[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Can this thread be deleted? Lot of people on it should do more work or spend time with their families!

I feel a special bond with this thread, clicking on it has become so much part of my daily routine that quite frankly I'm a little apprehensive about the period following the 18th of September.

Although hopefully the postmortem and obvious recriminations concerning what went wrong will extend its life beyond that.

Unless of course the nats get into a sulk after the 18th and don't want to talk about it.

If there's a yes vote then this thread should live on as a counter example to what we all said would happen vs what actually happened. I think we all know who'll have won 😉

Unless of course the nats get into a sulk after the 18th and don't want to talk about it.

On the 19th, if the vote is no, we take to the hills.

Sorry Ben, I don't think I'm getting out of bed on the 19th, regardless of the result

ernie_lynch - Member
...Unless of course the nats get into a sulk after the 18th and don't want to talk about it.

You know that Plan B that hasn't yet been revealed?... 🙂

But [url= http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/05/07/les-independantistes-ecossais-gagnent-du-terrain_4412782_3214.html ]the French don't think we will have too much of a problem[/url]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27670533 ]BBC link [/url]In case it's not been seen by all

michaelbowden - Member
BBC link In case it's not been seen by all

Oh dear, more fear.

Too bad, and if the EU does put us on ice for 3 years, I doubt there will be much enthusiasm for getting back in. Oil rich countries seem to do quite well on their own.

Or maybe Scotland could form a common market with another country leaving the EU... 🙂

On a more serious note, I have often wondered why the Commonwealth connection has not been more important to the UK than the EU. It seems to me that it presented far greater opportunities than Europe, and more so now with fast travel and communication, and it doesn't require the surrender of any sovereignty.

Business For New Europe (BNE) also claimed it would be "next to impossible" for Scotland to rejoin the EU on the UK's current terms.

And what are the chances of the UK being able to rejoin the EU on any terms, after the EU referendum takes the UK out of the EU?

The only chance Scottish businesses have of staying in the EU is if Scotland is independent - that way we won't be dragged out by the UK.

It may not be the only chance Ben but given the relative strength of Ukip in the rest of the UK compared to Scotland a Yes vote on September 18th seems a good way to stay in the EU.

Unless of course the nats get into a sulk after the 18th and don't want to talk about it.

The EU is expansionist in nature they do not want to loose any member IMHO

It is also risky politically, if iS leaves and flourishes as it will fuel the calls for other countries to leave

IMHO the EU do want them to join and I doubt anyone thinks they are incapable of creating a fudge that allows continued membership

Would be interesting if a member chose to vote against them but that is a lot of fisheries lost to the norwegian fleets 😉

The ukip is just a blip in England,they look like they are about to get a reality check in the by-election. I always wondered why we didn't have closer trade links with the USA TBH.(A serious one if anybody knows) France and Germany made sure that the UK couldn't be a dominant party in the EU/EEC before we were allowed in.

The anit EU element is fairly stable IMHO at about 25 %
the anti immigration vote is failry stable at about 6%

Combine the two and they do ok

I think the best they will achieve is to get the mainstream parties to implement UKIP ish policies re the referendum and "controlled" immigration
They themselves are a one issue party that cannot really go anywhere and are , IMHO, unlikely to become a genuine force in politics.

Interesting figures JY. Where did you get them from?

Duckman - the US is our biggest export market and our fourth biggest import market. We even have a balance of trade surplus with the US.

BBC Scotland have employed a serving politician, Kezia Dugdale as a presenter in the run up to the referendum. Imo BBC Scotland s claim to be impartial is on a very shoogly peg.

Dianne abott worked on BBC political programme This Week as did Alan Johnson now with Portillo as the counter point

Kezia Dugdale MSP will reportedly co-present a new BBC Radio Scotland show alongside pro-independence writer Andrew Wilson from 22 June.
Reports that Dugdale would present a purported replacement for the BBC’s Scottish current affairs programme Headlines first appeared on pro-independence website Bella Caledonia, which claimed the broadcaster was building towards “the biggest crisis faced by BBC Scotland since Zircon”.
It said the Labour MSP would present a programme called Crossfire.
But The Targe has heard that Dugdale will co-present alongside Andrew Wilson, who sat as a Scottish National Party MSP between 1999 and 2003.
The format means that both sides of the referendum divide – those advocating independence and those opposing it – will be nominally represented in the discussion of current affairs stories.

Yes that is really biased by the BBC there giving a voice to both sides.
[img] [/img]

Imo BBC Scotland s claim to be impartial is on a very shoogly peg.

Why ? Because they have employed a politician ? 😆

Here's another politician employed by the BBC

[img] ?w=600[/img]

And here's one employed by LBC

[img] [/img]

[url= http://thetarge.co.uk/article/current-affairs/0293/labour-msp-to-copresent-bbc-show ]Labour MSP ‘to co-present’ BBC radio show[/url]

[i]Kezia Dugdale MSP will reportedly co-present a new BBC Radio Scotland show alongside pro-independence writer Andrew Wilson from 22 June.

The format means that both sides of the referendum divide – those advocating independence and those opposing it – will be nominally represented in the discussion of current affairs stories.[/i]

Sounds perfectly reasonable and quite interesting. What are you scared of ?

I am not afraid of anything Ernie. I dont think it is good practice for BBC Scotland to give a presenting role to serving politicians in the run up to the referendum. It is also strange that BBC Scotland only managed to get a serving politician from one side.

I don't see any problem with them employing a serving politician. Though tbh it's not like their partiality is in any doubt...

Can i go on record as saying this thread is unfair as it has opinions from all sides and therefore lacks balance

From wiki

In August 2012 the BBC Trust ruled that payments to Abbott for her appearances on This Week were made in breach of BBC guidelines that banned payments to MPs who were representing their political parties.

The Trust also said that Abbott had appeared on the show too often.

gordimhor - Member

....employed a serving politician

.....a presenting role to serving politicians

.....managed to get a serving politician

What's this "serving" politician obsession ? Why are you using this as a stick to beat the BBC with ?

Are you saying that if Tony Blair was presenting a programme on BBC he wouldn't be biased because he is no longer a "serving" politician ?

Are you saying that because Andrew Wilson, the SNP politician who is co-presenting the programme, is no longer a MSP he isn't really committed to independence and therefore not biased ?

Seriously ..... wtf? You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for muck to sling at the BBC. Which actually speaks volumes.

Even by your own admission the BBC Trust keeps a careful eye over any breaches.

Shouldnt BBC Scotland be cautious in the light of those findings by the BBC trust.

Exactly, I'm sure they are extremely cautious for the reasons that you give. And Kezia Dugdale won't be representing her political party.

Offering both sides of the independence debate is perfectly reasonable. Although you obviously aren't going to say that it is. Just like you "forgot" to mention that Andrew Wilson of the SNP would be co-presenting the programme.

Just as an aside,does having oil,WMD and a despotic leader mean that America has us on the list for regime change?

Oops, time to add those nasty bullies at the IFS to the list....

in the medium term, an independent Scotland’s public finances would be in a substantially weaker position than those of the UK, unless it were to undertake further spending cuts or tax rises on top of those already pencilled in for the coming years

Have they not read the script? Honestly, these people.......

" Austerity Alex" does have a ring to it though!

I have often wondered why the Commonwealth connection has not been more important to the UK than the EU. It seems to me that it presented far greater opportunities than Europe, and more so now with fast travel and communication, and it doesn't require the surrender of any sovereignty.

And Kezia Dugdale won't be representing her political party.

Oh, well, that's all right, then, if she's said that she won't let her party affiliation affect her journalism in any way, of course we have to believe her.

The IFS thing - they've taken a one-off big drop in oil revenues and extrapolated from that.

They also confuse SNP policies with independence. To be fair, so do the SNP in their white paper, but saying that SNP policies are unaffordable is [u]not[/u] the same as saying independence is unaffordable.

They also confuse SNP policies with independence. To be fair, so do the SNP in their white paper, but saying that SNP policies are unaffordable is not the same as saying independence is unaffordable.

Oh, well, that's all right, then, if she's said that she won't let her party affiliation affect her journalism in any way, of course we have to believe her.

It's absolutely nothing to do with what "she's said", as gordimhor has very helpfully pointed out the BBC Trust won't allow breach the of BBC guidelines that ban payments to MPs who are representing their political parties.

I have no idea what her co-presenter Andrew Wilson of the SNP "has said" concerning not letting his party affiliation affect his journalism, but I'm completely unworried about him being allowed to present a programme.

But then I'm not scared of Scottish independence debates. Although who knows, perhaps I would be if I felt my case was really weak.

bencooper - Member

They also confuse SNP policies with independence. To be fair, so do the SNP in their white paper, but saying that SNP policies are unaffordable is not the same as saying independence is unaffordable.

Because to the general public, the SNP policies/whte paper, is what is being sold as the outcome of independence.

Oh, well, that's all right, then, if she's said that she won't let her party affiliation affect her journalism in any way, of course we have to believe her.

The SNP is in government and so their plans are all we have to go on.

" Austerity Alex" does have a ring to it though!

The Queen's Speech has just finished - what a brilliant opportunity for the government to show they were serious about giving Scotland more powers after a No vote. they didn't, of course - they're more serious about carrier bags.

The total mention of Scotland was "My government will continue to implement new financial powers for the Scottish Parliament and make the case for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom."

"Continue to implement" means, of course, continue with the measures already introduced in the Scotland Act 2012.

This is the concern about serving politicians, from former BBC journalist Derek Batemans blog "I resign"

I have never heard of a payroll politician being hired as a presenter, as opposed to guest, when the BBC has entered the period when impartiality is a necessity. The format is for two people to argue from opposing sides but her adversary is far outside the party machine with known views of his own developed after years outside parliament and party whip scope. Two such people would be fine. I don’t even think two serving MSPs, Labour and SNP, would work either because they act at the party’s command.

Well quite frankly I'm shocked to see that there was nothing in the Queen's Speech to satisfy the SNP and force them to abandon their desire for Scottish independence.

Seriously, with the right words coming from Her Majesty I'm sure SNP would have abandoned decades of struggle and embraced the Union.

I agree with Ben.....a wasted "opportunity".

It's not about making the SNP happy - it'd be about showing undecided and wavering No voters that they were serious about their proposals.

Guess they weren't that serious.

THM - another one for the list

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229713.100-scotland-what-if-independence-goes-horribly-wrong.html#.U48KFZSwJb4

😀

That is to say Kezia Dugdale shadow Minister for Education is very much part of the Labour party hierarchy, you cant say the same about Andrew Wilson and the SNP.

It seems to me that the BBC Trust is determined that Scotland will vote No in September.

So if it all goes wrong on the day for the nats we'll know who to blame......the BBC of course, and their cunning plan to force Scots to vote incorrectly !

Yes, because predicting what'll happen 50 years in the future always works perfectly 😉

You mean you were not persuaded by the liberal use of facts Ben 😉

SO poor I assume even THM will distance himself from it

Its also a bit misleading IMHO

for example

The problem for Scotland is that its under-65 population will shrink while its over-65s increase, putting big pressure on public finances.

The figures also show a 31% growth in the number of people of state pension age putting it up to 16.1m in 2037

ie the same problem but with more people rather than the same number.

It seems to me that the BBC Trust is determined that Scotland will vote No in September.

So if it all goes wrong on the day for the nats we'll know who to blame......the BBC of course, and their cunning plan to force Scots to vote incorrectly !

Here s the link to the debate I mentioned before
[url= http://www.broughtonspurtle.org.uk/news/scottish-independence-debate-%E2%80%93-damn-closerun-thing ]independence debate[/url]

[img] [/img]

Got to save those cymbals 😀

Well if thats your opinion Ernie

You don't share the opinion that the BBC's agenda is to influence Scots to vote no ? Really ? 🙂

Got to save those cymbals

Knowing that I'm on the other side of the debate from the supporters of a brutal colonisation of NI tells me I'm on the right side.

But they needn't weep if they lose in Sept, I'll help contribute a bit towards their new cymbals.

Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.

Uhhh

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/04/scottish-independence-alex-salmond-kim-jong-il-alistair-darling

Losing the plot, Darling?

Kim has better outfits IMHO

THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.

duckman - Member
Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.

Oh the irony if they were stopped at the border as illegal immigrants... 🙂

THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.

I am sure THM will be along soon to talk about robust statistics, lies [ its off forum its ok to say this] and such like

You don't share the opinion that the BBC's agenda is to influence Scots to vote no ? Really ?

I think the beauty if the BBC is that when in power labour moans and when in power the Tories moan

They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it.

IMHO they are often too balanced as in giving a counter view to global warming which is akin to having a faith healer on when they discuss cancer cures.

duckman - Member
THM beat him to that one by a couple of months.

Why thank you. It's always good to be ahead of the crowds.

They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it.

Luckily, there are now several rigorous academic studies showing exactly how and by how much the BBC is biased towards the No campaign. The BBC's reaction to the first - [url= http://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson-oliver-huitson/interview-bbc-bias-bullying-and-scottish-referendum ]Professor John Robertson's[/url] - was to attack him and complain to the chancellor of his university.

Interesting reading Ben ta

the tendency on both channels to demonise First Minister Salmond, to edit in offensive comments about his honesty and the deferential manner in which ‘research’ from ‘independent’ sources, mostly with an interest in preserving the Union, was treated.

Further, the undue authority conferred on quite clearly ideological agencies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility is clearly biased.

Nope it does not remind me of anyone

Junkyard - lazarus
...They do a pretty good job of being balanced IMHO - I cannot comment specifically on Scotland as i do not see much of it...

I used to believe that, but I'm aghast at the way it is behaving as a propaganda arm instead of being an unbiased organisation.

epicyclo - Member
duckman - Member
Maybe they will all head south so they are still,in their eyes,British.
Oh the irony if they were stopped at the border as illegal immigrants...

Surely there will be a control on the transfer of infectious diseases across the border?

Actually,the North Korea remark was "Alistair injecting some humour" sheesh touchy Nats. The Times Scotland section also talks about the business leaders that "are afraid to speak out" yet overlooks the fact that more abuse is given to yes campaigners. I am starting to prefer the beeb. Damn the London Times and their free tablet/sub offer!

How can the BBC be anything other than biased in reporting this story? As part of the charter it has a responsibility to maintain high levels of professional standards. Given that it is impossible to comment on large parts of the BOD and yS arguments without a wry smile or shake of the head, it is inevitable that some "bias" will result. The BBC doesn't report flat earth stories, so why on earth would they need to give any credence to similar political and economic gobbledygook? That would be a dereliction of duty and a failure of editorial standards. By all means report for comedy value and entertainment but apply appropriate critical factors in mainstream news programmes etc.

When yS present credible economic arguments they can expect a balanced level of reporting. Until then......

Add the (London/Sydney?) Times and most broadsheets to the ever-growing "long list" then ducks.

When yS present credible economic arguments they can expect a balanced level of reporting. Until then......

Yet when the Treasury presents figures that are 12 times larger than they should be, the BBC says "the SNP dispute the figures". The pattern is that everything produced by the No side is taken as gospel, any objection is portrayed as "debate".

YES THM to be neutral is to agree with your view- who could disagree?

Jesus wept man mark that post as an essay - its poor and you know it.

give any credence to similar political and economic gobbledygook?

apply appropriate critical factors

As always THM no one could disagree that you are not a shining example of what you appeal for:roll:
Critical means to defend bias as fair because you are right so they are as well- what a terrible sophist argument.

Like say claiming AS is like the north Korean leader - is that gbobledygook?

Well it's nonsense to claim that Darling said that Salmond is like the north Korean leader. What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."

Which is imo opinion is a perfectly acceptable comment, although I can understand the nats need to exploit it and feign outrage and indignation.

And although I half agree with Salmond with regards to UKIP's electoral success. That is, there is little doubt that the huge media coverage which UKIP recieve in the runup to the recent election benefited them enormously.

But it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.

It is quite frankly absurd to have expected the BBC to ignore UKIP while the rest of the media continued to give them a huge amount of publicity and coverage. Indeed if the BBC had done that questions would have been asked concerning its impartiality and biases.

Criticising what is undoubtedly the best broadcaster in the world as become hugely fashionable, and Salmond obviously couldn't resist a lazy cheap shot at the BBC.

Well it's nonsense to claim that Darling said that Salmond is like the north Korean leader. What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."

Okay 😀

But it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.

You're correct to some extent - however the BBC is unique in that it has an obligation to be unbiased (the Guardian does not) and it is publicly funded.

What he said, according to piemonster's link, is : "This is something that Kim Jong-il would say."

it is quite ridiculous to single out the BBC as being responsible for this. All the media has an equal responsibility including ITV and newspapers such as the Guardian.

Thankfully we are not at Fox News levels of news coverage but the BBC charter says they should be neutral. I think we can all accept the written media has an agenda/political stance and few would expect impartiality from them on any issue.
There are also highers standards of neutrality from the TV output than from the written one iirc due to regulation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-impartiality-introduction

What's worse than the Kim Jong-Il comment* is that yet again the No side are trying to turn this into a Scottish vs. English ethnic thing. There was debate about what else exactly Darling said in the interview, but he quite definitely said that it wasn't about civic nationalism.

The New Statesman are now desperately rowing back on whether he called it "Blood and Soil" nationalism, but the implication is still there.

*Salmond is big enough to look after himself, and it's far from the first time he's been compared to a genocidal dictator by someone who should know better.

i think it is useful tactic from no as they know many dont like AS and see this as his pet project. It makes political sense to scare folk into voting no to vote against him and his fiefdom. I dont think the argument is true tbh but i can see it works

Same with anti english - who wants to be seen as a racist or vote with some racists? hence they play this card

IMHO there is a very small percentage of scots and english who genuinely dislike each other. Racism is not a huge issue in this vote, for either side, IMHO.

The problem is it's misguided because it's viewed from a Westminster perspective. From Westminster, it makes sense to attack Salmond - no-one in England voted for him, you're not going to offend anyone.

What they forget is that a decent majority of people in Scotland voted for the SNP in the last Scottish elections. From a Scottish perspective, it's crazy.

Junkyard +1
Even by THM standards,that was a fantastic one eyed post.

What's worse than the Kim Jong-Il comment* is that yet again the No side are trying to turn this into a Scottish vs. English ethnic thing.

Hmm, "[i]Ukip is a party that gets beamed into Scotland courtesy of the BBC."[/i]

Beamed into scotland? Where else is it getting 'beamed in from'?

I particularly like the allegation that a Scottish MP criticising Salmond is now somehow a Scottish v English thing

I particularly like the allegation that a Scottish MP criticising Salmond is now somehow a Scottish v English thing

Wow, you've totally misunderstood. It's a Scottish MP calling other people in Scotland anti-English because they want independence.

a decent majority of people in Scotland voted for the SNP

Hence why it makes sense* to portray it as an SNP issue as they are below 50%.
I do not know what % satisfaction rate he is at tbh

* i always mean political sense here not truth or moral as it is clearly a distortion to do this

Wow, you've totally misunderstood. It's a Scottish MP calling other people in Scotland anti-English because they want independence.

Well, no, its not is it - because Darling [u]never actually said that did he?[/u]

its the nats putting words in other peoples mouths, because, as Ernie rightly says 'nats need to exploit it and feign outrage and indignation.'

Edit - somewhat like how they were jumping up and down in outrage yesterday over the 'blood and soil nationalism' comment that it turns out Darling never said either!

Well, no, its not is it - because Darling never actually said that did he?

It's unclear - the New Statesman first said he did, then said he didn't.

Meanwhile, the UK government is now quoting stuff from Buzzfeed to make its case:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/12-things-that-1400-uk-dividend-could-buy

I actually thought that was a spoof when I read it and double checked it

I thought that £250 million to set up a new parliament was a joke then I checked.
Holyrood: £400 million plus
Half a tramline: £700 million plus
I think my suspicions were reasonable. 😛

It's unclear - the New Statesman first said he did, then said he didn't.

Its not unclear, in fact its perfectly clear

[i]Clarification, 22.36: Owing to a transcription error, Alistair Darling was incorrectly quoted using the words "blood and soil nationalism" to describe the SNP's non-civic nationalism. The phrase was raised in conversation but not used directly by Mr Darling.[/i]

'Blood and soil nationalism' was said by the New Statesman Journo, not Darling

I thought that £250 million to set up a new parliament was a joke then I checked.
Holyrood: £400 million plus
Half a tramline: £700 million plus
I think my suspicions were reasonable

Pah, call that a joke? £692 million for five miles of motorway is a joke...

Its not unclear, in fact its perfectly clear that they said he said it then they said he did not as ben said

It is best to say they have tried to clarify their error