[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

The disappointment gauge is running at moderate high levels.

Still, in other news the Girlfriend has today landed a promotion. So that was quite good.

athgray - Member
Seosamh. I almost agree with you. Thought Salmond edged it but the quality

Yes, he was trying to make an academic point (that the currency commission made several suggestions, a currency union is the preferred one) but academic points don't work well in debate.

[url= http://jezebel.com/female-runner-who-uses-nike-to-draw-dicks-is-an-americ-1616462580 ]I think this adds to the debate [/url]

I loved the guy in the audience who said something along the lines of the rUK will have to have a currency union because without oil money helping the balance of payments the pound would be doomed.

I never realised we were too poor to go it alone. Are we too wee and too stupid as well. Don't nats complain about this one? 🙄

I think you may have just proved that their are idiots on both sides of the debate

Missed it all but then again Tuesday is night ride and i thought it was not worth giving up for what was a fairly predictable "debate"

The issue is how the dont knows respond in the closing days.

Salmond squirming on currency was as good as it got as a no voter. Darling was too easily rattled.
If I was Salmond I would have outlined the other options, and I reckon it would not have done him much harm.

Darling did not give a straight answer on whether an independent Scotland would be successful going it alone. Salmond did not give a straight answer on currency again. There is enough information available for Scots to know that they would have a successful economy it is a bit of a shame that they still don't know what currency they would be using.

bad night for Salmond

Just got in, did I miss owt!?!

Did the master politician with all his rhetorical skills mash the rabbit?

What was the DOs magic rabbit, did he mention plan D - he must have answered the currency question at least.

Was a bit shite, same old lines trotted out from both sides. Both had a shaky start. The way Darling kept pronouncing Scotland got on my tits. Thought Salmond just had the edge, but seen a lot better from others on either sides.

I think Cameron could have turned up and done no worse. Here, here rene59.

Blimey the ICM poll even has the DO losing a debate v a rabbit. Surely not!?!?

And no plan D, no wonder he was booed! The mirage exposed?

you mean the debate poll showed the outcome to be the same as the voting intentions. Who would have thunk it
FWIW it was

The poll recorded a 4% increase in backing for independence, putting the yes vote at 40% compared to 54% for no

An instant ICM poll of viewers for the Guardian said Darling had won the debate by 56% to 44%.

So not much changed but momentuum with yes but still unlikely to be enough to win it.

I think we both made the right decision to ride tbh

"Blimey the ICM poll even has the DO losing a debate v a rabbit. Surely not!?!?
And no plan D, no wonder he was booed! The mirage exposed?"

I hope one day we find a Rosetta Stone that can decode this dense web of nicknames, puns and allusions. there must surely be great wisdom handed down from our elders within it.

Among undecideds (i.e. The only ones who matter) the ICM poll showed 55% thought Salmond won. I think one interesting factor is how this played with Labour voters - it can't have been good to see a Labour person squirm so much when asked if he agreed with David Cameron.

bigjim - Member

bad night for Salmond

Agreed... He did an adequate job but really a nil-nil draw and that's not what Yes needs to close the gap. Not a disaster but I reckon he'll be disappointed.

Course, the media coverage was decided before the debate even started so the performance on the night was probably not all that important either way. And we all remember Clegg and Bush winning TV debates.

http://www.icmresearch.com/media-centre/polls/alex-salmond-vs-alastair-darling-independence-referendum-debate

Alastair Darling emerged as a semi-clear winner of the Scottish Independence debate, convincing 56% of the 512 survey participants that he was the better man on the night. 44% opted for Salmond.

Darling performed more solidly among No supporters – securing 93% of them who told us their man won, compared to only 82% of Yes supporters who said Salmond won.

And Darling won on the arguments – a majority (51%) said so, with 40% saying Salmond had the better ideas. On the other hand, Salmond’s undoubted personality helped win over viewers, with 47% saying the First Minister had the better personality compared to only 39% who said so for Darling.

But the question is how does this impact on Indyref vote intentions? The answer is “not much”. Of the sample who participated after the debate, views did not move – 53% said they intended to vote No beforehand, and the same figures emerged afterwards. So Darling won on the night, but voters remain steadfast in the way they plan to vote.

ICM pre-recruited a sample of 1130 people who said they would be watching the debate live and who agreed to complete the survey immediately afterwards. These 1130 people were sent the survey immediately after the actual debate part of programme on STV ended at 9.40pm. All participants were recruited recruited from ICM’s own online panel plus those of two of the biggest suppliers of Scottish panel in the market research industry.

The post-debate survey data is based on 512 completed interviews.

The sample was weighted to be representative of the Scotland population by Age, Gender and Region. We also weighted the results by previous voting behaviour (2011 Holyrood past vote). This allowed us to assess how the debate was received by people from a range of political viewpoints.

It should be stated this this sample was pre-recruited on the basis of watching the debate and being willing to answer questions on it immediately after the debate ended. While we have ‘forced’ it via weighting to be representative of all Scots, it SHOULD NOT be seen as a normal vote intention poll as it is premised on a different population type i.e the profile and nature of Scots who watched the debate is different to a fully nationally representative sample of Scots.

The Gonad has a few links from the blog folk might want to read.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scottish-independence-blog/live/2014/aug/05/alex-salmond-v-alistair-darling-the-debate-for-scotland-live

I particularly liked

Michael White describes the debate as a “non-meeting of minds”

And a pre debate poll
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/285203-support-for-yes-rises-in-stv-poll-ahead-of-salmond-darling-debate/
I'd like to see the same people asked again in a few days. Long enough for the "debate" to sink in. And the Salmond/Darling personality effects to fade.

Predictably

Both sides claimed victory

Coz there point scoring nobz.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/darling-draws-first-blood.24965560

I only saw a few highlights on the news but I got the biggest laugh when Salmond said Scotland part owned the British Pound. I really can't believe he's still trying to take that line. If independent Scotland will have the euro sooner or later, it's going to have no choice.

He's now firmly in that group of very special politicians lead by George W Bush.

He who controls the currency controls the [s]country[/s] the debate!

When will the DO learn - he needs a plan D and fast.

FT sums it up nicely ...but most importantly it helps Mr Darling that the [b]evidence[/b] is on his side and that the yes campaign has been more disingenuous than its opponents int he debate. As Mr Darling put it, there is too much "guess work, blond faith (sorry my joke), blind faith and crossed fingers."

Or linking to yesterday's debate the first line on another FT article ..."AS..struggled to lay out his case for independence."

Quite, enough said - he doesn't have one.

Well, it certainly hasn't changed any minds on here 😉

However it looks as if undecided voters preferred Salmond - which frankly I find surprising but perhaps it was just that he was less rubbish than Darling.

Well, it certainly hasn't changed any minds on here

However it looks as if undecided voters preferred Salmond - which frankly I find surprising but perhaps it was just that he was less rubbish than Darling.

Clear progress - the bubble was burst. The so-called great orator, the best politician of our time etc...can't even beat darling on a topic that he has been preparing for all his political life. Truly pathetic (in the proper sense)

I would see this as a victory for No as AS has pushed and pushed for a debate and has come away with nothing, he has made no progress.

Not sure you can take the status quo/no chnage as a win [ spin IMHO] but certainly AS has not changed hearts and minds with it [ neither has AD so he did not win]. I am not sure why everyone is falling over themselves to point out they have not changed their opinion and neother has the electorate [ much if at all]

I think we can count on one hand the number of times a STW poster changes their mind [ even when their opinion is clearly at odds with facts]and it will be zero on this thread.

[s]Clear progress - the bubble was burst. The so-called great orator, the best politician of our time etc...can't even beat darling on a topic that he has been preparing for all his political life. Truly pathetic (in the proper sense)[/s] I hate AS

PS I notice you are able to comment on the debate without watching it but you were unable to comment on the dispatches programme because you did not watch that ...just saying like obviously we should read nothing into that and I am just trolling eh

JY - well a draw is not enough for the Yes campaign, they are behind they need to win these encounters. Hence last night was not enough, a loss.

I thought the debate did nothing at all for a free Yorkshire.

AS lost the debate last night not because his arguments were weak, but because he was expected to crush Darling. He failed to do this and as such he came out a loser. Darling (and the No camp) have clearly identified a few key points and AS seems reluctant to challenge them.

There is no Plan D - He cannot chose the Euro after the almost collapse of it, a currency union would only work IF Westminster agreed (and in the current political climate that is not going to happen) and a new currency is a huge risk!

There is a plan D - and you can read it in the work of his own advisors. He doesn't choose it because it involves a greater level of independence!!! Something the DO doesn't want.

So can we put "the most able politician" tag in the bin where it belongs now?

(True, yes)

a greater level of independence!!! Something the DO doesn't want.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. No matter how many exclamation marks you add.

Feel free to counter then - it's a pretty widely held view including many of the broadsheets today. The exclamation marks run as a balance to the time spent waiting for an answer to the independence question!!!!!!!! Etc.......

Godot will have been and gone before we get the answer to that one.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true

The proposals for currency union, were it to happen, see Scotland less represented in decision making than under the Union. Scotland will not have the same veto capacity in the EU that UK has and under the draft constitution EU law will become effective in Scotland without being first considered by the Scottish Parliament.

Thank you OB - a more sober representation.

(Tried that a long time back, but got bored 😉 )

I didn't watch the debate. I'm not interested in watching political posturing. We have been conned by fine words too often, actions are what counts.

I will re-iterate that many independence supporters don't particularly care for the SNP political party.

Salmond represents the SNP not the whole independence movement. The SNP's agenda is not necessarily what will be Scotland's policies unless they actually win the next election or two after independence, and subsequent governments may change that.

What is clear is that Scotland has not thrived in the last 100 years under the Union, so something has to change.

A government with only an independent Scotland's interests to consider will be a good start.

Not thrived? Really......even the DO can state how well Scotland has performed economically

Good old Mash 😀

[i]Julian Cook, professor of politics at Roehampton University, added: “I suspect a large number of SNP supporters will be slightly concerned at Alex Salmond’s inability to defeat Alistair Darling – a man who once lost a debate to a washing machine.”[/i]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/english-viewers-miss-salmond-trying-to-bite-alistair-darling-2014080689310

7k !!!!!!

actions are what counts

Where do you get the notion that Scotland has not thrived under the Union? I may have missed evidence to that effect, but that's a pretty broad statement which needs some evidence to support it.

Oddly, were genuine independence to be proposed I'd be quite open to it. But what we're being offered is subservience to a number of countries and bodies way bigger than we are.

Spot on.

Has Scotland ever thrived before or after the union? Was it better under the union before the last one hundred years?

What is clear is that Yorkshire has not thrived under any Scottish or English politician in the last 100 years. Now when we have full Yorkshire independence from the rest of the UK that are a drain on our blessed county every thing will be great.

Eager to help mt, so I've gone and bought some Yorkshire Tea. That work?

Thanks oldbloke hope you asked for discount, it's the Yorkshire way.

the ceding of control on so many important subjects means they're not even our decisions.

TRue of any member of the EU as well though

No "independent nation" is an island , we all know this.

IMHO and I assume anyone who looks at democracy nothing is ceeding control more than getting a govt you did not vote for time and time and time again.

Could you explain how this is not ceeding control and it is better than what they propose

FWIW I think you argument has a point but it is also simplistic and one sided.

IMHO and I assume anyone who looks at democracy nothing is ceeding control more than getting a govt you did not vote for time and time and time again.

36% of the Scottish voters voted either Con or Lib Dem at the last general election - that's about the same as the number of people who voted the SNP into power at the Scottish government elections.

In an independent Scotland will the 10% of the Scottish population who vote Conservative get the government they vote for?

He who controls the currency controls the debate!

TRue of any member of the EU as well though

Under union before and after devolution Scotland has ceded control to UK. But it still has significant representation there - at 2010 election, Scotland had 59 of 650 MPs.

A Currency Union - go read the Fiscal Commissions recommendation on how it would work and compare with the present situation and look at the impact the loss of 59 MPs influencing policy might have.

Handing control of your law to the EU means a legislature you have negligible influence in shaping - currently 6 seats of the 751. Compare % of seats Scotland has at Westminster with the % impact on EU Parliament and Commission. It makes worries about a government you didn't vote for somewhat pointless. It is roughly equivalent to Scotland's representation at Westminster being dropped to 5 seats.

So, I'd argue that an iS proposes to cede more control than it currently retains through the Union or EU arrangements.

oh. well if you'd only said that 200 pages ago we could have saved time

I did, and on the day the Book of Dreams was published. From the start, the ship had a fatal hole in it below the waterline. It has been the elephant in the room that I have reminded you of repeatedly.

and asked the hedge funds what they wanted to do about the pound.

Nothing to do with them. As we have seen again last night JM Keynes' view remain true and at the heart of the debate. The DO cannot escape that, he tried the three Bs from the start but that didn't work. He has a few days now to re-assess. His "pants are down" and it is not a pretty sight at the moment. There is still a slim chance of proper debate.

A Currency Union - go read the Fiscal Commissions recommendation on how it would work and compare with the present situation and look at the impact the loss of 59 MPs influencing policy might have.

Indeed yS' team HAS done the work and knows the answers and anyone can read them. It's pretty simple stuff really, you don't need a Nobel prize just 30m reading time and a little reflection.

TRue of any member of the EU as well though

Like @oldbloke says, and independent Scotland will have less influence not more over its own affairs.

IMO the core argument for Yes remains, do you want to be independent of the English at all costs ?

do you want to be independent of the English at all costs

The more I reflect on last nights debate (or as much of it as I saw thanks to STV's live feed) the more I can see that Salmonds real weakness is his inability to discuss 'plan B' on a whole variety of issues, whether through arrogance, stubbornness or deliberate simplification, seeing the 'popularity snake' you could see people really turn off at that point

[img] [/img]

I think Darlings line of questioning for the next session has to rely on this

For example:

'you've asserted that Europe will be bound let you in, lots of other eminent people say the opposite, so what do we do if it turns out you were wrong?'

followed up by:

'I'm not interested endless in hearing quotes from people who support you, thats been done to death Alex, we're all hear to listen to what [b]you[/b] have to say about it, so come on, what happens if you're wrong?'

repeat the same about having to join the Euro, NATO, currency union - Salmond remains really weak on these answers, and by now he really ought to have them nailed. IMO he came across last night as very gimmicky. Darling in the other hand came across as frustrated, as well he might be from being constantly interrupted and spoken over, he needs to tackle that head on by telling Salmond that he needs to STFU while he answers the question - though he was needlessly rattled by Salmonds chaff questions about trivial and silly issues.

36% of the Scottish voters voted either Con or Lib Dem at the last general election - that's about the same as the number of people who voted the SNP into power at the Scottish government elections

In an independent Scotland will the 10% of the Scottish population who vote Conservative get the government they vote for?

you did not answer even attempt to disprove the self evident point that nothing relinquishes power more than getting the govt you did not vote for.

Some incorporate EU law into their own law through a parliamentary process which guides or limits its application - like the UK. iS is deleting that safeguard.

Scotland outside the UK but in the EU with the euro ?

I know you believe there is a chance of an alternative outcome but I think its remote

they have to sign up to the euro, they cannot meet the criteria, they wont be forced to join unless they agree to it. there is at least one current EU example of this policy [ not just the UK]

do you want to be independent of the English at all costs

* i may have got the names wrong here as no google to check

With 60 MEPs, England could have more influence on Scotland within the EU than Scotland's own MEPs..

I think you will find the answer is a resounding no and iS representation increases in other areas with in the EU

It independent of the UK and despite what the english say and think they are not synonyms.

We do go round in circles but you had the government you voted for for 10 years with Scots at its very heart and head but that didn't work out so well did it. We don't always individually get the government we vote for but we accept the greater good of being a large democracy than a few small ones.

Wow you are able to predict the outcome. how helpful.

24 Incorporation of European law
(1) Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law.
(2) Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law

nothing relinquishes power more than getting the govt you did not vote for.

Does anyone need the second debate? Last night achieved little (other than pricking the obvious bubble), AS has no answers to the central questions and nothing will change there, why waste any more time and money? The whole thing is a vanity project, it doesn't need an expensive trim.

Have the vote now and we can get on with living in one of the most successful unions in modern history

iS representation increases in other areas with in the EU

So please explain how moving from a position where you get legislation from a body on which you have c. 9% representation is less empowering than adopting legislation automatically from a body on which you have <1% representation

Oldbloke, those simple questions are wasted!!! The blindingly obvious contradiction have been ignored for >7k pages and no one will change now.

I know, but as the debate has moved back from the trivial to the meaty issues, it is worth a reminder.

Does anyone need the second debate? Last night achieved little (other than pricking the obvious bubble), AS has no answers to the central questions and nothing will change there, why waste any more time and money? The whole thing is a vanity project, it doesn't need an expensive trim.

Given Salmonds performance against Darling, I reckon they should roll out Blair 😀

(whispers, or even Gordon... shudder)

It is indeed and I admire your patience and persistence. Just, don't hold you breath for an answer!

It was actually 16.7 % and No in an democracy the losers do not get the govt they wanted.
HTH

No, it was ~10% of the POPULATION – I was quite considered about that. What’s the proportion of the UK population based in Scotland, ~10% again.

So your standpoint seems to be that if 10% of one population don’t get what they want then the Westminster brand of democracy is failing them, but if 10% of another population don’t get what they want it’s democracy in action.

Oldbloke Which draft Scottish Constitution are you quoting ? There are two at least on the net.
Jambalaya Can you quote from or link to documents or media clips from the SNP which feature anti english language? As for being anti elitist ...if that means wanting a fairer society i am all for it.

Gordimhor - I'm looking at the document from the Scottish Government website entitled "THE SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE BILL: A CONSULTATION ON AN INTERIM CONSTITUTION FOR SCOTLAND".

[url=www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf]this one[/url]

you had the government you voted for for 10 years with Scots

We don't always individually get the government we vote

but the two points above effectively remove the role of Scottish Parliament in adopting EU legislation.

So please explain how moving from a position where you get legislation from a body on which you have c. 9% representation is less empowering than adopting legislation automatically from a body on which you have <1% representation?

Does anyone need the second debate?

Have the vote now and we can get on with living in one of the most successful unions in modern history

PS the USA may disagree as well on best union [ both points tongue in cheek to be clear]

If you could point me to proposals any body of the EU governance regime is considering, that would be handy.

The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries). The Commission drafts and implements EU legislation.

it has various ways to pass various laws to be clear
Quick guide here

http://www.out-law.com/page-7766

mt - Member
Has Scotland ever thrived before or after the union? Was it better under the union before the last one hundred years?...

The big problem with bandying figures about is that there are so many opposing sides to them and political interpretations.

There is however one set of figures that are incontestable and apolitical. The census returns.

I don't think you can call a country thriving when many of its population have to move out of it to make their living.

For the last 100 years Scotland's population has remained almost static, while that of England has risen by 40%.

As for Yorkshire, that's up to the residents of that region, but I'd agree it doesn't seem to have had a fair shake. Maybe you should be pressing for devolved regional govt?

This whole independence business could have been headed off at the pass if more devolution had been one of the choices.

But it wasn't. We got an all or nothing choice, so we'll take the all, thanks. We will make it work, and it will be better in the long run.

As we have seen again last night JM Keynes' view remain true and at the heart of the debate. T

Just, don't hold you breath for an answer!

So your standpoint seems to be that if 10% of one population don’t get what they want then the Westminster brand of democracy is failing them, but if 10% of another population don’t get what they want it’s democracy in action.

Scotlands price for union is to get the govt they do not vote for for roughly 50% of the time. Its a high price and i doubt the english would pay it hence the opt outs fro the EU for example. Whatever you wish to call it democracy is a stretch and i is legitimate point.

Hmm, England certainly have paid it on occasion, indeed we are paying it now, plus we've spent a hugely disproportionate amount of our time under Scottish Prime Ministers (7/52) and England has still done nothing to solve the infamous West Lothian question

edit

i am saying that currently scotland does not have the govt they voted for and nothing is giving away power more than that scenario

Currently England doesn't have the government they voted for!

England has still done nothing to solve the infamous West Lothian question

ninfan - Member
...Currently England doesn't have the government they voted for!

Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too. 🙂

Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too. 🙂

Hey, I'm all for a permanent Tory government 😈

Yes, independence for Scotland will be good for England too.

er, no. it would leave us with a Conservative government forever.

(coughs up some sick)

(Dear, dear, if the cap fits and all that (in this case clearly not)....for clarity oldbloke, I was OF COURSE referring to official sources when talking about proper answers and holding breath. No need to wait for unofficial stuff, that's just for entertainment though)

KB, happy to let JMK go at the right moment. Given that his comments are central and completely relevant to the current debate, this is not it.

Hey, I'm all for a permanent Tory government

for clarity

I was OF COURSE referring to official sources when talking about proper answers and holding breath

DP

I am saying that currently scotland does not have the govt they voted for and nothing is giving away power more than that scenario

Which as a statement is correct, very few people voted for the SNP government 😉 . But what you originally said was,

IMHO and I assume anyone who looks at democracy nothing is ceeding control more than getting a govt you did not vote for time and time and time again

“Time and time and time again” many people in Scotland have the UK government they voted for. In the last election only ~100k people more voted Lab than the combined Con/Dem count (in Scotland) that’s 0.3% of the total number of voters.

Can you counter that at without a red herring/moving the goalposts?

It’s not moving the goalposts, as you stated, “in an democracy the losers do not get the govt they wanted” and in any democracy you have to accept the possibility that the outcome of an election might be a result that you (or any given block of 10% or less of the electorate) didn’t vote for.

i notice you have chosen to run with this rather than address the actual point

Because the basic premise of your opening statement is wrong, many people in Scotland DO get the government they vote for ”time and time and time again” so these people aren’t ceding any power they are benefitting from a democratic system which has favoured their views.

Edited, as I just don't care.

Not in response to anything recent. Just mleh.