Osbourne says no to currency union.

Home Forum Chat Forum Osbourne says no to currency union.

Viewing 40 posts - 3,321 through 3,360 (of 12,715 total)
  • Osbourne says no to currency union.
  • grum
    Member

    Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it’s perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it’s disgraceful. Ok then. πŸ™„

    bencooper
    Member

    It all depends on whether the story is true or not. Make up some bollocks that in an independent Scotland you wouldn’t be able to watch Eastenders? That’s a scare story. Point out that the cuts are going to get worse – which the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on? That’s a valid warning.

    ninfan
    Member

    Ah, so:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26924027

    ‘UK faces energy blackout risk’ if it doesn’t continue subsidising Scottish renewables after independence is a valid warning πŸ˜†

    bencooper
    Member

    Are you saying that the Ofgem report isn’t true?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    ninfan – Member
    Ah, so:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26924027

    ‘UK faces energy blackout risk’ if it doesn’t continue subsidising Scottish renewables after independence is a valid warning in relation to the Scottish electorate that’s not scaremongering. That’s saying the garden is rosey.

    grum
    Member

    It all depends on whether the story is true or not. Make up some bollocks that in an independent Scotland you wouldn’t be able to watch Eastenders? That’s a scare story. Point out that the cuts are going to get worse – which the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems all agree on? That’s a valid warning.

    But in your mind everything that the Yes campaign says is true, and everything the No campaign (and The Treasury, and the governor of the Bank of England, and economists who don’t agree with you) says is both wrong and part of a sinister conspiracy.

    So a simple ‘yes’ to this would have sufficed.

    Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it’s perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it’s disgraceful. Ok then.

    Premier Icon michaelbowden
    Subscriber

    Is the issue of the BBC rubbish though? Surely the BBC will need to buy any SBC programmes it’s wants to air in the :wink:same way the SBC will the reverse. Sky/Virgin will need additional licences to broadcast programes they have bought in iS.

    So there is the potential for the SBC to either decide or not be able to afford to buy Eastenders or Newsnight in which case it won’t be shown via the SBC in iS.

    It may be unlikely but with only the income from 9M the SBC’s budget it going to be much tighter than when the UK was sharing costs.

    Of course the BBC may decide to give away rights to the programming it’s commissioned and the rights holders to the programming the BBC has bought may decide to allow the BBC to share there programmes with the SBC free of charge…

    Personally I don’t see that a scaremongering just stating simple facts. As a new smaller state there are many things that are shared today that you will have to find/fund yourselves from a much smaller budget. So it is a negative statement demonstrating one small way in which as the UK things are better. Of course you could suggest loosing EE would be a godsend.

    Of course the same is true for rUK but the affect will be much smaller.

    ninfan
    Member

    Are you saying that the Ofgem report isn’t true?

    The Ofgem report wasn’t about the single energy market and Scottish independence, it was the SNP report that quoted it and told us that without a continued single energy market us English would all be reading by torchlight that could best be described as ‘extrapolation of the facts into scaremongering bullshit!’ – a bit like your own example of ‘No Eastenders’ being based on the *fact* that iS would not have the BBC… (still, perhaps you can replace it with a newly commissioned series of ‘take the high road’?)

    in relation to the Scottish electorate that’s not scaremongering. That’s saying the garden is rosey.

    Not if rUK subsidy for iS renewables is withdrawn it isn’t πŸ˜†

    gordimhor
    Member

    It’s interesting that Westminster was so keen to publicise Macphersons “impartial” advice yet Mccrones reoort was classified secret and kept from the public for 30 years.
    The mccrone report

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Well at least there is McCrones book to read – funny that it gets ridiculed on here (unread as far as I can tell) by YS supporters. Is that because it is balanced ie, pros AND cons?

    There are only two questions that need to be examined re debt and neither include shall we/shan’t we.

    1. How will it be split ie, the %s and the method (historic basis, population, ability to pay etc)
    2. What means of fiscal transfer – a one off, clean break or pay equivalent of interest and principal as they fall due. Each has pros and cons for both sides.

    The rest is largely irrelevantly noise (when it comes to debt).

    ninfan
    Member

    A 1974 report?

    really?

    Your ‘proof’ of a conspiracy is the difference between how a report was handled when ABBA won the Eurovision, and now?

    gordimhor
    Member

    I read it knowing Mccrones view on independence . Given his clearly expressed wish to obstruct the pro independence movement it was hard to see him as unbiased.

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    in relation to the Scottish electorate that’s not scaremongering. That’s saying the garden is rosey.
    Not if rUK subsidy for iS renewables is withdrawn it isn’t

    who’s scaremongering now! πŸ˜†

    It’s an interesting point though, the subsidy, Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level, but if they were only there to support scottish energy would that really be required? I mean, scotland does only need a finite amount of energy. There are only 5 million of us.

    btw I don’t believe for a minute that the light on england would go out. It’d not be difficult to organise more energy if required.

    gordimhor
    Member

    I’ll leave the conspiracy theories to you ninfan. I am merely referring to a historical fact .

    If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree.
    Michael Crichton

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Subscriber

    grum – Member
    … claiming we live in a dystopia is ridiculous. And believing that an iS would be radically different is naive.

    I don’t recall in my lifetime seeing such a concentrated attack on the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable unable to defend themselves section of society. It’s a cross party policy. If that’s not dystopia, what is?

    And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

    πŸ˜€

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Subscriber

    teamhurtmore – Member
    “And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.”
    πŸ˜€

    It makes me happy too. Nice to see we agree at last. πŸ™‚

    Anyhow, now I’ve helped you chaps to realise there will be a Nirvana to your North, I must allow you to consider it for a while.

    But don’t worry, I’ll be back in about 2 weeks.

    Did someone say no Eastenders is an independent Scotland?
    That’s meant to get people to vote No??????

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile! If the analysis was half-correct we should all be moving north of the border NOW.

    In the event of an iS, I will miss Roddy Forsyth’s summaries on R5L!!

    Premier Icon sadmadalan
    Subscriber

    And iS will be radically different for the simple reason we will have a democratic process where we are not outnumbered by people who think the poor should be persecuted.

    The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out. In an iS there will be finite levels of spending and at some point there will have to be limits, which means that some people will suffer due to lack of services. It will be impossible to generate enough tax revenue to be able to provide all the services that are being promised

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    sadmadalan – Member
    The reason for the austerity program is that the money had run out.

    aye sure! πŸ˜†

    Reason for austerity is a shift in balance of wealth between different sections of society.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    How does that work?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    teamhurtmore – Member
    How does that work?

    low wages/rising prices for a start.

    Junkyard
    Member

    so if you’re not stupid, what actual real practical difference would it make? Answers not involving too much waffle and soft facts would be preferable.

    Are you really asking us what difference, in terms of the democratic process, it would make to not have yourself governed by those who are unelected and there by birthright…Its monday that one is just so tough πŸ˜‰

    On the other we have Nicholas Macpherson, permanent secretary to the treasury since 2005, under three different chancellors, a long standing senior civil servant, bound by the civil service code – a code of impartiality which has been closely guarded and strictly enforced for many, many years and has proved to be a thorn in the side for senior politicians of all colours on numerous occasions.

    The FOI showed that there was no paper trail and no evidence of this being discussed anywhere before the decisions. I tend to agree he is more impartial but that is, to out it mildyl, very suspicious. certainly if As had done this THM and yourself would be suspicious but as it agrees with you I guess we overlook it right?
    Both sides, being politicians, got the advice they wanted…is anyone really surprised by this?

    Ah, so when a Yes supporter uses scare tactics it’s perfectly fine and reasonable, but when a No supporter does it it’s disgraceful. Ok then

    EVERYONE is doing this on here, including you and ben, and see the example above
    for example

    But in your mind everything that the Yes campaign says is true, and everything the No campaign (and The Treasury, and the governor of the Bank of England, and economists who don’t agree with you) says is both wrong and part of a sinister conspiracy.

    And vice versa- really what is it about this issue that makes every one forth and become so one sided – that is a serious question but I doubt it will get any answer never mind a serious one.

    I am not sure it make me happy, but it certainly makes me smile!

    Whilst he has over egged the pudding it does seem clear that iS will have a different social agenda from the **** in power in Westminster. there are lots of issues we can highlight this in already, tuition fees, care of the elderly etc. It wont be utopia but it sure will [try to] be nicer than this lot.

    konabunny
    Member

    Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

    Why?

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    konabunny – Member
    Scottish windfarms need subsidy on a UK level

    Why?I dunno, That’s why i’m asking. i’d imagine the subsidy for windfarms is upfront to build the things, after that there’s surely a pay back period and them they become profitable? Especially when you are only talking about 5 million people?

    grum
    Member

    I don’t buy the bit about austerity being because the money ran out. We are still a wealthy country. The Tories in fact recently admitted they would continue with austerity indefinitely regardless of our economic position didn’t they?

    However, the SNP only offer a slightly less shit form of neo-liberalism than is available in Westminster. I guess at least that’s something but it’s not a socialist utopia like some seem to think.

    And vice versa- really what is it about this issue that makes every one forth and become so one sided – that is a serious question but I doubt it will get any answer never mind a serious one.

    I’m not really that one-sided. I’m pretty ambivalent about independence – and as I said I used to be fairly pro. I just see an awful lot of bollocks being talked and it’s mainly coming from the Yes camp on here. I’m just trying to look at the evidence in as rational a way as possible.

    Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11? πŸ™‚

    I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical – but that doesn’t mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn’t make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

    I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

    Wisdom comes with age Grum, embrace it!!!! πŸ˜‰

    Tories, LD and labour are all proponents of achieving a budgets surplus at some stage – are labour remembering their Keynesian roots? (The EU also has a newish fiscal compact). The difference is essentially one of timing not substance. IS will face exactly the same challenges and policies will be broadly the same – why? Not just because they make sense (largely) but because control of monetary and fiscal policy will (again largely) lie in the hands of the gov in Westminster. The elephant in the room may be getting older, but it isn’t getting any smaller. By design yS want the key levers of power to remain in Westminster. They hide it well, but the “fact” remains.

    “He who controls the currency, controls the country.” Not even Antipodean actors nor saltire face paints can’t alter that truism.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    junkyard wrote:

    Are you really asking us what difference, in terms of the democratic process, it would make to not have yourself governed by those who are unelected and there by birthright.

    Is that waffle or soft fact? You see I’m not really sure how much difference it makes to the man on the street whether or not there’s some unelected part of government if it doesn’t actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

    Though actually on reflection I’m with Northwind on this – I’m sure you won’t be keen on the source, but here’s an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100266816/the-house-of-lords-alone-in-parliament-defends-the-british-traditions-of-humanity-freedom-and-justice/

    So in answer to epicyclo’s question, the problem with democracy is that it brings with it a very short term attitude as members are always looking to the next election and not necessarily any further. Though I’m not sure why I need to point that out given I thought there was broad agreement from both sides of this debate about that being a problem.

    Oh and BTW I doubt the 92 there by birthright could actually “govern” us to any significant extent even if they tried – not when they make up only about 12% of the house.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    grum wrote:

    Can you imagine how much it pains me to be agreeing with THM and Z-11?

    Well you’re also agreeing with ernie if that helps.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    aracer – Member

    Though actually on reflection I’m with Northwind on this – I’m sure you won’t be keen on the source, but here’s an article pointing out that the HoL does a useful job

    Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We’ve got our own fix for that though.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Northwind wrote:

    Lets put a wee disclaimer on that- I agree the HoL currently has a useful job to do, because the House of Commons has become a disaster. We’ve got our own fix for that though.

    Ah – this is the one about you having better politicians than we have? πŸ˜†

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    More that we have a better electorate πŸ˜‰

    sbob
    Member

    Northwind – Member

    More that we have a better electorate

    An electorate that is in favour of the union? πŸ˜€

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    sbob – Member
    An electorate that is in favour of the union?*

    *subject to referendum, not polls.

    sbob
    Member

    If you don’t think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them. πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    sbob – Member
    If you don’t think the polls hold weight, you should suggest to your comrades to stop referring to them.

    I’m a one man campaign! πŸ˜€

    Junkyard
    Member

    I have no doubt that the No campaign is pathetically cynical – but that doesn’t mean anything negative about independence is untrue, and it doesn’t make the Yes campaign a beacon of truth and honesty.

    You mean both sides are politicians – This argument works both ways fpr both sides yet you chose only one side to say it…….just like every other person.

    I genuinely don’t think I’ve ever seen bencooper admit there could be any potential negative consequences of independence, except possibly those that would be caused by malicious action on the part of the rUK

    Are you saying THM and ernie are not doing the same? They argued that the economic future of iS was unknown [true] and yet stay silent when I ask them if rUk will be in the EU in 5 years time for example. Ie neither economic future is known.
    Both sides seem to be doing this and who you choose to focus on is just saying which way you would vote – i would say the same to Ben but he is already fighting enough battles without me wading in πŸ˜‰

    if it doesn’t actually make any difference to the decisions being made.

    So you are argument is that the unelected peers dont actually affect the legislation……not hard to show they do have [ limited] power is it.

    Your right folk dont care…unless they are foreign ones in the EU then its undemocratic but the Queen ,lords and the bishops …well that is tradition innit πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon seosamh77
    Subscriber

    Both sides seem to be doing this

    in fairness I do argue that no one knows anything beyond the short term! πŸ™‚

Viewing 40 posts - 3,321 through 3,360 (of 12,715 total)

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