[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Imagine what it's like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is for real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it's quite important.

I am not pro-nukes, simple honest enough to say that "don't ask, don't tell" is a mile away from the idea that Scotland will be nuke free. (Fittingly) That is simply deceit (IMO).

Well if you are going to get lumped in with the rest of us...I will see your bargain Booze tartan (corporate) and raise you the Cornish national tartan...

Imagine what it's like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is a real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it's quite important.

The difference is they're professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other. It devalues the debate and shows up your bias.

Osborne is constantly ridiculed for not having the qualifications or experience to lead the economy, never mind his actual policies, yet you're quite happy to accept his word as gospel and only challenge AS?

It's boring and doesn't seem to be convincing anyone.

seosamh77 - Member

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).
To answer your question, I personally don't believe a word that comes out of the no campaign.

So why is the YES campaign more believable? They are all politicians so by defult all liars. The YES campaign (AS in particular) has far more to gain by lying to win independence.

Is the SNP source that leaked the story about Trident a liar or are AS/SNP? One or the other is.

Plus I don't particularly believe the currency is all that important, it'll be made to work regardless.

I agree iS will make something work, but it will be a compromise compared to what you have now.

My personal opinion is that the UK is stronger as a single entity, but if you want independence, feel free to have it. BUT that should mean independence.

WNB, shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made of GOs policies. But if it helps to make a false point, feel free.

In the case of independence, AS's BS and deceit reaches a level that so overshadows anything else (hence the impressive list of bullies and blusterers across such a wide spectrum of politics, business, economics and societies that he is able to cite) that it is very difficult not to be ever-so-slightly ( 😉 ) biased against him. I am in very good company in that respect though. Some pretty impressive folk on that list.

The degree of yS BS is boring, I granted you that, although impressive (in a depressing way) that so many swallow it. Still look at Farrage!

seosamh77 - Member

So why is the YES campaign more believable?

I'm not particularly nationalist either. I just think that Westminster has had it's day and we should try something different.

THM has a point- character drives plot. Insight into character can help predict outcome.

BUT!!!!

.....these days, these characters have the most carefully managed public personas outside of movie actors. I don't think any of us can really say we know them. Not when what we know of them is through TV, radio, and the rest.

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements. If you need historical reference, look how divisions of territories go post-conflict. If its working right, nobody gets all they want, everyone must flex, and a bitter taste is there ever-after 🙂

teamhurtmore - Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Examples ?

michaelbowden - Member

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you've still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

The party leaders are all politically on the side of union. (also, there's only actually 2 party leaders there, you've got Cameron, Milliband, then Cameron sticking his hand up Clegg's arse and making it look like his mouth is moving).

So that comes back to credibility- people (45% of people, according to some polls) believe that their stance is simply politically expedient and designed to push a No agenda. Whether true or not it's undeniably plausible, method and motive.

And of course the Treasury are a government department, so effectively what you're saying is "The UK government, the UK government and the UK government all agree with themselves and say that the thing that's most likely to keep the UK together is the only option". I'm never that convinced when an office publically agrees with its boss.

Mark Carney steadfastly refuses to rule it out, he's on a different script. (I'm sure it's [i]purely[/i] coincidental that Carney's unexpectedly open verdict after his visit to Scotland, and the associated boost to the Yes vote, was immediately followed by Osborne's declaration)

Actually Carney simple stated the facts and what his role as Gov of the BOE is and perhaps more importantly what his role "isn't". Quite an assertion about the role of HM Treasury NW!!

To be fair to Uncle Vince (5/2/14)

His comment comes a week after Bank of England governor Mark Carney said currency sharing is possible with the right foundations, such as a strong banking union.

Mr Cable said: "The plan B is a fully separate currency. The logic of what the governor and other people have spelled out is that the problems of a currency union with an independent Scotland are so difficult, so tricky, that it would almost certainly prove to be in Scotland's interests - and indeed the rest of the UK - that Scotland did have its own currency.

"Of course, that would create a whole wave of other problems. It would create a barrier to trade across the Scottish border, as different currencies tend to do, and the problems of managing a fluctuating exchange rate in a country that is very dependent on raw materials.

...he is one of the few who at least acknowledges that all currency choices have pros and cons. Still quite a jumpy from Feb to now, if true, even by Liberal Democrat standards.

teamhurtmore - Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Yer arse you have!

Not hard to see why yS will attempt to ridicule Sir Nick Macpherson. He was a bit open in his comments wasn't he?

UK would become increasingly misaligned in the medium term. Of course, if the Scottish Government had demonstrated a strong commitment to a rigorous fiscal policy in recent months, it might be possible to discount this. But recent spending and tax commitments by the Scottish Government point in the opposite direction, as do their persistently optimistic projections of North Sea revenues, which are at odds not just with the Treasury but with the Office of Budget Responsibility and other credible [b]independent[/b] forecasters

Pah, bluster from the "so-called" independents. It's nae true, I tell thee.

[still judging by the FT now, sounds like the mole could simply be someone pre-warning what darling was about to come out with]

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements.

[quote=Junkyard ]

The significant difference is that I dont like Sir BS of eck

The big assumption there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up 😉

whatnobeer - Member
The difference is they're professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other.

Ok not a petty insult but Darling's comments today come pretty close (FT today)

Mr Darling strongly criticised Ms Sturgeon’s view, saying she “patently doesn’t understand what a currency union is”.

Harsh, but fair.

Michaelbowden I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote. I would like to get rid of the all the nukes but am prepared to compromise . I think Salmond will compromise on Trident but will find it a hard sell to his party so would look for a very good deal after a yes vote. I am one of the 45% of Scots who just did not believe Osbornes statement on currency union. I have been a nationalist for a long time though not an SNP member and believe that Scotland govern itself and would like currency union if one can be agreed but only as stepping stone to either the euro or a Scottish currency.

I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote.

So was Alex lying yesterday when he said:

"We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation".

?

It's called changing your mind Z-11. Although I'm not sure why anyone would trust someone who changes their mind in such a dramatic manner.

EDIT : Sorry I misread your post Z-11. Ignore that.

Ninfan its just a negotiating position the same as

Osbourne says no to currency union.

[i]"That is not up for negotiation"[/i] is a negotiating position? 😆

Salmond could stick to his principles and include Faslane in his don't ask, don't tell policy.He could leave Trident where it is, and close his eyes whenever he drives past.

Yes athgray he could. It would need to be a really good offer from rUK to make that happen though 😉

My focus has remained v much on one man's BS and that of his sidekick

there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up

Fair point perhaps we should all declare who our favourite is from that shower of politicians ...shudders

"That is not up for negotiation" is a negotiating position?

ninfan - Member
"That is not up for negotiation" is a negotiating position?

It would be very odd for RUK to put Faslane and CU at the top of the negotiation list right now. In both cases they hold the aces to yS deuces. Playing the deuce on currency (ie the silly idea that you walk away on debt) harms Scotland more that UK, and the Falsane Fudge ("DA,DT") is already in place to keep NATO "on side" so yS has played its hand there too.

RUK just needs to keep quiet and let yS continue to prove the NO case itself. Hold onto your winners until you need them.

Game over! Miley won't twerk us if we go...

[img] [/img]

Ah right then thm,this is all a clever ploy by no campaigners...Since the currency union announcement,how much has the no vote increased its % in the opinion polls? Or the plan to ignore pleas to be positive and to "get nasty" as the Times reports today the better together campaign has decided to do,are another clever bluff. Of course they wouldn't do that,you have stated on this thread that we are just touchy and easily offended by "uncomfortable truths" 😆

Like Farrage, the deceitful one knows his target market well.

I do not think that the BT have a deliberate strategy in what I commented on at all - the conditional tense in the first line is the give away there. The campaign has shown some signs of brilliance but by and large has been pretty lacklustre. Combining three parties in unison and opposite is quite difficult to achieve, unless of course you are wee eck, He manages this better than anyone.

Read most of the UK gov literature and it presents a positive picture of why Scotland is better off as part of the UK albeit in a dry factual manner. Of course, it doesn't go for the fairy tale sugar and spice stuff (which is why people don't tend to read it).

Intriguingly though, the case is SO compelling that in economics terms (and via the CU) yS is arguing exactly that case. Scotland is better off without an independent monetary and fiscal policy, they say. Could hardly be clearer could it?

No one seems offended by uncomfortable truths, they just ignore them and swallow the sickly stuff. As any teacher knows, however, too much sweet sickly stuff leads to one inevitable and messy conclusion.

[ok done the lies about GO and his policies, shall we try the "touch and easily offended" stuff too?]

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work - would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?
Because whenever Scotland wanted, we could cut off supplies, cut off power, blockade the port, any number of things. Not saying we would, but it's a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset.

(Also, the nuclear weapons wouldn't be under the control of Scotland - that's the whole point of surrounding them with lots of bad-tempered armed men who don't do what foreigners tell them to do).

Mmm, that might not be the best comparison- the US wanted to distribute their nuclear arsenal widely because it had a job to do, they were asserting power worldwide.

Whereas all the UK really wants is a nuclear willy to wave around, "We are a nuclear superpower in our own right" and that gets diminished if you've got nowhere to keep it- "We are a nuclear superpower, but totally dependent on someone else". Less point having a big nuclear willy if you've got nowhere to put it and nothing useful to do with it.

Your sophisticated political analysis is undone by your apparent ignorance of Greenham Common, a UK military facility where the United States kept nuclear weapons.

Ouch. Yes, I know about Greenham Common, where a fire came pretty close to irradiating much of the South of England. I can also just about remember all the American cars buzzing about from when the US had their base on the Holy Loch.

The two situations are very different. The UK was a willing subservient partner to the US during the Cold War, an independent Scotland would not have the same attitude towards the rUK.

And "control" is an interesting phrase. Faslane doesn't have it's own power plants, food supplies, accommodation, sewerage or other utilities - certainly not enough to keep operating. Warheads are transported by road. An independent Scotland could easily put the base out of operation. So who controls the weapons?

Though of course since the warheads are mounted on Trident missiles that the UK only rents from the USA, they're not really independent at the moment.

The UK was a willing subservient partner to the US during the Cold War, an independent Scotland would not have the same attitude towards the rUK.

In any case, can we agree that your suggestion that keeping nuclear weapons on bases leased from foreign states is "a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset" was mince?

Err no THM, the UK gov lit does not make a compelling case for staying together.Even you have stated that the present system of Government does not work,(as you also attempted to suggest the bitter together camp wasn't negative,and we WERE too sensitive) which is what they want to preserve. It's funny y'ken..I remember HS2 being held up as an example of the type of projects we couldn't afford if we were on our own...Wonder why they stopped that example? Good to see you are still trying to play the man as well,the better together defense l believe they call it?

Its all sorted according to the telegraph!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10735711/Alex-Salmond-to-replace-the-Queen-on-new-Scottish-pound-coin.html

C'mon ducks, raise the game a little otherwise this just becomes a little to Alexander Armstrong. Before the next attack, and the next saying what I don't say etc, try pausing and thinking about a point that is not [b]immediately falsifiable.[/b]

So let's take the sample of CU. Your opening line:

duckman - Member
Err no THM, the UK gov lit does not make a compelling case for staying together.

Versus, the rUK's [b]opening lines [/b] [u]in its literature[/u] *

The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political
unions in history. It is a union that has brought economic benefits to all parts of the UK.

Correct me is I am wrong but this sounds rather like a "positive" case being made. Words like "most successfully", "in history" and "economic benefits" are a tiny give away. And guess what? After the positive opening two sentences, they follow it up with a nice summary of the reasons why

1, The UK is a successful union because taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK.

2. It means risks are pooled, there is a common insurance against uncertainty and no one area or sector of the larger economy is too exposed.

3. This has helped all parts of the UK weather the recent global economic crisis.

4. Governments that are able to borrow in their own currency, and make their own political and economic decisions, are able to borrow more cheaply.

5. And with clear political accountability, a single government can quickly respond to a financial crisis.

Note the tone in each of the 5 points listed above. Please highlight any slight negativity. And then compare with the sugar coated gobblidigook of the BoD.

QED.

* freely available on the web for all to read (if anyone can be bothered) but not recommended as an alternative to kids bedtime stories. The BOD is much better in that case.

Sorry, ducks take that all back, I've just seen the date! Doh, poisson d'avril. For a moment, I thought the post was serious. Excuse me.

A rather predictable move by Darling being reported in the Herald (behind the pay wall)

Voters in rest of UK 'would need a say over currency union'

THE rest of the UK must have a say over a sterling zone with an independent Scotland, Alistair Darling said yesterday, as Vince Cable denied being the 'mole' who suggested UK ministers' opposition to a currency union was a bluff.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/01/scotland-driving-on-right-independence-road-scheme

From the Guardian article above:

"It sends out an explicit signal: we are part of Europe," said one of the brains behind the scheme. "The little Englanders who want out of Europe are the only ones driving on the left-hand side. We've been the smaller relative dominated and having to copy their ridiculous ways for too long. No more. Just think, this will be an indignity for little England – isolated in Europe and pootling along in the slow lane on the left," he added.

😀

I think Yes could reasonably be annoyed by this article, whatever it's intention...

And it would be no great surprise were Cable to have been behind the currency thing, whatever his weasel worded denials!

It'll be interesting to see how much the content of that Guardian article will get played upon. It's not just the signs that'd want changing.

It'd be a pathetic waste of money, I'd rather efforts where put into bringing people out of poverty.

In any case, can we agree that your suggestion that keeping nuclear weapons on bases leased from foreign states is "a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset" was mince?

Nope. When the US did it, they spread them out over a lot of places - the UK, Germany, Turkey etc. and they kept a lot for themselves.

Whereas the rUK would be putting it's entire nuclear arsenal in one place, in a foreign country.

Whereas the rUK would be putting it's entire nuclear arsenal in one place, in a foreign country.

"control" is an interesting phrase. Faslane doesn't have it's own power plants, food supplies, accommodation, sewerage or other utilities - certainly not enough to keep operating. Warheads are transported by road. An independent Scotland could easily put the base out of operation. So who controls the weapons?

But in any case - are you suggesting that it was Germany that controlled the nuclear weapons that the US positioned on its territory? Surely not - that would totally negate the point you've just made.

In fact, instead of being hypothetical, is there a recent real life example of where a naval base was leased to a foreign power, and where we could observe whether it was the host country or the occupant of the base that controlled the weapons within the base?

konabunny - Member
...Bit weird that you're suggesting that Scotland would immediately start acting like a rogue state and ignoring its obligations under an interstate treaty...

Maybe not immediately, but I doubt the SNP would be voted back in if they agreed to this, so at the next election they could be replaced by a govt which was elected to get rid of the nukes. So maybe.

Seeing as this is a special day...

[img] [/img]

So maybe.

Which in a nutshell sums up the Yes Campaign.

Maybe, perhaps, could be, possibly, not sure, might be, don't know, all sum up the Yes Campaign's vision of an independent Scotland.

Well, no - the arsenal would be out at sea. That's what the subs are for.

They're not permanently at sea - if they were, then there'd be no need for Faslane and Coulport would there?

Bit weird that you're suggesting that Scotland would immediately start acting like a rogue state and ignoring its obligations under an interstate treaty.

I'm not - but I doubt anyone at the MoD would be happy taking that risk. I completely trust my next-door neighbour, happy for him to have a front door key just in case - but he doesn't have full access to my bank account. That's the best analogy I can think of this early in the morning 😉