[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.

The point I'm trying (and failing apparently) is that having Scottish ministers does not and has not given Scotland any benefit at all. They act on what's in their parties interests, not those of Scotland. So, unless there's any evidence of policy which unduly favours Scotland that's been enacted by a minister just because they're Scottish I can't buy your argument at all.

seosamh77 - Member

They shouldn't. But well, that's kinda the point of independence!

See the edit to my post.

That doesn't sound like the cake of opportunity has been spread very evenly

Hmm yes, London and the SE has been drawing people for a long time. However, it's London that's the draw, not England. So it's not really a case of England vs Scotland, it's a case of major world city vs small provincial cities.

London draws people from all over the world, so I'd be surprised if it WASN'T drawing Scots. It's just what happens when you have a huge prosperous city not too far away.

London is creating its own growth and has been for millenia, it's not Westminster's fault. You have to appreciate that London is a phenomenon that distorts the economy of the entire British Isles and has an effect on the whole world, and that's not going to go away if Scotland declare independence.

whatnobeer - Member

How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK? Don't try and make out the Scottish leaders of the big 3 UK parties pander to anyone but their base support and as many of the influential swing constituencies as possible.

Best hope you fall into the category of your potential new overlord's base support then as it appears your Scottish MPs have poor form. 💡

sbob - Member
...Best hope you fall into the category of your potential new overlord's base support then as it appears your Scottish MPs have poor form.

Nah, it's like our whisky. The rubbish gets exported, the best is saved for home consumption. 🙂

If you are going to talk about London then it might be useful to remember that, despite being slap bang in the middle of the South East and home to the City of London, London has the highest levels of poverty and inequality in the whole of the UK - certainly higher than anything in Scotland.

Yet no one is suggesting that the solution is to give London's 8 million inhabitants a referendum on "independence".

The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

molgrips - Member
...London is creating its own growth and has been for millenia, it's not Westminster's fault. You have to appreciate that London is a phenomenon that distorts the economy of the entire British Isles and has an effect on the whole world, and that's not going to go away if Scotland declare independence.

That's a phenomenon of capital cities with a centralised system.

At least it will shift to happening in our country.

ernie_lynch - Member
...The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

That's why we are leaving the UK.

What you folk do with the rest of it is up to you.

Maybe Scotland's departure will encourage the masses to rise up and get rid of their parasitic overlords because the system of government is broken if there is mass deprivation in the populace.

Yet no one is suggesting that the solution is to give London's 8 million inhabitants a referendum on "independence".

Might not be a bad idea. There's been at least one thought experiment where a UK without London doesn't do too badly at all.

epicyclo - Member

At least it will shift to happening in our country.

You reckon? 😆
[i]Lotta[/i] no voters who don't share your view.

Might not be a bad idea.

You think a London without a political voice within the rest of the UK would be a good idea ? Would this "independent" London be in the EU ?

EDIT : I'm not taking the bait btw, I'm just trying to focus on the fact that false independence is not the solution to economic inequality and social injustice.

Sorry I can't ignore this :

epicyclo - Member

ernie_lynch - Member
...The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

[b]That's why we are leaving the UK.[/b]

Engaging in a corporation tax war will not help matters one iota. It will lead to government spending cuts (no deficit because Scotland will be signed up to the European Fiscal Compact).

The consequences will be even greater inequality and poverty.

Tbh, I'm not convinced a corporation tax race is the best approach to take in a new Scotland, but it's an SNP policy that, if people don't like, then we don't have to choose it. I just can't see anyway of making things any better for anyone in the current set up and thats why I'm voting Yes.

[url= http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre ]Interesting Idea[/url]

ernie_lynch - Member
Sorry I can't ignore this :

Engaging in a corporation tax war will not help matters one iota...

The consequences will be even greater inequality and poverty.

Yes, we will regret watching that happen in England, but surely there's enough of you to do something about it?

The point I'm trying (and failing apparently) is that having Scottish ministers does not and has not given Scotland any benefit at all. They act on what's in their parties interests, not those of Scotland. So, unless there's any evidence of policy which unduly favours Scotland that's been enacted by a minister just because they're Scottish I can't buy your argument at all.

Which is what you described as a bizarre question Ernie,seems fairly straightforward to me. So,you said to ask if I had any more questions,I do; what is this clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years?

A more telling comment you have made is this one

Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

Interesting Idea

Stopped reading at the first factual inaccuracy.

it's an SNP policy that, if people don't like, then we don't have to choose it.

It lies at the heart of the argument of how to draw investment away from England and Wales and to Scotland.

A separate Scotland will be in direct competition with the rest of the UK, you can't odds it.

What policies do you suggest Scotland adopts to make it more prosperous if the SNP ones are found to be wanting ?

The Westminster government will only be pursuing policies which benefit England and Wales, it won't be their responsibility what effect they have on Scotland, unless it effects their market. It will be dog eat dog.

So,you said to ask if I had any more questions,I do;

I'm bored now 🙂

I think I've made most of the points I want to make. It's up to you what you choose to accept. And I'm not hearing any new arguments.

If the thread moves in a different direction I might return otherwise I don't see much point in going round in circles repeating the same things over again.

D'oh. great minds and all that.

ernie_lynch - Member
seosamh77 - Member
They shouldn't. But well, that's kinda the point of independence!

See the edit to my post.

What policies do you suggest Scotland adopts to make it more prosperous if the SNP ones are found to be wanting ?

I've not really thought about it, it's not my job and I don't have the time, that's the job of the opposition parties. Who knows what policies would be on offer. All I can say is that I'd rather have the opportunity to change the system we're in than stick with the same old shite we currently put up with.

The Westminster government will only be pursuing policies which benefit England and Wales, it won't be their responsibility what effect they have on Scotland, unless it effects their market. It will be dog eat dog.

Stating the obvious here. Your point?

epicyclo - Member

Yes, we will regret watching that happen in England, but surely there's enough of you to do something about it?

It was you that made schoolyard threats on behalf of Scotland wasn't it?
And now you're resorting to "I know you are, but what am I?" taunts?

Not sure whether to 😆 , 🙄 or 😥

[quote=seosamh77 ]btw few pages back you were on about currency options B, the options are there if you care to look for them. Salmond and sturgeon, have be pretty clear on that(despite the media trying to say otherwise.).

Go on then, linky to AS or NS explaining what currency option B is.

I shan't be holding my breath.

Or how about an easier one - linky to AS or NS admitting there is a plan B.

Go on then, linky to AS or NS explaining what currency option B is.

I shan't be holding my breath.

Or how about an easier one - linky to AS or NS admitting there is a plan B.

You don't seriously think that they don't have a plan B, do you? It's been said before that to admit plan b would weaken their position for negotiation. Seems more plausible that they're holding back for that reason rather than them not having one.

Stating the obvious here. Your point?

We're a much bigger dog?

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » btw few pages back you were on about currency options B, the options are there if you care to look for them. Salmond and sturgeon, have be pretty clear on that(despite the media trying to say otherwise.).
Go on then, linky to AS or NS explaining what currency option B is.

I shan't be holding my breath.

Or how about an easier one - linky to AS or NS admitting there is a plan B.

There are options a, b, c, d, e and f.

They will only talk about A as that their prefered option.(as there's not ment to be any prenegotiation, which westminster seems intent on)

Interesting Idea

Cherry picking statistics to make out that Britain is an awful place to live, and talking about 'broken Britain', hmmmm.....

For most people Britain (including Scotland) is a pretty amazing place to live. This kind of heavily biased scare-mongering would have Yes supporters crying about Project Fear - but apparently it's fine as long as they're on your side.

currency options (last page has a summary)

So the article I posted earlier maybe a little emotional in it's language, but the point is one I'd agree with. And as far as I can see the website in question is a pretty neutral website that's been around a while.

Although Britain may be an amazing place to live to some people, for other it isnt, and you can't argue with the fact that over the last few decades more and more of the public services of the UK have been sold off, or the fact that voters in Scotland have very little sway in the general election results. Why not vote for the chance to change a broken system and move to something new that can hopefully learn from the mistakes made elsewhere?

That annexe is interesting since it explains the importance of OCA and hence why it is not incompatible to be pro union but anti the €. It also notes early in that an informal sterling arrangement ie we just carry on using it regardless can only be described at best as a temporary solution (pls read your own stuff wee eck) and also the important of reducing Scotland's exposure to a volatile oils price. In the latter case, the annexe is arguing exactly against independence since they are highlighting the need to have a currency option (not the S£) that would reduce this exposure.

Once again the SGov tell you all you need to know to vote the correct way to maintain and maximise your own interests - NO. Much better that "false independence" (well put EL!).

The annexe is also helpful in that it repeats my point from many pages back that there is not such thing as the perfect currency option. All choices have pros and cons unless you listen to wee eck when they only have pros. They are quite clear about what currency union means in terms of "economic" independence even if wee wreck is still confused on the issue (or simply being deceitful).

and you can't argue with the fact that over the last few decades more and more of the public services of the UK have been sold off,

Why is that a bad thing? The general reliance on tax payer funded public services and the mediocre performance it drives in public sector worker culture has been the general demise of this country. The current government is doing a good job to reverse that reliance and breed a culture of performance and ambition. If Scotland wants to regress back into that antiquated way then maybe the rest of the uk would be better off without them. Enterprise and Ambition please, not apathy and mediocrity.

I agree with some of the general points in that article but I think his use of cherry-picked statistics and hyperbole completely undermines the argument.

Why is that a bad thing? The general reliance on tax payer funded public services and the mediocre performance it drives in public sector worker culture has been the general demise of this country. The current government is doing a good job to reverse that reliance and breed a culture of performance and ambition.

😆 😆 😆

teamhurtmore - Member
That annexe is interesting since it explains the importance of OCA and hence why it is not incompatible to be pro union but anti the €. It also notes early in that an informal sterling arrangement ie we just carry on using it regardless can only be described at best as a temporary solution (pls read your own stuff wee eck) and also the important of reducing Scotland's exposure to a volatile oils price. In the latter case, the annexe is arguing exactly against independence since they are highlighting the need to have a currency option (not the S£) that would reduce this exposure.

Once again the SGov tell you all you need to know to vote the correct way to maintain and maximise your own interests - NO. Much better that "false independence" (well put EL!).

The annexe is also helpful in that it repeats my point from many pages back that there is not such thing as the perfect currency option. All choices have pros and cons unless you listen to wee eck when they only have pros. They are quite clear about what currency union means in terms of "economic" independence even if wee wreck is still confused on the issue (or simply being deceitful).

[quote=seosamh77 ]btw few pages back you were on about currency options B, the options are there if you care to look for them. Salmond and sturgeon, have be pretty clear on that(despite the media trying to say otherwise.).

Listen to their many interviews on it.

No thanks - how about you provide a transcript of one of them where they're "pretty clear" about option B?

They will only talk about A as that their prefered option.

So they've been "pretty clear" about option B by only talking about option A?

[quote=seosamh77 ]currency options (last page has a summary)
>

br />

Yep - I see those options, which one has AS been "pretty clear" is option B?

Love how 10 minutes of analysis produces a negative answer!

The beauty of 30 years experience in this field. You can cut straight to the point and not be fooled by BS. Plus, the "independent" analysis lays it all out in the first few pages. Looks like Labour have similar qualifications...

Quite similar to proxy labours response to the white paper when it was first realised, 2 hours later, "this is nonsense!"

It is nonsense, and that was my conclusion when I read the BoD on the same day (there is a thread on it).

AS relies on people either not wanting to know the whole story or to be fed fairy tales. He is having some success as the polls indicate - but hey, who wouldn't vote for unlimited upside? Fortunately, the majority of Scots can see through all this bllx.

teamhurtmore - Member
Love how 10 minutes of analysis produces a negative answer!
The beauty of 30 years experience in this field. You can cut straight to the point and not be fooled by BS. Plus, the "independent" analysis lays it all out in the first few pages. Looks like Labour have similar qualifications...

Quite similar to proxy labours response to the white paper when it was first realised, 2 hours later, "this is nonsense!"
It is nonsense, and that was my conclusion when I read the BoD on the same day (there is a thread on it).

AS relies on people either not wanting to know the whole story or to be fed fairy tales. He is having some success as the polls indicate - but hey, who wouldn't vote for unlimited upside? Fortunately, the majority of Scots can see through all this bllx.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26689016 ]Dennis Canavan interviewwed by BBC Scotland[/url]
Dennis Canavan is chairman of Yes Scotlands advisory board

My bias? Just read what wee eck's team of advisers say

However, views on the relative importance of each factor and the respective trade-offs are
likely to be subjective

ie, its a balance with pros and cons not the unlimited upside and "better for all" BS from wee eck

This suggests that – based upon historical data – Scotland meets many of the key structural
economic criteria for a successful currency union with the rest of the UK.

One reason why UK has been so successful and will continue to be as a Union.

Retaining Sterling would provide a helpful mechanism to manage the macroeconomic implications of oil and gas production, particularly on the value of the currency and the implications for the balance of payments. A practical advantage of being part of a larger currency union, such as Sterling or the Euro Area, is that one issue – commodity currency volatility – [b]would be significantly diluted.[/b]

ie, imagine the situation if we couldn't take advantage of the more balanced economies of UK or Europe? Be careful what you wish for!!

[b]One of the advantages that some independent countries have found in the past would not however be open to Scotland – that is, the opportunity to set an independent monetary and financial stability policy.[/b]

From the horse's mouth - or as Ernie put it - "false independence"

If the two economies were to diverge, then monetary policy may not be set optimally for Scotland, requiring adjustment in the real economy (e.g. through wages, prices or employment) or fiscal policy.

And there is plenty of contemporary evidence of what happens then.....

So if yS are so clear on why you should vote NO (their bias) then why does anyone need a Better Together campaign at all. Its a folly and an expensive one at that (my bias).

Aye that's how you come out with a negative view on every aspect of independence, go admit it, there are some positives! 😆 I can admit there are positives to staying in the union. (I can see the negatives to an IS too.)

Until you do that, there can be no honest discussion!

Aye that's how you come out with a negative view on every aspect of wee eck's BS

FTFY!

teamhurtmore - Member
Aye that's how you come out with a negative view on every aspect of wee eck's BS
FTFY!

Which is why my very obvious bias is targeted at wee eck and his BS rather than independence per se (in case you hadn't noticed!)

It's pretty hard to have a serious debate about independence when no one has yet to make a credible case for it. Until then we can only focus on what people have said and most (but not exclusively) obviously the Book of Dreams. After all we wouldn't want to waste the money on all those reprints. Hope the libraries have big enough fiction sections!

BTW, just skim read the rest over lunch and apart from point 43 being obviously falsifiable, it stands up reasonably well. But the bit that seems to be missing, but which the deceitful one continues to stress, is the argument why a currency union would be definitively better for BOTH sides. Any link to the supporting evidence would be appreciated.

I'm not actually here for debate, my minds made up and isn't for changing, plus all this currency stuff is way over my head! 😆 just pointing out that all sides are being disingenuous. (welcome to politics)

Just when you thought there were too many muppets in the independence debate - [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/24/scottish-independence-kermit_n_5021379.html ]Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence[/url] 😀

[quote=gordimhor ]Dennis Canavan interviewwed by BBC Scotland
Dennis Canavan is chairman of Yes Scotlands advisory board

An economist providing some light on the currency issue? Nope.
A member of the policy team telling us what the policy is? Nope.
A politician providing his "personal opinion"? Yep.

Well that helped with the debate on what currency Scotland are going to use in the event of independence.

whatnobeer - Member

What policies do you suggest Scotland adopts to make it more prosperous if the SNP ones are found to be wanting ?

I've not really thought about it, it's not my job and I don't have the time, that's the job of the opposition parties. Who knows what policies would be on offer. All I can say is that I'd rather have the opportunity to change the system we're in than stick with the same old shite we currently put up with.

That is precisely my point, you won't be changing the system at all. That opportunity isn't being offered.

It's the current neoliberal economic model that's at fault, and you can do all the tinkering to it that you want with free prescription and child care and whatever, but the present system will remain as it is and the super rich will continue to get richer while everyone else will continue to receive less of the nation's wealth.

If you can't stomach the thought of socialism but want to tackle growing inequality in a meaningful way then your options are limited to a social-democratic Keynesian model.

But as I have already pointed out Keynesian solutions are illegal under EU rules and the EU will insist that Scotland includes the European Fiscal Compact/the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, in its new written constitution. As well as issuing directives written by unelected bureaucrats forcing Scotland to open up its markets to "competition"

What Alex Salmond is offering is social-democratic welfare provisions married to neoliberal economics, ie, tax cuts while at the same time greater government spending, without apparently any sort of deficit, the politics of fantasy land. He might as well promise the moon.

He will deliver on the neoliberal side of the offer as he has very little choice to do otherwise (although the corporation tax war is unnecessary and will simply make things worse) but he won't deliver the egalitarian social-democratic dream that he's also offering.

If you want a more just society where the nation's wealth is more fairly distributed then I would suggest a bit more class conscious and unity, and a little less pointless petty nationalism (which isn't the same as patriotism btw)

.

seosamh77 - Member

There are options a, b, c, d, e and f.

Yeah I've heard Alex Salmond say that, but there aren't ..... he's clearly lying.

Plan A was currency union with Westminster, then after that there is using the pound sterling without agreement, issuing a Scottish currency, or adopting the Euro, and that's it. Which takes us to Plan D.

There is no plan E or F and there can't be any plan E or F. Alex Salmond is a liar who wants people to think that he has all the answers (even though he won't tell them what they are) and that all they need to do is trust him.

Still, it won't be the first time that a liar has won an election.

click the link I posted.

you're the one that's lying. there's a clear 5 options there.

If prefered option A isn't available post independence, it stands to reason one of the others will be adopted, whether better or worse.

Like I say disingenuous, I've gave clear evidence of more than one option, yet apparently they don't exist! 😆

but the present system will remain

Ernie, why do you say that Keynesian solutions are illegal under EU laws?

click the link I posted.

Thanks. All I could see were the options I stated.

Ernie, why do you say that Keynesian solutions are illegal under EU laws?

Because they clearly are. Have a quick read of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

And really, it only needs a quick read.

Austerity crazy EU does not square with Keynesian solutions.

ernie_lynch - Member
click the link I posted.
Thanks. All I could see were the options I stated.

in no particular order

1. Join Euro

2. Enter no monetary union (ie Scottish Currency)

3. Scottish Currency tied to the pound

4. Currency Union

5. Use the pound without a currency union.

I'd vote for option 2 right off the bat.

There's not a 6th option aye, but I only typed that before I refreshed my memory. still plenty of options though.

anyhow I'm off home, have fun! 😆

So it's just plan F that's missing then ?

Shall we just say that plan F is using the Euro without agreement/regardless ? Just to stop Alex Salmond from appearing to be a liar 🙂

Well it's another topic, I disagree, keynes is probably the mostly widely misquoted and misrepresented economist if all time. There are more similarities that difference IMO between what the EU advocates (but fails to deliver) and a lot of Keynesian economics. Unfortunately too many equate K with government spending as the solution. It was not and is not.

AT THE CORRECT TIME, Keynes strongly advocated running government surpluses to eradicate government debt. He was also generally in favour of lower levels of taxation.

AT THE CORRECT TIME, Keynes strongly advocated running government surpluses to eradicate government debt.

Yes I'm aware of that thank you - no need to shout.

Keynes also strongly advocated running a government deficit "at the correct time", something which is totally in breach of EU rules as stated in the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

1. Join Euro

2. Enter no monetary union (ie Scottish Currency)

3. Scottish Currency tied to the pound

4. Currency Union

5. Use the pound without a currency union.

Only one of those options allows you to be independent, and it would be financial folly to go down that route.

I'd vote for option 2 right off the bat.

Oh dear...

Aracer
"A politician providing his "personal opinion"? Yep."

He is a very credible politician imo. As a senior part of the yes campaign he disagrees with the snp on a number of issues and surely puts an end to the ridiculous notion that scottish independence is wee ecks pet project

You can run a budget deficit under the Treaty - indeed the definition of a balanced budget includes provision of a deficit. There are plenty of parallels in the Treaty with policies that JMK would have advocated.

Only one of those options allows you to be independent, and it would be financial folly to go down that route

And now we're back to the same kind of logic that says France and Germany aren't independent because they share the Euro. No country is totally independent - probably North Korea comes closest.

And I don't care what SNP policies are*. Saying independence is a bad idea because you don't like SNP policies is to confuse a nation with a political party. Once we have independence, then we can elect the SNP, Labour, the SSP, the Scottish Conservatives or whoever.

* I should clarify that, just in case those people on "other forums" misunderstand - with regards to independence, I don't care what SNP policies are. If the SNP was for compulsory wearing of kilts, eating haggis and singing Flower of Scotland every morning, I'd still think independence was a good idea. A vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP.

You can run a budget deficit under the Treaty

🙂 I knew you would come up with that one ! lol

From the EU website (their bold) :

Limiting deficits

Under this rule, annual structural government deficit [b]must not exceed 0.5% of GDP[/b].

http://www.eurozone.europa.eu/euro-area/topics/treaty-on-stability,-coordination-and-governance-%28tscg%29/

So tell me, where does Keynes say that government deficit [b]must not exceed 0.5% of GDP[/b] ?

I repeat, Keynesian economics is illegal under EU rules.

Keynesian economics (to the extent that such a thing exists) is not illegal under EU law. The misunderstood version may well be. Hence the sloppy headlines beloved by newspaper and magazine editors. But as AS is finding out, merely repeating something that is untrue does not make it true.

It's funny I sit on the other side of the political fence from ernie, but agree with the reasons given on why independence is a rubbish idea. Mostly because it isn't real independence due to the currency issues primarily. SNP are on dream world land in terms of tax and spend, they make Ed Balls look like sensible.

One thing all western governments need to get a grip on is that computers and mechanisation are going to destroy a lot of manual typically low paid jobs. No political system is going to stop this.

sbob - Member
It was you that made schoolyard threats on behalf of Scotland wasn't it?

...Not sure whether to

I was a bit puzzled about this statement, so I looked through my posts. Presumably you're referring to

... what England needs to decide if the referendum is a Yes is whether or not it wants a friendly or unfriendly nation on its northern land border.

OK, I didn't see that as a threat. It was more a question of good neighbourly relations and support for England in the various international arenas.

I wasn't thinking in terms of invasion! So I apologise for the lack of clarity.

Heck, if we have a good relationship after independence, we may even cheer for the England cricket team (except when they're playing Australia). 🙂

So you can 🙂 too.

dragon - Member
... it isn't real independence due to the currency issues primarily.

It may end up imperfect, but it's still many times better than what we now have.

And I don't care what SNP policies are. Saying independence is a bad idea because you don't like SNP policies is to confuse a nation with a political party. Once we have independence, then we can elect the SNP, Labour, the SSP, the Scottish Conservatives or whoever.

It is of course fine to reject the SNP's vision of an independent Scotland, but whose vision are you using instead ?

Or are you seriously claiming that you have no idea what path an independent Scotland will follow ?

I said earlier in the thread that the case for independence appeared to me to be focused solely on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I was actually taking the piss but now I'm starting to realise that I wasn't perhaps that much off the mark.

It seems that the Yes camp are appealing to people's emotions and ignoring boring stuff like "detail" which doesn't really stack up to scrutiny anyway.

It's certainly helps to explain why politically immature 16 year olds are being given a say, something which had puzzled me, they are much likely to be motivated by emotions than boring facts.

One thing all western governments need to get a grip on is that computers and mechanisation are going to destroy a lot of manual typically low paid jobs. No political system is going to stop this.

Orwell said much the same in 1937 - Road to Wigan Pier - its still unresolved.

support for England in the various international arenas.

I don't really think an independent Scotland is going to be in a position to offer much support to the UK.

good neighbourly relations

Which, yes or no, will be at an all time low. Well done Alex.

Or are you seriously claiming that you have no idea what path an independent Scotland will follow ?

Mr Cooper has already stated that he doesn't care if independence F's up Scotland for decades, it's still worth it.

It seems that the Yes camp are appealing to people's emotions and ignoring boring stuff like "detail" which doesn't really stack up to scrutiny anyway.

It's certainly helps to explain why politically immature 16 year olds are being given a say, something which had puzzled me, they are much likely to be motivated by emotions than boring facts

Just to make it clear that independence is not all about the SNP

[img] [/img]

Something similar should appear from the LibDems soon.

And maybe even the independents in the Scottish Conservative party (Wealthy Nation) will follow suit.

Last time I checked, young voters are favouring "NO".

teamhurtmore - Member

Last time I checked, young voters are favouring "NO".

Pesky kids with all their "questions". 👿

😆

teamhurtmore - Member

Keynesian economics (to the extent that such a thing exists) is not illegal under EU law. The misunderstood version may well be. Hence the sloppy headlines beloved by newspaper and magazine editors.

I haven't seen any sloppy headlines about Keynesian economics and the EU, what paper do you read ?

I provided a link not to a newspaper headline but to an EU website. This EU website site makes it crystal clear that running a deficit is illegal.

It does allow some small tolerance but beyond that an automatic mechanism must kick in to reduce the deficit ie, austerity must kick in : (their bold)

Automatic correction mechanism

Countries must implement a correction mechanism - in other words, design measures to [b]reduce the budget deficit[/b]. These measures will be triggered automatically in the event of a significant deviation from the agreed benchmark figure for long-term sustainabililty.

http://www.eurozone.europa.eu/euro-area/topics/treaty-on-stability,-coordination-and-governance-%28tscg%29/

This is completely at odds with Keynes.

And to claim that because they allow a small tolerance this means that Keynesian economics isn't illegal under EU rules is the same as claiming that if you are allowed to go as fast as 33 mph in a 30 mph zone before being prosecuted this means there is no maximum speed limit.

It's certainly helps to explain why politically immature 16 year olds are being given a say, something which had puzzled me, they are much likely to be motivated by emotions than boring facts

[b]I think yu insult them to much and flatter the elctorate too much as well[/b].

I'm not insulting them at all. I expect a 16 year old to be politically immature, I certainly was, although I could hardly be described as being a 'late developer' when it came to politics.

And I'm very pleased to hear that the last time you checked young voters were favouring "no" THM, although I doubt that was the thinking behind the decision of the Scottish government to give them a vote, do you ?

Sorry Ernie but you are not correct. Have a watch of Lord Skidelsky here

http://video.ft.com/79132257001/Apr-12-Focus-on-the-economy-not-debt/Editors-Choice

Especially around 3:30 for why such arguments frame keynes in the wrong context and then at around 4:11-20 when he argues that keynes was an advocate of balanced budgets. Of course, Keynes' most respected biographer and I could both be wrong!!

I also agree with Skidelsky's early comments about K arguing that economics should be studied alongside other subjects such as politics and philosophy and that the currency obsession with maths makes you neither a better economist nor economics a better science (sic)..

And I'm very pleased to hear that the last time you checked young voters were favouring "no" THM, although I doubt that was the thinking behind the decision of the Scottish government to give them a vote, do you ?

I didn't believe that was their thinking no, in fact was quite scathing about their intentions. However, it's hard to know if they were aware of the outcome or not. If they were, then I would be eating my words.

I doubt that was the thinking behind the decision of the Scottish government to give them a vote, do you ?

IIRC they have campaigned for it to be lowered in general for all elections this, general and Scotland - its like they have a principle and will do it not just for political gain....imagine the horror.
I am surprised you and THM are not going overboard with your praise for the noble principled actions of Sir BS of eck 😛
EDIT: i posted this before i saw THM's post above
It seems reasonable to assume it was done on principle that 16 is old enough.

[quote=Junkyard ]Sir BS of eck

Well I certainly shan't be calling him boring old AS any more with that option available.

he argues that keynes was an advocate of balanced budgets.

Oh OK. On the previous page you were agreeing that Keynes strongly advocated running a government deficit "at the correct time", arguing that EU rules allow this, and now you're suggesting that Keynes was an advocate of balanced budgets. Yes we know that in a perfect world balanced budgets are ideal but that in a real world deficits are required during recessions. But I think you just want to argue the point backwards and forwards THM, so let's just leave it there shall we 🙂

[quote=gordimhor ]He is a very credible politician imo. As a senior part of the yes campaign he disagrees with the snp on a number of issues and surely puts an end to the ridiculous notion that scottish independence is wee ecks pet project

So he's proof of support for independence outside the SNP? Doesn't really add much to the currency debate though, does he?

Of course no matter how much people might claim that independence is about more than the SNP, and that we shouldn't just look at the SNP policies for the future path of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote - it will the SNP sitting at the negotiating table sorting out all these issues which nobody is allowed to know about in advance of the vote. So the policies you will get on how independence works are SNP policies.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]But I think you just want to argue the point backwards and forwards THM, so let's just leave there shall we

Which one of you is the pot, which the kettle? 😆