Osbourne says no to currency union.

Home Forum Chat Forum Osbourne says no to currency union.

Viewing 40 posts - 2,161 through 2,200 (of 12,715 total)
  • Osbourne says no to currency union.
  • ernie_lynch
    Member

    simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your spin.

    What inaccuracies ? I have pointed out that Tory governments, despite all the spin, do not reduce the UK tax burden. You have not provided any shred of evidence that my claim is inaccurate. All you’ve provided is a lot of spin about “peaks”, and lots of attempts at pointless point scoring, as you usually do.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    wrote:

    I have pointed out that Tory governments, despite all the spin, do not reduce the UK tax burden. You have not provided any shred of evidence that my claim is inaccurate.

    I have mentioned Heath once or twice…

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    If you have to go back over 40 years before you can find any evidence at all that a Tory government has actually reduced the tax burden, then it very much makes my point, ie, despite all the spin Tory governments do not reduce the tax burden. Thank you for your help in proving that.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Fiscal policy includes taxation (input) AND government spending (output). Far more informative to compare both together, hence the Guardian graph. Who delivers the biggest gap between the two (the deficit) and who delivers the surplus (albeit temporary)?

    Following on from Q2, who forget his Keynesian training and why did he/they screw it up afterwards – hubris?

    Of course none of this matters because in “La La Land” you can (uniquely) cut tax and raise revenue for ever, no wonder people want to vote yes!!!!

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    wrote:

    If you have to go back over 40 years

    As opposed to going back over 30? Of course the difficulty is if you’re wanting to compare with the year immediately before a Tory government took power you have to go back over 30, or over 40 – and it seems you’re happy with a single data point.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Yes thank you aracer, from now on I will say that it’s been over 40 years since the Tories last reduced the tax burden.

    Well done for “demolishing” my argument.

    🙄

    Junkyard
    Member

    Far more informative to compare both together,

    Still looks worse under Tories to me [ I would say that] but there is very little in it IMHO

    Who delivers the biggest gap between the two (the deficit) and who delivers the surplus (albeit temporary)?

    Is that not labour for both points? Not sure I get what you are trying to say here tbh.
    However in general [ despite the big hitting] I am not sure there is much disagreement
    Tories tend to not cut taxes but say they do

    Shall we move back to the topic and call AS a BS lying ****?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Your argument being that neither the last Tory government nor the current coalition have reduced the tax burden, hence Tory government(s) don’t reduce the tax burden?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    junkyard wrote:

    there is very little in it IMHO

    I was going to suggest that we can all agree with that, but not sure that’s the case, so I’ll simply say that I agree.

    Shall we move back to the topic and call AS a BS lying ****?

    Surely we can all agree with that? No?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    I’ve got evidence that over 40 years ago AS said something which wasn’t a lie, so no, you’re all wrong.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Linky or I don’t believe it, ernie

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    AS even published a very big book recently outlining the case against independence – so he tells the truth (indirectly) on the odd occasion!

    sbob
    Member

    bencooper – Member

    So much uncertainty either way.

    Or perhaps a massive amount more uncertainty with independance.
    I’m not sure how you could claim anything else, unless you’ll say anything to try and convince people to vote yes.

    Hmmm….

    mt
    Member

    Can we move on please. Just why we feel Scotland worth all this waffle. Yorkshire is far more worthy of freedom from the oppression of Westminster. We’ll not be needing the pound as we spend nowt.

    bencooper
    Member

    Or perhaps a massive amount more uncertainty with independance.

    How do you quantify uncertainty?

    Scotland has a strong economy. No-one – not Cameron, not Osborne, not Darling – denies that Scotland would manage fine after independence. So what’s uncertain? Details around currency and EU membership are the main ones that are vexing people.

    Well, EU membership is already at threat because of the Westminster government’s plans for an in-out referendum. And currency – well depends on whether you think the UK economy is in safe hands at the moment.

    The other uncertainty is whether you think Scotland is grown up enough to look after it’s own affairs – or are we too poor, too wee, too stupid to look after ourselves?

    irelanst
    Member

    The No campaign’s real trump card is uncertainty. You can’t be sure what’ll happen if you vote Yes, so best play it safe and vote No

    Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If they do their job properly then there is no uncertainty, just a list of outcomes, options and explanation about how these will become reality. Wasn’t there a big white booklet which cost millions to produce and distribute which would dispel all of the uncertainty?

    whatnobeer
    Member

    Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If they do their job properly then there is no uncertainty, just a list of outcomes, options and explanation about how these will become reality. Wasn’t there a big white booklet which cost millions to produce and distribute which would dispel all of the uncertainty?

    If they were to go though and spell out the possibilities and what they would like to do based on every possible decision that could be make that is out of their hands the book would be an awful awful lot bigger.

    As far as I can tell they’ve done about as much as they can. They’ve listed their policy position, what they want to achieve and the effects they think it will have, which is a more than any of the No parties have done. The truth is in the case of a yes vote the SNP will carry out the process and then there will an election and which point any of the political policies that would occur after independence could be changed. Not a lot of point looking further than that.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Scotland has a strong economy.

    The South East has a strong economy. In fact the economy of London and the South East has expanded almost twice as fast as the rest of the country since the 2008 financial crisis, and now a quarter of the UK’s population is responsible for half of the UK’s growth.

    Does that make the case that an independent South East of England would be financially sound ? Of course not. It is precisely because the South East is part of a much larger country that it is doing so well. Without the rest of the UK the South East would be up Shit Creek without a paddle.

    It does probably make the case for the rest of the UK to break away from the South East though 🙂

    bencooper
    Member

    There is one big flaw with the White Paper – it assumes after independence a Scottish government would be negotiating with a rational Westminster government who is interested in an amicable settlement that benefits the rUK.

    The White Paper doesn’t anticipate the Westminster government taking a massive huff, refusing any kind of currency negotiation, and threatening to put guard posts along the border.

    gordimhor
    Member

    Isn’t it the Yes campaigns role to advise people how Scotlands future will pan out after a yes vote? If their job properly then there is no uncertainty

    The UK government is deliberately preventing access to the EU commission and therefore causing the uncertainty .

    sbob
    Member

    gordimhor – Member

    The UK government is deliberately preventing access to the EU commission and therefore causing the uncertainty.

    One aspect of uncertainty out of many many more.

    bencooper
    Member

    One aspect of uncertainty out of many many more.

    Please give examples – I’m trying to quantify whether, say, things are more uncertain after 5 years of independence or 5 years staying in the union.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Ben Cooper wrote:

    There is one big flaw with the White Paper – it assumes after independence a Scottish government would be negotiating with a rational Westminster government who is interested in an amicable settlement that benefits the rUK. Scotland

    Fixed that for you, on the basis that you’re referring to the currency “asset”. Have you still not noticed that the currency argument is done – the research has been done and suggests that it would not be to the benefit of rUK to have a currency union, so I’m not sure what you think there is to negotiate.

    sbob
    Member

    Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
    Jobs leaving Scotland.
    Loss of trade.
    The many costs of becoming independant.
    Et cetera.

    I’m trying to quantify

    You’re really not.
    You’re trying to find any way to promote the Yes vote whilst ignoring anything that might suggest it isn’t a good idea.
    Be honest with yourself.

    I’d rather maintain the union, because I like the way the UK is made up of several different entities each with their own identity.
    Maybe that’s because I’m the product of Grandparents all of differing nationalities, I’m not sure.

    What I am sure of is that there is a lot of uncertainty regarding the Yes vote, and anyone who pretends that it will be definitely a positive or a negative outcome is talking out of their ‘arris.

    bencooper
    Member

    Fixed that for you

    Not really – surveys show that most people and businesses in the rUK think a currency union makes sense.

    Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
    Jobs leaving Scotland.
    Loss of trade.
    The many costs of becoming independant.

    What businesses? Some have said that they’re making contingency plans just in case everything goes wrong, but of course they are – every business does, and it doesn’t mean they think they’ll need the contingency plans.

    The costs are more than offset by the savings, not having to pay for Trident and the many other things where Westminster has different spending priorities to Holyrood.

    Maybe that’s because I’m the product of Grandparents all of differing nationalities, I’m not sure.

    Yeah, me too – two grandparents from Manchester, two from New York State. Not quite sure why grandparents come into this.

    sbob
    Member

    The costs are more than offset by the savings

    This is a prime example of you offering up an opinion as fact.

    You have absolutely no idea how much it could end up costing Scotland, no one does.

    bencooper
    Member

    You have absolutely no idea how much it could end up costing Scotland, no one does.

    One can make guesses by looking at similarly-sized countries around the world.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Ben Cooper wrote:

    Not really – surveys show that most people and businesses in the rUK think a currency union makes sense.

    Do they? Linky?

    In any case, the important question is what those people who know about such things say is to the benefit of rUK, not what man in the street (who doesn’t appreciate the downsides for the rUK of currency union) thinks. Nor is it what the SNP thinks is to the benefit of rUK.

    whatnobeer
    Member

    Businesses pulling out of Scotland.
    Jobs leaving Scotland.
    Loss of trade.
    The many costs of becoming independant.
    Et cetera.

    And equally the exact opposite could happen. It’s all guess work and scaremongering.

    sbob
    Member

    bencooper – Member

    One can make guesses by looking at similarly-sized countries around the world.

    What countries of similar size, political system and economy are you comparing with?

    sbob
    Member

    And equally the exact opposite could happen. It’s all guess work and scaremongering.

    It’s definitely guesswork.

    piemonster
    Member

    Do they? Linky?

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/16/opposition-currency-union-rises-sharply-england-an/

    I’ve not seen any later than this. However, I have seen earlier polls taken before people had been informed/scaremongers as to what it would really mean. These happened to be much more positive.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    was kind of after a linky supporting ben’s assertion 😉

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Ben, I believe that you are mistaken on two fronts (1) clear opposition to currency union in rUK * and (2) the responsibility of the gov or the rUK is to protect/maximise the interests of rUK – its that simple. They would have no direct responsibility towards the interests of a foreign country. It would be naive to assume that there would be a nice, smooth and easy adjustment process (for either side).

    * Beyond public opinion (since that doesn’t matter in practice), official advice has been requested and given re the Currency Union and the result was clear (no) and accepted by all three main political parties. It is off-the-agenda. Of course, we eck’s team are working on plan c now, so he maintains his bluster in the embarrassing interim, but that is irrelevant. The potential costs of no currency union (ie transaction costs) are dwarfed by the assymetric risks associated with one. Only a fool would recommend accepting that unless there was clear control of all fiscal and monetary levers etc which is not what you folk are voting for. Fortunately, the government are not being advised by fools.

    Time (long overdue) for Plan C….

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    I have no idea if Harvard educated economist Professor David Simpson is a fool but he claims :

    Currency union would benefit rUK more than iScotland

    Quote :

    It would actually be in Scotland’s greater self-interest to use the pound unilaterally …..

    The absence of a central bank with lender of last resort facilities is “an advantage, not a disadvantage” as it discourages the risky behaviour that sparked the recent banking crisis, he said.

    “Indeed, this would not only be possible but, if Scottish interests alone were to count, it would be desirable. It would deliver the main benefits of a currency union of low transactions costs, no set up costs, no exchange rate risk, without some of the costs.”

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    In his case, perhaps less a fool but more a maverick. Basic argument, without a lender of last resort, banks wouldn’t take (much) less risk as there is no back-up. Nice theory, but practice over centuries says the opposite.

    In the “real world”, FS industry in Scotland is pretty clear and making contingencies already – imagine what would happen to your borrowing costs if there was no lender of last resort? Stay the same, come down….hardly!!

    …. if Scottish interests alone were to count…..

    They don’t. Needs agreement with rUK and rUK ‘s position is clear. “No” and “call his bluff.” – all freely available on the web too with supporting reasons.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    I think an interesting observation in this thread is that it seems mostly the englandshirists that are pro no and the scotlandshirists are mostly pro yes.

    Which is surprising on this board, other boards I go on there are place where it’s abotu 90% yes so you can hardly read anything into that. but i’m quite surprised and encouraged about my general sense of things here. 🙂 Or that could just be my sense, I think a thread poll may be interesting viewing.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    They don’t. Needs agreement with rUK and rUK ‘s position is clear.

    Have you read the link ?

    “It would be quite possible for Scotland to keep the pound following independence without entering into any formal currency union”

    Btw you’re arguing with Professor David Simpson, not me.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    The HM Treasury one (yes) and that’s the one that counts, the herald’s? Only as far as a non-registration allows but I have read his arguments before. Interesting in theory, perhaps a bit late? But the logic is quite appealing for a libertarian!!

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    I posted a straw poll in a new thread. 🙂

Viewing 40 posts - 2,161 through 2,200 (of 12,715 total)

The topic ‘Osbourne says no to currency union.’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top