[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

you beat your hi score yet?

I'm only posting to hit p100.

isolated, as in it is the only decent argument that has been put forward

ninfan you seemed to have turned over anew leaf and are now just reverting to type again ...the rational you was much better IMHO

I also listened to Salmond's speech the other day, which promised the Earth with no explanation of how he will achieve it.

Junky, I think its fair to go for a bit of 'like with like' - particularly when someone posts something as patently ridiculous as:

some are requests to work together, like a currency union

When Salmond himself said:

[i]If there is no legal basis for Scotland having a share of the public asset of the Bank of England, then there is equally no legal basis for Scotland accepting a share of the public liability of the national debt[/i]

Which is about as much a 'request to work together' as a Somalian pirate offers 😀

only on independence do folk take the words of Westminster MP's as a truth

I don't think thats true really, on here we've seen plentiful links to independent legal opinions, international legal precedent, documentary evidence etc. - in my opinion the imbalance between the two sides of the discussion shows fairly clearly in this, particularly in many of the assertions of 'yeah, but it will all come right in the end' by one side.

ninfan - Member
Junky, I think its fair to go for a bit of 'like with like' - particularly when someone posts something as patently ridiculous as:

some are requests to work together, like a currency union
When Salmond himself said:

If there is no legal basis for Scotland having a share of the public asset of the Bank of England, then there is equally no legal basis for Scotland accepting a share of the public liability of the national debt

Which is about as much a 'request to work together' as a Somalian pirate offers

If there is no legal basis for Scotland having a share of the public asset of the Bank of England, then there is equally no legal basis for Scotland accepting a share of the public liability of the national debt

Are you really saying he should just just roll over and go ok fair enough you wont give us what we want/think we desreve but dont worry we will pay whatever you ask of the debt and just take whatever you offer...thanks mr rUK . Is this meant to make us respect him more or make the voters in Scotland more likely to vote for him?
Again whatever side had the no debt card they would be threatening to use it as anything else would be crap negotiating.
Your point is just to say which you like not which is right.

I don't think thats true really,[s] on here we've seen plentiful links to independent legal opinions, international legal precedent, documentary evidence etc. - in my opinion the imbalance between the two sides of the discussion shows fairly clearly in this, particularly in many of the assertions of 'yeah, but it will all come right in the end' by one side.[/s]i have read stuff that agrees with me and i will claim its the truth and ignore everything else against it. Furthermore when they say something I will reinforce that my Govt funded sources are independent whilst stressing that there's are biased

FTFY. DO you wish to claim you were neutral till the evidence convinced you or were you pro union before you read up 😉
Noone is changing their minds here

By come all right in the end I assume you mean rUK EU position then ...you can of course categorically tell me whether we will be in or out in 5 years.

agreed and consensual separation of a union

If that was to be the case, then surely all UK citizens should have a vote in the referendum?

I assume they mean they [union govt] agreed to a vote hence consensual

Its not like they are arguing we vote on whether to keep the falklands isle or Gibraltar we let the people decide but only if we are certain they will vote to stay 😛

sbob - Member
agreed and consensual separation of a union
If that was to be the case, then surely all UK citizens should have a vote in the referendum?

Junkyard - lazarus

I assume they mean they [union govt]

And there was me thinking this was all about giving power to the people... 🙂

you also understand that agreed and consensual separation of a union isn't the same as a part of a country declaring independence of a country?

Why? The union was supposed to be [i]hereof and forever[/i] - Neither can I see any reason why, for example, Kernow, historically an independent Kingdom, could not call for independence

[img] [/img]

And there was me thinking this was all about giving power to the people...

yes but not the oppressors

English or Tory? 😈

ninfan - Member
you also understand that agreed and consensual separation of a union isn't the same as a part of a country declaring independence of a country?
[b]Why?[/b] The union was supposed to be hereof and forever - Neither can I see any reason why, for example, Kernow, historically an independent Kingdom, could not call for independence

Kernow, funnily enough, neither do I. They could call it if they wanted, they'd need to negotiate that with the westminster government.

I would display my own bias were i to answer that one [TORIES}
the english are fine unless they are assesing their football teams chances in a world cup 😉

http://www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/does-scotland-have-the-right-to-secede/

Btw here's an interesting article supporting assertions that we don't actually deserve a referendum. Simple fact is that the Edinburgh agreement was signed, so the referendum is legal and binding, which eever way it goes.(which is absolutely crucial to everything to do with it, why the scottish referendum will have no bearing on the legality of catalonian or ventian or basque referenda).

btw, here's an interesting thought, now that we've reached the 100 pages, maybe we should all switch sides and argue the other sides case!

I wish AS was a Westminster MP - he talks so much sense.

Ninfan, your point above is more important that you care to admit. The whole legal basis argument follows a well know structure when lying to people. You start with a non-contraversial point (your quote) which most people will accept, then you deliberately and deceitfully twist it to support a different point but one that is close enough for people not to notice (my missing dollar analogy). In this case to lie about the nature of currency in order to create a false negotiating point. Cold readers do this the whole time * and it's smart, because as you can see it draws the gullible in all too easily. So when the sensible response is - this is not true (by definition) coupled with the advice to call the bluff - this is made to look like the wrong response and unreasonable. A1 deceit/cold reading.

The deceitful one would make * Derren Brown proud - but at least the latter admits what he is doing!

So we still have not addressed the elephant in the room. Under the yS proposal iS will have less say on the principal levers of power than it does now. In their opinion, this is in the best interests is Scotland and the UK. Maybe, maybe not, but (ignoring the absurd irony of the position) it 100% isn't independence. Allowed to graze, the elephant gets bigger by the day.

Now how to reconcile the better representation and better politicians argument with the JL is nothing more that a puppet defence!!! So in this case, democracy is a pup. Brilliant!

If the UK were asked to vote on the issue, Scotland would be out of the Union before the end of the week! 😆

I explained this to youse about 20 pages ago, they are there in the white paper. you may not see merit in them, but they do exist.

1. A link would be great with page references.
2. Tell AS, he adamant that there is no/no need for other options (ok he's on option 3 already, but we can ignore that for the moment)

THM,the elephant in the room that you choose to ignore is the lack of any compelling case to not vote for a Government that will work towards making us independent. Other than the abusive partner anology that sums up better together(who you are pretty much alone in describing as "pretty tame thus far.") Love the new arguing that the original union makes the ref illegal,that could be entertaining. Believe me THM, Ys want independence,they just want it on their terms,it is that negotiation bit Junkyard explained,except only one side has said what they want good bridge tactic as you explained.

Well the STUC remained only half convinced today by the sounds of things, so those of us with high standards of disclosure on here are not alone.

YS is "demanding" a structure in which the key levels of economic policy will be determined by a foreign state. Please confirm which definition of independence this is using. This is the torso of the elephant. The trunk, legs and ears will follow after this has been digested.

Good to see politicians guaranteeing jobs today (hmmmm!) and future contracts from foreign governments. His powers are even more mystical that this attributed to late Iron Lady. No wonder you guys love him so much.

The OBVIOUS answer to you first sentance is given in yS desire to remain in a currency union. Gosh that coffee smells strong!

Good to see AS admit that the FC was still working in plan D (even if he presided this with the same old BS). His speech was brilliant in terms of saying one thing and then saying the exactly the opposite immediately afterwards.

Mr Salmond said his fiscal commission working group is refining its position on currency following the Treasury's announcement that it would shoulder all of the UK national debt, its refusal to share the pound, and Bank of England governor Mark Carney's currency speech in Edinburgh.

Not quite the firm negotiating position is it? More like WIP.

THM, the [i]real[/i] cynic would suggest that the SNP and Salmonds recent quest for independence was nothing of the sort, it was merely a smokescreen for what was deep down a group of hardcore Europhile businessmen who had become increasingly frustrated with the UK's lukewarm and cautious approach to a federal Europe.

The SNP adoption of a future in the EU, along with adoption of the Euro cropped up in the late eighties, prior to that they had spent a long time opposed to the idea (in the seventies & eighties they campaigned openly against) however this changed just when Thatcher and the Tories were starting to push back from Brussels. Salmond was Elected MP in '87, in a former strong Tory seat, with an SNP manifesto for independent EU membership, SNP adopted EU membership as a cornerstone policy, and by the nineties were campaigning for self rule and to “take Scotland into the European Single Currency at the earliest opportunity” - a policy that remained unaltered despite Maastricht, Eastern enlargement and a host of other changes, in fact only changed this unpopular policy on the eve of a referendum agreement (!)

Essentially, the SNP adopted the EU membership policy when it became clear that a two-speed Europe was developing, and they and their backers most definitely wanted to be on the fast train, not the slow one!

The phrase Tartan Tories has already been used in this thread, but its also worth mentioning that it was very much people who you would otherwise identify as pro-EU T-T's that backed the SNP to their recent success, (considering here Ernie's points on neo-liberalism) thats where the funding came from, Salmond has been one of the key drivers of the pro EU direction of the party, backed and funded by pro-EU industrialists and financiers.

So, the old lesson always applies - follow the money!

Some cutting-edge No campaign satire:

Look for the Nazi salute - classy.

Just how much time do you spend Ben, looking for videos like that to try and undermine the No campaign?
It's got 300 views!
How did you find it?

Some cutting-edge No campaign satire:

So, is that now an official release by the No campaign?

Or do I get to post Peter Dow videos as official statements from Yes?

Some cutting-edge No campaign satire:

🙄

**** post! even by this threads standards.

Just how much time do you spend Ben, looking for videos like that to try and undermine the No campaign?

It was on Twitter, innit?

I don't need to undermine the No campaign, they're already doing a good job of it themselves.

Not good enough, according to the polls. 😉

THM that is satirical genius ...apparently you start with a point no one can doubt and you end up with Derren Brown as you compare AS to a cold reader on the way but it i shim doing it and not you.
That is absolutely fantastic and it is guilty of everything it rails again. 😆 😆
That really has made my day and this thread worthwhile

As for why they want to negate their influence re currency I assume it is because they think together is stronger but I doubt he will ever use those words 😉

Its a reasonable critique that he is both arguing for independence and wanting interdependence and an asymmetrical one at that.

Ninfan could you do a similar analysis of how the funders support the policies of the parties for all the major UK ones just so we can see how remarkably different the SNP is from the way other parties are funded by folk who support their goals and also influence party direction.....thanks so much I am sure it will be radically different.
Perhaps you are starting to agree with me that capitalism is unfair and we should state fund parties* 😉

Like so much ion her eit works both ways.

Thats it trollmore? That is your evidence as to why we should vote no or why we are are not an independent country... Will they also give us a government unrepresentative of how we vote to make decisions for us?
Still,I understand petal,I really do.It must be hard for you,counting down to retiring to a nice Scottish house of your choice and then the damn natives won't do as they are told.

Neither can I see any reason why, for example, Kernow, historically an independent Kingdom, could not call for independence

Estragon, Estragon!

What is it Vladimir?

So Ninfan are you saying that a group of financiers and industrialists see independence as the best way to keep scotland in the e.u. ?

gordimhor - Member

So Ninfan are you saying that a group of financiers and industrialists see independence as the best way to keep scotland in the e.u?

We've done this.
Independence means leaving the EU.

We've done this - it's a unique situation so no-one knows.

It is written into EU law, what is there to question?

Er, yeah, the EU rules are more guidelines 😉

they will almost certainly need to reapply but the EU could , given they citizens of scotland are members of the EU have some interesting debates. Clearly Scotland already complies so they could fast track easily if they wished
They need to chat with them and we cannot be certain how the chat will go. IMHO the EU is expansionist so i dont think they will want to lose a member. Again we cannot be certain and rUK may be able to veto it.

So despite you saying that there is more to independence than Salmond and the SNP, despite EU law stating that independence means leaving the EU, despite this being backed up by one of the most senior EU officials in existence, and despite this being backed up by the most senior EU official, it all boils down to one thing:

You honestly do believe what Salmond says, don't you?

You're going to be in for one hell of a shock Mr Cooper, provided the tides turn and you are granted independence.

Exactly - we've got 18 months between the referendum and independence to sort it out. There are lots of reasons the EU would want to fast-track our membership, though of course the rUK may be obstructionist.

despite this being backed up by one of the most senior EU officials in existence

Who, Barosso? He was trying to get UK backing for his bid for the presidency. That was another evidence-light assertion, just like Osborne's currency assertion.

though of course the rUK may be obstructionist.

Of course it won't be - what possible benefit would there be it that ?

Clearly Scotland already complies

Britain does, Scotland doesn't.

IMHO the EU is expansionist so i dont think they will want to lose a member.

But you've already stated:

they will almost certainly need to reapply

so they will already have lost a member and reapplying may not be easy as you also said

rUK may be able to veto it

and that ignores the several other countries that have strong political motivation to do exactly that as well.

I do I suppose at least admire the levels of optimism shown. 😯

bencooper - Member

Exactly - we've got 18 months between the referendum and independence to sort it out. There are lots of reasons the EU would want to fast-track our membership,

You're just not listening are you?

though of course the rUK may be obstructionist.

We would be the least of your worries.