[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to "no thanks" posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

Even yes supporters that are honest with themselves know that no thanks posters are more likely to be attacked, and many no voters would be wary of displaying pro UK sentiment openly.

government by SPAD, the future for iS?

Special advisers, the political appointees who brief journalists and enforce ministers’ wishes, are in many cases the instruments of that pressure. In a pamphlet for the Institute for Government, Sir John Elvidge, Peter Housden’s predecessor as permanent secretary, described how SNP special advisers now sit round the Scottish cabinet table and contribute freely to discussions, even as the number of elected politicians in the cabinet has been reduced. “There is no such precedent, as far as I am aware, for special advisers being at the table or allowed to speak as part of discussions at cabinet,” he said.

big-n-daft - i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?
what are the pros of government by SpAds?

athgray - Member
A yes poster defaced is unacceptable, however this has apparently happened to "no thanks" posters across Scotland. These posters should not be defaced as they are more than just political posters. If it was against a political party I could almost let it go, but people are voting on more than just politics.

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

So judging by what you are saying the Yes side has more bampots.

Following from that there must be more Yes voters, so the referendum is as good as won. 🙂

Although if it's No, maybe this is what will happen

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable.

[quote=piemonster ]
And what are you doing in here anyway. You'll rot your brain.
Well, if you won't answer your emails....

wanmankylung - Member

big-n-daft - i am going to ask you two questions:

what are the cons of government by SpAds?

what are the pros of government by SpAds?

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

Well, if you won't answer your emails....

Well, I have ordered something from On One.

Will be in touch in the next few days.

I have a question for you, is having SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit. Naive to think that I know, but we can live in hope.

So I repeat my comment

Meh, whatever 😉

I've not seen any vandalised Yes or No signs. But the only No signs have been a couple of big ones out Strathblane way, and that's a long way to go.

From what I'm seeing, the campaign in real life is much more civilised and respectful than it is online.

athgray - Member

There's bampots on both sides who do that sort of thing, no doubt in equal proportion.

On the issue of poster defacing I completely disagree with that statement.

I think there are plenty of yes bampots regretting that someone else got to deface a poster before they got the chance. I also reckon plenty of people would find it funny and acceptable.

Hmmm, from this very thread,

hels - Member

Somebody in a village near me put up one of those big white Yes signs on their property next to the road. Local wag has already drawn pubic hair on the Y. This could get entertaining....

and here is your funny and acceptable

jambalaya - Member

@hels - we need a photo

Also perhaps that could be the symbol for the new Scottish currency

and

hels - Member

I will try and get a pic - was driving and didn't have time to stop. Will take a can of spray paint just in case.

and

hels - Member

Although in reflection, for maximum amusement he should really put up a series of Yes signs, as in Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Oh Yes, Yes etc.

Given how humorless most of the Yes folk are, I won't knock on the door and suggest it.

More.

Special advisers would hopefully be there on merit.

It has nothing to do with merit. The question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The House of Lords could packed with extremely talented people selected only on merit but if they wield power and influence it is still undemocratic.

The important word in your sentence is "could". It "could" be packed with extremely talented people selected purely on merit and that would be a big improvement on the current set up, but that "could" unfortunately is not an "is".

SPADS dependent for their continuing employment on their political master, HoL once you are in you can say what you want

SPADS all in line with the party in power, HoL lots of people of all political persuasions

SPADS sat in cabinet helping a single tier system of government make decisions, HoL second chamber review of legislation

SPADS sat in cabinet unnamed, UK cabinet members all publically known

which system is more open and democratic?

I think election poster defacing is an entirely acceptable practice, if anyone's counting votes on the topic.

""- I think we should be using less oil.
- So I think it would be great if the oil stayed where it is.
- That isn't going to happen.
- So we're going to get some money from the oil.
- Therefore that money should do the most good.
- So it should be used to set up an oil fund for the future.""

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future...what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

who should be in charge of the investment decisions? what kind of investment policy should it pursue? how do you avoid the fund's capital being invested in ways that suit the political interests of the government of the day?

The important word in your sentence is "could".

I like to think that all the words in my sentences are important, including the ones that point out that the question was is SPADS active in cabinet more or less democratic than the House of Lords?

The definition of democracy has nothing to do with "a big improvement on the current set up".

Establishing parliament was a big improvement on the existing set up but until common suffrage was introduced it wasn't democratic.

that money you want to put in the oil fund for the future...what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

Trident, HS2, Crossrail, misc foreign wars, House of Lords expenses - there's loads of stuff we won't have to pay for after independence.

I accept we might not be able to put all the oil revenue into a fund and maintain current spending levels. Any oil fund is better than no oil fund. I've got no idea how it would be administered - how do the Norwegians do it? Some kind of system independent of government would be a good idea.

Public spending in Scotland: £64.5 Billion
Tax revenues (including geographic share North sea revenues): £56.9 Billion

You need to make £7.6 Billion worth of savings (approx 5% of GDP) before you can save a single penny of that oil money in a wealth fund!

White paper points to an approx £500m saving on defence, HS2 & Crossrail spending offset by infrastructure in Scotland (like, ahem, trams...) any other savings are rummaging down the back of the sofa!

what current expenditure do you want to sacrifice to put money aside for the future?

North Sea oil and gas should be seen for what it is - a bonus, a bonus which most countries do not enjoy in equal measure, and a bonus which ultimately has a limited life.

It is unreasonable to assume that without North Sea oil any UK government would be unable to maintain the current levels of expenditure.

An article which makes some interesting points :

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher-and-north-sea-oil-%E2%80%93-failure-invest-britain%E2%80%99s-future ]Thatcher and North Sea oil – a failure to invest in Britain’s future[/url]

[i]Had Thatcher been a truly visionary politician, she would have established a wealth fund for the oil windfall, not squandered it on tax cuts and current spending.[/i]

Any oil fund is better than no oil fund.

But according to you even better than an oil fund is no oil at all.

Let's not forget that 🙂

I've got no idea how it would be administered

if you're a green, how would you feel if your new oil fund went off and invested in shale oil projects in Poland? or Nestle's expansion in Subsaharan Africa?

how is it that oil revenues are simultaneously big enough such that an oil fund would be worthwhile and oil revenue couldn't solely be paid into an oil fund such that current expenditure could be maintained AND small enough that if the money stopped rolling in tomorrow the Scottish economy would be fine?

At this rate the nits to be picked will run out before the oil....

23 days to go...

Public spending in Scotland: £64.5 Billion
Tax revenues (including geographic share North sea revenues): £56.9 Billion

And the difference is, as I'm sure you know, made up of borrowing - like is is for the UK and almost every other country in the world. Scotland will have a good credit rating, we'll be able to borrow at rates at least as favourable as the UK.

Good to bring that up, though - because the strength of the UK economy and its "broad shoulders" are often given as reasons Scotland is better off in the union. So how are government borrowing rates doing across Europe? Here's how they've changed in the last year:

Belgium: DOWN 37%
Germany: DOWN 29%
Ireland: DOWN 43%
Greece: DOWN 42%
Spain: DOWN 43%
France: DOWN 30%
Cyprus: n/c
Latvia: DOWN 26%
Luxembourg: DOWN 38%
Malta: DOWN 17%
Netherlands: DOWN 31%
Austria: DOWN 29%
Portugal: DOWN 46%
Slovenia: DOWN 52%
Slovakia: DOWN 34%
Bulgaria: DOWN 2%
Czech Rep: DOWN 33%
Denmark: DOWN 30%
Croatia: DOWN 24%
Lithuania: DOWN 18%
Hungary: DOWN 25%
Poland: DOWN 16%
Romania: DOWN 21%
Sweden: DOWN 26%
United Kingdom: UP 11%

Spot the odd one out. That's what happens when you mistake another property bubble for economic growth.

konabunny - Member
...if you're a green, how would you feel if your new oil fund went off and invested in shale oil projects in Poland? or Nestle's expansion in Subsaharan Africa?

Probably slightly less disgust than he feels when the UK govt engages in yet another killing foreigners in their own country exercise.

@Ben - again please try applying critical thought before reposting information like your list above. For example:

1. Why is the time period of 1 year appropriate?
2. What base interest rate did each of the countries start from?
3. What was happening in the Eurozone 12 months ago that might have impacted those countries differently to the UK?

Your assertion is based on insufficient information and logical fallacy. Interest rates the UK suffers on its debt were at near all time lows during the period of the financial crisis, and especially during the recent Eurozone crisis. They are still incredibly low. This was because of many reasons including:

1. UK government debt was/is seen as a safe haven despite the overall indebtedness of our economy, partly because we can't strictly default (Sterling debt) but also because there were so few other safe investments to allocate across (USTs and German bonds being the obvious competitors)

2. We were outside of the Eurozone hence our Sterling denominated debt was more attractive to the market

3. The Debt Management Office is clearly staffed by the worlds best salesmen

4. The markets appreciated the austerity mood music from the chancellor, even though understanding that austerity wasn't really occurring (showed willing at least).

So, the true picture behind those numbers is that UK debt costs are still incredibly low, but they have risen (normalised even) in the last 12 months because many of the other countries were at incredibly high rates 12 months ago. The Eurozone crisis has lessened somewhat since (sticking plasters and incredible economic suffering in Greece and Spain have helped with that) hence lower rates for them.

Overall we can still borrow at very low rates, and I might add that's even after the yS campaign tried to bu**er it up by threatening not to stand by UK debt - which was only headed off by the Treasury guaranteeing all UK debt (before the start of this thread).

if you're a green, how would you feel if your new oil fund went off and invested in shale oil projects in Poland? or Nestle's expansion in Subsaharan Africa?

I'd be very disappointed of course. So what? Are you saying because I can't tell you exactly how a future oil fund will be administered, an oil fund is a bad idea? I don't get where you're going with this line of argument.

@bainbrge - you're right, actual rates vs. trends are also important. So who's borrowing at better rates than the UK at the moment?

Well obviously Germany and France (1.11 and 1.56 compared to the UK's 2.31). But also the Czech Republic (1.56), Netherlands, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Finland, Denmark and Sweden. Even Ireland (2.23) can borrow at better rates than the UK.

Ben - there are obvious reasons for that as well - the Eurozone is facing a deflationary slump (unlike the UK which is growing like the clappers). Hence there are expectations that the ECB will have to do something like the UK and US and implement special measures including quantitative easing.

The potential for QE means that the market is expecting rising prices for government bonds (the ECB will buy them as part of QE). Hence the markets are buying such bonds and lowering the yield (the lower the yield the higher the market price).

So, your observation largely reflects the differing market expectations for the Eurozone and the UK. Investors believe the Eurozone is heading for stagnation and deflation, hence expecting QE, hence buying bonds. The same does not apply to the UK. So, from that perspective the higher rates for the UK reflect the better economic prospects for our economy.

I don't get where you're going with this line of argument.

bainbrge - Member
...unlike the UK which is growing like the clappers...

The current UK version of economic growth is of the the king has no trousers variety.

That the huge debt hole is getting larger is growth, but the wrong sort.

Instead of worrying how an independent Scotland is going to handles its finances, it may be better for rUK residents to worry about how you are going to get out of that hole once you don't have Scotland to subsidise you.

The previous GFC proved that in the end the BS has to stop, debt has to be repaid to the wealthy market manipulators.

.....instead of spending money on eradicating want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.

[img] [/img]

How about you explain how you would eradicate want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness Konabunny ?

You have got a plan haven't you ?

And the difference is, as I'm sure you know, made up of borrowing - like is is for the UK and almost every other country in the world. Scotland will have a good credit rating, we'll be able to borrow at rates at least as favourable as the UK.

Hang on, lets get this straight

your financial plan is to [b]borrow[/b] money off the international markets to cover current spending, allowing you to invest the oil money?

Taking out a mortgage to buy shares 😯

This is well worth a read:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-mccrone-legacy/

it's a great article if iScotland can go back in time, go independent in the 1970s, keep the energy sector state-owned, avoid a labour-related disaster in the 1980s, and plough the money into a sovereign wealth fund. then it'll be just like Norway!

your financial plan is to borrow money off the international markets to cover current spending, allowing you to invest the oil money?
Taking out a mortgage to buy shares

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/nobel-economist-scots-would-be-right-to-refuse-to-share-uk-debt-if-london-w.1408948717 ]Mirlees backs salmond on currency union[/url]
Seems the "rats" are happy to stay aboard after all.

Blimey, Gordi even the rats are confused aren't they, not wonder the DO finds it hard!!!

Technically he is right as there is not debt to walk away from, that why daddy rat calls it a technical default it iS tried to pull that trick.

Ben, I love your posts again. There is a refreshing innocence to them. As others have said, Europe's low rates are not a sign of strength. They are an indication of the coming/existing deflation. Be careful what you wish for.

And a big thank you to France for a timely demonstration of how currency union dictates domestic policy 😆

You lot do realise that if an independent Scotland has a CU with the rUK and it turns out as dreadful as you seem to want, we can change that.

You know, democracy...

Yes democracy, where the UK electorate can (& almost certainly will) put the kibosh on any proposal to formally enter a Currency Union with a Foreign State.

Yes democracy, where the UK electorate can (& almost certainly will) put the kibosh on any proposal to formally enter a Currency Union with a Foreign State.

They also elected a Tory government, so they can't be that smart 😉

Technically no, they didn't!
Don't underestimate the opposition to a formal Currency Union in the rUK, its not just Scots who have the right to protect their own future interests.

Yes democracy, where the UK electorate can (& almost certainly will) put the kibosh on any proposal to formally enter a Currency Union with a Foreign State.

What a shame that would be wouldn't it.

Can report that somebody has restored the modesty of the Yes sign in Walkerburn. Can also confirm that somebody - it may or may not have been the same person - has ripped down all the No Thanks signs along the road from Auchendinny to Peebles over the weekend, 4 in total I think. So vandals on both sides, but only one has a sense of humour !

In my own personal unscientific On The Street Survey only one in about 20 folk I know are voting Yes, the rest firm No. But then you tend to mix with folk who think like you do, and I do live in Border territory.

P.S some of the people on here remind me of that bit in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - when God successfully argued that black is white, then got run over and killed on a pedestrian crossing.