% of the Scots actually speak Gaelic?

Right 🙂

Ruais, t. m. (Ir. id.) A clown ; a sluggish, stupid fellow ; a noisy fellow. N. pl. ruaisean. Ruaisealachd, &. f. Clownishness ; disorderliness. Ruaiseil, a. (ruais-amhuil ...

Minor regional differences there maybe int eh UK but not big cultural ones. From where I'm sitting right now I can see 6 Scots, 2 Malaysians, 1 English, 1 Slovakian and 1 Hungarian. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between non-UK and UK folks cultures.

I reckon they'll do a better job and the parliament should be more representative.

Well, they certainly seem to have gone a long way in demonstrating a well founded basis for that faith of yours, what with Holyrood and then the Trams, the M74 extension...

I am more confused now.

Did he call him a clown or say he was talking nonsense?

Interesting conversation but time for me to waste time on other threads, perhaps even some on mountain bikes.

Well, they certainly seem to have gone a long way in demonstrating a well founded basis for that faith of yours, what with Holyrood and then the Trams, the M74 extension...

Listing governmental and council led contract cockups isn't a great way to win the argument. I'm sure it wouldn't take me long to list the project failures of Westminster.

Listing governmental and council led contract cockups isn't a great way to win the argument.

That isn't the point of highlighting the failures.

It is a way of highlighting that you are simply replacing like with like at great expense.

It is a way of highlighting that you are simply replacing like with like at great expense.

It doesnt prove anything, your right. No one can know for sure what future politicians will be like, but I'd still rather that the ones making the decisions were elected fully by Scottish voters.

It's sounding like the same old 'well it wont be any better, so you better just just vote for the status quo' type arguments now.

There are also two of the English posters on here,one is claiming that Scots are culturally different and another claiming they aren't.... 😀