[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

ernie_lynch - Member
Why does it matter where the Better Together phone bank is located ? ...

I think it makes sense for the BT campaign.

If they picked a Scottish call centre there's an approx 50% chance that the staff member doing the work supported independence and may be a wee bit subversive...

f the Yes campaign needs to make an issue of the alleged location of a phone bank then that speaks volumes of their lack of credible argument which they can offer Scottish voters.

I don't speak for the Yes campaign - no idea if the campaign is going to make an issue of it, they probably won't, it just amused me.

I know,because the no campaign has set out such compelling reasons for the union,and all in a reasoned,measured way

Exactly. In Darling's recent interview (the "monstered" one) he kept saying "we need to make a strong positive case for the union", and I kept thinking "well, go on then - you're the one in front of a microphone".

They keep saying there's a strong positive case for the union, but they never say what it actually [u]is[/u].

Why (tactically or strategically) would Westminster discuss terms of a split now? More Scots prefer a Union than a split. Absurd to give details on the conclusion neither you nor the majority want.

No compelling reasons? Again !?! (Repeat, repeat, repeat and it may become a (half truth)) I assume that, with respect to defence, you have read...

Esp pp 8-14

Actually, I will grant you it starts with why leaving would be a bad decision before presenting the positive case. But the compelling argument IS there for those who are willing to look and read. The alternative would be to spoon feed sugar drops of fantasy.

Got to page 8 of that, and laughed out loud. Recently, when some Russian warships entered Scottish waters, the MoD found out via a Twitter post by a fisherman, and promptly dispatched an escort ship. From Portsmouth, which only arrived a day later.

We also have no patrol aircraft any more.

Scottish energy report:

Exactly. In Darling's recent interview (the "monstered" one) he kept saying "we need to make a strong positive case for the union", and I kept thinking "well, go on then - you're the one in front of a microphone".

To be honest, the No camp doesn't need to make the case. You can just look out the window and that's what you'll get.

It's the Yes camp that wants to change things. And it is up to 'Yes' to make the case.

And up to us to decide. Personally it’s not particularly clear cut, but ‘Yes’ does edge it. But not by much, both sides strike me as a shower of shites when it comes to politicians. But one side appears to be a bigger shower than the other. Hobsons choice. Fortunately of course, Im not voting for a politician.

duckman, well, there [i]are[/i] less people in scotland, aren't there?
devonport fails the safety case due to the higher population nearby ( more than double in the same proximity than faslane ), and although, yes, a lot more people live not [i]that[/i] far away from faslane, devon and cornwall's population is ~1.5 million, rising ( from D&C police's estimates ) to ~ 8 million in the summer. south westerly prevailing winds would likely carry contamination up through devon and onwards.
still, like i say, plymouth sure would welcome the work. that place is on it's ar5e. 🙂

Welcome back THM,I suspected you would have a long dinner after Robertson's rant last week.With all due respect to these Scotland analysis docs which you have linked to on here a number of times,these are no more honest than the white paper.An example would be the one on defence above. The reality is rather different,the example Ben mentions above drives a coach and pair made through the suggestions of how wonderful defence policy is. At least in 1707 we had 4 frigates*

*Only 2 were seaworthy. 😆
Point of order,suggesting I dont want independence as you do above is wrong,long term I have always wanted out of the union.I would like to have seen it be an easier transaction with a period of devo max.That not being on offer I will take a painful birth as a better option than the status quo.

And todays polling http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-more-undecided-voters-1-3371857

SUPPORT for Scottish independence has fallen slightly, as has support for the Union, according to two new opinion polls published today.

The gap between the Yes and No camps remains close enough for the “don’t knows” to deliver the swing needed to secure a Yes vote in September.

The percentage of Scots polled who plan to vote Yes in the referendum has fallen to 37 per cent in the latest Survation poll, down from 39 per cent in last month’s study by the pollsters on behalf of the Daily Record, Dundee University and the website Better Nation.

But support for a No vote is also down, from 48 per cent to 47 per cent.

Panelbase

A separate poll by Panelbase puts support for a Yes vote at 40 per cent, which is down by one point on a poll issued by the same organisation at the weekend.

Those planning to vote No is also down by a point to 45 per cent according to the latest Panelbase survey carried out on behalf of the Yes Scotland campaign.

It means the “don’t knows” could still deliver victory for the Yes camp in September, with a six point swing needed in the Survation survey and a three point swing needed in Panelbase. There has been a marked shift in support for Yes since the start of the year.

Just in case anyone has forgotten http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/panelbase-bans-new-members-from-independence-polls-1-3080830

I know,because the no campaign has set out such compelling reasons for the union,and all in a reasoned,measured way. As George Robertson did in the last week.

That's a pisspoor excuse for the lack of a credible argument......."the other side also has a shit argument". ffs.

And now because George Robertson, who was always a talentless politician, has spouted some nonsensical drivel about the inevitable collapse of Western civilization as we know it should Scotland dare to vote Yes in September, you feel that the Yes campaign and its supporters are no longer obliged to offer any sort of rational argument. Remarkable.

Of course the truth is that those who support Scottish "independence", despite having had about 300 years to think about it, can't come up with any sort of half rational argument so they will look for any half-arsed excuse to explain this clearly hugely embarrassing fact.

The more this thread continues the more convinced I become that no case for Scottish so-called independence actually exists.

Half rational argument. We get to decide on our own government.

What more do you need, anything else is party politics.

Unless you are claiming that Scotland can't run itself Ernie? BTW you'd be the only one.

ernie_lynch - Member
...Of course the truth is that those who support Scottish "independence", despite having had about 300 years to think about it, can't come up with any sort of half rational argument so they will look for any half-arsed excuse to explain this clearly hugely embarrassing fact.

The more this thread continues the more convinced I become that no case for Scottish so-called independence actually exists.

We have a very simple reason.

We want our country back.

Good to see that the lasses are a canny bunch! Keep it up ladies.

Emotive and meaningless. No one "took your country". And surrendering influence and involvement over issues which affects the lives of those who live in Scotland is about as sensible as cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I now realise that I must have been remarkably naive to have thought that there might be a well thought out and rational argument for Scottish independence. It never occurred to me that in the 21st century in an advanced country people might still hang onto ridiculously primitive forms of chauvinism.

We want our country back.

Its not yours anymore - you gave it away, remember?

No one took our country absolutely. Show me one post where I said this. But you are wanting to have arguments about how a countries GDP is divvied up. I'll reckon that'll happen more fairly in and IS. There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That's a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening. So bye bye.

Even if Scotland's GDP does end up a little less well a good example I heard is:

If GDP is 20 pound and the are 10 people, 1 has 11 pound and the rest have 1 pound each.

I'd rather have a Gdp of 18 pound with 10 people having 1.8 each.

Now that kind of parity isn't going to happen in an IS but at least we can reverse the UK trend, if we wish and choose the correct government. Not guaranteed, yes. But what is?.

ninfan - Member
We want our country back.
Its not yours anymore - you gave it away, remember?

Foreign diplomats now think independence is likely:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/10/scotland-likely-choose-independence-foreign-diplomats

There is indisputable evidence that the gap between top and bottom has increased massively over the last 30 years. That's a pile of piss and will continue with any government in Westminster. They all support that gap widening.

And it will continue in a separate Scotland. Growing income inequality is a product of neoliberal economic policies and there is no evidence that a separate Scotland would abandon such policies. Indeed the SNP, Labour, the LibDems, and the Tories, are all committed to the neoliberal model. So there will not be any fundamental change of direction which is precisely what would be required.

In case of the SNP, who are the most likely to set the agenda, they have specifically said that a separate Scotland not be at a "tax disadvantage" with England, Wales, and N. Ireland. In other words a separate Scotland would have low taxation, specifically a corporation tax rate 3% lower than England, Wales, and N. Ireland, and no 50% top rate.

Now I know that the SNP like New Labour believe that the way to tackle poverty is by increasing social spending, but you can't increase social spending if you are actually cutting the government's main source of revenue, ie, taxes, instead of increasing them. So cuts in social spending [i]will[/i] inevitably follow.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won't push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept "competitive" and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

New Labour claimed to be socialist but vehemently denied having any socialist policies, which of course they didn't have. Don't get fooled again.

Ernie even under Westminster rule. the Scottish government has shown itself to be more to the left than Westminster. If the proxy labour party gets in they will destroy that.

Btw I don't think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state, i want it to be at the more socially driven side of capitalism. Yes its not guaranteed. But it's sure as **** never going to happen under Westminster.

It's already a race to the bottom. Rising living costs and stagnant wages tell us that. Recovery my arse, we're treading water at best.

Plus pitting Scotland in direct competition with England, Wales, and N. Ireland, which is of course the intention, will have a highly negative effect on wages (which are the real instrument by which people are lifted from poverty) it certainly won't push up wages.

It will, as they say, be a race to the bottom.

Inevitably the wealthy will get wealthier as they exploit a low tax regime which works in their favour. And the poor will become poorer as their wages are kept "competitive" and they pay for the tax cuts by receiving less social provisions.

So dream on if you think a separate Scotland will become a socialist paradise, because socialism actually requires socialist policies.

+1

Scotland is already in direct competition with the other parts of the uk for jobs and investment. The only difference independence will make to that is that we will be able to develop our own economic policies.

I don't think nor want Scotland to be a socialist state

I didn't think you did. Like New Labour you want socialism but without any socialist policies 🙂

Yes its not guaranteed.

No it is guaranteed. If you cut taxes then you cut social spending - that is a certainty.

And according to Alex Salmond if Scotland votes Yes in September then Scotland will have its corporation tax set by Westminster - without any input from Scotland of course.

Because if some right-wing Tory government decides to slash corporation tax then Scotland will have to do exactly the same.

If Scotland wishes to increase corporation tax to fund social spending then it will have to hope that Labour gets elected in Westminster and increases corporation tax in England, Wales, and N. Ireland.

Independence my arse.

Ernie you are still taking the short term view. Independence is for a wee bit longer than that ye know.

Btw your argument apply to the UK on a European and world scale as well. No country lives in a vacuum and have to take into account of what their neighbours do. Doesn't mean they aren't independent of each other.

Edit: Ye know that after a yes vote scotland and england can still work together.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? [b]We get to choose a government which represents us.[/b]

Btw there is one thing about independence that cannot be denied, and that is that it has engaged a vast audience that was very disinterested in politics. If that could be continued post independence the whole political make up of scotland will change.

Ernie,you choose to ignore the posters pointing out a compelling argument to you,shall I put it in bold? We get to choose a government which represents us.

Yes I know that people in Scotland get to choose a government which represents them. I've even seen the website.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Ernie. You clearly can't be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

piemonster - Member

To be honest, the No camp doesn't need to make the case. You can just look out the window and that's what you'll get.

That's not true though is it? There's no assurance that what we have today is what we'll get tomorrow. The Barnett formula might change, devolved powers might be recalled (this has already happened btw, in case anyone thinks it's scaremongering), the "greenest government ever" might introduce new policies that damage the scottish renewables industry (oh no wait that's already happened too), just to scratch the surface.

piemonster - Member

I was asking for a compelling argument in favour of "independence" ?

We get to choose a government which represents us.

So basically an "independent" Scotland will be exactly the same as now except that Scotland will no longer a direct input into financial matters which effect it, such City of London regulation and corporation tax.

Yeah that doesn't very compelling. If I lived in Scotland I would vote no.

And it's very strange that everyone in Scotland will actually have their say in September, is it not ? After all the yes campaign claim the views of the Scottish people are totally ignored and that's why a yes vote is apparently vital.

So who's idea was it to have a referendum in September then - the Westminster government presumably, since they call all the shots.

Or perhaps they don't ?

seosamh77 - Member

Ernie. You clearly can't be convinced. I think that much is obvious.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don't hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of "independence".

duckman - Member

We get to choose a government which represents us.

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

I sure I could be. If a convincing argument was offered.

But please don't hold me responsible for the lack of a convincing argument in favour of "independence".

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

sbob - Member

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

Your straw man is showing. Of course not everyone will get the government they vote for, but an independent scotland will get the government it votes for, which as we all know has been the case for the minority of the last 50 years, including right now. 16.7% of Scots got the government they voted for, which is excellently democratic. (*)

Trying to draw some link between the 2 ideas let alone suggest they're "exactly the same" is really just admitting you don't have an actual argument to counter the point with. And no wonder.

(* No, the lib dem voters did not get the government they voted for)

Wrong.
Some of you will.
Exactly the same situation we are all in now.

There's a big difference between how the Westminster system works and how the Scottish parliament works. Westminster has a first-past-the-post system which effectively means that only a relatively small number of floating voters in a few marginal constituencies decide the whole thing. Holyrood has a semi-PR system which means that it more accurately represents what most people vote for.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Whilst in theory I'm in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven't been [i]all[/i] bad.

Another compelling argument is that the better together parties the lib ddems, labour and even the Tories will be able to have a clean break from their London puppeteers and will actually develop into something more suited to Scotland.

Politics in Scotland will not remain the same as Ernie suggests, all the parties will fundamentally change their power structures.

I reckon even the SNP will fracture over time. New parties will likely emerge.

Democracy with be given a massive kick up the arse. That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless. Policies will be reviewed massively.

WTF?

[img] [/img]

That'll be the NHS that's already separate in Scotland? The NHS that is rapidly being dismantled south of the border?

And "Stakeholder Engagement Manager"?

Northwind - Member

Your straw man is showing.

It's not a strawman it's just that some people don't have a very good grasp of what democracy is.
I personally think this is one of the very good reasons for Scotland to attain independence, but I am still of the opinion that a split in the union will be bad for the UK and worse for Scotland.

Only time will tell, and it's not like it's my decision! 😆

Whilst in theory I'm in total agreement with you about the upper house, they haven't been all bad.

Someone on Radio 4 this morning said, without a trace of irony, that the UK could never become a dictatorship because the Queen kept a check on the Prime Minister.

I'm sure some lords are perfectly decent people, and sometimes make good decisions, but the principle is all wrong.

Not to mention the fact Holyrood doesn't have an upper chamber stuffed with unelected political cronies.

And yet the EU, which the Yes campaign says is indispensable to an "independent" Scotland, is stuffed with unelected political cronies.

Ones which totally unlike the unelected political cronies in Upper Chamber actually have real power which can thwart the democratic will of an electorate.

So in the logic of the Yes campaign ........unelected political cronies with no power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very bad indeed, intolerable in fact.

And unelected political cronies with real power to undermine the democratic wishes of an electorate = very good indeed, to be welcomed with open arms in fact.

I'm impressed.... the supporters of the Yes campaign appear to be consistently illogical across a wide range of issues.

That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.

Yeah I'm really playing the "party politics game" 🙄

ernie_lynch - Member
That's why the party politics game that Ernie wants us to play is pointless.
Yeah I'm really playing the "party politics game"

Noticeable you ignored the rest of my post.