Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Wythenshawe: To maintain momentum today UKIP needs a good s

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited February 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Wythenshawe: To maintain momentum today UKIP needs a good second place with a vote share well above 20 percent

Unlike Labour, RESPECT and the Lib Dems Nigel Farage’s UKIP has not won a Westminster by-election during this parliament. It has been regularly, as the chart shows, getting second places and in three of the last five by-elections it has chalked up vote shares of more than 20%.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Nobody is predicting that it can win today but ...

    Er, except for 3 people in the PB predikshun competition
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (OT) If their names are Deirdre Kelly and Samora Roberts, why are the dumbed-down prole-feed media referring to them as "White Dee" and "Black Dee"? And why is a level of public consciousness about this "Benefits Street" programme being allowed to leak out to contaminate the brains of us normal people? Shouldn't they build some sort of filtering system to quarantine such TV-gunge so that only the morons who watch it are able to be aware of it?

    Incidentally, I think UKIP will come 3rd.
  • I don't think it matters too much to UKIP. To the extent that people notice the by-election they'll be watching who wins, not who comes second and by how much. They were never really in contention here, but they'll have more promising opportunities if the Tories end up with a seat to defend.

    I think I'd favour UKIP to beat Con, although not with any confidence.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    I don't think it matters too much to UKIP. To the extent that people notice the by-election they'll be watching who wins, not who comes second and by how much. They were never really in contention here, but they'll have more promising opportunities if the Tories end up with a seat to defend.

    I think I'd favour UKIP to beat Con, although not with any confidence.

    I think they need to keep a sense of momentum. Within their membership, to encourage them to donate time, money, and evangelise. And within the wider public, to attract new support.

    Second place will be fine for that, whatever the vote share.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    JohnLoony said:



    Incidentally, I think UKIP will come 3rd.

    Do you have some inside info? Late surge from the MRLP campaign, racing thru to the finish?

    Perhaps biblical weather was all that was needed? You've been being held back by the overwhelming normalness of things. Once the abnormal becomes normal, MRLP are the obvious choice!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Why are we wasting space with a by-election thread today?

    It's been literally days since we've had a Gove Is The AntiChrist thread and I'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms.
  • Does anyone remember how long the storms and floods have been dominating the news? It seems like it has been an age, but perhaps it has only been about two weeks?

    In any case I see that the government is now getting it in the neck for supposedly "drowning bad news" during the floods, as though the entire work of government should grind to a halt for several weeks because the media is unable to pay attention to more than one issue at a time.

    Whatever criticisms one might have of the government - and I have many - the media have certainly been looking for any excuse to give them a kicking over the last few weeks, and with my objective hat on it looks to be terribly unfair, even if there is part of me that delights in a Conservative-led government being trashed.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited February 2014
    Lloyds return to profit - underlying £6.2Bn - Sky News & BBC News

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26167619
  • JackW said:

    Lloyds return to profit - underlying £6.2Bn - Sky News & BBC News

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26167619

    Underlying profits up 1500% in 3 minutes! Impressive!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Lloyds return to profit - underlying £6.2Bn - Sky News & BBC News

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26167619

    Underlying profits up 1500% in 3 minutes! Impressive!
    That's the Coalition for you - massive unexpected growth before you can recite Labour's economic policies !!

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited February 2014
    Tories to come 2nd at 3.50 and Ukip to get 10%-20% at 2.50 are tempting (Ladbrokes)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    A bright, crisp day in the NW today (so far), so that might help turnout.
  • Does anyone remember how long the storms and floods have been dominating the news? It seems like it has been an age, but perhaps it has only been about two weeks?

    In any case I see that the government is now getting it in the neck for supposedly "drowning bad news" during the floods, as though the entire work of government should grind to a halt for several weeks because the media is unable to pay attention to more than one issue at a time.

    Whatever criticisms one might have of the government - and I have many - the media have certainly been looking for any excuse to give them a kicking over the last few weeks, and with my objective hat on it looks to be terribly unfair, even if there is part of me that delights in a Conservative-led government being trashed.

    Governments always get a kicking at times like this. They just have to take it. Everyone then moves on. Except the poor sods who have to pick their lives up.

  • Good morning, everyone.

    Tons of branches (including some pretty thick ones) have come down but, unlike a few years ago, there don't seem to be any fallen or snapped trees. I hope Mr. Crosby et al. didn't suffer too much damage.
  • At the start of the campaign I said the seat isn't fertile territory for the Kippers.

    I'm still expecting them to finish second.

    The weather in the North West last night was biblical, is more serene today.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited February 2014

    Good morning, everyone.

    Tons of branches (including some pretty thick ones) have come down but, unlike a few years ago, there don't seem to be any fallen or snapped trees. I hope Mr. Crosby et al. didn't suffer too much damage.

    I hope you followed my tips the other day, was another profitable night.
  • Mr. Eagles, I noted Adebayor scored first. Huzzah!

    So, that's green for the quartet whatever happens. And if the other two (or one of them) come off that'll be even better. The football fairy has clearly sprinkled you with stardust ;)
  • Mr. Eagles, I noted Adebayor scored first. Huzzah!

    So, that's green for the quartet whatever happens. And if the other two (or one of them) come off that'll be even better. The football fairy has clearly sprinkled you with stardust ;)

    The other tips were postponed so I'm going to reinvest my stake returns on the weekend matches.

    I'll post my tips sometime tomorrow.

  • Mr. Eagles, do you tweet them as well?
  • Mr. Eagles, do you tweet them as well?

    No.

    I'll try and tweet them in future.
  • Mr. Eagles, cheers. Probably be easier to check your twitterfeed than trawl various pb.com threads.
  • I don't think it matters too much to UKIP. To the extent that people notice the by-election they'll be watching who wins, not who comes second and by how much. They were never really in contention here, but they'll have more promising opportunities if the Tories end up with a seat to defend.

    I think I'd favour UKIP to beat Con, although not with any confidence.

    I think they need to keep a sense of momentum. Within their membership, to encourage them to donate time, money, and evangelise. And within the wider public, to attract new support.

    Second place will be fine for that, whatever the vote share.

    I'd agree with that. It's not so much the public who matter in terms of where UKIP finish (they won't notice unless it's at least a near-miss, which it shouldn't be); it's the media, the political classes and UKIP's own membership and (potential) donors who'll be watching closely and whose actions might be affected by the outcomes.

    The only exception is if Labour storms it and no-one manages more than about 15%, in which case second is just a consolation prize, rather like third was in the last London mayoral race.
  • How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.
  • Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.
  • Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling; the parties have just refused to set up any joint structures or mechanisms. That said, what the media reports does matter because people believe it and I agree with your conclusion that it will bolster No but wind up Yes.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Looking at the ICM numbers, the LDs aren't so much flat, as declining very slowly. They last hit 15% in April 2013, 16% in January 2012.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling; the parties have just refused to set up any joint structures or mechanisms. That said, what the media reports does matter because people believe it and I agree with your conclusion that it will bolster No but wind up Yes.
    Yes will play it that they can use any currency they want just watch us and rely on the fact that the nuances of monetary and fiscal obligations will not register with their supporters (of which a proportion now of course are 16yrs old).

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning. The polling booths are open. Does anyone have an inkling of early turnout in Wythenshawe?
  • Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    I doubt any of the Unionist parties will categorically, 100% rule out a currency union - they will just say in practice it is highly improbable as it will mean that to all intents and purposes Scotland will not be an independent country, except symbolically.

    Salmond, Sturgeon et al are going to have to move beyond just shouting "bully" and "liar" - they need to explain how they believe a currency union will work, not just that it will happen; and how Scotland will have any leverage in deciding the way it will be shaped. Threatening not to pay debts etc is absurd. To have an agreement both sides have to agree; and until there is an agreement Scotland will not be independent. That's just a matter of legal fact.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited February 2014


    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling;

    How many times...

    The Scots can "use" Sterling the same way I use Euros when I go on holiday. They can buy them on a currency exchange (how do they pay for them?) but they can't print them, which is the definition of "use' the SNP need
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    CD13 said:

    A bright, crisp day in the NW today (so far), so that might help turnout.

    The BBC forecast for the day is
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2633432

    which looks peaceful enough. Presumably a low poll is good for whoever is best at PVs (in this case clearly Labour) in % though bad for the winner (ditto) in votes, so it can be spun either way. I agree that it's all about how the media choose to report it, and they're a bit bored with "dramatic UKIP advance shakes big parties" and probably wantt to do a "in-fighting starts in dismayed UKIP " piece.

    Does anyone remember how long the storms and floods have been dominating the news? It seems like it has been an age, but perhaps it has only been about two weeks?

    In any case I see that the government is now getting it in the neck for supposedly "drowning bad news" during the floods, as though the entire work of government should grind to a halt for several weeks because the media is unable to pay attention to more than one issue at a time.

    Whatever criticisms one might have of the government - and I have many - the media have certainly been looking for any excuse to give them a kicking over the last few weeks, and with my objective hat on it looks to be terribly unfair, even if there is part of me that delights in a Conservative-led government being trashed.

    Yes, got some sympathy with that. Apart from the people actua;lly unfortunate enough to have been victims, this too is largely media-dependent (different Telegraph columnists have run precisely contrasting pieces saying Cameron is having a good flood or a bad flood). Disasters are on the whole good for government if not obviously their fault - Gordon did splendidly for a while merely by looking grittily determined from the moment the floods broke out, and whatever his faults he was never accused of lazy lack of interest. But if you slip up then the knives are out: the "money no object" gaffe was quite serious, because it undermined a key Tory election line (vote for us as things are so difficult). A pensioner last night who I have down as Tory copied me in on an email to my opponent, saying it's good to hear that money is freely available now, so will the Government at last get on with... etc.

    In general, though, the polls aren't moving much. People are rather sensibly treating it all as a grim natural disaster and not really election-related.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "Shirley MacLaine claimed to have had an affair with Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. She said she became attracted to him when she realised he was a reincarnation of Charlemagne." !!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100259435/how-hollywood-became-a-bizarre-but-integral-part-of-american-democracy/
  • Surely the main issue is not so much the currency, but how Scotland will issue bonds, and how security will be attached to those bonds.


  • Salmond, Sturgeon et al are going to have to move beyond just shouting "bully" and "liar" - they need to explain how they believe a currency union will work, not just that it will happen; and how Scotland will have any leverage in deciding the way it will be shaped. Threatening not to pay debts etc is absurd. To have an agreement both sides have to agree; and until there is an agreement Scotland will not be independent. That's just a matter of legal fact.

    I'm not sure. Maybe they'll just let it run for a while with popular george as the face of unionism for a while.

    while people who want to decide on a rational, economic basis will be frustrated, maybe there will be enoughwho are not deciding on that basis?
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited February 2014

    Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling; the parties have just refused to set up any joint structures or mechanisms. That said, what the media reports does matter because people believe it and I agree with your conclusion that it will bolster No but wind up Yes.
    I must take this opportunity to say that I agree with David - it doesn't happen all that often!

    May I also take this opportunity of inventing the rumour that in the event of defeat the Salmond-with-the-cheeky-knees will demand a further referendum in which Scots exiles are also allowed to vote?

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    The BBC story has changed FOUR times on Osbrowne's speech including the headline.

    Not that I'd have expected the PB tories to have noticed.

    *chortle*
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Where have all the voters gone?

    General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 3m
    For every 1,000 voters who voted for them in #GE2010 how many have they retained?

    #LABOUR 695
    #CONSERVATIVES 607
    #LIBDEMS 214
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    MikeK said:

    Where have all the voters gone?

    General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 3m
    For every 1,000 voters who voted for them in #GE2010 how many have they retained?

    #LABOUR 695
    #CONSERVATIVES 607
    #LIBDEMS 214

    Mr Kellner did an article on this the other day.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/truth-about-britain-volatile-electorate-election-2015
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    MikeK said:

    Good morning. The polling booths are open. Does anyone have an inkling of early turnout in Wythenshawe?

    The weather in south Manchester is clear and fine. No idea on turn out but people weren't running to the polling station as far as I could see. LDs were out early delivering the final leaflet but other than that no activity.

  • I'm not sure. Maybe they'll just let it run for a while with popular george as the face of unionism for a while.

    That'll certainly be the default position, with much emphasis on 'Labour agrees with George Osborne.'
    If the LDs peed all over their rep in the UK by going into coalition with the Tories, they rinsed it in raw sewage in Scotland. Perhaps Balls joining up with George & Danny may make the latter more fragrant to Scots, otoh there's a pretty good chance it'll make Balls (even) more smelly.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    "Wythenshawe: To maintain momentum today UKIP needs a good second place with a vote share well above 20 percent"

    Not really. The news is wall to wall on the floods and storms as expected and it's the EU elections that matter most for them. That said kipper VI still isn't showing much of an upswing for May despite the massive floods which you would expect to be good for a protest party.
    Of course blaming the floods on gays might not have been the best way for kippers to impress disaffected voters on the floods.

    The other thing to watch out for will be how the lib dems do. Despite Clegg's amusing ostrich faction trying to pretend otherwise if they have a dire result and even lose their deposit then I'm afraid that's going to be incredibly telling for them and there will be no way to ignore that.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    MikeK said:

    Where have all the voters gone?

    General Election ‏@UKELECTIONS2015 3m
    For every 1,000 voters who voted for them in #GE2010 how many have they retained?

    #LABOUR 695
    #CONSERVATIVES 607
    #LIBDEMS 214

    Mr Kellner did an article on this the other day.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/truth-about-britain-volatile-electorate-election-2015
    An excellent article, which confirms OGH was wrong to say Ukip vote has an unusually high amount of 2010 DNV and others.

    I explained why he was mistaken at the time and he was quite rude about it... No apology or recognition that he was wrong so far

  • Salmond, Sturgeon et al are going to have to move beyond just shouting "bully" and "liar" - they need to explain how they believe a currency union will work, not just that it will happen; and how Scotland will have any leverage in deciding the way it will be shaped. Threatening not to pay debts etc is absurd. To have an agreement both sides have to agree; and until there is an agreement Scotland will not be independent. That's just a matter of legal fact.

    I'm not sure. Maybe they'll just let it run for a while with popular george as the face of unionism for a while.

    while people who want to decide on a rational, economic basis will be frustrated, maybe there will be enoughwho are not deciding on that basis?

    While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent, I think we do them a great disservice to say that just because he is a Tory with an English voice they will immediately dismiss what he says. The Scots are just as capable of listening to arguments as anyone else and on something as important as independence there will be a fair few who will be keen to hear all sides of the story.

    As Mick Pork points out, in and of itself the currency is not a huge issue for Scots voters. But this feeds through into a lot of other things that are very important to them, such as the economy and how it would function in an independent Scotland. As we know, if you cannot control your currency, you can end up in all kinds of trouble; just as you would if you start threatening not to repay debts if you don't get what you want. At some stage the Yes side will have to explain how their currency plans are going to work in practice and how they will give an independent Scottish government both the flexibility it would want and the safety net it would need.

    The problem that Yes has is that there is no way to construct a currency union that does not involve the rUK dictating its terms. In explaining that the Yes side would basically be upsetting a lot of its own supporters, while at the same time raising significant doubts in the minds of undecided voters. At the moment, Scottish voters have a way to influence decisions taken in Westminster that will affect the Scottish economy - they elected the last two Chancellors, after all - post-independence in the currency union that we would undoubtedly end up with there would be absolutely no leverage at all. If you were on the Yes side, would you concede this before the vote?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    I'm inclined to agree with you - pending what they actually say (there seems to have been quite a bit of backtracking especially by Mr Alexander) - but also to add that it can also be seen as wilful denial of assets, shared apparatus, etc., of the UK state for which Scots have paid their share.

    What is interesting is the timing, given that this aggressive attack destroys the careful lovebombing by Mr Cameron last week (I know this last was aimed technically as much at our cousins in the rest of the UK, but ...).

    I'm also interested that a Labour Shadow Chancellor and frontbencher should be weighing in so publicly on the same side as the Coalition (presumably - have to wait and see what he says). This is in marked contrast to Mr Darling who is a passé backbencher by comparison. Mr Balls is linked to Mr Miliband who is not, as far as I can recall, particularly well regarded in Scotland. But in any case being in bed with Tories is not a very popular sport in Scotland, whether as a spectator or a participant Labour activist.

    None of it quite makes sense to me (even from a Unionist point of view), unless one takes the view that any old denigration and confusion is better than nothing, which may well be the case. The intervention of a Labour Shadow Chancellor does tend to reinforce my suspicion that this is also aimed in part at the BoE - the London parties must be terrified of having to undergo the same fiscal disciplines as they have gleefully been predicting for the Scots, which Mr Carney made very clear in his speech in Edinburgh.

  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    Only watched the last 15 minutes of Osbourne's speech, but this is an impressive critical analysis of SNP policy and pronouncements. It is certainly putting the onus now on the SNP to respond in a coherent fashion.
  • "...but also to add that it can also be seen as wilful denial of assets, shared apparatus, etc., of the UK state for which Scots have paid their share."

    Whilst I'm sure some will use that line, I find it entirely inaccurate. I suspect some wavering Scots may be persuaded by the line, but not the majority.

    I'd also point out that the entire mood music leading up to the Osborne speech has been consistently that a currency union is deeply unlikely. This is more like a conclusion to a scientific paper, making plain what the techno-talk beforehand means, rather than a brick hurled through a window with "You can't have the pound" written on it.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Most interesting will be how (badly) the BNP do today. In 2010 they beat Ukip and got 3.9%. The BBC interview with their candidate was pretty good (relatively speaking, from an impartial point of view).
  • JamesM said:

    Only watched the last 15 minutes of Osbourne's speech, but this is an impressive critical analysis of SNP policy and pronouncements. It is certainly putting the onus now on the SNP to respond in a coherent fashion.

    SNP? coherent? You'll be lucky.

    Just expect more shrill calls of 'bullying' and 'Westminster parties'.
  • Carnyx said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    I'm inclined to agree with you - pending what they actually say (there seems to have been quite a bit of backtracking especially by Mr Alexander) - but also to add that it can also be seen as wilful denial of assets, shared apparatus, etc., of the UK state for which Scots have paid their share.

    What is interesting is the timing, given that this aggressive attack destroys the careful lovebombing by Mr Cameron last week (I know this last was aimed technically as much at our cousins in the rest of the UK, but ...).

    I'm also interested that a Labour Shadow Chancellor and frontbencher should be weighing in so publicly on the same side as the Coalition (presumably - have to wait and see what he says). This is in marked contrast to Mr Darling who is a passé backbencher by comparison. Mr Balls is linked to Mr Miliband who is not, as far as I can recall, particularly well regarded in Scotland. But in any case being in bed with Tories is not a very popular sport in Scotland, whether as a spectator or a participant Labour activist.

    None of it quite makes sense to me (even from a Unionist point of view), unless one takes the view that any old denigration and confusion is better than nothing, which may well be the case. The intervention of a Labour Shadow Chancellor does tend to reinforce my suspicion that this is also aimed in part at the BoE - the London parties must be terrified of having to undergo the same fiscal disciplines as they have gleefully been predicting for the Scots, which Mr Carney made very clear in his speech in Edinburgh.

    I guess they are raising it because it has a direct impact on the issue that most Scots identify as being most important to them when weighing up the pros and cons of independence: the economy. The hope is that undecided voters will get the strong impression that the Yes side is making a lot of it up as it goes along. If they are successful in doing this, they will make it more likely that No will win.

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited February 2014
    JamesM said:

    Only watched the last 15 minutes of Osbourne's speech, but this is an impressive critical analysis of SNP policy and pronouncements. It is certainly putting the onus now on the SNP to respond in a coherent fashion.


    The Tories have been against entering the EuroZone because of its inherent unworkability so its no surprise that they would be against setting up a Sterling Zone.


  • While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent, I think we do them a great disservice to say that just because he is a Tory with an English voice they will immediately dismiss what he says. The Scots are just as capable of listening to arguments as anyone else and on something as important as independence there will be a fair few who will be keen to hear all sides of the story.

    As Mick Pork points out, in and of itself the currency is not a huge issue for Scots voters. But this feeds through into a lot of other things that are very important to them, such as the economy and how it would function in an independent Scotland. As we know, if you cannot control your currency, you can end up in all kinds of trouble; just as you would if you start threatening not to repay debts if you don't get what you want. At some stage the Yes side will have to explain how their currency plans are going to work in practice and how they will give an independent Scottish government both the flexibility it would want and the safety net it would need.

    The problem that Yes has is that there is no way to construct a currency union that does not involve the rUK dictating its terms. In explaining that the Yes side would basically be upsetting a lot of its own supporters, while at the same time raising significant doubts in the minds of undecided voters. At the moment, Scottish voters have a way to influence decisions taken in Westminster that will affect the Scottish economy - they elected the last two Chancellors, after all - post-independence in the currency union that we would undoubtedly end up with there would be absolutely no leverage at all. If you were on the Yes side, would you concede this before the vote?

    Of course, the Scots as a whole are a lot more sensible than the english, considering their general political leanings.. (in my opinion, of course)

    I was really rather meaning that the YES campaign would want to avoid debate on this territory if possible for the reasons you mention, and trust that enough don't knows are swayed by anti tory feelings in combination with those who don't mind the currency uncertainty to deliver a yes.

    will be interesting to see which way it goes




  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    edited February 2014
    The very strong point was when he critically engaged with the SNP's white paper itself. As he noted the SNP want a currency union for convenience and this lack of long term commitment raises questions about the market's view of the currency union's sustainability and what the rest of the UK will think about any currency union commitment too.
  • JamesM said:

    Only watched the last 15 minutes of Osbourne's speech, but this is an impressive critical analysis of SNP policy and pronouncements. It is certainly putting the onus now on the SNP to respond in a coherent fashion.

    If the Yes side sticks to its current currency union platform, the only coherent response would be to say that essentially Osborne is right, but that there will be a currency union because Scotland will agree to all the terms set out by the rUK. However, there are obviously problems with such a response from the Yes perspective.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Osbrowne now dribbling on about "reckless threats" without an ounce of self-awareness.

    He could almost be a PB tory or PB Romney.


    *chortle*
  • JonathanD said:

    JamesM said:

    Only watched the last 15 minutes of Osbourne's speech, but this is an impressive critical analysis of SNP policy and pronouncements. It is certainly putting the onus now on the SNP to respond in a coherent fashion.


    The Tories have been against entering the EuroZone because of its inherent unworkability so its no surprise that they would be against setting up a Sterling Zone.
    ... although they were the strongest defenders of the old Imperial Sterling Area. Autre temps, autre moeurs...

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Osborne will not say NO, he will spout a lot of bollocks about it , tell us that we are lucky that we get bankrolled from Westminster etc , but he will NOT say NO. The man is a dolt and a liar.
    The impact will be to drive more to YES as these slimeballs show their real faces.
  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 221
    edited February 2014
    @SouthamObserver

    Perhaps Southam, but as Osbourne seemed to essentially argue why should the rest of the UK make a commitment to the currency union if Scotland could simply withdraw when they feel like it. Would this not challenge market confidence in the currency union and this has a potentially negative impact on the rUK no too?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341
    edited February 2014


    While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent, I think we do them a great disservice to say that just because he is a Tory with an English voice they will immediately dismiss what he says. The Scots are just as capable of listening to arguments as anyone else and on something as important as independence there will be a fair few who will be keen to hear all sides of the story.

    As Mick Pork points out, in and of itself the currency is not a huge issue for Scots voters. But this feeds through into a lot of other things that are very important to them, such as the economy and how it would function in an independent Scotland. As we know, if you cannot control your currency, you can end up in all kinds of trouble; just as you would if you start threatening not to repay debts if you don't get what you want. At some stage the Yes side will have to explain how their currency plans are going to work in practice and how they will give an independent Scottish government both the flexibility it would want and the safety net it would need.

    The problem that Yes has is that there is no way to construct a currency union that does not involve the rUK dictating its terms. In explaining that the Yes side would basically be upsetting a lot of its own supporters, while at the same time raising significant doubts in the minds of undecided voters. At the moment, Scottish voters have a way to influence decisions taken in Westminster that will affect the Scottish economy - they elected the last two Chancellors, after all - post-independence in the currency union that we would undoubtedly end up with there would be absolutely no leverage at all. If you were on the Yes side, would you concede this before the vote?



    [my post starts here - sorry, quotes fouled up]
    Scots elected the last two Chancellors?! Surely it was their UK-wide parties that did - and the Scots did not make any difference in the relevant GEs, I seem to recall. OK, they elected them as MPs, but that's not quite the same thing.

    But that is pedantic and there are some fair comments here. Though I would suggest that there is no such thing as a Scots influence in Westminster per se*, so a reasonably pro rata committee membership governing for currency union would be no worse off, and indeed rather better than the current setup. Not least in opening options for the future. It would certainly be less disruptive and better for both sides, assuming proper fiscal behaviour for which controls for both sides would be in place (and I should hope so too).

    *because it is dominated by unionist parties for which there is, or at least should be, no such thing as a 'Scottish' or 'London' or 'Isle of Wight' faction.




  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    JamesM said:

    The very strong point was when he critically engaged with the SNP's white paper's itself. As he noted the SNP want a currency union for convenience and this lack of long term commitment raises questions about the market's view of the currency union's sustainability and what the rest of the UK will think about any currency union.


    And that's an important issue. There is no point in going to lots of trouble and expense to set up a shared currency if 5 years down the line one party is going to leave.

    We know from Salmond's previous statements how much he hates the pound (millstone round the neck) so there can be no trust of the long term future of this sterling zone. All Osborne needs to do is point to the Euro and explain that we don't want that here.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Mick_Pork said:

    Osbrowne now dribbling on about "reckless threats" without an ounce of self-awareness.

    He could almost be a PB tory or PB Romney.


    *chortle*

    Carney supplied the bullets, Eck shouted shoot me - too easy for GO today - will then pass the gun to Balls, Alexander etc..

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530


    While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent

    Really? You can? Then you'll know why they find Clegg politcally repellent too. Or have you somehow forgotten that? Osbrowne is not just being toxic for himself today in scotland, he's pouring his own uniquly pungent brand of toxicity all over the No campaign including SLAB.
    I somehow doubt all of them will be as happy as the always amusing PB tories about that.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    malcolmg said:

    Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Osborne will not say NO, he will spout a lot of bollocks about it , tell us that we are lucky that we get bankrolled from Westminster etc , but he will NOT say NO. The man is a dolt and a liar.
    The impact will be to drive more to YES as these slimeballs show their real faces.
    malc despite what fat boy slim says the rest of us have no interest in a currency union, there's nothing but grief in it for either side. You don't even need to print Scottish Pounds, they're already in circulation, just set up your own central bank and get on with it.
  • Mick_Pork said:


    While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent

    Really? You can? Then you'll know why they find Clegg politcally repellent too. Or have you somehow forgotten that? Osbrowne is not just being toxic for himself today in scotland, he's pouring his own uniquly pungent brand of toxicity all over the No campaign including SLAB.
    I somehow doubt all of them will be as happy as the always amusing PB tories about that.
    And....as always in 99% of your posts, you're utterly failing to engage with the substance of anything.

    Still stick to your *chortles* and *rolling around*, it's clearly your comfort zone.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Patrick said:

    How is this Osborne speech saying 'no' to a currency union, backed up by aligned comments from Balls and Alexander, going to impact the referendum?

    My guess is that the already determined YES crowd will get very wound up. But they're already in the Yes camp! It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling; the parties have just refused to set up any joint structures or mechanisms. That said, what the media reports does matter because people believe it and I agree with your conclusion that it will bolster No but wind up Yes.
    They have yet to say that clearly , as usual they just use weasely words , they never ever say NO as they know for a fact they will be doing it when they lose. They are just lying , crossing their fingers and toes and hoping it is NO. We have heard it all before.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,961
    edited February 2014
    Mr. Pork, I'm not sure that "*chortle*" could necessarily be considered a full and detailed response to the SNP's currency union hopes being if not entirely dashed, rather significantly diminished.

    What's the SNP's policy? Apart from saying it's 'bullying' for 90% of the UK to not accede to its demands, obviously.

    They can say Osborne's wrong, but any currency union requires agreement on both sides. I've long said the English, Welsh and Northern Irish won't want it, and it appears that the three main UK parties don't either.

    They can agree and unveil Plan B (the euro or a Scottish currency). The question then becomes: why wasn't that Plan A, and why were you claiming you could have the pound when you now acknowledge you can't?

    Clarity is necessary.

    Of course, there's an emotional rather than a rational response, which we've already seen with Sturgeon's 'bullying' nonsense (incidentally, whilst that might fire up the firm Yes supporters it also pisses off non-Scots). That will work for some but not others, and may put off more potential supporters than it convinces.

    One also recalls that I've been saying for some time any break-up could be more acrimonious than many assumes would be the case. We could get into a tit-for-tat over currency, Faslane, debt-sharing (or not) etc etc. I really hope not, but it could become ugly.

    Edited extra bit: sorry, forgot the third option which Mr. G espoused below.

    Using the pound in the way Panama uses the dollar is possible, but I'm not sure these are necessarily the best circumstances to be without a lender of last resort and have a foreign country run your monetary policy. Be a good way to persuade Scottish financial institutions to relocate south of the border, though.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    JamesM said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Perhaps Southam, but as Osbourne seemed to essentially argue why should the rest of the UK make a commitment to the currency union if Scotland could simply withdraw when they feel like it. Would this not challenge market confidence in the currency union and this has a potentially negative impact on the rUK no too?

    Spot on. The SNP proposal is "do you mind me using your wife until a prettier one comes along ?"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Scott_P said:


    Despite what the media are reporting, no-one is stopping (or can stop) an independent Scotland from using Sterling;

    How many times...

    The Scots can "use" Sterling the same way I use Euros when I go on holiday. They can buy them on a currency exchange (how do they pay for them?) but they can't print them, which is the definition of "use' the SNP need
    The turnip has spoken , it must be so.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
    I think GO spelled out quite clearly today there is nothing in it for "continuing Uk" - and also clearly that no cUk politician could sell a union to their voters.

    Not a question of "lying" - the electorate would not stand for it.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited February 2014
    Patrick said:

    It's the impact on waverers that counts. Will London telling them they can have the Groat or the Euro make them think twice? I think it will. Referendums lose because of fear and fear of losing the pound in their pockets - literally - will scare many off.

    Regardless of whether Independence or Union win the referendum I would prefer that the voters choose hope over fear.

    I don't like the idea of the Scottish people voting to remain in the Union because they're scared that Scotland couldn't cope as an independent country, or that they would vote for independence because they are made to fear that English Tories will always hate them.

    Whatever side wins, can it please be for positive reasons?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Carnyx said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    I'm inclined to agree with you - pending what they actually say (there seems to have been quite a bit of backtracking especially by Mr Alexander) - but also to add that it can also be seen as wilful denial of assets, shared apparatus, etc., of the UK state for which Scots have paid their share.

    What is interesting is the timing, given that this aggressive attack destroys the careful lovebombing by Mr Cameron last week (I know this last was aimed technically as much at our cousins in the rest of the UK, but ...).

    I'm also interested that a Labour Shadow Chancellor and frontbencher should be weighing in so publicly on the same side as the Coalition (presumably - have to wait and see what he says). This is in marked contrast to Mr Darling who is a passé backbencher by comparison. Mr Balls is linked to Mr Miliband who is not, as far as I can recall, particularly well regarded in Scotland. But in any case being in bed with Tories is not a very popular sport in Scotland, whether as a spectator or a participant Labour activist.

    None of it quite makes sense to me (even from a Unionist point of view), unless one takes the view that any old denigration and confusion is better than nothing, which may well be the case. The intervention of a Labour Shadow Chancellor does tend to reinforce my suspicion that this is also aimed in part at the BoE - the London parties must be terrified of having to undergo the same fiscal disciplines as they have gleefully been predicting for the Scots, which Mr Carney made very clear in his speech in Edinburgh.

    Carnyx, it is easily explained, they have access to the private polling, it is called panic.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    edited February 2014
    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
    Salmond has more chins than there are pandas in Scotland, what does that prove ? Last time I looked pandas didn't pass legislation in either Holyrood or Westminster. The SNP need to renew their book of jokes they're still using 2010 gags.
  • George Osborne has laid out his arguments carefully and soberly, drawing on the Treasury's analysis. The YES campaign need to have more of a response than "BULLY" or "It's a bluff".

    As I have been noting for some weeks - and it seems others are now starting to appreciate - the unionist politicians don't have much leeway on this, because the English public are hostile to a currency union with a separate sovereign state, drawing on their observations of the Euro. In the event of a Yes vote, the terms of the settlement negotiations would be one of the main topics for the next election.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014

    Mick_Pork said:


    While I can understand why Scots and many others would find Osborne politically repellent

    Really? You can? Then you'll know why they find Clegg politcally repellent too. Or have you somehow forgotten that? Osbrowne is not just being toxic for himself today in scotland, he's pouring his own uniquly pungent brand of toxicity all over the No campaign including SLAB.
    I somehow doubt all of them will be as happy as the always amusing PB tories about that.
    And....as always in 99% of your posts, you're utterly failing to engage with the substance of anything..
    Calm down dear. Osbrowne has been scaremongering about this since 2012 so I'm afraid you'll forgive me for not taking the 'master strategist' behind the omnishambles particularly seriously any more than the shrill shrieking of PB tories.

    Osbrowne is utterly toxic in scotland and I'm more than happy for him to become the face of the No campaign from now on. It is of no consequence that you and all the other PB tories and right-wingers don't like that fact. All elections and referenda boil down to trust and you lot are betting everything on Osbrowne being trusted on an currency issue that 2% of the scottish public rated the most important to them making their decision.

    Not my fault if you can't see the bleeding obvious.

    :)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Carnyx said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    I'm inclined to agree with you - pending what they actually say (there seems to have been quite a bit of backtracking especially by Mr Alexander) - but also to add that it can also be seen as wilful denial of assets, shared apparatus, etc., of the UK state for which Scots have paid their share.

    What is interesting is the timing, given that this aggressive attack destroys the careful lovebombing by Mr Cameron last week (I know this last was aimed technically as much at our cousins in the rest of the UK, but ...).

    I'm also interested that a Labour Shadow Chancellor and frontbencher should be weighing in so publicly on the same side as the Coalition (presumably - have to wait and see what he says). This is in marked contrast to Mr Darling who is a passé backbencher by comparison. Mr Balls is linked to Mr Miliband who is not, as far as I can recall, particularly well regarded in Scotland. But in any case being in bed with Tories is not a very popular sport in Scotland, whether as a spectator or a participant Labour activist.

    None of it quite makes sense to me (even from a Unionist point of view), unless one takes the view that any old denigration and confusion is better than nothing, which may well be the case. The intervention of a Labour Shadow Chancellor does tend to reinforce my suspicion that this is also aimed in part at the BoE - the London parties must be terrified of having to undergo the same fiscal disciplines as they have gleefully been predicting for the Scots, which Mr Carney made very clear in his speech in Edinburgh.

    I guess they are raising it because it has a direct impact on the issue that most Scots identify as being most important to them when weighing up the pros and cons of independence: the economy. The hope is that undecided voters will get the strong impression that the Yes side is making a lot of it up as it goes along. If they are successful in doing this, they will make it more likely that No will win.

    SO , and you do not believe that Westminster are making up all sorts of lies. They are publishing lies daily and people know they are lies. I will state again I beet that Osborne did not rule out a currency union. he will have used dodgy Westminster figures, weasely words but will not have said NO.
  • JamesM said:

    @SouthamObserver

    Perhaps Southam, but as Osbourne seemed to essentially argue why should the rest of the UK make a commitment to the currency union if Scotland could simply withdraw when they feel like it. Would this not challenge market confidence in the currency union and this has a potentially negative impact on the rUK no too?

    Well, that would form a part of the terms that the rUK dictated to an independent Scotland. If the Scots did not like it there would be no deal. There really is no downside to the rUK in a currency union whose structure and functioning it dictates. This is why the Yes side in Scotland are not able to set out the way in which it will work and this is why the Unionist parties believe that the currency union is an unworkable idea. Why would the Scots vote for independence and then give it away again?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: This is a very very punchy letter on currency union from the Treasury chief mandarin Nick Macpherson. Rules out currency union...

    Which part of No are the Nats struggling to comprehend?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    JamesM said:

    The very strong point was when he critically engaged with the SNP's white paper itself. As he noted the SNP want a currency union for convenience and this lack of long term commitment raises questions about the market's view of the currency union's sustainability and what the rest of the UK will think about any currency union commitment too.

    OOOOOOH very strong indeed, that will really turn voters to NO.
  • Courtesy of a BBC tweet:

    Danny Alexander: "I couldn't recommend a currency union to Scots and my party couldn't agree to such a proposition for the rest of the UK."
  • malcolmg said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
    Salmond has more chins than there are pandas in Scotland, what does that prove ? Last time I looked pandas didn't pass legislation in either Holyrood or Westminster. The SNP need to renew their book of jokes they're still using 2010 gags.
    I'm not sure if 'fat Eck' is really bitingly fresh humour..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    Osbrowne now dribbling on about "reckless threats" without an ounce of self-awareness.

    He could almost be a PB tory or PB Romney.


    *chortle*

    Carney supplied the bullets, Eck shouted shoot me - too easy for GO today - will then pass the gun to Balls, Alexander etc..

    LOL, you think the three wise monkeys are any match for Salmond. You are deluded.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @GeneralBoles: Alex Salmond determined to use the British Pound #indyref http://t.co/zezBgPr1fS
  • Mr. G, you've got to remember the negotiations would occur either side of a General Election. having been so clear now, if Osborne (or Balls/Alexander) went back on currency union I suspect they'd get murdered at the (non-Scottish) ballot box.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @euanmccolm: osborne under attack from #yesscotland campaigners for insisting scottish independence would mean scottish independence. #indyref
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: This is a very very punchy letter on currency union from the Treasury chief mandarin Nick Macpherson. Rules out currency union...

    Which part of No are the Nats struggling to comprehend?

    As expected no link and I bet that nowhere in that drivel will it say NO. Plenty of lies no doubt and dodgy numbers. Show us the letter and point to the NO.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The Nat argument seems to be that Westminster is lying and that the Cons, Lab and LDs would all sign up for certain electoral oblivion.

    Really ?
  • @malcolmg - None of the parties will 100% rule out currency union. If an independent Scotland agrees to the terms set out by the rUK there will be one. But given that the Yes side is advocating Scottish independence, it seems reasonable that Osborne, Balls and Alexander are saying that a currency union is not going to happen. For it to work, Scotland could not be de facto independent because it would essentially have to cede control of its economy to Westminster.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
    Salmond has more chins than there are pandas in Scotland, what does that prove ? Last time I looked pandas didn't pass legislation in either Holyrood or Westminster. The SNP need to renew their book of jokes they're still using 2010 gags.
    I'm not sure if 'fat Eck' is really bitingly fresh humour..
    simply boring you with your own tactics.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    malcolmg said:

    Show us the letter and point to the NO.

    @faisalislam: Conclusion of nick Macpherson letter: http://t.co/n4uyTM4xDf
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2014
    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: This is a very very punchy letter on currency union from the Treasury chief mandarin Nick Macpherson. Rules out currency union...

    Which part of No are the Nats struggling to comprehend?

    Here's the text:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279455/Sir_Nicholas_Macpherson_-_Scotland_and_a_currency_union.pdf

    I would advise strongly against a currency union as currently advocated, if Scotland were to vote for independence. Why?

    First, the Scottish Government is still leaving the option open of moving to a different currency option in the longer term. Successful currency unions are based on the near universal belief that they are irreversible. Imagine what would have happened to Greece two years ago if they had said they were contemplating reverting to the Drachma.

    Secondly, Scotland’s banking sector is far too big in relation to its national income, which means that there is a very real risk that the continuing UK would end up bearing most of the liquidity and solvency risk which it creates.


  • Chris Giles:

    Brutal message from HMT perm sec to @George_Osborne advising against currency union pic.twitter.com/qqaffmkE5d

    Treasury calls SNP bluff pic.twitter.com/SWRb7EWvid

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530

    None of the parties will 100% rule out currency union.

    :)

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Mr. Patrick, I suspect that the response of the SNP and how that's viewed by uncertain Scots will be the key.

    The 'bullying' line, as you say, will probably wind up diehard Yes supporters, but I wonder how it'll play with the rest of Scotland, who would actually like to know what currency they'd have.

    MD, we will have the pound as we always have had , anybody can use it , only question is whether we do it in currency union or not. Reality is that when the unionists lose they will be singing from another hymn sheet. We are well used to Tory lies , hence more pandas than Tory MP's. They are making an erse of it as usual.
    Salmond has more chins than there are pandas in Scotland, what does that prove ? Last time I looked pandas didn't pass legislation in either Holyrood or Westminster. The SNP need to renew their book of jokes they're still using 2010 gags.
    I'm not sure if 'fat Eck' is really bitingly fresh humour..
    Dear dear Alan,
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014
    Jesus Christ! Nigel Farage on QT again tonight!

    Last time he turned up with a skinhead and affected a scouse accent, I'm hearing hes coming in drag tonight and calling himself Janice
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    The Nat argument seems to be that Westminster is lying and that the Cons, Lab and LDs would all sign up for certain electoral oblivion.

    Really ?

    Would certainly not be unusual, if their lips move you can be sure.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Scott_P said:

    malcolmg said:

    Show us the letter and point to the NO.

    @faisalislam: Conclusion of nick Macpherson letter: http://t.co/n4uyTM4xDf
    He obviously means the opposite of what he has written

    chortle etc.
  • Can I ask the shrinking number of bettors on here how they'd price up the chances of there being a currency union if Scotland does vote for independence? Just like to gauge their faith in 'can't recommend means no..definitely, definitely, definitely.'
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "The messenger is toxic" says Pork - which one ?

    GO
    Balls
    Alexander
    Carney
    The Treasury
    The civil service
    The media
    The financial community
    The business community
    Jim Sillars ?

    Everyone bar wings over Somerset ?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: This is a very very punchy letter on currency union from the Treasury chief mandarin Nick Macpherson. Rules out currency union...

    Which part of No are the Nats struggling to comprehend?

    Here's the text:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279455/Sir_Nicholas_Macpherson_-_Scotland_and_a_currency_union.pdf

    I would advise strongly against a currency union as currently advocated, if Scotland were to vote for independence. Why?

    First, the Scottish Government is still leaving the option open of moving to a different currency option in the longer term. Successful currency unions are based on the near universal belief that they are irreversible. Imagine what would have happened to Greece two years ago if they had said they were contemplating reverting to the Drachma.

    Secondly, Scotland’s banking sector is far too big in relation to its national income, which means that there is a very real risk that the continuing UK would end up bearing most of the liquidity and solvency risk which it creates.



    "There is a substantive point here. If the dashing of Scottish expectations were
    perpetually blamed on continuing UK intransigence within the currency union,
    relations between the nations of these islands would deteriorate, putting
    intolerable pressure on the currency union."


    Now, now, we know the SNP are always reasonable and never seek to blame anyone else for their problems.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Telegraph News ‏@TelegraphNews 3h

    Rural villages could be sacrificed to save towns from floods http://fw.to/i7HG4gj #UKweather #flooding
    The incompetent fop surely doesn't want to end up looking complacent. Does he?
This discussion has been closed.