[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Mol, they are not. But this reflects the undercurrent here as defined by Jurassic Jim's outburst and the anti-thatcher legacy that so-called forward thinking yS still cannot shake off.

It takes a very narrow perspective to think of business and people conflicting - but again this is a Jurassic legacy that people try to pretend has something to do with neo-classical or neo-liberal orthodoxy.

That is completely divorced from reality. Business only survive if they are able to satisfy the needs (sometimes conflicting) of three parties: staff, customers and suppliers of capital. All three are groups of people. In other words, people engaging with people at each of these levels. It may suit this false agenda by re-using the negative (!) tactic of them and us, but that is bllx. We live in the 21C now. Well some of us at least.

[url=

vandalism by Yes supporters[/url]

[img] ?oh=1273a935014005798a2aec419b35fb1d&oe=54989CED&__gda__=1417993818_c6c3658623a079e1dfc81133d06f954a[/img]

I'm assuming this is just you being you, and this really doesn't need actual explaining?

Well, I suspect I know what you mean - you are talking about fat cats lining their pockets - but you don't seem to understand that the needs of people ARE the needs of business in MOST cases. You cannot set one against the other as if they are different.

If you are talking about inequality in society, or greed in upper management, then say so.

BruceWee - Member
More vandalism by Yes supporters

Bloody separationists. They climb up there every 700 years, regular as clockwork.

[i]Business only survive if they are able to satisfy the needs (sometimes conflicting) of three parties: staff, customers and suppliers of capital[/i]

unless the 'market' has been rigged in your favour, see... Utilities, Private Healthcare, Banking, Military spending, Media.

more vandalism by yes supporters

Where? nothing damaged its attached to the wire mesh on the rock face

Mol, I'm talking about a version of rapacious liberal capitalism that has grown over the last 30 years, where successive govts. have fire sold nearly all public housing, all utilities, most social service/ council services including prisons, to the needs of financial and business elites. Next on the list, fire, police and the NHS.

we have a society that aims to serve the needs of the top 1% over nearly all of the rest of the population, and a growing inequality and underclass of poor and ill-educated consumers.

That's why the YES campaign are gaining ground against a NO campaign who can only seem to think in these terms. There is so much to celebrate in our Union, but the narrow business and fiscal priorities of a tiny elite should not be high amongst them, and that's all the Traditional Westminster parties seems to be able to do.

As far as time scales go, I think the biggest hurdle will be whether or not Spain gives the process an easy passage or attempts to frustrate and delay it.

On the business leaders point the fact is they have done the contingency planning, they have done the calculations and they know independence is bad news for their businesses in terms of higher costs which will inevitably be passed onto consumers with the biggest impact on the smaller Scottish population

have fire sold nearly all public housing, all utilities, most social service/ council services including prisons, to the needs of financial and business elites.

Do you really think things will change in an iScotland?

The trains will still be expensive.
There will be no significant increase in social housing.
The utilities will remain in private hands.

You will not get the socialist utopia you are dreaming of.

So we have hardly developed since the 70s, is that correct?

have fire sold nearly all public housing, all utilities, most social service/ council services including prisons,

I'm going to let you in on a secret

the reason that they keep selling things is because they're spending more than they can take in in tax, this isn't new, its been going on for decades.

we're not talking about a couple of pence either way on income tax here, we're talking about a 15% across the board increase in taxation to match government spending with income.

Scotland, UK, every country has four choices:

Tax more
Spend Less
Borrow (and pay interest)
Sell assets

Which one would you prefer?

[i]they have done the calculations and they know independence is bad news for their businesses in terms of higher costs which will inevitably be passed onto consumers[/i]

but wait...Surely (as the masters of business always tell us) is that the markets are self correcting. So for every business that dares increase it's prices, that will open a gap in the market to allow other cheaper options to move in and occupy the space. Isn't that how it works?

Unless of course, what business actually want is a continuation of the market that they're happy with, and could do without the competition thanks very much

[i]Do you really think things will change in an iScotland?[/i]

Dunno, they could you know, vote on it?

ninfan, agree. and AS and YES have done a piss poor job of explaining how they are simultaneously going to raise money for all the public spending, whilst at the same time being "light touch" for business.

So for every business that dares increase it's prices, that will open a gap in the market to allow other cheaper options to move in and occupy the space. Isn't that how it works?

Yes, but surely those companies will have to account for the same (higher) costs of doing business too.

A larger company generally has economy of scale - ie. higher purchasing power and an ability to spread costs across the business unit, thats why your local corner shop normally costs more than Tesco..

its a bit like countries really 😉

What ninfan says above ^^

tough call ninfan but on balance i went for
Tax more

and a bigger state
You 😉

AS goes for

Tax less
Spend more
Piss investors off
Ignore deficit and debt dynamics

The new orthodoxy and a first in the world of global economics and politics. Bets on will in work........

But it's ok because we [s]fell[/s] voted for it.

[i]Tax more, and a bigger state,[/i]

fine more than happy with that being your choice

Now, how abut an experiment - this month, when your wages come in, take 15% of your gross wage and put it in a glass jar - then try and live on whats left for the rest of the month, and see what date you end up smashing the jar 😀

You wouldn't start a business up without knowing all your numbers and that companies will supply you let alone a starting a country.

Mol, I'm talking about a version of rapacious liberal capitalism that has grown over the last 30 years,

Well fair enough, but be specific! Anti-business rhetoric makes no sense, it clouds the issues.

As for your analysis of economics, well you lot in general look like adolescents alongside those on this thread who actually study this stuff and do it for a living. You make it out to be a simple case of evil overlords whose aim is to make poor people poorer.

Personally I think this is total bollocks. What business leaders want to do is compete, and in order to do this they have to slash outgoings and increase profits to satisfy shareholders. It's not evil, it's amorality. The role of government is to protect the workers. However on doing this it risks global competitiveness c.f. France.

We do have a lot of problems, but much is being achieved. Things are quite possibly better than they were in the 70s. They could be better still of course, and for this I really do blame Thatcher.

Now, how abut an experiment - this month, when your wages come in, take 15% of your gross wage and put it in a glass jar - then try and live on whats left for the rest of the month, and see what date you end up smashing the jar

What business leaders want to do is compete, and in order to do this they have to slash outgoings and increase profits to satisfy shareholders. It's not evil, it's amorality. The role of government is to protect the workers

Incidentally, why are the needs of business different to the needs of people?

Its obvious that what they want is low costs - say wages , no sick pay, zero hour contracts, able to sack folk etc and what people want is protection form that. Remember when business decided and we had dark satanic mills where children a syoung as 4 worked for 10-20 % of the adult wage for up to 12 hours a day, Workers organising in unions and voting in parties to legislate what was what changed this state of affairs. They do not want the same things though they may not be mortal enemies.

Companies want to make profit people want nice lives, health , free time and a future for their children generally.

Molly if economists some respect as they failed to guide the economy well and we ended up with a crash due to following their advice and judgement. It also possible to get conflicting advice from them

Remember when business decided and we had dark satanic mills where children a syoung as 4 worked for 10-20 % of the adult wage for up to 12 hours a day, Workers organising in unions and voting in parties to legislate what was what changed this state of affairs.

Thats an oversimplification - what about Saltaire, Port sunlight, Bourneville, Cresswell etc?

Plus the Factories and mines acts predated organised labour by a good stretch!

Not sure what your point is Junkyard.

Thats an oversimplification - what about Saltaire, Port sunlight, Bourneville, Cresswell etc?

Plus the Factories and mines acts predated organised labour by a good stretch

Molly you explained yourself why business and workers need different things so why did you ask?

I explained why business owners and the workers WANT different things, but they both NEED the same thing. They both need the business to succeed.

In other words, businesses mostly are people. And most people, either directly or indirectly are business.

Here's a thought. 97% of Scots have registered to vote. If 97% of UK citizens registered to vote in the general elections, the Tories wouldn't stand a chance I reckon.

I tend to agree that those who do not vote are more likely to vote left wing but i am not sure that it is not a guess /wishful thinking

PEDANTRY - it is 97 % of the people in scotland eligible to vote who have registered not 97% of scots but I know what you meant.

Re need and want you are just replacing the word - the business needs to make money and we need to have protection.

I dont think a business needs a work life balance or sick leave or a holiday or time off to go to the doctors or decent heath care or brilliant education for their children ..the list goes on.
people are not business and business is not people.

some real world example how about
Tobacco companies do not need restriction on smoking, advertising, age etc but people might.
Same with food and why they are reluctant to have any healthy labelling mandatory on food in supermarkets- it is because what people/society want and what they want are not the same things.
They dont need to worry about horse meat in lasagne either but we might need to know.
Its not hard to think of examples where people and companies wants/needs are not the same and polar opposites

We are not mortal enemies and it is rarely in a employees interest for the company to fail but that fact does not mean our needs are the same.

edit: too slow and not interesting enough.

I do wonder how many of that 97% are voters, and how many are TJ sitting in his living room surrounded by crates of proxy/postal forms 😀

😆

I can see the headlines: "Man arrested for pretending to be 3 million other people", in his defence he was heard to mutter the word "Edinburgh?"

Aw c'mon, TJ can't defend himself on here.

Could you imagine the tag team TJ and bencooper would have made on this thread?

Curious last tweet from the Murdoch

I wonder when/if he'll decide to come out one way or the other. Whenever it'll sell the most papers I suspect.

Could you imagine the tag team TJ and bencooper would have made on this thread?

😆

Re need and want you are just replacing the word

There's a pretty major difference between those two words!

A business can only give so much to its employees otherwise it's not profitable, and runs out of money. Cf American car companies who spend more on benefits for ex employees than on running their business.

A business needs a certain level of profitability, but the owners and share holders will always want more.

ninfan - Member
...Thats an oversimplification - what about Saltaire, Port sunlight, Bourneville, Cresswell etc?...

Raises an interesting comparison.

Lord Lever of Port Sunlight fame purchased the islands of Lewis and Harris and tried to introduce industry.

He gave up. He could not understand why the crofters preferred to continue an independent but subsistence life rather than become employees and earn more money and live in model housing.

molgrips - Member
A business can only give so much to its employees otherwise it's not profitable, and runs out of money. Cf American car companies who spend more on benefits for ex employees than on running their business.

...because they did not put money aside as they went or ripped off the pension funds.

Raises an interesting comparison.

Lord Lever of Port Sunlight fame purchased the islands of Lewis and Harris and tried to introduce industry.

He gave up. He could not understand why the crofters preferred to continue an independent but subsistence life rather than become employees and earn more money and live in model housing.

Yes, but [u]what happened next?[/u]

He offered the freehold ownership of the entire island of Lewis to its inhabitants, and they rejected it, not wanting to take the risk of true independence without the security of a benevolent master who would underwrite them if their fortunes should turn...

History eh... 😉

Could you imagine the tag team TJ and bencooper would have made on this thread?

proper LOL...

A business can only give so much to its employees otherwise it's not profitable, and runs out of money. Cf American car companies who spend more on benefits for ex employees than on running their business.

Clearly they want different things , clearly they need different things
I gave you examples

ninfan - Member
Yes, but what happened next?

He offered the freehold ownership of the entire island of Lewis to its inhabitants, and they rejected it, not wanting to take the risk of true independence without the security of a benevolent master who would underwrite them if their fortunes should turn...

History eh...

It's a bit more complicated than that. Independent freeholds would have been snapped up. The offer was a bit of a poisoned chalice.

I'm sure someone from Lewis will be along shortly to explain how it actually worked.

Iirc, the offer of the individual farm/croft freeholds was voted for, but the deal fell down on the council/community having to accept responsibility for the rest of the estate. One without the other left the whole thing unviable so worthless if separated. Though its years since I learned it. The caveat 'more complex' is undoubtedly true on both sides.

Apparently the view of a certain fella in Edinburgh is VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN

Junkyard - lazarus
Apparently the view of a certain fella in Edinburgh is VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN

The orange sash is a dead giveaway.

BTW credit to the OO for the apparently peaceful parade. Might be something to do with the Yes movement keeping out of the way too.

Epic+1 credit to better together too,and credit to yessers for the 100s of peaceful marches and rallies all over Scotland yesterday. Well done all.

Murdoch isnt pro independence he's just trying to make a point that post hacking he is still a player, that he can still push politicians around. He doesn't care for Scotland his involvement is all anti WWestminster for daring to face him down.

Murdoch isnt pro independence he's just trying to make a point that post hacking he is still a player, that he can still push politicians around. He doesn't care for Scotland his involvement is all anti WWestminster for daring to face him down.

Well duh. Although he is doing a bit if SNP bashing, either that or Farage has hacked into his account.

If he does support one camp or the other.

I just want him to come down in favour of the option I'm not voting for. Otherwise I'd need to ask myself some serious questions.

Clearly they want different things , clearly they need different things

Well the sets overlap. Their interests are not mutually exclusive, which was my point.

I can't help but have a little chuckle at the irony of people who don't want to be part of Britain, complaining that they think the [b]British[/b] Broadcasting Corporation is biased against them

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29196912

it is still an election and they still have a legal duty to be impartial

Very few wish to claim they are impartial including you.

piedi di formaggio - Member

I can't help but have a little chuckle at the irony of people who don't want to be part of Britain, complaining that they think the British Broadcasting Corporation is biased against them

Yeah, because we're not part of Britain and we don't pay licence fees 😕

The BBC's political bias is a problem regardless of which side of the referendum you're on, or even if you're not on either side- because once they're cheerfully misleading you on one subject, why think it stops there?

It's like that liar in your office, do you think "Ah well it's OK because they're telling lies about other people", or do you think "What do they say about me?"

I will admit the BBC has let itself and the people down. If I was a Yes supporter I would be pissed off. Northwind is correct.

Oh, come on!

Piers Morgan ? @piersmorgan

Dear People of Scotland, if you vote NO, I promise to go straight back to America. #indyref

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/piers-morgan-attempts-to-save-the-union-by-promising-to-go-back-to-the-us-if-scotland-votes-no-to-independence-9732207.html?dkdk

😆

What examples are there of the BBC misleading people or even being impartial? Just printing articles you don't like or don't agree with don't count. I am looking for actual examples. From my reading of the BBC coverage (and listening to R4) it does have a bias, and that is towards the Yes campaign!

The BBC has an amazing ability to convince everyone that they are biased against them. Paranoia, paranoia, everywhere. Since yS accuses anyone who exposes their bare faced lies as either on one of the 3Bs or the fourth - biased - it's surprising that they haven't had more attacks on dear old Auntie.

Their biggest crime is pretending that there is 25 hour news - oh and presenting AS's BS with little if any critical analysis.

They overdo the flash photograph warnings but rarely warn - sensitive viewers may be offended by the big bare faced lies in this report.

Sadmadalan There have been a number of incidents such as on PMQS on the third of Sept The BBC news website reported that CMD had offered Alex Salmond a public debate and suggested a date but had received no reply. Mr Cameron said no such thing,I watched PMQ live. There is an argument too about interviewing politicians on an election basis for a referendum as this results in 3 interviewees for no to 1 for yes.
It seems most ridiculous and insulting though that BBC Scotland thought a photo of a dozen or yes supporters portrayed the Yes rally in Glaasgow yesterday when the reality was several thousand packed Buchanan St .
Then there is the matter of London sending correspondents to Scotland who take on the role of the local correspondent . Does Nick Robinson really know Scottish politics better than Brian Taylor.
On the subject of Mr Robinson and the mysterious edited answer, I am not in favour of marching with banners demanding that journalists be sacked,but I do think Mr Robinson has a case to answer.
At least the BBC reported this demo unlike earlier ones. Then there was Jackie Bird who said that Carney had claimed currency union was "incompatible with an independent Scotland" he didnt he said currency union was incompatible with sovereignty" I could go on

Radio 4 have been doing a section on presenters experiences with the NHS. James Haughty managed to get a few sly digs in about the SNP government at Holyrood. I still think the BBC provides a good service, however in the past few weeks in particular they have certainly been more pro UK IMO.

Quality protests fro yS - you can stick your licence few up you arse - where do they find these people.

Oh well it got the master of the dark arts Campbell to react

"Had my run ins with BBC, but organised protests like the one going on now is beyond Tebbit, and not far off Putin. Vote YES for intimidation," Mr Campbell wrote on Twitter.

So allegedly, the BBC doesn't balance the case of 2m v 70m and the potential ensuing chaos. Well blow me over...

Did they restrict Jurassic Jim to BBC 3 - he has been on QT not that long ago.

What examples are there of the BBC misleading people or even being impartial? Just printing articles you don't like or don't agree with don't count. I am looking for actual examples. From my reading of the BBC coverage (and listening to R4) it does have a bias, and that is towards the Yes campaign!

I think they've got a tough job and I'm not sure if there's any deliberate bias or not.

The Nick Robinson/Alex Salmond edit didn't look great for the BBC but not sure how it ended up the way it did.

A lot of people in Glasgow at the weekend were wound up by the report on the news on Saturday. It was balanced in that it presented Yes and No stuff from around Scotland, but it homed in on "the No campaign out in force in Glasgow city centre" and completely ignored the really huge Yes presence that was out as well.

some fella did a report as well
It is not what I would call fully scientific but it is indicative

FWIW i have not read any claims of pro independence bias [ until yours]and normally everyone is moaning at the BBC if they get it right.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140913/192917055/Professor-BBCs-Anti-Scottish-Independence-Bias-Increases-as-Vote.html

IIRC there was a response from the author , I read it months ago.
Interesting but not completely objective but

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson-oliver-

: Has the BBC responded to your report?

JR: Yes, within days a short and quite insulting email was copied to my Principal. Two weeks later a six thousand word ‘forensic’ attack on my research was sent, again widely copied to anyone who had contacted them about my research. I replied, taking their argument apart, point by point. Four or five days later, a short email agreeing to disagree appeared. The full text of these exchanges can be found on the Derek Bateman blogs and on newsnetscotland.com.

An Early Day motion at the House of Parliament on 5th February called on the BBC to at least report on the research. This has been ignored.

Between the first email and the fuller critique, Newsnight Scotland made a provisional offer of a place that night then withdrew the offer after management interference with editorial autonomy. Other initial invitations led to later withdrawals. I did however make it onto Radio Scotland on Saturday 1st February at 8.20 am for 8 minutes.

Since then, the radio interview has been pulled from the Radio Scotland site (it’s still on YouTube) and several of my colleagues have been warned by BBC contacts to distance themselves from me.

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

@gordhimor

Sadmadalan There have been a number of incidents such as on PMQS on the third of Sept The BBC news website reported that CMD had offered Alex Salmond a public debate and suggested a date but had received no reply. Mr Cameron said no such thing,I watched PMQ live.

It's right here, in Hansard from the 3rd:

The Prime Minister: On the television programme on Scottish Television, I offered them a date and, indeed, a format, but they seemed to run away themselves, which is a great pity.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140903/debtext/140903-0001.htm#14090345000279

HTH

oldnpastit - read back what you just wrote - including both quotes. See if you can post the vital difference.

the question: Earlier this year, the Prime Minister gave a commitment on Scottish Television to take part in a programme with undecided voters before the referendum. Will he be doing that or running away, just as he ran away from a debate with the First Minister?

The Prime Minister: On the television programme on Scottish Television, I offered them a date and, indeed, a format, but they seemed to run away themselves, which is a great pity.

he is not even talking about a debate with AS as he was not asked.

oldnpastit - read back what you just wrote - including both quotes. See if you can post the vital difference.

Sorry, can you explain? Or are we talking about a subtle change in tense between the two?

[quote=Junkyard ]the question: Earlier this year, the Prime Minister gave a commitment on Scottish Television to take part in a programme with undecided voters before the referendum. Will he be doing that or running away, just as he ran away from a debate with the First Minister?
The Prime Minister: On the television programme on Scottish Television, I offered them a date and, indeed, a format, but they seemed to run away themselves, which is a great pity.
[b]he is not even talking about a debate with AS as he was not asked.[/b]
So why did the BBC mention Alex Salmond in [i]their[/i] report on the incident?

Having watched the 'two versions' of the Salmond/Robinson argument a couple of times, it seemed to me that Robinson didn't actually get an answer to the question, and I'm not surprised that none of the rest of it was shown as it appears to have been

i) factually wrong (the BBC didn't release anything, the Sun had the story first, RBS and the head of the civil service say no breaches)
ii) Attacking the messenger rather than the message (accusing robinson of heckling him when he tried to get an answer)
iii) manufactured (the 'placemen' in the closed press conference whooping and hollering like 12 year olds)

the irony of people who don't want to be part of Britain, complaining that they think the British Broadcasting Corporation is biased against them

the BBC doesn't balance the case of 2m v 70m

either the poster has misremembered the report or the BBC misled in its report

I do not know either way.

You seem to be proving my point Oldnpastit. The debate that Mr Cameron proposed a date and format for is to be held with undecided voters

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister gave a commitment on Scottish Television to take part in a programme with undecided voters before the referendum. Will he be doing that or running away, just as he ran away from a debate with the First Minister?

The Prime Minister: On the television programme on Scottish Television, I offered them a date and, indeed, a format, but they seemed to run away themselves, which is a great pity.

A link to the BBC report of PMQs would be enlightening.

Indeed my google fu gave only a link to the live feed despite numerous attempts

ninfan
1. As I used to say to TJ , he did answer the question it is just that he did not like the answer. He even stopped to answer it again.
Given he spoke for about 6 mins to say he did not answer was somewhat misleading.
2.RBS and the head of the civil service say no breaches
They did a press release before the board had finished
Hell those civil servants are good or that is a cover up. No one can think that handled correctly No one.
3. Yes it was a bit off that part.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Scottish financial institutions are having a hard time due to worries over independence:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f8ba8ca0-3a7c-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0.html

“Most professionals are cacking themselves. They are terrified of independence and a new regulatory regime.”

he did answer the question it is just that he did not like the answer.

No, he did the usual

Robinson asked him about 'tax revenues'

Salmond replied in a narrow sense by 'correcting him on a factual point' regards corporation tax

Who mentioned corporation tax?

it was a classic swerve.

He certainly never answered the point on why they should believe him over business owners, he also said he would ask Robinson about the BBC's role, made serious allegations, but didn't let Robinson answer/respond on behalf of the BBC - in fact the whole thing appeared to be manufactured outrage to try to silence someone who asks difficult questions.

By the way - loved this:

[img] :large[/img]

@ oldnpastit Cant find a link to the website for that date, I made a complaint to the bbc so if they answer it (they dont respond to all complants) I ll be happy to let you know

Robinson asked him about 'tax revenues'

Salmond replied in a narrow sense by 'correcting him on a factual point' regards corporation tax

it was a classic swerve

His answer may have been as bad as Nicks account of it but only one of them has to be impartial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

now you have identified your problem you only need to find a cure 😉