Osbourne says no to currency union.

Jeez, if THM isn’t being paid by Project Fear for his sneerathon, he’s the closest thing they’ve got to a grassroots campaign.

Oh! Does he have a vote?

34 days to go.

THM – are you realistically expecting an educated man to accept what is written in the media?

Read Wings Over Scotland if you really want a laugh.

We get currency union for being in the UK. Seeing some argue for it, and other aspects of a successful UK, while berating it at every turn reminds me of the “What did the Romans do for us?” Sketch in The Life of Brian.

The wee blue book from WoS. was posted by Ben a few pages back and filed under fiction/comedy.

Hilarious. Talking of which, funny that no one talks about that 600+ pages of tripe anymore. That was worth the money and trees!!!

Jeez, if THM isn’t being paid by Project Fear for his sneerathon, he’s the closest thing they’ve got to a grassroots campaign.

Nah, it’s my daily amusement fix and I like the xK posts!!

Oh! Does he have a vote?

34 days to go.

^sneerathon.

I like the addition of these pleasant countdowns also.

I still find it hard to believe that so many people think that Scottish politicians in a Scottish Parliament will be any different from UK politicians in our current parliament. Power tends to attract all the wonderful spin doctors and lobby groups that the yes people think are so bad in Westminster but wait who is AS’s best mate? Rupert Murdock???

I believe most of how we make rules and govern our countries seems to comes from our culture. A good example of this would be Russia. They have had several different ideologies running the country but at the end of the day the politicians seems to rule in the same way. Socialism works in the Scandinavian countries as they have a very deep culture of equality (see jantes law).

The accent changes from Kent to Cape Wrath but the real difference is how wealthy the south is compared to the rest of the country. Culturally Britain is quite similar. Don’t give me the rubbish that the north of England and Scotland is more socialist. Socialism just does not work in our culture as we are too dam selfish or to put it in a better light too self reliant and don’t do group think. We vote for Labour as we are poor and they will hopefully look after us.

I like the bit in the wee blue book where someone says

“Liverpool and Manchester did not vote for the Tories either, will they be stuck with them?”
“Well yes but remember they are just cities, we are a country!” Comes the reply.

Solidarity my Liverpool and Manchester brothers and sisters. Good luck with the Tories I have some oil money to spend. 😉

Well, two answers to that:

1. Scotland isn’t abandoning you to the Tories, Scottish voted haven’t decided an election since the War. The most we’ve done is produce a ConLibDem coalition instead of a Tory government, not a big difference.

2. If Liverpool and Manchester want to form a union, elect themselves a parliament, then they can hold a referendum themselves and declare independence.

The wee blue book from WoS. was posted by Ben a few pages back and filed under fiction/comedy.

Yes, I know you don’t like the Wee Blue Book[/url] or the White Paper. Problem is, you haven’t yet said what you think is a trustworthy source of information, and why you think those sources aren’t reliable. The WBB mostly references UK government or Better Together sources, after all.

athgray – Member
^sneerathon.

I like the addition of these pleasant countdowns also.

Yup, I apologise for that. THM is getting a bit wearing, but that’s no excuse.

The countdown is to inject a bit of reality. It’s the one sure fact in the whole debate. 🙂

WBB mostly references UK government or Better Together sources, after all

You’re kidding, right? First thing I did before reading WBB was look at the sources as they’re listed. Press reports are about half the sources, including the Daily Mail. Second most popular source is Wikipedia. UK Govt / Better Together are way down the list – Wings over Scotland is quoted as a source as often as UK Govt. The reliance on press reports for so much material does undermine the “all the press is biased against us” claim.

Hi folks, have been following this thread off and on for the last few weeks.I notice that the monarchy has been left out of the many topics covered. Is the removal of the queen as titular head of state the deal breaker for the Yes vote ? Why just go for independance but appear to give up the chance to become a Republic.
I ask this question as a republican myself who wishes we were citizens and not subjects.

I see that as a separate issue – if we later wanted to become a republic, we could elect a party that would do that.

You’re kidding, right? First thing I did before reading WBB was look at the sources as they’re listed. Press reports are about half the sources, including the Daily Mail.

Yes, and that’s deliberate – it’d be easy to back stuff up with SNP press releases and reports from the few (one) friendly newspapers, but instead it’s backed up with stuff even the Daily Mail would print.

Is the removal of the queen as titular head of state the deal breaker for the Yes vote ? Why just go for independance but appear to give up the chance to become a Republic.

It’s not really an issue for most folk I’ve spoken to. Some have a feeling one way or the other when pressed, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s a minor concern. SNP policy is to keep the queen and if the Scottish people want to become a Republic in the future they can have a vote on it.

carlossal – Member
Hi folks, have been following this thread off and on for the last few weeks.I notice that the monarchy has been left out of the many topics covered. Is the removal of the queen as titular head of state the deal breaker for the Yes vote ?…

I think the rationale is it’s a process of slow disentanglement.

Scotland and England were united under the crown for the 100 years before the parliaments merged, so the independence we will shortly have will bring us back to that position.

A lot of us would quite happily see the elimination of the monarchy but that is a matter for another day maybe, or perhaps we just keep it going.

Seem then that SNP want to keep the “best” bits of UK because it suits them to get the votes they want. Despite as stated being a republican myself I don’t think the vote would be Yes if it was for a complete independance ( Not sure what Lizzies role is in current Scottish set up). The great British Public (inc all 4 nations) seem rather sentimental with regards to the monarchy.

It was a Scottish king who united the crowns, 100 years before the parliaments were joined. We don’t want to keep the “best” bits, we want to share the bits that are ours.

And good luck telling the Queen she’s not allowed to come to Balmoral any more.

And good luck telling the Queen she’s not allowed to come to Balmoral any more.

Why would becoming a republic stop the Queen going to Balmoral?

Even if you were a Republic, then the Queen would still own Balmoral. It is not owned by the Crown.

The great British Public (inc all 4 nations) seem rather sentimental with regards to the monarchy.

Possibly more apathetic than sentimental given the monarchy is, practically, powerless.

Replacing a Monarch with an elected President as Head of State carries risk given the generally negative view of politicians. Would you get a Mary Robinson or a Nicolas Sarkozy? Would Tony Blair have made it to President had he run for that office after retiring as PM? And given what little the Queen does, what would an elected President do?

bencooper – Member

We don’t want to keep the “best” bits, we want to share the bits that are ours.

Except the oil. 😉

Yes, okay, I was kidding about that – never threaten a woman with shotguns and small yappy dogs 😉

Balmoral is the private property of the monarchy,so unless you were going to do a’Land Grab’ you could’nt stop her visiting.

Except the oil.

Happy to share the oil – the oil that’s in English territorial waters is England’s, the oil that’s in Scotland’s waters is Scottish.

Balmoral is the private property of the monarchy,so unless you were going to do a’Land Grab’ you could’nt stop her visiting.

Well I think all the big highland estates should be compulsorily purchased and given to the nation or local communities. But that’s a different issue.

Tried putting ‘winky’emoticon at end off last post as not serious proposal. Bloomin’ phone didn’t like it though. “Smart phone”, my posterior!!

Actually Ben, if you go back to page twelve, you’ll recall that you proposed sharing the oil on a population basis

Everything gets shared that way – assets, liabilities, things where no-one can agree if they’re assets or liabilities, everything. It’s the only fair way to do it.

😈

I’m sure I’ve stated many times that things which are distributed geographically should be shared geographically. Otherwise I want 9% of Snowdonia 😉

Well, apparently you still wish to stake a claim on 9% of the Bank of England… where is that situated geographically?

Sorry, I forgot that everything only means what you want it to mean to suit your argument at that particular moment in time!

The pound isn’t geographically distributed. And of course it’s not the pound we’re talking about really, it’s a currency union. We’ll use the pound, that’s certain, what’s not certain is whether we’ll do it with a CU.

Sorry, I had already edited it to make my point clearer, that the Bank of England is situated where?

And lets remember that sterling is a millstone round Scotland’s neck

Plus we’re still stuck on that ‘everything’ word…

Sorry, I had already edited it to make my point clearer, that the Bank of England is situated where?

Okay, by that argument the nuclear subs are ours.

No, the empty harbour is

the Submarines are located far away hidden under the ocean remember 😆

One of them is, others are tied up, and we have a mountain full of warheads. We could always eBay those if the oil runs out early.

This is daft. Scotland doesn’t want to steal anything from the rest of the UK, we just want a fair share of things we’ve spent our taxes building up.

Oh look what a surprise. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23681061

Well I think all the big highland estates should be compulsorily purchased and given to the nation or local communities. But that’s a different issue.

I’d really like to see this happen. The land inequality in Scotland is fairly extreme. It will always be somewhat distorted due to the nature of the land in question. But the current situation seems closer to a sporting theme park rather than an inhabited environment.

And the Queen, to me at least. Is an utter irrelevance, or at least should be.

Well, Ben since most of the exploration was done and pipelines were built back in the seventies, when BP was majority state owned, I think that you’ll find it was our taxes that were spent building up the North Sea oil industry 8)

Oh look what a surprise. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23681061

analysts believe oil produced there could see the Atlantic overtake the North Sea as the UK’s biggest oil-producing region.

If I was an Orcadian I would be looking for independence.

After all, why should they be governed by a Parliament elected by the Central Belt, who are simply sucking up all their oil wealth?

Would Scotland be trying for Independence without the oil?

Would Scotland be trying for Independence without the oil?

Of course we would. I’m a Green, I’d much prefer the oil to stay where it is.

I’m a Green

So, do you support their manifesto in part or in whole – on the original subject of this thread, they support a separate Scottish Currency.

In the long run a separate currency probably makes the most sense, however for a transition period using the pound is sensible.

Would Scotland be trying for Independence without the oil?

Of course we would. I’m a Green, I’d much prefer the oil to stay where it is.

But then none of the finances work. People in Scotland would be significantly worse off after Independence.

The reason for the question is who is going to gain from Independence. Who is going to have ‘more’? For the vast majority of Scot’s there will be very little difference – except that they will not be able to blame Westminster for laws, taxes, etc. So who is going to benefit?

The political class will do better since they will be in charge of a country, rather than with devolved powers. Some large companies may do better since the intention is to reduce tax rates. For an individual is it just a sense of ‘my country’?

I suspect that one group that is hoping to better is the poor, since the SNP (and Scottish Labour) are left wing and will have a policy of income redistribution. Those of benefits, including the ill, are likely to expect to do better. Pensioners are expecting to do better, since there is a commitment to increase pensions and stop the increase in pension ages.

However all of these need to be funded by taxation. So who in the tax paying class is expecting to do better? If they are not expecting to do better, why would they vote for Independence? Many surveys across the UK have shown that people are ‘happy’ to pay more tax to support the less well off, but when they actually vote this does not happen.

So again the question – Would Scotland be trying for Independence without the oil? I have no issue with BenC saying he would vote Yes, after his comments for 200+ pages it is expected. But what about the 5 million people across Scotland. This is important because in many households they will be looking at their finances, as well as the emotive arguments, before they go and vote.

Without a coherent financial proposal(inc currency), voters will not vote in enough numbers for change. Change, and a very significant change in this case, requires an overwhelming argument to make it happen. The fact that this thread is still running after 200+ pages, shows that this proposal either does not exist or has not been presented will enough to make a Yes vote a certainty

I suspect more people sitting on the fence or at the edge of Yes, will change to No than the other way round. Why because it is a big change and people don’t like a big change. There is no momentum for the Yes, despite being allowed to pick the date of the vote and duration of the campaign and including 16 and 17 aged voters. At no point has any survey showed a Yes win, and at the moment the Yes voting is in decline.