[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

gordimhor - Member
@Epic Murdoch is someone I would like to keep at the very shitty end of a very long stick.

I agree, but I have the horrible suspicion he has Salmond and Cameron in adjacent rooms competing to see who can bend over the furthest.

Dunno what youse are talking on about Murdoch for. In this campaign TV and media coverage has been verging mostly to pro yes, and the no camp is gaining ground at remarkable pace in spite of that. Imo that is coming from a reasonably positive yes campaign, a grass roots movement and a massive online presence.

The no camps problem is that its run on the media and judges itself by how it looks on the media. People look beyond that these days.

Personally I think traditonal medias days as major opinion formers are numbered. And we'll see its influence waining more and more as the years pass. It's far from irrelevant, but its not the only show in town anymore.

I think it's a pretty small target audience, that joke.

wasn't there a furniture or carpet shop in Tillicoutry that was always advertised on TV?

Northwind - Member
bencooper - Member
Well I laughed
I think it's a pretty small target audience, that joke.

No, it was a good one that stretched right down to the South! 😉

After the BoD, the best joke on this subject so far....

What a startling masterstroke by the No campaign to get Gordon Brown involved! YS must be feeling more confident every time he's seen in public.

It does seem that No are putting up a different politician every week, seemingly no 'leader'. As opposed to uncle Alex, ma Sturgeon and grand master Swinney who have been the 'face' of Yes since day 1.

In this campaign TV and media coverage has been verging mostly to pro yes, and the no camp is gaining ground at remarkable pace in spite of that.

Are you sure you've got that the right way round? 😉

[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independent-scotland-could-join-eu-in-18-months-1-3535302 ]Meanwhile, another positive opinion on joining the EU from someone who has a clue.[/url]

Gordon Brown - the man certainly has charisn'tma.

Of course he hasn't actually offered anything new at all, just a vague timetable. And why is a Labour backbencher who isn't in government offering stuff anyway? Or have Labour and the Tories just seamlessly merged into one party?

Paul Krugman is wrong, the sterling crisis is about the UK's financial problems not Scottish independence:

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/09/paul-krugman-what-the-heck/

(Two articles, same author)

[img] [/img]

^^^^^
😆 😆

[url=

more love from our neighbours [/url]

Better together?

@ben, I thought GB actually spoke very passionately and laid out his arguments very well. I'd take GB over AS all day long. As I posted he has come into the campaign as a Scotsman and ex Prime Minister, the guy and government "you all voted for" (apparently)

GBP is down due to uncertainty over the referendum outcome, the financial markets gave the Yes only a very slim chance of winning until now and hadn't really been paying a lot of attention. As for "financial problems" given all we hear about spending and a fairer society from AS Scotland will be running a big budget deficit and borrowing a lot of money, like Spain and Italy.

@epic, very good that clip, made me smile. A bit more humorous than "No surrender to the IRA"

On a sporting note has there been any discussion about the 2016 Olympics, the IOC has made it clear Scotland cannot compete as an independent nation in most events as they won't have had time to take part in the qualifying events. Not that that really matters with regard to the Yes/No vote.

jambalaya - Member
@ben, I thought GB actually spoke very passionately and laid out his arguments very well. I'd take GB over AS all day long. As I posted he has come into the campaign as a Scotsman and ex Prime Minister, the guy and government "you all voted for" (apparently)

We may have voted for him, but his record in office hangs around him like a bad smell.

More to the point, he is an opposition backbencher. He has no power to offer anything. Unless he has secretly joined the Tory party, which could explain everything...

Brown is the chosen front man, he is speaking on behalf of the Labour party, he is powerful and authoritative on this matter. Millibrand keeps being branded as the Westminster elite by AS (as opposed to the Holyrood elite that is AS) so it makes sense to roll out a Scottish ex PM

There has been a leadership issue throughout - no effectively leaderless and having two failed Labour chancellors fronting thins is not idea versus a habitual liar and bully. No exactly edifying is it?

Ben, where do you find those articles - is there a junk folder?. Look at currency volatility. Flat as a pancake until the pretty much the last poll. There isn't a crisis (yet) but the increased volatility is directly linked to the fact that people have woken up to the fact that NO is not a foregone conclusion.

We have run current account deficits for longer than the author has been alive!

But if we are running persistent currency account deficits then a weaker currency is a positive not a negative isn't it? So in addition to feeding the speculators, the DO. Is helping rUK exporters!

So long SChar short Lloyd's/RBS as the next punt. A bit late but could still run over the next two weeks.

Outside of Fife pensioners,who don't understand his sterling work as chancellor, I fail to see the point in bringing him in this late.

I thought GB actually spoke very passionately and laid out his arguments very well. I'd take GB over AS all day long.

Brown is the chosen front man

I think the phrase you're looking for is fall guy 😉

Does anyone believe that, if the polls weren't so tight, these so-called extra powers would be offered? They're blatantly a last minute manic measure. Of course without any legislation pending, nothing binding at all, there's no guarantee that even these limited extra powers will ever happen.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8?CMP=twt_gu ]Charlie Brooker on fine form[/url] 😀

duckman - Member
Outside of Fife pensioners,who don't understand his sterling work as chancellor, I fail to see the point in bringing him in this late.

Squeaky bum time for NO isn't it. The leadership has been poor. Watching the new Gordon with the fake smile and the slower delivery if quite painful. Politicians!!!!!

Another good joke - you and NW are winning the humour batlle!!!

Does anyone believe that, if the polls weren't so tight, these so-called extra powers would be offered?

Isn't that part of democracy? People show what they want, politicians try and give it to them?

Politicians really cannot win can they?

As I posted he has come into the campaign as a Scotsman and ex Prime Minister, the guy and government "you all voted for"

Remember that we were never meant to get to this stage. It took 20 years to get a Scottish parliament, and the parliament was set up in such a way that there wasn't meant to be an overall majority - the referendum wasn't meant to happen. But when the SNP did get that overall majority, it looked like a safe bet to give Scotland a referendum - let us have our fun, get it out of our systems, there will be an overwhelming No vote and everyone can go back to business as usual.

Now we're 50/50, on the verge of independence. This was never supposed to happen.

If there's a No vote, do you think we'll ever be allowed to get to this stage again? Remember that Westminster can do whatever it likes, pulling back powers or even abolishing the Scottish parliament, and we can do nothing to stop them. If they squeak through this referendum, they'd be mad not to make sure we don't have another one.

No but there is a somewhat unedifying sight of desperate scrambling with the danger of offering too much that will ultimately unbalance politics across UK and possibly wider. But the modern politics is not to address the core issues head on - hence the DO is allowed to get away with his BS unchallenged.

This is an early taste of what is to come - I hope it's worth it?? No wonder international companies think we are barking

This was never supposed to happen.

Nor should it have.

I think you have to seriously question whether you're on the right 'side' when you share it with Rupert Murdoch.

My favourite comment from Brooker

Nonetheless, Ed Miliband will visit Scotland to inspire people.

Well I suppose it might work there, having failed everywhere else he's tried.

There isn't a crisis (yet) but the increased volatility is directly linked to the fact that people have woken up to the fact that NO is not a foregone conclusion.

Any crisis that results from this and the current market volatility is surely down to the No Campaign deliberately seeking to make things as uncertain as possible. If they'd gone and got the position of the EU and released some plans about a possible CU (even if the terms were unfavourable to Scotland) then I suspect everyone would be a lot calmer as they knew, for the most part, where they stood.

A little more respect and a lot more forward planning from BT and we'd all be a better place right now. Less market uncertainty and more knowledgeable voters.

I think you have to seriously question whether you're on the right 'side' when you share it with Rupert Murdoch.

Sadly in recent times that does tend to mean you're on the winning side.

@BigButSlimmer - we don't vote for presidents, we vote for the party which then appoints a PM. It was clear Brown would take over one day, it just took longer than he expected.

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ? I just read in a piece of research about Oil fields (Chevron:Rosebank and Total:Laggan-Tormore and 12 other oil companies) that they where likely to remain with the UK or perhaps even independent of both Scotland and the UK

Any crisis that results from this and the current market volatility is surely down to the No Campaign deliberately seeking to make things as uncertain as possible. If they'd gone and got the position of the EU and released some plans about a possible CU (even if the terms were unfavourable to Scotland)

Eh? If you're going to blame anybody for things being uncertain on the currency, then it's not BT. They've been pretty unequivocal the whole way through. Though I'm not quite sure you understand the whole currency issue with your suggestion of "unfavourable terms" in a CU, nor the idea of releasing plans - exactly what do you think would be uncertain if they did have a CU?

A little more respect and a lot more forward planning from [s]BT[/s] yS and we'd all be a better place right now. Less market uncertainty and more knowledgeable voters.

jambalaya - Member

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ?

Nope- the only people who ever wanted Shetland to want independence were the Nos. The petition that was announced earlier in the campaign to great excitement netted just 1300 signatories out of IIRC 70000 residents (Shetland, Orkney and Isles) despite being open to nonresidents. (about 1/20 of the signatures were from abroad when I looked)

In other words it's about 1/33rd as interesting to the electorate of Shetland, as the innerleithen uplift is to the locals.

jambalaya - Member
Brown is the chosen front man, he is speaking on behalf of the Labour party, he is powerful and authoritative on this matter...

He has no power. That is why he is a front man. After a No vote the govt can tell us to take a running jump, and fancy thinking that an opposition backbencher could bind the govt.

As for authority? The Labour voters who are going for Yes don't have a high opinion of him, and surely they should be the target market for his warblings.

We were lied to before about more powers. We know the govt is following the Quebec template, and they were lied to about more powers.

Brown is simply diminishing his reputation further by blatantly lying. He's not stupid, he knows there are no powers within his grasp to give.

I initially felt it was a masterstroke on the rUK's part in keeping devo max out of the vote. It is starting to look like a glaring oversight on their behalf.

Looks like the only rational thing to do with all this uncertainty right now is to convert all of my savings into something a bit less volatile.

Expensive bikes.

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ? I just read in a piece of research about Oil fields (Chevron:Rosebank and Total:Laggan-Tormore and 12 other oil companies) that they where likely to remain with the UK or perhaps even independent of both Scotland and the UK

Yes, I'd heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.

Tongue in cheek surely?!

Eh? If you're going to blame anybody for things being uncertain on the currency, then it's not BT. They've been pretty unequivocal the whole way through. Though I'm not quite sure you understand the whole currency issue with your suggestion of "unfavourable terms" in a CU, nor the idea of releasing plans - exactly what do you think would be uncertain if they did have a CU?

Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them (then again, I don't know many hedge fund managers). Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here's what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain. Less uncertainty all round and a more credible position.

blurty - Member

You are William Wilberforce and I claim my 10 groats and a fast horse.

blurty - Member
Yes, I'd heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.

It's classic divide and rule tactics that were used by the British Empire to acquire and retain colonies.

It also shares the characteristic of being BS.

Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them

Well that's hardly their fault is it. It's not BT who've been spreading the story that they're bluffing.

Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here's what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain.

Your suggestion would simply increase uncertainty, not decrease it. Particularly given you still don't seem to understand the concept of CU - either they have a CU, in which case Westminster doesn't get to retain any unilateral economic control over that, or they don't, in which case Westminster gets to retain full economic control over the currency Scotland will use. You see this is the issue the yS supporters cheering AS when he says Scotland can just use the pound anyway don't seem to get - most of the supposed downsides for the rUK not having a CU with Scotland don't apply if Scotland is using the pound anyway, so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

In realpolitik the Scots would use the pound for the time being.

so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11073598/Alex-Salmond-Meet-the-bully-behind-the-mask.html ]Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask[/url]

What a total pillock - is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

I was referring to the disadvantages for the rUK, sorry if that wasn't clear - companies heading south could be seen as an advantage for them. Though I'm not sure CU has that large a bearing on corporate migration - more to do with regulatory frameworks.

Remember it's not about Alex.

aracer - Member
... most of the supposed downsides for the rUK not having a CU with Scotland don't apply if Scotland is using the pound anyway, so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

Again I'll repeat I think Salmond is using the £ as a red herring.

When BT announced there would be no Currency Union, it would have been obvious to Salmond what could happen to the £, and the pressure it could subsequently put on the BT side. This has come to pass. It could certainly explain why he has stuck to his guns about it when most Yes supporters would prefer our own currency.

From the sound of what's in the press a Yes vote will trigger a drop of 10% in the value of the £. Certainly as THM points out there will be volatility.

I agree with aracer, I do not see any advantage in a CU, except maybe for the convenience of a transitional period.

The big question is if the £ drops, will the govt feel the necessity to try to prop it up, and how can they do this? Can we expect higher interest rates?

Or will the drop be seen as a temporary anomaly? Or perhaps even beneficial to our export trade?

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Absolutely right - in a campaign involving threats of a fence along the border, suggestions of invading Russians, arguments over the currency and oil, taunting a Telegraph reporter with a bag of sweeties really is the most serious issue.

http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/scotland-eu-comment-joseph-h-h-weiler/#.VA7EgGRdUpQ

Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them (then again, I don't know many hedge fund managers). Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here's what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain. Less uncertainty all round and a more credible position.

I do, including a fellow poster in here! (As in know many HF managers)

This has been explained in detail in many times, but the DO rejects discussions on the basis of his 3Bs precisely because it is the elephant in the room. The conditions are very simple and very clear. You cede national sovereignty over monetary AND fiscal policy when you enter a CU. Failure to do so, commits all parties to failure as the € has shown. The goals of policy independence and a CU are mutually incompatible* There is no ambiguity here unless of course you are a European where politician expediency trumps logic and economic reality on a fairly regular basis.

Hence Mark Carney's complete clarity on the issue of ceding national sovereignty.

Here is the ultimate contradiction. The cornerstone of yS is not to be independent at all. Oddly (IMO) they seem scared to debate genuine independence. Why? Because they know it's not in Scotland's best interests.

Google Martin Wolfe's piece in the FT this week. He is a mate of your advisor Stiglitz but even he realises the incompatibility here.

bencooper - Member
In this campaign TV and media coverage has been verging mostly to pro yes, and the no camp is gaining ground at remarkable pace in spite of that.
Are you sure you've got that the right way round?

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ? I just read in a piece of research about Oil fields (Chevron:Rosebank and Total:Laggan-Tormore and 12 other oil companies) that they where likely to remain with the UK or perhaps even independent of both Scotland and the UK
Yes, I'd heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.

Tongue in cheek surely?!

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?

A Yes vote is unlikely lead to straightforward agreement on this - with the added complication of Shetland as a separate actor to Scotland and rUK.

Happy days 😯

Remember it's not about Alex.

We'll he's the one making all the promises that everything will be rosy after a YES vote.

A grown up conversation COULD have happened around a potential Scottish Monetary Authority, but that requires grown ups.......

Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires

Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?

Well, between Scotland and the rUK it's relatively simple - there's a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can't be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.

This puts the border where it already is - there's a border for administrative purposes already.

When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they'd probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain

It took 20 years to get a Scottish parliament, and the parliament was set up in such a way that there wasn't meant to be an overall majority

On a sporting note has there been any discussion about the 2016 Olympics,

it will be a blow for the curling but otherwise no big deal

But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9151646/Scotlands-oil-rich-Northern-Isles-tell-Alex-Salmond-We-might-stay-with-UK.html ]Just blown that one out of the water![/url]

Just blown that one out of the water!

Er, with a 2-year-old Torygraph article about a report written by a couple of MPs? No poll in Shetland, no campaign on the ground calling for Orcadian independence?

It's Tavish Scott - he's the only person in Shetland who ever mentions the idea, and as a Lib Dem MP I'm sure we can all guess why.

Just blown that one out of the water!

Ahahahahaha Tavish Scott trying to stir shit up, again. 😮

Mr Godden said the pre-vote stance of the anti-independence parties to reject sharing the pound after a Yes vote was also a ‘scaremongering tactic’.

He said: “The oil assets in the North Sea are coveted by Westminster and have been a major underpinning of the pound’s strength over the last 40 years - and will still be seen as crucial for the future.

“The pound needs the oil assets and would not wish to lose it. England is likely to be the loser, not Scotland. Furthermore, even if Westminster somehow refuses to cooperate with Scotland over the continued sharing of the pound, there are plenty of small countries that have successful independent currencies.

[url= http://www.yesscotland.net/news/top-energy-and-defence-figure-why-ive-switched-no-yes ]Top energy and defence figure: Why I've switched from No to Yes[/url]

A Tory who gets it:

[img] [/img]

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

What a total pillock - is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

My God what a MONSTER!

[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: "It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn't it?"
First Minister: "That's OK, I'm perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There's no harm meant."

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil - mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?
Well, between Scotland and the rUK it's relatively simple - there's a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can't be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.

This puts the border where it already is - there's a border for administrative purposes already.

When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they'd probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn't very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

Not arguing with your main points, but once again, there's a real lack of clarity about fundamental technical matters which will be the result of a Yes or a No.

There's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Coupled with the motivator of significant oil wealth at a time when everyone's suffering from globalisation and feeling rather skint...

It's hardly a recipe for peace, harmony and stability is it? Oil does have a habit of leading to neighbourly disgruntlement...

It's really not good for people to be asked to make such a major decision without any clear steer on what the impact of their vote will be

rebel12 - Member
Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires
Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.

That pig isn't going to fly, dream on. You a voter up there?

brooess - Member

There's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Pure fantasy- there's no desire for independence in Shetland despite what some seem to want to believe, and there's no conceivable UK/Scotland border which will put a significant amount of north sea oil into UK waters, the conventions on sea borders are well established. Even the No campaign haven't significantly monged that particular scare, it's too thin even for them.

richmtb - Member

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

What a total pillock - is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

My God what a MONSTER!

[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: "It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn't it?"
First Minister: "That's OK, I'm perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There's no harm meant."

Meanwhile he still has not and cannot answer those questions.

There's a couple of big 'if's and tbc's' in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Well, of course. A border is agreed by negotiation between the two countries - we're not two countries yet, and the Westminster government refuses to discuss such things, so how can we be certain about those things?

What we can do is look at where the administrative border already is, look at the precedents in international law, and make the perhaps rash assumption that both sides can negotiate sensibly after the referendum.

I don't think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn't Scotland's.

Just because it's funny, and for the sake of clarity, here's Johann Lamont talking about these "new powers" earlier this year:

Rebel12's mask has fairly slipped, he is across on the English thread comparing AS to a child molestor.

That's funny because that's also a comment that's trending on the @BritNatAbuseBot.

bencooper - Member
I don't think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn't Scotland's.

It's the United Kingdom's oil at the moment, look at what happened when South Sudan split from Sudan. If my understanding is correct, South Sudan has the majority of oil reserves within its border, yet Sudan retained a 50% share.

The Sudan situation is pretty different - for one thing we're hopefully not going to have a long and protracted civil war.

But more importantly South Sudan's only way to get the oil out (and hence get the 98% of government income it needs) is the pipeline through Sudan. Sudan has South Sudan over an oil barrel, and so can demand a share of the revenues.

That's not the situation with Scotland.

Particularly given you still don't seem to understand the concept of CU

I understand it fine thanks, and THM comments on what would be required were exactly the point I was trying to make. If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom. The "our pounds too" line would fall over too as it would be clear than the UK would 'share the pound' but the cost of doing so would make the proposition unappealing.

If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom

You mean like this;

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279454/CM8815_2901849_SA_SterlingUnion_acc.pdf ]Currency Union[/url]

They should maybe publicise it a bit more. Is it available on the BT website?

Clegg, Cameron and milliband all not attending pmq tomorrow to come up to Scotland... Doesn't look desperate in the slightest!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2014/sep/08/threats-sterlingisation-scotland-votes-yes-pound

- apologies for an on-topic link