[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

They were just on Radio 4 with the SNP fell arguing each person [ migh thave been houshold] will be thousands better off wiht Danny boy arguing it will be billions worse off

As i said two lying bastards lying.

It probably is inevitable for iS but in that sense it is probably inevitable for rUK - however we are talking decades if not longer for this. It is not inevitable it will happen in 18 months time. It is probably inevitable they have to commit to it but do nothing more than that, Will be interesting to see if they would rather be in the Euro zone or alone though

Junkers is interesting as the parliament proposed him when they cannot do this , they are starting to assert power against the "kings" [ elected leaders of the member countries]
I know nothing if their views on that issue or any other tbh

@JY - I've long held the view that if you're in the EU you have to join the euro/single currency eventually, that applies to the UK too although given our longstanding membership and strength/size we have been able to stay out for the time being. Problem is that the failings of the current currency setup have been laid bare and as it stands it would be madness to join now and it seems unlikely the necessary reforms will be implemented anytime soon. I think Scotland is going to be in a tricky place trying to join the EU and attempting to stay out of the euro.

Others have and the EU is expansionist in nature and this would be the first member they lose - all be it a strange manner.

i think there is more chance of them being refused entry than being forced to join the Euro [ though they will have to "commit"]
Like 99% of this tbh we do not know what will happen but i think they can avoid the Euro if they wish to

@ben - I read a couple of days ago the piece which suggested a max of £2.5 and a likely cost of £1.5 The reality is none of us really know, that in itself is an issue.

Thing is, it's not just Yes and the SNP saying the Treasury's figures are rubbish, it's the very economist they based the figures on. Since the Scottish government already has departments for most things, we need four new ones - defence, foreign affairs, a reorganised HMRC, and a reorganised DWP.

the very economist they based the figures on

[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf63cf8c-e5b4-11e3-a7f5-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3309GGinP ]Financial Times comment on costs[/url]

And this is where the No movement have gone so wrong.

Rather than the usual subtle lies and misinformation they have jumped in using Baron Munchausen's Manual of Bovine Excrement and relied on us being too stupid to see through this sort of thing.

Which may work if you have a total control over the media (as they appear to), but unfortunately for them we now have the internet, so the tactics that worked in previous referenda don't work now.

So the Treasury gets caught red-handed lying about figures - what does the BBC do? Spin it as "contrasting claims".

This is the same BBC who gave hourly coverage to the astroturfing Vote No Borders group, giving them more coverage in one day than they've given any pro-independence group ever.

I know I keep going on about the BBC, but they're supposed to be held to a higher standard of impartiality.

Rather a political own goal to come up with an estimate which is so open to ridicule.

they cut before the questions though so that would have been interesting

It is behind a firewall epicyclo precise please

@JY - if you Google the article title ("data on costs of Scottish government misleading") and access it that way you can read it (after answering one or two marketing questions)

This tool is quite fun 8)

[url= http://lmgtfy.com/?q=data+on+cost+of+scottish+government+misleading ]Let Me Google That for You[/url]

So it is my fault hegave the wrong link then 😉

I did that and did not even have to give any info- I have to confess not use your link just in case it was wrong 😛

Seriously though Thanks

But Prof Dunleavy points out three problems with the Treasury’s working. First, not all 180 bodies would be major departments; second several departments already exist in Scotland and would simply need to be enlarged; third, his estimate applied to the “chaotic” way in which the last Labour government established new departments, not to a planned, orderly transition. He estimated the set-up costs would be closer to £150m-£200m.

He told the FT that based on an advance briefing last week the Treasury’s release “is seriously misleading”.

Hmm, perhaps the SNP could release their own estimate of the costs?

Funny that they haven't - in fact the press release that they're castigating was actually entitled "Scottish government challenged to set out start costs for independence" and, for those who read it they would know that the release cautioned quite clearly that the figure given was a simple extrapolation of the Dunleavy figure, and not an examination of the actual costs involved, alongside this they also stated two other, lower estimates from different independent bodies, and stated quite clearly that none of these figures were an official UK governments estimate - however, the SNP's version of the truth often seems to get its boots on and spread with what they 'claim' people have said rather than what they have actually said... rather interesting to see them jump on this with such Vigour rather than discussing what the Danish foreign minister said or on their faliure to increase their own vote share, or even UKIP winning a seat...

So, why haven't they published their own estimate?
Or their own legal advice on EU membership?

Funny that, eh!

I suppose all our English resident STWers are looking forward to Scottish independence.

After all, think of the huge tax cuts you are going to get once you are no longer subsidising Scotland. 🙂

No, I think they're going to keep the taxes the same - we need to act prudently and start saving up for when you come crawling back in a few years asking us to bail you out... again 😆

I am wondering what happens to my nationality what with being scottish but resident in England- I am lucky in that both sides think I am unlucky 😉

TBH i was rather hoping i can pay tax to iS so my kids get a free university education and i get health care when I get old

jambalaya - Member

Ask an economist a question and get two answers !

Not our resident economist...

TBH i was rather hoping i can pay tax to iS so my kids get a free university education and i get health care when I get old

under EU rules rUK citizens will get free Uni education in Scotland much the same as the Polish, Romanians, French, Greeks, children of Turk workers resident in Scotland etc do

There is no guarantee of continuing free education and health care under any government, any where in the world. A Yes vote isn't a vote to elect the SNP, and even if it was, and even if they got it at any subsequent election, they might change their policies.

Given that ANY numpties voted UKIP in Scotland (although I quietly suspect they saw the word Independent and thought they were voting for that) I would be careful what you wish for.

Murrayfield is to be renamed BT Murrayfield. Now I know now it's officially BT not British Telecom but it did make me chuckle.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/27605156 ]BBC[/url]

Been in meetings all day so haven't had time to digest what each side is saying but clearly ludicrous result. But starting with FT the following did make me smile

Mr Salmond said that despite the rival claims being hotly contested, “economics is central to the campaign, a key to winning the campaign”.

He needs a new economics dictionary then!

God, there looks like a lot to read but the Cable, Oakeshott, Cleggy affair seems more interesting to start with.

If, as the SNP claim, the pound is a shared asset, why is the oil not a shared asset?

Ironically I have no issue about the pound being a shared asset. Because of the difference in size, all the decisions about what is good for the pound will be taken for the benefit of the UK and not for Scotland. In order for a shared currency to work the Scots will have to agree to financial controls. In effect, no real difference than now.

In order for a shared currency to work the Scots will have to agree to financial controls. In effect, no real difference than now.

Sshhhh!

Actually it's worse that that, since the situation in an iS will have no impact on the decision which will only be made with respect to conditions in rUK

If, as the SNP claim, the pound is a shared asset, why is the oil not a shared asset?

Because the UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea - UNCLOS III - which defines the size of Exclusive Economic Zones. Is the rUK planning to leave that treaty?

sadmadalan - Member
....Because of the difference in size, all the decisions about what is good for the pound will be taken for the benefit of the UK and not for Scotland...

Which is why many of us would be happy to walk away without responsibility for the Bank of England's debts. You keep your pound.

And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs? Blind leading the blind!

the Cable, Oakeshott, Cleggy affair seems more interesting to start with.

FWIW given today you have to at least aim some critique at the treasury figures. When your source says they are pish and you misused his stats it is indefensible. Even AS has not been that bad with his abuses.

teamhurtmore - Member
And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs? Blind leading the blind!

I'm traditional Scottish. I don't borrow money. 🙂

Prof Dunleavy explained: "I'm afraid I don't think they did [read the report]. Every time I go to the Treasury, the staff seem to be aged about 23 or 24 and to not to know a great deal about the issues they are handling."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27613876

😀

teamhurtmore - Member

And watch what that does to your future borrowing costs?

Would it increase them by more than £126 billion quid?

Scotland has to be granted independence. If Scotland tries to walk away from their share of the debt without some compensating item being left to the UK (eg all the Oil) then Scotland is not going to be permitted to become independent. The notion that Scotland would walk away from its share of the national debt without dire consequences is ridiculous. Aside from the UK what do you think the EU will make of that when considering Scotland's application for membership.

The currency is not an asset that Scotland owns, to suggest otherwise is farcical.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS's 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ? In the SNP's financial projections he had all sorts of optimistic figures but this one jumped out. The SNP also believe the oil stocks to be worth 10 times what the Treasury says.

If Scotland tries to walk away from their share of the debt without some compensating item being left to the UK (eg all the Oil) then Scotland is not going to be permitted to become independent.

The debt isn't ours, the Treasury said so. Nevertheless, we're happy to help you pay your debt, in return for a fair distribution of everything else.

And the oil is ours, unless the rUK wants to tear up the UN Laws of the Sea.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS's 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ?

Dunno, I'm not a SNP person, so I don't have to justify his figures.

@ben - the Treasury said it will stand behind all the UK's debt, this is an obvious thing to do for a responsible Government. A portion of the UK's debt (lets assume the 9.5%-ish figure) has been incurred in paying for infrastructure etc in Scotland. It has been incurred for the benefit of Scotland.

You ignored my point that unless Scotland behaves reasonably in this regard it won't be permitted independence. The SNP has already acknowledged that it will take it's share of the debt.

I didn't ignore your point - I've said before that the problem with the Edinburgh Agreement is that it says both sides will act in good faith.

Which is never a brilliant idea when you're talking about the Tories 😉

I'd dispute that 9.5% of the debt was spent on infrastructure in Scotland, but whatever - I've got no problem with Scotland paying a reasonable contribution towards the debt, as long as we get a similar share of the assets.

The notion that Scotland would walk away from its share of the national debt without dire consequences is ridiculous.

Possibly but legal - I am less convinced as having no debt is better than having loads IMHO

Aside from the UK what do you think the EU will make of that when considering Scotland's application for membership.

It is irrelevant no one thinks they will walk away anyway so there is no point discussing ti.

Can I ask the Scots here where AS's 0.3% annual increase in productivity year-in-year out is going to come from ?

the Treasury said it will stand behind all the UK's debt, this is an obvious thing to do for a responsible Government.

A portion of the UK's debt (lets assume the 9.5%-ish figure) has been incurred in paying for infrastructure etc in Scotland. It has been incurred for the benefit of Scotland.

again it is irrelevant as they wont walk away

they will take their share of the debt they will take their share of assets

there will be much gnashing of teeth in deciding the exact percentages

We are discussing a hypothetical that just wont happen.
Most of what we discuss here is speculation but can we draw the line at speculating about a scenario no one thinks will happen please?

Just make sure you get the definitions right then....

The UK gov re-enforced the position re debt exactly because yS starting making stupid comments and t he markets became a little jittery. One party acted responsibly and immediately and the issue calmed quickly. Lessons learned.

Two rather sad documents yesterday - both frankly absurd in message, one a rushed spoiler with obvious contradictions and a other with some bizarre claims.

FT editorial sums it up pretty well

The snag, however, is that these figures (Salmond and Alexander) are rubbish. Mr Salmond’s arithmetic is perhaps the more egregious. His £1,000 bonus derives from three tax-raising benefits he claims flow from the freedom to set policy independently: higher productivity, lower unemployment and a rising population. To offer this as some sort of automatic payout is an insult to the intelligence of the land of Adam Smith and David Hume.

Still he has history there......

As do you and we could write your interpretation of any event ourselves
Whatever happens AS is a big fat liar
In summary no one trust either sides figures and I doubt anyone trusts your interpretation of this
Seriously THM imagine what you would do had AS used figures that the source accuses the Treasury of manipulating by a factor of 10 . It would get more than a small comment in brackets a day later - have some balance fella
As i said i would trust neither figures and perhaps even you will accept that the veneer of neutrality re Treasury figures has slipped now and can no longer be claimed

As i said i would trust neither figures and perhaps even you will accept that the veneer of neutrality re Treasury figures has slipped now and can no longer be claimed

I've already pointed out that these were not treasury figures - they published a range of figures from different sources, and challenged the Scottish government to give a figure based upon what they had previously said about having to create 180 new government bodies

The press release specifically stated that the UK government had not published its own estimate.

@JY, of course you can show that Scotland has benefitted from spending consistent with the UK public debt. It's just so obvious that it would bore everyone and is a pointless waste of time to provide links.

@ben, the currency isn't as asset so it doesn't come into the conversation. Sooner or later Scotland will be using the euro.

I think it's time for me to skip out of this thread.

Yes it will be broadly level but I bet there is a disproportionate south weighting but yes it is not worth debating

So soon we will be at 200 + by the vote day till we get massive flouncing/ massive gloating

So soon we will be at 200 + by the vote day till we get massive flouncing/ massive gloating

I've already got my special flouncing kilt ready, just in case...

Jambalaya - following on and returning to David Hume, he noted that one diminishes oneself when "in debating about nonsense (very apt here), one comes to believe it."

The assets mis-definition and walking away from debt are two obvious examples. As are most of the points in the BoD.

As both an empiricist and a sceptic Hume must be turning in his grave and the minority of his countrymen!

bencooper - Member

I've already got my special flouncing kilt ready, just in case...

Is that more like a pleated skirt, with maybe a French tartan? 😆

I'm working on the best spin to flash my bum, just like HRH...

I've already got my special flouncing kilt ready, just in case...

in debating about nonsense (very apt here), one comes to believe it."

No one could accuse you of this and you are a beacon to us all
Oh the ironing - adds to the list.

Flounce, Bonnie Ben, like a bird on the wing...

Nice to see lots of kilts in London yesterday and fortunately no hairy arses even in the loos at the station.

Why was the World Cup warm up (sorry!) held in nasty old London and at Craven Cottage?

I think it was because many of the Nigerians are based in rUK but not certain
I suspect they are so rubbish [ scotland] they have to do what the others want in a game as well.

Why was the World Cup warm up (sorry!) held in nasty old London and at Craven Cottage?

Maybe the tartan army wanted a day out 😆 or perhaps it was because Hampden is getting a running track etc for the commonwealth games

 

Great Ormond Street Hospital aren't happy about the Vote No Borders NHS advert:

[img] [/img]

More bluff and bluster to keep people off the real story, eh Ben? You've already completely misrepresented what that advert says, and even wings over, where you got that email, are continuing to lie about it by saying 'with the suggestion that it would become “out of bounds” to Scottish children' when it said no such thing - I note that the email comments 'as you state below' but WOS have omitted what they said - and it seems that Gt Ormond street have only gone as far as to reassure current patients - not stated in any way what will happen after independence, and not said a word about waiting lists!

I also note that the person who wrote this isn't named - while the non-executive director of Great Ormond Street is a prominent better-together supporter 😉

Oh, whats that, all but one Scottish health trust missing waiting time targets?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27588847

Yes Scotland we are Better Together?

[img] [/img]

More on Vote No Borders - using web scraping to show some very dubious donations:

http://baffiebox.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/vote-no-borders-astroturfing-the-evidence/

jambalaya - Member

@JY, of course you can show that Scotland has benefitted from spending consistent with the UK public debt.

You might find this interesting reading

ah right zulu,so the "real story" isn't vnb issuing sick threats based on conjecture,it is wings spinning what they said? Nice one,even for project fear that was a low.

You might find this interesting reading

bencooper - Member
More on Vote No Borders - using web scraping to show some very dubious donations:

http://baffiebox.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/vote-no-borders-astroturfing-the-evidence/
br />

I see cinemas have banned those VNB adverts.

Oddly, I think that Salmond/Cameron mash up actually improves the way both look.

This may have more to do with just how repulsive I normally find both of them.

I see cinemas have banned those VNB adverts

Yes, well they've banned all referendum adverts. VNB witted on about how it's those nasty nationalists shutting down debate, but of course the real reason was that GOSH complained.

The VNB funding is such a blatant attempt to get around the funding rules it really should be properly investigated, but does the Electoral Commission have the teeth to do it? And will they do it now, or in 5 years? Just look at the list of donations to VNB over one period:

[img] [/img]

The limit for a single donation before it has to be declared now (rather than after the referendum) is £7500.

On a wider issue, you do have to wonder - if the case for No is so good, why do they keep having to lie and deceive to make it?

On the EU, the European Policy Centre says that Scotland would most likely not have to leave, even for a short time:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27623271

Even Better Together seem to admit they've lost this argument, they've shifted from insisting that Scotland would be out in the cold, to saying we wouldn't have the same special exemptions that the UK has.

What's new about iS not enjoying the special exemptions - that argument has been around from the start.

Now there is often an anti- foreign ownership undercurrent on STW eg why do we allow the "bloody French" build our nuclear power plants, bloody profits just go overseas etc. Oddly, given the importance of foreign ownership to large parts if the Scottish economy, this argument is rarely raised here although the relevance of GNI versus GDP has been raised occasionally. At least Glasgow Uni and The Guardian pick up on this today, Why, because...

The gap between GDP and GNI directly affects taxes paid to a future independent Scottish government.

Not that you would find this admission in the BoD. Plus which ever way you use/twist the GERS stats, Scotland raises approx the same tax per head as rUK but spends approx 11% more per head. And that gets squared into a better fiscal position as if by magic? Amazing.

That photo gets scarier each time I open this thread!

Martin Wolf hits the nail on the head today in the FT after 48 hours on bllx on the debate from AS and DA

Yet what is more striking is how paltry the debate has become. Rather than say it favours independence whatever the costs, because it is the only way for Scotland to fulfil its national destiny, the Scottish government pretends it will be a simple, costless exercise instead of a journey into an uncertain, demanding future. Meanwhile, the UK prime minister feels unable to go to Scotland to say what seems to be essential: that, whatever the political differences between England and Scotland, he wants Scotland to stay in the union not because it makes us all a bit better off economically but because we in the rest of the UK value Scotland, the Scots and the shared and successful country these peoples have built together....The debate over the future of the union should not be reduced to huckstering over short-term gains or to debating implausible promises.

Quite.

foreign ownership undercurrent on STW

Plus which ever way you use/twist the GERS stats, Scotland raises approx the same tax per head as rUK but spends approx 11% more per head*. And that gets squared into a better fiscal position as if by magic? Amazing.

The debate over the future of the union should not be reduced to huckstering over short-term gains or to debating implausible promises.

*Well that is your impartial interpretation of them, forgive me for thinking it is someway short of an actual fact.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/European_Policy_Centre

And funnily enough, what name do we see at the bottom of the EPC report - Graham Avery, same old name seems to crop up again and again in the independence discussion, doesn't it!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article3655702.ece

An academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU does not represent the views of Brussels, the European Commission president has said.
José Manuel Barroso said that while Graham Avery was entitled to his “personal opinion", it was not that of the commission.

Mr Avery, an honorary director-general of the commission and a senior adviser at the European Policy Centre, gave evidence to a Westminster committee last year in which he said that Scotland would not have to go through the formal EU accession process of non-member countries, He said that, in the event of a “yes" vote in 2014, there would be “not more than one or two years" of negotiations between Edinburgh and London.

“From the political point of view, Scotland has been in the EU for 40 years and its people have acquired rights as European citizens. If they wish to remain in the EU, they could hardly be asked to leave and then reapply for membership in the same way as the people of a non-member country such as Turkey," Mr Avery wrote.

His statement provided some welcome relief to the SNP at a time when European experts were lining up to warn that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate its membership from outside the Union. Alex Salmond used it to face down criticism from Johann Lamont last year, telling the Labour leader that Mr Avery “should know" the position.

Mr Barroso has now said that Mr Avery does not speak for the commission. “It is not the general policy of the commission to be represented by retired officials," said Mr Barroso. “In the instance referred to ... the honorary director-general did not speak for the commission. All retired officials may express personal views or analysis without prejudice to their obligation not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy."...

I note that bit particularly - [i]An academic hailed by the SNP as supporting their claim that an independent Scotland would enjoy automatic membership of the EU [/i]... we've not heard that for a while, have we?

Desperate times call for......!!! 😉 nice put down from Barosso though!

I also enjoyed...

We have done our own coatings
Oh really, what are they?
We have not done our own costings....

....Pantomime.

The real thing is descending to the same poor quality of trolling here. Still amusing to read on a quiet morning.

We have done our own coatings
Oh really, what are they?
We have not done our own costings....

Maybe they should just go with the treasury figures and then spend significantly less which would be a vote winner. Good spin on something that again demonstrates how Westminster are at it though.

Sounds like they are already listening to you ducks...

Talk of negative campaigning, you have to smile at the phone booth poster

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2014/may/30/scotland-live-regulated-referendum-campaign-starts

At least the boy finds his maltesers more interesting and palatable than the message.

The difference is that the phone booth poster wasn't wildly extrapolated - it's an estimate from the Child Poverty Action Group:

http://www.cpag.org.uk/scotland/early-warning-system

...and it's all the fault of the English isn't it? But come 19 Sep, it will all disappear as if by magic.....

Maltesers definitely the better option.

teamhurtmore - Member
...and it's all the fault of the English isn't it? But come 19 Sep, it will all disappear as if by magic.....

No-one cares about your attempts to turn this into a Scots versus England thing.

After Sept, we'll be steering the ship and deciding where it goes. And it won't be in the same direction as EWANI.

And we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.

This is why we hate your football team. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/26684674 it's 48 years on - we dont need a "live" commentary.

And we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.

Point in the direction of one or is that merely a duck ism?

My attempts - have you missed the campaign so far??? I am a Scotophile, I don't like the S v Eng thing at all. It's the poster that pretends that this is something to do with England. Mention bedroom tax and you have the root of all evils apparently.

Epic, are you also missing the fact that whatever the vote, Westminster will still be pulling the strings. Fortunately the majority/canny folk are likely to vote democratically for the more benign version.

It's the poster that pretends that this is something to do with England.

Show me the word "England" in this poster:

[img] [/img]

It's nothing to do with England, it's do do with the different priorities of a Westminster government.

teamhurtmore - Member

And we don't need another of your democracy doesn't work tirades.

Point in the direction of one or is that merely a duck ism?

All the people calling you on the BS you spout are all telling lies about you...Your double standards and lack of self awareness (as pointed out again by JY on this very page)and by pretty much everybody else really know no bounds.

Ben, and the difference is? And the difference will be?

Simon Jenkins gets pretty close in the guardian.

Can Scotland do it? The campaign for September's independence vote opens officially on Friday. Yet both campaign and vote are superfluous: it will make no difference which side wins; either way, the outcome will be much the same.

At last some honesty to mark the start of campaigning.

But few actually picking on specific points ducks, wonder why??? Prefer misrepresentation or in one case simply trolling. Show me an example of an anti-democracy tirade as a starter.

En attendons toujours......

THM - may I suggest that you step away from the thread for a couple of days. You seem to be getting upset when people question your points.

Ben, and the difference is? And the difference will be?

Ah, you're going to ignore my question 🙂

Where in that poster does it blame child poverty on England?

There are many differences - we already have different spending priorities around health, education, social care etc, but with full control of funding there's a lot more that can be done - and with no money being spent on nuclear weapons for a start, there will be more money to do it with.

Simon Jenkins gets pretty close in the guardian.

Simon Jenkins is a pompous arse who seems to swallow the "more devolution after No" lie hook, line and sinker.

The poster does not use the word English clearly. But the implication is blindingly obvious. If we do not vote for independence from Westminster 100,000 will live in poverty. That is clearly a crock with false causation. May I suggest you look at the proposed defence budget to see what is also being proposed.

Yes, more money after all those tax cuts. It's magic! Do highers have a different syllabus to A/AS/GCSE economics?

Are you sure Jenkins isn't also a bully, blusterers etc......bloody Guardian readers. Still most of the bullying UK broadsheets have a pretty consistent theme these days along with BOE, EU etc. Wonder why that is?

Wanman, not upset at all. It's very funny. The lack of reference to specific points I may have made has a long history on here and it's obvious why! Makes the lunch hour pass so much quicker.

Because you don't answer them,so after 5 thousand posts nobody bothers with you anymore. Case in point because of the usual falsify claim that you are so touch about when it is directed at you.
(from Ben)

Ah, you're going to ignore my question

You know when you give us you standard line of "facts are all there if you care to look" yet when given specific questions to answer you don't...Still you are funny,I really should mock the afflicted,but I can't help myself in your case.

wanmankylung - Member
THM - may I suggest that you step away from the thread for a couple of days. You seem to be getting upset when people question your points.

More bluff and bluster from stw posters!

Or I'll put it another way; your refusal to give any ground when challenged is boring me.

The poster does not use the word English clearly. But the implication is blindingly obvious. If we do not vote for independence from Westminster 100,000 will live in poverty.

It's you that's confusing Westminster and England/English - the implication is only obvious to you.

Westminster has MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - we want independence from the whole lot, not just the English ones.

I know that the No side thinks it helps to portray this as a Scottish vs English thing when it's not, but why are you doing it?