[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

No one took our country absolutely. Show me one post where I said this. But you are wanting to have arguments about how a countries GDP is divvied up. I'll reckon that'll happen more fairly in and IS. There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That's a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening. So bye bye.

Even if Scotland's GDP does end up a little less well a good example I heard is:

If GDP is 20 pound and the are 10 people, 1 has 11 pound and the rest have 1 pound each.

I'd rather have a Gdp of 18 pound with 10 people having 1.8 each.

Now that kind of parity isn't going to happen in an IS but at least we can reverse the UK trend, if we wish and choose the correct government. Not guaranteed, yes. But what is?.

ninfan - Member
We want our country back.
Its not yours anymore - you gave it away, remember?

Foreign diplomats now think independence is likely:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/scotland-likely-choose-independence-foreign-diplomats

There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That's a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening.

And it will continue in a separate Scotland. Growing income inequality is a product of neoliberal economic policies and there is no evidence that a separate Scotland would abandon such policies. Indeed the SNP, Labour, the LibDems, and the Tories, are all committed to the neoliberal model. So there will not be any fundamental change of direction which is precisely what would be required.

In case of the SNP, who are the most likely to set the agenda, they have specifically said that a separate Scotland not be at a "tax disadvantage" with England, Wales, and N. Ireland. In other words a separate Scotland would have low taxation, specifically a corporation tax rate 3% lower than England, Wales, and N. Ireland, and no 50% top rate.

Now I know that the SNP like New Labour believe that the way to tackle poverty is by increasing social spending, but you can't increase social spending if you are actually cutting the government's main source of revenue, ie, taxes, instead of increasing them. So cuts in social spending [i]will[/i] inevitably follow.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won't push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept "competitive" and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

New Labour claimed to be socialist but vehemently denied having any socialist policies, which of course they didn't have. Don't get fooled again.

Ernie even under Westminster rule. the Scottish government has shown itself to be more to the left than Westminster. If the proxy labour party gets in they will destroy that.

Btw I don't think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state, i want it to be at the more socially driven side of capitalism. Yes its not guaranteed. But it's sure as **** never going to happen under Westminster.

It's already a race to the bottom. Rising living costs and stagnant wages tell us that. Recovery my arse, we're treading water at best.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won't push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept "competitive" and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

+1

Scotland is already in direct competition with the other parts of the uk for jobs and investment. The only difference independence will make to that is that we will be able to develop our own economic policies.

I don't think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state

I didn't think you did. Like New Labour you want socialism but without any socialist policies 🙂

Yes its not guaranteed.

No it is guaranteed. If you cut taxes then you cut social spending - that is a certainty.

And according to Alex Salmond if Scotland votes Yes in September then Scotland will have its corporation tax set by Westminster - without any input from Scotland of course.

Because if some right-wing Tory government decides to slash corporation tax then Scotland will have to do exactly the same.

If Scotland wishes to increase corporation tax to fund social spending then it will have to hope that Labour gets elected in Westminster and increases corporation tax in England, Wales, and N. Ireland.

Independence my arse.

Ernie you are still taking the short term view. Independence is for a wee bit longer than that ye know.

Btw your argument apply to the UK on a European and world scale as well. No country lives in a vacuum and have to take into account of what their neighbours do. Doesn't mean they aren't independent of each other.

Edit: Ye know that after a yes vote scotland and england can still work together.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? [b]We get to choose a government which represents us.[/b]

Btw there is one thing about independence that cannot be denied, and that is that it has engaged a vast audience that was very disinterested in politics. If that could be continued post independence the whole political make up of scotland will change.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? We get to choose a government which represents us.

Yes I know that people in Scotland get to choose a government which represents them. I've even seen the website.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Ernie. You clearly can't be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

piemonster - Member

To be honest, the No camp doesn't need to make the case. You can just look out the window and that's what you'll get.

That's not true though is it? There's no assurance that what we have today is what we'll get tomorrow. The Barnett formula might change, devolved powers might be recalled (this has already happened btw, in case anyone thinks it's scaremongering), the "greenest government ever" might introduce new policies that damage the scottish renewables industry (oh no wait that's already happened too), just to scratch the surface.

piemonster - Member

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

So basically an "independent" Scotland will be exactly the same as now except that Scotland will no longer a direct input into financial matters which effect it, such City of London regulation and corporation tax.

Yeah that doesn't very compelling. If I lived in Scotland I would vote no.

And it's very strange that everyone in Scotland will actually have their say in September, is it not ? After all the yes campaign claim the views of the Scottish people are totally ignored and that's why a yes vote is apparently vital.

So who's idea was it to have a referendum in September then - the Westminster government presumably, since they call all the shots.

Or perhaps they don't ?

seosamh77 - Member

Ernie. You clearly can't be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don't hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of "independence".

duckman - Member

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don't hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of "independence".

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

sbob - Member

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

Your straw man is showing. Of course not everyone will get the government they vote for, but an independent scotland will get the government it votes for, which as we all know has been the case for the minority of the last 50 years, including right now. 16.7% of Scots got the government they voted for, which is excellently democratic. (*)

Trying to draw some link between the 2 ideas let alone suggest they're "exactly the same" is really just admitting you don't have an actual argument to counter the point with. And no wonder.

(* No, the lib dem voters did not get the government they voted for)

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

There's a big difference between how the Westminster system works and how the Scottish parliament works. Westminster has a first-past-the-post system which effectively means that only a relatively small number of floating voters in a few marginal constituencies decide the whole thing. Holyrood has a semi-PR system which means that it more accurately represents what most people vote for.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Whilst in theory I'm in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven't been [i]all[/i] bad.

Another compelling argument is that the better together parties the lib ddems, labour and even the Tories will be able to have a clean break from their London puppeteers and will actually develop into something more suited to Scotland.

Politics in Scotland will not remain the same as Ernie suggests, all the parties will fundamentally change their power structures.

I reckon even the SNP will fracture over time. New parties will likely emerge.

Democracy with be given a massive kick up the arse. That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless. Policies will be reviewed massively.

WTF?

[img] [/img]

That'll be the NHS that's already separate in Scotland? The NHS that is rapidly being dismantled south of the border?

And "Stakeholder Engagement Manager"?

Northwind - Member

Your straw man is showing.

It's not a strawman it's just that some people don't have a very good grasp of what democracy is.
I personally think this is one of the very good reasons for Scotland to attain independence, but I am still of the opinion that a split in the union will be bad for the UK and worse for Scotland.

Only time will tell, and it's not like it's my decision! 😆

Whilst in theory I'm in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven't been all bad.

Someone on Radio 4 this morning said, without a trace of irony, that the UK could never become a dictatorship because the Queen kept a check on the Prime Minister.

I'm sure some lords are perfectly decent people, and sometimes make good decisions, but the principle is all wrong.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

And yet the EU, which the Yes campaign says is indispensable to an "independent" Scotland, is stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Ones which totally unlike the unelected political cronies in Upper Chamber actually have real power which can thwart the democratic will of an electorate.

So in the logic of the Yes campaign ........unelected political cronies with no power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very bad indeed, intolerable in fact.

And unelected political cronies with real power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very good indeed, to be welcomed with open arms in fact.

I'm impressed.... the supporters of the Yes campaign appear to be consistently illogical across a wide range of issues.

That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.

Yeah I'm really playing the "party politics game" 🙄

ernie_lynch - Member
That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.
Yeah I'm really playing the "party politics game"

Noticeable you ignored the rest of my post.

sbob - Member

It's not a strawman it's just that some people don't have a very good grasp of what democracy is.

Oh, we understand very well. Democracy is when your neighbour decides what you have for tea. Every so often, your neighbour wants the same thing you do, and it feels like you're making your own decisions.

Why you banging on about tax rates etc.

Oh I see, mentioning awkward stuff like 'economic policies' is talking "party politics" is it ? And that's not acceptable when discussing Scottish independence ?

So how come when Alex Salmond is asked to talk about what an independent Scotland would mean he keeps banging on about tax rates etc. ?

I know you don't want to talk about the nuts and bolts of Scottish independence because it clearly doesn't stand up well to scrutiny, preferring instead to rely on meaningless emotive words and phrases, but you are beginning to sound really desperate if you start castigating someone for having the audacity to want to look at the detail behind Scottish independence.

.

Noticeable you ignored the rest of my post.

I wasn't interested in the rest of your post. I was interested in the bit where you accused me of playing "the party politics game".

It clearly stands up when everyone on every side says we could go it alone. You're the only one saying we can't.

Alex Salmond can talk about it because he's the leader of the SNP you know a political party. Its his job to talk party politics and think ahead.

He isn't the leader of the yes campaign. He presented a view which he openly admits is a view that will only see the light of day if they get voted in in 2016.

The views of the other parties cannot be clear at this point. See the bit of my post that disinterested you for explanation of why that is.

bencooper - Member

I'm sure some lords are perfectly decent people, and sometimes make good decisions, but the principle is all wrong.

Let's just both be happy we've found something we can completely agree on! 🙂

....... everyone on every side says we could go it alone. You're the only one saying we can't.

Of course you can go it alone.......I never said you couldn't. Where on earth did you get that from ? 😀

If Scotland votes Yes "independence" will be extremely easy to achieve - why wouldn't it be ffs ?

I have serious doubts that it would be beneficial though, but I'm hardly the only one saying that - apparently about half of Scots agree with me. In fact more agree with me than disagree with me.

I dunno you're the one that tells us nothing stands up to scrutiny.

[quote=Northwind ]Your straw man is showing. Of course not everyone will get the government they vote for, but an independent scotland will get the government it votes for, which as we all know has been the case for the minority of the last 50 years, including right now. 16.7% of Scots got the government they voted for, which is excellently democratic. (*)

We've already done this one.

Q: What's the difference between Scotland and Shetland?
A: Scotland sometimes gets the government it votes for.

12.1% is presumably even more excellently democratic.

Yes Shetland. Get the government you voted for.

aracer - Member

We've already done this one.

Yup, to exactly the same reductio ad absurdum conclusion.

But let's stick with it. The 62% of voters in Orkney and Shetland who voted lib dem would be happier with the likely scottish governments than UK ones (*). Forget about party lines, they've got more in common with scottish labour and the SNP than they have with the tories. (which is why the tories are 4th in the constituency, and falling.)

So post-independence, Orkney and Shetland still get something more compatible with what they vote for. Just like the rest of Scotland, more than half the time, for more than half a century, they don't just get a party they didn't vote for, they get a party that's as far from what they voted for as you can get in the UK.

(* No, the Shetlander lib dem voters did not get the government they voted for)

Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn't. You mentioned Europe as an example of control being taken from us I can pretty much guarantee Scottish MEP's will for example, protect our fishing quotas rather than trade them off as was Westminster policy for many years. Can't be any worse than HS2 being of "national importance" or the bedroom tax that we get from being a department of Westminster PLC recently. I suspect if you lived up here and had a say,your opinion would be rather different.

Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn't.

Isn't the reason for this change to split up the UK so that the rUK gets a permanent right-wing bias, while making Scotland weak enough that it could either be [s]bought[/s]picked off later, or be irrelevant.

I'd assumed all that stuff about left-wing, independence, etc, was just a smoke screen to fool enough people north of the border to fall in line.

Isn't the reason for this change to split up the UK so that the rUK gets a permanent right-wing bias, while making Scotland weak enough that it could either be boughtpicked off later, or be irrelevant.

We've done this before - Scotland is too small to have much influence in UK general elections.

If being irrelevant means we can quietly get on with our lives instead of being dragged into illegal wars, then fine with me.

bencooper - Member

We've done this before - Scotland is too small to have much influence in UK general elections.

If being irrelevant means we can quietly get on with our lives instead of being dragged into illegal wars, then fine with me.

Which war(s)?

duckman - Member

Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn't.

That deserves a comment because no one can deny that it would appear to be a fairly reasonable point. What it does however is ignore the conditions which created this paradox. There is little doubt that much of reason for the relentless growth of the anti-Tory vote in Scotland has been the reaction to Westminster rule.

After all 60 years ago 50% of Scots voted Tory and the Conservatives had an extremely solid base in Scotland where clearly many Scots shared their "values".

So what happened ? Well the Thatcher-Major years had catastrophic consequences for the Tories in Scotland., and had there been no Conservative governments in Westminster during that period there is little doubt that the Tory vote in Scotland would have held up much better.

The SNP have exploited this Scottish anti-Tory sentiment of recent decades to their very fullest advantage and the party once dubbed "the tartan Tories" have attempted to place clear-blue water between themselves and Westminster Tories by paying lip service to vaguely left-wing policies which they know will appeal to Tory-weary Scots.

But as their economic policies show they are still instinctively right-wing, and their mixture of neoliberalism and social-democracy is totally unsustainable.

Remove "the Westminster factor" and the lopsided political inbalance in Scotland will, like all comparable countries, revert to form, specially as the wide appeal of SNP's neoliberalism with social-democratic universal welfare values shows that the argument against free-market capitalism hasn't been won.

Furthermore "left leaning governments" as you call them, are quite pointless if they can't deliver real tangible results which benefit ordinary working people. Those who argue for a separate Scotland have failed to provide any compelling evidence that this the most likely consequence of a Yes vote. Or that increased devolved power under a framework of strength and fully integrated cooperation won't achieve these real tangible results in favour of ordinary people.

The best they appear to be offering is "if things get worse at least it will be us who are in charge", which isn't the most convincing argument - specially as a return to the previous status quo will be completely out of the question.

The case for radical federalism in the UK is extremely strong imo. The case for a separate Scotland in contrast is very weak, in fact I'm surprised just how weak it is after looking at the arguments of those who argue in favour of it.

.

duckman - Member

we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny.

The case for radical federalism in the UK is extremely strong imo. The case for a separate Scotland in contrast is very weak, in fact I'm surprised just how weak it is after looking at the arguments of those who argue in favour of it.

duckman - Member
we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny.

ernie_lynch - Member

So what happened ? Well the Thatcher-Major years had catastrophic consequences for the Tories in Scotland.,

Nice analysis except that cause traditionally comes before effect, we didn't vote for Thatcher either- by then it'd already been almost 25 years since we'd voted for the tories. Thatcher's second term was actually the most succesful election for the Tories in Scotland in the last 40 years!

Thatcher's second term was actually the most succesful election for the Tories in Scotland in the last 40 years!

Actually that's not true - the Tory vote in Scotland fell throughout Thatcher's premiership. The Tory vote in Scotland was lower in 1983 than it had been in 1979.

It did make a very slight recovery when Major first become leader of the Conservatives, before plummeting again to levels far lower than even under Thatcher.

The Thatcher-Major years proved to be catastrophic for the Tories in Scotland, I'm not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise.

.

EDIT :

we didn't vote for Thatcher either- by then it'd already been almost 25 years since we'd voted for the tories.

The Tory vote in Scotland picked up significantly after Thatcher become leader of the Conservative Party, it was only the experience of Thatcher's premiership that drove Scots away from the Tories.

1929 22/74
1931 50/74
1935 35/72
1945 41.8% 30/72
1950 44.8% 31/70
1951 48.6% 35/72
1955 50.1% 36/72
1959 47.3% 31/72
1964 40.6% 24/72
1966 37.7% 20/72
1970 38.0% 23/72
1974 32.9% 21/72 (Feb)
1974 24.7% 16/72 (Oct)
1979 31.4% 22/72
1983 28.4% 21/72
1987 24.0% 10/72
1992 25.8% 11/72
1997 17.5% 0/72
2001 15.6% 1/72
2005 15.8% 1/59
2010 16.7% 1/59

quite interesting looking at the decline of the tories mind.

Northwind - Member
didn't vote for Thatcher either-

edit: possibly a reaction to the state of labour at the end of the 70s.

I don't personally believe there are no tories in Scotland, just that they are clearly detached from westminster.

I'd predict an independent Scottish tory party would see a rise in votes.

You're right enough Ernie, I was getting my years mixed up. I was one at the time 😉 But '83 was still a decent performance.

And the point is, the decline of toryism in Scotland started in the 50s. Yes it took a huge fall in 97 in terms of seats but in terms of percentage votes you're looking at a pretty continuous decline- a surprisingly tidy one in fact.

So the death of scottish toryism can't be blamed on fatcher by any stretch. Actually she gave them a brief rally in a long-term decline which then returned to the mean. And the wipeout can't really be blamed on her or Major for the same reason (actually I suppose it can be blamed on FPTP)

Wonder what effect a Scottish breakaway, as it's not really independence, will have on the rest of the UK? A bit of shock, then what? More or less domination by London?

Those figures are really interesting seosamh. I had no idea that when Labour won its historical 1945 landslide victory Scotland had bucked the trend and were far more supportive of Tories than the rest of the UK.

According to your figures in 1945 41.8% of Scots voted Tory and yet the figure for the Tory vote in all of the UK was 36.1%. Bearing in mind that is an average figure for the whole of the UK including Scotland, the difference between support for the Tories in Scotland and support for the Tories in England and Wales was obviously fairly significant.

Something worth remembering I reckon when people claim that the Scottish vote in UK general elections is detrimental to the Tories and yet allegedly vital to Labour.

I knew that in recent decades Labour had only very rarely needed the Scottish vote to form a majority in Westminster as this shows :

[img] [/img]

I just hadn't realised that Labour's lack of dependency on the Scottish vote went that far back.

Every day's a school day, eh ? 🙂

Very interesting stats there - would be interesting to look at where they had gone to - is there a corresponding rise in the other parties (the rise of the SDP/LD?)

Ah Ernie,still [s]trolling[/s] using selective posting?

Duckman - Member
That we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny

You could have read the rest of that sentence of course,let me remind you..

It can't be any worse than HS2 being of "national importance" or the bedroom tax that we get from being a department of Westminster PLC recently. I suspect if you lived up here and had a say,your opinion would be rather different.

But you are clearly grasping at straws,which you go on to demonstrate by telling us that if it wasn't for the Tories,the SNP MIGHT fill the role. Is that the best you can do? Despite the fact you clearly understand the Tories have been declining in Scotland for 60 years. You know what,if it is convenient for you to ignore the concept of us having the potential to make ourselves a better,fairer country by writing us off as either anti-English or blind,carry on. At the end of the day your opposition to independence is not based on a worry for the consequences for the Scots anymore than THM's

Really?

And just as the thread was coming back to something interesting.......

You could have read the rest of that sentence of course,let me remind you..

Yeah I read the rest of the sentence, I was more interested in your claim that Scotland is "a department of Westminster PLC".

It's silly comments like that which shows how Yessers like yourself are more interested in provoking a reaction than engaging in sensible debate.

And of course the irony is that you accuse me of "trolling".

I would suggest that selectively posting is trying to provoke a reaction. The mods would probably agree,that's why they warn and ban you so often.

I've been warned of "selectively posting" ? That's news to me. And btw since you've brought it up I've only received one ban/warning since Sept 2012.

So anyway, what's all this got to do with currency union/Scottish independence/this thread ? Nothing really, you just fancied a personal attack on me, eh ?

Which kind of betrays how weak your argument is if you have to resort to those sort of tactics 💡

Fair enough,mentioning your "gardening leave" was a cheap shot,sorry.

Nice one, I appreciate that....thanks 8)

Well it looks like a currency union actually has a lot of support in England.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/11/the-future-of-scotlands-currency-continues-to-divide-opinion-polls-show ]Scotland to keep the pound?[/url]

Well it looks like a currency union actually has a lot of support in England.

23% versus 58% against?

Edit: )strange, the Guardian headline doesn't seem to reflect the Yougov poll data that they link to? ) http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/16/opposition-currency-union-rises-sharply-england-an/

A currency union isn't long term independence,it would be handy short term while we found our feet. It's the single biggest issue surrounding Indy,certainly thus far and that's why we have 3500 posts mostly on it.While I think there would be horse trading done on it post yes,it is an issue neither side can shift on until Sept. Despite sbob's extensive research that had never uncovered a yes voter,I would suggest it is the "dinnae kens" that will decide it. The no campaign handled the currency issue very poorly,the coordinated nature of each party refusing union was seen as bullying up here despite Salmond having no response,so still all to play for. The side that wins the middle wins,but then it has ever been thus in politics. As a wee aside,I dont know anybody who be polled,and that is asking folk in the central belt.

It's the single biggest issue surrounding Indy

It's the single biggest issue for the No-led media - talking to people, both Yes and No, I get the impression that it's a side issue. Everyone I've talked to thinks that some kind of agreement would have to be reached, and even the No people I've talked to think that it was very badly handled.

Most people, though, are more interested in other issues. Yes people are interested in getting rid of Trident, getting rid of the worst austerity measures, creating a more democratic government, and involving more people in politics. No people are more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that.

A currency union isn't long term independence,it would be handy short term while we found our feet.

So what's proposed for the long term then - the Euro ? Scottish currency ? voters have the right to know. After all if the intention is to make Scotland part of the Euro Zone it's likely to affect the way people vote.

Or is that why Yes Scotland appear to be deliberately fudging the issue ?

What's the UK currency going to be in 20 years? Voters have the right to know.

There is uncertainty whichever way the vote goes - and whichever way it goes, no-one can predict the long-term consequences. There's only two things we can be sure about with independence:

- it puts control of Scotland in the hands of people who live here.

- Scotland has the resources - human, mineral, financial - to manage fine on its own.

Everything else is down to party policies. Who knows, after independence the Scottish Tories might have a sudden massive resurgence, win control of Holyrood, and privatise the air we breathe. Though probably not 😉

What's the UK currency going to be in 20 years? Voters have the right to know.

Well it's pretty clear what the answer to that question is - £ sterling. Why wouldn't it be ffs ?

You know if the people of the UK were being asked to weigh up the pros and cons of the UK becoming an independent nation then they would be entitled to know what that would entail. Why wouldn't they be ffs ? At the risk of repeating myself.

But the UK is already an independent sovereign state so those questions aren't relevant.

- Scotland has the resources - human, mineral, financial - to manage fine on its own.

So why are they so keen on keeping so many things 'shared' after independence? currency union, single energy market etc?

because they want some kind of faux independance where they can continue blaming 'the english' for all their problems while the rest of the uk continues to underpin their economy.
as this goes on it just looks to me more like the snp have the vote due to the ( understandable ) dissatisfaction with the 2.5 party system we have in the UK ( like the rest of us are particularly chuffed with it! ). the scots are prepared to put the snp in power but i don't believe prepared to secede from the union when it comes down to it.
whatever happens, good luck everyone.

Del - Member
because they want some kind of faux independance where they can continue blaming 'the english' for all their problems while the rest of the uk continues to underpin their economy.

Any evidence of this underpining of our economy that the rest of the UK currently does?

In response to Ben Cooper.

Currency union is the joint third most important issue to people in Scotland behind the economy and NHS based on a recent poll. So people in Scotland are not "[i]more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that[/i]".
You can bury your head in the sand about this issue all you want but the poll in the guardian I linked to earlier suggests support for a currency union in the rest of the UK simply does not exist. You say that "[i]Everyone I've talked to thinks that some kind of agreement would have to be reached[/i]", it doesn't sound like you have talked to many non-Scots about this then. If a currency union is put to the people in the rest of the UK in a referendum it will not pass. The fact that there is no plan b shows the plan for an independent Scotland is poorly thought out.

I sincerly hope the no campaign continue the currency issue as their number one card, It'll drive no voters away the longer it goes on. no-one believes osborne.

Anyhow, to change the subject, giving Salmonds recent comments that a yes vote isn't about the SNP and he could easily see a labour government installed as the first government post referendum.

Do you think that given the love/hate relationship that the nation has with Salmond that he has a bit of a trumph card he could play in the month or 2 before the vote?

Ie. he could easily announce that he wouldn't stand for the 2016 elections and will stand down after the negotiations(I would want him involved in the negotiations).

I reckon this would have the effect creating a slight swing towards yes tbh, as Salmond supporters are more likely to be entrenched in the view that yes is the right way forward. And it may likely have the result that a barrier to a yes vote is lifted for some no voters.

Just with the recent comments from Salmond that the talks post referendum will be cross party and that their could well be a labour government, it seems to me that as the campaigning starts to ramp up over the next few months(it is only just getting started, why the currency issue will be fairly irrelevant in the coming months imo, it's been brought up too soon). I reckon there will be a move away from what has so far been a campaign of individuals.

Anyhow, thoughts?

voters have the right to know. After all if the intention is to make Scotland part of the Euro Zone it's likely to affect the way people vote.

Its really not helpful but its equally true which ever way you opt to vote.

Fasternotfatter I think Ben was referring to unionists when he said

No people are more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that

Actually there's nothing in the guardian article to support your claim that

Currency union is the joint third most important issue to people in Scotland

Any evidence of this underpining of our economy that the rest of the UK currently does?

Its almost like the future is not completely known or predictable but you use it to attack only the side you dislike

Of course the future isn't always known or predictable, but that's not we're talking about here. Bencooper claims that currency union isn't the long term plan, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask what the long term plan actually is, although you apparently don't think so.

No one is asking anyone to gaze into a crystal ball. The question being asked is merely what the plans are. Just like everyone knows that the UK's long term plans are to retain an independent currency and not join the the Euro.

Of course things change, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in 20 years the UK will still have its own independent currency. So what currency is it reasonable to assume that an "independent" Scotland will have in 20 years ?

A perfectly reasonable question which deserves a perfectly reasonable answer.

It's rare for me to agree with David Cameron but there is no denying that when he claims that Alex Salmond is "a man without a plan" he appears to hit the nail right on the head.

And btw it's not a question of me "disliking" any side (well done for trying to keep it personal) 🙄 It's a question of me expecting people to be both open and honest, whatever "side" they're on - a reasonable expectation. That's why I don't hesitate to attack Lord Robertson when he makes ludicrous claims that a Yes vote will facilitate the end of Western civilization as we know it.

You are asking to know what the party in power in 20 years time is? If the people decide, we could change the currency every 4/5 years if we like.

The plan has been set out in the short term, currency union is preferred, if that doesn't happen well it's likely the pound will be used pegged to the pound imo.

beyond that is pure speculation and entirely dependent on the party in power.

Why is it difficult to understand, the plan isn't completely set, it cannot be completely set until the scottish people start voting, you know, that thing called democracy.

But you continue to ask for a long term plan? Are you kidding yourself on? because you aren't kidding us on, only your fellow pedants..

You are asking to know what the party in power in 20 years time is?

Er, no. No one knows which government will be in power in Westminster in 20 years time but everyone knows that the plan is to still have the £.

But you continue to ask for a long term plan?

Bencooper freely volunteered the information that the long term plan isn't currency union. So it's reasonable to ask what it is.

The answer I get is that no one knows, because apparently no one can plan for the future. However, and this one's a little beauty, even though it is allegedly impossible to know the future we apparently know that the future won't include currency union !

Now you might not see the contradiction there and the dodgy ducking and diving to avoid answering a perfectly reasonable question, but unfortunately for you many will. Which presumably helps to explain why the latest news suggests that the Yes campaign has stalled.