Osbourne says no to currency union.

Home Forum Chat Forum Osbourne says no to currency union.

Viewing 40 posts - 2,121 through 2,160 (of 12,715 total)
  • Osbourne says no to currency union.
  • bencooper
    Member

    I suppose the short hand response to you ben, would be that I reckon none of the UK parties want Scotland to leave, and if devo max does not happen, Scotland will be independent within 15-20 years.

    Via what mechanism? The SNP have said that this referendum is a once in a generation thing. Equally, the overall SNP majority that allowed the referendum to take place was unusual. So this might be the only chance we have for a very, very long time.

    athgray
    Member

    The SNP will say it is a once in a generation chance, as they want indepence now. It is not in their best interests to say “don’t worry, you can vote no now and see what happens”.

    If the SNP government is an anomoly, perhaps Scottish voters are not as dissaffected by the UK as much as you think.

    duckman
    Member

    For all the people suggesting Devo max will be rolled out after a no vote…Err no. After the 79 vote the Conservative Government squeezed Scotland like never before,despite having a significant number of MP’s in Scotland. Now that they have no significant representation here I don’t think they will feel any need to play nicely.

    Same in the US – are the Republicans or the Democrats the big spenders, did Reagan control spending etc??

    Err, on welfare and social policy he did!

    Premier Icon michaelbowden
    Subscriber

    athgray – Member
    epicyclo. Still struggling with your idea of democracy tbh….

    Democracy is simple.

    You vote for the members of your government. That government operates without any other master than its electorate.

    I realise it may be difficult to comprehend if you’ve been brought up to knuckle your forelock to your “betters” (the unelected elites) and believe their wise guidance is used to work in your best interests.

    As Winston said, democracy is not a perfect system, but nothing better has been invented.

    When we are independent we will have a proper democracy. Can’t say No to that.

    But you want to be a part of Europe, and the unelected MP’s there?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    THM your link fully backs up my point, it shows that in the 1980s tax as percentage of GDP did not go down despite the claim by the then Tory government.

    In fact the complete opposite is true – not only did the Tories not reduce the tax burden but they actually increased it, ie, tax as percentage of GDP was higher in the 1980s than it had been in the 1970s.

    Your link gives the precise figures :

    . 1970-71 36.7

    .
    1971-72 35

    .
    1972-73 32.6

    .
    1973-74 32.6

    .
    1974-75 35.3

    .
    1975-76 35.7

    .
    1976-77 35.2

    .
    1977-78 33.9

    .
    1978-79 32.8

    .
    1979-80 33.7

    .
    1980-81 35.1

    .
    1981-82 37.6

    .
    1982-83 37.3

    .
    1983-84 36.7

    .
    1984-85 37.6

    .
    1985-86 36.4

    .
    1986-87 36.1

    .
    1987-88 35.6

    .
    1988-89 35.3

    .
    1989-90 34.9

    Your link also backs up my claim that since returning to office the Tories have not cut taxes but slightly increased them.

    And yes, you are completely right about the Tory myth that they are the party of low public spending. After all why would they need to increase the tax burden if they were cutting public spending ?

    The 1970s had lower taxation, lower public spending, and lower unemployment, than the 1980s when Margret Thatcher, the celebrated champion of low gov. spending and taxation, was Prime Minister.

    The reason most people probably don’t realise that is because highly effective media backed Tory spin has created enduring myths. And because today’s Labour Party is too spineless to tackle and challenge Tory myths, believing that if they disagree with the Tories too much the right-wing Tory press will give them a hard time. In a word, they are cowards.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    duckman – Member
    Err, on welfare and social policy he did!

    Another example of the difference between what people say people did and what they actually did. Reagan talked tough on welfare but allowed it to increase during his administration. Yes, he made changes in where that was spent but not the overall amount. The guy who acted in welfare was Bill Clinton – a democrat. Still this is a tangent!!!

    athgray
    Member

    michaelbowden, yes I do. Europe is another system that requires fixing, but worth attempting to fix for sure.
    epicyclo suggests that he would be happy to have in independent Scotland even if the people of Scotland vote against it.

    I don’t disagree with your cut and paste from him, however that is not what is being preached elsewhere on this thread.

    To happily disregard the settled will of the Scottish people on the largest decision we will ever make is not a good start, and hopefully not representitive of how we mean to continue in iS.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Cheers Ernie, I know my data thanks as I use the same source, just trying to reconcile it with your graph which shows higher tax revenues in the 70s. It is a genuine data question, not questioning the analysis of it. What was the source of your graph?

    But back to the implications – are people also cowards when they fail to reject ideas about the current Tories and austerity, or bullies if they point out that AS BS is just that (BS) in the main?

    Premier Icon footflaps
    Subscriber
    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Now that they have no significant representation here I don’t think they will feel any need to play nicely.

    A poor argument. 4 million voters and only one MP suggests that the Tories need to work a lot harder in Scotland. The Tories need all the MPs they can get, Scotland represents a wasted opportunity and they need to regain the good will which Thacher’s arrogance lost them.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Cheers Ernie, I know my data thanks as I use the same source, just trying to reconcile it with your graph which shows higher tax revenues in the 70s.

    My graph doesn’t show tax revenues in the 70s.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    alright late 70s, early 80s!!! I am just interested in where that graph came from and why the data is still different despite the same source. Just a simple question, as you may have a better source.

    What people focus on with Thatcher is the dramatic cuts in marginal tax rates. They miss how this was replaced by higher levels of national insurance and indirect taxation. But as I have always said, her supporters credit it her with far more than she ever achieved and vv with her detractors, Thatcherism itself was largely a myth perpetrated by both sides. The reality was far more mundane.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    If you right-hand click on the graph and then “view image info” it shows the source, ie, BBC News.

    The data isn’t different, it’s the same.

    Premier Icon michaelbowden
    Subscriber

    athgray

    My quote was aimed at epicyclo not you. He seems to believe that iS will only be beholden to MP’s that they have elected.

    Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Ok, thanks I will look. It is only slightly different but I was intrigued.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    IS will have less control over Econ policy than before, that’s the absurdity of these arguments – be careful what you wish for…..

    whatnobeer
    Member

    Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has

    Apparently none of that will happen, we wont have a monetary union and we certainly won’t be allowed back into the EU.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    wrote:

    My graph doesn’t show tax revenues in the 70s.

    Conveniently 😉

    I’m surprised at you, THM – the data quite clearly follows the same trends on both graphs, even if the numbers are slightly different. The difference between the two is the difference in the axes – not only is the y-axis compressed on ernie’s graph, but it also covers a shorter time period.

    Even more interesting than missing the 70s is that ernie’s graph stops at 2006 – which enables him to put the interesting spin on the figures that the tax burden is higher than in 2010. Whereas it is clear from your graph (which as mentioned is not contradicted by ernie’s) that the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006 – that’s despite this government being during a recession and 2006 not.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Jay C wrote:

    Where as all that will happen is Scoland will lose the layer of the upper house but will still be tied to policy with rUK via a monetary policy and/or a greater loss of decision making power by being a new member of Europe probably tied to the Euro and without the Veto vote that the UK has

    Apparently none of that will happen, we wont have a monetary union and we certainly won’t be allowed back into the EU.
    [/quote]

    Surely that is something you should be celebrating then – strange how AS keeps complaining that the Yes camp is wrong and you’ll actually have less democracy than they suggest.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    [Aracer, I am neither disputing the graph nor the basic interpretation. I use this data regularly and was simply puzzled that the numbers differed slightly despite the same source. I just wanted to check the numbers to see which were better or more accurate. It was that simple]

    There is nothing to be surprised about! Of course, the interesting bit is to explain the “why” behind these trends but this is not the place for that!!

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    ernie_lynch » My graph doesn’t show tax revenues in the 70s.

    Conveniently 😉

    I did better than that, I copied and pasted the precise figures from THM’s link. It very clearly shows that the Tories did not cut the tax burden in the 1980s.

    the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006

    Now that’s what I call spin…….making a comparison of the present situation with an arbitrary point in time which conveniently makes the point you want to make, well done that man! 🙂

    It’s not lower now than when the Tories came to power. They have not lowered the tax burden.

    Which gets back to my point that this statement is incorrect :

    bencooper – Member

    unfortunately it’s Scottish oil money that props up Tory tax cuts.

    konabunny
    Member

    But you want to be a part of Europe, and the unelected MP’s there?

    Unelected MPs lol

    duckman
    Member

    Agreed it is a tangent THM, but he tripled the US national debt with his tax cuts for the rich and while he didn’t cut the likes medicare, his spending on toys meant the likes of Clinton was screwed because of the need to service not only the debt, but the post cold war bloated US Military. I have always found it interesting as I think it defined the end of the “American Dream” or at least pretending there was such a thing. Anyway, back to the fechting

    athgray
    Member

    Sorry michael. Misinterpreted you there.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Agreed (partially) Duckman, it must be very annoying for politicians who have take the flak for sorting out the errors of their predecessors!!! Especially if this involves addressing levels of debt and interest service?

    He (RR) also slashed spending on education 🙁

    whatnobeer
    Member

    Surely that is something you should be celebrating then – strange how AS keeps complaining that the Yes camp is wrong and you’ll actually have less democracy than they suggest.

    No camp, surely? There will also be more democracy. At least the EMPs are elected and we’ll have a more representative government than the one we have now.

    I just find the stuff coming from the Unionists a bit funny in all is splendid negativity.

    You can’t share the pound. If you did share the pound you’d have no say in it’s running (not much change there then, eh?)

    You definitely wont be allowed in the EU. If they do let you in you’ll need to use the Euro.

    You’ll have no democracy yadda yadda yadda.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    wrote:

    Now that’s what I call spin…….making a comparison of the present situation with an arbitrary point in time which conveniently makes the point you want to make, well done that man!
    It’s not lower now than when the Tories came to power. They have not lowered the tax burden.

    Given that the tax burden also went up when Labour came to power, went up when Maggie came to power, went up when Wilson came to power then presumably the tax burden has been going up continuously since the start of the 70s? The last government which decreased the tax burden when it came to power was Heath’s (according to the Grauniad the tax take was fractionally less under Major than when Maggie got elected, but that’s within the noise – no other government since Heath has got the tax burden to be less than when it came to power). Alternatively, 2010 (and 1978) might be just as much an arbitrary year. It’s hardly unheard of for tax cuts to appear just before an election…

    If you want to avoid picking arbitrary points in time, then it’s clear that the tax burden under this government has never been as high as the peak under the last government.

    bencooper
    Member

    The No campaign’s real trump card is uncertainty. You can’t be sure what’ll happen if you vote Yes, so best play it safe and vote No. It’s a powerful argument, especially when you’re talking about jobs and pensions and the like.

    But they don’t mention two problems with that. The first is that there’s a lot of uncertainty whatever happens – the Barnett Formula is going to be scrapped, and no-one knows what will replace it. We don’t know what will happen at the next election. So much uncertainty either way.

    The second problem is bigger – we do know some things. Austerity will continue as Labour and the Tories are, as with almost everything, in complete agreement on this. The Scottish Parliament will get little or nothing in the way of further powers. We’ll spend £100bn on some new nuclear toys, while the MoD wants to release more radiation into the Clyde. None of the oil money will be saved for the future.

    There’s a lot of hope in a Yes vote, and perhaps some wishful thinking too. But there’s more wishful thinking in a No vote – hoping that Scotland will still get scraps from the UK table, hoping that at best things will stay the same.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Jay C wrote:

    No camp, surely? There will also be more democracy. At least the EMPs are elected and we’ll have a more representative government than the one we have now.

    Sorry, typo.

    Do you really think the EU is more democratic than the UK? 😯 You do realise that a lot of the decisions aren’t made by the MEPs? Are you also ignoring the issue about having no control over the pound if you shared it – surely an “asset” like that is something you’d want to have some control over in a democracy given the influence it would have on your country?

    If you did share the pound you’d have no say in it’s running (not much change there then, eh?)

    Well actually it is, but feel free to ignore the bail out of banks domiciled in Scotland and that the needs of Scotland are currently taken into account as part of monetary policy.

    Are you just getting upset because the reality won’t be quite as set out in the BoD and the No camp are simply pointing that out?

    konabunny
    Member

    You do realise that a lot of the decisions aren’t made by the MEPs?

    You do realize that the vast majority of UK legislation is not made by a parliament, right?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Made by the EU isn’t it? 😉

    Junkyard
    Member

    Unelected unaccountable eurocrats IIRC

    the tax % of GDP is lower now and has been lower for the whole of this government than it was in 2006

    Its obvious that if you want to say they have cut taxes you must say what they were when they came to power, what they were whilst they were in power and what they are now.
    If it is less now than when they took power they have cut it.
    Is it less?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    As I said, the last government to cut taxes on that basis was Heath’s. I’m not making any claims about this government cutting taxes.

    irelanst
    Member

    I just find the stuff coming from the Unionists a bit funny in all is splendid negativity.

    Can the people of Scotland can benefit from a monetary union, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland have a say in its running, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland be in the EU, Yes you can. Can the people of Scotland continue to use the pound, Yes you can.

    Bit more positive? And all things being promoted by the Yes campaign.

    All you have to do is vote No

    bencooper
    Member

    In related news, the Tories have revealed their long-term plans for what they’re doing to help every part of the UK:

    http://longtermplan.org.uk/

    bencooper
    Member

    Can the people of Scotland can benefit from a monetary union

    Quite probably, subject to reasonable negotiation, as it’s been done before.

    Can the people of Scotland have a say in its running

    See above, and have more direct say than we have at the moment.

    Can the people of Scotland be in the EU

    We already are, it’ll be negotiated for us to stay.

    Can the people of Scotland continue to use the pound

    Definitely – there’s no way to stop us.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    If you want to avoid picking arbitrary points in time, then it’s clear that the tax burden under this government has never been as high as the peak under the last government.

    No you are still picking arbitrary points in time to suit your argument. The ‘highest peak’ ever, since that apparently is what interests you, was under a Tory government, Thatcher’s Tory government, when it hit 37.6% of GDP.

    But whether you look at the peaks, or much more realistically the averages, the fact remains that Tory governments do not reduce the tax burden.

    The claim that they do is a Tory myth which you obviously want to perpetuate aracer.

    konabunny
    Member

    Made by the EU isn’t it?

    Appropriate use of Edinburgh Defence.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    wrote:

    No you are still picking arbitrary points in time to suit your argument. The ‘highest peak’ ever, since that apparently is what interests you, was under a Tory government, Thatcher’s Tory government, when it hit 37.6% of GDP.

    Oh, so comparing one government with another is arbitrary because you want to compare all Tory governments with all Labour ones? Remind me which was the last government to actually reduce the tax burden when it came to power if we’re playing that game?

    For the record I’m making or perpetuating any claims about what Tory governments do, simply pointing out the inaccuracies in your spin.

Viewing 40 posts - 2,121 through 2,160 (of 12,715 total)

The topic ‘Osbourne says no to currency union.’ is closed to new replies.