[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

fasternotfatter - Member
The polls are against you gordi accept it that independence is over.

Strangely the polls have been against the SNP every election I have voted in since returning to this country, and even stranger, they keep increasing their lead despite the dedication of deceased Labour voters postal votes.

Fortunately polls are not real votes.

Independence will never be over.

bencooper - Member

"Some people just don't bother to stop and think."

Yes, you're absolutely right, people voting Yes are just doing it in a whim and haven't really thought about it.

If there is one thing above all else that has become apparent during this campaign it is that the separatists haven't thought anything through.

In fact it's staggering just how much has been left to faith, hope, and bucket loads of wishful thinking.

Independence will never be over.

Indeed - what do Better Together think will happen if there's a No vote? Nearly half the population is just going to say "oh well" and forget about the idea?

The Tories in Scotland are dead. Lib Dems are almost as dead because of their links to the Tories. Labour is losing people in droves because they made a political decision to get in bed with the Tories on independence, and Ed's latest intervention isn't going to help with that.

Indeed - what do Better Together think will happen if there's a No vote? Nearly half the population is just going to say "oh well" and forget about the idea?

Please, please, please vote Yes!

I cannot face the whining coming from the Scots about hard done by they are anymore! To think that they get the referendum and then will not accept the result if it goes against them just sums them up. Behaving like a bunch of petulant teenagers.

Glasgow is now 58% Yes once you strip out the undecideds

Indeed - what do Better Together think will happen if there's a No vote? Nearly half the population is just going to say "oh well" and forget about the idea?

Assume that people will accept a democratically delivered result with some grace and be thankful that they remain in one of the most successful unions in history. - that would be a start.

(Oh and put the DO out to graze and out of harms way)

The Isle of Bute is 100% yes when you strip out undecided and no's

To think that they get the referendum and then will not accept the result if it goes against them just sums them up. Behaving like a bunch of petulant teenagers.

The minute the Indy campaign lost any chance of me voting Yes was when I was described as a "second class citizen" for daring to consider that independence might not be such a good idea with the current lot at the helm. I know "godwinning" is generally frowned upon, but history doesn't have good tales to tell of Nationalists who go around grading the worth of people based on arbitrary lines of distinction.

The Flying Ox - Member
....but history doesn't have good tales to tell of Nationalists who go around grading the worth of people based on arbitrary lines of distinction.

You're so right. A few examples of that last sentence.

Those foolish French people who wanted the Germans out of France purely for nationalistic reasons. If only they had let them stay the world would have been a much better place.

Those nasty Vietnamese who wanted the French out of Vietnam.

Those Lithuanians who wanted rid of Russia, etc etc

It's not what the greater power thinks that matters, but what the people resident in that country think.

Have a nice cup of tea and stop frothing... 🙂

Those foolish French people who wanted the Germans out of France purely for nationalistic reasons

It's a ****ing Union not an invasion!

If you really think the UK is the same as the examples you gave, you are absolutely batshit mental! 🙄

Too true gobuchul. Most of epicyclo's posts worry me.

one of the most successful unions in history.

Successful for who? If Scotland hadn't been in the union it would have had all the oil money to itself and spend a metric **** tonne less on illegal wars.

it would have had all the oil money to itself

This is what it's all about. Greed basically.

So let's not consider the last 300 years but just look at the last 30 - 40 years.

If Scotland hadn't been in the Union, the Enlightenment MAY never of happened, the Clans MAY of stayed in power in the Highlands and the country MAY of remained basically tribal and backward.

This is what it's all about. Greed basically.

Yes, Westminster wants to keep all of Scotland's oil money - the greedy swines.

We, Scotland, may also not have lost a hell of a lot of people in a hell of a lot of wars.

Yes, Westminster wants to keep all of [s]Scotland's[/s] the UK's oil money - the greedy swines.

FTFY

If Scotland hadn't been in the union it would have had all the oil money to itself and spend a metric **** tonne less on illegal wars.

I think the reference was to the last 300 years.

Britain, of which Scotland is an integral and vital component, was the birthplace of the global industrial revolution. It was for hundreds of years quite rightly regarded as "the workshop of the world".

Scotland played a very substantial role in those achievements but there is no evidence that on its own Scotland, or indeed the rest of the UK on its own, would have equaled those achievements.

In fact they almost certainly wouldn't have as the different contributions made by the various regions of the UK is what made it so successful.

We, Scotland, may also not have lost a hell of a lot of people in a hell of a lot of wars.

There hasn't been any forced conscription in the UK for a very long time. No Scot has been forced to die against their will in any war for over 50 years.

You don't need "independence" to stop Scots fighting against their will in wars. HTH

There hasn't been any forced conscription in the UK for a very long time. No Scot has been forced to die against their will in any war for over 50 years.

If we're going back to the enlightenment and industrial revolution we're going back to times when there was forced conscription. Please try and keep to the context.

times when there was forced conscription

That will be 1916 - 1918 and 1939 - 1960.

So you are saying that Scotland should sat out of WW2 had it been independent? Although, as it may well of been a poverty stricken rural economy, it may not of been of any significance.

So you are saying that Scotland should sat out of WW2 had it been independent?

No, I am saying that the decision to go to war, or not, would have been taken by the people of Scotland, not people in London. That is what the whole independence movement is all about. Major decisions which effect Scotland should be taken by the people who live here.

I am saying that the decision to go to war, or not, would have been taken by the people of Scotland, not people in London.

So, the decision to go to war would of been made by people in Edinburgh, not Glasgow/Orkney/Skye etc, even though the decision will affect the rest of the country?

If we're going back to the enlightenment and industrial revolution we're going back to times when there was forced conscription.

I'm sorry I didn't realise that you voting Yes because Scots have been forced to fight against their will for over 300 years 😆

BTW it does amusing me to see saltire waving mel gibson wannabes emphasising the pacifist credentials of Scots, and how they have been forced to fight against their will by the more savage warlike inhabitants of these islands

[img] [/img]

😀

So, the decision to go to war would of been made by people in Edinburgh, not Glasgow/Orkney/Skye etc, even though the decision will affect the rest of the country?

Your argument is stupid. Edinburgh is in Scotland, London isn't.

gobuchul - Member
"Those foolish French people who wanted the Germans out of France purely for nationalistic reasons"
It's a **** Union not an invasion!

If you really think the UK is the same as the examples you gave, you are absolutely batshit mental!

I did try to make it clear I was addressing your last sentence and your use of nationalism as a negative concept, so I simply gave a few examples where nationalism was a force for good for the people of those respective countries.

Try having that cup of tea, and don't worry, I don't regard the Union as an invasion, it's more like a toxic marriage.

The divorce hearing starts in 39 days. 🙂

Edinburgh is in Scotland, London isn't.

I would suggest that the people of Edinburgh have more in common with Londoners than they do with the people of Skye or Orkney.

I did try to make it clear I was addressing your last sentence and your use of nationalism as a negative concept,

Not sure what you are on about?
When did I say that?

Glasgow is now 58% Yes once you strip out the undecideds

lol

Glad I've amused you. How else would you do it to reflect voting intentions? Glasgow is going to vote Yes, according to this survey of 1000 people.

This is what it's all about. Greed basically.

Yes, I admit it, I'm greedy. I want schools and hospitals instead of nuclear weapons. It's selfish of me to want to educate and help people when we could incinerate them in a nuclear fireball instead.

I want schools and hospitals instead of nuclear weapons

I thought we had all three?

Disarmament is always such a good idea in the real World.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement ]Peace in Our Time[/url]

I thought we had all three?

More schools and hospitals would be better, surely?

Disarmament is always such a good idea in the real World.

Peace in Our Time

Who are we appeasing? Who could we conceivably use nuclear weapons against without being obliterated? Russia? Terrorists?

Someone's been reading way too much Tom Clancy.

ernie_lynch - Member
...BTW it does amusing me to see saltire waving mel gibson wannabes emphasising the pacifist credentials of Scots, and how they have been forced to fight against their will by the more savage warlike inhabitants of these islands

Apart from the gratuitous insult re Mel Gibson*, that's a reasonable statement.

One of the contradictions of the independence campaign is we see people (me included) pointing out the benefits of not having to spend money killing overseas foreigners. Meanwhile others are lamenting the reductions of the great Scottish regiments as a reason for independence.

*It's not Gibson we admire, it's what William Wallace achieved.

Who could we conceivably use nuclear weapons against without being obliterated? Russia? Terrorists?

Complete failure to understand how a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent works.

Someone's been reading way too much Tom Clancy.

I can honestly say I have never got past the first chapter on any of his books. 🙂

Complete failure to understand how a Strategic Nuclear Deterrent works.

Okay, explain it to me. The principle is that no-one dares attack us because we'd respond. But with the Trident fleet and missiles we'd have, we are not capable of delivering an all-out response against Russia (the only possible enemy here) - all we can do is really, really piss them off.

Which wouldn't be clever.

The UK's nuclear deterrent only really made sense in the Cold War where there was one enemy, and only made sense when it was part of the US nuclear deterrent. It makes no sense now.

[url= http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-chocolate-teapot/ ]A good analysis here.[/url]

I did try to make it clear I was addressing your last sentence and your use of nationalism as a negative concept, so I simply gave a few examples where nationalism was a force for good for the people of those respective countries.

So back to the point at hand: is it OK for me to be a second class citizen based upon how I vote? Can we speculate on what wonders await me and my family in this new, fairer, two-tier Scotland? Will we be allowed to continue living where we do, or would the elite prefer we were all in one place where you can keep an eye on us? It might help your cause if you were to provide the No voters with some kind of identifying mark.

disclaimer: I don't make these comments with a 100% serious head on, but the Facebook posts of the Indy guy at work and his Yes campaign friends prevent me from saying it's 100% in jest. There is some real anger, bordering on hatred, towards those who don't want independence.

But with the Trident fleet and missiles we'd have, we are not capable of delivering an all-out response against Russia

What?

Now a complete failure to understand the capability of a Vanguard Class Submarine.

Each sub carries 40 x 475kt warheads. Even a single sub could make a huge mess. If 3 of the 4 subs were available then I think that would be more than an "all-out" response. To put things into context Hiroshima was 16kt.

Glasgow is now 58% Yes once you strip out the undecideds

If you strip out those that have decided to vote yes or no, the whole of Scotland is undecided.

Now a complete failure to understand the capability of a Vanguard Class Submarine.

I know the capability - as you said, 40 warheads. Russia has over 1000 land-based warheads, about 100 on subs, and another 200 or so on long-range bombers. 40 vs. 1300 isn't an all-out response, it's tickling a giant and getting swatted.

Read that analysis I linked to.

If you strip out those that have decided to vote yes or no, the whole of Scotland is undecided.

Well, yes, but that would be silly. Do I really need to explain how polling works?

You look at the number of people who say they'll vote Yes. You look at the number who say they'll vote No. If the Yes number is larger, then Yes is in the lead. A way of showing how far in the lead is found by stripping out the undecideds to show what kind of swing would be needed to change the result.

40 vs. 1300 isn't an all-out response, it's tickling a giant and getting swatted.

Are you serious.

If you delivered 40 x 475kt warheads you could destroy all of the principal cities in Russia. Hardly tickling.

Besides, the main reason to have them is so you don't have to use them.

I would suggest that the people of Edinburgh have more in common with Londoners than they do with the people of Skye or Orkney.

I would suggest that Edinburgh is a small city with less than 500,000 people living in it. It makes very little difference what the people of Edinburgh think if the rest of Scotland choose to vote differently. It's a bit like the ratio of Scotland to rUK in that respect. The smaller place is so greatly outnumbered that it has effectively no say in the matter.

If you delivered 40 x 475kt warheads you could destroy all of the principal cities in Russia. Hardly tickling.

Great, so the only effective use for these weapons is to kill millions of civilians - that's neither moral, or militarily effective.

So, run through the scenario. Say we're getting involved in a war with Russia - at what point do we launch the nukes? If Russia invades the Ukraine? If Russia invades Western Europe? If Russian aircraft invade our airspace?

Bearing in mind that, as soon as we launch the nukes, the UK ceases to exist.

So when does it make more sense to launch the nukes than not launch them? Never.

Besides, the main reason to have them is so you don't have to use them.

That only works if your opponent thinks you might carry out your threat. Since there's no way we could use the nukes without being obliterated, there's no scenario apart from all-out nuclear war where they would be used. And in all-out nuclear war we'd all be dead, so it wouldn't matter.

Also, if nuclear weapons are such a vital part of national defence, why do most countries not have them?

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound? After seeing how much trouble the Euro is to small countries like Greece and Germany effectively controlling their budgets why is he so keen on a currency union if he wants independence? Seems a no brainer that Scotland could have it's own currency though I guess it has the possibility of being a petro currency. He just seems to be shooting himself in the foot being so inflexible and he sounds a bit crazy saying it is Scotland's pound and the rest of the UK must let them share it.

Also, if nuclear weapons are such a vital part of national defence, why do most countries not have them?

Or another question is "Who could we nuke 40 times that wouldnt lead to us being wiped off the face of the planet?"

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?

Salmond first said that a iS would have a member on the BOE Monetary Policy Committee but he's since changed his mind to only having an observer.
It makes little sense for an independent country to have no influence on it's interest rates, they'd be better off starting fresh with their own currency.

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?

There was an independent Commission set up to look into it, comprising a bunch of experts including a couple of Nobel Prize winners. They came back with several options, and said that the preferred option was for Scotland to continue to use Sterling as part of a currency union, and that was the best option for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

So Salmond is keen on it because the experts said it was the best option.

Whereas Osborne's objection to it is based on a three-page memo produced on demand by one civil servant.

Whereas Osborne's objection to it is based on a three-page memo produced on demand by one civil servant.

.......... and public opinion in rUK

.......... and public opinion in rUK

Which was what before the three-page memo and the better together scare tactics?