[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

@jambalaya - exactly, which is why Cameron can't be trusted when he hints at more devolution now.

Really, I think the current situation isn't fair for everyone else in the UK either - the ideal solution is Devo Max for Scotland, for Wales, for NI, for the North, for the South West, etc. A purely federal system with a reformed voting system that actually works.

But there's no prospect of that happening, and I can completely understand that for people in other parts of the UK Devo Max looks like those annoying Scots getting special treatment again. So the ideal solution is we get out.

oh come on, that's the revenue part of the equation, how about the spending? You know, the £12,300 per person that Scotland spends.

England spends quite a bit per head too, you know. Scotland just spends more on health and less on policing, stuff like that.

And yes, it depends on how the oil revenues are divided up - with oil in the equation, Scottish tax take is higher, without oil the tax take is a bit lower than in England.

Junkyard - lazarus

You really do hate him dont you> I shall stop mentioning it now FWIW.

Start the clock

Oh just for you I shall mention it just once between now and the vote ...will you spot it ?

those annoying Scots getting special treatment again

England spends quite a bit per head too, you know. Scotland just spends more on health and less on policing, stuff like that.

And yes, it depends on how the oil revenues are divided up - with oil in the equation, Scottish tax take is higher, without oil the tax take is a bit lower than in England.

No, my claim doesn't depend on anything. The facts are, Revenue: Scotland 10k (geographical share of oil) Spending: Scotland 12.3K. Whichever way you spin it, Scotland takes out more than it puts into the Union. Which is completely opposite to what you claim.

But for the whole UK, expenditure exceeds revenue - that's why the UK has a £1.2tn national debt.

So the UK as a whole takes out more than it puts in.

I know that, but the UK as a whole runs less of a deficit than Scotland. And you claimed that “Scotland pays more into the union than we get back” which demonstrably isn’t true, see if you don’t make sure your facts are accurate you can draw the wrong conclusion 😉

I know that, but the UK as a whole runs less of a deficit than Scotland.

Only when you don't count oil revenues.

But anyhow, all this is academic - no-one seriously argues that Scotland will struggle financially with independence. It's a side issue - a few percentage points here and there don't matter compared to the bigger issue of who governs us.

Only when you don't count oil revenues.

No, my figures included oil.

no-one seriously argues that Scotland will struggle financially with independence

No I think you're right, I don't think anyone would argue that it will be a struggle (in the context that pretty much everyone is struggling).

It's a side issue - a few percentage points here and there don't matter compared to the bigger issue of who government

If there is a Yes vote, I genuinely hope that is the case.

Hmm. Will go look at figures.

I suppose the way I look at it is that independence isn't the best solution, it's the least worst solution. We're going to have big problems for a while, but at least with independence we have some control over how they're handled.

Athgray Could you remind me what the UK govt position on prenegotiation is?

I suppose the way I look at it is that independence isn't the best solution, it's the least worst solution. We're going to have big problems for a while, but at least with independence we have some control over how they're handled.

My own position is that I’m not technically able to vote; we have a croft in the Hebrides but currently my work has brought us to Holland. But I am feet firmly planted in the unionist camp (as if you needed any clarification). My wife is a ‘wee Scottish lassie’, her father is an SNP member who consulted on THMs favourite bedtime reading, the white paper. And although I’m Yorkshire born and bred, and love England dearly, I also love Scotland and would hate to see them separated.

I know a number of MSP’s through my FIL and have spent quite a few days on river banks and in boats with them (they get access to some awesome fishing) and in the most part they appear to be passionate and honest in their support for their country which I can understand and respect, I just hope they can ‘politician’ better than they can fish, but judging by the empty places in my fly boxes this winter they know a thing or two about saving money!

I spent some time in Scotland over Christmas and the referendum was discussed at great length wherever we went out (admittedly it was mainly SNP biased functions, so they were keen to discuss it with the “English Boy”), and some of the tired old arguments were wheeled out time and time again, all I really hope is that people vote with their eyes open with a view to the long game not just as a reaction to the current government.

Absolute worst case scenario, if the Yes vote comes, can the English still have some boats on Watten, I'd personally swap all the oil in the world for that!

[quote=bencooper ]Hmm. Will go look at figures.
I suppose the way I look at it is that independence isn't the best solution, it's the least worst solution. We're going to have big problems for a while, but at least with independence we have some control over how they're handled.

That is at least one of the most honest appraisals I've seen.

the ideal solution is Devo Max for Scotland, for Wales, for NI, for the North, for the South West, etc.

Gordimhor, I suppose the UK governments position on prenegotiating terms of independence would be a categorical no. Off course nobody is stupid enough to think they will or should.

A clear vision should be put forward as an alternative, that I firmly believe is what the majority of people want. Then invite the SNP government to discuss terms knowing they will not.

We all know that if meaningful devo max is on the table it would blow independence out of the water.

Also using a Thatcher broken promise from a different era as an indicator of all future Tory policy does not work. Politician in broken promise shocker. You were promised a currency union by dear leader. Wait until that promise is broken.

Don't agree with CMD but I would trust him a lot more than AS, who I feel to be one of the most loathsome politicians around.

Nationalists can console themselves in the knowledge that if unionism is not working, they can do this all again.If the majority vote for independence, the rest of us had better keep our feelings hidden and show some faux support for the cause.

I have already mentioned dear leaders clutch on power whilst other parties flounder. Even this will diminsh in 10 to 15 years. For the future after that who knows, however we may wish to take a cursory glance towards the Ukraine.

The English are unenthusiastic about devolution for themselves.

I wonder why? Lack of such distinct regional identities? My father is from Lancashire, his sister moved to Yorkshire, I don't think that's true. Mistrust of government, leading to the idea that more government is bad?

Lack of such distinct regional identities?

You don't get out much do you 😉

That's what I meant about the Yorkshire vs Lancashire thing 😀

[i]The rest of the UK does not "support" Scotland - Scotland pays more into the union than we get back.[/i]

North sea oil drilling only started in the 1960s so the rest of the UK had been subsiding Scotland for about 250 years. Scotland finally gets a chance to pay the rest of the UK back and rather than do that greed sets in and they want to keep all their oil money for themselves. A very strange kind of socialism the SNP preach.

Really? Before oil there was coal, and heavy industry. Oh, and fishing. And soldiers more than happy to fight for the empire.

UK had been subsiding Scotland for about 250 years.

Can you explain that please, and enlighten us with some evidence?.

Gordimhor, I suppose the UK governments position on prenegotiating terms of independence would be a categorical no. Off course nobody is stupid enough to think they will or should.

And yet they slam the Yes campaign for not providing clear facts about what will happen. Cameron was saying it again yesterday, that people should be given all the facts. Well, why doesnt he go and get some more facts, or sit down and negotiate and help provide some clarity?

Because every time people hear the facts (or opinions or balancing arguments or whatever) they move towards Yes. Every time there's a town hall meeting, there's a poll taken before and after the meeting, and the shift is always towards Yes. Always.

The No campaign don't want voters to be informed, or to even hear debate. That's why the No campaign don't want to debate anyone from the Yes campaign, it's why the Better Together meetings are invitation-only.

bencooper - Member
Because every time people hear the facts (or opinions or balancing arguments or whatever) they move towards Yes.

😀 😀

Is that personal experience Ben. Or do you have verifiable evidence to support it?

Or do you have verifiable evidence to support it?

Define "verifiable" - local Yes campaigns are holding regular town hall meetings, and they usually tweet the poll results. Now because it's a Yes meeting (though open to all), you'd expect the entry poll to be skewed towards Yes. But the exit polls always move further towards Yes.

I'm sure someone somewhere has been documenting all these local polls.

ver·i·fy transitive verb \?ver-?-?f?\
: to prove, show, find out, or state that (something) is true or correct

In this case, more than one fella on the internet saying it's the case will suffice.

While I'm looking for verification

North sea oil drilling only started in the 1960s so the rest of the UK had been subsiding Scotland for about 250 years

Evidence please?

A lazy wiki suggests

The Industrial Revolution[edit]
During the Industrial Revolution, Scotland became one of the commercial, intellectual and industrial powerhouses of the British Empire.[58] Beginning about 1790 the most important industry in the west of Scotland became textiles, especially the spinning and weaving of cotton, which flourished until the American Civil War in 1861 cut off the supplies of raw cotton; the industry never recovered. However, by that time Scotland had developed heavy industries based on its coal and iron resources. The invention of the hot blast for smelting iron (1828) had revolutionized the Scottish iron industry, and Scotland became a centre for engineering, shipbuilding, and locomotive construction. Toward the end of the 19th century steel production largely replaced iron production.

Fair enough - had a quick look and the Yes campaign don't seem to be collecting the results. If I get really bored, I'll tabulate the results. Of course it relies on the people from the local Yes campaigns tweeting the results accurately.

local Yes campaigns are holding regular town hall meetings, and they usually tweet the poll results. Now because it's a Yes meeting (though open to all), you'd expect the entry poll to be skewed towards Yes. But the exit polls always move further towards Yes

So, you take a load of people, put them in a room and give them an hour of 'yes' propaganda*, and surprise surprise, it sways their opinion towards 'yes'

*'Yes' propaganda - not my words, the words of those interviewed after one such meeting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26558087

"It was good to hear other people's point of view, but it was basically a propaganda meeting.
"It would be good if the 'No' and the 'Yes' campaigns could get on the same platform and come to towns."

"The leaflet dropped through the door and I thought I don't really know what is going on," she said.
"I need to go and find out for myself to make a decision. I will go to a 'No' meeting to hear what they have to say."

I agree with you, the actual numbers don't mean much - but the shift from No to Yes is still important.

And good luck finding a debate with both sides on the same platform - the No campaign just prevaricates and refuses. In Glasgow, Yes Glasgow spent ages asking the No campaign for a debate, with excuse after excuse, they even crowdfunded it to pay for the hall and everything, but No still refused to show up.

And even finding a No-only event will be tricky - they aren't holding very many public meetings at all.

Billboard adverts starting to appear, by the way - this was brilliant:

[img] [/img]

That white building on the right? Johann Lamont's constituency office 😀

Tugs on the heart strings doesn't it. I await the regular defacing of better together posters.

I think she's based in 'The Wedge, Barrhead road'

You were promised a currency union by dear leader. Wait until that promise is broken.

Don't agree with CMD but I would trust him a lot more than AS, who I feel to be one of the most loathsome politicians around.

Yes' propaganda - not my words, the words of those interviewed after one such meeting

What do you expect from the Yes campaign - Balance? Neutrality? Its obvious what you are going to get at a Vote yes meeting tbh....Ben and his mates basically 😉
As noted it is the no campaign who wont do joint ventures not the Yes but I think we all agree public debates with all sides makes more sense

Lack of such distinct regional identities? My father is from Lancashire, his sister moved to Yorkshire, I don't think that's true. Mistrust of government, leading to the idea that more government is bad?

What they see is - do you want another level of politicians with next to no powers ?

Surprisingly the answer is no not really.
Were they offered devo max or some such there may be some interest but it would largely be a North south divide IMHO

@athgray

We all know that if meaningful devo max is on the table it would blow independence out of the water.

I have already mentioned dear leaders clutch on power whilst other parties flounder. Even this will diminsh in 10 to 15 years. For the future after that who knows, however we may wish to take a cursory glance towards the Ukraine.

Indeed they are both tosspots not despots 😉

Post of the day!

[quote=bencooper ]Because every time people hear the facts

[quote=bencooper ]local Yes campaigns are holding regular town hall meetings

🙄

The No campaign are perfectly free to come along to these meetings and have a debate. They don't. The No campaign are asked to participate in debates involving both sides. They don't.

What are they afraid of? If the No case is so strong, why not share it with people?

Perhaps you and THM could do a tour together?

Only if I can be the non-talking keyboard player.

Only if I can be the non-talking keyboard player.

Or Scot Sell.

The latest ComRes poll puts UKIP in first place in England on 33% - and last place in Scotland on 6%.

That's why we need independence.

What % does the SNP get in England?

Dunno, but http://ukpollingreport.co.uk

Has UKIP at 16% from today's comres poll, 30% for Europe only. I take it they gain an extra 3% for discounting Scotland.

Oh please can the snp get over 50% in the polls and then the nats wouldn't be p!ssing in the wind. Our time is wasted arguing with the English who are stealing our(your) oil, why can't we convince enough of our fellow jocks to vote for the braveheart cause? Is it because we were born to subservience? The answer is yes, Scotland was not a going cause prior to 1707 and nothing has changed since.

Trolltastic

The "jocks" is what turns it into art.

What % does the SNP get in England?

Thanks piemonster. I try.

I hope the scots get independence purely as that will hopefully be the end if it. Im sick of hearing about it. If a no vote comes it will never end. I dont mind if Scotland fails ir flourishes on its own as long as they give it a rest 🙂

I'd have a lot more respect for the Yes campaign if they came out and admitted that trying to share the Pound would be a stupid idea, rather than endlessly repeating discredited [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26600888 ]bluff and bluster[/url].

AS had to keep lying (notice his continued reference to currency as an asset this morning) and deceit until his advisors have come up with plan C. It must be very embarassing for him, poor guy. Still people still swallow this guff so he knows his audience.....

Can we try why the currency is not an asset

A link will do Google provides info on asset class and Bitcoins in the main

Indeed he does know his audience [they dont get it , most of us dont hence why I have asked] in much the same way Cameron gave an incredibly vague comment about more devolution for the floating voters which i doubt he will even try to deliver never mind whether he could.

As will blame bully rUK afterwards so she cannot really lose.
IS it great politics or woeful ....its the former if not laudable.

I can see only one way to sort this, ala russia and ukraine method, bring all those who want to stay in UK into the southern part of Scotland and send all the seperatists further north to play braveheart

Can we try why the currency is not an asset

Imagine the oil price suddenly spikes upwards. Scotland becomes awash with oil money, and the economy starts overheating. House prices start rising, people start borrowing more money, and the government starts wondering how they can keep this from getting out of control.

Meanwhile in the rUK, a net oil importer, things are not so pretty. Companies are going under as fuel prices drive up costs. People are losing their houses, and the government starts worrying about what they can do.

Should the Bank of England:

(a) raise interest rates to prevent an asset bubble followed by a crash in Scotland
(b) reduce interest rates to ease the pressure on home owners and businesses in rUK
(c) dither?

Junky - the 'pound' is not an asset, because it can't be traded onward - its value is intangible

You could sell me your name, but you couldn't sell me 'being you' - because that lies inherent in the respect that other people give you through knowledge of you and your history and background

So, your name would be a tradable asset - like 'gordon ramsey' would be - but if I bought the name 'gordon ramsey' it wouldn't make me into him.

I could use the name with his permission for trading purposes, and I could devalue it in the process by selling cheap crap under his name, but I still couldn't 'be' him, I could even run up loads of debt by signing cheques left right and centre that I couldn't pay for, and that would also devalue his reputation - so there is a significant risk to him if he let me use his name, and he might well end up having to settle those debts to recover his own reputation - it could go the other way, there could be a big scandal where it turns out he never did any cooking himself, and his reputation would be damaged, which would effect the value to me of his name.

but all the time the 'inherent value' in gordon ramsey (or the pound) remains an abstract that relies on him being him, and not something that could be traded.

In general it is neither - hence my missing $ analogy. It sounds close enough to be plausible but it is simple a distortion and a deceit.

In theory, however, it can be a liability (wonder why notes used to say, "I promise to pay the bearer" - bit of a giveaway when "this is a liability" is written on the actual note!!!! Doh, Alex, did you forget all you were taught? I doubt it as we had the same prof and he was very good.)

But it is useful as a red light warning - alert, alert, here comes Alex with yet more BS.......he really doesn't need to flag it any more, that should be obvious to all by now.

the hustler - Member
I can see only one way to sort this, ala russia and ukraine method, bring all those who want to stay in UK into [i][b]the southern part of Scotland[/b][/i] and send all the seperatists further north to play braveheart

Och, we'll still let you call England "England". No need to rename it Southern Scotland although we'd understand the desire to do some social climbing... 🙂

Ninfan your definition of the pound seems pretty close to the accounting cleartion of goodwill . From wiki
[quoteWhile a business can invest to increase its reputation, by advertising or assuring that its products are of high quality, such expenses cannot be capitalized and added to goodwill, which is technically an intangible asset. Goodwill and intangible assets are usually listed as separate items on a company's balance sheet

Ps I still prefer to do without currency union, but am not convinced that the pound us not an asset.

Whether it is an asset is not the point. Salmond is trying to force the UK into a currency union with an independent Scotland and we don't want one. It doesn't matter whether the pound is an asset or not the UK is not going to be forced to be a lender of last resort.

Billboard adverts starting to appear, by the way - this was brilliant:

It's brilliant is it? Saying 'vote yes so we get more money'. Which is a pretty tenuous claim.

What a wonderful positive message.

Because every time people hear the facts (or opinions or balancing arguments or whatever) they move towards Yes.

Difficult to even know where to start with this... 😕

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10701331/Andrew-Marr-accused-of-bias-over-Scottish-independence.html

I wonder what "consequences " the nationalists are referring to?

The SNP "bullying" Marr now!

Oh the sgeigeach 😉

To be fair to Marr, Salmond makes me want to spout pro-union remarks. And I'm voting Yes.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]Doh, Alex, did you forget all you were taught?

I doubt very much the problem is that he's forgotten it...

Stewart Maxwell MSP, convener of the Scottish Parliament's culture committee, said the Scottish Parliament had heard a number of "incredibly eminent witnesses" explain how and why Scotland would continue as a member of the EU on independence.

Can anybody provide me a linky to anybody (who actually knows what they're talking about, rather than SNP bluster) saying that Scotland would remain part of the EU, rather than having to rejoin?

Can anybody provide me a linky to anybody (who actually knows what they're talking about, rather than SNP bluster) saying that Scotland would remain part of the EU, rather than having to rejoin?

No, because it isn't going to happen, Scotland will be a successor state so will have to re-negotiate membership of EU, Nato etc. One of the things that keeps being brought up is that why doesn't the whole of the UK get a vote, and that is exactly why, if only a small part gets a vote to leave (rather than a UK wide vote to dissolve the union) then the remainder is the continuing state and keeps the current treaties (EU, Nato memberships) and the successor starts from scratch. There is no precedent for Scotland to be anything other than a successor state.

That's what I thought, irelanst, but I reckoned I should check before accusing Stewart Maxwell MSP of lying (let's call a spade a spade).

[url= http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25965703 ]bbcnews graham avery[/url]
[url= http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591167/Independent-Scotland-could-be-allowed-to-stay-in-EU.html ]Telegraph Sir David Edward[/url]
[url= http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-barroso-incorrect-on-eu-1-3313437 ]Former EC director general[/url]
Some people do think independent Scotland could join the EU pretty quickly. Some think Mr Barosso is wrong.
Did I mention that the UK govt could clear up the issue of independent Scotland joining the EU by formally asking the EU commission what the position would be? The UK govt has refused to do so. Why?

[quote=gordimhor ]Some people do think independent Scotland could join the EU pretty quickly.

That wasn't the question being asked, and only one of your links suggests somebody providing the opinion I was asking for - in an article where that opinion was counterbalanced by somebody equally (if not more) eminent who disagreed. Both providing evidence to the Scottish parliament. So I'm still standing by my assertion that Stewart Maxwell MSP is lying.

Why won't the UK government ask the question? ask Nicola Sturgeon, who believes the right time to negotiate is following a Yes vote?

The Scottish government asked Westminster to approach the EU commission last year.

The Scottish government asked Westminster to approach the EU commission last year.

The UK keep telling us that all the experts say Scotland wont get into the EU without renegotiating membership completely so why not go to the actual body that makes the decision then the No campaign would have a stronger case. Or are they worried that the EU commission might say yes.

If it's so easy why don't the Yes campaign come up with a compelling argument that they will remain in the EU?