[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]Well I started off highly sceptical of the benefits of Scotland going its own way, for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. ... I did however expect to hear some powerful and hard to refute arguments in favour and was prepared, if necessary, to reevaluate my opinion on the matter.

+1 - I'm actually a lot more open minded than a lot of people on here seem to think (and have even had my mind changed on some subjects). If anything I was initially rather less sceptical than ernie about independence, not being all that bothered either way (clearly I don't have a vote). The more I read though, the more clear it is that whilst both sides might be dishonest, the Yes side have a huge lead on dishonestly wishful thinking.

[quote=Junkyard ]scotland will basically be the same as it is now but electing a government of its choosing.. self determination is often a compelling argument.

Though the Yes camp do keep trying to claim all these other intangible benefits as well.

The thing is, it is wishful thinking to suggest that there won't be a range of disadvantages to independence - such things have after all been discussed [s]ad nauseum[/s] extensively on this thread (those pro-independence might try and dismiss them as unimportant, but that doesn't mean they don't exist). The question is whether on balance self-determination on its own is enough of an advantage to outweigh them - which depends on how much weight you place on self-determination as an abstract concept.

ernie_lynch - Member
The whole thing appears to me to be an extremely badly and ill-thought out proposition, which wouldn't be so serious if it wasn't for its permanent and long lasting consequences.

+1 in fact it would be comical if it were not so serious. The fact that such serious issues can be dismissed with such disdain is an abject illustration of the modern political bankcruptcy.

The last example of a "political" lie being sold on such a grand scale resulted in predictable consequences. I expect this to be the same. Still it presents lots of opportunities for those who can foresee what will happen....

Politics can outweigh economics and common sense in the short to medium term, but in the end the latter always prevail. You cannot buck economic truisms. History shows this clearly...

like boom and bust history shows that to be an economic truism ?

the Yes side have a huge lead on dishonestly wishful thinking.

it is wishful thinking to suggest that there won't be a range of disadvantages to independence

* IMHO the negativity of the no - George robertson outbursts for example is just as outlandish as some of the it will all be awesome afterwards claims. Really anyone want to defend it? I cannot see a lot of difference between them in terms of realism tbh.

To economics and common sense I would add logic.

If it is not economically viable for Scotland to govern itself then this can only mean it is reliant on the rest of the UK to subsidise our current way of life?

Common sense would then dictate that it would be in the rest of the UK's best interests to happily let Scotland leave the union if we are a drain on the resources of the whole.

It is therefore illogical for the three main parties to be so vociferous against the idea.

Ask why Devo Max was taken off the agenda? to save all the silly natives from themselves? I don't think so.

the Uk sells project fear [ very honest eh ] and a largely negative campaign

I think most people would agree that there are two opinions concerning Scotland independence.

One opinion suggests that independence would be good for Scotland, and the other that independence would be bad for Scotland.

In other words one opinion suggests that independence would have positive consequences for Scotland, and the other that independence would negative consequences for Scotland.

So is it therefore quite ridiculous for the No campaign (notice the use of the negative term "no") to be castigated for pointing out and focusing on the negative consequences of so-called independence.

In fact to do so is clearly negative campaigning ...... concentrate on explaining all the positive benefits of "independence", if it's such a ****ing good idea.

Only of course you can't, so you have to rely on negative campaigning and attempting to scare people with endless talk of the Tories remaining in power for eternity.

Hypocrisy at its finest 🙂

Devo Max would have killed independence stone dead.

The No campaign is actually called Better Together ernie.

the positive benefit is a more representative government

And btw there is no such thing as "economic truisms", only economic preferences.

The No campaign is actually called Better Together ernie.

You would hardly expect them to call themselves "No Scotland" would you ?

But the ballot paper will require a straight yes or no answer.

Well that's just it Ernie - the Tories will be in power for ever at Westminster. Whether they are wearing Blue or Red ties is only window dressing.

Grantus - there are many who think exactly that, that Scotland should go and that would relieve a level of pressure on the UK exchequer.
Personally i have no real idea of whether Scotland is/is not a drain on the rest of the UK but i do however think Scotland going would be in the long term interests of the UK in terms of stability, so for that i want Scotland gone sooner rather than later. The issue will not go away so best get it over with and move forward.
Whether that is good or bad for Scotland i care not one iota, we should concentrate on the UK instead.

Why not Ernie, that's the choice. Yes or No.

So is it therefore quite ridiculous for the No campaign (notice the use of the negative term "no") to be castigated for pointing out and focusing on the negative consequences of so-called independence.

I think you make a fair point that there campaign is more negative [ not by choice or design or mendaciousness but just because they are saying no ] However it has done more no than it has better together.

Good point though.

Well that's just it Ernie - the Tories will be in power for ever at Westminster. Whether they are wearing Blue or Red ties is only window dressing.

If you are going to use that logic then the Tories will be in power for ever in Brussels. Have you got any idea how few governments aren't Conservative in Europe ? You know, the Europe that you want to overrule your so-called "independent government".

Ok your inverted commas are intended for use in a derogatory manner - I get it and I do have a little bit of understanding of other countries in the EU - some of them are small too, just like Scotland, and they aren't sending boatloads of refugees to the South of England.

I've already said when trying to discuss this that it's independence in name only. It's really Devo Max that is on offer as far as i'm concerned and voting Yes is the only way to get it.

We vote Yes and we try to make the country fairer, I hope

[i]Common sense would then dictate that it would be in the rest of the UK's best interests to happily let Scotland leave the union if we are a drain on the resources of the whole.
It is therefore illogical for the three main parties to be so vociferous against the idea.[/i]

Public spending per head is higher in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. While Scotland can and does pay it's way this is not the case for Wales and N. Ireland. There is no public support in England to seek independence from the other countries and instead there is a redistribution of wealth to the less wealthy parts of the UK.

More representative government is THE Compelling argument Ernie,dismiss it as hopes and dreams,or petty nationalism if you wish. I like the idea of a government that can go "naw" when invited to chip in to buy a new missile system or force the poor to move. The former being a PROPER case of macho posturing. We will still have a left leaning government,why don't you come up? Day rates in the central belt are pretty good and you can nip round to THM's retirement country estate and drink his vintage claret and reminisce about the empire of a weekend. 😈

Correct me if i'm wrong but is there not a perception in England that the regions (of England) are neglected at the expense of the South and South East of the Country?

I have read that London subsidizes the country and i've also read that the rest of the country subsidizes London so I don't know which is true.

Wasn't there talk of regional assemblies in England too? Yorkshire and Cornwall/S.W. spring to mind

Ok your inverted commas are intended for use in a derogatory manner

If that's directed at me I'm not aware of any inverted commas that were intended for use in a derogatory manner.

I noticed I keep saying "ernie" in all my replies to you, er.. Ernie lol

It reads a bit patronising but I wasn't meaning it to in case you took it that way.

More representative government is THE Compelling argument Ernie,dismiss it as hopes and dreams,or petty nationalism if you wish.

Thanks I will.

You already have a "representative government". Any increase in power when weighed against the negative effects of separation, and the consequential loss of influence, isn't justified. IMO.

It reads a bit patronising but I wasn't meaning it to in case you took it that way.

No not at all.

Well Ernie,SNP has been the most popular party in Scotland the last two elections. Among others,the two reasons I mentioned above are evidence that the government we voted for are hamstrung. We voted for a party that has had a commitment since its creation to having the nuclear weapons moved,but they will stay because defence isn't devolved.As such I can't see how my government can effectively represent me in the present union while the reserved powers are in place.

More representative government is THE Compelling argument

We've already done this - the Scottish electorate is compellingly against EU membership for an independent scotland, why are the yes campaign so opposed to representing the wishes of the electorate?

Duckman - you and your countrymen have been happy to benefit from the nuclear deterrent.

In any case, if they were stationed in the middle of Kent, Scotland would have been at exactly the same risk wouldn't it? Genuine question.

Middle of East Anglia until recently.

Handy nuke map.

http://www.cnduk.org/information/item/1331-map

I grew up down the road from Lakenheath, for me it would have been a quick war.

You should recognise a carrot when you see one Duckman. If Salmond/SNP had a real commitment to a nuclear free Scotland then they would have stuck with their 30 year old anti-NATO policy.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/14/nato-blow-snp-nuclear-strategy ]Nato chiefs deal blow to SNP's anti-nuclear strategy[/url]

[b] Article 10 also implies that every Nato member accepts the alliance's nuclear first-strike policy.[/b]

Expect Salmond/SNP to feign disappointment when a post-Yes Scotland is informed that, despite their best efforts, the SNP's much cherished policy sadly has to be abandoned.

Remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to join NATO ?

I guess an independent Scotland might need help with the Russian planes and boats that keep approaching it.

Remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to join NATO ?

They don't need to [b]join[/b] remember, they would automatically continue their existing membership... just like with the EU

[i]Mr Salmond said: "You have to come to agreement with your colleagues, and in that sense there is a parallel with the European Union - you notify your intent to remain a member." "We are a member by virtue of our membership of the United Kingdom, and we notify in that period between the referendum, and a successful vote, and the adoption of Scottish independence about 18 months later[/i]

ernie_lynch - Member

Article 10 also implies that every Nato member accepts the alliance's nuclear first-strike policy.

Expect Salmond/SNP to feign disappointment when a post-Yes Scotland is informed that, despite their best efforts, the SNP's much cherished policy sadly has to be abandoned.

Article 10 does not require Scotland to base or host nuclear weapons, it's completely compatible with SNP policy.

Article 10 does not require Scotland to base or host nuclear weapons, it's completely compatible with SNP policy.

Well I can't see a problem then. Just as long as Salmond remembers to tell NATO chiefs that.

Remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to join NATO ?

I have never been a fan of the concept of a nuclear weapon being a deterrent. Bearing in mind the only state to ever use them were on our side. It is also as stated,the idea of having to contribute to a new system. I think them being 500 miles South would have lessened the potential for any accidents to impact us a bit. But as stated by an English MP recently,that is why they should stay up here even if we vote yes.

ninfan - Member
More representative government is THE Compelling argument
We've already done this - the Scottish electorate is compellingly against EU membership, why are the yes campaign so opposed to representing the wishes of the electorate?

Evidence of this statement Zulu 11? It is just that Mondays FT seems to suggest otherwise.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu

[url= http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/scotland-attitudes-towards-EU-membership-2013-tables.pdf ]erm......[/url]

That's an interesting poll Z-11, it's over 2 years old and doesn't fall in line with other polls, but interesting nevertheless as it appears to be a properly conducted poll.

Perhaps the solution should be for an "independent" Scotland to have a referendum ? To find out if they really want to be independent.

ernie_lynch - Member

Well I can't see a problem then. Just as long as Salmond remembers to tell NATO chiefs that.

Oh Ernie 🙁 NATO chiefs have not said anything of the sort and understand their own treaties so there's no reason for Salmond to tell them anything they don't already know. From your own link:

"Official sources in Edinburgh and London confirm that these issues were seen as coded warnings that the Scottish government's determination to close down the Trident nuclear submarine base at Faslane on the Clyde would be a major obstacle to Scotland's application."

So the only people making these claims are "official sources in Edinburgh and London", not NATO, and even they're having to say it's a "coded warning", because NATO haven't actually said that relocating Trident to England is a problem. And for that matter, neither have the UK government, they've been clear that in the event of independence they'll retain the nuclear deterrant and relocate it, so it also doesn't come into the "military or territorial disputes" part.

You can read article 10 if you like and tell me where it says iScotland would have to host foreign nuclear weapons.

Ernie - its the only poll I've found that specifically asks whether an independent Scotland should be part of the EU - all the other ones I've found (eg. the one Whatnobeer links to above) have asked whether Britain/the UK (as it exists at the moment) should leave the EU. Quite a different question.

Yes, a commitment to a referendum on Joining the EU would clearly be more indicative of a commitment to more representative government in the newly independent Scotland... wonder why there seems to be no chance of that happening ❓

Oh Ernie NATO chiefs have not said anything of the sort.....

Well I've got decide whether to believe you, who clearly has an axe to grind and I can't be sure of your expertise on the matter, or the Guardian article with the headline : "Nato chiefs deal blow to SNP's anti-nuclear strategy"

The good news is that for the sake of peace and tranquility I have decided to believe you.

So anyway.....remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to join NATO ?

ernie_lynch - Member

Well I've got decide whether to believe you

Nope. You can actually read your link past the headline- the section I quoted is from the article and clears up who said what. Don't believe me, believe your own link. The story is all about UK "sources" interpretation of what NATO said, not about NATO. And one of those sources is George "independence will be cataclysmic for the world" Robertson.

Really not sure why you keep asking why Scotland "needs" to join NATO tbh, nobody thinks Scotland needs to join NATO.

nobody thinks Scotland needs to join NATO.

Well that's confusing ! Are you saying that Scotland wouldn't need to join NATO because it will already be in it, or are you saying it intends to be a NATO member for no discernible reason ?

Would it help you if I asked, remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to be a member of NATO ?

I might be wrong but does page 9 of the link I posted not show that 61% want Scotland to be a member of the EU?

ernie_lynch - Member

Well that's confusing ! Are you saying that Scotland wouldn't need to join NATO because it will already be in it, or are you saying it intends to be a NATO member for no discernible reason ?

Neither.

ernie_lynch - Member

Would it help you if I asked, remind me again why an independent Scotland needs to be a member of NATO ?

Not really, no, since I already explained the problem with the question. I could probably repeat it a few more times if you like but I genuinely do have paint to watch drying.

Come on ernie. Without nuclear weapons on Scottish soil we need to have nuclear protection somehow. How else can we be expected to keep our hands and conscience clean.
To be fair NATO would be mad to refuse our membership. We could stretch out the hand of friendship and reconciliation to our much to be admired Comrade Vlad in the East.

I could probably repeat it a few more times if you like but I genuinely do have paint to watch drying.

Gosh, I'm in awe at your ability to stonewall a question.