[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Not even yS say that. Which given the porkies they tell, says something!

Northwind Vince Cable was not speaking in any official capacity. Why do independence supporters take his unofficial word as gospel? It is not as if Cameron has been caught admitting a currency union is on the table. I really do not understand the continued desperation for a currency union when it is so unpopular in the rest of the UK.

I find it amusing a currency union is still considered the no campaigns trump card! 😀 carry on please. 😀

I find it amusing that the majority of voters plan to vote No. 😀

Of course the minister making the leak- and I agree, probably Vince but you never know- was speaking in an unofficial capacity, do you expect an official government statement "Yes we are lying to the electorate to try and fix a referendum"? That'd be bold.

There's confirmation bias involved of course, lots of people didn't believe a word of it when it came out in the first place and it supports that.

But there's corroboration too- the way they ran around trying to plug the leak gave it credibility. And there is wider dubiousness about the original statement- the rushed timing to get it out after Carney's visit to Scotland didn't go as planned, and the lack of prior documentation etc which many hold supports the idea that it's a tactical decision. And at the same time, the civil service select committee is holding an investigation into civil service impartiality on the referendum, with a particular eye on Alistair Darling's mate Sir Nicholas Macpherson

I don't really see how you can describe this as desperation- it's now about a lot more than currency union, it's become about the credibility of the No campaign and you can see how many people are happy to believe they're lying. Frankly any damage the announcement made, was made on day one, but only the Yes campaign can benefit from keeping it rumbling on. They must have shit themselves with job when the leak came out, they'd be daft to let that drop.

sbob - Member

I find it amusing that the majority of voters plan to vote No.

I find it amusing that you're wrong- according to polls the minority of voters plan to vote No 😆 A smaller minority plan to vote yes.

sbob - Member
I find it amusing that the majority of voters plan to vote No.

Are these the deceased voters that the old guard Labour resurrect for the postal votes each election? 🙂

epicyclo - Member
What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.

And what both amuses and bemuses me is those who portray the Yes campaign as some sort of national liberation movement. As does the suggestion that if it is successful it will usher something quite revolutionary different to what exists at the present.

The system operating in an "independent" Scotland will be exactly the same system as the one operating now, there will be no revolution.

You could abolish the House of Lords tomorrow and it would not change things one iota, there would be no transfer of power to "the people" and exactly the same people would have all the power. Ditto if the monarchy was abolished the following Monday.

If you want change then aim for real change, not empty gestures. Although I suspect that real change is just a bit too scarey. So getting all ranty on your soapbox about the House of Lords and the Royalty presumably has its irresistible charm.

.

zokes

Still going? Solved anything yet?

It's certainly solved a few things for me - I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are.

Ben, you are correct, independence is bigger than Salmond, but Salmond is what we will have. Perhaps disaffected tory voters that may vote UKIP should heed that warning if they don't want Farage.

It's certainly solved a few things for me - I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are.

+1

I used to be much more in favour but hearing some of the nonsense on here I'm not so sure at all.

[quote=Northwind ]There's confirmation bias involved of course, lots of people didn't believe a word of [s]it when it came out in the first place and it supports that.[/s] anything Vince says

[quote=aracer ]
Don't forget that they can't be prevented from using the pound as currency (or having their own currency directly linked to the pound), one or other of which seem the most likely options if they become independent.

I am not but it does not answer my question- are they disadvantaged?
I am assuming yes is the answer here as they are then open the currency exchange rate fluctuations but I dint really know.

This is just yet more wanting to have your cake and eat it. 'We want all of the advantages of the union and none of the disadvantages of being independent, and if we don't get everything we want we're going to throw our toys out of the pram'.

Repeatedly claiming iS will have no debt is disingenuous at best.

Given this they may well use it as a negotiating tactic and lets be honest if you held this card, whichever side you were on, you would wouldn't you.

It's certainly solved a few things for me - I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are

aracer, playing the man isn't a great tactic even when you know for sure who the man was.

I'm not an economist. Most people in Scotland, or the UK, aren't economists. So we have to go on what experts tell us.

On one side, we have the independent Fiscal Commission, made up of economists including two Nobel Prize winners, who worked for many months on all the implications of different financial structures, and decided that a currency union would be the best option for all concerned, backing their conclusion up with reams of data.

On the other side, we have one short memo, produced by one Whitehall mandarin with no paper trail or supporting documentation, which was then used by Osborne and his shadows to discount a currency union.

Really, honestly, which side would an impartial observer find more credible?

ernie_lynch - Member
...I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are.

Ah, condescension for the stupid Scots, you are sounding like an establishment figure again.

But we have the vote, and then there's no argument.

...I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are.

Which is funny because, pretty much every time there's a debate, more people swing to Yes. Are they all stupid? Not that there are many proper debates, because Better Together refuse to have them.

But hey, the polls keep moving inexorably towards Yes, so perhaps the Scottish people understand the Yes arguments better than you do.

ernie_lynch - Member

...I now have a much better understanding of just how limited the Yes camp's arguments are.

Ah, condescension for the stupid Scots

You translate the weakness of the Yes camp's arguments as saying that the Scots are stupid ?

It is precisely these sort of childish schoolyard tactics and taunting which exposes just how limited the Yes camp's arguments really are.

Speaking of stupid, have we done this unbelievable BBC animation yet?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27002723

The 'have your cake and eat it' bit is that AS is demanding (in an increasingly shrill fashion) that Scotland gets complete political independence and a currency union. It's pretty obvious that these two things are not compatible.

In 2013, Salmond told Channel 4 News his currency union, as backed up by his Fiscal Commission, would echo the designs of Belgium and Luxembourg in 1921. But he omitted to mention that these states eventually concluded that monetary union was not enough, and established a political union, too, with several shared institutions, such as a court, an executive council, and even a joint-Parliamentary body.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/carney’s-intervention-fatal-credibility-salmond’s-currency-plan

And oh look here's someone else who doesn't agree on the currency union being the best plan:

Dr Angus Armstrong, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said the risks to the UK of entering a formal monetary union with an independent Scotland would outweigh advantages highlighted by the First Minister.

The economist spoke out as Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael stepped up pressure on Mr Salmond to produce a "Plan B" for the currency ahead of a meeting of the First Minister's economic advisers in Edinburgh today.

Giving evidence to Holyrood's economy committee yesterday Dr Armstrong dismissed claims by Nationalist MSP Chic Brodie that Chancellor George Osborne's decision to rule out a currency union was "a piece of nonsense" and "sabre rattling". He said: "I don't think it's nonsense. I'm afraid I think it's a reality."

Dr Armstrong said an independent Scotland's high levels of debt would increase the chance of an economic crisis, which could have a series impact on the rest of the UK if it was tied into a currency deal.

He warned the UK would also have no way of enforcing the strict limits on an independent Scotland's tax and spending policies that would be required to make a currency union work, as the newly independent state could pull out at any time.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/economist-warns-currency-union-not-in-best-interests-of-rest-of-uk.23614778

Along with the Governor of the Bank of England who has said that currency union requires fiscal union.

Really, honestly, which side would an impartial observer find more credible?

If you just leave lots of people off the list in a ludicrously selective fashion it doesn't actually make your argument more convincing. Quite the opposite in fact.

I can not work out if it is aimed at kids or meant to be comedy....any guesses?

It is precisely these sort of childish schoolyard tactics and taunting which exposes just how limited the Yes camp's arguments really are.

AS is demanding (in an increasingly shrill fashion)

ernie_lynch - Member
...You translate the weakness of the Yes camp's arguments as saying that the Scots are stupid ?

Twisting it a bit there, aren't you?

You have said that removing the House of Lords, and Royalty wouldn't make a bit of difference.

You must truly regard us as stupid if you expect us to believe that.

We're not expecting to have a Utopia, but we will be getting out of a dystopia.

I can not work out if it is aimed at kids or meant to be comedy....any guesses?

I've got a feeling they think this is really how you have to explain things to 16- and 17-year-olds. Intensely patronising - and also very biased. Defending the oil rigs, WTF?

We're not expecting to have a Utopia, but we will be getting out of a dystopia.

Britain has plenty of issues and I'm no fan of the monarchy etc but describing the country as a dystopia is pretty pathetic (project fear anyone?).

By global standards most people in this country are really bloody lucky.

glad you dont stoop to hyperbole grum 😀

I dont get why this issue does this to you all tbh

project fear anyone?

You do know that "Project Fear" was Better Together's own internal name for their strategy?

epicyclo - Member

Twisting it a bit there, aren't you?

You have said that removing the House of Lords, and Royalty wouldn't make a bit of difference.

You must truly regard us as stupid if you expect us to believe that.

So you accuse me of "twisting" things and then go on to claim that by saying that the abolition of the House of Lords and the monarchy won't change anything I'm in fact calling you stupid.

That's remarkable - did you type that out with a straight face ?

It's impossible to have a sensible discussion over Scottish independence with you isn't it ?

And btw the [i]"you are sounding like an establishment figure again"[/i] taunt was really quite pathetic. I know you like to see yourself as taking on the establishment and being terribly rebellious, but there is nothing revolutionary about relocating the people who superficially govern you from Westminster to Edinburgh. But dream on freedom fighter 🙄

but there is nothing revolutionary about relocating the people who superficially govern you from Westminster to Edinburgh.

On one side, we have the independent Fiscal Commission, made up of economists including two Nobel Prize winners, who worked for many months on all the implications of different financial structures, and decided that a currency union would be the best option for all concerned, backing their conclusion up with reams of data.

On the other side, we have one short memo, produced by one Whitehall mandarin with no paper trail or supporting documentation, which was then used by Osborne and his shadows to discount a currency union.

I guess that if you believe that this is even vaguely close to representing the real situation, then it is indeed an open and shut case.

In the meantime, we have an clear case study across the channel showing that current unions without full economic and political union have slim chances of success, unless of course one lives in la, la land where you can indeed have all your oatcake and eat it. All the benefits of a CU, none of the disadvantages, and all this while having complete economic and political independence. A new form of economic and political alchemy. Why on earth has no one else ever thought of it? It's brilliant.

we have an clear case study across the channel showing that current unions without full economic and political union have slim chances of success

BEN he is spot on his assessment that your description is way off the mark though. there are clear negative risks to the rUK and they will need to be persuaded/negotiated with/threatened/bullied whatever if this is even possible.

Most opinion says
1. Its best for all of the UK
2 rUK takes on asymmetric risk
3. rUK is not daft so 2 is unlikely
I still think it will be part of the negotiations but i would not like to bet on the outcome.

a currency union would be the [b]best option for all[/b]concerned

What Ben says versus what the FC actually says...

“Analysis shows that it would be in Scotland’s interests to retain Sterling immediately post-independence. It is also the case that – post- independence – [b]this would benefit the rest of the UK [/b]given the scale of integrated markets, including in areas such as financial services”

Subtle difference yes, but critical ones that any AS economics student, party leaders in rUk, the gov of the BOE and HM Treasury are fortunately able to spot. All currency options have pros and cons. It is true that a CU would bring the benefit of eg, lower transaction costs but as all of the above and many business leaders have clearly stated these pros are far outweighed by the disadvantages and costs. You don't need a paper trail, just an elementary understanding of the economics involved.

[quote=epicyclo ]You have said that removing the House of Lords, and Royalty wouldn't make a bit of difference.
You must truly regard us as stupid if you expect us to believe that.

OK, so if you're not stupid, what actual real practical difference would it make? Answers not involving too much waffle and soft facts would be preferable.

aracer, question with a question- do you believe the Lords does nothing at all? Did they not, for instance, unilaterally recall devolved power from the Scottish Government last year? Seems that removing that would in fact do something.

I'm easy ozey tbh, don't like the concept of an unelected chamber, and there's much to dislike about the way it works, but I don't think there's any question that they can be a valuable counterbalance to the house of commons and frankly, I have so little respect for westminster politics, I'm glad we still have that.

The queen as head of state, not so much, I think it's been true for a long time that the first time she uses her hereditary powers to overrule an elected government would be the last time. So I think that's a difference that makes no real difference though I can see why people don't like the situation. To quote the Royal Central website, "Over time, the prerogative powers have been used less and less though the important thing in our Constitutional Monarchy is that they still exist" Others agree, but for different reasons.

Northwind - Member
...The queen as head of state, not so much, I think it's been true for a long time that the first time she uses her hereditary powers to overrule an elected government would be the last time....

She did exactly that in Australia to the Whitlam government.

aracer - Member
OK, so if you're not stupid, what actual real practical difference would it make? Answers not involving too much waffle and soft facts would be preferable.

Let me turn that around. Why do you think democracy will not work?

She did exactly that in Australia to the Whitlam government.

Did the queen do that herself though?

atlaz - Member
Did the queen do that herself though?

It was done by her representative in her name and without democratic process.

It doesn't matter if she was a puppet. The power behind the throne can be wielded without requiring the approval of our elected representatives.

ernie_lynch - Member
... there is nothing revolutionary about relocating the people who superficially govern you from Westminster to Edinburgh...

You're the one introducing revolutionary into this. We are committed to doing this by the civilised process of democracy, not revolution.

I am puzzled by your opposition to democracy.

You do know that "Project Fear" was Better Together's own internal name for their strategy?

My point is that the repeated claim that the No campaign has a monopoly on negativity and fear-mongering is clearly nonsense. If a No supporter came out with ridiculous comments about Scotland becoming a dystopia after Independence you'd be all over it.

On the issue about the queen - we do still have the ludicrous scenario where her and Prince Charles get to preview/veto legislation.

The Queen and Prince Charles are using their little-known power of veto over new laws more than was previously thought, according to Whitehall documents.

At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws in areas such as higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.

Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

My point is that the repeated claim that the No campaign has a monopoly on negativity and fear-mongering is clearly nonsense

What negative stuff has the Yes campaign come out with? What fear-mongering?

I thought the Yes campaign was the happy clappy, hope-over-experience campaign?

on one side, we have the independent Fiscal Commission, made up of economists including two Nobel Prize winners, who worked for many months on all the implications of different financial structures, and decided that a currency union would be the best option for all concerned, backing their conclusion up with reams of data.

On the other side, we have one short memo, produced by one Whitehall mandarin with no paper trail or supporting documentation, which was then used by Osborne and his shadows to discount a currency union.

Alternatively, on one side we have an 'independent' fiscal commission, drawn from Alex Salmond’s 'Council of Economic Advisers' and chaired by Crawford Beveridge, a former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise and long-established SNP supporter and large scale donor, producing a report that has been revealed through FOI to cut and paste from numerous previous papers, often taking different conclusions.

On the other we have Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary to the treasury since 2005, under three different chancellors, a long standing senior civil servant, bound by the civil service code - a code of impartiality which has been closely guarded and strictly enforced for many, many years and has proved to be a thorn in the side for senior politicians of all colours on numerous occasions.

grum - Member
...If a No supporter came out with ridiculous comments about Scotland becoming a dystopia after Independence you'd be all over it...

A disabled person starving to death in the PM's electorate may be an indication. Foodbanks in a 1st world country may be another.

DEPUTY First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will today warn that the UK Government will "turn the screw" on Scotland if voters reject independence.

She will tell delegates at the SNP conference that public services and popular universal benefits would be under threat as a result of budget cuts.

Ms Sturgeon, who is responsible for drawing up the Scottish Government's white paper on independence, due to be published next month, will say: "Be under no illusion. If we don't vote Yes, Westminster will turn the screw.

How's that for negativity and fear-mongering?

And of course I was referring to a specific example of negative nonsense from a Yes supporter, which you've conveniently ignored.

A disabled person starving to death in the PM's electorate may be an indication. Foodbanks in a 1st world country may be another.

You'll have to point me to where I said everything was perfect or that I was a supporter of the current government. But claiming we live in a dystopia is ridiculous. And believing that an iS would be radically different is naive.

Isn't she just confirming what various politicians have already said, that the Barnett formula will be scrapped? And of course every Westminster party is happy to continue with the austerity plan.

Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it's perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it's disgraceful. Ok then. 🙄

It all depends on whether the story is true or not. Make up some bollocks that in an independent Scotland you wouldn't be able to watch Eastenders? That's a scare story. Point out that the cuts are going to get worse - which the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on? That's a valid warning.

Ah, so:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26924027

'UK faces energy blackout risk' if it doesn't continue subsidising Scottish renewables after independence is a valid warning 😆

Are you saying that the Ofgem report isn't true?

ninfan - Member
Ah, so:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26924027

'UK faces energy blackout risk' if it doesn't continue subsidising Scottish renewables after independence is a valid warning

It all depends on whether the story is true or not. Make up some bollocks that in an independent Scotland you wouldn't be able to watch Eastenders? That's a scare story. Point out that the cuts are going to get worse - which the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on? That's a valid warning.

But in your mind everything that the Yes campaign says is true, and everything the No campaign (and The Treasury, and the governor of the Bank of England, and economists who don't agree with you) says is both wrong and part of a sinister conspiracy.

So a simple 'yes' to this would have sufficed.

Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it's perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it's disgraceful. Ok then.

Is the issue of the BBC rubbish though? Surely the BBC will need to buy any SBC programmes it's wants to air in the :wink:same way the SBC will the reverse. Sky/Virgin will need additional licences to broadcast programes they have bought in iS.

So there is the potential for the SBC to either decide or not be able to afford to buy Eastenders or Newsnight in which case it won't be shown via the SBC in iS.

It may be unlikely but with only the income from 9M the SBC's budget it going to be much tighter than when the UK was sharing costs.

Of course the BBC may decide to give away rights to the programming it's commissioned and the rights holders to the programming the BBC has bought may decide to allow the BBC to share there programmes with the SBC free of charge...

Personally I don't see that a scaremongering just stating simple facts. As a new smaller state there are many things that are shared today that you will have to find/fund yourselves from a much smaller budget. So it is a negative statement demonstrating one small way in which as the UK things are better. Of course you could suggest loosing EE would be a godsend.

Of course the same is true for rUK but the affect will be much smaller.

Are you saying that the Ofgem report isn't true?

The Ofgem report wasn't about the single energy market and Scottish independence, it was the SNP report that quoted it and told us that without a continued single energy market us English would all be reading by torchlight that could best be described as 'extrapolation of the facts into scaremongering bullshit!' - a bit like your own example of 'No Eastenders' being based on the *fact* that iS would not have the BBC... (still, perhaps you can replace it with a newly commissioned series of 'take the high road'?)

in relation to the Scottish electorate that's not scaremongering. That's saying the garden is rosey.

Not if rUK subsidy for iS renewables is withdrawn it isn't 😆

It's interesting that Westminster was so keen to publicise Macphersons "impartial" advice yet Mccrones reoort was classified secret and kept from the public for 30 years.
[url= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report ]The mccrone report[/url]

Well at least there is McCrones book to read - funny that it gets ridiculed on here (unread as far as I can tell) by YS supporters. Is that because it is balanced ie, pros AND cons?

There are only two questions that need to be examined re debt and neither include shall we/shan't we.

1. How will it be split ie, the %s and the method (historic basis, population, ability to pay etc)
2. What means of fiscal transfer - a one off, clean break or pay equivalent of interest and principal as they fall due. Each has pros and cons for both sides.

The rest is largely irrelevantly noise (when it comes to debt).

A 1974 report?

really?

Your 'proof' of a conspiracy is the difference between how a report was handled when ABBA won the Eurovision, and now?

I read it knowing Mccrones view on independence . Given his clearly expressed wish to obstruct the pro independence movement it was hard to see him as unbiased.

in relation to the Scottish electorate that's not scaremongering. That's saying the garden is rosey.
Not if rUK subsidy for iS renewables is withdrawn it isn't

It's an interesting point though, the subsidy, Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level, but if they were only there to support scottish energy would that really be required? I mean, scotland does only need a finite amount of energy. There are only 5 million of us.

btw I don't believe for a minute that the light on england would go out. It'd not be difficult to organise more energy if required.

I'll leave the conspiracy theories to you ninfan. I am merely referring to a historical fact .

If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree.
Michael Crichton

grum - Member
... claiming we live in a dystopia is ridiculous. And believing that an iS would be radically different is naive.

I don't recall in my lifetime seeing such a concentrated attack on the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable unable to defend themselves section of society. It's a cross party policy. If that's not dystopia, what is?

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

😀

teamhurtmore - Member
"And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted."
😀

It makes me happy too. Nice to see we agree at last. 🙂

Anyhow, now I've helped you chaps to realise there will be a Nirvana to your North, I must allow you to consider it for a while.

But don't worry, I'll be back in about 2 weeks.

Did someone say no Eastenders is an independent Scotland?
That's meant to get people to vote No??????

I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile! If the analysis was half-correct we should all be moving north of the border NOW.

In the event of an iS, I will miss Roddy Forsyth's summaries on R5L!!

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out. In an iS there will be finite levels of spending and at some point there will have to be limits, which means that some people will suffer due to lack of services. It will be impossible to generate enough tax revenue to be able to provide all the services that are being promised

sadmadalan - Member
The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out.

Reason for austerity is a shift in balance of wealth between different sections of society.

How does that work?

teamhurtmore - Member
How does that work?

so if you're not stupid, what actual real practical difference would it make? Answers not involving too much waffle and soft facts would be preferable.

On the other we have Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary to the treasury since 2005, under three different chancellors, a long standing senior civil servant, bound by the civil service code - a code of impartiality which has been closely guarded and strictly enforced for many, many years and has proved to be a thorn in the side for senior politicians of all colours on numerous occasions.

Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it's perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it's disgraceful. Ok then

But in your mind everything that the Yes campaign says is true, and everything the No campaign (and The Treasury, and the governor of the Bank of England, and economists who don't agree with you) says is both wrong and part of a sinister conspiracy.

I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile!

Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

konabunny - Member
Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

Why?

There's some guff in the torygraph about subisidies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/10548157/Europe-wants-to-block-UK-wind-farm-subsidies.html

And some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Obligation_Certificates

I don't buy the bit about austerity being because the money ran out. We are still a wealthy country. The Tories in fact recently admitted they would continue with austerity indefinitely regardless of our economic position didn't they?

However, the SNP only offer a slightly less shit form of neo-liberalism than is available in Westminster. I guess at least that's something but it's not a socialist utopia like some seem to think.

And vice versa- really what is it about this issue that makes every one forth and become so one sided - that is a serious question but I doubt it will get any answer never mind a serious one.

I'm not really that one-sided. I'm pretty ambivalent about independence - and as I said I used to be fairly pro. I just see an awful lot of bollocks being talked and it's mainly coming from the Yes camp on here. I'm just trying to look at the evidence in as rational a way as possible.

Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11? 🙂

I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical - but that doesn't mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn't make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

I genuinely don't think I've ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK.

Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

Wisdom comes with age Grum, embrace it!!!! 😉

Tories, LD and labour are all proponents of achieving a budgets surplus at some stage - are labour remembering their Keynesian roots? (The EU also has a newish fiscal compact). The difference is essentially one of timing not substance. IS will face exactly the same challenges and policies will be broadly the same - why? Not just because they make sense (largely) but because control of monetary and fiscal policy will (again largely) lie in the hands of the gov in Westminster. The elephant in the room may be getting older, but it isn't getting any smaller. By design yS want the key levers of power to remain in Westminster. They hide it well, but the "fact" remains.

"He who controls the currency, controls the country." Not even Antipodean actors nor saltire face paints can't alter that truism.

[quote=Junkyard ]Are you really asking us what difference, in terms of the democratic process, it would make to not have yourself governed by those who are unelected and there by birthright.

Is that waffle or soft fact? You see I'm not really sure how much difference it makes to the man on the street whether or not there's some unelected part of government if it doesn't actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

Though actually on reflection I'm with Northwind on this - I'm sure you won't be keen on the source, but here's an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100266816/the-house-of-lords-alone-in-parliament-defends-the-british-traditions-of-humanity-freedom-and-justice/

So in answer to epicyclo's question, the problem with democracy is that it brings with it a very short term attitude as members are always looking to the next election and not necessarily any further. Though I'm not sure why I need to point that out given I thought there was broad agreement from both sides of this debate about that being a problem.

Oh and BTW I doubt the 92 there by birthright could actually "govern" us to any significant extent even if they tried - not when they make up only about 12% of the house.

[quote=grum ]Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

Well you're also agreeing with ernie if that helps.

aracer - Member

Though actually on reflection I'm with Northwind on this - I'm sure you won't be keen on the source, but here's an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job

Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We've got our own fix for that though.

[quote=Northwind ]Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We've got our own fix for that though.

Ah - this is the one about you having better politicians than we have? 😆

More that we have a better electorate 😉

Northwind - Member

More that we have a better electorate

An electorate that is in favour of the union? 😀

sbob - Member
An electorate that is in favour of the union?*

If you don't think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them. 😉

sbob - Member
If you don't think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them.

I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical - but that doesn't mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn't make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

I genuinely don't think I've ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK

if it doesn't actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

Your right folk dont care...unless they are foreign ones in the EU then its undemocratic but the Queen ,lords and the bishops ...well that is tradition innit 😉

Both sides seem to be doing this