[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

A deal on Faslane would be acceptable to me as well. Lots of tricky negotiations required in the event of a yes vote. I suspect this "leak"on currency union might well be the first "feeler"

TJ salutes your dislike of Nuclear weapons

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of scotland even though they are not.

rUK cannot build a new base in the timescale even if they wanted to and they dont given no one knows what will replace it or even if something will replace it.

FWIW the unaamed source [ lets call him VInce - THM will be delighted to have both AS and Uncle vince in his headlights] is given more weight due to
1. Confirmation bias
2. It is likely a govt minister so high enough up the pole to have an opinion that matters and it supports the Yes notion that it is still on the table/ the no campaign lie

NW, WNB, Duckman,

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it's OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW's words, a policy that's

'been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ' ?

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?

plus blockading a nuclear sub, if things every got that bad, it's potentially not the most sensible thing in the world to do! 😆 If we're dealing in fantasy, might as well go the whole hog! 😆

Having to invade to get your nukes back isn't exactly the ideal solution, though 😀

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it's OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW's words, a policy that's

'been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ' ?

I'm not sure there's really much to explain from us because I'm not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one to be had.

Because I suspect that as pointed out by McJunkyard from about page 3, it was always about negotiation. Long term England will build a base for her subs,as pointed out above. The negotiations will be about give and take,bluff and counter bluff,was the announcement(which has backfired,and not by a little) any different? Time will tell.

michaelbowden - Member
Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?

I'm not quite a Yes supporter, but do accept that continuing Trident is a possibility.

In fact, I'm thinking that the deal will probably be a bit of debt+Trident, with favourable terms for the debt repayment (maybe zero-rated.) Not basing this on anything other than what we all use, some intuition and long-term observations of politics in general.

As I said in an earlier post, our American friends are certain to have made overtures already.

As an indication of whether I could be right or not, look out for pronouncements on National Security ramp up in the next few months. I expect AS will make noises like "Scotland's position in geopolitics is such that we must accept our responsibilities, viz in the light of current Russian behaviour" or similar, to soften us all up!

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of Scotland even though they are not.

That or some convenient wording that involves the exact interpretation of 'based in' or 'visiting' (don't ask, don't tell)

I strongly suspect that the vice will be applied over NATO membership

I'm not sure there's really much to explain from us because I'm not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't one to be had.

Not trying to pick a fight and my comments were'nt aimed at you three in particular, you just happened reply to my post. But if you look back to page 73 through 75 seems to be the position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

Plus I don't particularly believe the currency is all that important, it'll be made to work regardless.

Its a good point Michael.

Interesting to see the way this thread is going....initially, some heavily entrenched opinions. And over time, lots of give and take, and maybe even some flexibility on stance.

There are still a few who seem to have some quite fixed ideas, I suppose. I wonder how representative this will be of the UK in general?

McJunkyard

http://www.scotweb.co.uk/tartan/Bargain-Booze/54036

No really Bargain Booze do have their own tartan

Vince Cable, if he is the mole rather than Hammond, normally behaves like this when he is losing a point not when it is policy. Rather desperate thing to cling to anyway.

While I can understand folk note being able to get their head around/understand currencies and debt, especially when you have someone like AS deliberately lying about them, swallowing the garbage on trident requires an extraordinary level of gullibility. One can take whatever view one wants on the merits or otherwise of Trident and on the policy of maintaing the current level of defence spending as a %age of GDP (but on conventional weapons etc), but to think that "don't ask, don't tell" equates to no nukes in Scotland is like saying that Celtic is a club supported largely by Protestants!

Ducks. Better that way than getting indigestion but busy weekend and enjoyed lurking for a while. 😉

Tbh THM I think I preferred you when you were eating your tea. The constant playing of the man and none too subtle attempts at insulting out intelligence have gotten boring. As have the arguments about the nukes that have already been had. Maybe we should all leave the thread alone until something new comes up to discuss.

Imagine what it's like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is for real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it's quite important.

I am not pro-nukes, simple honest enough to say that "don't ask, don't tell" is a mile away from the idea that Scotland will be nuke free. (Fittingly) That is simply deceit (IMO).

Well if you are going to get lumped in with the rest of us...I will see your bargain Booze tartan (corporate) and raise you the Cornish national tartan...

Imagine what it's like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is a real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it's quite important.

The difference is they're professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other. It devalues the debate and shows up your bias.

Osborne is constantly ridiculed for not having the qualifications or experience to lead the economy, never mind his actual policies, yet you're quite happy to accept his word as gospel and only challenge AS?

It's boring and doesn't seem to be convincing anyone.

seosamh77 - Member

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).
To answer your question, I personally don't believe a word that comes out of the no campaign.

So why is the YES campaign more believable? They are all politicians so by defult all liars. The YES campaign (AS in particular) has far more to gain by lying to win independence.

Is the SNP source that leaked the story about Trident a liar or are AS/SNP? One or the other is.

Plus I don't particularly believe the currency is all that important, it'll be made to work regardless.

I agree iS will make something work, but it will be a compromise compared to what you have now.

My personal opinion is that the UK is stronger as a single entity, but if you want independence, feel free to have it. BUT that should mean independence.

WNB, shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made of GOs policies. But if it helps to make a false point, feel free.

In the case of independence, AS's BS and deceit reaches a level that so overshadows anything else (hence the impressive list of bullies and blusterers across such a wide spectrum of politics, business, economics and societies that he is able to cite) that it is very difficult not to be ever-so-slightly ( 😉 ) biased against him. I am in very good company in that respect though. Some pretty impressive folk on that list.

The degree of yS BS is boring, I granted you that, although impressive (in a depressing way) that so many swallow it. Still look at Farrage!

seosamh77 - Member

So why is the YES campaign more believable?

I'm not particularly nationalist either. I just think that Westminster has had it's day and we should try something different.

THM has a point- character drives plot. Insight into character can help predict outcome.

BUT!!!!

.....these days, these characters have the most carefully managed public personas outside of movie actors. I don't think any of us can really say we know them. Not when what we know of them is through TV, radio, and the rest.

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements. If you need historical reference, look how divisions of territories go post-conflict. If its working right, nobody gets all they want, everyone must flex, and a bitter taste is there ever-after 🙂

teamhurtmore - Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Examples ?

michaelbowden - Member

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

The party leaders are all politically on the side of union. (also, there's only actually 2 party leaders there, you've got Cameron, Milliband, then Cameron sticking his hand up Clegg's arse and making it look like his mouth is moving).

So that comes back to credibility- people (45% of people, according to some polls) believe that their stance is simply politically expedient and designed to push a No agenda. Whether true or not it's undeniably plausible, method and motive.

And of course the Treasury are a government department, so effectively what you're saying is "The UK government, the UK government and the UK government all agree with themselves and say that the thing that's most likely to keep the UK together is the only option". I'm never that convinced when an office publically agrees with its boss.

Mark Carney steadfastly refuses to rule it out, he's on a different script. (I'm sure it's [i]purely[/i] coincidental that Carney's unexpectedly open verdict after his visit to Scotland, and the associated boost to the Yes vote, was immediately followed by Osborne's declaration)

Actually Carney simple stated the facts and what his role as Gov of the BOE is and perhaps more importantly what his role "isn't". Quite an assertion about the role of HM Treasury NW!!

To be fair to Uncle Vince (5/2/14)

His comment comes a week after Bank of England governor Mark Carney said currency sharing is possible with the right foundations, such as a strong banking union.

Mr Cable said: "The plan B is a fully separate currency. The logic of what the governor and other people have spelled out is that the problems of a currency union with an independent Scotland are so difficult, so tricky, that it would almost certainly prove to be in Scotland's interests - and indeed the rest of the UK - that Scotland did have its own currency.

"Of course, that would create a whole wave of other problems. It would create a barrier to trade across the Scottish border, as different currencies tend to do, and the problems of managing a fluctuating exchange rate in a country that is very dependent on raw materials.

...he is one of the few who at least acknowledges that all currency choices have pros and cons. Still quite a jumpy from Feb to now, if true, even by Liberal Democrat standards.

teamhurtmore - Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Yer arse you have!

Not hard to see why yS will attempt to ridicule Sir Nick Macpherson. He was a bit open in his comments wasn't he?

UK would become increasingly misaligned in the medium term. Of course, if the Scottish Government had demonstrated a strong commitment to a rigorous fiscal policy in recent months, it might be possible to discount this. But recent spending and tax commitments by the Scottish Government point in the opposite direction, as do their persistently optimistic projections of North Sea revenues, which are at odds not just with the Treasury but with the Office of Budget Responsibility and other credible [b]independent[/b] forecasters

Pah, bluster from the "so-called" independents. It's nae true, I tell thee.

[still judging by the FT now, sounds like the mole could simply be someone pre-warning what darling was about to come out with]

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements.

[quote=Junkyard ]

The significant difference is that I dont like Sir BS of eck

The big assumption there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up 😉

whatnobeer - Member
The difference is they're professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other.

Ok not a petty insult but Darling's comments today come pretty close (FT today)

Mr Darling strongly criticised Ms Sturgeon’s view, saying she “patently doesn’t understand what a currency union is”.

Harsh, but fair.

Michaelbowden I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote. I would like to get rid of the all the nukes but am prepared to compromise . I think Salmond will compromise on Trident but will find it a hard sell to his party so would look for a very good deal after a yes vote. I am one of the 45% of Scots who just did not believe Osbornes statement on currency union. I have been a nationalist for a long time though not an SNP member and believe that Scotland govern itself and would like currency union if one can be agreed but only as stepping stone to either the euro or a Scottish currency.

I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote.

So was Alex lying yesterday when he said:

"We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation".

?

It's called changing your mind Z-11. Although I'm not sure why anyone would trust someone who changes their mind in such a dramatic manner.

EDIT : Sorry I misread your post Z-11. Ignore that.

Ninfan its just a negotiating position the same as

Osbourne says no to currency union.

[i]"That is not up for negotiation"[/i] is a negotiating position? 😆

Salmond could stick to his principles and include Faslane in his don't ask, don't tell policy.He could leave Trident where it is, and close his eyes whenever he drives past.

Yes athgray he could. It would need to be a really good offer from rUK to make that happen though 😉

My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick

there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up

Fair point perhaps we should all declare who our favourite is from that shower of politicians ...shudders

"That is not up for negotiation" is a negotiating position?

ninfan - Member
"That is not up for negotiation" is a negotiating position?

It would be very odd for RUK to put Faslane and CU at the top of the negotiation list right now. In both cases they hold the aces to yS deuces. Playing the deuce on currency (ie the silly idea that you walk away on debt) harms Scotland more that UK, and the Falsane Fudge ("DA,DT") is already in place to keep NATO "on side" so yS has played its hand there too.

RUK just needs to keep quiet and let yS continue to prove the NO case itself. Hold onto your winners until you need them.

Game over! Miley won't twerk us if we go...

[img] [/img]

Ah right then thm,this is all a clever ploy by no campaigners...Since the currency union announcement,how much has the no vote increased its % in the opinion polls? Or the plan to ignore pleas to be positive and to "get nasty" as the Times reports today the better together campaign has decided to do,are another clever bluff. Of course they wouldn't do that,you have stated on this thread that we are just touchy and easily offended by "uncomfortable truths" 😆

Like Farrage, the deceitful one knows his target market well.

I do not think that the BT have a deliberate strategy in what I commented on at all - the conditional tense in the first line is the give away there. The campaign has shown some signs of brilliance but by and large has been pretty lacklustre. Combining three parties in unison and opposite is quite difficult to achieve, unless of course you are wee eck, He manages this better than anyone.

Read most of the UK gov literature and it presents a positive picture of why Scotland is better off as part of the UK albeit in a dry factual manner. Of course, it doesn't go for the fairy tale sugar and spice stuff (which is why people don't tend to read it).

Intriguingly though, the case is SO compelling that in economics terms (and via the CU) yS is arguing exactly that case. Scotland is better off without an independent monetary and fiscal policy, they say. Could hardly be clearer could it?

No one seems offended by uncomfortable truths, they just ignore them and swallow the sickly stuff. As any teacher knows, however, too much sweet sickly stuff leads to one inevitable and messy conclusion.

[ok done the lies about GO and his policies, shall we try the "touch and easily offended" stuff too?]

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?
Because whenever Scotland wanted, we could cut off supplies, cut off power, blockade the port, any number of things. Not saying we would, but it's a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset.

(Also, the nuclear weapons wouldn't be under the control of Scotland - that's the whole point of surrounding them with lots of bad-tempered armed men who don't do what foreigners tell them to do).

Mmm, that might not be the best comparison- the US wanted to distribute their nuclear arsenal widely because it had a job to do, they were asserting power worldwide.

Whereas all the UK really wants is a nuclear willy to wave around, "We are a nuclear superpower in our own right" and that gets diminished if you've got nowhere to keep it- "We are a nuclear superpower, but totally dependent on someone else". Less point having a big nuclear willy if you've got nowhere to put it and nothing useful to do with it.

Your sophisticated political analysis is undone by your apparent ignorance of Greenham Common, a UK military facility where the United States kept nuclear weapons.

Ouch. Yes, I know about Greenham Common, where a fire came pretty close to irradiating much of the South of England. I can also just about remember all the American cars buzzing about from when the US had their base on the Holy Loch.

The two situations are very different. The UK was a willing subservient partner to the US during the Cold War, an independent Scotland would not have the same attitude towards the rUK.

And "control" is an interesting phrase. Faslane doesn't have it's own power plants, food supplies, accommodation, sewerage or other utilities - certainly not enough to keep operating. Warheads are transported by road. An independent Scotland could easily put the base out of operation. So who controls the weapons?

Though of course since the warheads are mounted on Trident missiles that the UK only rents from the USA, they're not really independent at the moment.

The UK was a willing subservient partner to the US during the Cold War, an independent Scotland would not have the same attitude towards the rUK.

In any case, can we agree that your suggestion that keeping nuclear weapons on bases leased from foreign states is "a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset" was mince?

Err no THM, the UK gov lit does not make a compelling case for staying together.Even you have stated that the present system of Government does not work,(as you also attempted to suggest the bitter together camp wasn't negative,and we WERE too sensitive) which is what they want to preserve. It's funny y'ken..I remember HS2 being held up as an example of the type of projects we couldn't afford if we were on our own...Wonder why they stopped that example? Good to see you are still trying to play the man as well,the better together defense l believe they call it?

Its all sorted according to the telegraph!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10735711/Alex-Salmond-to-replace-the-Queen-on-new-Scottish-pound-coin.html

C'mon ducks, raise the game a little otherwise this just becomes a little to Alexander Armstrong. Before the next attack, and the next saying what I don't say etc, try pausing and thinking about a point that is not [b]immediately falsifiable.[/b]

So let's take the sample of CU. Your opening line:

duckman - Member
Err no THM, the UK gov lit does not make a compelling case for staying together.

Versus, the rUK's [b]opening lines [/b] [u]in its literature[/u] *

The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political
unions in history. It is a union that has brought economic benefits to all parts of the UK.

Correct me is I am wrong but this sounds rather like a "positive" case being made. Words like "most successfully", "in history" and "economic benefits" are a tiny give away. And guess what? After the positive opening two sentences, they follow it up with a nice summary of the reasons why

1, The UK is a successful union because taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK.

2. It means risks are pooled, there is a common insurance against uncertainty and no one area or sector of the larger economy is too exposed.

3. This has helped all parts of the UK weather the recent global economic crisis.

4. Governments that are able to borrow in their own currency, and make their own political and economic decisions, are able to borrow more cheaply.

5. And with clear political accountability, a single government can quickly respond to a financial crisis.

Note the tone in each of the 5 points listed above. Please highlight any slight negativity. And then compare with the sugar coated gobblidigook of the BoD.

QED.

* freely available on the web for all to read (if anyone can be bothered) but not recommended as an alternative to kids bedtime stories. The BOD is much better in that case.

Sorry, ducks take that all back, I've just seen the date! Doh, poisson d'avril. For a moment, I thought the post was serious. Excuse me.

A rather predictable move by Darling being reported in the Herald (behind the pay wall)

Voters in rest of UK 'would need a say over currency union'

THE rest of the UK must have a say over a sterling zone with an independent Scotland, Alistair Darling said yesterday, as Vince Cable denied being the 'mole' who suggested UK ministers' opposition to a currency union was a bluff.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/scotland-driving-on-right-independence-road-scheme

From the Guardian article above:

"It sends out an explicit signal: we are part of Europe," said one of the brains behind the scheme. "The little Englanders who want out of Europe are the only ones driving on the left-hand side. We've been the smaller relative dominated and having to copy their ridiculous ways for too long. No more. Just think, this will be an indignity for little England – isolated in Europe and pootling along in the slow lane on the left," he added.

😀

I think Yes could reasonably be annoyed by this article, whatever it's intention...

And it would be no great surprise were Cable to have been behind the currency thing, whatever his weasel worded denials!

It'll be interesting to see how much the content of that Guardian article will get played upon. It's not just the signs that'd want changing.

It'd be a pathetic waste of money, I'd rather efforts where put into bringing people out of poverty.

In any case, can we agree that your suggestion that keeping nuclear weapons on bases leased from foreign states is "a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset" was mince?

Nope. When the US did it, they spread them out over a lot of places - the UK, Germany, Turkey etc. and they kept a lot for themselves.

Whereas the rUK would be putting it's entire nuclear arsenal in one place, in a foreign country.

Whereas the rUK would be putting it's entire nuclear arsenal in one place, in a foreign country.

"control" is an interesting phrase. Faslane doesn't have it's own power plants, food supplies, accommodation, sewerage or other utilities - certainly not enough to keep operating. Warheads are transported by road. An independent Scotland could easily put the base out of operation. So who controls the weapons?

But in any case - are you suggesting that it was Germany that controlled the nuclear weapons that the US positioned on its territory? Surely not - that would totally negate the point you've just made.

In fact, instead of being hypothetical, is there a recent real life example of where a naval base was leased to a foreign power, and where we could observe whether it was the host country or the occupant of the base that controlled the weapons within the base?

konabunny - Member
...Bit weird that you're suggesting that Scotland would immediately start acting like a rogue state and ignoring its obligations under an interstate treaty...

Maybe not immediately, but I doubt the SNP would be voted back in if they agreed to this, so at the next election they could be replaced by a govt which was elected to get rid of the nukes. So maybe.

Seeing as this is a special day...

[img] [/img]

So maybe.

Which in a nutshell sums up the Yes Campaign.

Maybe, perhaps, could be, possibly, not sure, might be, don't know, all sum up the Yes Campaign's vision of an independent Scotland.

Well, no - the arsenal would be out at sea. That's what the subs are for.

They're not permanently at sea - if they were, then there'd be no need for Faslane and Coulport would there?

Bit weird that you're suggesting that Scotland would immediately start acting like a rogue state and ignoring its obligations under an interstate treaty.

I'm not - but I doubt anyone at the MoD would be happy taking that risk. I completely trust my next-door neighbour, happy for him to have a front door key just in case - but he doesn't have full access to my bank account. That's the best analogy I can think of this early in the morning 😉

Arf, Comparison of AS to Farrage and then suggesting that Salmond is appealing to a target audience? That would be the majority that voted him in then,which suggests you have a fairly negative view of a significant percentage of Scots. During the course of this thread you have constantly slandered AS,despite many people asking you concentrate on the issues (one constant of this thread)
Oh and before you call anybody a liar,
Please(as asked) link us back to where you were critical of Osbourne? I mean; you told us on the last page you were...

Link to that April fool please epocycle (runs off to see if THM has his email add in his profile) 😈

😆

Only just watched the video, for ****s sake. Cant believe I didnt clock the date.

IT WAS EARLY, EARLY I SAY. 😳

flouncing

ernie_lynch - Member
"So maybe."
Which in a nutshell sums up the Yes Campaign.

Maybe, perhaps, could be, possibly, not sure, might be, don't know, all sum up the Yes Campaign's vision of an independent Scotland.

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc...

And seeing as it is today, does Dr Who work for them?

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc...

[img] [/img]

Immediately falsifiable again ducks - by design all politicians have a target audience. It's who they represent. Like Farrage, AS knows this well and he does target his message accordingly. In fact he is very good at it as the polls indicate. That doesn't make it correct (ditto UKIPs lies). Indeed, I have shown that not to be the case with respect to lots of the core issues. The fact that he persists in lying eg describing a currency as an asset, again falsifies your argument re slander. He is deliberately and consistently mis-representing the truth (remember he is a trained economist, so cannot hide begins a veil of ignorance) on a matter of crucial importance to Scotland and to the rUK. Another poster excuses this be referring to politicians as "professional liars". I think that is generous. This issue is too important to be ignored.

Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.

Any experts on the money markets here?

Has there been much reaction from them so far?

I can't see it but I'm probably not looking in the right place.

Reaction to what?

[quote=bencooper ]Though of course since the [s]warheads are mounted on Trident missiles that the UK only rents from the USA,[/s] currency has its monetary policy set by the rUK they're not really independent at the moment.

...just to bring it back on topic

Nice wriggle around points raised THM (and the band played that familiar tune)I don't expect an answer but I take it you have not said anything about the significant number of people asking you why you are so one-eyed/to concentrate on issues,is that because are we all just part of Alex's "target audience?" Or is anybody who makes either of the above suggestions a liar? You comparison to the UKIP looks like you are suggesting that the Nationalists on here are not intelligent to make up their own minds about the pro's and cons and are swallowing everything AS says,refuting that would be a positive step.
I did a bit of reading back before I posted the suggestion you had been praising GO and his stance(you did!). It would seem you provide just one concrete reason for being anti indy...[b]You might want to retire here.[/b]
Rather inconvenient if we Scots don't tow the line,eh old boy?

Oh dear duck, I can only assume that you are just trolling now. Once again your comments are immediately falsifiable. Let's take the last relevant thread on here - the budget. Actually a pretty uncontroversial budget so not easy to be massively critical on (we saw how Ed Milliband struggled and he's a pro) but hey, let's see what I said first

teamhurtmore - Member
Pretty typical budget with only one big surprise - the (positive IMO) pension changes. Great to see savers for once being recognised ditto Isas etc. Otherwise positive short term economic news [b]offset by slightly negative longer term projections. [/b]Fiscally neutral - give with one hand, take any with the other. A bit of politics - obvious pander to the active "silver" vote and the welfare cap [b]"trap" [/b]and finally the [b]hidden skulduggery - "hiding away" interest payments[/b] to the BOE (tut, tut).

Otherwise deficit better but [b]still poor[/b] and [b]more austerity to come[/b] (at best half way through) whoever wins in 2015. Plus ca change......

Hands up, there is an acknowledgement that there were some positives in the budget (shocking to admit I know) but then reference to politicking and finally skulduggery. Accusations that are not generally perceived to be positive ones. Not sure I saw to many folk (who claim to be LW) pointing out GOs skullduggery (deceit) which was odd. And the reference to the need for more austerity ie job not done. And that was just my most recent post!! In the past, plenty of reference to poor choice of policy mix, inappropriate pace of bank reform, failure to recognise that transmission mechanism remains broken (linked to policy mix), weak foundations of current recovery (despite the surprises on the upside), financial repression is akin to stealing money, and false claims of being directly responsible for the recovery. Gosh, I am biased aren't I?? With so-called friends like me, GO needs no enemies does he?

Obviously you are not going to refrain from misrepresenting what I say or to present arguments that are not immediately falsifiable - it's clear therefore why AS is so appealing for you. It's also clear that you are just trolling now - the language is a give-away (yer arse, arf etc). A bit desperate now.

In fact, instead of being hypothetical, is there a recent real life example of where a naval base was leased to a foreign power, and where we could observe whether it was the host country or the occupant of the base that controlled the weapons within the base?

Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.

I have shown that not to be the case with respect to lots of the core issues

He is deliberately and consistently mis-representing the truth

slightly negative

Sorry you went to all the trouble of digging back through your own posting history. Of course you are aware that I am referring to this thread,you don't have an axe to grind in the budget thread,I would suggest that you do on this. If my language suggests trolling, yours is what exactly? Again; how many people have asked your to tone down your rhetoric? Clearly that isn't an example of trolling,nor is this an attempt to troll.
I will bite,just for you.

it's clear therefore why AS is so appealing for you

the polls started to turn and the NO campaign self destruct after the intervention of one man

all Alasdair Darling needs to do to turn the tide of public opinion is convince him he's wrong and to back the nationalists
[img] ?w=150&h=136[/img]
😉

One thing I've learned(well had confirmed) from this thread is that truth is secondary. Its only perception that matters and everyone is fairly unique in theirs!

Since you have toned down the trolling, I will reply. No time needed, it was the most recent thread that was relevant to GO. Similarly very easy to go to my first post on this thread and the[b] very first sentence [/b]to the althepies comment that they is "nothing to stop Scotland using the pound as a currency."

In theory, possibly not. In practice there is lots.

The full disclosure on pros and cons of currency options came a few pages later (I think) or on another recent thread (no intention of digging through posting history, sorry) along with links to proposer analysis to counter the BoD's nonsense.

Change your opinion? Why bother? Since you don't read what I say, that would be a waste or time. Of course, you could falsify my argument here by going back to my recent question about finding the negative comment from the front page of the UK government's analysis of Scottish currency options (or were you misrepresenting them too?). Like waiting for Godot, I expect this to require some patience.

I have to say thm.. I disagree that the union has been so sucessful- for a reasonably small minority its been very sucessful yes, but ask folk up and down the country who have had their benefits cut or rely on the Nhs or are having to rely on foodbanks.. I'm not so sure they would agree.

Ah right, so you can cross-link threads on different subjects to back up your arguments on this thread can you? That is a new variation on the Edinburgh defense. In that case please accept my humble apology, I didn't realise I was meant to read your entire,prolific posting history.

Change your opinion? Why bother? Since you don't read what I say, that would be a waste or time.

I have to say thm.. I disagree that the union has been so sucessful- for a reasonably small minority its been very sucessful yes, but ask folk up and down the country who have had their benefits cut or rely on the Nhs or are having to rely on foodbanks.. I'm not so sure they would agree.

ATB, very true but sadly inequality is not confined to a particular political structure or culture. It's a global problem with some of the more equitable societies historically seeing the most disturbing trends now. More needs to be done to tackle inequality for sure although I have seen little evidence of any party delivering sustainable solutions. The solutions will require funding though.......

I think it was either Lamont on Newsnight or the Strugeon v Lamont debate where the backdrop showed Scotland with a bright light shining from the E'burgh-Glasgow belt and darkness elsewhere. IMO it was an appropriate image as the outcome will more likely be replacing one form of inequality with another. I am sure some will argue that a Scottish elite is better than a SE of England one. The residents of the H&Is may disagree though. Still, we know wee eck's views on those pesky troublemakers. One rule for the elite.....