Osbourne says no to currency union.

The rules say:

Costs would also include the posting of one neutral information leaflet about the referendum to every Scottish household, and one free mailshot to every household or voter in the poll for the designated campaign organisations.

Now the UK government isn’t the designated campaign organisation. So is this the “neutral information leaflet”? If so then there have to be questions about how neutral it is.

I feel fairly certain that if the rules have been broken then the electoral commission will have something to say about it. In the final analysis this can be settled in the courts, the UK government cannot operate outside the law. As I say, I think this is probably a non-story. It’s certainly isn’t making the headlines as you would expect if the rules had been broken.

“Mistake and a misjudgement” 😀

The more important bit, though, isn’t who paid for the leaflets.

It’s that there have been two golden opportunities to announce a guarantee of more powers after a No vote – these leaflets and the Queen’s speech – and neither of those opportunities were taken. So it’s pretty safe to assume that this advert:

Is bollocks.

Scotsman tomorrow:

The more important bit, though, isn’t who paid for the leaflets.

You asked : “how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer’s money on….”

It turns out that you’re not really interested in what we feel about £750,000 of taxpayer’s money being spent on a leaflet after all, which presumably means that you now accept that it was all done above board.

No, what you really want to know now is how we feel about the contents of a leaflet that not everyone has seen and which we only have your obviously completely unbiased opinion about what it contains.

Well based to the fact that you’ve seen the leaflet and I haven’t, and that you don’t like what you’ve seen, then you must be right.

You can download and read it if you like – or the contents are widely reported.

Feel about the same as I do about the white paper.

Propaganda.

Oh bloody hell, the Popes sticking his tuppence worth in.

I have seen no Better Together or UK leaflets. I was delivered a Yes leaflet a few months ago though. I was being urged to vote yes by the Proclaimers and Eddie Reader. How do I feel about Scottish government spending my money on the white paper? 🙁

The Pope agreeing with the Orange Order? That’s a turnip for the books 😉

You can download and read it if you like – or the contents are widely reported.

But you would rather not provide a link to it, despite complaining of its contents and asking people how they feel about it.

A bit like the front page you’ve posted where you can see the headline but not read the article.

How about posting a readable link to an article whose attention you’ve drawn ?

Or do you prefer it when everything is a bit unclear and rather confused ?

Oh, good grief – here, let me use Google for you:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/uk-government-spend-720000-to-provide-every-household-with-booklet-on-facts.1402590417

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27817449

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefits-of-the-uk-booklet-going-to-every-household-in-scotland

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-staying-in-the-united-kingdom-means-for-scotland/what-staying-in-the-united-kingdom-means-for-scotland

The Scotsman article isn’t on their website yet, because that’s tomorrow’s front page.

How about commenting on the lack of further guaranteed powers instead of nitpicking?

The Scotsman article isn’t on their website yet, because that’s tomorrow’s front page.

So you’re drawing our attention to an article you haven’t even read ? I think one thing we can all agree on is that headlines don’t necessarily give the whole story. Or do you make a habit of just reading headlines?

…instead of nitpicking

So you ask how people feel about a leaflet and it doesn’t occur to you that they might want to see it before commenting ? You call that nitpicking ? Brilliant! 🙂

Thanks for the link btw, I’ll have a look later.

I was drawing attention to the headline, which looks like it could be an interesting and relevant article.

I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.

I must stop making assumptions, evidently.

Scotsman article is now online:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/the-better-together-advert-made-in-bbc-studios-1-3444021

I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.

So you think it would be reasonable for me to, say, complain about an article I had read in the Daily Telegraph, ask people how they felt about it, and then get annoyed when asked to provide a link ? 🙂

If it was so incredibly easy to find a link to the leaflet why didn’t you do that when you first asked people’s opinions about it ? I didn’t even know what the leaflet was called, all I had to go by was that it was apparently sent by the UK gov to all homes in scotland, which is fairly vague.

Meh, you obviously don’t want to actually comment on the important issues, so I’m off to bed 😀

Well I had a quick glance at the leaflet and it appears to be the UK government making the case for the “benefits of the UK”.

I can’t see a problem with that in the same way that I can’t see a problem with the Scottish government making the case for the “benefits of independence”.

Why have you got a problem with that…….because you don’t agree with what the leaflet says ?

BTW apparently the leaflet “will start arriving through all Scottish letter boxes from June 23”. Why didn’t you wait until June 23 before getting upset ?

As far as the Scotsman’s article is concerned I can’t see much of a problem with that either, apparently : “There has been no breach of editorial guidelines as BBC facilities are made available to organisations and businesses who want to use them, including political parties, on a commercial basis”. Which seems reasonable to me. I’m sure that if any breaches have been made the BBC will be held accountable, Yes Scotland will make sure of that no doubt.

But how about worrying less about leaflets and adverts that you don’t agree with and focusing a little more on making the case for independence ? Time’s running out and you apparently haven’t convinced the majority of Scots yet. Too much whingeing and not enough getting on with it I reckon.

Why have you got a problem with that…….because you don’t agree with what the leaflet says ?

It’s what the leaflet doesn’t say – it doesn’t make any mention of any new powers for Scotland after a No vote.

Which means that that billboard advert, and all the Better Together comments that of course there will be new powers for Scotland, are looking distinctly untrue.

With the BBC, the Trust says that BBC Scotland say they haven’t breached the guidelines so won’t investigate – that’s hardly a brilliant example of impartiality. But maybe no, maybe they haven’t strictly breached their guidelines – surely you must agree that an impartial broadcaster taking money from one side during a campaign looks pretty dodgy?

Define impartiality Ben? Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points? How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face). Actually with UKIP, the BBC do this quite a lot and it’s great to see Farrage made to look a fool under scrutiny. The sad thing is that the more he does, the more popular he becomes. Ditto the deceitful one. Funny old world. Anyway, storms over, suns out….happy riding!

Get ready to support the whites tonight 😉 !!!!

We’ve done this before – there have been academic studies showing that BBC Scotland is biased 2:1 in favour of No.

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn’t impartial?

I would rather they showed partiality on the facts and let that define their coverage than partiality to either BT or YS.

If you point out basics like the false argument on currency/asset/walk away from debt etc is obvious and clear BS, then that is not being biased with the facts but it is being biased against the perpetrators of BS. That is the standard that BBC should aspire to, not equal coverage of both sides per se. Just because AS likes to throw out the 3Bs with gay abandon does not mean that the BBC is in fact doing anything wrong. Perhaps ? it reflects the quality of the arguments put forward by the particular side under scrutiny?

Who paid for ‘Scotland’s future’ to be published?

Thats hardly an impartial document is it? It seems it was OK for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for that, along with translation into Gaelic, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish & Urdu…

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn’t impartial?

Like paying for an academic to write a newspaper article on your behalf?

Nah, it’s only one side that lies and deceives. The other one, always the other one.

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn’t impartial?

I did some work to get a UKIP office up and running recently, I invoiced the work and got paid for it.
Do I now have to do work at all the other parties offices or be labelled a UKIP supporter 🙄

Did Ozzy really say no to a currency union? I just ask as the chancellor is Osborne, not Osbourne as in the thread title. 😉

Just saying. 😀

That’s some echo in here.

Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points?

No they would keep you off air 😉

How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face).

Its essentially an election it does not really matter whether one lot are complete loons or not they should have access to the method of transmitting their views to the electorate in just the same manner as the other. By definition anything else is BIAS and by definition that in unfair.

walk away from debt

It is an absolute lie* to claim they cannot walk away from the debt and you know this. It is why GO had to say the UK would honour it no matter what. It is one of the few issues we debate where there are actual facts. You know this, you know what they say so why would you do an AS( as you would no doubt describe it] tactic like that and BS and say something you know is not true?
Why do you keep doing this slagging of AS for doing this?
One day you will make a post where you criticise your opponents and do not actually do the very same on the same page. it wont be on this thread.

As for coverage it shold clearly be roughly equal and it should challenge their claims equally robustly. to dod anything different is to take sides. Both sides think the facts support their view. Neutrals know both sides facts are politically motivated spin delivered by economists and would class this as someway short of a fact and a truth.

jota you are not regulated by law to present the news impartially so your comparison makes no sense in the context of what we are debating

A judge must be neutral as must the BBC – you can take work from who you please.

surely you must agree that an impartial broadcaster taking money from one side during a campaign looks pretty dodgy?

Have you proof that they refused to take money from both sides ?

Since the BBC helps parties to make party political broadcasts at election times then I don’t see how this is any different.

UK elections and the legislation under which they operate are widely seen as free and fair, the only reason I see for some nats to cry foul at every conceivable opportunity is, firstly because they would rather do that than actually discuss the supposed benefits of “independence”, endlessly whingeing “it’s not fair” has to be preferable than remaining embarrassingly silent, and secondly, it prepares the excuse for possible defeat….“it wasn’t fair, it’s the BBC what done it, blah, blah, blah”

But whatever is fair or isn’t fair these are the conditions which exist. Politics in the UK isn’t always fair, for example almost all the national newspapers support the Conservative Party – do you expect the Labour Party, or any other party for that matter, to spend entire election campaigns complaining “it’s not fair” ?

So stop whingeing and get on with it – why should Scots vote for “independence”, what are the compelling arguments in favour ? Your time is running out.

It is an absolute lie* to claim they cannot walk away from the debt and you know this.

Junkyard, I’ve never seen such a heroic effort to miss the (every) point in an argument before. No-one has said that it is impossible for Scotland to walk away from the debt. The point is that it would be suicidal from a credit rating perspective and entirely self destructive to any new nation. Furthermore, the fact that the UK government guaranteed all extant debt says nothing about a future independent Scotland’s obligation to remain a guarantor. All it demonstrates is that someone in the civil service realised that the borrowing ability of the entire UK was at risk due to the posturing of AS.

You get used to it bainbridge. TBF I should have put ” ” around the comment. Of course, there is no “actual debt” to walk away from but any capital market participant knows that we are tacking about a “technical default” rather than an actual one, since an actual one by defintion cannot happen.

The consequences are the same and therefore the argument should be dismissed by the BBC and others. Arguments of that level should be given air time equivalent to there worth, in this specific case almost zero other than the fact that AS is happy to deliberately deceive those who he has a duty to serve. That is worth highlighting. Beyond that, no need for comment.

Freaking amazing!

Just watch what happens when the Nationalists start hearing proper expert evidence on the issues and don’t like what they’re hearing:

THM, you will love this:

1h 23m onwards:

Already saw that, **** atrocious!

All it demonstrates is that someone in the civil service realised that the borrowing ability of the entire UK was at risk due to the posturing of AS

LOL- and you think I am trying hard to miss the point. Nice spin but they simply accepted the legal position of the debt. It is one of the few areas we have no doubt about. To add any caveat is to add your own politically motivated spin to a fact
All the debt belongs to the UK and they ALONE have to honour it. That is the legal position. That is is a fact whether you or THM “technically” like it or not.

PS the original quote was

the false argument on currency/asset/walk away from debt etc is obvious and clear BS,

I think you need to give an overly rich interpretation to think he meant what you claim Bainbridge but it is a little vague so you could argue it either way.

Ninfan – nice link but it is interesting that legally rUK want all the assets that are yours [ treaties and institutes] as legally that is the case but you do not want the entire debt that is ALL yours as well. Having your cake and eating it position as well. You either take a legal line or you do not. you cannot take it when it suits you and the talk of “technical defaults” when it does it not suit you.

I also agree that was not acceptable at all and I am surprised they did not flounce off and other members there should have spoken up.

FWIW as far as i am aware AS/Yes has only threatened it and only a poor negotiator would not threaten this /use the ability to walk away to negotiate hard for a favourable position for them.

Ninfan – nice link but it is interesting that legally rUK want all the assets that are yours [ treaties and institutes] as legally that is the case but you do not want the entire debt that is ALL yours as well. Having your cake and eating it position as well. You either take a legal line or you do not. you cannot take it when it suits you and the talk of “technical defaults” when it does it not suit you.

But thats not what he said, in fact Its pretty clear that you didn’t actually listen to what he said

He said that as a matter of law, the institutions remained part of the UK – he drew a pretty clear distinction between on the one hand assets and liabilities, which would be an issue entirely for equitable distribution through negotiation, and the completely different issue of UK government institutions such as embassies, DVLA etc. that by law remained with the UK, and Scotland had no claim to, and that this was in direct contravention to the assertions made in the independence white paper.

I did listen and i said what the law said [ about debt] just like he did about everything else.
Yes he was very clear – till he was stopped- about the need for negotiation – ho could i argue otherwise?

which would be an issue entirely for equitable distribution through negotiation,

That is my point ..the debts are legally not iS so why does rUK want to keep the stuff legally it can [embassies etc] and yet have iS take the stuff [debt]legally it can walk away from?
Hence the claim of have your cake and eat it

To be clear Yes also want this to be clear
My point is both sides are full of shit/lies/deceit/spin etc 😉

so why does rUK want to keep the stuff legally it can [embassies etc] and yet have iS take the stuff [debt]legally it can walk away from?

No

The point is Its an entirely separate issue

The debt and assets are one issue, everyone agrees that this is for equitable division, if iS want to walk away from the debt (which in theory they can) the counter balance to that is that they don’t get any of the assets, if they want their share of the assets, they have to accept their share of the debt, simples

Thats nothing to do with the UK institutions

They are not assets – its not the rUK ‘keeping the stuff legally it can’ whilst saying that iS have to take the debt – its just not even part of that equation, its not even part of the negotiation, its simply nothing to do with assets and liabilities

The point is Its an entirely separate issue

So its legal all the way when it suits your side [ embassies] and negotiation [ not legal over debt] when that suits your side. That is my point having your cake and eating it.

Either go legal or negotiate. When , either sides picks, its does so to serve its own interest.

Folk only want to apply the legal stuff when they win and not when they loose hence your insistence debts is different ie legal stuff does not apply here.