[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Is this one of those things that if you say it often enough, some people might actually believe it?

I'm not an economist. I believe it because the independent commission said it and other experts have also said it. The only people I've seen who disagree are political leaders (who of course will say anything they have to to get the result they want), and a civil service mandarin.

I don't think it's a cut and dried issue.

IanMunro - Member

England wants. After independence, we get who we want.

Funny. I live in England and don't get who I want.

But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.

But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.

To an extent the English do get who Scotland wants to govern them. There is no English parliament, Scotland has a direct say in all issues concerning England and the government departments which govern England.

I have no idea why there is no English parliament, at least I don't understand the moral justification for not having one. And the absence of an English parliament is a deeply undemocratic and unacceptable anomaly imo.

[quote=bencooper ]

Could it be because the independence movement is AS's pet project?

It really isn't.

Oh, so what is his pet project?

[quote=bencooper ]Why do you assume that, because I post a link, I support every word of the article and agree with every implication?

I'm not as naive as ernie - I assumed you only agreed with the bits which support your preconceptions.

[quote=bencooper ]I'm not an economist. I believe it because the independent commission said it and other experts have also said it. The only people I've seen who disagree are political leaders (who of course will say anything they have to to get the result they want), and a civil service mandarin.

You missed these insignificant chaps then (who you'd think might support a currency union if anybody would, if what AS says is to be believed)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union

teamhurtmore - Member
"bencooper - Member
After independence, we get who we want."
I gives me a warm feeling that, the innocence required to believe that still exists is today's cynical world.

So fundamentally you believe

1. democracy doesn't work, and government is best done by an elite?
or
2. Scots are too stupid to run their own country properly?

Neither actually.

I don't believe in fairy tales either.

You missed these insignificant chaps then (who you'd think might support a currency union if anybody would, if what AS says is to be believed)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union

I didn't really miss them - but since there's also lots of business people who are ambivalent about independence, and lots who are pro-independence, it's probably sensible to count the opinions of the business community as a draw.

More importantly, I'm still waiting to see these forums where there's a general consensus I'm a mentalist 😀

But at least you don't get who Scotland wants.

To an extent the English do get who Scotland wants to govern them. There is no English parliament, Scotland has a direct say in all issues concerning England and the government departments which govern England.

I have no idea why there is no English parliament, at least I don't understand the moral justification for not having one. And the absence of an English parliament is a deeply undemocratic and unacceptable anomaly imo.

I fully support Ernie in his quest for a greater degree of self-determination for the people of England.

This historical anomaly, whereby one nation with a questionable mandate holds an undue and unwarranted influence over a neighbour with differing and divergent priorities, does neither party any good in the long run. We should put a stop to it at once.

Unsatisfactory constitutional arrangements, eh? Who needs 'em? We should have a referendum about it or something.

[quote=bencooper ]I didn't really miss them - but since there's also lots of business people who are ambivalent about independence, and lots who are pro-independence, it's probably sensible to count the opinions of the business community as a draw.

Yes of course, let's count any pro-independence business people as equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD. I would expect nothing less of you.

I fully support Ernie in his quest for a greater degree of self-determination for the people of England.

Absolutely - the Westminster democratic deficit is even worse for people in the North of England and the South-West than it is for us. The rUK really needs a federal system, like most other democracies have, and something seriously needs doing to the electoral system too.

Yes of course, let's count any pro-independence business people as equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD. I would expect nothing less of you.

Okay, how are we going to score it? By number of businesses on each side? By the number of employees these businesses have? By the turnover, profit, exports or some other financial metric of each of these businesses? How would you determine which side is the winner?

How about you find somebody equivalent to the leaders of the CBI and the IoD who support a currency union? What other business organisations are there of similar standing?

So fundamentally you believe democracy doesn't work

Not the way you think it does. If Scotland votes yes it will be less independent than it is now. For example the City of London will still invest in Scotland but Scotland will lose all regulation and control over it, similarly Scotland will continue to use the pound sterling but lose all influence.

On another thread someone says [i]"I would be voting Yes to decouple Scotland from a neo-liberal, London-centric Westminster consensus"[/i] which betrays a real naivety.

Firstly an "independent" Scotland will have sign the European Fiscal Compact if it joins the EU which takes control of the economy out of its hands and makes the neoliberal model enforceable by unelected EU Commissioners.

And secondly all four major parties in Scotland have signed up to the neoliberal consensus. And yes that includes the SNP - cutting corporation tax is pure neolibralism.

.

Scots are too stupid to run their own country properly?

The Scots aren't stupid, about half of all the British Prime Ministers for the last 150 years have been Scottish or of Scottish descent. Which is quite an achievement bearing in mind that the English outnumber the Scots 10 to 1.

What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.

What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.

Are you able to quantify the effects of that Influence Ernie? Even people in the north of England view Westminster as Southern-centric.

We should have a referendum about it or something.

Even better, we should have one that contains the options most people actually want.

Crazy thought I know but

"Even better, we [s]should[/s] could have had the one that contains the option that the book of dreams describes"

- it certainly isn't independence

Are you able to quantify the effects of that Influence Ernie?

You think political influence has no effect ? That's a new one on me.

You think political influence has no effect ? That's a new one on me.

In that case it should be easy for you to explain the effects. If being part of a union gives us such influence, why is their a referendum in September?

What a bizarre question. Scotland obviously has political influence. The referendum in September is to decide whether Scotland wishes to be separate from the rest of the UK.

Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any more questions 🙂

What would be really stupid would be to give up all that influence.

How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK? Don't try and make out the Scottish leaders of the big 3 UK parties pander to anyone but their base support and as many of the influential swing constituencies as possible.

- it certainly isn't independence

If you keep saying that over and over again, some of us might starting believing you 🙄

How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK?

Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?

And voting Yes will remove all responsibility from UK Prime Ministers to even consider the interests of the Scottish people.

.

If you keep saying that over and over again, some of us might starting believing you

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe, but not I'm going to ignore the truth simply because to don't like it.

A separate Scotland will have less influence over issues which effect it.

Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?

Exactly. But this is what you were insinuating when you mentioned how many Scottish prime misters we'd had, wasn't it? Otherwise why bring it up?

A separate Scotland will have less influence over issues which effect it.

We'll obviously need to agree to disagree on that then.

But this is what you were insinuating when you mentioned how many Scottish prime misters we'd had, wasn't it? Otherwise why bring it up?

It is certainly not what I 'insinuated'.

I brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.

This does not however mean that it has been at the detriment of the rest of the UK, why would it need to be ?

EDIT : AS/SNP now wants a separate Scotland to work in direct competition with the rest of the UK, with the false claim that a corporation tax rate 3% below the UK level will draw investment away from England and Wales and to Scotland. The effect of this kind of strategy will be detrimental to both Scotland and England and Wales (and it certainly won't help Northern England which so many on here claim to be concerned about) Competition between Scotland and England and Wales will be bad for all parties concerned. Although England will almost certainly come out less scathed.

ernie_lynch - Member
How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK?
Why on earth should a UK Prime Minister implement policies which favour the Scots over everyone else?

btw few pages back you were on about currency options B, the options are there if you care to look for them. Salmond and sturgeon, have be pretty clear on that(despite the media trying to say otherwise.).

ernie_lynch - Member
...I brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.

Is that why our people keep having to emigrate to find a living for their family?

Scotland's population was just over 5 million 100 years ago. It's still in the 5 millions. Meanwhile England's population has risen 40%.

That doesn't sound like the cake of opportunity has been spread very evenly.

If that is influence, it's not the sort we need.

brought it up because there is clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years.

The point I'm trying (and failing apparently) is that having Scottish ministers does not and has not given Scotland any benefit at all. They act on what's in their parties interests, not those of Scotland. So, unless there's any evidence of policy which unduly favours Scotland that's been enacted by a minister just because they're Scottish I can't buy your argument at all.

seosamh77 - Member

They shouldn't. But well, that's kinda the point of independence!

See the edit to my post.

That doesn't sound like the cake of opportunity has been spread very evenly

Hmm yes, London and the SE has been drawing people for a long time. However, it's London that's the draw, not England. So it's not really a case of England vs Scotland, it's a case of major world city vs small provincial cities.

London draws people from all over the world, so I'd be surprised if it WASN'T drawing Scots. It's just what happens when you have a huge prosperous city not too far away.

London is creating its own growth and has been for millenia, it's not Westminster's fault. You have to appreciate that London is a phenomenon that distorts the economy of the entire British Isles and has an effect on the whole world, and that's not going to go away if Scotland declare independence.

whatnobeer - Member

How often has a Scottish prime minster resulted in policies that favoured the Scots over anyone else in the UK? Don't try and make out the Scottish leaders of the big 3 UK parties pander to anyone but their base support and as many of the influential swing constituencies as possible.

Best hope you fall into the category of your potential new overlord's base support then as it appears your Scottish MPs have poor form. 💡

sbob - Member
...Best hope you fall into the category of your potential new overlord's base support then as it appears your Scottish MPs have poor form.

Nah, it's like our whisky. The rubbish gets exported, the best is saved for home consumption. 🙂

If you are going to talk about London then it might be useful to remember that, despite being slap bang in the middle of the South East and home to the City of London, London has the highest levels of poverty and inequality in the whole of the UK - certainly higher than anything in Scotland.

Yet no one is suggesting that the solution is to give London's 8 million inhabitants a referendum on "independence".

The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

molgrips - Member
...London is creating its own growth and has been for millenia, it's not Westminster's fault. You have to appreciate that London is a phenomenon that distorts the economy of the entire British Isles and has an effect on the whole world, and that's not going to go away if Scotland declare independence.

That's a phenomenon of capital cities with a centralised system.

At least it will shift to happening in our country.

ernie_lynch - Member
...The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

That's why we are leaving the UK.

What you folk do with the rest of it is up to you.

Maybe Scotland's departure will encourage the masses to rise up and get rid of their parasitic overlords because the system of government is broken if there is mass deprivation in the populace.

Yet no one is suggesting that the solution is to give London's 8 million inhabitants a referendum on "independence".

Might not be a bad idea. There's been at least one thought experiment where a UK without London doesn't do too badly at all.

epicyclo - Member

At least it will shift to happening in our country.

You reckon? 😆
[i]Lotta[/i] no voters who don't share your view.

Might not be a bad idea.

You think a London without a political voice within the rest of the UK would be a good idea ? Would this "independent" London be in the EU ?

EDIT : I'm not taking the bait btw, I'm just trying to focus on the fact that false independence is not the solution to economic inequality and social injustice.

Sorry I can't ignore this :

epicyclo - Member

ernie_lynch - Member
...The UK has some extremely serious issues concerning growing inequality. We have a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

[b]That's why we are leaving the UK.[/b]

Engaging in a corporation tax war will not help matters one iota. It will lead to government spending cuts (no deficit because Scotland will be signed up to the European Fiscal Compact).

The consequences will be even greater inequality and poverty.

Tbh, I'm not convinced a corporation tax race is the best approach to take in a new Scotland, but it's an SNP policy that, if people don't like, then we don't have to choose it. I just can't see anyway of making things any better for anyone in the current set up and thats why I'm voting Yes.

[url= http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/scotland-isnt-different-its-britain-thats-bizarre ]Interesting Idea[/url]

ernie_lynch - Member
Sorry I can't ignore this :

Engaging in a corporation tax war will not help matters one iota...

The consequences will be even greater inequality and poverty.

Yes, we will regret watching that happen in England, but surely there's enough of you to do something about it?

The point I'm trying (and failing apparently) is that having Scottish ministers does not and has not given Scotland any benefit at all. They act on what's in their parties interests, not those of Scotland. So, unless there's any evidence of policy which unduly favours Scotland that's been enacted by a minister just because they're Scottish I can't buy your argument at all.

Which is what you described as a bizarre question Ernie,seems fairly straightforward to me. So,you said to ask if I had any more questions,I do; what is this clear and overwhelming evidence that Scotland has, and has had, very direct influence at the very highest levels of UK politics for at least 150 years?

A more telling comment you have made is this one

Problems aren't going to be overcome if we go away and fight our own battles while ignoring the real issues.

Interesting Idea

Stopped reading at the first factual inaccuracy.

it's an SNP policy that, if people don't like, then we don't have to choose it.

It lies at the heart of the argument of how to draw investment away from England and Wales and to Scotland.

A separate Scotland will be in direct competition with the rest of the UK, you can't odds it.

What policies do you suggest Scotland adopts to make it more prosperous if the SNP ones are found to be wanting ?

The Westminster government will only be pursuing policies which benefit England and Wales, it won't be their responsibility what effect they have on Scotland, unless it effects their market. It will be dog eat dog.

So,you said to ask if I had any more questions,I do;

I'm bored now 🙂

I think I've made most of the points I want to make. It's up to you what you choose to accept. And I'm not hearing any new arguments.

If the thread moves in a different direction I might return otherwise I don't see much point in going round in circles repeating the same things over again.

D'oh. great minds and all that.

ernie_lynch - Member
seosamh77 - Member
They shouldn't. But well, that's kinda the point of independence!

See the edit to my post.

What policies do you suggest Scotland adopts to make it more prosperous if the SNP ones are found to be wanting ?

I've not really thought about it, it's not my job and I don't have the time, that's the job of the opposition parties. Who knows what policies would be on offer. All I can say is that I'd rather have the opportunity to change the system we're in than stick with the same old shite we currently put up with.

The Westminster government will only be pursuing policies which benefit England and Wales, it won't be their responsibility what effect they have on Scotland, unless it effects their market. It will be dog eat dog.

Stating the obvious here. Your point?