[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Would that be the 40 year old report available because the SNP put in a FOI request in 2005? I includer many ordinary folk whose wages are being cut while bankers and quite a number of other executives are taking home substantial pay rises and bonuses. As for pensions the scottish govt does have a plan in place for a three year transition period [url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26015455 ]bbc report[/url]
What is Mr Osborne doing to help people on low pay?
Finally there's the universal benefit shambles (am trying to moderate my language but when you are asking disabled people to move out of their homes into houses that dont exist...)
We can do better than this.

Would that be the 40 year old report available because the SNP put in a FOI request in 2005

Ah, but it would be the same McCrone that advised the Labour Government on how to take the wind out of the SNP sails? THM; using him as somebody Scots should listen to is amazingly one eyed, even by your anti-indy sentiments. The original McCrone report and it's burying is as good an example of Westminster double dealing as it is possible to get. Likewise,why would anybody give him credibility after his actions? "Damn, the jocks could be rich,best hide it." The first ref would have been so much different if this had been out in the open. Just think; no Thatcher in charge of Scotland...For that alone he should be burnt at the stake

Edit: double post

duckman - Member
...The original McCrone report and it's burying is as good an example of Westminster double dealing as it is possible to get. Likewise,why would anybody give him credibility after his actions? "Damn, the jocks could be rich,best hide it."...

Exploitation of the natives, good old imperial administration tactics.

duckman - Member
THM; using him as somebody Scots should listen to is [b]amazingly one eyed, [/b]even by your anti-indy sentiments.

And that is quite a strong accusation, thanks!!. I assume that you have read his book and know first hand about whether or not he tries to address each side of some of the key arguments? Scots can listen to who they like that is there prerogative. But to rely on the crap that comes from most politicians while ignoring one of the more, if not most, respected commentators on these affairs would be shame.

Clearly the Amamzon reviewers are as myopic or one-eyed as me... The first review

A clear readable analysis of the important issues surrounding the case for and against independence. Let no-one claim that there is insufficient information about the choices facing voters in Scotland in the 2014 referendum unless and until they have read this admirably succinct book

Try it, it's a very good read and a bargain on kindle.....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scottish-Independence-Weighing-Up-Economics/dp/178027159X

Probably not he best day to highlight the Scotsman's coverage of the IFS report showing that austerity will continue in Scotland even under independence. After the pain of the rugby that would be a little harsh. We can cover that minor hiccup later.... 😉

I've always liked that all stamps are British unless it says otherwise.
Will Scotland have to print Scotland on their stamps?

But to rely on the crap that comes from most politicians while ignoring one of the more, if not most, respected commentators on these affairs would be shame

So ignoring the fact that McCrone was rabidly pro union you suggest it is a damn good read for Scots,or were you ever going to share any of the skullduggery he got up to? Were you maybe going to add the warning into your posts that he perhaps was not the most impartial of writers? Thought so... 😀 Don't really do balance,do you?
Who respects him as a commentator on the ref? Certainly nobody who is aware of his subsequent actions. I wonder how many of your dozen Amazon reviewers are aware of how complicit he was in ensuring that his report was locked away. Then he needs the money/sees a business opp...just out of interest does he explain WHY it took a freedom of information act to bring his initial report out into the open in his "damn good read"
McCrone's actions set him up as a politician as he took a decision to "Take the wind out of the SNP's sails." (his words) to preserve his employment as an advisor for sucessive Westminster Governments.

Don't really do balance,do you?

Have you read his book? Odd that someone so discredited (sic) to be labelled a politician (heaven forbid) would write so many reasons why Scotland could benefit from independence (as well as the counter arguments). But you would have to read it to comment.

So tell me who classifies a document as top secret and what does a civil servant need to do in response?

Don't do balance??? Hmmm, so read all of BoD, 60-70% of Uk and Scottish gov reports, McCrone twice, HM Treasury and BoE materials, and most articles in broadsheets, even asking for links to decent pro articles in the Scottish press. Plus presented pros and cons of each of the currency options and not hidden behind false terminology to distort the debate. Happy to have a wager on who has read most on both sides.

I have not read it, yet you suggest duckman that it may not actually be a good read for Scots. Why would that be the case?

For somebody who is so well read on the independence debate in a country he has no vote in, you don't seem to focus on anything else except the negatives,despite your claims to present pros and cons. Mind you, you knew that was what I meant,others have also pointed this out to you.
Oh, and I have read the (abridged) McCrone report, may I please be allowed to comment on his input into the independence debate in MY country?

Odd that someone so discredited (sic) to be labelled a politician (heaven forbid)

Go on,just for balance,just this once in the thread,why don't you type what McCrone suggested in his report to his new labour paymasters? Or would that involve showing the reasons why McCrone is a pretty marginal figure in the debate? McCrone report is like a beautiful five course meal that finishes with a jobby sandwich. Doesn't matter how nice what goes before is, it is the finishing course that will always be in the memory.

On the contrary, my main focus is on AS's deceit and lies and on him taking the rUK for a ride. Wonderful arrogance of folk to ignore the fact that the vote has implications for the whole of the UK not just the Scots. Still better to "one-eyed" than "completely blind" to that. And the English are accused of arrogance? What's the Gaelic for "ironing"?

If you dont swallow AS BS even when it defies logic, theory and practice you become un-balanced. Hmmm?

I guess that puts me in a pretty distinguished group that includes Central Bank Governors, HM Treasury Officials, Representative of all three major political parties and a large number of businessmen. I guess 'others' can accuse them of being one-eyed, poorly read and ill-informed as well. Frankly happy with that compared with some of the illiterate counter arguments and lies.

I have read the original McCrone report. The sentence that is oft quoted comes in the letter of introduction not the report or its conclusion. The conclusion makes very clear how NS Oil had the potential to transform the debate on independence (Page 19 if you have the report). What the letter says is that his report (1) gives the benefit of doubt on many areas of debate (then and now) to the SNP and that (2) there is a more convincing economic policy for helping the depressed areas of Scotland than merely relying on existing regional policies.

It was the use of better policies to make the Scottish economy more prosperous that was referred to as taking the wind of the SNP sails. Not such a good headline though is it?

Have you read the more recent book or explained who made the '74 report Top Secret?

p.s. I would also recommend No voters to read articles by Mirrlees (even though he is paid to write positive docs for wee eck). He is very good on tax and (like McCrone) a very good writer and easy to read. It would be a bit un-balanced and silly to dismiss Mirrlees work out-of-hand.

I actually think it is quite arrogant to suggest we should put up with the status quo because it doesn't suit you lot if we leave while we still have assets to strip. Or do l have a different understanding of the "implications" you refer to? Like l said,no balance;your constant bile about AS,or your above description of counter arguments to the union as illiterate and lies are examples Honestly,have you such a fear of an independent Scotland? Your constant fear mongering and crowing every times a business sets up a subsidiary in England is at odds with your admission that Scotland could survive on its own by about page 10.

And for the record,I would LOVE to make the Indy vote a national one.

I appreciate if you dont want to read books, reports and especially the BOD, but at least have the courtesy to read what I say before the next diatribe. It just looks a little silly. In answer the the question, yes very different.

BTW, It is important to know if someone is setting up a subsidiary as it has direct implications for jobs, taxes, employment, risk etc. You know, stuff that matters to everyday folk. But if others want to live unquestioningly in AS's la la land of make believe then so be it. More fool them.

Ditto, if rUK wants to correctly protect it's own interests.....(however inconvenient for the la, la dreams).

Don't suppose you have read the book?

Don't do balance???

my main focus is on AS's deceit and lies and on him taking the rUK for a ride

I am fairly sure that any impartial commentator for say the BBC or perhaps a Civil Servant would say this nor be allowed to
Nor this

If you dont swallow AS BS even when it defies logic, theory and practice you become un-balanced

Anyway just for balance ( 😉 ), ignore the discredited (sic) McCrone and stick to those nice folk who also publish (yS's) Mirrlees research ie the IFS and go back to the original point about austerity or not. And what do they say

The economic outlook for an independent Scotland is more optimistic than previously forecast – [b]provided it continues with George Osborne’s spending squeeze, [/b]according to one of Britain’s leading economic research institutes.

Heads more austerity
Tails more austerity
How's that for balance!

THM I take it you mean [url= http://www.scotsman.com/.../scottish-independence-ifs-deliver-economy-report. ]This Scotsman IFS report coverage[/url]
I note that it refers to OBR stats on oil, they couldnt possibly be low could they? I mean Mccrone was 40 years ago times have changed now, but Westminster would for example approach the EU commission for definitive legal advice wouldnt they?

I have not read Mccrone's book but if I can get it from the library I will. Given his actions in the 70s I am struggling to see him as truly unbiased though.
Then there is this
[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/msps-unite-in-anger-at-dounreay-radiation-cover-up ]The Herald Scottish government not informed of radiation leak[/url]

So pointing out you have an axe to grind is a diatribe is it,your contribution to 1800 posts is what exactly? So what are these very different reasons you have that make us so arrogant for choosing a party that would guarantee us a chance to decide if WE want to stay in an unequal union? You have dipped in and out telling us how we can't possibly listen to AS,how all our businesses will leave..is that NOT all been out of concern for us poor simple teuchters? Gosh, you English with your trousers and smart tongues!

Gosh, you English with your trousers and smart tongues!

Easy tiger, don't tar us all with that brush.

Gordi, it's was ducks who went back to the 1974 McCrone it an attempt to trash him - ignoring the irony that AS used to quote him endlessly (still waiting for the Gaelic for ironing). I was referring to his 2013 book - all 99p on kindle or three coffees for the paperback version. The original report is interesting for perspective though.

Try again, where have I said or even hinted about "all our businesses." True, I have reported those who have already prepared to set up south of the border. Facts, stick to them. Then the trousers stay up!!!

Downloaded the book yet?

Actually it was me who went back to the 74 report....abair iarnaigidh( What ironing) 😀
The actual word for irony would be sgeigeach

http://learngaelic.net/dictionary/?abairt=irony

http://learngaelic.net/dictionary/?abairt=ironing

Do I have the right Garlic dictionary?

Cheers Gordi, my mistake, Dm only picked up on the reference!!! Thanks for the vocab, how long before it's needed? 😉

Same dictionary as me piemonster but if you go to your own link then follow the link to Am Faclair Beag you ll get several options for ironing . I got the wrong declension 😳
edit added in go to your own link then

I love how you are trying to reinvent your posts on here thm,people have been suggesting you have an unhealthy hatred of AS since page one,yet you claim to be sticking to facts. I don't have to discredit McCrone,the 2005 foi did that for him. As for the irony of AS quoting him,well when somebody so much in the rUK's pocket is suggesting positives,why wouldn't you? It is all about spin,as you are WELL aware As I and others have said, McCrone is never going to be viewed with anything other than suspicion because of his previous associations...or as you call it, perspective.Maybe that is why his recent cash ins have fewer reviews than the very hungry Caterpillar.

If you like,(and I hope it sustains you during a slow news day,) you could explain your obviously completely altruistic reasons for being against the Indy vote...

C'mon Duckman play fair. When I have I shown anything other than complete contempt for wee eck and his deceit and lies? And you seem to be suggesting that there is a contradiction between sticking to the facts and having a [s]un[/s]healthy [s]hatred[/s] distrust of AS. How come?

Read the BoD, the case against independence is all in there.

Have we done Brown proposing devo-max (and Sturgeon not liking it)?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26510735

She is right it still leaves Westminster holding the purse strings and Lord Home (con)promised more powers if we voted against devolution in 79. Four conservative governments passed without any devolution at all.
edit

Perhaps Dear Leader, Sturgeon and their cohorts should positively enter the devo max debate and discuss preconditions to make it work. It is what most Scots actually want, but of course they will not entertain it.

Deputy Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said of the plans: "I don't think there looks to be any chance at all of that happening.

"And, unless people know what [s]more powers[/s] [b]currency, membership of international bodies and 101 other little details[/b] we would be guaranteed to get, whichever of these parties wins the next UK election, then how on Earth can people be expected to take it seriously?"

aracer - Member

Have we done Brown proposing devo-max

I could be wrong but I don't [i]think[/i] he's prime minister any more.

If we vote yes then from the first election after the referendum the entire Scottish government will be answerable to people in Scotland which seems to me a distinct advantage.On the other hand if we vote no then we continue to get government from Westminster on key issues with policies which the majority of Scots may very well have opposed as has often been the case in the past. For what its worth I think Scottish mps should have no say on matters that do not affect Scotland .
As far as membership of international bodies goes the main concern is EU membership only the UK government can find out the definitive legal position on that and they have refused to do so.

If we vote yes, can we have Henrik Syse in charge?

If we are able to have a currency union in iScotland, the government at Holyrood will not be answerable to the people of Scotland. Do Greeks think their government is answerable to them?

If we vote yes then from the first election after the referendum the entire Scottish government will be answerable to [s]people in Scotland[/s] whoever runs the currency union we're in, EU and lenders, amongst others, which seems to me [s]a distinct [/s] no advantage over the present

"He who controls the currency, controls the country"

([i]Some random, one-eyed bloke who probably shouldn't be listened to as he was an economist[/i]))

When I have I shown anything other than complete contempt for wee eck and his deceit and lies? And you seem to be suggesting that there is a contradiction between sticking to the facts and having a unhealthy hatred distrust of AS. How come?

I assume you accept the BBC are impartial and the Civil service - would they speak like this or be allowed to?
Serious question would they ? Could an impartial commentator speak as you do ...its clear what your agenda is and its clear it is not neutral...its preposterous

We both know the answer and we both know your impartiality is as big a pile of BS as anything that comes out of AS's mouth...oh the Ironing there THM oh the ironing

And news just in, another minor economist, who "claims" to be unbiased on the facts, has just had the temerity to point out that AS is (still) being "economical" with the truth (what a waste of £800k?).....

He (Governor of the Bank of England) also insisted that with currency union Scotland’s economy would still need to be integrated including banking union [b]undermining any economic independence for an independent Scotland.[/b]He said: “Viability in a currency union is a bit like being pregnant in the sense you can’t be half viable you need all the elements.” He also agreed with Mr McFadden’s assessment attempts to create a currency union is to “recreate what Scotland already has” with being in the UK.

Honestly, the cheek of these people. How dare they pretend to be impartial and neutral on the facts? They have a bloody nerve......

He presumably went on to call AS a liar and a BS in his reply then?

Its possible to disagree with AS and not despise him you know.

Its not possible to despise him and claim neutrality...its like me claiming I am neutral on Thatcher. I am not I despise her. Now I can quote neutral folk who may agree with my assessment of certain aspects of here impact but it wont make me impartial or neutral

I am not sure why you are claiming you hate him but its impartial tbh.

[url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00446019.pdf ]Latest official Scottish numbers[/url] Might read through this later, but until then, here's [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26541575 ]the BBC's[/url] take on it.

Spin those figures thm,spin em like the wind!

The deceitful one has already done the "quick spin" cycle Duckman...The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig. I understand fully why you need to do this, it's the same for the decetiful one. Fiscal policy involves raising taxes and spending/investing money. Guess which one the deceitful one spoke about and which one he ignored yesterday. Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

The current state of Scotlands finances, the trend, the drivers and the vulnerability to those drivers are as clear as highland spring water. The only opaqueness is how you marry these facts with the fiction of la, la land economics. That is like a peaty bog.

For those that are interested In facts there was plenty of real analysis published on future tax revenues yesterday and in particular the likelihood (or not) of oIl tax revenues returning to 2011-12 levels quickly.

(Good job there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry's contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn't it?)

It's really funny (in a sad way) when the No campaign get so excited over figures showing Scotland is not doing so well financially. "We're rubbish - yay!"

Of course they hey don't bother mentioning that these are one-year figures and there are good reasons for the drop - long-term figures show Scotland having a perfectly healthy economy.

Oh, and of course these fluctuations in the oil market are why we should have an oil fund.

teamhurtmore - Member
The deceitful one has already done the "quick spin" cycle Duckman...The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig

I see...I assume you are referring to AS as the "decetiful one" You then insist we should use the figures you want us to,and not GDP...(Which has always been good enough for rUK) Clearly the BBC is biased towards the indy camp as they then report on it,if only they had had the good sense to consult you first,then they might not have avoided the figures that are speaking for themselves 😀
Also for somebody who frequently lets his scorn for indy supporters show through,and has often suggested better together are not actually bullying and we are just too touchy,you are VERY sensitive as to what constitutes a dig.

Do you see no conflict in these two statements from yourself.

Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

([b]Good job[/b] there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry's contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn't it?)

So the figures you want do not exist,but AS is one eyed for using the ones that do? I thought you had agreed to play the ball and not the man?