[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Whoa....10,000 posts! 🙁

[i]a "f*** you then" attitude to people telling us we can't do something[/i]

yep....I'd agree with that, which is why its probably all going to end in tears!

Ending primogeniture would be a very good start, that would naturally lead to the breakup of the big estates

I don't know if relaxing planning laws in rural Scotland and privatizing the Forestry Commission is going to have quite the effect of making Scotland a more equitable place to live.

You did't get Salmond, we did because we voted for him. We got Farage because you voted for him. And Cameron. Not sure what we did to deserve those two

An increasing number of us disagree.

You haven't had the bitter aftertaste yet ducky, by definition.

...and since you missed the opportunity:

[img] [/img]

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they're things really only for the wealthiest

No they’re not; I do all of those things either free or for a very small cost when I visit Scotland. Free fishing in particular is easy to find.

It’s my experience (from family and friends) that people in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) don’t fish and hunt because they don’t want to. The North Uist angling club is £80 a year not really into the realm of the “wealthiest”

How exactly does that work? Farage is an MEP for SE England. How did Scottish voters "get him" any more or less than English voters got another provincial politician, Alex Salmond?

Well I suppose in the same sense that they (and we) get Marie-Christine Arnautu, who we didn't vote for. There does seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding of how democracy works amongst those suggesting Scottish Independence will result in more of it (but not for voters in Shetland).

(but not for voters in Shetland).

Not sure what you mean?

irelanst - Member

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they're things really only for the wealthiest

No they’re not; I do all of those things either free or for a very small cost when I visit Scotland. Free fishing in particular is easy to find.

It’s my experience (from family and friends) that people in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) don’t fish and hunt because they don’t want to. The North Uist angling club is £80 a year not really into the realm of the “wealthiest”

Got to agree here, any and all of these activities are enjoyed by many people regardless of wealth and our access laws make them even easier to enjoy. The fact that many others do not take up the opportunity is down to other reasons than affordability and access.

aracer - Member

You haven't had the bitter aftertaste yet ducky, by definition

Fair enough,but at least we will have plenty lovely fresh water to wash the taste away.

Eggy Justice
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/kirkcaldy-yes-supporter-sentenced-for-egging-jim-murphy-1.558970

To be fair I think he should have got more for being such an abysmal shot.

Reform of land ownership is about a lot more than fishing or sailing or even building huts. It is about security of tenure for ordinary people living on country estates and about allowing communities to a say in managing the land around them appropriately. It is also a major issue in towns and cities.
[url=.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/ownership-of-our-land-is-a-public-scandal.23100413]The Herald on land ownership[/url]
[url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/05/2852/298195 ]Recommendations of the land reform review group[/url]

Okay, it isn't. But I think there is a shared sense of something - community, a certain sense of humour, a "f*** you then" attitude to people telling us we can't do something.

I see it more as a "can't do" attitude. I will not defend UK government policy, but still regard people in the UK as my countrymen and women regardless of political persuasion, ethnic background or social standing. I understand many don't feel that way, but I have always thought my vote counts. Wealth inequality occurs throughout the UK and is probably most prevalent in London itself. The people that should be most ashamed of themselves and are primary candidates for this "can't do" attitude are some of our SNP MP's that see this everyday.

I have been asked if I will turn my back on Scotland on Sept 18. My reply is that I will not turn my back on those using food banks in Hull, or a family requiring NHS care in London, or someone long term unemployed in Liverpool.

If the result is Yes, I reckon history will look unfavouably on No voters. I am sure there are plenty that feel the way I do that are not in the Orange Order, have never voted BNP and do not support WMD.

but I have always thought my vote counts

The only time I've felt my voted counted was at Scottish Parliament elections due to the element of PR. My first ever vote in a general election was in a constituency where the incumbent's majority was bigger than all the other votes put together.

athgray - Member
I have been asked if I will turn my back on Scotland on Sept 18. My reply is that I will not turn my back on those using food banks in Hull, or a family requiring NHS care in London, or someone long term unemployed in Liverpool.

So really, you should be thanking us, as there'll be more to go around for the poor of liverpool and london...

Eggy Justice
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/kirkcaldy-yes-supporter-sentenced-for-egging-jim-murphy-1.558970

To be fair I think he should have got more for being such an abysmal shot.

And after all that energy that went into those Yes conspiracy theories that it was an inside job with a guy with an earpiece being choreographed.

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they're things really only for the wealthiest

Complete rubbish, I sailed dinghies as a schoolkid on pocket money and have fished all my life for very little money, plenty of free/dirt cheap fishing here and sailing can be very cheap. I know plenty 'normal' people that hunt too and I doubt it costs them very much.

I think this utopian dream that we're all going to own yachts and go salmon fishing when we are all oil millionaires has gone to your head

I may well be at loggerheads with the no camp. I think the no camp campaign has been particularly poor. Don't believe for a minute though that all people that vote no, are doing it based on the official no campaign line.

Take currency union for example. We have no right to expect one, and I currently believe AD, however he is leaving himself open in the result of a yes vote. I don't think his stance of not wanting one will not have many takers. The ones that back him then will more than likely be yes voters.

The no campaign has allowed yes to claim the moral highground when that should not have been the case. They have simply not inspired.

In all honesty I thought both of the main debates were really poor however I agree Salmond won the second. I just feel we all deserve better.

athgray - Member
I may well be at loggerheads with the no camp. I think the no camp campaign has been particularly poor. Don't believe for a minute though that all people that vote no, are doing it based on the official no campaign line.

Take currency union for example. We have no right to expect one, and I currently believe AD, however he is leaving himself open in the result of a yes vote. I don't think his stance of not wanting one will not have many takers. The ones that back him then will more than likely be yes voters.

The no campaign has allowed yes to claim the moral highground when that should not have been the case. They have simply not inspired.

In all honesty I thought both of the main debates were really poor however I agree Salmond won the second. I just feel we all deserve better.

I agree myself the debate has be pretty poor, but I personally feel the debate is framed in the context of UK politics. The debate will always be framed in that context if we stay.

I'm looking forward to the debate opening up considerably if there is a Yes vote.

Come and join us. 🙂

Reform of land ownership is about a lot more than fishing or sailing or even building huts. It is about security of tenure for ordinary people living on country estates and about allowing communities to a say in managing the land around them appropriately

Its an interesting idea, and not one that I'm opposed to in theory, however it delivers some problems

i) You can't just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you're bound on this by first protocol ECHR, The values involved here would be colossal, and the land unlikely to produce a return on investment (most of it being barely productive) so who would pay for it? The only realistic option becomes the public purse, so the government would have to borrow more money (already an issue) and hand countless billions to private landowners and multinational corporations.

ii) The land management priorities and funding are difficult to balance, community partnerships have already been tried in some areas, for example deer management, with mixed success, and not always making a profit, so who underwrites them? The local taxpayer? - and this is before we enter the problem of clashes in land management, a good example being the independent report on the running of Mar Lodge by NTS, which showed that even an integrated and powerful organisation found it almost impossible to balance, and they didn't have to turn a profit.

Westminster too can have coalitions...

The house of lords has plenty of appointments from Labour although I suppose the nay-sayers here would suggest they become the aristocracy by being appointed. @ninfan thanks for those links, bastards indeed !

As for the land ownership/forestry discussion I do see an irony in those who wish for less private land ownership but at he same time point out all the unused school buildings in Glasgow which "private developers are not interested in", so you want private ownership and development cash when it suits you ? The real solution to the issue for the government to re-develop those sites. You have a government that cannot/won't do that but you want the same government to own more of the countryside ? Surely it would benefit more Scots and your architectural heritage to have these school buildings protected and utilized by the urban population than a few extra 1000 acres in the highlands.

EDIT: Just read @ninfan's post. So the Scots government has 10 million (
Scottish pounds or euros of course 😉 ). Does it buy a wood from a private owner or redevelop some great old buildings ?

As for the land ownership/forestry discussion I do see an irony in those who wish for less private land ownership but at he same time point out all the unused school buildings in Glasgow which "private developers are not interested in", so you want private ownership and development cash when it suits you ? The real solution to the issue for the government to re-develop those sites. You have a government that cannot/won't do that but you want the same government to own more of the countryside ?

Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council, not the Scottish Government - GCC are terrible at looking after heritage, have been for many decades. I think it'd be great if more development money went into fixing up old buildings, and equally it'd be great if more architects considered that instead of demolishing and building new.

I don't object to private land ownership per se, though I prefer stewardship to ownership - the problem is huge highland estates owned (and receiving big tax breaks for) very wealthy landowners while squeezing locals into the margins. It's really a continuation of the crofting acts which took the best land for the landowners and moved the poor onto less productive land, in crofts deliberately too small to be self-sufficient.

Sure, you don't have to be rich to sail or fish - the Norwegian model shows that - but the statistics show that in Scotland the people who do usually are. There's a lot more to it than just land ownership - a lot needs to be done to tackle the very poor health of some areas and very low aspirations of many people. But the hills and mountains were an escape route for many in the past, I think they can be again.

You can't just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you're bound on this by first protocol ECHR, The values involved here would be colossal, and the land unlikely to produce a return on investment (most of it being barely productive) so who would pay for it?

I don't quite understand this - surely a land's value is what it's worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return? If land only produces, say, £100 per acre, then you value it based on that.

Glasgow is run by Glasgow City Council, not the Scottish Government

😆

So much for all the blather about Westminster!

Oh, good grief - it's early in the morning, I forgot I had to annotate and footnote and caveat every statement made on here.

Okay, here goes: Glasgow is run by GCC in respect of things like planning, city design, commissioning of new public buildings, disposal of council property, consultation with local communities etc., which is what matters when we're talking about a derelict school. Glasgow is not run by GCC when it comes to other things that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government.

There, is that better?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-5-reasons-yes-winning-polls

surely a land's value is what it's worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return? If land only produces, say, £100 per acre, then you value it based on that.

😀

Ben, I reckon you ought to nip down to an estate agents and see if you can buy a few acres of farmland based upon a calculated productive output.

Takes a deep breath and says Ninfan has a point

the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation,

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-32126754.html

You do have to wonder why we want away from this insanity? 😆

No housing bubble here proping up the economy, move along swiftly!

Ben, I reckon you ought to nip down to an estate agents and see if you can buy a few acres of farmland based upon a calculated productive output.

All you're saying with that is that the current way of valuing land is wrong 😉

Perhaps the sale price should also reflect the buyer's intended use? If it's being sold for strip mining, it costs £10M per acre, if it's being sold to turn into a wildlife habitat it's £1 per acre.

I think we need to think differently about what it actually means to own land. Maybe a concept along the lines of the living wage idea works - everyone is allowed some land, say 1/4 acre or something - anything over that is the property of no-one, looked after by everyone.

Just thinking aloud here, which is dangerous I know 😉

Perhaps the sale price should also reflect the buyer's intended use? If it's being sold for strip mining, it costs £10M per acre, if it's being sold to turn into a wildlife habitat it's £1 per acre.

I seem to remember that thats been done before, and the biggest abusers were local authorities who bought at a very low price (or were even given) land under extensive caveats and after giving very clear guarantees on future use... you can guess the rest!

The land was stolen originally, so confiscation seems appropriate.

You are Robert Mugabe AICM£5

I don't quite understand this - surely a land's value is what it's worth, so how can a fair compensation be so much more than the land will return?

The land was stolen originally, so confiscation seems appropriate.

Well, if you want to go way back....We all need to start to learn old Welsh.

If you want to go way back duckman, perhaps the referendum should be decided on the field of battle. At least ben is being sensible and pragmatic.

At least ben is being sensible and pragmatic.

That's the first time I've been called that 😀

The only time I've felt my voted counted was at Scottish Parliament elections due to the element of PR. My first ever vote in a general election was in a constituency where the incumbent's majority was bigger than all the other votes put together.

So in the Scottish parliamentary election, if you hadn't voted would it have made any difference to who got in? If not, did your vote really count?

ninfan - Member
...i) You can't just transfer the ownership of the land, the landowner would be entitled to full and fair compensation, and you're bound on this by first protocol ECHR...

That's great. We can start with historic cases where the record is clear.

So the stolen lands can be returned without compensating the thieves.

[url= http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9696-citys-verdict-on-westminster-currency-threat-dont-write-cheques-your-arse-cant-cash#comments ]Meanwhile, back on the currency question, the £ is still tanking because of the threats by BT[/url]

Well, if you want to go way back....We all need to start to learn old Welsh.

Yes. Piss off back to Denmark, Germany and Norway the lot of you.

The land rights issue WAS settled on the field of battle Molgrips - that's why the dominant language of Britain is English. 😛

Stewardship, is that where its privately owned but state run/controlled, doesn't sound so compelling to me.

For some light relief, there's a brilliantly-named group called The Hills Have Ayes who are putting huge Yes signs on various hills:

[img] [/img]

On more serious matters, it turns out that some people with postal votes have been receiving, in the postal ballot pack, a "Guide to voting No" - an official-looking leaflet showing how to put an X in the No box.

Which is not only patronising, it's a very dodgy thing for whoever's sending them out to put in with the official ballot forms.

epicyclo - Member

Meanwhile, back on the currency question, the £ is still tanking because of the threats by BT
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/9696-citys-verdict-on-westminster-currency-threat-dont-write-cheques-your-arse-cant-cash#comments

Lol at that article.

First paragraph:

After 2 years of largely ignoring or laughing off the referendum, the City of London is finally waking up to the fact that the Scots will vote for independence. [b]After all, who wouldn’t choose economic freedom?[/b]

Freedom. Control over your own affairs and economy. Got it.

Quote from Goldman Sachs he bases the rest of his article around:

"One of the main lessons from the euro area crisis is that a reasonably high degree of fiscal and/or financial integration is necessary, as a means of effective risk sharing, for a monetary union to work. [b]Without political and fiscal integration, it is difficult to see the rest of the UK agreeing to provide a monetary and financial backstop to Scotland[/b]."

Yet he says it is Better Together's fault for not wanting rUK to enter into an unworkable currency union without this.

What is also clear is that contrary to what Unionists sadistically hope, any damage inflicted could never be isolated to Scotland. A Westminster-engineered breakup of the sterling union...

Ah yes, that's it. Refusal of currency union is just a unionists sadistic hope to damage iS's economy, engineered by Westminster. As opposed to rUK simply protecting their own interests.

@epic the currency moves have very little if anything to do with the currency union. The markets would [b]hate[/b] a currency union fyi. The moves are more to do with the potential damage to the UK in the event of independence, a currency union would make that damage greater not less. The article is a fanciful peice written by someone with very little clue, he even quotes Goldman who are arguing against what he's saying.

Anyone know what the Irish viewpoint is on this?

The Irish had a currency union with Sterling until the seventies, I think, when they gave up, at least in part because of the effect of North Sea oil on the UK economy.

Given that Scotland has gazillions of barrels of oil remaining, it seems like a bad idea to try to link our two economies in this way.

Meanwhile, back on the currency question, the £ is still tanking because of the threats by BT

The £ has been very strong against the $ for ages now. An fx of 1.63 isn't low its just slightly lower than its recent high.

I'd be looking at the strengthening $ first before saying the £ is weakening 😉

Outside yS documentation that newsnet article has to one of the most economically and polticallly illiterate pieces written during this whole process. The confused state of the writer is there from the start - the buffoon talks about depriving Scotland of its own currency (has he followed this debate at all!?!) with not agreeing to a CU. And that is just for starters. Compete bllx

@tmh - if there is a more illiterate piece I haven't read it and I would only do so for a laugh / stick in a scrap book of "all time bllx"

Chew - Member
...I'd be looking at the strengthening $ first before saying the £ is weakening

I'd be looking at what is actually happening to the pound rather than listening to spin.

This was a predictable result of the stand off on CU. I've said before that it is my opinion that Salmond has been using the CU as a red herring.

He would be only too aware that the UK would have more to lose than Scotland if he stood his ground against the threat. There's no downside to the Yes campaign from this, Salmond benefits from being seen to stand up the threats, whereas the UK was letting Darling and Osborne expose its currency to what is now happening.

Prediction:
Salmond will now be hoping for a panic reaction in the government ranks in which they'll messily take control of the Better Together campaign by ditching Darling and his Labour mates. This will have the effect of making the campaign a very visible Tory one, thus alienating the few remaining Labour faithful in Scotland and increasing the Yes vote.

jambalaya - Member
@tmh - if there is a more illiterate piece I haven't read it...

Of course, the pound [i]sinking like a stone[/i] was previously forwarded as proof of why Scotland needed to be [i]out[/i] of a sterling CU by a certain politician 😉

I'd be looking at what is actually happening to the pound rather than listening to spin

@epic - the move in sterling is absolutely nothing at all to do with a CU. A CU would be really bad for the GBP and for the UK, that's why we are not going to have one. You are totally wrong in every way possible in saying that the UK has more to lose. The currency issue is 100% Scotland's problem and one they have not faced up to.

Have you not seen the news about NATO today and the UK providing 25% of the ground troops. That has far more to do with a currency move.

With regard to your prediction - you are correct in parinig the word hope with Salmond as that's what his plan is based upon as opposed to anything remotely concrete.

EDIT: Just seen your other link, the GBP has been very strong recently, easy to argue too strong (peak close to 1.72, its correcting back to more normal recent levels in the 1.60's). This makes sense given the NATO issues plus further sanctions against Russia being likely (which will hurt the UK more than the US). the referendum has been largely ignored by the markets as they see it as a small side show (yes/no making not so much difference certainly in the short/medium term)

I re-read that linked piece again and in 35 years in finance its is the single biggest piece of nonsense I have ever read, that includes some research published in 2007 which said how strong the Icelandic Banks where.

jambalaya - Member
@epic - the move in sterling is absolutely nothing at all to do with a CU. A CU would be really bad for the GBP and for the UK, that's why we are not going to have one...

You don't have to convince me about the CU.

oldbloke - Member
Only it isn't spin. The markets have been expecting and predicting USD to strengthen vs GBP for months and in managing my employer's FX exposure for the last several months I've been banking on it...

That's interesting. Markets move usually for a number of reasons. So you are sure the CU issue has had nothing to do with the £ decline at a time when we keep getting told our economy is recovering?

I'm asking because I moved a lump of cash out of sterling when they announced no CU, and have done nicely so far. I'm contemplating some more, but don't have your level of expertise. I usually base my investments on actions rather than what is being said, and now I'm wondering if Cameron isn't writing a cheque bigger than he can cash with the NATO commitment, so possible further weakness.

So you are sure the CU issue has had nothing to do with the £ decline at a time when we keep getting told our economy is recovering

Epic, in this I agree that the recent Short term movement is due to the prospect of higher levels of uncertainty surrounding the vote and triggered by the latest poll. Amusingly though yS supporting economists (including a very good friend of mine) were arguing on Monday/Tues that you can't blame this on the close poll announcement (I disagree) and to do so was political stirring. Seems no one can make their minds up on this one. 😉

Still reckon buying vol is the best bet,

Not sure about our NATO commitment althoug radio was saying that we have dipped slightly below 2% of GDP, but perhaps you want a quick punt on defence suppliers and naval outfitters. Long Portsmouth property, short Faslane property (that's a joke BTW!)

A NATO rapid reaction force has been vaunted since about, ooh, 2002, and never seemed to actually amount to anything other than on paper.

It will never be effective unless placed under direct NATO command without national veto, which is never going to happen!

It's a slight tangent and there are other threads on this but love the fact that not only have we extended NATO eastwards against assurance given at unification of Germany and now this. And we wonder why the rUssians react in the way they do???

oldbloke - Member
You sure it is declining? It has recently been strengthening against other currencies I have to deal with like CHF, CAD, AUD. But hey, that doesn't suit your argument, so it can be ignored...

The currency I work with is AUD (simply because I have a better chance of understanding the Oz economy). Check the movements. I haven't imagined it.

Edit: Of course you'll know the movements. Sorry, telling you to check them was rude.

But the £ is approx 10% down on the AUD in that time

Not sure where you're getting your data from but theres noting unusual outside of normal currency fluctuations

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/currency/11/12/twelve_month.stm ]Some Data[/url]

Chew - Member
Not sure where you're getting your data from but theres noting unusual outside of normal currency fluctuations

I'm using XE Currency.

Just checked the 1 year chart. £1.00 got you AUD$1.87 at the beginning of March and latest is AUD$1.67

The currency I work with is AUD (simply because I have a better chance of understanding the Oz economy). Check the movements. I haven't imagined it.

The others stand.

oldbloke - Member
Indeed. Apologies. Quite why I wrote AUD when my brain told my fingers to write NOK is a concern as I don't touch AUD. I'd better get that sorted before I pick up the ballot paper!

You've probably picked up at some stage on me being from Oz.

Don't worry about the ballot paper, I can advise you. 🙂

Pretty much sums up my point of view.

Yes, that's very good.

A more serious video, here's Andy Brough, Executive Director of Schroders Investment on the Bloomberg Channel:

He thinks Scotland will vote Yes, and that there will be a currency union.

I think this is a more learned analysis. Warning, this video contains swears, because it has scottish people talking.

Aye, that's what we're dealing with. Still, they plan to head south after a Yes vote - so sorry about that, England 😉

I just been at a dinner at a well known Uni with several MPs, one ex-minister and DTI types - castigating them for their lacklustre efforts at exposing the DO for what he is. 😉 There seems to be a general astonishment at how things have got so close - I prefer complacency and it's been shocking.

The event was actually an international affair and our foreign guests were astounded at the whole process. Why would the Scots want to leave they asked....I am afraid they asked the wrong guy! Given that it was Tories and Labour MPs involved, they were in the same boat!!!

I gave them the link to STWs 1000 posts for enlightenment!!!

The Scotsman had a funny article about Johann Lamont getting comprehensively dingied in Govan. I say "had", it's inexplicably disappeared from the Scotsman website. Luckily it's still here:

https://archive.today/oi5Qd#selection-1753.4-1753.50

😀

This is nicely done:

We'll done indeed Ben! but when you are peddling BS it needs tricks and gimmicks to make it palatable. They will be painting YES on hillsides next 😉

Why take the piss out of Lamont - she could be running the whole show one day.

You're a downer. I'm going to call you Deputy Downer from now on.

teamhurtmore - Member
We'll done indeed Ben! but when you are peddling BS it needs tricks and gimmicks to make it palatable....

Urgent! Tell Project Fear that... 🙂

I am teasing Ben, it was a good dinner!

DD better than DO though!!!

Oops

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393[/url]

The SNP's Derek Mackay said: ...

"People across Scotland have already started casting their votes in the referendum - for them to be able to make the right choice they must be given the facts.

😆

Well Derek there are a few days left, better late than never.

The event was actually an international affair

I'm slightly amused by the parallels of some of my Facebook friends coming out, in more or less exactly the same way as others came out about their sexuality. Just with a different subject matter. The sense of relief from them is palpable.

The Pie Street car stickers competition is still at 1-1, no window stickers at all. Lamp post stickers have (literally) peeled back from a 7-0 drubbing in favour of no. To a 2 - 0 in favour of yes.

I have to admit, I'm glad I got my postal vote away. Now I can get back to trying to not be a total arse, which requires considerable concentration tbh.

Its amazing,in his frequent dinners, CA has never met a yes voter.