[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Junkyard - lazarus

No he is not , each time he has posted on the point he says he is not bothered.

Of course I'm not bothered, why would I be ffs ?

Firstly I'm not English beyond having lived most of my life in England. My upbringing certainly couldn't be described as 'typically English', English wasn't even the sole language spoken at home. And neither of my parents have any English, or even British, ancestry.

Secondly the anti-English sentiments expressed by some separatists does their cause absolutely no good whatsoever imo. It is in fact counterproductive as it exposes just how hollow and without any convincing substance their "argument" in favour of separatism really is.

Petty nationalism is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

So by all means carry on with the anti-English sentiments, it certainly doesn't bother me and it does your cause no good as it betrays your lack of reasoned arguments.

It will of course appeal to a small minority of bigots as petty nationalism does everywhere in the world, including in England, but I have no doubt at all that the majority of Scots will treat it with the disdain it deserves.

In the meantime I will continue to point out examples of anti-English sentiments by separatists, whether or not you think it bothers me. And I will continue to point out that your opponents are fellow Scots not the English. Despite all your attempts to derail the debate into a Scot vs English one.

(£14.8bn x 40% x 9%)

True, makes it more like 10-11%.

Strange how you can call yes voters Mel Gibson wannabes,( with embellishment)yet accuse me of anti English sentiment for pointing out that the people with no say ie English residents such as you,thm zulu have the biggest posting history on this thread. You are obviously desperate to convince yourself that the only reason people support independence is anti English.Arguing with you is tedious, I have stated my reasons for voting yes,if you are too obsessed with something only you seem to see to understand why we are having a vote ( hint, it isn't because we don't like the English) then fill your boots.

[quote=bencooper ]40% of funding for Crossrail is coming from outside London, for example. That works out at about £53M from taxpayers in Scotland, I reckon.

You're doing quite well out of it then:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/scotland-given-500m-sop-for-crossrail-6616253.html

2007 - you have had that one banked for a while 😉

one in three English voters now favours a break-up of the union

As that article says, "When is there going to be a north of England bonus?" I said it before, I think the English regions are even worse served by Westminster than Scotland is - we at least have some autonomy.

one in three English voters now favours a break-up of the union

Probably because they're continually fed the lie that England subsidises the other nations of the union, which isn't true, at least not in the case of Scotland.

[url= http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/a-vote-to-leave-the-market/2014272.article#.U7VXb-CAzxs.facebook ]A letter in the THES from an Englishman in Scotland, who's going to vote Yes[/url].

The last paragraph is especially relevant:

If the UK breaks apart, the cause will not be nationalism but rather the disastrous, extreme right-wing policies pursued by the Capitalist Party of (Southern) England, be it the Conservative wing, the Liberal Democrat wing or the Labour wing.

(Sent to me by my father, also an English-born academic living in Scotland who's going to vote Yes)

Strange how you can call yes voters Mel Gibson wannabes

Yes that's correct, I once made a remark about saltire waving Mel Gibson wannabes. I can see that the comment deeply wounded you as you are still banging on about it all this time later. If I had realised just how sensitive you are I [i]might[/i] not have made the comment.

Never at anytime, throughout the 174 pages of this thread, have I made a derogatory comment with regards to the Scots. In fact the complete opposite is true - I have commented on the contribution that Scots have made to the Union and expressed the desire to maintain working class unity throughout the United Kingdom. I value Scotland and the Scottish people's contribution to the Union.

In contrast saltire waving Mel Gibson wannabes like yourself can't resist having little digs at the English.

In your case ernie i will assume the satire is deliberate.

In contrast saltire waving Mel Gibson wannabes like yourself can't resist having little digs at the English.

Oops, you've just done it again.

You should probably stop taking things so personally.

Yup,but rather at odds with you dull tirade on the previous page. It didn't upset me,(sorry if that was the intention) and remember I was only one of a number of people who called you over it,but it should probably have upset you.

1 in 3 English voters eh? Surprised its that low myself.
Ive heard/read competing arguments about who subsidies whom and neither argument convinces me to be frank.
What does convince me is the whining thinly veiled anti English BS constantly flowing from Salmonds cake hole & i really have had enough, that's enough reason alone to want Scotland gone.
Am i an anti Scottish racist? No, as ive said before Scotland on a day to day basis is as relevant to my life as Iceland or the Faroe Islands, I really won't notice when you are gone. I'll just be glad the BS stops - at least for us, Scots will still have to deal with it of course but that's not my concern.

the whining thinly veiled anti English BS constantly flowing from Salmonds cake hole

Show me one anti-English thing Salmond has said. Just one. The hate only seems to be flowing one way in this discussion.

That's the perception Ben, constant whining about being bullied etc. To you it may not seem such but down here it comes across as very anti English dressed up in a cloak of anti Westminster rhetoric. As i say, you may see it from a different angle but here its seen as something else, and it is one of the things fuelling the desire to simply be rid of the Scottish Question once and for all.
Personally i think the Union has been good for everyone but the time appears to have arrived where that is no longer enough - so lets just get it over with.

EDIT: I was referring to the wider population Ben, not the conversation on here.

So the problem really is English people taking criticism of the Westminster government personally?

What does convince me is the whining thinly veiled anti English BS constantly flowing from Salmonds cake hole & i really have had enough, that's enough reason alone to want Scotland gone.
Am i an anti Scottish racist?

Well you're taking a position with regards to all Scots, ie "they can bugger off" or words to that effect, on the basis of what one Scot has said.

So the jury's still out on whether you're an anti-Scottish racist as far as I'm concern.

And in this case the word bigot is probably more appropriate than racist btw.

After spending 3 weeks on holiday in the islands, I was amazed at how anti English the press (especially the Record) and TV is in Scotland. Its pretty shocking really, as if it was directed at any other racial group then I am sure you wouldn't be able to publish/broadcast it.

Conversely the people were great although they were embarrassed by the Southern lowlanders at their attitudes towards people with an english accent 🙂

Possibly, Salmond certainly has a way of not endearing himself to the rest of the UK population put it that way. One of the reasons i want Scotland to leave is the fear that in the event of a no vote Salmond and Co will do their very damnedest to frustrate the rest of the UK at every turn. The loss won't be blamed on fellow Scots not believing his version of Scottish Nirvana, it will be blamed on perfidious Albion in the shape of Westminster. Its better for us in the long run that you leave sooner than later.

EDIT : when that 'one Scot' is the person who officially speaks for Scotland you would agree his words carry some weight Ernie?
Bigot? If you think so, its not that important to me.

Closer to home, it looks as if No are really worried about Glasgow - various polls have shown that Glasgow is pretty strongly Yes, so the announcement of £1bn funding (half from each government) is interesting. Pity that if you look more closely it's only worth £15M a year...

when that 'one Scot' is the person who officially speaks for Scotland you would agree his words carry some weight Ernie?

Not really. In the same way that all British people, including you, shouldn't be judged on the basis of what David Cameron says.

Furthermore the Scottish people have to vote for [i]someone[/i] in elections, and in the case of Salmond less than half of half the electorate voted for the party which he leads.

On the specific issue of Scotland and the Scottish people's relationship with the English, and others within the Union, Salmond does not have the authority to speak on behalf of Scots. That is why there will a referendum in September - to establish the views of Scots.

We will know then, and if the vote is for separation then everything should be done to facilitate the wishes of the people of Scotland, imo.

Whether we like it or not, the words of Cameron and Salmond carry far more weight than the words of unelected private citizens like ourselves - and that's the way it should be. They are elected leaders and their words carry weight. Whether those words can persuade Scots to make the leap remains to be seen. Cameron may not represent my views but he DOES represent me on the international stage, same for Salmond and Scotland.

[quote=bencooper ]Closer to home, it looks as if No are really worried about Glasgow - various polls have shown that Glasgow is pretty strongly Yes, so the announcement of £1bn funding (half from each government) is interesting. Pity that if you look more closely it's only worth £15M a year...

Last time I checked the vote was a referendum rather than a constituency thing, so it would seem strange for them to be all that bothered about Glasgow - especially if the Yes vote is well entrenched (remember it's the floaters they're after - no need at all for them to win over any current Yes voters). I suspect you're reading too much into that, Ben.

Cameron does not represent my opinions "on the international stage".

Perhaps. Though the way it was done - the UK government pledging £500M and challenging the Scottish government to match it - is interesting.

No Ernie, he does not represent your personal opinions, but like it or not as the UK Premier he represents the UK - and that's all of us currently.

he does not represent your personal opinions

Quite correct.

So why are you judging Scots on the basis of what Salmond says then ?

<sigh> because, as you know very well his words DO carry weight. And i know very well a slim majority of Scots will vote against his proposal this September, but that isn't really my worry. My worry is that Salmond and Co are in power & therefore have the power to disrupt Scottish/UK relations for the foreseeable future. The issue will not go away, it will continue to affect economic & social life for a long time to come so its better we split reasonably amicably now rather than bitterly at some point in the future. If that attitude is anti Scottish bigotry then so be it.

Word for word, that could apply to Cameron as well.

Precisely Ben, i quite understand your desire to leave the UK - I'm just puzzled as to why any English person who states a desire for Scotland to leave because they believe it would be better for the UK is met with bafflement.

I'm not baffled - I agree that it could well be a good thing for the rUK as well.

Though I probably think so for different reasons to you - I think it might help break the Westminster system.

Last time I checked the vote was a referendum rather than a constituency thing, so it would seem strange for them to be all that bothered about Glasgow - especially if the Yes vote is well entrenched (remember it's the floaters they're after - no need at all for them to win over any current Yes voters). I suspect you're reading too much into that, Ben.

Lets rewind a wee bit here. Greater Glasgow has a population of around 2.3 million people which is around 41% of the total population of Scotland. On those grounds it would be very strange indeed if they weren't all that bothered about Glasgow....

It seems that Cameron hasn't got the memo about how Yes is all about emotion and No is sensible and about the facts:

The prime minister, during a short party rally in Perth, made a direct plea to Scots Tory activists, asking them to fight harder to "save the UK" and urging them to see the anti-independence case as an emotional, patriotic, cause.

"We've had all the arguments and it's an issue of the heart," he told the Conservative Friends of the Union rally. "It would break my heart to see our United Kingdom broken apart."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/03/david-cameron-scots-tories-pride-patriotism-united-uk

Are we going to get another love bombing?

Actually Ben, a major reason (as ive stated previously) would be that i believe it would cause a seismic shift in UK politics. Not having to concern ourselves with Scotland and forcing the Left to re-integrate with the English electorate rather than relying on Scots/Welsh votes.
Having said that, we all know Scots haven't swung an election in decades.
Still, i can't see a single downside for the UK should Scotland go.

Scotland should go their own way ... Frreeedddoommmmmm! 😈

To add a bit of balance to the discussion just as Ben thinks the Westminster system needs breaking I personally think the Holyrood system needs breaking. It is a complete waste of money and another worthless layer of bureaucracy. Ben keeps saying that the Westminster system is broke but it was that system that created a Scottish parliament. The SNP have given nothing to Scotland in comparison.

I personally think the Holyrood system needs breaking

FNF - quite right, we've got three layers at the moment. Holyrood, Commons and Lords. Independence gets rid of two of those, removing a huge amount of bureaucracy - the Lords is the second largest parliamentary body in the world, only beaten by China.

Cameron's party rally in Perth? The one where he said that losing Scotland would break his heart? He made it to a hall that was only a quarter full - less than 250 people.

Though it is quite impressive they found even that many people in Scotland who were willing to go listen to him.

iScotland really should have a second chamber of some kind, I don't think special committees would carry enough weight to keep holyrood in check. If this is not the case you are going to end up with less democracy if you are not careful. Admittedly the house of lords needs to be fully elected sooner rather than later.

Scotland a second chamber? I thought one toilet was enough.

Ben, have you listened to the debates between Sturgeon and Lamont? Have you watched how AS's credibility has been picked apart consistently as his BS has been exposed? And these are the people that you believe will represent your interests better domestically and internationally? It's embarrassing for a proud nation. There seems to be the perverse logic that we don't mind sh*t as long as it is our own brand of sh*t, conveniently forgetting that having a saltire on the label doesn't stop it being sh*t.

It takes a remarkable brand of MSP to not only make Osbourne, Darling, Alexander, Brown and co look political heavyweights and intellectually robust but also to unite them with the Europeans, US and Chinese. At least there will be a entry in the Guinness Book of Records to console wee eck if not the power he craves.

To add a bit of balance to the discussion just as Ben thinks the Westminster system needs breaking I personally think the Holyrood system needs breaking. It is a complete waste of money and another worthless layer of bureaucracy. Ben keeps saying that the Westminster system is broke but it was that system that created a Scottish parliament. The SNP have given nothing to Scotland in comparison.

A good point is made above about a second (revisory) chamber, although electing them would likely weaken the quality by making it another popularity competition - I'm minded of the words of Baroness Trumpington about serving in the House of Lords::

[i] "You learn so much about this country, one way or another there is somebody who really knows what they are talking about, and really knows a situation, you've always got somebody who's got practical experience, and you're a fool if you argue ignorantly against them, as some do"[/i]

you can say the same about this place but i dont think we should all get a place in the chamber for ever and then pass it on to our kids for ever.

Its unfair, anachronistic and it is undemocratic.
It needed replacing 150 years ago never mind today.

Its unfair, anachronistic and it is undemocratic

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking - you can't accuse it if being undemocratic when the will of the elected chamber has the final say, and can inflict its own will - it would be far more undemocratic and anachronistic if you had an elected second chamber, since if the two chambers were at loggerheads, both would have a valid democratic mandate to uphold.

I'm minded of the words of Baroness Trumpington ...

You can't expect anyone to take seriously anything said by someone who goes by the name of "Baroness Trumpington".

Surely "Baroness Trumpington" is a pantomime/Whitehall Farce/Private Eye/Ealing Comedy type joke name ?

[img] [/img]

it would be far more undemocratic if you had an elected second chamber

As for no power they ar ein the govt so some of them do have power and the other place does have some power

I have no idea what the radical free market view is but no one can think the current set up is good, fair , democratic etc.

it would be far more undemocratic and anachronistic if you had an elected second chamber, since if the two chambers were at loggerheads, both would have a valid democratic mandate to uphold.

So if two elected chambers are more undemocratic, then surely no elected chambers would be the most democratic? The best democracy is a dictatorship?

It's amazing so many other democracies manage without an unelected upper house.

does any other country have an unelected one?
genuine Q as i cannot think of one tbh.

Canada

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

Yes it would be terrible for democracy if we picked the folk involved in it.

That's not what Z-11 is saying, as you well know. He makes the point that it would in his opinion be detrimental to democracy to have two chambers with equal power and mandates, and he points out that at the present the Upper House has no significant power.

It is a perfectly valid point although I disagree with his support for the status quo. The House of Lords is not a serious issue but along with the monarchy it clearly has no place in a democracy. When we eventually get an advanced democratic society such institutions will by definition need to be scrapped.

In the meantime the separatists are using the completely non-issue of the House of Lords in a desperate attempt to try to provide some sort of barrel scraping argument in favour of 'independence'. While simultaneously embracing the monarchy. Go figure. The term "all over the place" doesn't do the situation justice.

The ironic thing is that the hereditary peers are the only elected representatives in the House of Lords.

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

What does that mean?

Now, would you prefer to live in the USA or Canada?

What does that mean?

If you can't figure that out are you sure you'll be able to manage this one :

"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

or will you be asking "what does that mean" ?

Ninfan

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

And despite the lack of power and the oddities of construction (that have evolved rather than being some kimd of "divine creation") the thing that critics have to overcome is that it actually works pretty/very well despite the obvious shortcomings.

Try to image modern politicians designing something that worked half as well?!?

Baroness Trumpington, FTW

Anyway, latest poll I know of was 100% yes. Ok, that took being out for a run on the local hill. And a couple of random Yes voters out with a Yes Saltire taking a photo on top of the hill. And nobody else being there.

I didn't conduct a poll when having a mooch around a Better Together campaign headquarters the other day. Although I could hazard a guess. Sorry, I didn't have the means for subterfuge or sabotage at the time. That and I wanted a piece of cake so I kept it polite.

Science Facts all that.

Anyway ya miserable bawbags, more poll fun. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/01/why-do-polls-scotland-vary-so-much/#ptlink.fid=14377&isc=1&did=bookmark.2bf6e55d5596dc10ef930deec24c71ae23619089&ctp=article

It might be interesting/tosh/irritating/etc (delete as you deem appropriate)

The cake was ok, 7 out of 10. Technically 6 but I was hungry.

If you can't figure that out are you sure you'll be able to manage this one :

I'm assuming you mean that Canada would be better to live in than the USA. As a US citizen, I'd perhaps disagree with that general statement, and point out that both countries are very large and varied, and living in, say, Vermont is quite different to living in Texas. But of course the US has a federal system which means that states have quite a bit of power over their own affairs, and it's quite nicely balanced - Washington DC doesn't totally dominate the country politically and financially the way London does.

Of course today is the day we celebrate telling the king, Your highness, we beseech you this day in Philadelphia to bite me, if you please.

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament

If the Lords have no power, why do we see so many billionaires making huge political donations to curry favour with the parties so that they get nominated for the House of Lords?

They're not doing it for the £300 a day...

Oldbloke - come now, we mustn't let inconvenient things like facts get in the way of things!

Ben - its easy to say that the states have power, but what happens when two elected legislative branches can't agree! The examples are clear - government shutdown, Obamacare - the US system is broken.

And just for you on this special day:

[img] [/img]

@ninfan - nice 🙂 (interesting that the US had a civil war to force a union)

But of course the US has a federal system which means that states have quite a bit of power over their own affairs, and it's quite nicely balanced - Washington DC doesn't totally dominate the country politically and financially the way London does.

the thing that critics have to overcome is that it actually works pretty/very well despite the obvious shortcomings.

We draw the executive from the legislature and then have no effective, nor democratic,check on its power and no written constitution, really you cannot come up with anything better?

Every other country [ apart from canada who have the system we gave them which is ours basically] has managed to come up with something better.

everyone else can come up with something better apart from us apparently.

As for something better the same thing but "lords" elected [ + lots of other suggestions]. Of course you have to think that voting is an improvement in a democracy.

Just imagine if Texas held an independence referendum, reminding everyone that they used to be a republic in their own right, and stating how they wanted to leave the union, and how their oil reserves would provide financial security - what do you think everyone would call them? 😆

the civil war was not caused by the two legislatures disagreeing [ they are not likely to go to war anytime soon either despite some considerable disagreement between the branches] and the govt/country has not quite collapsed.

It does entrench compromise though and remove democratic dictatorship.

Depends whether you like strong leadership or compromise and consenus...i think i know which will be the STW vote 😉

the US system is broken

All systems are broken in one way or another - as Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government ever invented - apart from all the others.

We can learn from other systems - and we must, there's a huge democratic deficit in this country, turnouts drop lower and lower because people just don't see the point in voting any more.

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

The power to block or amend legislation is power.

But they can't!

Ninfan

But it has no power, its a revisory chamber that is there to bring knowledge and experience to lawmaking

The Lords removed powers from the Scottish parliament,by amending a bill. the amendment was not debated in the commons and there was no consultation with the Scottish Government
click here or google Lords axe holyrood power over renewables

Terror probe launched after man makes sinister firebomb threat to Better Together campaign

A MAN claiming to be from the Scottish National Liberation Army has made a sinister firebomb threat to the Better Together campaign.

The man entered their HQ in Cumbernauld and told staff they would be bombed out if they did not vacate the offices within 24 hours.

Two regional organisers were badly shocked and police are investigating.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/terror-probe-launched-after-man-3806539

Whatnobeer - I think Oldbloke answered this one perfectly clearly

oldbloke - Member

We did this many pages ago gordimor. The Lords did not remove the power. They proposed an amendment to a Bill which was accepted by the Commons (which could have rejected it). The Lords cannot pass legislation, only delay it for review or suggest amendments to it.

There's several examples of this - the hunting bill being the prime one, The commons pushed through the bill to law by using the parliament act - as a counter to this, there are myriad bills where a potential showdown with the HOL has led to the Commons revising the bill at the last minute despite previously refusing to, a good example being compulsory ID cards.

The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 limits the blocking powers of the House of Lords and established the supremacy of the House of Commons.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/

The issue of House of Lords is a complete red herring by the nats who struggle to present any sort of argument in favour of separation.

The House of Lords is presented as some sort of symbol of English tyranny over Scotland. And they won't be dissuaded by the simple fact that the claim is obviously complete bollox.

@JunkYard the House of Lords actually works really well. I appreciate you don't like how it's constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work.

JunkYard the House of Lords actually works really well. I appreciate you don't like how it's constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work.

No it doesn't. That is precisely why reform of the House of Lords is an ongoing issue which has never been resolved.

I see we are all separatists now. It is being increasingly used by pro-Union supporters in the mainstream media. Interesting how this shift has come about in recent weeks.

Previously you would read or hear about 'the Yes camp' or 'pro-independence supporters'.

Now it is 'the separatists'.

We see the situation in Eastern Ukraine where 'separatists' have been seen to have caused hundreds of deaths and the situation could easily escalate into something drastically worse.

Now we have the 'Scottish Separatists' or 'Nationalist Few' who are causing the pro-Union supporters to be fearful of speaking out.

The Daily Record story linked to above is also not totally unexpected. In situations such as these, we must ask "who benefits from these actions?"

Certainly not the 'separatists'. My only surprise is it has taken so long for a story like this to appear. There will be more in the next three months also.

Those who argue in favour of Scotland breaking way from the rest of the UK easily fall within the accepted definition of the term separatist.

Junkyard for reasons I don't understand or even care about appears to dislike the term "nats" deeming it apparently as some sort of insult. The term 'pro-independence supporters' is quite a mouthful even if it meets to your approval.

I will carry on using the terms nats, separatists, the Yes camp, and maybe a few other terms, depending on how I feel. A bit of variety adds a certain quality.

Oh dear:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4138460.ece

Alex Salmond’s hopes that the economy of an independent Scotland could rely on expanding renewable energy generation have been crippled by a European Court of Justice ruling.
The court has said that no government must pay subsidies to renewable generators in another country. The ruling removes any legal foundation for the first minister’s claim that the rest of Britain would continue to pay a subsidy — more than £500 million a year — to Scottish renewable generators for their green energy.

Pro-Union sources said that the ruling could mean higher energy bills after a “yes” vote. It also leaves the future of the industry, if there is a “yes” vote, resting on the hope of a negotiated agreement between the Scottish and British governments, which Westminster has said is unlikely.

The EU’s top court ruled this week on a complaint by Alands Vindkraft AB, the Finnish wind energy producer, that it was unfairly refused the subsidy that Sweden’s energy agency pays to all its domestic renewable generators. The court agreed with the Finnish company’s claim that this was a restraint on free trade, but said that it was legitimate. It said: “The court finds that the restriction is justified by the public interest objective of promoting the use of renewable energy sources in order to protect the environment and combat climate change.”

😆

@JunkYard [s]the House of Lords[/s]North Korea actually works really well. I appreciate you don't like how it's constructed (as per your post) but it does actually work

IMHO no system that has an unelected and weak check on the legislature and provides membership by birth ,political patronage and church can ever be considered to "work" within a democracy.
I agree it does what it is meant to do and it is not universally bad but you need ot be massively unimaginative to not see how you could improve on it - electing the upper chamber alone and keeping it as is would be an improvement for example.

dislike the term "nats" deeming it apparently as some sort of insult.

Petty nationalism is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/osbourne-says-no-to-currency-union/page/174?replies=6147#post-6136739

FWIW I dont disagree with you re nationalism in general but you dont call them nats to be nice.