[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

I think it's a good thing, yes.

The complaint above is specifically about how MoD cuts have been deeper in Scotland than elsewhere, which is a different complaint.

I was referring to how the country voted not how individuals voted and you know this

Its is a simple and undeniable fact/reality that the nation of Scotland did not vote for and would not have the current govt were it iS. At least THM has the sense to not even try and explain why this is more freedom than independence as he realises it is impossible to argue this.

You don't always get the government you voted for. That's true for all of us and in any democracy, that's the point I was trying to make. So you didn't get the Government you voted for this time but you did have one Scotland voted for last time with a representative at the highest level. FWIW I don't think the budget cuts etc would have been much different under Labour. Labour was never going to get in after the debacle of the banking crises, Iraq war and Brown's personal lack of credibility with the voters.

THM is much more sensible than me, its not fair but that's the way it is. 😕

@ben, on MOD cuts I don't have the figures but is it possible that the UK had borne more than its "fair share" of cuts in the past (Scotland protected by Brown) and that's being addressed in the latest round ? I don't know. I do know the cuts to the MoD in the past 10+ years have been pretty savage all round.

In that case I would have been nicer

I agree we dont all get the govt we voted [ unless its North Korea 😉 ] for but when it is a country it will smart a bit more- we did this when folk compared constituencies etc and I assume we all agree countries are different from individuals and constituencies

I dont live in Scotland to be clear. I dont even sound Scottish anymore but dont you ever ever call me English to my face as thems fighting words 😉

jambalaya - Member

You don't always get the government you voted for. That's true for all of us and in any democracy, that's the point I was trying to make. So you didn't get the Government you voted for this time but you did have one Scotland voted for last time with a representative at the highest level

Scotland has had the government it voted for less than half the time since the war. I don't know the numbers for the Welsh but I doubt it's so different. (NI is a bit of a special case with their unique parties). How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

I don't have the figures but is it possible that the UK had borne more than its "fair share" of cuts in the past (Scotland protected by Brown) and that's being addressed in the latest round ?

No, the figures don't show that:

Between 2000 and 2010 Ministry of Defence personnel in Scotland were cut by 27.9%. This is much higher than the equivalent UK cut of 11.6%.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/12-defence-facts-that-the-no-campaign-dont-want-you-to-know/

Some parts of the country have governments they dont vote for 100% of the time - that is inescapable as Jamabalaya points out.

Hence defining independence in terms of well we wont get a certain type of outcome (eg the bedroom tax) is pretty silly when you think about it. The whole argument will follow a path of reductio ad absurdam as one elite is replaced by another. Tis always the way.

But with "freedom" you will have a foreign government setting the levers of power over the economy without any or with minimal reference to what is happening domestically. So odd-on bet that you actually have less freedom than before with zero representation. And that's progress?

And that's progress?

Yes. Because if we don't like how those levers are being pulled, our government - the one we voted for - can do something about it.

At the moment the levers are set to benefit the City, not Scotland (or the North, or Wales, etc), and we can't do anything about it. With independence, we can.

No they cant, thats the whole point. AS proposals require sovereignty to be ceded. This whole thread is about the impact of choosing a currency union as the "supposed" best option for Scotland (and the rUK, hic!).

Now if AS stood up and said, we want to have an independent Scottish pound that may be fixed, floating or some hybrid, then the arguments that you make may start to have some/more validity. At the moment, they don't which is why I come back to Keynes' comment about "who controls the currency."

No they cant, thats the whole point.

Sure they can. they can say "this currency union thing isn't working for Scotland, we're going to work towards joining the Euro" or whatever.

Remember the impact of a change in the price of NS Oil will have differing impacts on the economies of iS and rUK. But interest rates and fiscal policy will be set in the context solely of the impact on one party - rUK. So policy conflicts are likely to more significant not less significant in the event of a yes vote. But now you cant even exercise "any" democratic influence over the decision makers - now that may well lead to justifiable accusations of bullying. Be careful what you ask for!

That would be even worse. The Scottish economy is far more aligned with the economy of the rUK than with the economies of the € area.

The choice of a CU with rUK is a clear a message as possible that the interest of Scotland are best served by a union with rUK. And guess who is proposing that!?! 😉

and the cost of all these changes of mind........?

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect, who act to benefit the City. We lose out in EU funding, in farming and fishery policies, in investment and other areas. And we have no control over it.

With independence, sure - we're still at the mercy of larger forces. But at least we can do something - we'd have representation in Europe, we'd have the ability to decide which currency unions we want to join (as compared to the one we're in now, which we didn't choose), we'd be able to make our own decisions.

Well happy for you to believe that Ben if you want. But I fear you will be ultimately be disappointed. But at least in that case, there would be no one else to blame! 😉

Bon apetit!

But at least in that case, there would be no one else to blame!

Honestly, I think this is a very good reason for independence. We need to be able to make our own mistakes, instead of just taking the easy route and blaming someone else.

Though I'm sure you'll still blame the English 😉

How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

Some parts of the country

We all agree if you compare chalk and cheese they look different
Please reference countries and not constituencies.

Hence defining independence in terms of well we wont get a certain type of outcome (eg the bedroom tax) is pretty silly when you think about it. The whole argument will follow a path of reductio ad absurdam as one elite is replaced by another. Tis always the way.

But with "freedom" you will have a foreign government setting the levers of power over the economy

So odd-on bet that you actually have less freedom than before with zero representation.

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect,

you are correct that any currency union [ or indeed union] involves the ceding of some powers but these powers are clearly less than NOT BEING ABLE TO CHOSE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!
Its impossible to argue otherwise hence why you barely even try and just repeat your claim

THM you teach and you mark . You know you would mark this essay poorly as a one sided polemic that barely addresses the central issue or question asked
[b]Nothing can be a greater restriction of a countries freedom than not having the govt you voted for and having one imposed by another countries choices.[/b] this is the current scenario.
yes iS has other compromises that mean it is not completely free [ no country is IMHO] and it may even be less free in some areas than the UK currently or rUK afterwards. These are reasonable points but the point [emboldened] still stands and you cannot counter it.

You cannot even engage on it as you know you will be batting on a loosing wicket.

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

*I use this as shorthand for "people living in Scotland/England" - place of birth or family background has nothing to do with it.

Scotland has had the government it voted for less than half the time since the war.

Since 1945 there have been 18 elections, the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted in 9 of them. Or looking at it slightly differently, from 1945 to present date is 69 years, the government Scotland voted for has been in power for 37 of them. So Scotland has had the government they voted for more than half of the time. Not a bad result for <10% of the electorate?

(based on % votes cast, since the Scottish are all about PR)

How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

4 – again based on % votes cast, (not including the current government though).

Beaten to it! England (sic, imagine if we had said that!) or the UK has had plenty of experience of gov without an outright majority (especially in terms of votes cast) It's a non point, albeit like the currency = assets one, a seductive one that the SNP uses well.

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2014/04/getting-government-that-we-vote-for.html

the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted in 9 of them

Another way of looking at that - the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted [b]when what they wanted agreed with the rest of the UK electorate[/b].

Another way of looking at it is that the way Scotland votes has almost no influence:

[img] [/img]

bencooper - Member

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

*I use this as shorthand for "people living in Scotland/England" - place of birth or family background has nothing to do with it.

I don't think so personally, I think there will be a great deal of resentment in the event of either a no or a yes vote.

Mr Salmond certainly hasn't helped by saying things like this about the UK to other nations:

"An independent Scotland, as an equal member state, will bring a positive, cooperative voice to the EU, in contrast to the often sullen, disengaged voices that have spoken on our behalf since Margaret Thatcher's speech in this city more than a quarter of a century ago.

On an unrelated note I also saw this today and thought it was quite interesting:

"The idea that Ukip's popularity in much of the rest of the UK represents a fundamental divergence in British social attitudes appears to be based on little evidence. This is especially important at the moment given the context of the referendum. There is a striking level of support for Ukip policies among Scottish Conservative and SNP voters. It appears from this data that the principle difference is in party affiliation rather than social attitude."

Overall, 68.4 per cent of those surveyed backed Ukip's headline pledge to impose stricter immigration controls.

Among Conservatives, the figure rose to 84.4 per cent. The policy was also backed by 68.8 per cent of SNP voters, 67.5 per cent of Labour voters and 60.2 per cent of LibDems.

the UK has had plenty of experience of gov without an outright majority (especially in terms of votes cast)

FPTP does not give a majority in terms of votes cast we all know this How many hung parliaments have we had for you to consider them many?Can I have this as percentage please so we can see what you mean by many - is it less than 10 % - less than 5 % ? Whatever it is is it not many it very few and extremely rare.

Your website ask a question that is easy to answer

Whichever party got the most seats in Scotland [ via the flawed FPTP system] gets the most seats in UK and forms the govt as it would in Scotland were it independent - its not that hard to get is it?
I hope you would mark that poorly as well as it sophist at best and quite possible specious.

Scotland has had the government it voted for

All of Scotland?

What about the Borders? Since when have they got the government they voted for? How about the Highlands and Islands, have they got the government they voted for?

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect, who act to benefit the City.

We all know some constituencies [ unless we have a north korea style election] will vote for other parties who do not win.
I assume we all know why a constituency is different from a country

If you do not perhaps we should start with something easy like say which is you arse and which is your elbow 😉

Not really - Imagine if Bavaria threatened to leave Germany every time it didn't get the government it wanted in Berlin 🙄

What about that idea merits roley eyes?

OK i have imagined it now what is your point/scribble?

OK i have imagined it now what is your point/scribble?

I thought that was pretty clear - Scotland has differing patterns of voting. Some areas will therefore not get the Government they voted for. How small do you break the a country down before you decide the democracy is local enough?

Imagine if Bavaria threatened to leave Germany every time it didn't get the government it wanted in Berlin

Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

Yorkshire never gets the government it wants, it's own based in York.
When it happens Yorkshire will be run a federal system with each Riding (and South Yorkshire)would have its own MP's that meet once a month. Preferably in the back room a good pub (there are so many a rotation system of public houses would really bring representation to your area). Decent Yorkshire beer only will be served. They'd to ave pay for thier own pints tough.

bencooper - Member
Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions? Won't catch on, they wouldn't use the powers to adjust things like tax to reflect local conditions even if you gave them the opportunity, would they?

bencooper - Member
Germany has a federal system which is quite a bit more democratic than the Westminster system.

If the UK had a federal system, Scottish independence would be a non-issue.

+1

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions?

True, Gordi hence the words, "kind of like" rather than just "like". There are similarities though leaving aside the most fundamental difference that you note correctly.

Ben, in addition to those extra ST costs associated with MOD in Scotland how about other areas. How honest has AS been about all of this. How about setting up the tax scheme? (The one that will be "monitored/managed" by the rUK as part of the CU). So are those Chartered Accountants simply scaremongering. When they say things like

The Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland (ICAS)......questioned claims in the White Paper that set-up and running costs for a new tax system would be “a small proportion of an independent Scotland’s total budget”.ICAS said “less complex” changes to the tax system in New Zealand cost about £750million and a breakaway Scotland could expect the outlay to be “significantly greater”.

The report, called Scotland’s Tax Future: Taxes Explained, said: “[b]The White Paper falls short of the informative and detailed financial memorandum that might be expected to accompany even the smallest piece of parliamentary legislation at Holyrood or Westminster at the moment[/b].

Do we just add another B to get bullying, bluffing, blustering bean-counters now?

Scotland has differing patterns of voting. Some [b]areas[/b] will therefore not get the Government they voted for. How small do you [b]break the a country down[/b] before you decide the democracy is local enough?

How honest has AS been about all of this

What, kind of like having devolved assemblies for different regions? Won't catch on, they wouldn't use the powers to adjust things like tax to reflect local conditions even if you gave them the opportunity, would they?

Indeed!

We all accept countries have rights that areas within a country dont

Go on then...

An interesting article about the English-in-Scotland thing:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-fall-guys/

I think he's got an interesting point - the difference in voting intention between Scottish-born and English-born might well be a generational thing.

The difference in voting yes might be a lack of reality thing. 😀

Or a class/wealth thing - if your father-in-law owns a 300-acre highland estate, like David Cameron's, you're probably more inclined to want to keep the unruly Scots in their place 😉

Really, though, I think the Scottish/English thing is overplayed - most English-born people I know are voting Yes. Though that's probably skewed by the kind of people I know.

Go on then..

No one is really confused about this not even you.