[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

@aracer I had a billion as a thousand million, 10^9

Yep, and England population of 53 million. I did it in my head...

Edit: oh <slaps head> we're talking about selling to Scotland (pop 5 million)

As you were - ben's explanation probably makes the most sense

@ben £62 billion - that's £12,400 for every man woman and child. For a 2+2 family that says they buy £50,000 worth of stuff from the UK every year ! It just doesn't make sense to me.

I wonder how much the oil companies buy in terms of equipment, for instance? This includes business spending.

I'm not defending the figures, by the way, just reporting them.

@brooess, deliberate ploy by Westminster not to pre-negotiate. You can argue that it has backfired by why give SNP any certainty. Under no circumstances am I interested in another Yes/No referendum in Scotland, this is it. If there is a Yes I would like to see a UK referendum on our negotiating position questions like;

Should we enter into a currency union with Scotland ?
If Scotland does not take [ their fare share / 9% ] of the UK debt should they be allowed independence ?

@aracer - I was calculating how much the 5m Scots have to spend each to get to £62bn

@ben, yes that may be it. Its possible for example that all the cars imported into the UK are booked into the UK first ? Not sure. Anyway IMO there is no way Scotland could be such a major trade counterparty with just 5m people, I mean there are 350m Americans, 60m French etc.

(Vomits)Paging THM,paging THM.(vomits)
I have a serious question on something you have alluded to concerning post indy financial affairs,would you please contact me on my profile email.
(Not passing your add on to the cybernats either)

You cannot doubt Scottish talent - they are a formidable people. But they do not dominate the global stage as they once did. There will be a tough period of adjustment to get through, yes, but independent, living off their tax base, with dynamism and self-belief restored, they can do so once again.

But, first, they must make the right choices.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-an-independent-scotland-could-become-the-richest-country-on-earth-9096120.html

there is a direct correlation between the size of the state and the wealth of the people

🙄

Well there is. Whether that correlation leads to causation is something everyone can argue about - I think he has some interesting points about that.

Is there?
9: US, pop 318m
10: Canada, pop 35m
18: Germany, pop 80m

181: CAR, pop 4m
182: Burundi, pop 8m
183: Malawi, pop 16m

I thought it wasn't about money?

Okay, it's not a 100% correlation 😉

What % do you reckon, ben? 😉

If Scotland does not take [ their fare share / 9% ] of the UK debt should they be allowed independence ?

@BigBut - your share of the debt paid for the hospitals and medical equipment, roads plus as the UK runs a budget deficit the debt paid for the salaries of all the state employees, their pensions, welfare payments etc

Agreed, we won't solve anything here but it's fun to discuss !

jambalaya - Member
...If Scotland does not take [ their fare share / 9% ] of the UK debt should they be allowed independence ?

"...should they be allowed independence.."

We are not the slaves or the property of the UK govt, so it is our decision. It's called democracy.

negotiate a quantified proposition to present to the electorate, other than 'independence'

Apart from the politics of this (ie Cameron not wanting to pre-negotiate for fear of looking like he's accepted defeat), it's hugely complicated and expensive, and makes little sense to put that effort in until the decision is made. I remember reading somewhere that the Czech Rep/Slovakia separation required 12,000 separate agreements and treaties. It doesn't make much sense to go into all that for nothing.

We are not the slaves or the property of the UK govt, so it is our decision. It's called democracy.

Exactly. This is the central point that many south of the border don't understand. All this talk of an English referendum, the english having no choice etc is irrelevant, it's got nothing to do with them/us. All the rest of the UK can do is accept the decision and come to an agreement which is best for everyone. Or it can be monumentally stupid and try to delay or hinder the process which I fear would lead us down a very dangerous path.

 so it is our decision. It's called democracy.

You previously said it was undemocratic if the rUK did not get a vote as well. IIRC you said Cameron should have "insisted on it".

So which is it then?

@BigBut - your share of the debt paid for the hospitals and medical equipment, roads plus as the UK runs a budget deficit the debt paid for the salaries of all the state employees, their pensions, welfare payments etc

removed post... it was just too silly really..

athgray - Member
'so it is our decision. It's called democracy.'
You previously said it was undemocratic if the rUK did not get a vote as well. IIRC you said Cameron should have "insisted on it".

So which is it then?

Democracy, plain and simple.

Democracy was not involved in subjecting Scotland to the Union. We are exercising our democratic right to leave that union. Subjects of the rUK do not have the democratic right to insist we remain in the union, ie colonise us.

I did say something along the lines of the UK should have had a reform of its undemocratic structure years ago and moved to a federated structure, and removed all unelected representatives (ie House of Lords).

Even one of England's most revered Tory intellectuals (Enoch Powell) refused to call UK government democratic. He said it should be correctly described as a parliamentary government but not a democracy.*

(*I can be corrected on that. I'm basing it on a memory from quite a long time ago.)

That is a fair bit of twisting there epicyclo.
You were using some very odd logic by suggesting that we have to leave the UK due to broken democracy, by using the example that Cameron should have insisted the UK get a vote.

When I then asked how you would feel if Scotland was voted out of the Union by rUK even if Scots vote No, you said you would be grateful to our overlords.

You also seem to be bearing a grudge based on the political systems and democracy of the early 18th century. I hope for your sake you can get over that.

athgray - Member
...You also seem to be bearing a grudge based on the political systems and democracy of the early 18th century. I hope for your sake you can get over that.

No, it's dead simple. I want to live in a democracy.

That we don't is because of what happened in the 18th century, but I don't think rule by the Stuart kings was likely to be any better.

We are voting for the future, not the past.

Why we don't trust Westminster, they've already done this to us, and they are trying again.

[img] [/img]

So, if you vote Yes you can look forward to a divided country, torn apart by an irreconcilable rift between those who wanted to leave, and those who wanted to stay, for the next hundred plus years?

Yep, that is great. Quote what Westminster did 100 years ago as 'evidence'. Top quality debating that.

I feel sick to pit of my stomach at the thought of a Yes vote next week. I really cannot believe the amount of risk people are prepared to take on.

I feel sick to pit of my stomach at the thought of a Yes vote next week. I really cannot believe the amount of risk people are prepared to take on.

Whereas around 51% of the electorate are of this mindset: I feel sick to pit of my stomach at the thought of a No vote next week. I really cannot believe the amount of risk people are prepared to take on.

There are risks on both sides, there are only hopes on one side. I like to have a potential positive change as the outcome.

That is a fair bit of twisting there

I feel sick to pit of my stomach at the thought of a Yes vote next week. I really cannot believe the amount of risk people are prepared to take on.

So, if you vote Yes you can look forward to a divided country, torn apart by an irreconcilable rift between those who wanted to leave, and those who wanted to stay, for the next hundred plus years?

wanmankylung. Even if the effect is minimal, I hope to still be able to cast a vote that may help the poorest in the UK not just Scotland. Again if there is no hope for the UK are you turning your back on the needy?

Ninfan, any rift cannot be irreconcilable. We will have to get on whatever the result.

franksinatra - Member
Yep, that is great. Quote what Westminster did 100 years ago as 'evidence'. Top quality debating that.

Just showing the leopard hasn't changed it's spots. They did the same much more recently to Scotland.

Again if there is no hope for the UK are you turning your back on the needy?

Not at all. By showing people that there is a better way to do things it'll cause massive political change in rUK and things may well sort themselves out there too with any luck.

Voting Yes is about hope for a better future, not fear that things will get worse. Sometimes in life you just have to go with your hopes.

wanmankylung. Even if the effect is minimal, I hope to still be able to cast a vote that may help the poorest in the UK not just Scotland. Again if there is no hope for the UK are you turning your back on the needy?

In some respects I agree that we shouldn't be pursuing divisive actions and turning our back on the poor of the rUK.

But.

Giving a vote if confidence to a political system that is already failing the poor and rewarding the old boys club is not going to help either.

Voting Yes is about hope for a better future, not fear that things will get worse. Sometimes in life you just have to go with your hopes.

I agree with that sentiment but for something so major as splitting the union, I can't quite understand why there hasn't been more demand from the electorate for figures, forecasts, some kind of fact-based business case to base those hopes on (and hold your leaders to if they renege on their promises)...

Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the union to save England from itself. Responses to my column last week suggest this wretched apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.

Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 54 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation that cause the problems from which we ask them to save us.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope

brooess - in an ideal world without politicians we would have that. However, we have a bunch of clowns running the place and those clown's favourites game is playing politics when we need facts. I'm basing my decision on which side I distrust least.

whatnobeer - Member
Particularly given you still don't seem to understand the concept of CU
I understand it fine thanks, and THM comments on what would be required were exactly the point I was trying to make. If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom. The "our pounds too" line would fall over too as it would be clear than the UK would 'share the pound' but the cost of doing so would make the proposition unappealing.

Greta post WNB, blimey we are all getting closer all of a sudden!! I know it probably came over a bit arsey talking about dinner with MPs, but this is linked. My point to them was why not take each of AS BS ideas one by one and address clearly and simply. Force a real debate around the facts not the BS in the BoD. I found it really frustrating that the modern tactic (from the US) is simply not to do this.

I think this is a major error - why do we assume that Americans get these things right? Ok, we have a bit of banter in here (largely in fun) but there are very serious issues that need to be addressed. They have been consumed in lies and deceit and yet the BT side is scared to engage on them. This is modern politics exemplified by the inability of mainstream politicians to engage with vaguely populist BS. They are trapped and don't know what to do.

We are left to the Governor of the BOE and others to try and have a clear debate, but even then the DO smothers the debate. Mark Carney's comments today will be largely ignored I would imagine.

This is serious, it's not student politics anymore. The reaction of financial markets already is sending a clear message. Proper issues need proper debate. This is an appaling example of democratic deficit, forget an underrepresented Scotland, significant harm is being caused in the basis of a lack of lies. History will not be kind on those involved.

Just in passing but linked to the THM's post, I had an interesting discussion with TJ about all this today (yes he is still watching us), and whilst we disagree on much, we did agree that the No campaign has been a complete shambles.

ben, if a central core argument is our identity, and the connections we have to those around us, I am not talking as someone that thinks our country is here to help another. We help each other. I understand this may sound a bit wooly.

I feel as well as the bad, there are great things about the UK, not least the ethnic and cultural diversity. Say what you like, but the UK has been pretty welcoming to immigrants.

I feel at times a bit Scottish, a bit British, a bit European but not a strong sense of nation to any. I have spoken to plenty of Yes voters with what seems quite a one dimensional view of this. Even you have commented in cold clinical terms about the UK. To some it is more than just a place on a map.

I saw an article that says the UK is an island not an identity. We are free to choose the identity we want after independence.

I was a bit miffed at being told what constitutes national identity and when I am allowed to feel it.

Where as the hopeless No campaign talk of trying to persuade the majority of Scots to vote No, Salmond professes Scots WILL vote Yes, in a tone that makes you feel you should.

I think this is a major error - why do we assume that Americans get these things right? Ok, we have a bit of banter in here (largely in fun) but there are very serious issues that need to be addressed. They have been consumed in lies and deceit and yet the BT side is scared to engage on them. This is modern politics exemplified by the inability of mainstream politicians to engage with vaguely populist BS. They are trapped and don't know what to do.

I think the major error is the lack of a positive commentary on the Union and what makes the UK a great place to be (yes it could be better, but it's a lot better than a lot of places).

I was in Inverness today and a Yes voter was commenting that the area essentially has full employment and in his words "those who aren't in work probably don't want to". Sounds like there is a success story to talk about. Yes it isn't the same everywhere in Scotland or rUK but it still is a success story

The Americanisation of the BT campaign is probably a product of the Americanisation of the Labour central political machine

arguably the "yes" campaign is largely predicated as a "anti politics as they are now" essentially the same message that UKIP campaign on

More from Monbiot... [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope ]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/yes-vote-in-scotland-most-dangerous-thing-of-all-hope[/url]

Pretty much sums up my own opinions on this. Whatever the whys and wherefores and practicalities, the crux of it is that it's an opportunity to change things. The scots can either take that opportunity or stick with more of the same. I know what I'd do.

People were seduced by debt and the economic mirage based in leverage and advanced consumption. And they gorged in it with glee. Now it's payback time. Cold turkey is never easy and so to refute a "anything but what we have just been through" narrative is very difficult especially for three parties who spend their lives opposing anyone. Give a junky one last shot rather than cold turkey and what will he chose? It's obvious. The cold hard fact of economic reality don't feature in peoples wish list.

And now we have the unedifying prospect of all three parties bending over backwards like bad parent stopping a spoilt brat from crying by giving into the demand for more sweets. The resulting vomit will be colourful and plentiful.

Whatever the whys and wherefores and practicalities, the crux of it is that it's an opportunity to change things.

Let's do it.

Dezh, the biggest disappoint of all is how little anything will change. That is a pipe dream. Policies will be set by Westminster but without your input, you will still have the same quality if MSPs in Holyrood, you will still have nukes (albeit you won't know where they are), your will still have pressure on public services, austerity and a threat to pensions. On top if that the Do is even throwing in some ultra RW policies. The starch is flying in leith tonight!