[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

I know you like to have your fairy tales,

I am however willing to bow to your ability to predict the future and dismiss such and outlandish and unreasonable statement with your STRAW MAN 😉

FFS if there is on thing we all agree on it is that we cannot really predict the exact outcome of independence

Exactly, did you see the recent debate between Sturgeon and Lamont? Two leading lights doing a send up of Les Dawson and Roy Kinnear!

If devolution is so bad:

You shouldn't of bothered writing the rest of that post, there's not many (if any) in Scotland that would rather not have devolution, so your premise for the rest of the post is flawed.

That you ave the same arguments against Scottish independence as George Galloway speaks volumes...

Reading through these posts, the fundamental negative proposed by the NO team seems to be that Scotland, unlike all the other countries that have become independent since 1945, will be unable to run its own affairs.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country?

in fact it was offered decades ago but most Scots initially showed little interest in devolution.

Btw I know

Nice swerve, but point missed exactly and equally understandably. It is the biggest elephant in the room after all!

epicyclo - Member
Reading through these posts, the fundamental negative proposed by the NO team seems to be that Scotland, unlike all the other countries that have become independent since 1945, will be unable to run its own affairs.

What characteristic of Scotland makes us incapable of running our own country?

That is not what is being said. There is a falsification of the picture presented by the deceitful one and the assymtery in the risk/return in many of the hopes that he presents as facts. There is no reason why Scotland would be incapable. More of an argument about which is better - and since, stripping away the rhetoric and BS, yS are the ones arguing that you need to have dependency not independence on the principle instruments of government, BT need to add nothing to the argument. YS admits it themselves - Scotland is better served as part of the UK. The majority (just) of Scots still recognise that.

140 countries have chosen independence since 1945

and how many of them then broke down into civil war & chaos shortly afterwards?

The statistic is wrong anyway since many of those 'countries' fractured off from other countries after independence, for example is India counted as one country choosing independence or two (India and ****stan) and does Bangladesh get counted once, twice or three times (seceded from ****stan in 1971)? Working out how you would count 'independence' in Yugoslavia just makes my head hurt!

The poster's theme also ignores the most obvious contemporary theme in modern politics. But hey, in a mad tipsy turvy world of Scottish Independence, what's new?

The whole thing should be re-labelled to "Devo Reverse" since the first thing that an iS would do would be to devolve the fundamental instruments of policy and stability to a foreign country. Is that an Indian or an African elephant?

Do the Noes in here ever stop to have a listen to their continual, dreary counsel of despair?

This monarchy, this ludicrously over-centralized state, with its unelected peers and myriad forms of entrenched privilege and inequality, its hostility to doing things differently in any way whatever, is the best of all possible worlds; no finer constitutional arrangements could ever be devised by any stretch of human ingenuity.

You might as well forget politics and give up because the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergs and the military-industrial complex run everything anyway and any attempts at reconfiguring constitutional arrangements so that they reflect more faithfully the desires of the people they hold sway over are basically just re-arranging the deckchairs on a voyage doomed to failure.

Anyone who seeks to change things and try and offer some alternative must conjure up a system that is at once perfect in every respect or be lambasted for being too wee/poor/stupid/Bravehearted/anti-English/alcoholic/whatever the casual, snidey [i]insult du jour[/i] happens to be.

If at first you don't succeed, give up.

Is it any wonder that the "No" campaign, despite having every possible advantage in terms of getting its message across via a compliant and sympathetic mass media, is heading the wrong way in the polls?

There are no doubt some among the "Yes" camp who imagine the road to Brigadoon will be paved with golden shortbread but I'd imagine the majority are ordinary, decent folk who look around them at 21st-century Britain and think, is this really the best we can hope for? Maybe the sky [i]won't[/i] fall down if we try to do things differently. Maybe Devo Max is the most-desired outcome and maybe such "independence" as you can have in an interdependent world is closer to it in most respects than is the future being offered to Scotland under the Union.

The poster's theme also ignores the most obvious contemporary theme in modern politics

It also chooses to ignore another fact - can anyone think of a country that voluntarily chose to give up its own independence prior to 1945 😆

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, eh Scotland 😈

can anyone think of a country that voluntarily chose to give up its own independence prior to 1945

[quote=seosamh77 ]Aracer. The only evidence we have to go on is the performance of the Scottish parliament. The evidence there is pretty clear that it is different from Westminster.

In what sense? Is it not a Western capitalist democracy then?

[quote=Junkyard ]FFS if there is on thing we all agree on it is that we cannot really predict the exact outcome of independence

We can predict that iS will be a Western capitalist democracy (there I go answering my own questions). All of the things the fairy tale merchants think can be changed in an iS are fundamental issues with a Western capitalist democracy.

[quote=StefMcDef ]This monarchy

I must have missed the policy to get rid of that

Anyone who seeks to change things and try and offer some alternative must conjure up a system that is at once perfect in every respect or be lambasted for being too wee/poor/stupid/Bravehearted/anti-English/alcoholic/whatever the casual, snidey insult du jour happens to be.

Well some suggestion of how you're planning to make any real difference whilst you're still living in a capitalist state effectively controlled by big business might be a start. It's far easier to knock those asking the question though.

Not one has ever asked to give it up again

Actually I can think of 18 - or maybe [s]28[/s] 34

Using the best analogy i can muster, what is the point in kids moving out when they will still have to do all the same things ? They can only leave if they choose to move to a Yurt or to subsistence farming or to something else radically different and anything else is not worth the cost or effort.

Reading through these posts, the fundamental negative proposed by the NO team seems to be that Scotland, unlike all the other countries that have become independent since 1945, will be unable to run its own affairs

The proposal is that Scotland should not bother becoming one of those countries that has declared independence since 1945 because it won't lead to worthwhile positive outcomes for its citizens.

In how many territories has there been an independence movement that was rejected or failed? Iran, Iraq, Spain, Turkey, Russia, Moldova, Israel, Morocco, South Africa all had territories in which independence failed to fly. What does that mean?

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Aracer. The only evidence we have to go on is the performance of the Scottish parliament. The evidence there is pretty clear that it is different from Westminster.
In what sense? Is it not a Western capitalist democracy then?

Western Democracy is not a one size fits all proposition.

StefMcDef - Member

Sorry - and just to be clear, the cupped hands candle is balls too. There have been countries that gave up their independence having gained it since 1945: off the top of my head, Syria and Egypt formed the United Arab Republic (which was a disaster), Taganyika and Zanzibar formed Tanzania, South Yemen merged with North Yemen to form just Yemen, the independent Trucial States formed the United Arab Emirates... There are probably more of which I am ignorant.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Are all western capitalist democracies the same?

In fundamental structural terms - the sort of things which would need to be changed to bring about the fairy tale - yes.

I gave you reasons on the previous page why it has already diverged from westminster.

The things which have changed despite you not being independent?

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » Are all western capitalist democracies the same?
In fundamental structural terms - the sort of things which would need to be changed to bring about the fairy tale - yes.

We can predict that iS will be a Western capitalist democracy (there I go answering my own questions). All of the things the fairy tale merchants think can be changed in an iS are fundamental issues with a Western capitalist democracy

it becomes slightly difficult to quantify how radical an IS will be

Well some suggestion of how you're planning to make any real difference whilst you're still living in a capitalist state effectively controlled by big business might be a start

What has happened on this thread its like an alternative threadeverse where everyone loses all sense of their rational faculties

What kind of western capitalist democracy should Scotland look like?

If you live in the granny flat above the garage, do you think that giving it its own front door will change your life?

I assume those of us who have not returned to our parents home or have left did so to enhance our lifes and considered them enhanced
I doubt we all engaged in radical change even though we wanted freedom.

Still confused by aracer both demanding its radical and then saying it fairy tale when it is.

I gave you reasons on the previous page why it has already diverged from westminster.
The things which have changed despite you not being independent?

konabunny - Member
What kind of western capitalist democracy should Scotland look like?

...at the moment, it's devo reverse. Allow those dreadful folk in Westminster to keep setting the main instruments of policy, only this time you have no representation in this process at all.

A very, very odd model even for a fairy tale.

What kind of western capitalist democracy should Scotland look like?

...at the moment, it's devo reverse. Allow those dreadful folk in Westminster to keep setting the main instruments of policy, only this time you have no representation in this process at all.

A very, very odd model even for a fairy tale.

You've already told us a currency union won't happen, so please explain why having our own MEP to represent us and out interests is having less representation that we have now? Oh thats right, we're not getting in the EU either apparently, so that's that one out the water.

Won't it? I thought that is what AS wants? I am explains the folly of that, not what should or will happen.

MEP is another kettle of fish altogether

TBF to the deceitful one, fixing the currency to the £ is far more rational than tying it to or joining the euro, but unfortunately for him, it comes with certain conditions and disadvantages - the stuff that gets whitewashed out.

THM = LLPOF

[quote=Junkyard ]One does not need to have a radical change for independence to be a reasonable choice - I have no idea how you can maintain a straight face in demanding that and then calling any proponent of this "fairy tale "

I don't think I've suggested that independence might not be a reasonable choice ( [?mg]strawman.gif[/?mg] 😉 ) any more than anybody is suggesting that iS will collapse in an unsustainable heap, simply that it won't bring about the changes some seem to imagine. It's those unrealistic "advantages" of iS which are the fairy tale.

[quote=whatnobeer ]You've already told us a currency union won't happen

Are you confused by the idea that not having a currency union doesn't mean you won't use the pound or a currency tied to it?

Are you confused by the idea that not having a currency union doesn't mean you won't use the pound or a currency tied to it?

Not confused about anything, you know what'll happen as much as I do. And that is we don't know.

I just don't think that what happens in Scotland is currently given much thought when deciding on monetary policy, so at worst it'll be no different but we'll have control over other things that we have no or little say in now.

seosamh77 - Member

" in fact it was offered decades ago but most Scots initially showed little interest in devolution."

so little interest that it took 51.6% of the vote?

No. Only 32.9% of the electorate voted in the referendum of 1979. And of those about half voted yes, so roughly 17% of the Scottish electorate voted in favour of devolution in 1979.

My comment that it was offered decades ago but most Scots initially showed little interest in devolution is correct. And your acceptance of facts is poor.

Or you could argue that only 83% didn't want devolution in 1979. Question is, how many of them would rather go back now? Think about what the answer will be in 20 years from now if there's a yes vote in September?

Junkyard - lazarus
THM = LLPOF

Now you are at it!

[quote=whatnobeer ]Not confused about anything, you know what'll happen as much as I do. And that is we don't know.
I just don't think that what happens in Scotland is currently given much thought when deciding on monetary policy, so at worst it'll be no different but we'll have control over other things that we have no or little say in now.

In which case I'm confused by why you think the currency union not happening is significant. Oh, and I think you'll find that no difference is a best case because as THM points out you do currently at least have representation where decisions are made about the currency you use, so it's possible there is some influence (OK, so you'll also have representation for a few years after independence, which will be interesting, though that's probably the point you'll realise that Scottish MPs weren't ignored before).

In which case I'm confused by why you think the currency union not happening is significant. Oh, and I think you'll find that no difference is a best case because as THM points out you do currently at least have representation where decisions are made about the currency you use, so it's possible there is some influence (OK, so you'll also have representation for a few years after independence, which will be interesting, though that's probably the point you'll realise that Scottish MPs weren't ignored before).

You keep saying I'm confused, I'm not. I'm just fed up of THM arguing that every possible outcome of every possible decision will result in a situation that is worse than just now, which isn't true. It follows the "this is as good as it gets' line of reasoning for voting no and its a shit line of argument.

Judging by the past actions of Westminter governments I find it hard to believe they do anything that isn't what's best for themselves and their mates in London. **** everyone else.

You keep saying I'm confused, I'm not. I'm just fed up of THM arguing that every possible outcome of every possible decision will result in a situation that is worse than just now, which isn't true.

Except that is not what I am saying. I am simply falsifying the deceitful points laid out by AS, of which there are many. I have listed before the pros and cons of different proposals. In stark contrast to yS who tend to only admit the pros.

Don't forget WNB, I am a strong advocate of devolved power and less centralised government. It's just that I prefer to see it done properly and without the deceit.

You could trying being a bit less deceitful yourself, that'd maybe be a start.

[quote=whatnobeer ]I'm just fed up of THM arguing that every possible outcome of every possible decision will result in a situation that is worse than just now

naargh, naargh, naargh, naargh
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[img] [/img]

Judging by the past actions of Westminter governments I find it hard to believe they do anything that isn't what's best for themselves and their mates in London. **** everyone else.

Well at least it will be mates in Edinburgh benefiting post-independence.

Do you think if you just shout strawman at every argument you enter, it means you win? ffs!

aracer - Member

We can predict that iS will be a Western capitalist democracy (there I go answering my own questions). All of the things the fairy tale merchants think can be changed in an iS are fundamental issues with a Western capitalist democracy.

What are these fairytales you keep talking about then? Can you name me, oh, 3 major things that the Yes campaign wants to achieve, that are impossible in a western capitalist democracy?

Judging by the past actions of Westminter governments I find it hard to believe they do anything that isn't what's best for themselves and their mates in London. **** everyone else.

A bit like Edinburgh council then?

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/council-to-write-off-5-5m-statutory-repairs-debt-1-3398976

And who oversaw this whole debacle? The Scottish government

can't wait to see what comes to light in the future over the who was 'looking after their mates' regards the Tram scheme, or the Holyrood building...

Easy

Independence means that Scotland's future will be in our own hands. Decisions currently taken for Scotland at Westminster will instead be taken by the elected representatives of the people of Scotland in the Scottish Parliament. (Intro to the BoD)

Except decisions on interest rates, money supply, FX policy, fiscal policy, stability of (that all important) financial sector etc under the policies proposed. Just "little" decisions like that. These decisions will be devolved back to a foreign country ie the unelected representatives of a foreign country.

Not even a magician can pull that trick off - western capitalist democracy or not.