Osbourne says no to currency union.

A deal on Faslane would be acceptable to me as well. Lots of tricky negotiations required in the event of a yes vote. I suspect this “leak”on currency union might well be the first “feeler”

TJ salutes your dislike of Nuclear weapons

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of scotland even though they are not.

rUK cannot build a new base in the timescale even if they wanted to and they dont given no one knows what will replace it or even if something will replace it.

FWIW the unaamed source [ lets call him VInce – THM will be delighted to have both AS and Uncle vince in his headlights] is given more weight due to
1. Confirmation bias
2. It is likely a govt minister so high enough up the pole to have an opinion that matters and it supports the Yes notion that it is still on the table/ the no campaign lie

NW, WNB, Duckman,

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you’ve still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it’s OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW’s words, a policy that’s

‘been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ‘ ?

Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work – would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?

It wouldn’t really be under control of scotland, I’d imagine it’d just be a land lease deal, ie the base would become rUK territory.

plus blockading a nuclear sub, if things every got that bad, it’s potentially not the most sensible thing in the world to do! 😆 If we’re dealing in fantasy, might as well go the whole hog! 😆

Having to invade to get your nukes back isn’t exactly the ideal solution, though 😀

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you’ve still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

And why it’s OK, according to a named SNP source for AS/SNP to back-track on, in NW’s words, a policy that’s

‘been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. ‘ ?

I’m not sure there’s really much to explain from us because I’m not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you’re trying to pick a fight where there isn’t one to be had.

Because I suspect that as pointed out by McJunkyard from about page 3, it was always about negotiation. Long term England will build a base for her subs,as pointed out above. The negotiations will be about give and take,bluff and counter bluff,was the announcement(which has backfired,and not by a little) any different? Time will tell.

michaelbowden – Member
Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?

I’m not quite a Yes supporter, but do accept that continuing Trident is a possibility.

In fact, I’m thinking that the deal will probably be a bit of debt+Trident, with favourable terms for the debt repayment (maybe zero-rated.) Not basing this on anything other than what we all use, some intuition and long-term observations of politics in general.

As I said in an earlier post, our American friends are certain to have made overtures already.

As an indication of whether I could be right or not, look out for pronouncements on National Security ramp up in the next few months. I expect AS will make noises like “Scotland’s position in geopolitics is such that we must accept our responsibilities, viz in the light of current Russian behaviour” or similar, to soften us all up!

I suspect the commitment will remain but the soil will become technically rUK or some such deal to enable AS to spin it as nukes out of Scotland even though they are not.

That or some convenient wording that involves the exact interpretation of ‘based in’ or ‘visiting’ (don’t ask, don’t tell)

I strongly suspect that the vice will be applied over NATO membership

I’m not sure there’s really much to explain from us because I’m not sure any of us did say that one source is more reliable than the other? You sound like you’re trying to pick a fight where there isn’t one to be had.

Not trying to pick a fight and my comments were’nt aimed at you three in particular, you just happened reply to my post. But if you look back to page 73 through 75 seems to be the position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).

To answer your question, I personally don’t believe a word that comes out of the no campaign.

Plus I don’t particularly believe the currency is all that important, it’ll be made to work regardless.

Its a good point Michael.

Interesting to see the way this thread is going….initially, some heavily entrenched opinions. And over time, lots of give and take, and maybe even some flexibility on stance.

There are still a few who seem to have some quite fixed ideas, I suppose. I wonder how representative this will be of the UK in general?

McJunkyard

Do i get my own tartan? 😉

http://www.scotweb.co.uk/tartan/Bargain-Booze/54036

No really Bargain Booze do have their own tartan

Vince Cable, if he is the mole rather than Hammond, normally behaves like this when he is losing a point not when it is policy. Rather desperate thing to cling to anyway.

While I can understand folk note being able to get their head around/understand currencies and debt, especially when you have someone like AS deliberately lying about them, swallowing the garbage on trident requires an extraordinary level of gullibility. One can take whatever view one wants on the merits or otherwise of Trident and on the policy of maintaing the current level of defence spending as a %age of GDP (but on conventional weapons etc), but to think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” equates to no nukes in Scotland is like saying that Celtic is a club supported largely by Protestants!

Ducks. Better that way than getting indigestion but busy weekend and enjoyed lurking for a while. 😉

Tbh THM I think I preferred you when you were eating your tea. The constant playing of the man and none too subtle attempts at insulting out intelligence have gotten boring. As have the arguments about the nukes that have already been had. Maybe we should all leave the thread alone until something new comes up to discuss.

Imagine what it’s like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is for real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man’s BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it’s quite important.

I am not pro-nukes, simple honest enough to say that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a mile away from the idea that Scotland will be nuke free. (Fittingly) That is simply deceit (IMO).

Well if you are going to get lumped in with the rest of us…I will see your bargain Booze tartan (corporate) and raise you the Cornish national tartan…

Imagine what it’s like having a national politician doing the same thing WNB?. Unlike a MTB forum, that is a real, with proper and serious consequences.

This is a thread about a man (Osborne) that morphed into one about another (the deceitful one) and others. My focus has remained v much on one man’s BS and that of his sidekick. He is doing harm to Scotland and rUK, so it’s quite important.

The difference is they’re professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other. It devalues the debate and shows up your bias.

Osborne is constantly ridiculed for not having the qualifications or experience to lead the economy, never mind his actual policies, yet you’re quite happy to accept his word as gospel and only challenge AS?

It’s boring and doesn’t seem to be convincing anyone.

seosamh77 – Member

position of the Yes supporters who were posting. (BenCooper, gordimor, seaosamh77 etc).
To answer your question, I personally don’t believe a word that comes out of the no campaign.

So why is the YES campaign more believable? They are all politicians so by defult all liars. The YES campaign (AS in particular) has far more to gain by lying to win independence.

Is the SNP source that leaked the story about Trident a liar or are AS/SNP? One or the other is.

Plus I don’t particularly believe the currency is all that important, it’ll be made to work regardless.

I agree iS will make something work, but it will be a compromise compared to what you have now.

My personal opinion is that the UK is stronger as a single entity, but if you want independence, feel free to have it. BUT that should mean independence.

WNB, shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made of GOs policies. But if it helps to make a false point, feel free.

In the case of independence, AS’s BS and deceit reaches a level that so overshadows anything else (hence the impressive list of bullies and blusterers across such a wide spectrum of politics, business, economics and societies that he is able to cite) that it is very difficult not to be ever-so-slightly ( 😉 ) biased against him. I am in very good company in that respect though. Some pretty impressive folk on that list.

The degree of yS BS is boring, I granted you that, although impressive (in a depressing way) that so many swallow it. Still look at Farrage!

seosamh77 – Member

So why is the YES campaign more believable?i don’t particularly believe them all that much either. I’m a yes voter for better or worse. On the 2 big points, EU and currency, I do side with the SNP. I believe there will be a CU and we will get into the EU without much bother(rather we won’t actually leave it and 2 new states will be accommodated within existing structures).

I’m not particularly nationalist either. I just think that Westminster has had it’s day and we should try something different.

THM has a point- character drives plot. Insight into character can help predict outcome.

BUT!!!!

…..these days, these characters have the most carefully managed public personas outside of movie actors. I don’t think any of us can really say we know them. Not when what we know of them is through TV, radio, and the rest.

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements. If you need historical reference, look how divisions of territories go post-conflict. If its working right, nobody gets all they want, everyone must flex, and a bitter taste is there ever-after 🙂

teamhurtmore – Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Examples ?

michaelbowden – Member

OK I can understand your views on Faslane and the cost of Trident etc, but you’ve still not explained why one anonymous source is more reliable than,

The Treasury, The Bank of England and the 3 main Party Leaders who all say that a CU is a bad idea for rUK and therefore will not happen.

The party leaders are all politically on the side of union. (also, there’s only actually 2 party leaders there, you’ve got Cameron, Milliband, then Cameron sticking his hand up Clegg’s arse and making it look like his mouth is moving).

So that comes back to credibility- people (45% of people, according to some polls) believe that their stance is simply politically expedient and designed to push a No agenda. Whether true or not it’s undeniably plausible, method and motive.

And of course the Treasury are a government department, so effectively what you’re saying is “The UK government, the UK government and the UK government all agree with themselves and say that the thing that’s most likely to keep the UK together is the only option”. I’m never that convinced when an office publically agrees with its boss.

Mark Carney steadfastly refuses to rule it out, he’s on a different script. (I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that Carney’s unexpectedly open verdict after his visit to Scotland, and the associated boost to the Yes vote, was immediately followed by Osborne’s declaration)

Actually Carney simple stated the facts and what his role as Gov of the BOE is and perhaps more importantly what his role “isn’t”. Quite an assertion about the role of HM Treasury NW!!

To be fair to Uncle Vince (5/2/14)

His comment comes a week after Bank of England governor Mark Carney said currency sharing is possible with the right foundations, such as a strong banking union.

Mr Cable said: “The plan B is a fully separate currency. The logic of what the governor and other people have spelled out is that the problems of a currency union with an independent Scotland are so difficult, so tricky, that it would almost certainly prove to be in Scotland’s interests – and indeed the rest of the UK – that Scotland did have its own currency.

“Of course, that would create a whole wave of other problems. It would create a barrier to trade across the Scottish border, as different currencies tend to do, and the problems of managing a fluctuating exchange rate in a country that is very dependent on raw materials.

…he is one of the few who at least acknowledges that all currency choices have pros and cons. Still quite a jumpy from Feb to now, if true, even by Liberal Democrat standards.

teamhurtmore – Member

shame that you chose to ignore the regular criticisms that I have made if GOs policies.

Yer arse you have!

Not hard to see why yS will attempt to ridicule Sir Nick Macpherson. He was a bit open in his comments wasn’t he?

UK would become increasingly misaligned in the medium term. Of course, if the Scottish Government had demonstrated a strong commitment to a rigorous fiscal policy in recent months, it might be possible to discount this. But recent spending and tax commitments by the Scottish Government point in the opposite direction, as do their persistently optimistic projections of North Sea revenues, which are at odds not just with the Treasury but with the Office of Budget Responsibility and other credible independent forecasters

Pah, bluster from the “so-called” independents. It’s nae true, I tell thee.

[still judging by the FT now, sounds like the mole could simply be someone pre-warning what darling was about to come out with]

Trust me, if it goes to yes, its bodies in a room, round a table, doors closed, and no-one can predict the outcome despite the current public pronouncements.

I’m afraid I’m unconvinced. With Westminster elections in May 2015, any U turn is likely to be used by opposition parties for electoral gain. Gov’t won’t be prepared to take that risk so the line publicly and inside negotiations (lest there be a leak) will be the current policy. At least until after May 2015, by which time any Westminster Govt will have had a chance to include in Westminster manifesto what it will / won’t do in iS / rUK negotiations.

FTFY[/quote]

The big assumption there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up 😉

whatnobeer – Member
The difference is they’re professional liars, yet are able to discuss things without throwing petty insults about each other.

Ok not a petty insult but Darling’s comments today come pretty close (FT today)

Mr Darling strongly criticised Ms Sturgeon’s view, saying she “patently doesn’t understand what a currency union is”.

Harsh, but fair.

Michaelbowden I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote. I would like to get rid of the all the nukes but am prepared to compromise . I think Salmond will compromise on Trident but will find it a hard sell to his party so would look for a very good deal after a yes vote. I am one of the 45% of Scots who just did not believe Osbornes statement on currency union. I have been a nationalist for a long time though not an SNP member and believe that Scotland govern itself and would like currency union if one can be agreed but only as stepping stone to either the euro or a Scottish currency.

I have no doubt that Trident could be part of the negotiations after a yes vote.

So was Alex lying yesterday when he said:

“We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation”.

?

It’s called changing your mind Z-11. Although I’m not sure why anyone would trust someone who changes their mind in such a dramatic manner.

EDIT : Sorry I misread your post Z-11. Ignore that.

Ninfan its just a negotiating position the same as

Osbourne says no to currency union.

“That is not up for negotiation” is a negotiating position? 😆

Salmond could stick to his principles and include Faslane in his don’t ask, don’t tell policy.He could leave Trident where it is, and close his eyes whenever he drives past.

Yes athgray he could. It would need to be a really good offer from rUK to make that happen though 😉

My focus has remained v much on one man’s BS and that of his sidekick

You say that like is is a good thing 😕
Your hatred and contempt for him and all he is says is not a strength
surely the constant comments from folk on here for you to refrain must make you see this ?

there would be that I like Sir BS of Gideon and Sir BS of balls-up

Fair point perhaps we should all declare who our favourite is from that shower of politicians …shudders

“That is not up for negotiation” is a negotiating position?

He is a politician but I have to agree it was foolish to say that and I do not believe him for one second.

ninfan – Member
“That is not up for negotiation” is a negotiating position?

no, its a campaigning position. Vastly different from a negotiating position. The duality of politicians isn’t exactly a new thing. What they say and do often don’t tally, helped along with the fact that the vast majority of electorates have a memory span of a week if you are lucky.

It would be very odd for RUK to put Faslane and CU at the top of the negotiation list right now. In both cases they hold the aces to yS deuces. Playing the deuce on currency (ie the silly idea that you walk away on debt) harms Scotland more that UK, and the Falsane Fudge (“DA,DT”) is already in place to keep NATO “on side” so yS has played its hand there too.

RUK just needs to keep quiet and let yS continue to prove the NO case itself. Hold onto your winners until you need them.