[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Arf, Comparison of AS to Farrage and then suggesting that Salmond is appealing to a target audience? That would be the majority that voted him in then,which suggests you have a fairly negative view of a significant percentage of Scots. During the course of this thread you have constantly slandered AS,despite many people asking you concentrate on the issues (one constant of this thread)
Oh and before you call anybody a liar,
Please(as asked) link us back to where you were critical of Osbourne? I mean; you told us on the last page you were...

Link to that April fool please epocycle (runs off to see if THM has his email add in his profile) 😈

😆

Only just watched the video, for ****s sake. Cant believe I didnt clock the date.

IT WAS EARLY, EARLY I SAY. 😳

flouncing

ernie_lynch - Member
"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.

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc...

And seeing as it is today, does Dr Who work for them?

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc...

[img] [/img]

Immediately falsifiable again ducks - by design all politicians have a target audience. It's who they represent. Like Farrage, AS knows this well and he does target his message accordingly. In fact he is very good at it as the polls indicate. That doesn't make it correct (ditto UKIPs lies). Indeed, I have shown that not to be the case with respect to lots of the core issues. The fact that he persists in lying eg describing a currency as an asset, again falsifies your argument re slander. He is deliberately and consistently mis-representing the truth (remember he is a trained economist, so cannot hide begins a veil of ignorance) on a matter of crucial importance to Scotland and to the rUK. Another poster excuses this be referring to politicians as "professional liars". I think that is generous. This issue is too important to be ignored.

Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.

Any experts on the money markets here?

Has there been much reaction from them so far?

I can't see it but I'm probably not looking in the right place.

Reaction to what?

[quote=bencooper ]Though of course since the [s]warheads are mounted on Trident missiles that the UK only rents from the USA,[/s] currency has its monetary policy set by the rUK they're not really independent at the moment.

...just to bring it back on topic

Nice wriggle around points raised THM (and the band played that familiar tune)I don't expect an answer but I take it you have not said anything about the significant number of people asking you why you are so one-eyed/to concentrate on issues,is that because are we all just part of Alex's "target audience?" Or is anybody who makes either of the above suggestions a liar? You comparison to the UKIP looks like you are suggesting that the Nationalists on here are not intelligent to make up their own minds about the pro's and cons and are swallowing everything AS says,refuting that would be a positive step.
I did a bit of reading back before I posted the suggestion you had been praising GO and his stance(you did!). It would seem you provide just one concrete reason for being anti indy...[b]You might want to retire here.[/b]
Rather inconvenient if we Scots don't tow the line,eh old boy?

Oh dear duck, I can only assume that you are just trolling now. Once again your comments are immediately falsifiable. Let's take the last relevant thread on here - the budget. Actually a pretty uncontroversial budget so not easy to be massively critical on (we saw how Ed Milliband struggled and he's a pro) but hey, let's see what I said first

teamhurtmore - Member
Pretty typical budget with only one big surprise - the (positive IMO) pension changes. Great to see savers for once being recognised ditto Isas etc. Otherwise positive short term economic news [b]offset by slightly negative longer term projections. [/b]Fiscally neutral - give with one hand, take any with the other. A bit of politics - obvious pander to the active "silver" vote and the welfare cap [b]"trap" [/b]and finally the [b]hidden skulduggery - "hiding away" interest payments[/b] to the BOE (tut, tut).

Otherwise deficit better but [b]still poor[/b] and [b]more austerity to come[/b] (at best half way through) whoever wins in 2015. Plus ca change......

Hands up, there is an acknowledgement that there were some positives in the budget (shocking to admit I know) but then reference to politicking and finally skulduggery. Accusations that are not generally perceived to be positive ones. Not sure I saw to many folk (who claim to be LW) pointing out GOs skullduggery (deceit) which was odd. And the reference to the need for more austerity ie job not done. And that was just my most recent post!! In the past, plenty of reference to poor choice of policy mix, inappropriate pace of bank reform, failure to recognise that transmission mechanism remains broken (linked to policy mix), weak foundations of current recovery (despite the surprises on the upside), financial repression is akin to stealing money, and false claims of being directly responsible for the recovery. Gosh, I am biased aren't I?? With so-called friends like me, GO needs no enemies does he?

Obviously you are not going to refrain from misrepresenting what I say or to present arguments that are not immediately falsifiable - it's clear therefore why AS is so appealing for you. It's also clear that you are just trolling now - the language is a give-away (yer arse, arf etc). A bit desperate now.

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?

Re, Osbourne I will simply invite you to open a few relevant threads. The evidence is there. I hope you will take this invitation even if you have rejected the one to raise the game.

I have shown that not to be the case with respect to lots of the core issues

He is deliberately and consistently mis-representing the truth

slightly negative

Sorry you went to all the trouble of digging back through your own posting history. Of course you are aware that I am referring to this thread,you don't have an axe to grind in the budget thread,I would suggest that you do on this. If my language suggests trolling, yours is what exactly? Again; how many people have asked your to tone down your rhetoric? Clearly that isn't an example of trolling,nor is this an attempt to troll.
I will bite,just for you.

it's clear therefore why AS is so appealing for you

the polls started to turn and the NO campaign self destruct after the intervention of one man

all Alasdair Darling needs to do to turn the tide of public opinion is convince him he's wrong and to back the nationalists
[img] ?w=150&h=136[/img]
😉

One thing I've learned(well had confirmed) from this thread is that truth is secondary. Its only perception that matters and everyone is fairly unique in theirs!

Since you have toned down the trolling, I will reply. No time needed, it was the most recent thread that was relevant to GO. Similarly very easy to go to my first post on this thread and the[b] very first sentence [/b]to the althepies comment that they is "nothing to stop Scotland using the pound as a currency."

In theory, possibly not. In practice there is lots.

The full disclosure on pros and cons of currency options came a few pages later (I think) or on another recent thread (no intention of digging through posting history, sorry) along with links to proposer analysis to counter the BoD's nonsense.

Change your opinion? Why bother? Since you don't read what I say, that would be a waste or time. Of course, you could falsify my argument here by going back to my recent question about finding the negative comment from the front page of the UK government's analysis of Scottish currency options (or were you misrepresenting them too?). Like waiting for Godot, I expect this to require some patience.

I have to say thm.. I disagree that the union has been so sucessful- for a reasonably small minority its been very sucessful yes, but ask folk up and down the country who have had their benefits cut or rely on the Nhs or are having to rely on foodbanks.. I'm not so sure they would agree.

Ah right, so you can cross-link threads on different subjects to back up your arguments on this thread can you? That is a new variation on the Edinburgh defense. In that case please accept my humble apology, I didn't realise I was meant to read your entire,prolific posting history.

Change your opinion? Why bother? Since you don't read what I say, that would be a waste or time.

I have to say thm.. I disagree that the union has been so sucessful- for a reasonably small minority its been very sucessful yes, but ask folk up and down the country who have had their benefits cut or rely on the Nhs or are having to rely on foodbanks.. I'm not so sure they would agree.

ATB, very true but sadly inequality is not confined to a particular political structure or culture. It's a global problem with some of the more equitable societies historically seeing the most disturbing trends now. More needs to be done to tackle inequality for sure although I have seen little evidence of any party delivering sustainable solutions. The solutions will require funding though.......

I think it was either Lamont on Newsnight or the Strugeon v Lamont debate where the backdrop showed Scotland with a bright light shining from the E'burgh-Glasgow belt and darkness elsewhere. IMO it was an appropriate image as the outcome will more likely be replacing one form of inequality with another. I am sure some will argue that a Scottish elite is better than a SE of England one. The residents of the H&Is may disagree though. Still, we know wee eck's views on those pesky troublemakers. One rule for the elite.....

Apology accepted, ducks, in the manner it was offered.

Perhaps you could give an example of a government which operates differently.

You know, the one that possesses a crystal ball, has control of the future, and never gets caught out by things like financial crisises, climate change, etc...

Most governments have a fairly clear vision about the direction they wish to take, they don't need a crystal ball to do that. And this gives the electorate a reasonable idea of the policies which they can expect from a government.

So yes, there are plenty of examples of governments operating in a manner which gives the electorate a fairly clear understanding of the policies they will pursue.

The Yes Campaign, presumably to avoid too much awkward scrutiny, are using the tactic of "never mind the detail just trust us". Or more specifically "trust Alex Salmond" it would appear.

Why anyone would trust a political movement without a clear manifesto is beyond my understanding. Although UKIP appear to be having considerable success with a simular strategy of putting posturing before policies, so it obviously works and people are prepared to place blind trust in politicians.

And they say no one trusts politicians anymore.

And they say no one trusts politicians anymore.

They seem to trust them to solve all their problems before they get elected and then once their elected, trust them to screw everything up.

You can accuse AS of many things but he has clearly put fwd his vision for the future and what an iS will look like. It is far easier to argue that this wont happen rather than he has not put it out there.

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

Why anyone would trust a political movement without a clear manifesto is beyond my understanding.

I think it's was the two appropriate sweetners that yS threw in with the BoD (the manifesto) that may have swung it. To deal with the vision (sic[s]k[/s])

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Disney-Classics--Ltd--Various-Artists/dp/B00FE1UNFC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396361035&sr=8-1&keywords=disney+classics+cd

And to deal with the unpleasant aftermath

http://www.gaviscon.co.uk/?gclid=CLiWweK6v70CFeKWtAodWQkADw

Although UKIP appear to be having considerable success with a simular strategy of putting posturing before policies, so it obviously works and people

Careful Ernie, that kind of comment doesn't go down too well on here.

Alex Salmond's vision for an independent Scotland is anything but clear, unless of course you think promising a land of milk and honey gives a clear unambiguous understanding of what policies an independent Scotland will follow.

Still, as you point out, it's not Alex Salmond's fault......it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster. No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after "independence" it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

Ob- was referring to the whole of the the Uk as the discussion was in the context of the union at that point.
Mind you, with most of the nhs in England being privatised, I mean, opened to market forces, the likelyhood is that nhs spending in England will drop, leading to a corresponding cut in the barnett grant relating to health.
People talk about the uncertainty of independence (of which there is a lot) but what about the uncerrainty of further austerity cuts, Eu referendums etc..?

Still, as you point out, it's not Alex Salmond's fault......it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster. No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after "independence" it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

Who said that on this thread?

Maybe I misunderstood the sentiments behind this comment.

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

[quote=ernie_lynch ]And when things go tits up after "independence" it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

I wonder which will come first, Scottish people stopping blaming England for all their woes, or British people stopping blaming Thatcher for all their woes?

I wonder which will come first, Scottish people stopping blaming England for all their woes, or British people stopping blaming Thatcher for all their woes?

The world WILL stop spinning before either! 😆

I blame Thatcher for the whole who to blame thing...

I thought it was all the fault of the last Labour government that got us in this mess ?

Maybe I misunderstood the sentiments behind this comment.

Clearly! 🙄

The subtleties of the English language, eh ? It always confuses me.

I took this to mean that the lack of detail from the Yes campaign was due to rUK refusing to negotiate :

They do not know the details because rUK wont negotiate. It is not their fault the election has to be done like this. Its fair to say it happens it is not fair to say its their fault

But I can tell from your rolling eyes that I got it completely wrong. Can you help me out and explain what JY meant ?

"Negotiate" is a complete (and convenient) red herring (although not a lie like currency = assets). We are not in a negotiation stage. We are in the run up to a referendum. The reasonable assumption to make is that governments should provide facts and arguments (preferably with pros and cons) about the choices we have to make.

Despite regular protestations to the contrary, this is exactly what the UK government has done. Since 2013, fifteen seperate documents that can be analysed and scrutinised are freely available to those who can be bothered to look. In addition to the fairy tales, the Scottish gov has done the same thing.

From the UK Gov we have

This series brings together all Scotland analysis programme documents, helping to inform the debate about Scotland's constitutional future.

Ahead of the Scottish independence referendum, to inform the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future, the UK government is undertaking a programme of analysis on Scotland’s place in the UK and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK. The work will provide people in Scotland with the facts and figures that are currently unknown or taken for granted, and explain how the UK in its current form works.

Again, contrary to oft-stated opinion, and as illustrated by my early post, this analysis is generally characterised by positive statements on why the union works well and will continue to do so. In fact, the message is decidedly more positive that that published by yS (fairy tales aside). Funny that!

TBF, to the Scottish Gov and the Fiscal Commision, they have some good reports too, notable by the fact that you will not see any reference to a currency being an asset. Funny that too - look what happens when lawyers check what you say first?

IMO neither government is impartial.

^^^ OH FFS the one you agree with is impartial and honest and made of politicians of integrity whose words you can believe and the other side are bullies, liars and sellers of fairy tales, negative, doom sayers etc ...... has this thread taught you nothing?

Alex Salmond's vision for an independent Scotland is anything but clear, unless of course you think promising a land of milk and honey gives a clear unambiguous understanding of what policies an independent Scotland will follow.

Still, as you point out, it's not Alex Salmond's fault......it is of course the fault of the English in Westminster

No big surprise there eh ? And when things go tits up after "independence" it will of course still all be the fault of the English, unsurprisingly.

The third "funny" is the lengths that both governments go to explain exactly why the UK (unlike Europe) satisfies the criteria of a successful and optimal currency area [b]with all that this entails.[/b] Hence the embarrassing elephant in the room for yS, [b]their core argument remains that we are better together[/b]. The choice of a currency union as the preferred option, [b]with all that THIS entails [/b](but the deceitful one ignores), is the most obvious admission of this fundamental point. The rUK does not need to add anything else, it's all there in black and white.

But the electorate neither care nor understand the economics as much as you do. I think the NO campaign also need to focus on other issues as so few people get economics.

DO you have a google link for currency not being an asset as I have tried looking and found nothing helpful.

IIRC rUK is not just england but its good to see the english will still think what is left of the UK can accurately be called England

Oh come on, every "pro-independence" little Scotlander knows that the big bad guys are the English, not the Welsh.

Although they will of course screw things up for the Welsh if they get the opportunity to engage in a race to the bottom with ruk. As Salmond intends.

IMO neither government is impartial.

Of course not, which is why both need to be read with a discerning eye.

Still helps when independent technocrats help out. Funny that they (eg Gov of the BOE) also make no reference to a currency (not) being an asset. Why would they? It's a non-question. You might as well ask, is a stumpjumper a type of Australian marsupial?

Plaid Cymru are appropriately singing from the same hymn sheet - better together. I reckon that excuses the slip ( 😉 ) Ernie.

ernie_lynch - Member
Oh come on, every "pro-independence" little Scotlander knows that the big bad guys are the English, not the Welsh....

I think you'd be surprised at how little anti-English sentiment there is.

Now anti the Westminster system of govt is a different matter...

The governor of the Bank of England is not impartial either as the Bank of England is an arm of UK government. It is wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitors Dept.
From wiki

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy.[6][7][8][9]