[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

I see a documentary has been made about life in the Borders

[img] [/img]

there is nothing but opinion to base it on. One is not a valid sample size, even if the example given was a facsimile of what is being proposed for Scotland. Maybe I'm a cynic but I can't see separation being anything but painful over the short to medium term.

Are you expecting 5-10 years of recession?

Don't be silly. The knock on effects will last far longer than that.

vintagewino - Member

there is nothing but opinion to base it on. One is not a valid sample size

You'll have to forgive me, but an example of one is better than a guess.

The Noers on this thread seem to be raising a lot of important questions that no-one can answer. The Yessers seem to be ignoring them and focusing on hope

It not hope to say dont worry it will work out ok in the end [ unless you wish to say it is unrealsitic to suggest iS can exist as a state] even if it is a bit bumpy in the short run. Anything else would be attacked as hopelessly unrealistic by BT anyway

The knock on effects will last far longer than that.

To be fair the No ers are going hypothetically this could happen and then getting annoyed that no one can say accurately what will happen in the future

The noers' hypotheses are more realistic, imo. Plenty of countries fell into deep shit during this recession, not at all unrealistic to expect Scotland to have some serious trouble and not be able to implement the changes that the people might want.

On the other hand, the yessers' ideas seem to be based on romantic ideals. I reckon they have about as much chance of utopia as we do in the rest of the UK. Which is some, but not any time soon.

ah right so your guesses are realistic and the others are not

Pretty scientific that one molly 😉

all we are doing is saying the view we have /the way we vote is more informed and realistic but they are still "guesses"

I am not sure why you think they are claiming a eutopian view as many , on here and in general, accept it will be economically worse in the short run.

It also interesting how self determination and democratic will of the people is dismissed as "romantic"

To be fair the No ers are going hypothetically this could happen and then getting annoyed that no one can say accurately what will happen in the future

Haven't you previously vociferously criticised the UK government for refusing to say accurately what will happen in the event of a hypothetical yes vote when questioned by the Yes campaign?

molgrips - Member

I reckon they have about as much chance of utopia as we do in the rest of the UK.

Which is exactly why nobody's promising it. It's a weird recurring word though, lots of No people use it, in the same way lots of No people refer to FREEEEDOM. Always think that misrepresenting the other side's argument instead of engaging with it is a bit of an admission of defeat tbh.

I reckon they have about a

The Noers on this thread seem to be raising a lot of important questions that no-one can answer. The Yessers seem to be ignoring them and focusing on hope

This article on the technical matters which will have to be negotiated is interesting: it's not a short list...

Tbh it's deeply irresponsible to ask the Scottish people to vote on this when there's no agreement on exactly what they're voting for...

[url= http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/negotiations-after-a-scottish-referendum-yes-vote/ ]Negotiatons after a Scottish Referendum Yes Vote[/url]

for an independent Scotland to start functioning as an independent state, some key top-order issues have to be resolved. Prominent among these are:

the currency the new state will use, and who bears the risks associated with that
the borders of the new state – particularly its maritime borders, which will affect oil and gas reserves unless a distinct arrangement is made for these.
the arrangements for movement of persons between rUK and the new state, both at the border and more generally
whether, when and on what terms the new state will be or become a member of the European Union
the division of the UK’s current National Debt
the division of other UK assets and liabilities – ranging from defence infrastructure to museum and gallery collections
what happens to the existing UK nuclear bases on the Clyde
if rUK is to continue to administer welfare and pensions payments in Scotland for some transitional period, the basis on which it will do so
the means by which outstanding issues are resolved, and what happens if the parties cannot reach agreement by negotiation.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/the-siege-of-balamory#46co8os ]More here[/url]

Tbh it's deeply irresponsible to ask the Scottish people to vote on this when there's no agreement on exactly what they're voting for...

How are they going to get agreement? The UK government refused to do any negotiations or make any plans. You can't tell people what they're agreeing to if one side refuses to agree on anything.

brooess - Member

Tbh it's deeply irresponsible to ask the Scottish people to vote on this when there's no agreement on exactly what they're voting for...

Basically what you're saying is, since Westminster refuses to negotiate before the vote, and calling for a vote is irresponsible unless you know exactly what it's for, Scotland should just forget about independence entirely.

[quote=ninfan said]
Haven't you previously vociferously criticised the UK government for refusing to say accurately what will happen in the event of a hypothetical yes vote when questioned by the Yes campaign?

[s]**** knows it is along thread I could have said almost anything[/s]
What I said was that it was poor* to refuse to negotiate before the vote and then to criticise them for not knowing what will happen

* for the voters not politically - politically it was a wise move

Perhaps it suited both sides to not really know what was actually on offer- wee eck could promise eutopia and BT could engage project fear.

I think one of the reasons the Yessers aren't too worried about all the obstacles real and imaginary that are being thrown up is because of a basic confidence to handle whatever issues independence throws up.

Stalinist Russia demonstrated that 5 year plans don't work because circumstances change. The important thing is to have people who can handle that.

We believe we have those people.

But just in case - Yesterday on my ride somewhere between Bonar Bridge and Ledmore Junction I stumbled upon what may be the secret HQ of the Scottish Republican Army.

[url= https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3885/15023022489_9be6328740_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3885/15023022489_9be6328740_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[url= https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5578/15209810835_67ca9b5a4e_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5578/15209810835_67ca9b5a4e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

On the 19th of September, we invade!

Which is exactly why nobody's promising it. It's a weird recurring word though, lots of No people use it, in the same way lots of No people refer to FREEEEDOM. Always think that misrepresenting the other side's argument instead of engaging with it is a bit of an admission of defeat tbh.

Bit of hyperbole but I don't think it's an entirely unfair way to describe the way some Yes politicians and supporters are characterising things.

There's an awful lot of awkward questions being asked and a lot of avoiding answering and saying 'it doesn't matter, we will have change - and hope for a brighter, fairer future' etc. It just doesn't sound very convincing - at all.

TBF to Molly - there's some fairly well qualified people agreeing with his un evidenced opinions (yes I'm sure it's been done already).

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/08/paul_krugman_on_scottish_independence_the_risks_are_huge/

grum - Member
...TBF to Molly - there's some fairly well qualified people agreeing with his un evidenced opinions (yes I'm sure it's been done already).

A reasonable point, but there were also an awful lot of very well qualified people involved in stuffing up the economy.

This thread's fun, it's rather like watching every tenth episode of Corry, Eastenders or Dallas; just dipping into every tenth page or so is all that's needed to keep up with what's going on... 😉

The fact that there are Nobel-Prize-winning economists on both sides just goes to show that nothing is certain.

How are they going to get agreement?

Exactly! Pointing out the reasons why there's no plans isn't a substitute for actual plans 🙂

Basically what you're saying is, since Westminster refuses to negotiate before the vote, and calling for a vote is irresponsible unless you know exactly what it's for, Scotland should just forget about independence entirely.

No, what he's saying is if you're going to do something hugely risky, make sure it's properly planned out first! Not unreasonable, is it? This isn't the only chance you'll get - if there's a no vote, the issue won't go away. It'll just come back and hopefully be better presented. I.e. the referendum will give people a chance to choose what most people actually want, rather than being pawns in politics.

So with a week to go Darling Cameron et al have decided that BetterTogether needs to step things up a bad news story about independence every day and their name for this new phase according to ch4 news "Shock and Awe" . The name for the intense bombing operation at the start of the war against Iraq.

TBF to Molly - there's some fairly well qualified people agreeing with his un evidenced opinions

Nothing is certain - which is why it seems so risky to embark on a path that has major risks and very few benefits other than fulfilling an emotional desire for 'change' and being 'free' (except for being in a currency union with a much larger economy).

JY - if I've got what you're saying - I think it's fairly likely there will be some sort of currency union deal don't you? IIRC it's the least worst option for Scotland. 'Give us a currency union or we won't take our fair share of the debt' might work I suppose.

To be fair the No ers are going hypothetically this could happen and then getting annoyed that no one can say accurately what will happen in the future

Hypothetically iS could have to use the currency of a different country and have no central bank of its own and no control over the levers used to control the currency
Hypothetically iS could have higher interest rates for its government borrowing
Hypothetically Standard Life could move a significant proportion of its operations to rUK
Hypothetically iS could have insufficient public money to cover all the plans
Hypothetically iS could have to renegotiate entry to the EU, on worse terms than the UK currently has
Hypothetically the sun will rise tomorrow morning

molgrips - Member

No, what he's saying is if you're going to do something hugely risky, make sure it's properly planned out first!

But that's exactly the point- you can't "plan out" any of the points he raised unilaterally.

Looks like everyones offski:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/399323/SCOTS-REFERENDUM-Has-the-Loch-Ness-monster-just-left-Scotland

which is why it seems so risky to embark on a path that has major risks and very few benefits other than fulfilling an emotional desire for 'change' and being 'free'

if I've got what you're saying

My position remains I would vote for almost anything that ensured the Tories never governed me as , however difficult it was, as that is the least worst scenario.

IMHO the it is a bit risky view[ yours] and we will be better off financially ignores the massive issue of whether the UK stays in the EU.
A vote yes is a vote for something that we will decided afterwards exactly what it was you just voted for.

Only on this thread and this issue has the wish for self determination and democracy been used an insult

It's not meant as an insult. I do think it's misguided though.

the massive issue of whether the UK stays in the EU.

If self determination and democracy meant anything to an independent Scotland, surely they would hold a referendum to decide whether iS joined the EU?

Or have we found another issue where the wish for self determination and democracy has been used an insult ?

ninfan - Member
If self determination and democracy meant anything to an independent Scotland, surely they would hold a referendum to decide whether iS joined the EU?

Surely that won't be necessary?

Seeing as all the Westminster pundits say we're not getting in.

Anyway, one step at a time... 🙂

The reasons for no Pre Referendum negotiation were given in evidence to the House of Lords

[b]Scottish independence: constitutional implications of the referendum - Constitution Committee Contents [/b]

CHAPTER 4: negotiations

Pre-negotiation

85. The UK Government's position is that they will not negotiate the terms of independence before the referendum: they will not "pre-negotiate". The first Scotland analysis paper elaborated that, "This is because of a profoundly important principle arising from the fact that the UK Government is one of Scotland's two governments. UK Government ministers represent the whole of the UK, including Scotland, and serve the interests of all its citizens. As such the UK Government has direct responsibility for many of the key areas likely to feature heavily in post-referendum negotiations".[90] Moreover, unless and until a "yes" vote is delivered, neither the [b]UK[/b] nor the [b]Scottish government[/b] have any mandate to negotiate independence.

Granted the SNP wanted to start discussions but surely this would put Westminster at a distinct disadvantage especially if "agreements" had been leaked before the vote.

Woohoo North Korea is on board

Do you think they'd like some nice nuclear submarines?

Latest You Gov poll No52% Yes 48% with dk excluded.

It's all noise in the signal.

In response to Ben.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia ]The future of faslane[/url]

The UK would be crazy to base their nuclear deterrent in another country, which is effectively what that would be.

Is there actually any signal in the noise?

Can't stop the signal.

Ben it would be a win-win situation for the UK. We don't move our nukes and the enemies nukes would be pointed at Scotland. Realistically what could iScotland do about it? ..... It is not like you are going to invade is it 🙄

The UK would be crazy to base their nuclear deterrent in another country, which is effectively what that would be.

Really?

The bulk our nuclear deterrent was based abroad throughout most of the cold war...

They were?

The V-bombers were based at various UK airfields, with a bunch more dispersal airfields also in the UK. Then Polaris was submarine-based and then Trident also submarine-based.

Are you counting the at-sea submarines as "abroad"?

Blimey, separatists will argue about anything 😳

Ben, Yes, they were

Germany, Cyprus, Malta, Gib etc.

all open source & documented

Australia and Canada left the British empire when?

When Britain was quite bit bigger and more important than it is now

1) make up fact and say it supports your position

2) get asked about fact and realize it's nonsense

3) avoid answering question by making jokey vague response

4) return to 1)

Not the first time that the colonialists have mentioned annexing faslane,how do you think that's going to work for you fnf? I realize it IS just the Scots, and "what are we going to do about it?" But that was a good one and utter pish,but at least you are consistent.

Talking of pish, good to see more debunking of the DOs lies this morning from such a wide audience. It is an unbelievable amount of people that he has managed to unite against his nonsense.

So some more home truths - under plan D, you need significant currency reserves. Details laid out by Governor of BOE two days ago and then treasury select committee yesterday (and one here many pages ago 😉 ). The result? No magic time of low taxes and increase spending. In fact, surprise, surprise, a "decade of greater austerity" as Scotland tries to build up sufficient reserves.

People can make silly jokes about economics, but no one can escape it in the end and it always trumps BS poltiics and emotions. Just look at the € zone.

AS's fair society starts with feeding the speculators now, encouraging movement of human capital and resources out of Scoltand, a technical default (no he's not that stupid) and even more AUSTERITY that rUK. Yet again he out Tories, the Tories. Amazing.....

The UK would be crazy to base their nuclear deterrent in another country, which is effectively what that would be.

For much of the Cold War the US Air Force stationed gravity bombs at RAF Lakenheath. There's technically nothing wrong with stashing nukes in foreign countries.

The problems arise when the government of that country is hostile to such a thing. Although as Lakenheath shows, politicians in high places are happy to lie about there existence. Although of course it's easier to hide a nuclear bomb store than it is a 500ft sub base.

Do you think they'd like some nice nuclear submarines?

Rumour has it the Yorkshire separatists movement has a few quid spare. Although you'll need to convert them to gravy and mushy pea tankers.

It's all noise in the signal.

I was hoping for better spin than this.

Anyway, I see the treasury has come out in favour of the No campaign. I assume that's what happened.

I must say I AM SHOCKED. Almost as much as I was about the Scotsman.

How is the HM treasury coming out? They have a job to do, they understand how it gets done, they explain that to the wider public. It's the basic common sense that AS/yS attempt to strangle at or pre-birth - the lasting image of the whole referendum - the aborting of common sense and rationality.

The Scotsman has always sided with common sense - why the (fake!!) surprise at the editorial yesterday? Murdoch has his alternative say, ditto the FT, herald , courier, economist etc. They are papers with editors and views.

Of course, the HMT did have to come out following the DOs desperate attempts to abort Nick Robinson's questions yesterday. Hilarious attempt to swivel and swerve and as usual the DO doesn't debate he denies, distorts and deceives. He almost tried to explain an economic fact at one stage and got a bit lost on market manipulation and reporting requirement (bless him) and then realised that he was getting all muddled up and stopped himself quickly. About the closest you will see him ever engaging correctly and he stalled.......yes, alex you really struggle when presented with facts and reality don't you.

5 days...

[quote=fasternotfatter said]Blimey, separatists will argue about anything
Where as unionists seem so reluctant to debate 😕

You'll need to convert them to gravy and mushy pea tankers.

5 days...

For reality to sink in and sense to prevail 😉

Broadsheet articles confirming what foreign officials and companies were telling me over the weekend - astonished foreigners mainly saying WTF? Is this serious? Are these folk crazy?

At least the generators of prosperity are lining up appropriately

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/01d223b8-39b8-11e4-83c4-00144feabdc0.html

Sustained total productivity gap of 11% versus rest of UK and now the prospect of extended uncertainty and chaos. What would you do?

So who are the the bright entrepreneurs lining up the business parks etc just across the wall? There's money to be made....

If not already asked, this must be the longest thread ever on here? Doesn't appear to have been any bannings either which is remarkable given the subject matter. Kudos to everyone. Can't help but think it would have been different if TJ etc were still here...

piemonster - Member

For much of the Cold War the US Air Force stationed gravity bombs at RAF Lakenheath.

Which amounted to a tiny fraction of their nuclear deterrant (and the least effective part), rather than 100% of it.

Which amounted to a tiny fraction of their nuclear deterrant (and the least effective part), rather than 100% of it.

Assuming a friendly state amenable to the risks. And in a strategically safe location it's not really a problem.

100% is also not an accurate figure for warheads distribution.

The problem in an iScotland would be a government hostile to such an arrangement.

I still wonder what was stored at Leuchars ?

BB - the thread would have been closed? Banter aside, this has been largely good humoured among ourselves (with the occasional thick skin required) and an entertaining and interesting distraction. On that note, focus.....

[i]I still wonder what was stored at Leuchars ?[/i]

nothing nasty there.

Every time I have the displeasure of seeing or listening to AS the irony of his anti Westminster elite rhetoric just slaps me in the face. He is undoubtedly the most dishonest and deceitful politician I have even come across.

I saw that 40 food industry people have signed a letter promoting the Yes campaign, their rationale seems to be primarily as Scottish food can be more prominently branded as such and that the hospitality industry can benefit from "targetted VAT cuts"

Once again we have a group that believes independence will offer them lower taxes. So where is the money going to come from for all the social agendas we hear from the Yes campaign. Those Trident "savings" are going to be streched very thin.

They also state that independence affirms Scotland's EU membership when in fact it puts it in jeopardy. I don't think these people have latched onto the fact that Spain will do all it can to block and delay an application from Scotland as it doesn't want to give the Catalan's a hint that independence would be easy for them.

Many years of Salmond ? From George Galloway

[i]Galloway said Scotland would face an SNP goverment for many, many years if it voted for independence.
If you vote yes on Thursday you’ll get Alex Salmond. And you’ll get him for a long time, as long as he’s standing. And after that you’ll get Nicola Sturgeon. That, if you like, is the experience of Ireland. Eamon de Valera was president of Ireland until he was 91 years old. So they’ll write the constitution, they’ll polarise; they’ll make the dichotomy in the country, whether you are for independence or against independence.

Galloway rejected the SNP’s claim that their brand of politics was very different to Westminster’s.

When I see the pictures of Mr Salmond playing footsie with Rupert Murdoch on discussion of the future of a post independence Scotland and his other pals, billionaire bigot Brian Souter and Jim McColl, it doesn’t look all that different to politics at Westminster.

He said the collapse of support for Labour in Scotland had encouraged support for independence.

It is the death of Labour in Scotland that has caused this crisis.

He said the division between the powerless and the elite was more important than the division between the Scots and the English.[/i]

He is undoubtedly the most dishonest and deceitful politician I have even come across.

He is not even close to Clegg or Blair in those stakes

They lied so much they were not even popular with their natural supporters/party never mind those who disliked them
AS is just disliked by those who dislike his policies [ or the english mainly ] and even non SNP voters respect him
FWIW his approval rating is +26
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/even-if-scotland-votes-no-status-quo-will-not-hold

A UK PM could only dream of such a rating TBH they rarely even get a + figure.
Objectively he is more liked tham CMD by his electorate

[img] [/img]

I always had you down as George Galloway fan #frowns
Folk quoting natural enemies to support their view

its a strange thread this one

From George Galloway

And I stopped reading at that point.

He is not even close to Clegg or Blair in those stakes

I always try and listen to different points of view, I think what Galloway said about independence being bad for the average working person in Scotland is true, they will suffer in a race to the bottom in terms of tax rates and employment conditions as Scotland seeks to retain/attract businesses. He makes a very good point about how the constitution will be written and notes AS sucking up to Murdoch. AS is Scotland's political elite just as much as Clegg/Milliband/Cameron are to Westminster.

I watched the big big debate on TV and Galloway despite his great eloquence took about 12 mins to show himself up . The man is a charlatan and if you ever wanted an a example of a deceitful politician you couldn't go far wrong with him. Mind you there is IDS and surely the daddy of them all is Bliar

The Noers on this thread seem to be raising a lot of important questions that no-one can answer. The Yessers seem to be ignoring them and focusing on hope

The undecideds are also raising lots of questions too, without many actual answers coming back. Its fairly civil on here at least, I'm seen some really nasty stuff in response on facebook. I think bencooper is very young so I'll let him off :p

If you haven't seen it Kevin Bridges' bit in this, it is very funny

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04h8kvx/kevin-bridges-live-at-the-referendum

Incidentally Galloway also managed to anger the always affable Patrick Harvie no wonder they were sat on opposite ends of the stage.

@JY No he's not close he's way more deceitful

I dont have much time for George tbh but yes the new scotland wont be a socialist eutopia. Not exactly news that though is it.

IMHO his appearance at the US senate was absolutely superb and a master class from start to finish.

Galloway seems to be warning Scotland that under independence, we'll get the government we vote for. And what's worse, we'll get them all the time!

I am still surprised at the anti-Blair feeling on here. He made the Labour party electable, was in power for 10 years with the most left wing government the country was prepared to tolerate. He took us into Afghanistan to pursue Al-Qa and surely no-one believed the "Iraq 45 minute" threat (its like falling for a Nigerian email scam). We went into Iraq as the Americans did, any alternative Labour leader at the time would have done he same.

@Northwind, he is saying the constitution will be written by the SNP and it's not rocket science to work out it will be written to favour them electorally.

@Northwind, he is saying the constitution will be written by the SNP and it's not rocket science to work out it will be written to favour them electorally.

AS has already said the negotiating team will be cross party and how on earth they'd a) get away with and b) actually write a constitution that was somehow pro SNP I can't even imagine.

I am still surprised at the anti-Blair feeling on here

How can this surprise you?

You can disagree but be surprised 😯

Not sure why I bothered stating facts tbh seeing as you would just ignore them.
That is what you think not the electorate.
He is clearly popular in general as the FACTS show.

Well they would think that because he's deceived them all. The big difference between him and the others you mentioned is that he's a lot better at lying and getting away with it (had more practice?) Remember the question is not whether he's popular, but whether he's deceitful. If nothing else, the things he's lying about are a lot bigger and more important than anybody else has tried.

Galloway seems to be warning Scotland that under independence, we'll get the government we vote for. And what's worse, we'll get them all the time!

Do you agree with him then? Because I thought the whole point was that it wasn't about the SNP and they'd not be in power for long...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04h8kvx/kevin-bridges-live-at-the-referendum

Thanks for that

The big difference between him and the others you mentioned is that he's a lot better at lying and getting away with it

Serious for a mo - why do No voters hate him so much?

You make me look like I had a warmth towards Thatcher

FWIW the biggest lair would seem to be clegg and that is why he is hated the most .

Because I thought the whole point was that it wasn't about the SNP and they'd not be in power for long...

What's hard to understand here? The referendum isn't about the SNP and most of us think they probably won't be in power for long, but that's not to say that they couldn't be.