[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

A 1974 report?

really?

Your 'proof' of a conspiracy is the difference between how a report was handled when ABBA won the Eurovision, and now?

I read it knowing Mccrones view on independence . Given his clearly expressed wish to obstruct the pro independence movement it was hard to see him as unbiased.

in relation to the Scottish electorate that's not scaremongering. That's saying the garden is rosey.
Not if rUK subsidy for iS renewables is withdrawn it isn't

who's scaremongering now! 😆

It's an interesting point though, the subsidy, Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level, but if they were only there to support scottish energy would that really be required? I mean, scotland does only need a finite amount of energy. There are only 5 million of us.

btw I don't believe for a minute that the light on england would go out. It'd not be difficult to organise more energy if required.

I'll leave the conspiracy theories to you ninfan. I am merely referring to a historical fact .

If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree.
Michael Crichton

grum - Member
... claiming we live in a dystopia is ridiculous. And believing that an iS would be radically different is naive.

I don't recall in my lifetime seeing such a concentrated attack on the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable unable to defend themselves section of society. It's a cross party policy. If that's not dystopia, what is?

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

😀

teamhurtmore - Member
"And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted."
😀

It makes me happy too. Nice to see we agree at last. 🙂

Anyhow, now I've helped you chaps to realise there will be a Nirvana to your North, I must allow you to consider it for a while.

But don't worry, I'll be back in about 2 weeks.

Did someone say no Eastenders is an independent Scotland?
That's meant to get people to vote No??????

I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile! If the analysis was half-correct we should all be moving north of the border NOW.

In the event of an iS, I will miss Roddy Forsyth's summaries on R5L!!

And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out. In an iS there will be finite levels of spending and at some point there will have to be limits, which means that some people will suffer due to lack of services. It will be impossible to generate enough tax revenue to be able to provide all the services that are being promised

sadmadalan - Member
The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out.

aye sure! 😆

Reason for austerity is a shift in balance of wealth between different sections of society.

How does that work?

teamhurtmore - Member
How does that work?

low wages/rising prices for a start.

so if you're not stupid, what actual real practical difference would it make? Answers not involving too much waffle and soft facts would be preferable.

Are you really asking us what difference, in terms of the democratic process, it would make to not have yourself governed by those who are unelected and there by birthright...Its monday that one is just so tough 😉

On the other we have Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary to the treasury since 2005, under three different chancellors, a long standing senior civil servant, bound by the civil service code - a code of impartiality which has been closely guarded and strictly enforced for many, many years and has proved to be a thorn in the side for senior politicians of all colours on numerous occasions.

The FOI showed that there was no paper trail and no evidence of this being discussed anywhere before the decisions. I tend to agree he is more impartial but that is, to out it mildyl, very suspicious. certainly if As had done this THM and yourself would be suspicious but as it agrees with you I guess we overlook it right?
Both sides, being politicians, got the advice they wanted...is anyone really surprised by this?

Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it's perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it's disgraceful. Ok then

EVERYONE is doing this on here, including you and ben, and see the example above
for example

But in your mind everything that the Yes campaign says is true, and everything the No campaign (and The Treasury, and the governor of the Bank of England, and economists who don't agree with you) says is both wrong and part of a sinister conspiracy.

And vice versa- really what is it about this issue that makes every one forth and become so one sided - that is a serious question but I doubt it will get any answer never mind a serious one.

I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile!

Whilst he has over egged the pudding it does seem clear that iS will have a different social agenda from the ****s in power in Westminster. there are lots of issues we can highlight this in already, tuition fees, care of the elderly etc. It wont be utopia but it sure will [try to] be nicer than this lot.

Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

Why?

konabunny - Member
Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

Why?

I dunno, That's why i'm asking. i'd imagine the subsidy for windfarms is upfront to build the things, after that there's surely a pay back period and them they become profitable? Especially when you are only talking about 5 million people?

There's some guff in the torygraph about subisidies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/10548157/Europe-wants-to-block-UK-wind-farm-subsidies.html

And some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Obligation_Certificates

I don't buy the bit about austerity being because the money ran out. We are still a wealthy country. The Tories in fact recently admitted they would continue with austerity indefinitely regardless of our economic position didn't they?

However, the SNP only offer a slightly less shit form of neo-liberalism than is available in Westminster. I guess at least that's something but it's not a socialist utopia like some seem to think.

And vice versa- really what is it about this issue that makes every one forth and become so one sided - that is a serious question but I doubt it will get any answer never mind a serious one.

I'm not really that one-sided. I'm pretty ambivalent about independence - and as I said I used to be fairly pro. I just see an awful lot of bollocks being talked and it's mainly coming from the Yes camp on here. I'm just trying to look at the evidence in as rational a way as possible.

Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11? 🙂

I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical - but that doesn't mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn't make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

I genuinely don't think I've ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK.

Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

Wisdom comes with age Grum, embrace it!!!! 😉

Tories, LD and labour are all proponents of achieving a budgets surplus at some stage - are labour remembering their Keynesian roots? (The EU also has a newish fiscal compact). The difference is essentially one of timing not substance. IS will face exactly the same challenges and policies will be broadly the same - why? Not just because they make sense (largely) but because control of monetary and fiscal policy will (again largely) lie in the hands of the gov in Westminster. The elephant in the room may be getting older, but it isn't getting any smaller. By design yS want the key levers of power to remain in Westminster. They hide it well, but the "fact" remains.

"He who controls the currency, controls the country." Not even Antipodean actors nor saltire face paints can't alter that truism.

[quote=Junkyard ]Are you really asking us what difference, in terms of the democratic process, it would make to not have yourself governed by those who are unelected and there by birthright.

Is that waffle or soft fact? You see I'm not really sure how much difference it makes to the man on the street whether or not there's some unelected part of government if it doesn't actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

Though actually on reflection I'm with Northwind on this - I'm sure you won't be keen on the source, but here's an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100266816/the-house-of-lords-alone-in-parliament-defends-the-british-traditions-of-humanity-freedom-and-justice/

So in answer to epicyclo's question, the problem with democracy is that it brings with it a very short term attitude as members are always looking to the next election and not necessarily any further. Though I'm not sure why I need to point that out given I thought there was broad agreement from both sides of this debate about that being a problem.

Oh and BTW I doubt the 92 there by birthright could actually "govern" us to any significant extent even if they tried - not when they make up only about 12% of the house.

[quote=grum ]Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

Well you're also agreeing with ernie if that helps.

aracer - Member

Though actually on reflection I'm with Northwind on this - I'm sure you won't be keen on the source, but here's an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job

Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We've got our own fix for that though.

[quote=Northwind ]Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We've got our own fix for that though.

Ah - this is the one about you having better politicians than we have? 😆

More that we have a better electorate 😉

Northwind - Member

More that we have a better electorate

An electorate that is in favour of the union? 😀

sbob - Member
An electorate that is in favour of the union?*

*subject to referendum, not polls.

If you don't think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them. 😉

sbob - Member
If you don't think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them.

I'm a one man campaign! 😀

I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical - but that doesn't mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn't make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

You mean both sides are politicians - This argument works both ways fpr both sides yet you chose only one side to say it.......just like every other person.

I genuinely don't think I've ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK

Are you saying THM and ernie are not doing the same? They argued that the economic future of iS was unknown [true] and yet stay silent when I ask them if rUk will be in the EU in 5 years time for example. Ie neither economic future is known.
Both sides seem to be doing this and who you choose to focus on is just saying which way you would vote - i would say the same to Ben but he is already fighting enough battles without me wading in 😉

if it doesn't actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

So you are argument is that the unelected peers dont actually affect the legislation......not hard to show they do have [ limited] power is it.

Your right folk dont care...unless they are foreign ones in the EU then its undemocratic but the Queen ,lords and the bishops ...well that is tradition innit 😉

Both sides seem to be doing this

in fairness I do argue that no one knows anything beyond the short term! 🙂

sbob - Member

An electorate that is in favour of the union?

I did correct you on this earlier, quite happy to do it again, at the moment a minority of the electorate are in favour of the union. 48% was the last major poll result, down from 49%.

One of the things that nobody seems to be thinking about or talking about just now- even in the event of a no vote, we'll be looking at a very large minority who've essentially rejected the status quo. That should be a wake up call- more people look set to vote Yes for independence, than voted yes for the current government. That ought to be a wake up call for the government. It's not like a vote against a political party, it's a vote against the entire system. Will it be? Past evidence suggests not.

sbob - Member
If you don't think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them.

And what,believe instead your BS from a couple of pages ago about never having met a yes voter? 🙄

Northwind - Member

I did correct you on this earlier, quite happy to do it again, at the moment a minority of the electorate are in favour of the union.

If you're going to be pedantic, as you know full well what I mean, then it is a minority that are undecided, with the next biggest group being in favour of independence, and the biggest group being in favour of the union, according to the polls.

[quote=Junkyard ]Your right folk dont care...unless they are foreign ones in the EU then its undemocratic but the Queen ,lords and the bishops ...well that is tradition innit

If only the EU was subject to the Parliament Act.

duckman - Member

And what,believe instead your BS from a couple of pages ago about never having met a yes voter?

It isn't bullshit, it's a statement of fact.
Maybe you missed out the bit where I deliberately and carefully explained that I live in England and so the Scots that I meet tend to do business or work here.
It shouldn't take too much imagination to work out that these people are more likely to appreciate the benefits of union.
If I lived and worked in Scotland then obviously I would encounter people sitting on both sides of the fence.
I don't think all that is particularly difficult to understand.

sbob - Member

If you're going to be pedantic, as you know full well what I mean, then it is a minority that are undecided, with the next biggest group being in favour of independence, and the biggest group being in favour of the union, according to the polls.

It's not pedantry, just statements of fact, the moment the majority of the electorate don't support the union- they're either against, or undecided. So quite different from what you said.

Northwind - Member

It's not pedantry, just statements of fact, the moment the majority of the electorate don't support the union- they're either against, or undecided. So quite different from what you said.

So you're in agreement that the largest group according to the polls are in favour of union?

Yep. Are you in agreement that according to the polls, the majority of the electorate are not? (which is the opposite of what you said earlier?)

[quote=Northwind ]Are you in agreement that according to the polls, the majority of the electorate are not?

Well in this somewhat pointless debate about how to refer to the polling figures, that's not quite accurate, because there isn't a majority of the electorate who are not in favour of the union. There is a majority who haven't (yet) expressed a preference in favour of the union. Just as there is a slightly smaller majority who haven't (yet) expressed that they're not in favour of the union.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27002723

Good old impartial beeb at it again, this is actually a thing of beauty, bye bye helensburgh! 😆

No, because "undecided" does not mean "not in favour".
The majority, that is the largest group of the sample (look it up, it's a perfectly valid definition) are in favour of union.

I could also say that the majority are against independence, even by your definition.
We've all seen the polls, there is no need to pretend that the yes vote is in the lead.

aracer - Member

There is a majority who haven't (yet) expressed a preference in favour of the union.

Haha, yes that's exactly what the polls say, all those people who say they're undecided actually are in favour of the union but just haven't said so yet.

I think as we approach the 100th page everyone should just agree to disagree, or atleast agree that there are benefits of independence and there are benefits of union. Ultimately the choice is down to personal instinct. 😆

technically that is a simple majority rather than a majority - ie what FPTP delivers - most votes not [ necessarily] an actual majority
Mathematically it is

A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset considered; i.e. a plurality is not necessarily a majority as the largest subset considered may consist of less than half the set's elements

It isn't bullshit, it's a statement of fact.

I am still saying BS for a claim that you met hundreds and not one was in favour wherever you do your sample except for a No campaign rally.

seosamh77 - Member

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27002723

Good old impartial beeb at it again, this is actually a thing of beauty, bye bye helensburgh!

It has been posted, but I didn't watch it before as I could sense the cringeworthiness of it.
It still contains some valid points, despite the bias.