[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

former Mirror editor now talk show host

How old is the poster?

Or quotes from among others the current and possible future PM's

Piers Morgan? The UK really is ****ed 😀

There seems to be surprise in two things

1. The amount of spending by the UK Government is being reduced - after all we want to pay less tax. This means that the block grant to Scotland will be reduced.

2. The method to determine the size of the block grant, the Barnett Formula, is going to be reviewed. Given that the formula was developed in the late 1970's as a short term solution, it should be reviewed.

Neither of these are new items. Perhaps people in Scotland should ask themselves how all the measures in the BoD will be paid for? Reduction in pension age, reduction in Corporation Tax, protecting and increasing the NHS budget, free university education (and that would also include UK students if Scotland joins the EU) and building an oil fund. The revenue from tax AND oil does not cover the current Scottish Government budget - so it will not cover these changes. The cost of setting up a new state (£1.5Bn) pales into insignificance.

I've just put my money where Epicyclo's mouth is.

That is NOT a euphemism. 7/2 btw.

Never placed a bet before.

sadmadalan - Member
free university education (and that would also include UK students if Scotland joins the EU)

Perhaps people in Scotland should ask themselves how all the measures in the BoD will be paid for?

You know it's a bad sign when you start using THM's acronyms, don't you? 😉

Anyhow, I don't care. I know Scotland won't suddenly be a land of milk and honey after independence. We might have a few rough years with getting everything up and running. But Scotland is rich enough in both natural and human resources to succeed and do very well as an independent country - no-one denies it.

[url= http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140828/192417905/Scottish-No-Vote-Will-Lead-to-Questions-Over-Its-International.html ]Oh boy, looks like FIFA is out to persuade any No voters in the Tartan Army that Yes may be a better option.[/url]

I think the Law of Unintended Consequences may work in our favour. 🙂

I'll wait until that article is confirmed by a news agency not wholly owned by the Russian Government.

Do we still have an international football team? how are they doing,do they play much?

"Better together", we may actually win something!

With regards the no camp, for a group with a majority in the polls, they are seriously under represented online.

Why do you think this is, is it an age and demographics thing or are they just quietly confident? or are the polls seriously skewed? Are there any other groups that have similar lack of online representation?

It's not just online either tbh, from a south side of glasgow perspective, there's far more Yes posters than no, tbh in my daily life I don't think I could tell you where I've seen a no thanks poster apart from on the tele.

Or is it just as simple as it's easier to get enthusiast about change than the status quo?(yes I know there are changes coming, but the no camp has failed to get that message across in any strong way that can compete with complete change.)

It's a strange phenomenon.

Or is it just as simple as it's easier to get enthusiast about change than the status quo?

It's this. If we were starting out with nothing and had to chose one or the other then you would expect to see both sides with more equal presence. People who want change are always going to be more active and vocal than people who don't. They ones seeking change are the ones who need to convince others.

Wot Rene said

The Yes mob I know, are out, often loud, and often active.

The No mob are all on the QT bar a few.

That is just from personal experience, not representative of owt but my little world.

With regards the no camp, for a group with a majority in the polls, they are seriously under represented online.

Why do you think this is, is it an age and demographics thing or are they just quietly confident? or are the polls seriously skewed? Are there any other groups that have similar lack of online representation?

1) being seen as unpatriotic
2) being afraid if being attacked verbally or otherwise
3) demographics, I could well imagine the no campaign supporters would be less present on the internet than the yes. I haven't seen any stats but I suspect that the 16-18 olds would be more yes than no for example (why else would the SNP have allowed them to vote, it wasn't for any high browed social objective?)

2) being afraid if being attacked verbally or otherwise

Pretty sure from what few occurances there are, both sides have guilty parties.

jambalaya - Member
With regards the no camp, for a group with a majority in the polls, they are seriously under represented online.
Why do you think this is, is it an age and demographics thing or are they just quietly confident? or are the polls seriously skewed? Are there any other groups that have similar lack of online representation?

I think there are a number of factors
1) being seen as unpatriotic
2) being afraid if being attacked verbally or otherwise
3) demographics, I could well imagine the no campaign supporters would be less present on the internet than the yes. I haven't seen any stats but I suspect that the 16-18 olds would be more yes than no for example (why else would the SNP have allowed them to vote, it wasn't for any high browed social objective?)

I don't really see this as being about patriotism at all tbh. point 2 is just nonsense. and 16-18 yo's, I don't think there are all that much of them anyhow, but I think they'll probably just vote as their parents do, so I don't really see them making much difference(tbh I don't think they should be voting.)

On demographics I believe from the latest survey it is those at the young and old ends of the spectrum who are majority No voters and those in the middle that are majority Yes. As a whole men are split evenly whilst women are leaning towards No.

3) demographics, I could well imagine the no campaign supporters would be less present on the internet than the yes. I haven't seen any stats but I suspect that the 16-18 olds would be more yes than no for example (why else would the SNP have allowed them to vote, it wasn't for any high browed social objective?)

Opinion polling suggests the opposite is the case.

Is the Taxpayers' Alliance really influential? It's just two lobbyists with a fax machine, isn't it?

The third person was from the start a No voter, right up until he was filling in his postal vote. Said gut instinct kicked in and he felt sick, he sat for an hour with a drink thinking it through and couldn't in the end allow himself to vote No. So Yes it was.

demographics, I could well imagine the no campaign supporters would be less present on the internet than the yes. I haven't seen any stats but I suspect that the 16-18 olds would be more yes than no for example (why else would the SNP have allowed them to vote, it wasn't for any high browed social objective?)

Actually the opposite is happening, young people are immune to the 'fatcher factor. Most mock youth elections are within a couple of points one way or the other.

@seoasamh Why the No's don't speak out ?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28986714 ]No Campaigner suspends campaign after being pelted with eggs[/url]

@mefty and @duckman - interesting that 16-18 would be more No ? I haven't seen any polls but I'll take you world for it.

Is the Taxpayers' Alliance really influential? It's just two lobbyists with a fax machine, isn't it?

True to be fair, Priti Patel isn't a cabinet minister.

The few under 20's ive interacted with online all say they are voting No.
Why that is i don't know but i have read several pieces that say that demographic is strongly No.

@seoasamh Why the No's don't speak out ?

No Campaigner suspends campaign after being pelted with eggs

The headline should have been "Yes and No Supporters hit by eggs, thrown by thugs"

But lets hope the truth doesnt get in the way of a good story..

It still amazes me that so many people south of the border are under the impression that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK..

Us Scot's pay more than our fair share into the UK pot and yet you want to cut our expenditure to teach us a lesson...

Er no, that survey stated English people want Scotland to endure the same cutbacks as the rest of the UK. If your paranoia sees that as punishment that's your problem.
Personally i don't want to punish Scotland, i would just rather you left sooner rather than later.

Er no, that survey stated English people want Scotland to endure the same cutbacks as the rest of the UK.

We are - as a percentage the Scottish budget is being cut as much as it is in the rest of the UK. The Scottish government is trying to protect and ringfence things, and putting money into mitigating the bedroom tax, but we're getting the same cuts as everyone else.

Postal vote done

I'm not feart

[img] [/img]

Its the best opportunity we have for genuine change in a generation.

And we need a change.

The headline should have been "Yes and No Supporters hit by eggs, thrown by thugs"

@richmtb - isn't the cross supposed to be inside the box ? 😉

I agree that Scotland does put into the pot (per head) than the rest of the UK. However equally they take more per head - look the Barnett Formula and this is embedded into that.

In the last General Election - all main parties stated that they would reduce Government spending. After all we all want to see the Government take less of our earnings in tax. (I know that many surveys have been done which show that we want are happy to pay more for the right reasons, but we never vote that way).

As such the grant to Scotland is reduced, how Scotland chooses to spend it, is for them to decide. They can have free prescriptions, free university education, mitigate the bedroom tax, etc, but somewhere along the line something else has give. In part this can be done because the spending per head is greater than the UK, so there is more flexibility.

But there is a finite pot. At some point if you promise more than you have money, you either need to reduce your commitments, increase taxation (which the Scottish Government can already do) or raise money on the capital markets (which the Scottish Government can't do).

Independence does not solve this - the pot is still finite, how the money is spent is still controlled by the Scottish Government. It is now just a larger pot. Various items can be cut out (e.g. Trident) but and independent Scotland will still be borrowing money from the capital markets.

The appeal from the Yes campaign is that an Edinburgh government can do this 'better' than Westminster. How you measure 'better' is up to an individual and is the main driver for a Yes/No vote. Remember that Scotland has been sending MPs to Westminster for many years, they are no better or worse than sent by the rest of the UK. Based on this the standard of MSPs will be about the same. If MPs can cock up, so will MSPs .

There is an appeal that an independent Scotland would be 'fairer'. Again this is subjective measure and depends where you sit in the political spectrum. One persons fairness is another persons unfairness.

Scotland only contributes more to the UK if you include at Oil/Gas revenues. If you look at personal and business taxes the Scots pay less. Oil and Gas are revenues aren't monies paid by Scots, they are the resources of the UK. We discussed this a while back.

jambalaya - Member
Scotland only contributes more to the UK if you include at Oil/Gas revenues. If you look at personal and business taxes the Scots pay less. [b]Oil and Gas are revenues aren't monies paid by Scots, they are the resources of the UK....[/b]

You've masterfully and neatly summarised the attitude that makes so many Scots keen to be out of the UK.

seosamh77 - Member
.............. point 2 is just nonsense. and 16-18 yo's, I don't think there are all that much of them anyhow, but I think they'll probably just vote as their parents do

Most 16-18 yr olds I've know will do the polar opposite of what their parents think is best or want them to do.

I see there's been a good bit more modification to roadside posters
I've been up and down the A90 to Aberdeen for the last few weeks and I think the yes activists have now managed to tag every 'No' poster.
I'm guessing it's a Scottish phrase but a few have been altered to read 'How No?'

jota180 - Member
...I see there's been a good bit more modification to roadside posters
I've been up and down the A90 to Aberdeen for the last few weeks and I think the yes activists have now managed to tag every 'No' poster.

There's a bit of this too...

[img] ?oh=a4b84978766f37481f17ff87f3e5e299&oe=545E8EAE&__gda__=1416402504_0c0d83f1cfefb5d0923d1ad80c89b660[/img]

This was pretty good too:

[img] [/img]

Glasgow City Council deployed the fastest cherry picker in the world to get it down sharpish 😉

@epic - yes I understand that and I am sure you will appreciate that I think those people are mistaken. The oil and gas where discovered and extracted (along with all those costs and uncertainties) when Scotland was very much part of the UK. We've debated this on here already as part of the UK, Scotland, Shetland Islands discussion.

I am actually quite fearful for Scotland whichever way this vote goes, there have been many deep divisions exposed and inflamed.

jota180 - Member

I'm guessing it's a Scottish phrase but a few have been altered to read 'How No?'

Ps, If you are struggling with the colloquialism it translates to "why not?"

Glasgow City Council deployed the fastest cherry picker in the world to get it down sharpish

You've masterfully and neatly summarised the attitude that makes so many Scots keen to be out of the UK.

And you've summarised what I feel is bad about the Scottish Yes attitude.

They seem to think that an arbitrary line on a map is a way to divide people and their endeavours. I have two kids - they share a room, and all their toys. If I were to draw a line down the middle of the room and start segregating their stuff - well that wouldn't be considered very nice by anyone.

Personally, I think EVERYONE is better together, as a matter of principle - not just Scotland and the UK.

jambalaya - Member
Glasgow City Council deployed the fastest cherry picker in the world to get it down sharpish

@ben, I assume it would have been OK if had been a Palestinian flag ? Hamas OK, ISIS not ?

FYi,

Hamas Flag
[img] [/img]

Palestinian Flag
[img] [/img]

@ben, I assume it would have been OK if had been a Palestinian flag ? Hamas OK, ISIS not ?

I thought the Palestinian flag thing was good - of course Glasgow has a history of that kind of thing, we were the first city in the world to give the freedom of the city to Nelson Mandela, and renamed the square containing the South African consulate to Nelson Mandela Square.

As an interesting aside, a good friend was involved in that, and also in bringing Mandela to Glasgow after he was released - he was also one of the General Assembly members who walked out on Thatcher. He's also a committed No voter.

[i]Its the best opportunity we have for genuine change in a generation.

And we need a change.[/i]

and when in another generation you decide it would be better to change back again.....oh wait!

Scotland only contributes more to the UK if you include at Oil/Gas revenues. If you look at personal and business taxes the Scots pay less. Oil and Gas are revenues aren't monies paid by Scots, they are the resources of the UK. We discussed this a while back.

Not per head we don't.. even with oil and gas removed we still pay in more than the UK average..

And we need a change

So do we.

and when in another generation you decide it would be better to change back again.....oh wait!

Yeah I would piss my pants if in 30 years' time the Scottish Tories have swept to power and rUK is run by socialists 🙂

Not per head we don't.. even with oil and gas removed we still pay in more than the UK average..

Only if you exclude London I think.

@ben, you can't exclude London though. Top 1% now pay 30% of taxes and I read recently that the Boroughs of Kensignton and Chelsea and Westminster pay 7% of the stamp duty collected nationally.

@seoasmh, I know the flags are different, I was referring to the fact that Gaza is run by a recognised (by the UK, US and EU) terrorist organisation.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned this though as we don't need this thread derailed by such a discussion. So apologies for that.

Does anyone think the debate would have been materially different if there had been a Labour Government in Westminster ? I think not but the Yes would have had a few less easy targets for it's Westminster / UK elite jibes

I don't think the SNP would have gained a majority in 2011 if there was a Labour Government voted into Westminster in 2010. So yes the debate would be very different, there wouldn't be one!

This could have gone better
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/tensions-rise-during-darling-visit-to-glasgow-mosque.1409327501

I don't think the SNP would have gained a majority in 2011 if there was a Labour Government voted into Westminster in 2010. So yes the debate would be very different, there wouldn't be one!

Not yet anyway. But it seems almost certain to have happened at some point, for some reason.

Shame there has to be so much squabbling involved.

molgrips - Member
...Yeah I would piss my pants if in 30 years' time the Scottish Tories have swept to power and rUK is run by socialists

What's wrong with that?

It's difficult to get into power in Scotland without very strong support from the electorate - it's called democracy.

They seem to think that an arbitrary line on a map is a way to divide people and their endeavours. I have two kids - they share a room, and all their toys. If I were to draw a line down the middle of the room and start segregating their stuff - well that wouldn't be considered very nice by anyone.

When one kid is hogging all the toys, it's one way of dealing with it. The line on the map is the border of Scotland. We are a country, not a homogenous region of England. If the Westminster govt hadn't squandered the revenues from the oil, we wouldn't have this problem.

The UK can afford to spend the oil money as it makes up a small percentage of our GDP. Without oil money the UK will do just fine. An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.

An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.

And with enough genetic modification pigs could fly.

jambalaya - Member
Does anyone think the debate would have been materially different if there had been a Labour Government in Westminster ? I think not but the Yes would have had a few less easy targets for it's Westminster / UK elite jibes

[quote=fasternotfatter ]The UK can afford to spend the oil money as it makes up a small percentage of our GDP. Without oil money the UK will do just fine. An iScotland on the other hand could be in trouble.
Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

The line on the map is the border of Scotland. We are a country, not a homogenous region of England.

You're both a country, and not a country. It's arbitrary. See, that's what annoys me about this whole thing - the idea that there's something fundamentally separating Scottish people and English people. There isn't. We are all humans, just the same.

Do you really stand on a hill looking over the border and think "those people over there are different. They need to stay with their stuff, and we need to keep ours' ... ?

Can you explain why it's YOUR oil and not OUR oil, or Aberdeen's oil?

When one kid is hogging all the toys, it's one way of dealing with it.

Wow.. not a very good one.. I'd teach them to share!

Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

But there is internal concern on their dependence on the sector, however with low net debt by European standards, they can weather an economic storm and potentially re-orientate their economy, which they are already trying to do. Scotland will have much higher debt so less room for manoeuvre.

molgrips - Member
Can you explain why it's YOUR oil and not OUR oil, or Aberdeen's oil?

I think you should ask whoever was behind changing the maritime border between England and Scotland so that the English waters suddenly included oil fields previously in Scottish waters. Absolutely no need for it if we were truly Better Together.

I'm sure they'd manage to explain the concept.

I'm asking you.

It also serves to ignore completely the history of the Border - the border clans switching allegiance on a regular basis, and the fluidity of the border itself.

(Having lived a stones throw from the border for a couple of years, I'd thoroughly recommend George MDF's 'Steel Bonnets', its well worth a read for the history and feel of the region)

It also serves to ignore completely the history of the Border - the border clans switching allegiance on a regular basis, and the fluidity of the border itself.

Yes, and the fact that borders are a pretty arbitrary concept in general in Europe.. and the world I suppose.

International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland's oil Molgrips. You are right that people are basically the same all over the world. That doesn't stop them having different beliefs or different politics etc. Scotland is a country as are England,Wales, and Northern Ireland. Perhaps it's the UK that is a state but not a country.

Scotland is a country

UK is a country, so that renders that argument (for what it's worth) pointless. Of course, Scotland votes differently to England, but I could draw any number of lines on a map and produce the same result. Why shouldn't I?

Did Scotland benefit from Wales' mineral wealth, incidentally?

Did Scotland benefit from Wales' mineral wealth, incidentally?

Only to the extent it kept the Welsh in Wales - you have got to take the easy wins!

molgrips - Member
Scotland is a country
UK is a country, so that renders that argument (for what it's worth) pointless.

I don't know if Scotland benefitted from Wales mineral wealth or not Molgrips. I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country aside from its recognition as a sovereign state ,and what makes Scotland

both a country, and not a country

Oil and gas money is a greater %age of Norways GDP than it is of Scotlands. I don't see them looking around for some "broader shoulders" to share it with.

Exactly why they need an oil fund and the UK doesn't.

I’m following the referendum with interest, both for the general political intrigue, and the fact that I was/am considering retiring/semi-retiring to the Dumfries and Galloway area [currently live in Cumbria].

I’m of a slight left leaning persuasion, so understand not being pleased with the current Tory policies, the quoting of which seemed to get the biggest reactions during the Darling/Salmond debates – Bedroom Tax, NHS, child poverty, food banks. It would suggest that to a lot of people a big reason to vote for independence is to get rid of a transient Lib Dem/Tory coalition. I now wonder what the arguments and cheers would have been about if it was Labour government in power.

Also what seems to be coming to fore, which is disappointing, are the ‘we pay more into the UK than you do’ and ‘it’s our oil’ arguments.
I have never thought about whether I am paying in more or less into the UK [or EU] than I get out, or whether I am paying more or less than the average English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish resident. It now seems that a lot of people have been thinking about this, and are not happy. I now know from this thread that for the last 33 [or is it 34] years that the Scots have paid more than the average English person – thanks – I assume the situation has been different in the past, and will be different again at some point in the future if there is a 'NO' vote.

I now wonder what the proportions have been for the previous 200-odd years. Who was keeping score?

As for ‘it’s our oil’ – does anyone know what proportion of the UK natural resources that have been used to help finance the Union for the last 300 years have come from each constituent country – coal, tin, copper, iron ore, gas, oil, fish, men during the war, mill workers, miners, great thinkers..... I’ve no idea, but it seems someone should have been counting.
It seems churlish to say now that ‘it’s our oil’.

Good luck to Scotland whichever way the vote goes. I may still end up spending my retirement up there, but I hope the vote is ‘No’ as I would like to see the obvious passion stirred by this debate used to make the UK a better country [state?], and not to introduce another border/divide.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country

Having an overall government would be my guess.

I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes the UK a country

300+ years of shared history? Go back 100 years and Scottish Nationalism is virtually non-existent as a political idea.

whimbrel - Member
...but I hope the vote is ‘No’ as I would like to see the obvious passion stirred by this debate used to make the UK a better country [state?], and not to introduce another border.

I'd like to think that whichever way the vote goes it will benefit the rest of the UK. There's some deep rooted inequities in the power structure that need to be destroyed.

Yes please for the border though. 🙂

epicyclo - Member
Yes please for the border though.

...and the divide? 😉

I now know from this thread that for the last 33 [or is it 34] years that the Scots have paid more than the average English person – thanks – I assume the situation has been different in the past, and will be different again at some point in the future if there is a 'NO' vote.

I now wonder what the proportions have been for the previous 200-odd years. Who was keeping score?

What you need to remember is that for the majority of those 33 [or is it 34] years (right up until fairly recently) we were lied to. We were told we were heavily subsidised by everyone else. We couldn't afford to go alone. A tactic used to subdue an independence/home rule movement at the time. That is the problem. No doubt if the truth were told things may have been different, that is why a lot of people are thinking about this now. No doubt for the previous 200 years exact proportions of contribution varied throughout. Thing is there was no keeping score as you say because we weren't being lied to then so there was no need to.

I now wonder what the arguments and cheers would have been about if it was Labour government in power.

People see through that so tbh I don't particularly think the arguments would be all that different.

Scotland has paid a certain amount into the UK and a certain amount has been spent in Scotland. After that is taken into account how much is left of what they paid in, 1%? 2%? At best they have helped to subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland and they think they are owed 10% of all UK assets. Dream on.

Before oil you say?

[img] [/img]

Lol at that vague and incomplete snippet being used as evidence of anything...

[img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-1.jpg [/img][img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-2.jp g" target="_blank">http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-1.jpg [/img][img] http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/image-2.jp g"/> [/img]

So you raised 11% tax, got 11% expenditure, excluding public debt costs and military costs which were not split, whilst England subsidized Ireland.