Osbourne says no to currency union.

Which elected leader are you saying is poor at it

CMD and his greenest ever govt?
CMD and the No changes to the NHS?
Clegg and his pledge over tuition fees?
Brown ending boom and bust?
Blairs dossier?

Shall i go on or is that enough?
Who is this elected leader you are holding up as a bastion of truth ?
As he is a politician of course he is full of shit.
He is the leader of his party and his country of course he is in the premier league of lying bullshittery
This is not news.

As the dispatches programme noted both sides were engaged in skulldugger for they are campaigns run by politicians to achieve a political goal

You have to be pretty naive to be surprised by this and massively biased to only moan at or notice one side doing it.
To single him out alone is simply to say you want to vote no.

but that IMO means adopting the euro

It means agreeing to adopt it at some time in the future but you still need to pass the tests and they wont.

As has been noted there are other countries who have not joined the Euro and the EU is clear that they will not force them.
they will not be forced but they will be forced to say they will join when they can.

but that IMO means adopting the euro

Aw yeah, big man, wir totes gaunnae tek the euro, we love a euro likes <== actual text of Scottish Euro commitment for EU entry.

A’up in’t it time to move on’t Yorkshire free state. Tha can keep yer € unless it’s free.

Still don’t really understand this fear of committing to the Euro – after all, just a couple of years ago it was SNP policy. You remember, back when the pound was ‘a millstone round Scotland’s neck’ and automatic EU membership was guaranteed…

As he is a politician of course he is full of shit.

Politicians do lie, who doesn’t, but they also have to compromise to get anything done. Take Clegg for instance he said no to tuition fees and traded that out to the tories probably thinking he would get PR voting. As a junior partner in a coalition he never really had any power to get anything done without compromise. Are we all not a little harsh on politicians?

Take Clegg for instance he said no to tuition fees and traded that out to the tories probably thinking he would get PR voting.

That makes is sound like a minor change in detail over an fairly unimportant issue. Clegg however didn’t treat it like that at all, he did a lot more than simply “say” no to tuition fees.

He made a pledge – a solemn and binding promise, that he vote against any increase in tuition fees, and that he would put pressure on the government to introduce a “fairer alternative”.

Much fanfare was created to publicise this pledge as Clegg sought maximum media attention to what was a central LibDem policy, and one which undoubtedly won the LibDem votes.

Clegg even posed with dark-skinned kids to increase his credibility when he was engaging in photo-opportunities to publicise of his “pledge”.

The magnitude of Clegg’s dishonesty was far worse than the average politician’s failure to deliver. Contrary to the much bandied about allegation that all politicians liars imo most are in fact far more honest than they get credit for, and failure to deliver isn’t usually deliberate.

When they make “pledges” they tend to stick with them, I doubt that you would be able to find another example of an election pledge deliberately broken.

Clegg and tuition fees is not a good example, it’s way off the ‘dishonest politician scale’.

Clegg wasn’t dishonest, he was un-principled. He sold out on everything the Lib-Dems stood for to be in a coalition government and swan around with the title of Deputy Prime Minister. He didn’t even trade them for a referendum on proportional representation just the “grubby little compromise” (his words).

@Junkyard, if Scotland is as strong as the SNP says you will definitely qualify for the euro. I don’t see how you can not.

No Clegg wasn’t unprincipled, he had principles.

Here is one of his principles which he wanted everyone to see :

There is little doubt that the LibDems won extra votes because of Clegg’s “pledge”. But he didn’t keep it, which makes him dishonest imo.

jambalaya – Member

@whatnobeer – AS is very much in the premier league of misrepresentation.

Of course and this is an important issue not only for the people of Scotland but also for rUK (Yes all of it)

Of, course Cleggy talked bllx. But he has come from decades of irrelevance. The lib Dems had a crash course in what it means to have responsibility for execution not just easy rhetoric that can never be/will never be executed. By accident (and the folly of a TV debate) they get elevated to a position that no one imagined. Hardly surprising that the promises were a complete mirage. A harsh lesson learned.

The difference with the deceitful one is that these are real issues, with real policies that will be implemented, with real questions that need to be answered without hiding behind the 3Bs. That is why you cannot dismiss the DO so lightly (plus he has had a political lifetime to get ready to answer them).

As jambalaya said it is not the deceit/misrepresentation in itself that is remarkable it is the magnitude of it. That puts it into a whole different level. There is a blatant lie at the heart of the whole iS debate that I have highlighted over an over again. To waste money and time on something centered on such a basic lie elevates his deceit to a completely different level v the standard political BS that we put up with on a daily basis.

BT was sleepwalking into this which makes them partly culpable. Having said that they really should keep quiet and let yS condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Above all avoid the TV debate. If there is any value in Cleggy it is to point that out (actually TBF they had a job to do and broken promises a sided, they actually did an ok job in appaling circumstances , so deserve to be cut some slack IMO)

Imagine the tories without the lib dems to hold them back. Things could have been a lot worse. There are many things to consider when slating coalition governments containing parties with not much in common.

Are we all not a little harsh on politicians?

In general yes we are. In this example No a million times no.

if Scotland is as strong as the SNP says you will definitely qualify for the euro. I don’t see how you can not.

I still dont live there and I still cannot vote.
They wont be able to make the necessary changes to their central bank as they will be using the Pound 😉

FWIW the four criteria are

*Price stability, to show inflation is controlled;
*Soundness and sustainability of public finances, through limits on government borrowing and national debt to avoid excessive deficit;
*Exchange-rate stability, through participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) for at least two years without strong deviations from the ERM II central rate;
*Long-term interest rates, to assess the durability of the convergence achieved by fulfilling the other criteria.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

as they will be a new country they cannot meet any of them and certainly not exchange rate stability for two years.

faster i agree the lib dems have reigned some of the tory excess re europe the NHS and done some good stuff re raising the tax threshold

However The tories could not rule without them and he has more power than he thought and he sold his soul to a deal for PR initially and he [ and possibly the entire party] are unlikely to be forgiven fr this

In essence he made some serious errors in the first few days/negotiations but after that they have done some good for sure and they get little credit for it.

Imagine the tories without the lib dems to hold them back. Things could have been a lot worse.

You mean like imagine the Tories without a parliamentary majority ? …..unable to pursue their right-wing agenda ?

That would have been “a lot worse” ?

Well yes, I guess so…….if you are a Tory.

So every Tory in the country should be grateful that Nick Clegg and the LibDems were prepared to sell their principles for the simple privilege of a ride in a chauffeur-driven ministerial car. And I’m sure they are.

….adds Richard Harris and Durham Uni to the list. (I wonder if his stuff is peer reviewed?)

One of thm’s early posts

No voters who are switching to Yes…

slow day if we are just listing folk who agree with us.
That is too both of you BTW.
Forgive my lack of bias here will you fellas 😉

Sorry for trolling you both 😀

Alternately:-
Support for independence appears to have stalled

Yup, it really is hard to tell how it’s going to go.

No it isn’t. It never has been. No has always been well ahead.

Past polls aren’t an indication of future voting. The trend is moving towards Yes, but the question is is it moving fast enough, and have people taken account of the first-time voters properly?

bencooper – Member

No voters who are switching to Yes…

I thought it was going to be a link to a serious poll finding ! 😀

Ben

Those are the straws you must keep clutching, I suppose. But every indication is that its still strongly No.

Indeed, (largely) canny folk who know what is best.

This will get closer though. AS knows how to play the game even if he lacks the detail on the important stuff. Three percent just from doing a Farrage on TV – mainstream cannot handle BSers as Cleggy showed with UKIP.

er, you appear to be replying to:

The independence debate is not in the national news as much as I thought it would be although this could be the quiet before the storm. What is it like in Scotland? Much in the media? Anybody had people knocking on the door canvassing for support?

are you suggesting there that Scottish issue are not covered generally in the Union 😉

Anybody had people knocking on the door canvassing for support?

Not from either official campaign, no. My windowcleaner (voting Yes) saw the small sticker I had on the shop window, mentioned it to one one else on his round who had more stickers and posters, and she dropped in with some, which I’ve also passed on to neighbours who wanted them. So it’s more a self-organising thing, really.

Oh, there was the leaflet from Better Together in the post, but that went straight in the recycling.

There’s an interesting discussion over on The Website Which Must Not Be Named, around the subject of pensions. It goes like this:

Taxpayers in the UK pay taxes all their working lives, and receive a state pension when they retire. This includes taxpayers in Scotland. That pension continues to be paid out if the pensioner moves abroad – as it should be, since the pensioner paid into it all their life.

The UK government confirmed that pensions will be unaffected by Scottish independence, all taxpayers who have paid in will continue to receive a pension from the UK government. So basically, at the point of independence, an independent Scotland will have no pensions liability, as all the pensions will be being paid by the UK government.

Considering how much of the welfare budget goes on pensions, that’s a pretty big whack of money that an independent Scotland will save – estimates of £100bn have been made.

Interesting.

[So basically, at the point of independence, an independent Scotland will have no pensions liability, as all the pensions will be being paid by the UK government]

Not so fast Ben. Not everyone is retired. For those yet to retire, their ultimate entitlement will be affected by pensions policies of iS. The rUK will not be picking up the full tab for a current 25 year old who retires in 40+ years. Largely another non-story about recognising liabilities at the point of independence. But nothing committed about liabilities generated thereafter.

Yes, of course there will be a scaling thing – for me, there will be 20 years of UK pensions I’ve paid into, and whatever else from Scottish pensions.

Basically the pension liability of everyone in Scotland at the date of independence will be paid by the rUK – which is fair enough, we’ve paid taxes so we should get our benefits back.

Yes, of course there will be a scaling thing – for me, there will be 20 years of UK pensions I’ve paid into, and whatever else from Scottish pensions.

Basically the pension liability of everyone in Scotland will be paid by the rUK – which is fair enough, we’ve paid taxes so we should get our benefits back.

I thought that the current state pension wasn’t funded that way? Current pensioners get their pension from current PAYE payments. So you’d presumably get your Scottish pension from Scottish taxpayers ?

That’s going to be a problem for the rUK government. It’s as if we’ve all been paying into a savings account, and instead of saving the money the government has been spending it.

The liability remains, however.

So you’d presumably get your Scottish pension from Scottish taxpayers ?

Scottish pension, yes. I’m going to get a Scottish pension, which I’ll pay into from the date of independence, but before then I’ve been paying into a UK pension, which the rUK will still owe me.

It doesn’t make sense any other way – the alternative is that, for example, someone who retires one year after independence gets a full pension paid for by the Scottish government, who have only received one year’s NI payments from that person.

That’s going to be a problem for the rUK government. It’s as if we’ve all been paying into a savings account, and instead of saving the money the government has been spending it

That’s exactly how it has been.

As I say, a bit of a non-issue. In the event of separation there’ll be a negotiation of the split of assets & liabilities. This is but one of many subjects of negotiation. And before you say “but the UK promised”, just think what that means when actuaries on both sides get involved.

Why would the national news be interested Ben? The rehashed BS was exposed months ago. No coherent case has been presented to date and all key questions ducked. Most of rUK has simply dismissed the whole charade but would re-engage if the vote seemed close to avoid the obvious harm that would be caused to all parties.

In the meantime the more hysterical/trivial attempts of yS are probable best served by channel 5.

Most of the rUK dont care as we cannot vote …forgive the troll as you like to call my questioning of your “analysis”.

TV debate is on!

Salmond is still trying to get Cameron to debate, but he has had to make do with Darling. Salmond needs to make this an England vs Scotland issue because he hasn’t been able to put across an argument for independence that appeals to Scots on a practical level.

Of course he does and hopefully CMD will be sensible enough to avoid. It’s pretty much impossible to deal with rampant BS and distortion in the context of a TV debate as Farrage’s brilliantly awful examples show.

We have seen enough though. The DO came out to play in the big boys playground and was mashed by all and sundry. Enough said….no wonder he had to hide behind the lame bully excuse.

THM using the word bully is just not acceptable! It does not fit in with junkyard’s independence forum rules. No doubt he will be along to tell you off 😉

Salmond needs to make this an England vs Scotland issue because he hasn’t been able to put across an argument for independence that appeals to Scots on a practical level

TBH it is not unreasonable that the leader of the current state debates with the leader of the current state wanting independence. Of course CMD is politically astute enough to decline and I dont blame him. However it is not a decision borne out of any other principle than it is the best thing to secure the result he wants.

Similarly you cannot really blame AS for doing the things that will do benefit his campaign the most even if a portion of that is to appeal to base nationalism.

Again you defend CMD for playing politics and criticise AS for playing politics

Neither is great IMHO but i can see why both do it and they are playing the same game the same way.

The constant comparison of AS to farage is a cheap slur and the type of BS deceit you object to THM [ again oh the irony/pathos in your posts] – even ernie challenged you on that point though of course it is a troll when i do it.