[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Only a niaive european would want to put barriers between themselves and one of their largest trade partners, hence when push comes to shove Frau Merkel will tolerate and ignore CMDs occasional histrionics. It's in no ones interests to inhibit trade within Europe (unless you are an instructors with the ESF!)

I'll just leave this here:

[s]There were at least two facts in there [/s] yes it is a personal opinion. I still think we think we are far more important than we really are tbh. The eu would be ok without us and we would struggle more than them in the short run but both would survive fine in the long run.

The UK has the third largest economy in the EU

Which country do you think has the second largest economy in the EU ?

I prefer the celebrity love bombing video.

With the bald one off of Eastenders and the posh pair of interior decorators or whoever they are. That's funny 🙂

Germany 1st
France 2nd
UK 3rd
Italy 4th
Spain 5th

Nominal GDP

Generally speaking the UK economy is normally regarded larger the French, in terms of purchasing power parity. But fair enough, France, I'm just a little surprised.

EDIT : I've just checked and the UK economy is indeed generally considered to be the third largest economy in the Europe, I didn't know that.

Although that is predicted to change : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28174598

iirc it depends how you measure/ who you look at and we swap and change a bit

yes just checked

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Above France on CIA one

GDP (purchasing power parity) compares the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States.

So according to the CIA the UK has now dropped to 9th, after India, Russia, and Brazil. That's a bit of a surprise, the last time I checked it was 6th or 7th.

In a global economy PPP does not stack up next to nominal GDP. If we were to take our UK money and spend it all in India then suddenly we would be at number 1 in the GDP league based on PPP. Nominal takes the GDP of every country and compares them in the same currency. PPP is like saying our GDP in real terms is smaller than yours but I can buy rice and onions cheaper than you can so our GDP is worth more. That to me is just a way for countries with smaller economies to big themselves up.

So what? Who is concerned about PPP GDP stats.

It's about trade - and that is what european matter about, Ok we are largely balanced with the froggies but we run big deficits with Germany and the Netherlands - why would they have any interest in losing a major market for their exports. Ditto we wouldn't want to lose access to Ireland as a market where we X a lot more than we M.

The EU won't exist in its current format anyway. Two possible three currency blocs need to emerge. Junker and co will try to push greater coordination and monetary and fiscal union but it will fail under the social pressure that remain in the periphery. It's just a matter if when. So why get "sweaty" about it?

the froggies

why get "sweaty" about it?

Two racist slurs in one post. Tsk tsk

So what? Who is concerned about PPP GDP stats.

Yes, because what matters are standards of living, whether people can afford to have a home, whether children are happy. On all those measures, the UK does pretty badly.

I really couldn't care less where we are on a scale of GDP - it's all willy-waving like whether we have nukes. Who are we trying to impress?

Even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.

Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.

It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

If this is true here at home, so it is true elsewhere in world

It's about trade - and that is what european matter about,

Exit from the EU wouldn't be a big trade problem considering EFTA, WTO, GATT etc.

Yes, because what matters are standards of living, whether people can afford to have a home, whether children are happy. On all those measures, the UK does pretty badly.

Ben, be serious.

Okay, good - we can dispose of all that stuff about the UK's nukes then.

How come, they are separate issues? But AS will make those nasty nukes disappear anyway wont he? Hmm......where are the marines, I need to tell them something.

Ben, be serious

I am serious. You think GDP matters more than standards of living and happiness?

No I do not. GDP is merely a measure of our national output . Nothing more, nothing less. I am saying be serious about living in the UK. By global standards we have very high living standards in the UK and opportunities to achieve "happiness" that citizens of other countries would relish.

But unnecessary winging about the green grass on the other side is a common theme among yS, I notice. But as we saw in the BOD, It is little more that an imaginary nirvana.

We have very high income inequality, a massively overinflated housing market which means people on average wages cannot afford a home, and some of the unhealthiest and unhappiest kids in Europe. We also have cretins like this influencing policy:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/17/proposed-limit-of-uk-child-benefit-to-four-per-household

But that's okay, we should be happy with what we've got and not dare to aim for something better.

Meanwhile, haven't celebrities yet learned that holding up signs is just asking for people to make fun of them?

[img] [/img]

[url= http://upholdingenglishhonour.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/dear-eddie-izzard-and-friends-please-dont-go-on-please-listen-to-why-its-ok-for-us-english-to-let-scotland-go/ ]An English person in England responds to the latest love bombing...[/url]

Well, I am lucky to spend large parts of my time travelling overseas. The one thing that this tells me is that the UK is a great place to live and that people need a wake-up call when they try to picture the UK as a place of abject poverty etc.

We have pressure in the housing market in the SE that is true, but still perspective is needed.

Unhappy and unhealthy kids - again some perspective.

But hey, don't worry, all this will disappear overnight with a simple x in a box.

Anyway we digress and there are some good early scores at the Open.

Again you're playing the "be happy with what we've got" card. Why can't we want something better?

We can - just be careful how you ask for it and what you wish for. The little x in the yes box is most likely to disappoint. There is fantasy land (see BoD) and there is reality. The latter is a little more sober.

But frankly it is pretty obscene for UK citizens to pretend that we live in some retched place characterised by extreme poverty, lack of access to housing, healthcare, education etc. Some perspective is required, after all our health care is the envy of the world isn't it?

How come, they are separate issues?

We have very high income inequality, a massively overinflated housing market which means people on average wages cannot afford a home, and some of the unhealthiest and unhappiest kids in Europe...Why can't we want something better?

"We'll have an undefined something better and we'll achieve it by doing everything in exactly the same way it's done in the UK now. We'll change, but without changing anything, so there's no need to worry about change..."

Again you're playing the "be happy with what we've got" card. Why can't we want something better?

[img] [/img]

A Times columnist described the No campaign as Mansplaining and it so is 😉

By global standards we have very high living standards in the UK and opportunities to achieve "happiness" that citizens of other countries would relish.

Take the recent Tory plan to remove the European court of Human rights an dgive parliament the power to ignore our rights. Do you want this ? Do we want to be lumped in with countries who do this sort of thing

For sure we are rich the issue is what we do with this wealth re distribution and providing for all as ben notes, the results here are somewhat mixed IMHO. Also there is the question of what we do with our morals.
Ys suggest we can do better on both fronts so do a great many people

You are correct we do not have need we have a lack of interest in eradicating want not a lack of ability to do it.

it is pretty obscene for UK citizens to pretend that we live in some retched place characterised by extreme poverty, lack of access to housing, healthcare, education etc

The richest 5 families in the UK have more wealth than the poorest 12 million people. I think that's pretty obscene - that's corrupt dictatorship levels of inequality.

An X in a box won't magically change everything, of course it won't, and no-one on the Yes side is daft enough to say it will. But it's a first step, a beginning, a move away from the current system which isn't working for the majority of people in this country.

The alternative is to believe that voting makes no difference, it's not worth trying to make things better. I'm not yet that cynical.

The alternative is to believe that voting makes no difference

Voting will only make a difference if you are voting for something different.

Income inequality is the direct product of neo-liberal economics. One of the central tenets of neo-liberal economics is low taxation. The Scottish government's vision for economic prosperity in Scotland is through low taxation, particularly low corporation tax.

You will not be voting for anything different.

Not unless of course you consider that the different packaging between the Tories and Labour provides a worthwhile difference. In which case you will be voting for something difference with the guaranteed same results.

You're confusing a vote for independence with a vote for the SNP.

It's absolutely true that voting in Westminster elections makes little difference - the way the system is set up, most people's votes don't count, and even if they did all the parties are the same, so there's little point.

But a vote for independence isn't a vote for a political party, it's a vote to get rid of the whole system.

I haven't mentioned the SNP or any other party. Re-read my post.

Making everyone equally poor has it's downsides, but if that's the plan Afghanistan stands out as a model for an independent Scotland.

Making everyone equally poor has it's downsides, but if that's the plan Afghanistan stands out as a model for an independent Scotland.

I think that will be today's most stupidest comment. I'll be surprised if anyone can surpass that.

EDIT: oh challenges challenges

You will not be voting for anything different.

[quote=bencooper ]You're confusing a vote for independence with a vote for the SNP.

Well not really, because none of the other parties in Scotland are proposing anything radically different.

But a vote for independence isn't a vote for a political party, it's a vote to get rid of the whole system.

I guess the deckchairs will be arranged slightly differently.

Thatcher or Blair type choice.

You mean the sort of choice which exists in the UK ?

No because they will be constantly not chosing the right wing one so it will be a choice of say Blair or Obama for iS

Not radical by any means but it i hard to see, in the short run at least, a Tory led govt for the country, It is not hard to see one for the Uk or rUK.

I accept it is next to **** all/rearranging the deck chairs but it is not identical

I cannot see iS removing the human rights legislation though they will remove the bedroom tax,
Again slight differences but differences none the less but basically the same

Vote yes for 650b *:wink:

* daft enough?

they will remove the bedroom tax

Hold the front page, that changes everything.

All of a sudden the countless disadvantages of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK pale into insignificance as I discover that a future government will scrap the bedroom tax.

Even Labour's commitment to scrap the bedroom tax is not enough to convince me to vote for them. And btw under increased devolved powers Scotland will be free to scrap the bedroom tax without separating from the rest of the UK.

I haven't mentioned the SNP or any other party. Re-read my post.

You mentioned the Scottish government, who are the SNP at the moment. A future Scottish government may have different policies.

Making everyone equally poor has it's downsides, but if that's the plan Afghanistan stands out as a model for an independent Scotland.

I don't think anyone has that as a plan, because that's a really stupid plan.

A future Scottish government may have different policies.

That really is quite remarkable. You claim that future Scottish governments will pursue policies that will reduce income inequality, but in the same breath you claim that no one knows what policies a future Scottish government will have.

You are basically saying "vote yes and everyone will be better off, don't ask me how as I don't know, there are some policies but just ignore those even though they are being used to make the case for independence".

Have you any idea how silly that sounds ? No wonder the Yes campaign appear to be struggling.

Oh, good grief.

The system is broken. Changing the system might help. It's got to be worth a go, as the system can't be fixed from within.

Making everyone equally poor has it's downsides, but if that's the plan Afghanistan stands out as a model for an independent Scotland.

I'm not sure you've understood how income inequality works if that's your example.

Changing the system might help. It's got to be worth a go

But you haven't provided any evidence that "the system" will be changed. And no, getting rid of the House of Lords isn't "changing the system". Increased income inequality has absolutely nothing to do with the House of Lords. Which explains why there has also been a dramatic increase in income inequality in the United States.

BTW pretty much anything "might help", that doesn't automatically mean that it's got to be worth a go. I take it you're not a physician ?

But you haven't provided any evidence that "the system" will be changed.

We'll go from a first-past-the-post system which allows a party with a minority of the vote to dominate, to a system of proportional representation which more accurately reflects the views of the people.

We'll get rid of the second-largest unelected chamber in the world.

And we'll make sure that the wishes of the people of Scotland aren't massively over-ruled by the wishes of the people of the rest of the UK the way they are now.

vote [s]yes [/s]no and everyone will be better off, don't ask me how as I don't know, there are some policies but just ignore those even though they are being used to make the case for [s]independence[/s] staying".

PS even if they did say would any of you no voters believe the words of Lord BS of eck 😉 [or any other politician for this matter]

We have doen the it must be a radical change ot it is not worth it

Ernie the big change is that iS gets the govt them voted for.

Not radical [ though millions have fought and died for this right] but democratic.

We'll go from a first-past-the-post system which allows a party with a minority of the vote to dominate, to a system of proportional representation which more accurately reflects the views of the people

This is just as wrong as it was the last time you stated it as fact, and the time before that and the time before that........

We'll get rid of the second-largest unelected chamber in the world.

You really hammer that non-issue don't you ? ! 😆

Well I guess that when you have so little to offer squeezing whatever you can from every morsel is all that you can reasonably do.

And of course we won't mention the monarchy ..... somehow that's different. Fantastic !

This is just as wrong as it was the last time you stated it as fact, and the time before that and the time before that........

Okay, explain to me why it is wrong.

The reasons are exactly the same as they were the last time!

Essentially Scotland elects 73 of its MPs using the very same FPTP system that is used in the “broken” UK system. The 56 remaining MPs are elected using a form of proportional representation where the results are weighted (D’Hondt method).

It’s very, very easy to verify that the system is not proportional by looking at the last election results.

ernie_lynch - Member
they will remove the bedroom tax
Hold the front page, that changes everything.

On a roll Ernie!!! 😀

And seriously...

All of a sudden the countless disadvantages of Scotland separating from the rest of the UK pale into insignificance as I discover that a future government will scrap the bedroom tax.

Funny how yS and it here try to frame the discussion in this context isn't it. Total BS, but good headlines.

Ben, these are straight questions as is Ernie's point about the HoL having bugger all to do with income inequality. At some point, yS has to step up and answer these basic questions. And no it's not any of the 3Bs to ask for that.

The €-project was openly mis-sold to the populations whose interests it should have served. IS is falling into the same trap, albeit in a different way. The € was always doomed to fail because it tried to override simole economic truths. As Ernie has pointed out on several occassions, yS is doing exactly the same.

political BS can trump economics in the short term, but in the medium term the latter always wins. You have been warned.....

Funny how yS and it here try to frame the discussion in this context isn't it

As for the H of L Mleh IMHO nothing to do with inequality is overstating it somewhat- its is not a beacon of meritocrocy and equality [ your friends abroad admiring glances aside obviously] - but eradicating it wont bring about a socialist eutopia either but no one has claimed it will.

TBH its the same old the No voters who cannot vote try and say ther eis no good reason for the vote without explaining why its ok for scotland to be rule dby a prty they dont voite for an democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you

no one is claiming the changes will be radical or massive so I am not sure why you make th epoint
i dont think anyone disagrees on this tbh.

The € was always doomed to fail because it tried to override simple economic truths

She (dear Nicola) stated: "Let me be clear: as a result of Scottish Government action, there will be no need for anyone to fall into rent arrears or face eviction as a result of the 'bedroom tax'."

Mr MacAskill said Scotland had the opportunity to enjoy a brighter future than it had enjoyed for generations...He said: “We do believe this is a choice of two different futures for Scotland. If we vote yes, we will decide whether there is to be a bedroom tax, or whether there are to be weapons of mass destruction stationed on the Clyde.”

Candy, babies........

Still at least it's consistent. A currency is not an asset and the bedroom tax is not a tax. But, hey, since when has being accurate been more important that fooling the electorate! Frame the context of the discussion around mis truths - brilliant!

As for the H of L Mleh IMHO nothing to do with inequality is overstating it somewhat- its is not a beacon of meritocrocy and equality

The fact that the House of Lords has absolutely nothing at all to do with income inequality which has grown over the last 30 years isn't "overstating it somewhat".

It's pointing out a fact. We had a House of Lords 30 years ago when Britain was much more economically equal society than it is now. What changed that was the way people voted.

The House of Lords has no significant influence on the economic policies of the UK, as you well know. It's a complete red herring used by the separatists.

And btw the House of Lords is actually a fairly good example of "meritocracy" if that's important to you, and I get the impression that it probably is.

its ok for Scotland to be ruled by a party they don’t vote for and democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you

UK general election 2010: Scottish vote for Conservative or Lib Dems = 22.4% of electorate.

Scottish parliamentary election 2011: Scottish vote for SNP = 22.7% of the electorate.

Seems to be pretty much the same level of democracy to me.

...in a long list of red herrings and mis truths.

Smells vodka and irn bru in the air...... 😉

"TBH its the same old the No voters who cannot vote try and say ther eis no good reason for the vote without explaining why its ok for scotland to be rule dby a prty they dont voite for an democracy alone is not a good enough reasons for you"

There are three problems with this:

1) it falls into the fallacy of "something must be done, I want to do something, anyone who doesn't want to do what I want to do is opposed to doing anything";

2) it is based on the false premise that Scotland's voting patterns are radically different from the party constitution of The House of Commons for a significant period; and

3) it is based on the false premise that electing a bunch of Labourites instead of Tories in the past 25 years would have made much of a difference - but for the entirely of the post 1997 Labour years when Scotland was "over represented", that was the time when the complaint was that the government was no different from the Tory wets. In other words, when "Scottish" politics was in the ascendant, it looked just like the English politics of the previous decade. BIG FING DEAL!

People who aren't Yes supporters aren't (necessarily) apologists for the ancien regime - a lot of them are just unconvinced.

(As I'm not voting in the referendum my opinion is of course Hamilton Academical).

The reasons are exactly the same as they were the last time!

And the reasons are still incorrect - we're still comparing a FPTP system with one that is based on proportionality. It's not truly proportional, because that has problems with local representation, but it's a big improvement.

One big question remains about this whole thing of course

Just imagine the repercussions if the separatists lose!

Do we think they will accept the Democratic will of the majority? Will they just shut up and go home to nurse a bottle of Buckie?

Or will it be just the beginning of another incessant whining session about how if they only had this or that (tax raising powers, proportional representation, interstellar spaceport) Scotland would be so much better, constantly setting their sights on what they can't have?

Victims define themselves by their pain, and what's more painful than wanting a bunch of things you can't have?

Not bad, you got in "separatists", "Buckie", "whining" and "victims" - I'll give that 7/10 for trolling. You should have mentioned Alex Salmon and fried food.

we're still comparing a FPTP system with one that is based [s]on proportionality[/s] on FPTP

56% of the MPs are elected via FPTP, trying to claim that the system is not based on FPTP just doesn't make any sense.

At risk of repeating myself;

We'll go from a first-past-the-post system which allows a party with a minority of the vote to dominate, to a system of proportional representation which more accurately reflects the views of the people

Is verifiably incorrect, just look at the election results, 45% of the vote gets 53% of the seats. The majority of people who voted in the Scottish election did not vote for the SNP, so the system doesn't accurately reflect the views of the people.

Just imagine the repercussions if the separatists lose!

How does the Scottish system as it currently stands compare to the FPTP system used for Westminster elections? Is it more or less representative. We should also bear in mind that the system in Scotland was set up to prevent the current situation from arising, if there was a movement for it, it could easily change to a full PR system in iScotland.

Separatists you say? Awesome 🙂

[img] [/img]

So based on this, if the separatists lose (because they were actually backed by the [s]evil Emperor[/s] Cameron all along to make it look like a battle), Cameron will become Emperor and take over from the Queen. I guess Gove could have a new role as Salacious B. Crumb
[img] [/img]

Of course the real implications if the separatists lose won't be embittered Yes voters taking to the hills to fight on.

It'll be the Westminster government taking revenge for daring to be so uppity. The Barnett formula will go, the Scottish NHS will come under very strong pressure to start privatisation the way the NHS in England has, and we'll probably end up ruled by the Tories again after the next election.

Ben, its worth at least an 8 for including the interstellar spaceport 😉

the Scottish NHS will come under very strong pressure to start privatisation the way the NHS in England has

Erm, isn't the Scottish NHS a devolved issue?

The majority of people who voted in the Scottish election did not vote for the SNP, so the system doesn't accurately reflect the views of the people.

What percentage of people in the last UK election voted for Conservative?

The Scottish system is better than the Westminster system. It's not perfect, no system is. It's certainly a lot more proportional than Westminster.

UK general election 2010: Scottish vote for Conservative or Lib Dems = 22.4% of electorate.

Scottish parliamentary election 2011: Scottish vote for SNP = 22.7% of the electorate.

What percentage of people in the last UK election voted for Conservative?

10,703,654 Conservative votes out of a total electorate of 45,597,461 (wiki)

so (checks fingers) 23.5% - erm, better than the SNP... 😈

And btw the House of Lords is actually a fairly good example of "meritocracy" if that's important to you, and I get the impression that it probably is.

1) it falls into the fallacy of "something must be done, I want to do something, anyone who doesn't want to do what I want to do is opposed to doing anything";

2) it is based on the false premise that Scotland's voting patterns are radically different from the party constitution of The House of Commons for a significant period; and

3) it is based on the false premise that electing a bunch of Labourites instead of Tories in the past 25 years would have made much of a difference

Yes hereditary birthright and political patronage is indeed a fairly good example of meritocracy...was it Marx or engels who raved about how good it was. Hilarious. [Mc Enreoe] you cannot be serious[/McEnroe]

You don't appear to fully understand what meritocracy is, or maybe you just prefer a very narrow definition of the term.

The House of Lords is a fairly good example of meritocracy. [i]"A ruling or influential class of educated or able people"[/i] is a reasonable description of the members of the House of Lords.

I have no interest in meritocracy, I believe in rights not privileges. An Eton education might well get you a place in the House of Lords but that doesn't represent democracy to me.

If meritocracy on the other hand is important to you then on that count at least the House of Lords should meet with some approval from you.

Tony Blair, that champion of meritocracy, created "People's Peers" for the House of Lords, with no "hereditary birthright and political patronage" which apparently you don't approve of.

There are 57 People's Peers chosen for their "significant achievement" and independent from any political party. You might think that this is the way forward, I don't. I believe in the democracy not in a new specially chosen elite ruling the people.

And while we're at it you might be also shocked to learn that I'm not a great supporter of "social mobility". Meritocracy, social mobility, are used as an excuse by the pseudo-left to deny working people their legitimate right to political and economic power.

Out of interest - has anything that either of the sides of the debate has argued changed they way you are going to vote? Feel free to answer even if you do not have a vote for whatever reason.

Personally, the no campaign's negative approach with little in the way of actual active debate is making me go even further towards a yes vote. I'm now of the "if it's a no vote, i'm off to somewhere new" mindset.

Yes, generally in favour of devolved power BUT yS's inability to engage in active and sensible debate (3Bs in not active debate), the deceit, lies and BS of the principal protoganist(s), the fact that no party is promoting independence at all and the harm/havoc that a yes vote would create for all parties in the UK is making me go even further towards a no vote. I'm now of the "if its a yes vote, then canny is no longer an adjective that can be applied to a proud nation."

Only the badly (mis) led/mis-informed (BoD) or foolhardy would chose to leave a successful union in favour of one (ultimately) that has failed to deliver most of the intended goals. That is absurdity at the highest level. I would be more supportive, if genuine independence was being proposed along with the necessary planning to make that a success. To date, that is a glaring omission especially given the time available to prepare.

Fortunately, the CEO of my pension provider will decamp the business S of the border if required. He and his team remain fully deserving of their canny tag and have contingency plans in place.

Still the C'wealth Games should be fun and an opportunity to watch yS in all their glory. Saltires ready AS??

the harm/havoc that a yes vote would create for all parties in the UK is making me go even further towards a no vote

That's your main grip isn't it? You think it'll make your life a wee bit more difficult for a short period of time. My thoughts are that the government in westminster have made my life a wee bit more difficult for long enough.

Fortunately, the CEO of my pension provider will decamp S of the border if required.

What a strange thing to say. Given that very few businesses have indicated that they will move to rUK in the event of a yes vote (probably because it would involve much more expense than it would justify) the only sensible way for the CEO and his team to move south would be if they were no longer working for your pension provider.

Nope, I have it from the horses mouth. But your option is of course a valid strategy. The firm is only as good as its people and its AuM (assets under management). Both are very mobile.

Main gripe? Well yes, its important. We have a live demonstration of what happens when people are hoodwinked by political elites playing out for all to see across Europe. In the end, economic realities trump political BS. It was ever thus - the only uncertainty is how long this takes.

Of course if yS could start by presenting a credible plan for why things would be (a) different and (b) better it might be a different story. Until then, more interesting and fun to expose the deceit. 😉 Great essay questions for students albeit limited material to really get their teeth into sadly. If only.....

If that is not your number one reason for being against scottish independence what is that one thing?

It is the number one - both sides would be better off as part of a union. It has been and will be one of the most successful examples of its kind in history. As polling shows, most folk get this - it really isn't that hard unless fairly tales are more appealing (600 pages plus of them).

Even AS gets this - after all HE is proposing that rUk will remain in charge of the main instruments of economic policy. Only in his scenario, this will involve zero representation. Bizarre? Of course, he reserves the right to enter into a tax-war with the UK, but thats another story.

I tend to agree that both sides would be better off as part of a union of some description - Devo Max would probably be the preferred option for most. However, Devo Max is not on the ballot paper because David Cameron et al did not want it to be an option. When faced with the two remaining options, for me there is no choice but to vote for independence. This is because I want to live in a country that looks after the most vulnerable people and does not saddle the young with huge debts just so that they can get a good education. Those two things can never be fully achieved with Westminster in charge of the items that would allow that to happen.

Will independence cost me more than if Scotland remains part of the UK? - probably cost me a fair bit more. Do I think it's a price worth paying to live in a country that is governed more in line with my ideals? Definitely.

Well in one sense it's all academic anyway. In the other, any sense of a genuine, worthy debate ended with the publication of the book of dreams. From that point on, it's simply been a fun if painful (and ultimately negative for all of us) spectacle with the supposedly most able politician in the UK (sic) being exposed as little more than a snake oil salesman. When you enter the big boys playground, it helps if you are wearing long trousers. Still, every cloud.....

(Odd that similar tags are given to the likes of Gove and Farrage)

I doubt that anyone debates the ends merely the means......

AS is probably the most able politician in the UK. That does not mean that he is great politician, it just means that he is the best of a bad lot. Our current crop of politicians are universally shite.

Devo max was not on the menu because it suffers from one big problem, its a halfway house that for some it will never be enough, essentially it settles nothing and leaves the political uncertainty open, which affects business and infrastructure investment.

Remember 'Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead'? Well, it didn't, and neither would Devo Max.

AS is probably the most able politician in the UK. That does not mean that he is great politician, it just means that he is the best of a bad lot. Our current crop of politicians are universally shite.

That's even more depressing that reading the BoD - both ideas easily falsifiable though! 😉