[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Debt being greater than assets (err, it's a balance sheet), deficit rather than debt......is that enough? 😉

Let you off if a typo on deficit 😉 still most people don't understand the difference between debt and deficit TBF

Are any of the 4 statements I made wrong?

I dunno. The bit about Scotland 'being able to manage' seems a bit vague though.

molgrips - Member
Are any of the 4 statements I made wrong?
I dunno. The bit about Scotland 'being able to manage' seems a bit vague though.

Of course Scotland can manage. If there is a Yes vote the UK will be a worse off and Scotland will be a lot worse off (and no that doesn't mean there will be a currency union which is a massive potential black hole for the UK 😐 )

A lose-lose!!!

We are a bunch of sado-masochists - or simply gullible.

what, the bit that most people agree on?

Still, coping really doesn't really aim too high in the aspiration stakes. Coping is what you do when trying to get to the end of the month having had to fix the car unexpectedly. It certainly isn't how the utopian iS is portrayed by the Yes campaign.

Scotland will be a lot worse off

Will it? Maybe. Maybe not. You can't say it with any degree of certainty though. And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing ****s who hate the poor than one than does.

oldbloke - Member
what, the bit that most people agree on?
Well, you presented it as a fact and it is an assumption at best.
Still, coping really doesn't really aim too high in the aspiration stakes. Coping is what you do when trying to get to the end of the month having had to fix the car unexpectedly. It certainly isn't how the utopian iS is portrayed by the Yes campaign.

And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing **** who hate the poor than one than does.

I'm sure when the poor are also poorer that they'll be glad they get the government they vote for.

youse still haven't provided any evidence bar trying to bamboozle with numbers

You want some evidence that you'll be worse off which doesn't involve numbers?

aracer - Member
And at the end of the day, I'd rather be poorer and live in a more democratic country that doesnt keep electing **** who hate the poor than one than does.
I'm sure when the poor are also poorer that they'll be glad they get the government they vote for.

coping is all the assurance I need

That's you. It isn't the rest of the country, thankfully. If you're bamboozled by numbers, then perhaps you need to take the time to work through them. The ability to understand numbers is fairly key to the ability to cope (or not).

So, you are prepared to put up with being a bit poorer for political freedom. What about the people who are already extremely poor and can't find the money to live each month? I wonder if they are prepared to jeopardize their part-time job for the same freedoms?

When a country gets poorer it's not just like everyone having a bit less money. Now I'm not saying that'll happen to Scotland, but it's a real possibility.

aracer - Member
You want some evidence that you'll be worse off which doesn't involve numbers?

Now I'm not an expert here in the slightest, but the whole a few quid better here, worse there, does nothing for me. I think the actual campaign from both sides has been pretty lacking, piss poor tbh. For me that's indicative of UK politics(and pretty much the only way the campaign was going to be fought).

When/If we vote yes I'm hoping, and yes it is a hope, that the discussion can start to move away from a cold financial look at things and start talking about improving society.

molgrips - Member
So, you are prepared to put up with being a bit poorer for political freedom. What about the people who are already extremely poor and can't find the money to live each month? I wonder if they are prepared to jeopardize their part-time job for the same freedoms?

When a country gets poorer it's not just like everyone having a bit less money. Now I'm not saying that'll happen to Scotland, but it's a real possibility.

btw, I'm not all that far away from the poor, if things go tits up, particular the property market, which my job is directly reliant on. I'll be hunting for a new job.

A risk i'm willing to take.

But who doesn't want to "improve society"? We differ on means not ends. But at the end of the day we are all economists ( 😉 ) in that we all have to work out how to allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. The question is simple, can that be done better as part of a union or as part of a separate state? To date, apart from fluffy aspirational dreams, the yS has been remarkable for its inability to answer simple questions on this. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that they know the answer - stay as part of a wider group. Hence the fact that at every opportunity they grasp as much of the status quo as possible - and even worse when that is not available they grasp straws that will make it much harder to achieve the ends. Their central policy is to abdicate economic power to a foreign country and then a group of foreign countries.

When yS are essentially arguing against independence, the vote should be easy for everyone.

teamhurtmore - Member
But who doesn't want to "improve society"? We differ on means not ends. But at the end of the day we are all economists ( ) in that we all have to work out how to allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants. The question is simple, can that be done better as part of a union or as part of a separate state? To date, apart from fluffy aspirational dreams, the yS has been remarkable for its inability to answer simple questions on this. Why? Because it's pretty obvious that they know the answer - stay as part of a wider group. Hence the fact that at every opportunity they grasp as much of the status quo as possible - and even worse when that is not available they grasp straws that will make it much harder to achieve the ends. Their central policy is to abdicate economic power to a foreign country and then a group of foreign countries.

When yS are essentially arguing against independence, the vote should be easy for everyone.

But an IS is for longer than Salmond will be about(I'd predict a few years, no more.)

and start talking about improving society.

An iScotland, scrabbling around for foreign currency to meet over-ambitious political promises, might well be tempted to get into bed with whoever has most money, even more so than the UK already does.

[/cynicism]

oldnpastit - Member
and start talking about improving society.
An iScotland, scrabbling around for foreign currency to meet over-ambitious political promises, might well be tempted to get into bed with whoever has most money, even more so than the UK already does.

[/cynicism]

What I don't get as a non-economist is why, when there are lots of small countries doing fine by themselves, Scotland would be any different. Are our people less innovative and hard-working than others? Do we have shortages of natural resources? What do we lack that all these other countries have?

That fundamental question never seems to get an answer. My belief is that all we lack is confidence in ourselves.

But at the end of the day we are all economists

He's right. Wealth redistribution only works when there's wealth. Paying for great public services requires money to begin with. That's why you do need your economy to be strong even if you are not an avaricious Tory.

when there are lots of small countries doing fine by themselves, Scotland would be any different

Well, I'm not an economist either, but I can think of a few possible reasons:

1) Small countries very often rely on something to get business in - tax havens for example.

2) They are often fairly precarious economically as I understand it - a lot of shit hit a lot of fans in the EU a few years back didn't it? I suspect things were worse there than here.

3) The rich ones have natural resources like oil. Which Scotland has, but it's running out.

So I think if you are small economy you have to have something else on which to rely, other than just size.

So, you are prepared to put up with being a bit poorer for political freedom. What about the people who are already extremely poor and can't find the money to live each month? I wonder if they are prepared to jeopardize their part-time job for the same freedoms?

I suspect it's the poor who are driving the shift towards a yes vote. They've got nothing to lose. A government whose ideology is fundamentally against them who implement regressive tax raises and tax cuts for the rich isnt going to help them out any. I'm voting yes in the hope we can do better and have a more equal society. I'm not poor but I'm a long way form rich and I don't mind paying more taxes if that means we don't need as many food banks etc

People are queueing around the block to register to vote. No matter what the result is, that's an amazing thing.

I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who want closer integration between the EU and the UK are also campaigning to effectively break up the latter.

I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who want closer integration between the EU and the UK are also campaigning to effectively break up the latter.

Whereas organisations who want us out of the EU are campaigning to save the Union. UKIP, the BNP, the Britannica Party, the Tories...

Well WNB you should be voting labour!

The big SNP tax policy announcement is to cut corporation tax and keep it below rUK. Note they have not committed to lab's 50p top rate if tax (probably sensible there), no new council tax bands, no tax on all those nasty bankers employed in Scotland. Spending almost exclusive done on the universal benefit principle, tax freezes on council tax etc.

Strip away SNP and this sounds more like Tory policy, in fact that is often the case when you dig deep into the details. Plus they love EIIR - so monarchists on top of that!!!

They've got nothing to lose.

Oh yes they have!

I want a better fairer more equal society too, but I'm not campaigning for Welsh independence, because I don't think we'd be secure enough.

Perhaps Wales could enter a union with Scotland after this?

Ah yes, I'd forgotten we'll be stuck with the SNP forever ffs

digga - Member
I find it interesting that a lot of the same people who want closer integration between the EU and the UK are also campaigning to effectively break up the latter.

That simple. The UK fits all the criteria for a successful currency union. Which is why it has been a success. The EU does not. Which is why it hasn't and cannot be.

Google optimum currency areas and then read what the FC says about it in their choice of the best option for Scotland. And then you see the flaw into eh whole argument. Their choice of CU reflects exactly that reasons why Scotland works better together and that's by yS's own analysis and admission. They just hope that folk are too stupid to notice. The big throne and the mirror are of over-riding important to the interests if the minions.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten we'll be stuck with the SNP forever ffs

So.. wait.. the reason for independence is that you don't like the current UK government and it'll never change. But if you don't like the current Scottish government, it's ok to wait for it to change?

What?

It's really not hard to follow.

What were the statistics on how much influence the Scottish vote has on the Westminster government again?

The big SNP tax policy announcement is to cut corporation tax

Ah, we're back in the 'Arc of prosperity' game again 😆

Welcome to the 'Celtic Lion', park your hopes of a bold new left leaning rebalanced society here!

A week or so ago, I queried whether it would be worth shorting on the £.

Is it about to take a dive right now?

What were the statistics on how much influence the Scottish vote has on the Westminster government again?

Must be better ways to fix that than independence. I think the SNP would be better off trying to redress that than to simply quit. But then, they are nationalists aren't they? Which is what this is really all about - you're English, we're Scottish, we're different.

On the short side - significant uncertainty ahead and slightly weaker ST Econ data (incl yesterday). Against European data and need to for weaker € may overwhelm.

Buying volatility may be a better bet?

Like the idea of buying credit protection on RBS. People will be spooked and the protection is cheap to buy and ultimately RBS will do whatever is necessary to ensure that it remains within a secure environment including shifting HQ s of the border.

teamhurtmore - Member
...Buying volatility may be a better bet?

I was thinking that. A bob each way?

I was wondering when either side's refusal to publicly budge on the CU was going to have an effect on the money markets.

molgrips - Member
...Which is what this is really all about - you're English, we're Scottish, we're different.

Really, it isn't.

It's that the UK govt is seen as being dominated by the interests of what is known as the Establishment, with the result that it doesn't matter what govt gets voted in, we get the same policies.

These policies serendipitiously seem to favour the moneyed classes in the South, while Scotland continues to bleed industries, jobs, and its people, while not deriving any benefit from its considerable resources.

Only the bampots think it's an English/Scottish thing, and as most of them are in the marching organisations, they'll be voting No anyway.

molgrips - Member
What were the s
Which is what this is really all about - you're English, we're Scottish, we're different.

Convince me that's not happening and I'll give serious consideration to changing my vote.

WTF is or perhaps HTF do you privatise an individual?

Since by definition that is impossible, we can put you down for a NO then!! 😉

Convince me that's not happening

Convince me it won't happen in Scotland
Convince me it will always be the same in Westminster

And don't mention the word 'hope'

I'll take that as agreement on the direction of Westminster..

If you like, but it's not my point at all.

molgrips - Member
If you like, but it's not my point at all.

I suspect I'll never convince you, because you're making an emotional deicision.

Westminster can be changed because it is never constant. It will always change. It always has done. Likewise Holyrood will change - even if you start off with socialist utopia, it won't always be so.

I understand that. Its my biggest worry about it. The Tory party are the only party with any ideas. Labour get in and only act as a place holder(as they have zero ideas of their own bar staying slight left of the Tories). Then the Tories get in change things a little more.

Its a cycle i dont see changing. There is only one ideological direction.

"Power corrupts...."

I agree with the 'Westminster' jibes, although I'm perhaps less critical and hold my nose a bit more during times of a government of the hue I prefer, but I don't see any reason that it will be different in Scotland, and if it is, or can be, I don't see why it can't be in 'Westminster'.
I don't think that there is that much difference in the ideals of the the people who just happen to live on either side of a line on a map - there is the same mix of different outlooks, and opinions on how they should be achieved.

'Westminster' doesn't have a monopoly on the wrong kind of people, they will gravitate to wherever there is an opening or opportunity.

I don't understand these things, but just read this:
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/indepdent-scotland-not-join-eu-without-central-bank ]Today's Guardian[/url]

It can be different in Scotland due to much smaller government that is closer to the people, therefore more likely to be reactive. And there is also PR in scotland, so more representative IMO.

just one thing, if scotland had been independent already, we would have been at war in Syria now.
The union is better together in my view, unless you would rather we were at war.

[quote=Sancho ]just one thing, if scotland had been independent already, [b]we[/b] would have been at war in Syria now.
The union is better together in my view, unless you would rather [b]we[/b] were at war.
Who is "we" in this context? I'm struggling to see why Scotland would be at war in Syria.

We the rest of the union.

however my point is that the scottish mps do influence policy in Westminster, and you are not being ignored.
Or being ruled over without a voice.

I was wondering when either side's refusal to publicly budge on the CU was going to have an effect on the money markets.

I suspect the money markets are rather cleverer than the people Sir BS is trying to bamboozle with his refusal to publicly budge.

It's that the UK govt is seen as being dominated by the interests of what is known as the Establishment, with the result that it doesn't matter what govt gets voted in, we get the same policies.

The trouble is I'm not seeing iS being any different to that (FWIW I agree with your take on Westminster - well except that I'd replace "the Establishment" with "big business" - and am far from a fan).

The Tory party are the only party with any ideas.

For now. You talk as if the Labour Party have never had ideas in the past. This is obviously rubbish.

Its a cycle i dont see changing.

Why do you say that? Based on what evidence?

I don't think that there is that much difference in the ideals of the the people who just happen to live on either side of a line on a map

The difference lies with the money. The money in the SE of England is what makes it the Tory heartland, and the working class background of much of Scotland makes it Labour. If Scotland gets really rich, the money will gravitate to the Central Belt and it'll end up Tory.

Anyone mentioned Animal Farm on this thread yet?

It can be different in Scotland due to much smaller government that is closer to the people, therefore more likely to be reactive.

I don't buy the "smaller/closer" == "better" argument.

Lots of local councils appear to show the exact opposite for example (e.g. see today's news). I'm sure there are others.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland ]Another one from today's Guardian[/url]

I might be changing the vote I don't have 😀

I might be changing the vote I don't have

I wouldn't. I don't think Monbiot really understands the world very well.

Molgrips. I was the one that asked you to change my mind. I didn't ask for a serious of questions on my views! 😆

But for clarities sake.

I don't think labour has always been devoid of ideas, just in my adult life.

The current incumbents and their recent follow the Tories spending cuts/budget rings true of what happened in 97.

Maybe, maybe not we could speculate all night on that I believe different.

Its a cycle i dont see changing. There is only one ideological direction.

What's that look after number one?
Salmond made the claim in the tv debate that cancer operations are being cancelled at Gateshead hospital. He does not care what happens at Gateshead, and neither do most Yes voters.

One reason they want a Scottish Broadcasting Service is so that news like this does not need to enter their lives.

I am still waiting to hear as someone that would like to see a UK that does more to help some of it's poorest, how does independence help?

I might be changing the vote I don't have

Phew, having checked I find my usual policy on Monbiots opinion means I don't need to

Salmond made the claim in the tv debate that cancer operations are being cancelled at Gateshead hospital. He does not care what happens at Gateshead

Pretty much made up

[i]Sir Leonard Fenwick, the chief executive of the North East NHS foundation, was reported as saying: “This is the biggest lot of crap I have ever heard. It is just codswallop.[/i]

Nothing like saying it how it is 🙂

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/doctor-campaigning-scottish-independence-accused-7672586

Independence helps because people in Scotland will get the govt they vote for and will therefore become less cynical and apathetic about politics. If people engage more with politics politics itself will come to be a more accurate reflection of the needs and wants of the society it is supposed to serve. Politics itself has to change fundamentally new parties are needed because the old ones are no use. Independence is just the first step on a long journey

I am still waiting to hear as someone that would like to see a UK that does more to help some of it's poorest, how does independence help?

I could actually be swayed with arguments of a federal uk, but that would need to work across the UK for it to be successful. Something that isn't going to happen.

Seosamh - you have interesting perspectives but as others have said local (council) politics totally falsifies the idea that smaller is necessarily better. You are in for a massive let down if yes succeeds.

If people engage more with politics politics itself will come to be a more accurate reflection of the needs and wants of the society it is supposed to serve.

We're back to the death penalty argument

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-agree-or-disagree-that-sometimes-the-death-penalty-is-the-most-appropria#line

The job of [the social construct we refer to as] society is not to reflect the democratic wants of the electorate, just because people support it doesn't make it right!

I could have sworn we had a coalition government! Are the LDs given the same level of respect as the welsh in all this ie, none?

teamhurtmore - Member
Seosamh - you have interesting perspectives but as others have said local (council) politics totally falsifies the idea that smaller is necessarily better. You are in for a massive let down if yes succeeds.

I will concede that there may even be SNP policies of over protectionism on certain issues, you know the ones I'm meaning. As I've said I see right the the SNP, but that's a double edged sword for them, they have normalised these things in Scotland, and, more imporartantly, the concept of I dunno, universalism, for want of a better word.(no idea if that has a different meaning in political circles).

whimbrel - Member
...'Westminster' doesn't have a monopoly on the wrong kind of people, they will gravitate to wherever there is an opening or opportunity.

Yes, but our wrong people have to face re-election. They are not there for life.

Guido thinks that Gordon has won it for the Yes campaign

[img] ?w=150&h=136[/img]

See, all this "we'll be better when we're ruled by our own" thing doesn't wash with me. I (along with many others) have got first-hand experience of what happens when you elect local people to represent you. Have a google for corruption at Edinburgh Council. It's rife and, at times, downright criminal. What's worse is the contempt with which the people of Edinburgh are viewed by their councillors. There is a concerted effort from within to ignore the issues under the guise of numerous and sickeningly expensive resolutions processes, and a refusal from the Scottish Parliament to allow a public enquiry for fear of the embarrassment it will cause to all involved and their parties.

You think things will be rosy once the Westminster Old Boys network no longer has a say? Well there's an Old Boys network at Holyrood and beyond, and they are as corrupt and self-serving as any.

TFO - you know the beautiful thing about Edinburgh CC - you can vote them out if enough people where you live agree with you.

You don't feel that's missing the point somewhat?

No - not really. People don't agree with you then they get to stay in power. That's how democracy works.

you can vote them out if enough people where you live agree with you.

I'm sure the people of Rotherham are over the moon at that revelation about local democracy!

Enlighten me about what happened in Rotherham.

Love the DO spouting about optimum currency area on news now. Exactly, and what is the feature of this - you coordinate policy you do not not separate it.

The smug bllx is extraordinary and the so-called biased BBC report it without comment. Extraordinary

His willingness to deceive is breathtaking

His willingness to deceive is breathtaking

apparently this former EU commissioner was wrong as well

[img] [/img]

What I don't get as a non-economist is why, when there are lots of small countries doing fine by themselves, Scotland would be any different.

Ben - there is no doubt that Scotland could go it alone as an independent state. the question is whether it should go it alone. you know this perfectly well.

 living of rUK green energy subsidies

Might it be possible that the future of this sector will be dependant on the willingness of a foreign country to continue paying for it?

ninfan - Member
I'm sure the people of Rotherham are over the moon at that revelation about local democracy!

Maybe they should now agitate to get their democracy replaced by rule by a wise and enlightened aristocrat?

Ben - there is no doubt that Scotland could go it alone as an independent state. the question is whether it should go it alone. you know this perfectly well.

So what's the point of the economic arguments then?

Whether we should go it alone isn't about money. It's about democracy, it's about getting rid of Trident, it's about trying to create a fairer society.

It's after 11pm and people are running - running! - to register to vote. In our normally apathetic democracy with steadily reducing voter turnouts, that's absolutely astounding and wonderful.

Douglas Alexander's relaxed authoritive style is destroying Nicola Sturgeon.

Facts v bollox!