Osbourne says no to currency union.

Home Forum Chat Forum Osbourne says no to currency union.

Viewing 40 posts - 3,161 through 3,200 (of 12,715 total)
  • Osbourne says no to currency union.
  • Premier Icon oldnpastit
    Subscriber

    Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn’t.

    Isn’t the reason for this change to split up the UK so that the rUK gets a permanent right-wing bias, while making Scotland weak enough that it could either be boughtpicked off later, or be irrelevant.

    I’d assumed all that stuff about left-wing, independence, etc, was just a smoke screen to fool enough people north of the border to fall in line.

    bencooper
    Member

    Isn’t the reason for this change to split up the UK so that the rUK gets a permanent right-wing bias, while making Scotland weak enough that it could either be boughtpicked off later, or be irrelevant.

    We’ve done this before – Scotland is too small to have much influence in UK general elections.

    If being irrelevant means we can quietly get on with our lives instead of being dragged into illegal wars, then fine with me.

    tightywighty
    Member

    bencooper – Member

    We’ve done this before – Scotland is too small to have much influence in UK general elections.

    If being irrelevant means we can quietly get on with our lives instead of being dragged into illegal wars, then fine with me.

    Which war(s)?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    duckman – Member

    Ernie,being governed by a left leaning government we vote for is better than being governed by a right wing one we didn’t.

    That deserves a comment because no one can deny that it would appear to be a fairly reasonable point. What it does however is ignore the conditions which created this paradox. There is little doubt that much of reason for the relentless growth of the anti-Tory vote in Scotland has been the reaction to Westminster rule.

    After all 60 years ago 50% of Scots voted Tory and the Conservatives had an extremely solid base in Scotland where clearly many Scots shared their “values”.

    So what happened ? Well the Thatcher-Major years had catastrophic consequences for the Tories in Scotland., and had there been no Conservative governments in Westminster during that period there is little doubt that the Tory vote in Scotland would have held up much better.

    The SNP have exploited this Scottish anti-Tory sentiment of recent decades to their very fullest advantage and the party once dubbed “the tartan Tories” have attempted to place clear-blue water between themselves and Westminster Tories by paying lip service to vaguely left-wing policies which they know will appeal to Tory-weary Scots.

    But as their economic policies show they are still instinctively right-wing, and their mixture of neoliberalism and social-democracy is totally unsustainable.

    Remove “the Westminster factor” and the lopsided political inbalance in Scotland will, like all comparable countries, revert to form, specially as the wide appeal of SNP’s neoliberalism with social-democratic universal welfare values shows that the argument against free-market capitalism hasn’t been won.

    Furthermore “left leaning governments” as you call them, are quite pointless if they can’t deliver real tangible results which benefit ordinary working people. Those who argue for a separate Scotland have failed to provide any compelling evidence that this the most likely consequence of a Yes vote. Or that increased devolved power under a framework of strength and fully integrated cooperation won’t achieve these real tangible results in favour of ordinary people.

    The best they appear to be offering is “if things get worse at least it will be us who are in charge”, which isn’t the most convincing argument – specially as a return to the previous status quo will be completely out of the question.

    The case for radical federalism in the UK is extremely strong imo. The case for a separate Scotland in contrast is very weak, in fact I’m surprised just how weak it is after looking at the arguments of those who argue in favour of it.

    .

    duckman – Member

    we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

    And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    The case for radical federalism in the UK is extremely strong imo. The case for a separate Scotland in contrast is very weak, in fact I’m surprised just how weak it is after looking at the arguments of those who argue in favour of it.

    Radical federalism isn’t and won’t happen though. I could maybe be persuaded by that. But at the moment all we have is a promise of more powers that can be taken back on a whim.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    duckman – Member
    we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

    And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny.Independence is an unknown, imagination will be required to get the best from it.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    ernie_lynch – Member

    So what happened ? Well the Thatcher-Major years had catastrophic consequences for the Tories in Scotland.,

    Nice analysis except that cause traditionally comes before effect, we didn’t vote for Thatcher either- by then it’d already been almost 25 years since we’d voted for the tories. Thatcher’s second term was actually the most succesful election for the Tories in Scotland in the last 40 years!

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Thatcher’s second term was actually the most succesful election for the Tories in Scotland in the last 40 years!

    Actually that’s not true – the Tory vote in Scotland fell throughout Thatcher’s premiership. The Tory vote in Scotland was lower in 1983 than it had been in 1979.

    It did make a very slight recovery when Major first become leader of the Conservatives, before plummeting again to levels far lower than even under Thatcher.

    The Thatcher-Major years proved to be catastrophic for the Tories in Scotland, I’m not sure how anyone could suggest otherwise.

    .

    EDIT :

    we didn’t vote for Thatcher either- by then it’d already been almost 25 years since we’d voted for the tories.

    The Tory vote in Scotland picked up significantly after Thatcher become leader of the Conservative Party, it was only the experience of Thatcher’s premiership that drove Scots away from the Tories.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    1929 22/74
    1931 50/74
    1935 35/72
    1945 41.8% 30/72
    1950 44.8% 31/70
    1951 48.6% 35/72
    1955 50.1% 36/72
    1959 47.3% 31/72
    1964 40.6% 24/72
    1966 37.7% 20/72
    1970 38.0% 23/72
    1974 32.9% 21/72 (Feb)
    1974 24.7% 16/72 (Oct)
    1979 31.4% 22/72
    1983 28.4% 21/72
    1987 24.0% 10/72
    1992 25.8% 11/72
    1997 17.5% 0/72
    2001 15.6% 1/72
    2005 15.8% 1/59
    2010 16.7% 1/59

    quite interesting looking at the decline of the tories mind.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Northwind – Member
    didn’t vote for Thatcher either-

    looks like quite a jump for thatchers first vote, still not a majority, but interesting all the same.

    edit: possibly a reaction to the state of labour at the end of the 70s.

    I don’t personally believe there are no tories in Scotland, just that they are clearly detached from westminster.

    I’d predict an independent Scottish tory party would see a rise in votes.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    You’re right enough Ernie, I was getting my years mixed up. I was one at the time 😉 But ’83 was still a decent performance.

    And the point is, the decline of toryism in Scotland started in the 50s. Yes it took a huge fall in 97 in terms of seats but in terms of percentage votes you’re looking at a pretty continuous decline- a surprisingly tidy one in fact.

    So the death of scottish toryism can’t be blamed on fatcher by any stretch. Actually she gave them a brief rally in a long-term decline which then returned to the mean. And the wipeout can’t really be blamed on her or Major for the same reason (actually I suppose it can be blamed on FPTP)

    GEDA
    Member

    Wonder what effect a Scottish breakaway, as it’s not really independence, will have on the rest of the UK? A bit of shock, then what? More or less domination by London?

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Those figures are really interesting seosamh. I had no idea that when Labour won its historical 1945 landslide victory Scotland had bucked the trend and were far more supportive of Tories than the rest of the UK.

    According to your figures in 1945 41.8% of Scots voted Tory and yet the figure for the Tory vote in all of the UK was 36.1%. Bearing in mind that is an average figure for the whole of the UK including Scotland, the difference between support for the Tories in Scotland and support for the Tories in England and Wales was obviously fairly significant.

    Something worth remembering I reckon when people claim that the Scottish vote in UK general elections is detrimental to the Tories and yet allegedly vital to Labour.

    I knew that in recent decades Labour had only very rarely needed the Scottish vote to form a majority in Westminster as this shows :

    I just hadn’t realised that Labour’s lack of dependency on the Scottish vote went that far back.

    Every day’s a school day, eh ? 🙂

    ninfan
    Member

    Very interesting stats there – would be interesting to look at where they had gone to – is there a corresponding rise in the other parties (the rise of the SDP/LD?)

    duckman
    Member

    Ah Ernie,still trolling using selective posting?

    Duckman – Member
    That we get from being a department of Westminster PLC

    And that comment provides an excellent illustration of how the Yessers rely on emotive and highly imaginative language to provoke a reaction in their favour, rather than going through the process of providing a carefully thought out argument which is then subject to scrutiny

    You could have read the rest of that sentence of course,let me remind you..

    It can’t be any worse than HS2 being of “national importance” or the bedroom tax that we get from being a department of Westminster PLC recently. I suspect if you lived up here and had a say,your opinion would be rather different.

    I assume they missed the cut because you can’t you deny they suit the South of England much more anybody else?

    But you are clearly grasping at straws,which you go on to demonstrate by telling us that if it wasn’t for the Tories,the SNP MIGHT fill the role. Is that the best you can do? Despite the fact you clearly understand the Tories have been declining in Scotland for 60 years. You know what,if it is convenient for you to ignore the concept of us having the potential to make ourselves a better,fairer country by writing us off as either anti-English or blind,carry on. At the end of the day your opposition to independence is not based on a worry for the consequences for the Scots anymore than THM’s

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Really?

    And just as the thread was coming back to something interesting…….

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    You could have read the rest of that sentence of course,let me remind you..

    Yeah I read the rest of the sentence, I was more interested in your claim that Scotland is “a department of Westminster PLC”.

    It’s silly comments like that which shows how Yessers like yourself are more interested in provoking a reaction than engaging in sensible debate.

    And of course the irony is that you accuse me of “trolling”.

    duckman
    Member

    I would suggest that selectively posting is trying to provoke a reaction. The mods would probably agree,that’s why they warn and ban you so often.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    I’ve been warned of “selectively posting” ? That’s news to me. And btw since you’ve brought it up I’ve only received one ban/warning since Sept 2012.

    So anyway, what’s all this got to do with currency union/Scottish independence/this thread ? Nothing really, you just fancied a personal attack on me, eh ?

    Which kind of betrays how weak your argument is if you have to resort to those sort of tactics 💡

    duckman
    Member

    Fair enough,mentioning your “gardening leave” was a cheap shot,sorry.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Nice one, I appreciate that….thanks 8)

    Well it looks like a currency union actually has a lot of support in England.
    Scotland to keep the pound?

    ninfan
    Member

    Well it looks like a currency union actually has a lot of support in England.

    23% versus 58% against?

    Edit: )strange, the Guardian headline doesn’t seem to reflect the Yougov poll data that they link to? ) http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/16/opposition-currency-union-rises-sharply-england-an/

    duckman
    Member

    A currency union isn’t long term independence,it would be handy short term while we found our feet. It’s the single biggest issue surrounding Indy,certainly thus far and that’s why we have 3500 posts mostly on it.While I think there would be horse trading done on it post yes,it is an issue neither side can shift on until Sept. Despite sbob’s extensive research that had never uncovered a yes voter,I would suggest it is the “dinnae kens” that will decide it. The no campaign handled the currency issue very poorly,the coordinated nature of each party refusing union was seen as bullying up here despite Salmond having no response,so still all to play for. The side that wins the middle wins,but then it has ever been thus in politics. As a wee aside,I dont know anybody who be polled,and that is asking folk in the central belt.

    bencooper
    Member

    It’s the single biggest issue surrounding Indy

    It’s the single biggest issue for the No-led media – talking to people, both Yes and No, I get the impression that it’s a side issue. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks that some kind of agreement would have to be reached, and even the No people I’ve talked to think that it was very badly handled.

    Most people, though, are more interested in other issues. Yes people are interested in getting rid of Trident, getting rid of the worst austerity measures, creating a more democratic government, and involving more people in politics. No people are more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    A currency union isn’t long term independence,it would be handy short term while we found our feet.

    So what’s proposed for the long term then – the Euro ? Scottish currency ? voters have the right to know. After all if the intention is to make Scotland part of the Euro Zone it’s likely to affect the way people vote.

    Or is that why Yes Scotland appear to be deliberately fudging the issue ?

    bencooper
    Member

    What’s the UK currency going to be in 20 years? Voters have the right to know.

    There is uncertainty whichever way the vote goes – and whichever way it goes, no-one can predict the long-term consequences. There’s only two things we can be sure about with independence:

    – it puts control of Scotland in the hands of people who live here.

    – Scotland has the resources – human, mineral, financial – to manage fine on its own.

    Everything else is down to party policies. Who knows, after independence the Scottish Tories might have a sudden massive resurgence, win control of Holyrood, and privatise the air we breathe. Though probably not 😉

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    What’s the UK currency going to be in 20 years? Voters have the right to know.

    Well it’s pretty clear what the answer to that question is – £ sterling. Why wouldn’t it be ffs ?

    You know if the people of the UK were being asked to weigh up the pros and cons of the UK becoming an independent nation then they would be entitled to know what that would entail. Why wouldn’t they be ffs ? At the risk of repeating myself.

    But the UK is already an independent sovereign state so those questions aren’t relevant.

    ninfan
    Member

    – Scotland has the resources – human, mineral, financial – to manage fine on its own.

    So why are they so keen on keeping so many things ‘shared’ after independence? currency union, single energy market etc?

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    because they want some kind of faux independance where they can continue blaming ‘the english’ for all their problems while the rest of the uk continues to underpin their economy.
    as this goes on it just looks to me more like the snp have the vote due to the ( understandable ) dissatisfaction with the 2.5 party system we have in the UK ( like the rest of us are particularly chuffed with it! ). the scots are prepared to put the snp in power but i don’t believe prepared to secede from the union when it comes down to it.
    whatever happens, good luck everyone.

    duckman
    Member

    Del – Member
    because they want some kind of faux independance where they can continue blaming ‘the english’ for all their problems while the rest of the uk continues to underpin their economy.

    Any evidence of this underpining of our economy that the rest of the UK currently does?

    In response to Ben Cooper.

    Currency union is the joint third most important issue to people in Scotland behind the economy and NHS based on a recent poll. So people in Scotland are not “more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that“.
    You can bury your head in the sand about this issue all you want but the poll in the guardian I linked to earlier suggests support for a currency union in the rest of the UK simply does not exist. You say that “Everyone I’ve talked to thinks that some kind of agreement would have to be reached“, it doesn’t sound like you have talked to many non-Scots about this then. If a currency union is put to the people in the rest of the UK in a referendum it will not pass. The fact that there is no plan b shows the plan for an independent Scotland is poorly thought out.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    I sincerly hope the no campaign continue the currency issue as their number one card, It’ll drive no voters away the longer it goes on. no-one believes osborne.

    Anyhow, to change the subject, giving Salmonds recent comments that a yes vote isn’t about the SNP and he could easily see a labour government installed as the first government post referendum.

    Do you think that given the love/hate relationship that the nation has with Salmond that he has a bit of a trumph card he could play in the month or 2 before the vote?

    Ie. he could easily announce that he wouldn’t stand for the 2016 elections and will stand down after the negotiations(I would want him involved in the negotiations).

    I reckon this would have the effect creating a slight swing towards yes tbh, as Salmond supporters are more likely to be entrenched in the view that yes is the right way forward. And it may likely have the result that a barrier to a yes vote is lifted for some no voters.

    Just with the recent comments from Salmond that the talks post referendum will be cross party and that their could well be a labour government, it seems to me that as the campaigning starts to ramp up over the next few months(it is only just getting started, why the currency issue will be fairly irrelevant in the coming months imo, it’s been brought up too soon). I reckon there will be a move away from what has so far been a campaign of individuals.

    Anyhow, thoughts?

    Junkyard
    Member

    voters have the right to know. After all if the intention is to make Scotland part of the Euro Zone it’s likely to affect the way people vote.

    Cuts both ways will rUK be in the EU or not in 20 years? What trade arrangements will it have if they leave? Etc
    Its almost like the future is not completely known or predictable but you use it to attack only the side you dislike

    Its really not helpful but its equally true which ever way you opt to vote.

    gordimhor
    Member

    Fasternotfatter I think Ben was referring to unionists when he said

    No people are more interested in our shared history, our combined international reputation and influence, things like that

    Does the guardian poll give figures for yes supporters regarding currency union?

    gordimhor
    Member

    Actually there’s nothing in the guardian article to support your claim that

    Currency union is the joint third most important issue to people in Scotland

    Are you referring to a different recent poll and if so can you link to it? 

    Premier Icon Del
    Subscriber

    Any evidence of this underpining of our economy that the rest of the UK currently does?

    perhaps i phrased this poorly but i was referring to currency union in the future, rather than any support that scotland has/does receive as part of the UK.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    Its almost like the future is not completely known or predictable but you use it to attack only the side you dislike

    Of course the future isn’t always known or predictable, but that’s not we’re talking about here. Bencooper claims that currency union isn’t the long term plan, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask what the long term plan actually is, although you apparently don’t think so.

    No one is asking anyone to gaze into a crystal ball. The question being asked is merely what the plans are. Just like everyone knows that the UK’s long term plans are to retain an independent currency and not join the the Euro.

    Of course things change, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in 20 years the UK will still have its own independent currency. So what currency is it reasonable to assume that an “independent” Scotland will have in 20 years ?

    A perfectly reasonable question which deserves a perfectly reasonable answer.

    It’s rare for me to agree with David Cameron but there is no denying that when he claims that Alex Salmond is “a man without a plan” he appears to hit the nail right on the head.

    And btw it’s not a question of me “disliking” any side (well done for trying to keep it personal) 🙄 It’s a question of me expecting people to be both open and honest, whatever “side” they’re on – a reasonable expectation. That’s why I don’t hesitate to attack Lord Robertson when he makes ludicrous claims that a Yes vote will facilitate the end of Western civilization as we know it.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    You are asking to know what the party in power in 20 years time is? If the people decide, we could change the currency every 4/5 years if we like.

    The plan has been set out in the short term, currency union is preferred, if that doesn’t happen well it’s likely the pound will be used pegged to the pound imo.

    beyond that is pure speculation and entirely dependent on the party in power.

    Why is it difficult to understand, the plan isn’t completely set, it cannot be completely set until the scottish people start voting, you know, that thing called democracy.

    But you continue to ask for a long term plan? Are you kidding yourself on? because you aren’t kidding us on, only your fellow pedants..

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    You are asking to know what the party in power in 20 years time is?

    Er, no. No one knows which government will be in power in Westminster in 20 years time but everyone knows that the plan is to still have the £.

    But you continue to ask for a long term plan?

    Bencooper freely volunteered the information that the long term plan isn’t currency union. So it’s reasonable to ask what it is.

    The answer I get is that no one knows, because apparently no one can plan for the future. However, and this one’s a little beauty, even though it is allegedly impossible to know the future we apparently know that the future won’t include currency union !

    Now you might not see the contradiction there and the dodgy ducking and diving to avoid answering a perfectly reasonable question, but unfortunately for you many will. Which presumably helps to explain why the latest news suggests that the Yes campaign has stalled.

Viewing 40 posts - 3,161 through 3,200 (of 12,715 total)

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