"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency. 2. An attempt to join the Euro.
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.
But as I have already pointed out (presumably when you were away), this is simply not the case. The English - or to be more precise the EWNI - public are not hostile, but in fact positively in favour of currency union with the Scots, to the tune of 71% (including 2/3 of Tory voters) with 12% opposed and the rest DKs. Admittedly that was before the current press eructation but early December is not that long ago.
Don't spoil it all now with polling evidence Carnyx. Just let them get it it out of their system as the floodwaters rise.
It's always vastly amusing watching the PB tories flap about comically as they completely fail to understand public opinion and just how unpopular their hero Osbrowne is.
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
Here you are again, commenting on that subject about which you're so indifferent. At least you're consistent in the depth of your insights.
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
I do have a draft Chris Christie piece from last year, I might resurrect and update.
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
“We vote with others in mind. Conservatives think everyone else is out to shaft them so try and shaft them first.
“Labour voters are idealists who want to believe they’re doing good without going to any effort, so they vote for anyone with an attractive set of lies.
“Lib Dem voters just want to be noticed even if the attention they get is negative, much like a small boy urinating in his pants.
“And voting UKIP is the political equivalent of asking the police to arrest you before you hurt someone.”
Worthy of a thread on its own!
Well I'm editing PB next week.....
So far I've written a thread on the possibility of a new electoral voting system for the 2015 General Election (without a referendum)
Any ideas and suggestions for threads are welcome.
Really do feel this articled from a labour pressure group is worth a thread oñ it's own
"The ‘Mrs Duffy’ moment was so damaging to Labour in 2010 because it encapsulated a fear that had been building for years: that New Labour looked down its nose at people who were worried about immigration. Labour won few votes among those who saw immigration as their most important issue, but it lost plenty among people who felt the party disdained their views.... . Immigration is a vortex issue: it sucks in concerns about housing, wages, benefits, jobs, public services, community cohesion and crime. Recent European immigration creates a new set of issues as young workers expecting to be here for a short period of time compete with tradespeople trying to support families in Britain in the midst of a cost of living crisis."
Labour posters constantly slag off ex Labour voters on here accusing them of racism, BNP lite views, and doubting their sincerity when they talk of issues that affect them and their friends. It is accepted by the rest of the PB community without question.
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
I do have a Chris Christie piece from last year, I might resurrect and update.
I reckon he's toast. Blaming illegal activity on your underlings is a dangerous move, because your underlings are now forced to blame it on you, and they'll have to use anything they know that can discredit you.
The question is then who gets the business-approved moderate slot.
Related question, sort-of on topic: Has the populist right peaked? You'd expect them to decline as the economy gets better, Boehner seems to be less scared of the Tea Party than he used to be, and UKIP seem to be a little bit off the boil.
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
LOL, you boys really have no clue. So we have gone from him going to clearly commit to NO currency union to a whimpering "advises against it". LOL.
Civil servants advise: ministers decide. And ministers (and potential future ministers) have given their decision.
There will be no institutional currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Referendums are national, cross-party lying conpetitions. They're even worse than general elections because there's nothing the voters can do afterwards if they realize they've been conned. Statements by politicians about what they'd do after a referendum have exactly zero predictive power for what they'd actually do after the referendum.
Much like a coalition then.
Referendums are much worse than coalitions. With coalitions you get to blur who's responsible for things you said before the election not coming true after the election, but the voters still get to punish you at the polls for failing to deliver what you said. (See the LibDem poll share.) With referendums you get to ignore it completely. There is absolutely no incentive to tell the truth.
I do seem to recall Clegg getting massively upset over the AV referendum and a 'gentleman's agreement' between him and Cammie over how it would be run. To be fair Cammie was forced to cave in to his backbenchers (as usual) when the result didn't seem to be going the tories way. I expect that was the excuse used when a furious Clegg confronted Cammie in the quad afterwards. It also led the way to the Lords Reform/Boundary changes debacle when the same excuse was used. And again in the immigration vote debacle.
"the LDs had agreed to the home secretary’s power to remove citizenship only to see off the unacceptable rebel amendments. But the Government has just announced it won’t oppose the Raab amendment (automatically deporting foreign criminals unless they face torture or death.)"
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
I do have a Chris Christie piece from last year, I might resurrect and update.
I reckon he's toast. Blaming illegal activity on your underlings is a dangerous move, because your underlings are now forced to blame it on you, and they'll have to use anything they know that can discredit you.
The question is then who gets the business-approved moderate slot.
My draft piece on Christie was along the lines, will his body shape damage in the eyes of the voters (and alluding to the fact that Hillary will be 69 in 2016)
My betting slips hope it is Rand Paul that gets the GOP nomination
“We vote with others in mind. Conservatives think everyone else is out to shaft them so try and shaft them first.
“Labour voters are idealists who want to believe they’re doing good without going to any effort, so they vote for anyone with an attractive set of lies.
“Lib Dem voters just want to be noticed even if the attention they get is negative, much like a small boy urinating in his pants.
“And voting UKIP is the political equivalent of asking the police to arrest you before you hurt someone.”
Worthy of a thread on its own!
Well I'm editing PB next week.....
So far I've written a thread on the possibility of a new electoral voting system for the 2015 General Election (without a referendum)
Any ideas and suggestions for threads are welcome.
Really do feel this articled from a labour pressure group is worth a thread oñ it's own
"The ‘Mrs Duffy’ moment was so damaging to Labour in 2010 because it encapsulated a fear that had been building for years: that New Labour looked down its nose at people who were worried about immigration. Labour won few votes among those who saw immigration as their most important issue, but it lost plenty among people who felt the party disdained their views.... . Immigration is a vortex issue: it sucks in concerns about housing, wages, benefits, jobs, public services, community cohesion and crime. Recent European immigration creates a new set of issues as young workers expecting to be here for a short period of time compete with tradespeople trying to support families in Britain in the midst of a cost of living crisis."
Labour posters constantly slag off ex Labour voters on here accusing them of racism, BNP lite views, and doubting their sincerity when they talk of issues that affect them and their friends. It is accepted by the rest of the PB community without question.
"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency. 2. An attempt to join the Euro.
Stirling is firmly off the table.
No, I don't think the status of Stirling was ever up for debate!!
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
I do have a Chris Christie piece from last year, I might resurrect and update.
I reckon he's toast. Blaming illegal activity on your underlings is a dangerous move, because your underlings are now forced to blame it on you, and they'll have to use anything they know that can discredit you.
The question is then who gets the business-approved moderate slot.
My draft piece on Christie was along the lines, will his body shape damage in the eyes of the voters (and alluding to the fact that Hillary will be 69 in 2016)
I'd say body shape is the least of his worries. His problems are: 1) Personality that doesn't work everywhere. 2) Positions that make sense for a Republican running in New Jersey but aren't ideal everywhere in the US, not to mention a (literal) embrace of Obama. ...which could have been survivable, but not when you add: 3) An ongoing, unresolved drumbeat of sleaze.
Gummer is the same as Yeo, he never does anything unless it's in his own interest, but then again I am sure you know that.
And your sentiment just shows how out of touch you are.
Well, we'll see - it's something I've said locally too. I've retired from the business of adopting attitudes that I think will be popular (yes, I was in it at least part of the time, and apart from moral issues it's fool's gold, as people change their minds and attack you for agreeing with them last month). I now try to simply say what I think. People can vote for it or not, as they judge best. I think that's how representational democracy should work, really.
Related question, sort-of on topic: Has the populist right peaked? You'd expect them to decline as the economy gets better, Boehner seems to be less scared of the Tea Party than he used to be, and UKIP seem to be a little bit off the boil.
Boehner is definitely testing the waters with the tea party to see just how far he can push them but they aren't about to suddenly vanish anymore than the kippers are. Off the boil? That would seem to be the case though I still can't see anything other than a rise for the kipper VI before the May EU elections. Right now it just doesn't look like it will be a particularly huge one. If the kippers do less well at the EU elections than expected then it will just make the fall in VI after them that much quicker and harder.
@Carnyx - You seem a reasonable person. Don't you think the SNP does now need to set out its reasons for believing why Carney and the Treasury are wrong? Or, alternatively, don't they need to clarify that they will agree to all terms set out by the rUK for a currency union?
If you read the Macpherson letter, it only rules out such a union on the basis of what the Scottish government is saying and planning currently. That is very significant in my view. And, as Osborne says, Salmond is an economist - he understands these things and he understands that what Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday would be utterly ruinous for Scotland if actually implemented.
Just been looking. Quick question before I reply, please - am I right in believing that the Treasury, or its master, is being much more restrictive than Mr Carney and the Bank of England?
Gummer is the same as Yeo, he never does anything unless it's in his own interest, but then again I am sure you know that.
And your sentiment just shows how out of touch you are.
Well, we'll see - it's something I've said locally too. I've retired from the business of adopting attitudes that I think will be popular (yes, I was in it at least part of the time, and apart from moral issues it's fool's gold, as people change their minds and attack you for agreeing with them last month). I now try to simply say what I think. People can vote for it or not, as they judge best. I think that's how representational democracy should work, really.
Fair enough Nick, I did post below my views on Aid, and they are not as extreme as my initial reply to you suggests.
Yes, it is the least of Christie's worries - but point 2 - Kind of alludes to Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts won the GOP nomination (admittedly on his second attempt)
Re Rand Paul, Mike told us to back Rand Paul at 50/1 back in Nov 2012. I did
"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency. 2. An attempt to join the Euro.
Stirling is firmly off the table.
No, I don't think the status of Stirling was ever up for debate!!
Chortle ....
I was musing on Michael Forsyth or Michael Howard going to Brussels and bingo .... I might have said Folkestone !!
Mr. Carnyx, a side-by-side comparison of the Governor and the Chancellor's speeches would be necessary.
The question about whether that matters also needs to be considered. It is not the Governor but politicians who will negotiate (or not) about separation. Political acceptability as well as economic factors will be considerations on both sides (if Yes wins).
GO Balls Alexander Carney The Treasury The civil service The media The financial community The business community Jim Sillars ?
Everyone bar wings over Somerset ?
It's pathetic, the greater the body of evidence the more they stick their head in the sand.
Let's face it Salmond has called the currency argument wrong. His original strategy of the Euro was blown out of the water by the Euro crisis so he was immediately on the back foot. Instead of having the gumption to issue his own currency and thus take a hit at the polls and control the argument he went for easy sell but no control and now he's paying the consequences. Currently there's a bit of a hole in the SNP economic argument and it's mostly self inflicted.
In a nutshell. - and no amount of crying 'bully' will fill the gaping hole of Scotland's future currency dilemma.
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
Their approach seems to be that there will be a currency union because the great Salmond says so. The fact it is not in his gift is irrelevant because if they don't get it they will scweam and scweam until they're sick.
I am a unionist, heart and soul. But if Scotland did vote for independence there is no doubt in my mind that its own currency would be an essential element of a successful economy. The major banks would have to go, and probably Standard Life too. That is a legacy of the Union. No Scottish businesses could have grown so large without the benefits of the Union. Scotland as an independent country could not sustain them.
But once that was done we would have an economy where oil was a massively important component. Our currency would need to reflect that. In the rUK the oil price would be an irrelevance or even worse a contra indicator in that when the oil price was high the £ would fall and visa versa whilst Scotland would require the reverse.
So the Scottish punnet might be tied to the £ for a brief time while things got divvied up and settled down but as the Scottish economy developed it would need to break that tie in the same way as Eire did but much faster given the importance of international markets today compared with their tie.
In failing to recognise this and in having a campaign that says independence really won't be any different (apart from the odd good bit) the SNP have made a major mistake. As a unionist I am delighted.
A thread on the spring budget would be early but interesting. Politically, it's pretty clear that the Tory meme is "We are gradually fixing things and there's still a lot to do, but it's starting to pay off". Be too generous, and it undermines the "lots to do" message. Be too stingy, and it undermines the "starting to pay off" bit. And yet it's the last budget before the frankly electioneering budget which will turn up in 2015. What would it be wise for Osborne to focus on?
Also, since everyone's apparently so interested in Scotland, an article on what happens to the Scottish landscape if the referendum goes down on the lines implied by the current polls, say 58-42. That really should shift voting intentions, surely - but in what way, exactly?
@Carnyx - You seem a reasonable person. Don't you think the SNP does now need to set out its reasons for believing why Carney and the Treasury are wrong? Or, alternatively, don't they need to clarify that they will agree to all terms set out by the rUK for a currency union?
If you read the Macpherson letter, it only rules out such a union on the basis of what the Scottish government is saying and planning currently. That is very significant in my view. And, as Osborne says, Salmond is an economist - he understands these things and he understands that what Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday would be utterly ruinous for Scotland if actually implemented.
Just been looking. Quick question before I reply, please - am I right in believing that the Treasury, or its master, is being much more restrictive than Mr Carney and the Bank of England?
I don't think so. Carney said that a currency union was doable and then explained what would be needed in order for it to happen. The Treasury document explains why, from an rUK perspective, a currency union as currently (publicly) envisaged by the SNP would be unworkable. Basically, the Scottish government's current position does not pass the Carney test. But, of course, that current position may not be set in stone.
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
LOL, you boys really have no clue. So we have gone from him going to clearly commit to NO currency union to a whimpering "advises against it". LOL.
Civil servants advise: ministers decide. And ministers (and potential future ministers) have given their decision.
There will be no institutional currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Can you show me that decision , I could not see any. Some weasely words but no decision, please enlighten me. I mean something real of course which you will be unable to find.
If you want me to find a formal council-in-state kind of decision, then obviously, no, there isn't one yet. Apart from anything else, if - somehow - Yes does win, independence negotiations are almost certain to happen after the UKGE, and today's politicians cannot bind a future parliament.
What they can do is set out the position of their own parties and in that they have been very clear: all are opposed to a formal, institutionalised currency union.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
Don't you think the SNP does now need to set out its reasons for believing why Carney and the Treasury are wrong?
Easy to tell that it's not just the PB tories who have their head in the sand over this. The SNP and Yes campaign have argued their case repeatedly on scottish news and current affairs. It doesn't matter that hardly any of those shrieking about Osbrowne's speech haven't seen that or want to pretend it hasn't happened. It has happened and it will continue to happen. Carney and the Treasury did not rule out a currency union. Advice and warnings are negotiating positions.
What negotiating positions will Scotland have?
Hmm.. how would the Yes campaign and the SNP be negotiating from a position of strength if the scottish public backs independence in a democratic referendum? Yes, that is quite the puzzle. Perhaps the sole scottish tory MP Mundell (who is still outnumbered by pandas) would know?
I'm afraid that is not a very good answer.
I'm afraid I'll just have to live with the foremost PB Romney not liking that answer and not understanding that would be the inescapable core fact from which all negotiating will be done. That's democracy for you.
You would think since the lib dems have had to endure Calamity Clegg as the weak and ineffectual junior coalition partner, as well as having Clegg as the toxic frontman for the Yes to AV vote, then they might understand the dynamics of power and a referendum more.
OK Mick, whatever. I understand that you do not wish to engage with the argument
Classic PB tory answer to a fact you don't like. You should beware what happened to the lib dems in scotland as they became indistinguishable from their tory masters.
Gummer is the same as Yeo, he never does anything unless it's in his own interest, but then again I am sure you know that.
And your sentiment just shows how out of touch you are.
Not with me, he isn't. Whilst the way foreign aid is dolled out is far from perfect (especially some of the recipients), I'm generally in favour of it. This is especially true when it is directly targeted at poverty and education.
True, it's not perfect, and there are problems. But I'm not sure that I'd like to be part of a country that does not try to help others less fortunate than ourselves.
Others obviously differ.
I am in favour of foreign aid as well and think UKIP would be far better off pointing out how much we could do with the money that is extorted from us by the EU rather than the relatively small amount we give in aid. But that doesn't change the fact that Gummer is a nasty little piece of Europhile excrement who really is only interested in this story in so far as it allows him to attack UKIP rather than because of any great love for foreign aid.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
A lot of English businesses do a lot of trade with Scotland, and it would obviously be in their interests not to have a load of new currency risk.
Gummer is the same as Yeo, he never does anything unless it's in his own interest, but then again I am sure you know that.
And your sentiment just shows how out of touch you are.
Well, we'll see - it's something I've said locally too. I've retired from the business of adopting attitudes that I think will be popular (yes, I was in it at least part of the time, and apart from moral issues it's fool's gold, as people change their minds and attack you for agreeing with them last month). I now try to simply say what I think. People can vote for it or not, as they judge best. I think that's how representational democracy should work, really.
Excellent news. It won't do any future ministerial career any favours (but then I suspect you've not harboured many hopes there now anyway), but thinking for yourself and - even more - acting for yourself will not only be good for how you're seen but also makes it far easier to remember what line to take on any given issue.
Actually, I think it's fool's gold on moral issues too. Just say what you believe. people will respect you for having an opinion and sticking to it even if it isn't theirs. Even changing it isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's an agonised change prompted by real evidence. It's changing position prompted by polling and the whips office that people object to.
A thread on the spring budget would be early but interesting. Politically, it's pretty clear that the Tory meme is "We are gradually fixing things and there's still a lot to do, but it's starting to pay off". Be too generous, and it undermines the "lots to do" message. Be too stingy, and it undermines the "starting to pay off" bit. And yet it's the last budget before the frankly electioneering budget which will turn up in 2015. What would it be wise for Osborne to focus on?
I agree with that Nick. This budget is going to be very tricky politically. Cameron's "money is no object" response to the floods shows the problem vividly. Can the tories risk doing the economically right but politically dangerous thing and keep it tight? Or will the pressure to reduce those cuts pencilled in for a pre-election year prove irresistible as the money starts to come in?
Most importantly, since the details will pass most by, what is the core message for the pre-election year? How do you focus on growth without it sounding like plan B? Not easy.
Don't you think the SNP does now need to set out its reasons for believing why Carney and the Treasury are wrong?
Easy to tell that it's not just the PB tories who have their head in the sand over this. The SNP and Yes campaign have argued their case repeatedly on scottish news and current affairs. It doesn't matter that hardly any of those shrieking about Osbrowne's speech haven't seen that or want to pretend it hasn't happened. It has happened and it will continue to happen. Carney and the Treasury did not rule out a currency union. Advice and warnings are negotiating positions.
What negotiating positions will Scotland have?
Hmm.. how would the Yes campaign and the SNP be negotiating from a position of strength if the scottish public backs independence in a democratic referendum? Yes, that is quite the puzzle. Perhaps the sole scottish tory MP Mundell (who is still outnumbered by pandas) would know?
I'm afraid that is not a very good answer.
I'm afraid I'll just have to live with the foremost PB Romney not liking that answer and not understanding that would be the inescapable core fact from which all negotiating will be done. That's democracy for you.
You would think since the lib dems have had to endure Calamity Clegg as the weak and ineffectual junior coalition partner, as well as having Clegg as the toxic frontman for the Yes to AV vote, then they might understand the dynamics of power and a referendum more.
OK Mick, whatever. I understand that you do not wish to engage with the argument
Classic PB tory answer to a fact you don't like. You should beware what happened to the lib dems in scotland as they became indistinguishable from their tory masters.
I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today.
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
We never take absurd PB tory attitudes as representative of anything other than a right-wing factional view that bears little resemblance to westminster never mind scotland.
But as I have already pointed out (presumably when you were away), this is simply not the case. The English - or to be more precise the EWNI - public are not hostile, but in fact positively in favour of currency union with the Scots, to the tune of 71% (including 2/3 of Tory voters) with 12% opposed and the rest DKs. Admittedly that was before the current press eructation but early December is not that long ago.
It's delightful that the bubble dwellers on PB seem deluded enough to think Osborne is an asset to the No campaign in scotland and that his endless scaremongering to the scottish public is going to be treated with reverent affection. Completely potty, but delightful.
I look forward to Osborne being the face of the NO campaign for as long as possible.
A thread on the spring budget would be early but interesting. Politically, it's pretty clear that the Tory meme is "We are gradually fixing things and there's still a lot to do, but it's starting to pay off". Be too generous, and it undermines the "lots to do" message. Be too stingy, and it undermines the "starting to pay off" bit. And yet it's the last budget before the frankly electioneering budget which will turn up in 2015. What would it be wise for Osborne to focus on?
Also, since everyone's apparently so interested in Scotland, an article on what happens to the Scottish landscape if the referendum goes down on the lines implied by the current polls, say 58-42. That really should shift voting intentions, surely - but in what way, exactly?
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
Here you are again, commenting on that subject about which you're so indifferent. At least you're consistent in the depth of your insights.
I don't care much either way - I don't know about the rule that says therefore I can't post! I do care about rUK and I do not want want a currency union with bile-filled gnats. Satisfied.
A thread on the spring budget would be early but interesting. Politically, it's pretty clear that the Tory meme is "We are gradually fixing things and there's still a lot to do, but it's starting to pay off". Be too generous, and it undermines the "lots to do" message. Be too stingy, and it undermines the "starting to pay off" bit. And yet it's the last budget before the frankly electioneering budget which will turn up in 2015. What would it be wise for Osborne to focus on?
The obvious thing would be tax cuts that you can say are good for job creation: Cut national insurance, raise the income tax threshold some more etc. Also find some taxes that don't raise much but are a PITA for businesses to administer and abolish them outright.
The Transport Secretary has recently told the Commons that he expects the Dawlish line to be up and running by March 18th. One of the bookmakers had odds on this last week that were odds-against on the line being open before the end of March.
Although the storm tomorrow could do some further damage this would look like an attractive bet if still available. Probably still value at 5/6 in my personal opinion, though, as ever, you take your own risks with your bets.
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
We never take absurd PB tory attitudes as representative of anything other than a right-wing factional view that bears little resemblance to westminster never mind scotland.
It's delightful that the bubble dwellers on PB seem deluded enough to think Osborne is an asset to the No campaign in scotland and that his endless scaremongering to the scottish public is going to be treated with reverent affection. Completely potty, but delightful.
I look forward to Osborne being the face of the NO campaign for as long as possible.
The position that all 3 political parties who will, in whatever combination, form the government of rUK are against a currency union is a little more than a PB bubble.
If Salmond was half as smart as some people like to believe his response would be, "fine, I thought that was in both our interests, but if you don't want it we will have our own currency."
The longer he doesn't do that the more unrealistic his position becomes.
Excellent news. It won't do any future ministerial career any favours (but then I suspect you've not harboured many hopes there now anyway), but thinking for yourself and - even more - acting for yourself will not only be good for how you're seen but also makes it far easier to remember what line to take on any given issue.
Actually, I think it's fool's gold on moral issues too. Just say what you believe. people will respect you for having an opinion and sticking to it even if it isn't theirs. Even changing it isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's an agonised change prompted by real evidence. It's changing position prompted by polling and the whips office that people object to.
The other key thing for a politician is to remain polite and respectful of the views of those who disagree with his or her position. Nick is very good on that score.
Gummer is the same as Yeo, he never does anything unless it's in his own interest, but then again I am sure you know that.
And your sentiment just shows how out of touch you are.
Not with me, he isn't. Whilst the way foreign aid is dolled out is far from perfect (especially some of the recipients), I'm generally in favour of it. This is especially true when it is directly targeted at poverty and education.
True, it's not perfect, and there are problems. But I'm not sure that I'd like to be part of a country that does not try to help others less fortunate than ourselves.
Others obviously differ.
I am in favour of foreign aid as well and think UKIP would be far better off pointing out how much we could do with the money that is extorted from us by the EU rather than the relatively small amount we give in aid. But that doesn't change the fact that Gummer is a nasty little piece of Europhile excrement who really is only interested in this story in so far as it allows him to attack UKIP rather than because of any great love for foreign aid.
Me too. If we really want to curb long term immigration, the right strategy for that is to increase development in these societies, so the economic and social push factors are not there.
@TSE - Something on the state of politics in the US would be good. There are the mid-terms coming up in November, Obamacare is still rumbling on, the Hillary machine seems to be revving up its engines, the GOP race is as always interesting, with Chris Christie having opened up the race with a spot of bother on a bridge.
I do have a Chris Christie piece from last year, I might resurrect and update.
I reckon he's toast. Blaming illegal activity on your underlings is a dangerous move, because your underlings are now forced to blame it on you, and they'll have to use anything they know that can discredit you.
The question is then who gets the business-approved moderate slot.
I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones
Just as I think the usual scaremongering and attempts to pick holes in detail on a subject just 2% of the scottish public rated as most important are hardly a very good strategy for No. Nonetheless, since the No campaign have no positive vision for scotland they are stuck with such a pitiful strategy.
Why on earth would I or any other Yes campaigner accept Osborne's endless scaremongering as a realistic basis for negotiations? The Treasury is Osborne's creature. Everyone knows that. If the scottish public vote for Independence then Independence and negotiations there shall be. As EiT rightly pointed out previous posturing will be wiped away as the serious work begins. If you think rUK hold all the cards with politicians of the class of Osborne, little Ed, Balls, Clegg and Cammie then you're welcome to that opinion. I certainly don't agree with it.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
A lot of English businesses do a lot of trade with Scotland, and it would obviously be in their interests not to have a load of new currency risk.
Isn't that the logic for joining the Euro? Decreased risks in one area do not necessarily offset increased risks in others.
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
Here you are again, commenting on that subject about which you're so indifferent. At least you're consistent in the depth of your insights.
I don't care much either way - I don't know about the rule that says therefore I can't post! I do care about rUK and I do not want want a currency union with bile-filled gnats. Self-satisfied.
Who said anything about not posting? No one made me a moderator. On Free Market PB, as long as you keep posting inanities about what you 'don't care much' about, I'm free to point out the inanity.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
A lot of English businesses do a lot of trade with Scotland, and it would obviously be in their interests not to have a load of new currency risk.
Isn't that the logic for joining the Euro? Decreased risks in one area do not necessarily offset increased risks in others.
Yes, it's the logic for joining the Euro. It's also the logic for keeping a single currency for the whole of England, rather than splitting off London and the South-East, despite its economy behaving quite differently. If you've got a very integrated economy it works better with a single unit of exchange. The more trade you do with each other, the more you lose by having contracts randomly change their value because of exchange rate fluctuations.
That doesn't mean Scotland would get a blank cheque, and Scotland may end up deciding it would rather have its own currency than agree to let London vet its budgets or whatever the English felt they needed to avoid the Scots cocking things up for them, but at the very least there's a very strong incentive for both sides to see if they can make a deal.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat?
Or just more shouting about how an Independent Scotland will keep Sterling regardless of what the nasty English think.
I've not been following the ins and outs but it's obvious that a lot of people will vote with their heart rather than their heads. So the lengthy discussions on currency, economics or technical issues will be ignored. I suppose it all depends on whether the nation is a Rob Roy or a canny Scot.
Incidentally, could you refrain from bringing Lincolnshire people in your arguments. "Yellow Belly" has more than one meaning.
CD13 , please enlighten me on the other meaning. I will of course refrain from its use in future in any case.
The interesting thing about the Treasuy, Osborne and Alexander comments on the Scottish currency issue is not the fact that they rule out a formal currency union - that is so obviously a non-starter that it's hardly news that it's ruled out - but what they say about Scotland using the pound without a currency union. I'm surprised at the strength of the statements they've made about that not being viable either.
Show us where they categorically rule it out. On the other point why are you surprised that they are lying about Scotland using the pound outside a currency union.
As an enthusiast for the Union, I do wish that George Osborne didn't look quite so much like an aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland... — Tom Holland (@holland_tom)
I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones
Just as I think the usual scaremongering and attempts to pick holes in detail on a subject just 2% of the scottish public rated as most important are hardly a very good strategy for No. Nonetheless, since the No campaign have no positive vision for scotland they are stuck with such a pitiful strategy.
Why on earth would I or any other Yes campaigner accept Osborne's endless scaremongering as a realistic basis for negotiations? The Treasury is Osborne's creature. Everyone knows that. If the scottish public vote for Independence then Independence and negotiations there shall be. As EiT rightly pointed out previous posturing will be wiped away as the serious work begins. If you think rUK hold all the cards with politicians of the class of Osborne, little Ed, Balls, Clegg and Cammie then you're welcome to that opinion. I certainly don't agree with it.
Only 2% rated currency as 'most important', but 13% rated it as most or second-most important (5th highest issue) and 23% rated it in their top three (also 5th, though nearly 4th). Given the prominence of the issue just now - and the lack of agreement on any way forward - I'd expect all those percentages to rise.
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
Their approach seems to be that there will be a currency union because the great Salmond says so. The fact it is not in his gift is irrelevant because if they don't get it they will scweam and scweam until they're sick.
I read it slightly differently.
I think the Nationalist argument is that this is all water off a duck's back.
That currency is a low priority for voters, so all this shouldn't make any dent in the independence cause (especially when you look at who it is delivering the message!)
I agree with you that that is their position but I think they are wrong. Currency has been a low interest issue because until recently most Scots accepted Salmond's assurances that nothing would change. Understandably people were more interested in what would.
But now there is a threat it would change I expect interest in the issue to pick up very sharply. People are always worried about their money.
I also think they are wrong on the substance. The idea of an independent Scottish Government submitting its budget for approval by the BoE or some other regulatory body dominated by English interests is just ridiculous. But it is the price of a currency union, ask the Greeks, the Portuguese, the Spanish and (coming soon) even the French..
@Carnyx - You should be aware there is also polling conducted roughly at the same time as the SNP/Panelbase you mention, that shows a plurality of voters in England and Wales opposed to An independent Scotland continuing to use the pound as their currency
blockquote class="Quote" rel="SouthamObserver">@Carnyx - You seem a reasonable person. Don't you think the SNP does now need to set out its reasons for believing why Carney and the Treasury are wrong? Or, alternatively, don't they need to clarify that they will agree to all terms set out by the rUK for a currency union?
If you read the Macpherson letter, it only rules out such a union on the basis of what the Scottish government is saying and planning currently. That is very significant in my view. And, as Osborne says, Salmond is an economist - he understands these things and he understands that what Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday would be utterly ruinous for Scotland if actually implemented.
(and thanks to @Morris_Dancer for the comments re the Carney speech vis a vis today's)
IIRC Mr Carney basically said he'd do the financial nuts and bolts for whatever the politicos agreed, so long as within reasonable parameters of fiscal rectitude (as one would expect). Mr O and Mr Macpherson's stuff is much more restrictive, almost but not quite ruling out an agreement. Either mandarinese is not what it was, or Mr M's letter has been edited by the politicians . Apart from the misleading Osborne-style reference to the Scottish financial sector (which in any case the Unionists tell us will vanish the day after indy), I was struck by the notion that a currency union with Scotland would be more expensive than keeping the entire debt with a reduction of 8% (or more) of the income on which it is maintained/paid off. And that is an institution whose masters are happy to confound debt and deficit. But anyway.
If you mean Ms Sturgeon's reference to the no debts/no assets solution, I noticed that Macpherson letter and Mr O's speech go on about debts but downplay assets - not just the usual stuff but also such things as (as pointed out on another website) instruments (forget the name) of the National Debt held by the Bank of England as a result of QE.
The two options for the SNP you outline would certainly be possible responses - for an interim solution the only real problem is the time issue (I wonder again if the Carney restrictions' effect on EWNI fiscal policy are the real problem.) But a third/related option is to say let's talk. A fourth is to suggest that Mr O and chums are bluffing (to put it politely). A fifth is to suggest that the Coalition is being deliberately obstructive in view of the benefits of currency union and is refusing to accept a reasonable compromise under the Carney rules, and with regret to accept some other option, leaving the Coalition in the position of the intransigent and obstructive party (as with devomax). None of those are particularly incompatible either at the same time or in sequence, and all have to be borne in mind in terms of debate leading up to a Yes vote - whose achievement would change negotiating positions anyway.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat.
Maybe !!!
Sturgeon on the "Daily Politics" floundering. There appears no option three.
Can we all be a bit kinder to @Mick pls. I am beginning to feel sorry for him. Much like I do feel sorry for EdM when he is having a shocker of a PMQs.
Wrt currency unions, of course there will be one. But what ASalmond is not bothering to explain to the Yessirs is what this actually means. Witness the low ranking in issues of importance of currency in the recent poll which @Mick rightly points to.
Because most of those polled think a currency union has no more implications than the notes and coin in their pockets and as long as those can still be used to buy stuff what's the problem.
The Yes campaign has neither the time nor the inclination to provide an economics tutorial on the reduced scope for independent monetary and fiscal policy that a currency union, with BoE as lender of last resort, would require.
Whether the No campaign can be bothered to point this out or whether we will just have to continue with this farrago is moot.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat.
Maybe !!!
Sturgeon on the "Daily Politics" floundering. There appears no option three.
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
Felix, we are kind people and do not want to leave you destitute, unlike the neo-liberal direction taken down south , we actually still have a modicum of concern for not only Scottish but other UK residents. We realise that even when we decide to make our own decisions , given our shared history there will still be many things we will want do together. Perhaps unionist will come to the same realisation after reality sinks in and they get over their petty indignation and inferiority complex.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat.
Maybe !!!
Sturgeon on the "Daily Politics" floundering.
*tears of laughter etc*
I'll be delighted to link a youtube of her against poor old Andrew Neil when one appears.
I fear you've been viewing things through your arse yet again Jack.
"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency. 2. An attempt to join the Euro.
Stirling is firmly off the table.
Jack, I will believe it when I see it in writing or hear the 3 wise monkeys utter the actual word. Until then it is all bluster and weasely words.
@Carnyx - You should be aware there is also polling conducted roughly at the same time as the SNP/Panelbase you mention, that shows a plurality of voters in England and Wales opposed to An independent Scotland continuing to use the pound as their currency
Thank you. Mind you, the same polling suggests that a similar number would oppose selling Dr Who programmes to the Scots, 31% would oppose HM the Queen being head of state of Scotland, and twice as many want Scottish MPs to be banned from voting at Westminster after the referendum (Yes being implicit in the initial question).
SNP should campaign for Englishmen and women to be allowed a vote on Scottish Independence and then get Sturgeon onto mainstream tv as often as possible, they'd win a landslide
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer one question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones
Just as I think the usual scaremongering and attempts to pick holes in detail on a subject just 2% of the scottish public rated as most important are hardly a very good strategy for No. Nonetheless, since the No campaign have no positive vision for scotland they are stuck with such a pitiful strategy.
Why on earth would I or any other Yes campaigner accept Osborne's endless scaremongering as a realistic basis for negotiations? The Treasury is Osborne's creature. Everyone knows that. If the scottish public vote for Independence then Independence and negotiations there shall be. As EiT rightly pointed out previous posturing will be wiped away as the serious work begins. If you think rUK hold all the cards with politicians of the class of Osborne, little Ed, Balls, Clegg and Cammie then you're welcome to that opinion. I certainly don't agree with it.
With regards to a currency union the rUK does hold all the cards, regardless of who is doing the negotiating. It's not about stopping Scotland being independent - if there is a Yes vote that will, of course, happen. It's about the terms under which independence is agreed and the level of independence those terms create.
I absolutely accept your point that in and of itself the currency is irrelevant to the vast majority of Scottish voters. But surely you can see that it does have a major impact on areas which Scottish voters do care about greatly, such as the economy and whether they will be better off in an independent Scotland.
Because I am not in Scotland I cannot know whether the fact that Osborne says something automatically means that it is dismissed by great swathes of Scottish voters. The Scots I know are not like that, but they do not live in Scotland. However, if an English voice saying something that the SNP does not agree with is so utterly repellent to Scots in Scotland that they choose to ignore it whatever the message being conveyed, then we must all hope that there is a resounding Yes in September and that we can all go our separate ways.
@Carnyx - You should be aware there is also polling conducted roughly at the same time as the SNP/Panelbase you mention, that shows a plurality of voters in England and Wales opposed to An independent Scotland continuing to use the pound as their currency
Very poorly framed q in the circumstances. It conflates a currency union (something which naturally concerns E&W voters), and Scotland using the £ anyway (nowt to do with them).
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat?
Or just more shouting about how an Independent Scotland will keep Sterling regardless of what the nasty English think.
They could opt for their medieval coinage names of merk, testoun or bawbees?
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
The Groat.
Maybe !!!
Sturgeon on the "Daily Politics" floundering.
*tears of laughter etc*
I'll be delighted to link a youtube of her against poor old Andrew Neil when one appears.
I fear you've been viewing things through your arse yet again Jack.
Save your tears for the 18th September when YES is decisively rejected.
SNP should campaign for Englishmen and women to be allowed a vote on Scottish Independence and then get Sturgeon onto mainstream tv as often as possible, they'd win a landslide
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer on question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
And yet polls tell us she's the most popular pol in Scotland by some distance.
Great that Sporting Index have woken up from their Rip Van Winkle state. It's so long since I last logged on that I'd forgotten my password, but on doing so I see the positions I recommended back in the days when Labour supporters were despairing of Ed Miliband are very nicely in profit
Richard - Yes, Sporting are just about as inactive politically as the major bookies - not surprised that you'd forgotten your SI password, they made me change mine for security purposes a few months back. I thought you had traded out of your GE Most Seats binary bet a long time ago - you must be glad you didn't as am I, where I'm currently showing a profit of around £400 on a £20 bet. Even so I guess it's a bet we'd both be happy to lose!
Not as sorry as you and the always amusing PB tories should be feeling for yourselves after you have bet everything on omnishambles Osborne being popular with the scottish public.
"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency. 2. An attempt to join the Euro.
Stirling is firmly off the table.
Jack, I will believe it when I see it in writing or hear the 3 wise monkeys utter the actual word. Until then it is all bluster and weasely words.
That's fine and dandy but the pragmatic view presently is that the Scottish currency options post independence are highly speculative.
SNP should campaign for Englishmen and women to be allowed a vote on Scottish Independence and then get Sturgeon onto mainstream tv as often as possible, they'd win a landslide
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer on question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
And yet polls tell us she's the most popular pol in Scotland by some distance.
The kippers are as clueless about scottish public opinion as the PB tories.
I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones
Just as I think the usual scaremongering and attempts to pick holes in detail on a subject just 2% of the scottish public rated as most important are hardly a very good strategy for No. Nonetheless, since the No campaign have no positive vision for scotland they are stuck with such a pitiful strategy.
Why on earth would I or any other Yes campaigner accept Osborne's endless scaremongering as a realistic basis for negotiations? The Treasury is Osborne's creature. Everyone knows that. If the scottish public vote for Independence then Independence and negotiations there shall be. As EiT rightly pointed out previous posturing will be wiped away as the serious work begins. If you think rUK hold all the cards with politicians of the class of Osborne, little Ed, Balls, Clegg and Cammie then you're welcome to that opinion. I certainly don't agree with it.
With regards to a currency union the rUK does hold all the cards, regardless of who is doing the negotiating. It's not about stopping Scotland being independent - if there is a Yes vote that will, of course, happen. It's about the terms under which independence is agreed and the level of independence those terms create.
I absolutely accept your point that in and of itself the currency is irrelevant to the vast majority of Scottish voters. But surely you can see that it does have a major impact on areas which Scottish voters do care about greatly, such as the economy and whether they will be better off in an independent Scotland.
Because I am not in Scotland I cannot know whether the fact that Osborne says something automatically means that it is dismissed by great swathes of Scottish voters. The Scots I know are not like that, but they do not live in Scotland. However, if an English voice saying something that the SNP does not agree with is so utterly repellent to Scots in Scotland that they choose to ignore it whatever the message being conveyed, then we must all hope that there is a resounding Yes in September and that we can all go our separate ways.
In much the same way that 'europe' is not high on people's issues in itself, but it's an area which impacts on so many other things.
The currency impacts upon economy/exchange rates/interest rates/inflation....all of which people should very much, and are concerned about...
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
Their approach seems to be that there will be a currency union because the great Salmond says so. The fact it is not in his gift is irrelevant because if they don't get it they will scweam and scweam until they're sick.
I am a unionist, heart and soul. But if Scotland did vote for independence there is no doubt in my mind that its own currency would be an essential element of a successful economy. The major banks would have to go, and probably Standard Life too. That is a legacy of the Union. No Scottish businesses could have grown so large without the benefits of the Union. Scotland as an independent country could not sustain them.
But once that was done we would have an economy where oil was a massively important component. Our currency would need to reflect that. In the rUK the oil price would be an irrelevance or even worse a contra indicator in that when the oil price was high the £ would fall and visa versa whilst Scotland would require the reverse.
So the Scottish punnet might be tied to the £ for a brief time while things got divvied up and settled down but as the Scottish economy developed it would need to break that tie in the same way as Eire did but much faster given the importance of international markets today compared with their tie.
In failing to recognise this and in having a campaign that says independence really won't be any different (apart from the odd good bit) the SNP have made a major mistake. As a unionist I am delighted.
David, you make the usual pompous unionist assumption that us having an opinion of what we believe will be the reality of the day in the event of a YES vote and your blinkered view. You may well be right but you might just as well be wrong. As stated not one person has ever said NO. They go round the houses using weasely words and as a lawyer you well know they are lying. When it is YES the reality will sharpen their minds.
@Carnyx - You should be aware there is also polling conducted roughly at the same time as the SNP/Panelbase you mention, that shows a plurality of voters in England and Wales opposed to An independent Scotland continuing to use the pound as their currency
Very poorly framed q in the circumstances. It conflates a currency union (something which naturally concerns E&W voters), and Scotland using the £ anyway (nowt to do with them).
I think both polls were badly worded (and had questions beforehand that may have influenced the response)
I suspect, most voters (in E&W and Scotland) at the time of polling (and now) are unaware of what exactly a currency union entails.
Given, the way Ladbrokes have framed their currency bets, they are not alone.
SNP should campaign for Englishmen and women to be allowed a vote on Scottish Independence and then get Sturgeon onto mainstream tv as often as possible, they'd win a landslide
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer on question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
And yet polls tell us she's the most popular pol in Scotland by some distance.
Really?! Blimey
I guess that's because Nats are more passionate about politics than your average Scot?
I'm with the English democrat bloke on DP... I'm not British, I'm English... Very annoying when I have to tick British on forms. I'm sure Scots feel the same.
Was annoying how she didn't give a straight answer to any question though
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
LOL, you boys really have no clue. So we have gone from him going to clearly commit to NO currency union to a whimpering "advises against it". LOL.
Civil servants advise: ministers decide. And ministers (and potential future ministers) have given their decision.
There will be no institutional currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Can you show me that decision , I could not see any. Some weasely words but no decision, please enlighten me. I mean something real of course which you will be unable to find.
If you want me to find a formal council-in-state kind of decision, then obviously, no, there isn't one yet. Apart from anything else, if - somehow - Yes does win, independence negotiations are almost certain to happen after the UKGE, and today's politicians cannot bind a future parliament.
What they can do is set out the position of their own parties and in that they have been very clear: all are opposed to a formal, institutionalised currency union.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
David, I agree but we do not know what the implications of a YES vote will be and reality may well be that they will need a currency union, so all this talk is just posturing and we know it. George bluffing with his pair of two's is unlikely to win the hand.
Not as sorry as you and the always amusing PB tories should be feeling for yourselves after you have bet everything on omnishambles Osborne being popular with the scottish public.
What planet are you living on?
This shouldn't be such an antagonistic process (although I agree it's much more fun if it is). I probably speak for many English Tories when I say that in principle I would like the Union to continue but if the Scots really really want out then fine - good luck. 1707 isn't the beginning of time...things change so be it.
But what really irritates us is the vituperation on the Nats' side. It mirrors the English socialists and their hatred for Tories/Fatch/etc. We don't hate left-wingers or Scottish people. We like you. We seek to help you see the error of your ways in a loving, supportive manner.
The difficulty that you face here, however, is that the majority of your co-Scottees disagree with you. I understand that's why you and the other Nats are so bitter. It's the fact that your fellow countrymen have, as far as you are concerned, betrayed you.
And that is why I can't help but feel sorry for you.
However, if an English voice saying something that the SNP does not agree with is so utterly repellent to Scots in Scotland
Osborne is seen by the public as an out of touch tory just as Cammie is. The polls back that up not just in scotland but everywhere else. The entire labour election strategy will be based on exploiting that fact and if the lib dem's hadn't thrown their lot in with Cammie they would be too. Your pitiful retreat into a bigotry smear is as telling as your head in the sand clueless predictions of Romney winning the U.S. election.
However, if an English voice saying something that the SNP does not agree with is so utterly repellent to Scots in Scotland
Osborne is seen by the public as an out of touch tory just as Cammie is. The polls back that up not just in scotland but everywhere else. The entire labour election strategy will be based on exploiting that fact and if the lib dem's hadn't thrown their lot in with Cammie they would be too. Your pitiful retreat into a bigotry smear is as telling as your head in the sand clueless predictions of Romney winning the U.S. election.
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
LOL, you boys really have no clue. So we have gone from him going to clearly commit to NO currency union to a whimpering "advises against it". LOL.
Civil servants advise: ministers decide. And ministers (and potential future ministers) have given their decision.
There will be no institutional currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK.
Can you show me that decision , I could not see any. Some weasely words but no decision, please enlighten me. I mean something real of course which you will be unable to find.
If you want me to find a formal council-in-state kind of decision, then obviously, no, there isn't one yet. Apart from anything else, if - somehow - Yes does win, independence negotiations are almost certain to happen after the UKGE, and today's politicians cannot bind a future parliament.
What they can do is set out the position of their own parties and in that they have been very clear: all are opposed to a formal, institutionalised currency union.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
David, I agree but we do not know what the implications of a YES vote will be and reality may well be that they will need a currency union, so all this talk is just posturing and we know it. George bluffing with his pair of two's is unlikely to win the hand.
Or, much more likely, a successful YES would be based upon a certain set of beliefs as promised by Eck - only to find when hard negotiations came along that those beliefs were so much hot air. What then? If England says No Currency Union after a YES what will happen? Eck won't care he'll have his YES. But non-NatTastic typs may actually worry about this. Scotish heads may look at Scottish hearts and say - erm this is actually a good question and I'd like to know the answer.
SNP should campaign for Englishmen and women to be allowed a vote on Scottish Independence and then get Sturgeon onto mainstream tv as often as possible, they'd win a landslide
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer on question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
And yet polls tell us she's the most popular pol in Scotland by some distance.
The kippers are as clueless about scottish public opinion as the PB tories.
Look, independent means what it says. Everyone respects the right of the Scots to self-determination but once you've got it, you've got it. You are a foreign country. Do you think rUK would be obliged to enter a currency union with Finland because the Finns voted for it?
I thought you had traded out of your GE Most Seats binary bet a long time ago - you must be glad you didn't as am I, where I'm currently showing a profit of around £400 on a £20 bet. Even so I guess it's a bet we'd both be happy to lose!
Actually I had two goes at it. I originally sold the Most Seats market (i.e. backed Labour) fairly heavily at an average of 59.33 in late 2010, and I closed that position at 52 the day before the 2011 locals, which turned out to be excellent timing because Labour put in a disappointing performance and sentiment moved against Labour after that. The price duly went back up again pretty rapidly. I then opened a second Sell position in 2012 at 54. I've still got that position open, and although the market is suspended it's showing as a nice profit. You are right that I've partly traded out; however I did this by a bet on a different market because the effective price was better.
The Nationalists' position on here this morning has been truly absurd. How do they think that attitudes such as those shown here could possibly form the basis of a successful currency union?
Their approach seems to be that there will be a currency union because the great Salmond says so. The fact it is not in his gift is irrelevant because if they don't get it they will scweam and scweam until they're sick.
I am a unionist, heart and soul. But if Scotland did vote for independence there is no doubt in my mind that its own currency would be an essential element of a successful economy. The major banks would have to go, and probably Standard Life too. That is a legacy of the Union. No Scottish businesses could have grown so large without the benefits of the Union. Scotland as an independent country could not sustain them.
But once that was done we would have an economy where oil was a massively important component. Our currency would need to reflect that. In the rUK the oil price would be an irrelevance or even worse a contra indicator in that when the oil price was high the £ would fall and visa versa whilst Scotland would require the reverse.
So the Scottish punnet might be tied to the £ for a brief time while things got divvied up and settled down but as the Scottish economy developed it would need to break that tie in the same way as Eire did but much faster given the importance of international markets today compared with their tie.
In failing to recognise this and in having a campaign that says independence really won't be any different (apart from the odd good bit) the SNP have made a major mistake. As a unionist I am delighted.
David, you make the usual pompous unionist assumption that us having an opinion of what we believe will be the reality of the day in the event of a YES vote and your blinkered view. You may well be right but you might just as well be wrong. As stated not one person has ever said NO. They go round the houses using weasely words and as a lawyer you well know they are lying. When it is YES the reality will sharpen their minds.
Malcolm, it is just common sense. Can you really see John Swinney, as Chancellor of an independent Scotland submitting his budget to Robert Chote and Carney for prior approval before submitting it to the Scottish Parliament? I mean, is this really what all this disruption is all about?
I want us to stay in a currency union with rUK by remaining a part of the UK. But if we are going to be independent surely we must make our own decisions? What if they say no, you are spending too much? Where do we go from there?
I thought you had traded out of your GE Most Seats binary bet a long time ago - you must be glad you didn't as am I, where I'm currently showing a profit of around £400 on a £20 bet. Even so I guess it's a bet we'd both be happy to lose!
Actually I had two goes at it. I originally sold the Most Seats market (i.e. backed Labour) fairly heavily at an average of 59.33 in late 2010, and I closed that position at 52 the day before the 2011 locals, which turned out to be excellent timing because Labour put in a disappointing performance and sentiment moved against Labour after that. The price duly went back up again pretty rapidly. I then opened a second Sell position in 2012 at 54. I've still got that position open, and although the market is suspended it's showing as a nice profit. You are right that I've partly traded out, though; however I did this by a bet on a different market because the effective price was better.
I always find lengthy stories about bets where you've lost play better to the audience
Not as sorry as you and the always amusing PB tories should be feeling for yourselves after you have bet everything on omnishambles Osborne being popular with the scottish public.
What planet are you living on?
This shouldn't be such an antagonistic process (although I agree it's much more fun if it is). I probably speak for many English Tories when I say that in principle I would like the Union to continue but if the Scots really really want out then fine - good luck. 1707 isn't the beginning of time...things change so be it.
But what really irritates us is the vituperation on the Nats' side. It mirrors the English socialists and their hatred for Tories/Fatch/etc. We don't hate left-wingers or Scottish people. We like you. We seek to help you see the error of your ways in a loving, supportive manner.
The difficulty that you face here, however, is that the majority of your co-Scottees disagree with you. I understand that's why you and the other Nats are so bitter. It's the fact that your fellow countrymen have, as far as you are concerned, betrayed you.
And that is why I can't help but feel sorry for you.
Beautifully written. Has the ring of profound and undeniable truth.
Its fun listening to all of the bile from the gnats today - 'yellow bellies' 'liars' etc - ti just begs the question why on earth would they want any kind of union with the rUK post independence.? Its a real conundrum - do they really want to leave or not?
Here you are again, commenting on that subject about which you're so indifferent. At least you're consistent in the depth of your insights.
I don't care much either way - I don't know about the rule that says therefore I can't post! I do care about rUK and I do not want want a currency union with bile-filled gnats. Self-satisfied.
Who said anything about not posting? No one made me a moderator. On Free Market PB, as long as you keep posting inanities about what you 'don't care much' about, I'm free to point out the inanity.
Wow - creepy stalker - back in your hole please! As for the Scots currency - why not call it the salmond - nothing at all fishy about that - boom boom!
Comments
"Initially it is to everybodys benefit that we retain sterling , that reality will mean that is what will happen. Longer term it should be our own currency , which may still be sterling but the Scottish variant. All the posturing on here about what the chinless wonders will do is pathetic, their tone will change when it is YES and they will come to the table with their tails between their legs."
..................................................................
Why you think the Westminster government will be much concerned about any Scottish post independence currency posturing is beyond me.
The SNP will have played their card - independence - and you will get what it says on the tin. Westminster has said no to a currency union and Scottish voters have said fine. Next move is Salmond's of which there are only two options :
1. A completely independent Scottish currency.
2. An attempt to join the Euro.
Stirling is firmly off the table.
Don't spoil it all now with polling evidence Carnyx.
Just let them get it it out of their system as the floodwaters rise.
It's always vastly amusing watching the PB tories flap about comically as they completely fail to understand public opinion and just how unpopular their hero Osbrowne is.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/02/07/the-immigration-vortex/
"The ‘Mrs Duffy’ moment was so damaging to Labour in 2010 because it encapsulated a fear that had been building for years: that New Labour looked down its nose at people who were worried about immigration. Labour won few votes among those who saw immigration as their most important issue, but it lost plenty among people who felt the party disdained their views....
. Immigration is a vortex issue: it sucks in concerns about housing, wages, benefits, jobs, public services, community cohesion and crime. Recent European immigration creates a new set of issues as young workers expecting to be here for a short period of time compete with tradespeople trying to support families in Britain in the midst of a cost of living crisis."
Labour posters constantly slag off ex Labour voters on here accusing them of racism, BNP lite views, and doubting their sincerity when they talk of issues that affect them and their friends. It is accepted by the rest of the PB community without question.
Nôw Labour blogs are admitting it.
I don't have much political stuff in the comedy, though. Perhaps that's why Sir Edric's Temple is pretty highly rated (mostly 5 stars).
Edited extra bit: that said, I did paraphrase Emperor Hirohito in Chapter 8.
The question is then who gets the business-approved moderate slot.
"the LDs had agreed to the home secretary’s power to remove citizenship only to see off the unacceptable rebel amendments. But the Government has just announced it won’t oppose the Raab amendment (automatically deporting foreign criminals unless they face torture or death.)"
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-has-nick-clegg-backed-plan-to-deprive-terror-suspects-of-citizenship-38025.html
Bit of a pattern now, isn't it?
My betting slips hope it is Rand Paul that gets the GOP nomination
(a) say it's not true
(b) say it's not fair
(c) "lecture" others about what's in their interest.
Er, that's it #indyref
1) Personality that doesn't work everywhere.
2) Positions that make sense for a Republican running in New Jersey but aren't ideal everywhere in the US, not to mention a (literal) embrace of Obama.
...which could have been survivable, but not when you add:
3) An ongoing, unresolved drumbeat of sleaze. There should be plenty of opportunities to lay that off.
Yes, it is the least of Christie's worries - but point 2 - Kind of alludes to Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts won the GOP nomination (admittedly on his second attempt)
Re Rand Paul, Mike told us to back Rand Paul at 50/1 back in Nov 2012. I did
He's now trading around 10/1.
(a) say it's not true
(b) say it's not fair
(c) "lecture" others about what's in their interest.
Er, that's it #indyref
I was musing on Michael Forsyth or Michael Howard going to Brussels and bingo .... I might have said Folkestone !!
The question about whether that matters also needs to be considered. It is not the Governor but politicians who will negotiate (or not) about separation. Political acceptability as well as economic factors will be considerations on both sides (if Yes wins).
Their approach seems to be that there will be a currency union because the great Salmond says so. The fact it is not in his gift is irrelevant because if they don't get it they will scweam and scweam until they're sick.
I am a unionist, heart and soul. But if Scotland did vote for independence there is no doubt in my mind that its own currency would be an essential element of a successful economy. The major banks would have to go, and probably Standard Life too. That is a legacy of the Union. No Scottish businesses could have grown so large without the benefits of the Union. Scotland as an independent country could not sustain them.
But once that was done we would have an economy where oil was a massively important component. Our currency would need to reflect that. In the rUK the oil price would be an irrelevance or even worse a contra indicator in that when the oil price was high the £ would fall and visa versa whilst Scotland would require the reverse.
So the Scottish punnet might be tied to the £ for a brief time while things got divvied up and settled down but as the Scottish economy developed it would need to break that tie in the same way as Eire did but much faster given the importance of international markets today compared with their tie.
In failing to recognise this and in having a campaign that says independence really won't be any different (apart from the odd good bit) the SNP have made a major mistake. As a unionist I am delighted.
Also, since everyone's apparently so interested in Scotland, an article on what happens to the Scottish landscape if the referendum goes down on the lines implied by the current polls, say 58-42. That really should shift voting intentions, surely - but in what way, exactly?
What they can do is set out the position of their own parties and in that they have been very clear: all are opposed to a formal, institutionalised currency union.
Now, you can ignore that and believe it would change afterwards but the question you'd need to answer is 'why?'. It simply wouldn't be in the interests of an rUK government to risk having the Scottish tail wag the dog.
Actually, I think it's fool's gold on moral issues too. Just say what you believe. people will respect you for having an opinion and sticking to it even if it isn't theirs. Even changing it isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it's an agonised change prompted by real evidence. It's changing position prompted by polling and the whips office that people object to.
Most importantly, since the details will pass most by, what is the core message for the pre-election year? How do you focus on growth without it sounding like plan B? Not easy.
I look forward to Osborne being the face of the NO campaign for as long as possible.
Brown in House of Commons!
The Transport Secretary has recently told the Commons that he expects the Dawlish line to be up and running by March 18th. One of the bookmakers had odds on this last week that were odds-against on the line being open before the end of March.
Although the storm tomorrow could do some further damage this would look like an attractive bet if still available. Probably still value at 5/6 in my personal opinion, though, as ever, you take your own risks with your bets.
If Salmond was half as smart as some people like to believe his response would be, "fine, I thought that was in both our interests, but if you don't want it we will have our own currency."
The longer he doesn't do that the more unrealistic his position becomes.
Why on earth would I or any other Yes campaigner accept Osborne's endless scaremongering as a realistic basis for negotiations? The Treasury is Osborne's creature. Everyone knows that. If the scottish public vote for Independence then Independence and negotiations there shall be. As EiT rightly pointed out previous posturing will be wiped away as the serious work begins. If you think rUK hold all the cards with politicians of the class of Osborne, little Ed, Balls, Clegg and Cammie then you're welcome to that opinion. I certainly don't agree with it.
"I think it's a bit far-fetched to describe me as a PB tory. I have no problem with any of your answers. I just don't think the ones you are giving today are very good ones - principally because they are not actually addressing the issue I raised: what would Scotland's red lines be with regards to a currency union? And, clearly, the SNP could not have repeatedly answered the points raised in today's Treasury document as this was not published before today."
......................................................
Part of the problem for the YES campaign is that they and frankly most Scottish voters didn't think that the post independent currency would be a problem.
However, firstly the Euro option was holed below the waterline and now the quickly adopted Sterling currency union lays in tatters.
We now await option three.
That doesn't mean Scotland would get a blank cheque, and Scotland may end up deciding it would rather have its own currency than agree to let London vet its budgets or whatever the English felt they needed to avoid the Scots cocking things up for them, but at the very least there's a very strong incentive for both sides to see if they can make a deal.
Or just more shouting about how an Independent Scotland will keep Sterling regardless of what the nasty English think.
— Tom Holland (@holland_tom)
But now there is a threat it would change I expect interest in the issue to pick up very sharply. People are always worried about their money.
I also think they are wrong on the substance. The idea of an independent Scottish Government submitting its budget for approval by the BoE or some other regulatory body dominated by English interests is just ridiculous. But it is the price of a currency union, ask the Greeks, the Portuguese, the Spanish and (coming soon) even the French..
43 opposed/38 support
(Page 9)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/weqs1tn6oh/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-291113.pdf
If you read the Macpherson letter, it only rules out such a union on the basis of what the Scottish government is saying and planning currently. That is very significant in my view. And, as Osborne says, Salmond is an economist - he understands these things and he understands that what Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday would be utterly ruinous for Scotland if actually implemented.
(and thanks to @Morris_Dancer for the comments re the Carney speech vis a vis today's)
IIRC Mr Carney basically said he'd do the financial nuts and bolts for whatever the politicos agreed, so long as within reasonable parameters of fiscal rectitude (as one would expect). Mr O and Mr Macpherson's stuff is much more restrictive, almost but not quite ruling out an agreement. Either mandarinese is not what it was, or Mr M's letter has been edited by the politicians . Apart from the misleading Osborne-style reference to the Scottish financial sector (which in any case the Unionists tell us will vanish the day after indy), I was struck by the notion that a currency union with Scotland would be more expensive than keeping the entire debt with a reduction of 8% (or more) of the income on which it is maintained/paid off. And that is an institution whose masters are happy to confound debt and deficit. But anyway.
If you mean Ms Sturgeon's reference to the no debts/no assets solution, I noticed that Macpherson letter and Mr O's speech go on about debts but downplay assets - not just the usual stuff but also such things as (as pointed out on another website) instruments (forget the name) of the National Debt held by the Bank of England as a result of QE.
The two options for the SNP you outline would certainly be possible responses - for an interim solution the only real problem is the time issue (I wonder again if the Carney restrictions' effect on EWNI fiscal policy are the real problem.) But a third/related option is to say let's talk. A fourth is to suggest that Mr O and chums are bluffing (to put it politely). A fifth is to suggest that the Coalition is being deliberately obstructive in view of the benefits of currency union and is refusing to accept a reasonable compromise under the Carney rules, and with regret to accept some other option, leaving the Coalition in the position of the intransigent and obstructive party (as with devomax). None of those are particularly incompatible either at the same time or in sequence, and all have to be borne in mind in terms of debate leading up to a Yes vote - whose achievement would change negotiating positions anyway.
I'd like to see what Mr Balls says ...
Sturgeon on the "Daily Politics" floundering. There appears no option three.
Wrt currency unions, of course there will be one. But what ASalmond is not bothering to explain to the Yessirs is what this actually means. Witness the low ranking in issues of importance of currency in the recent poll which @Mick rightly points to.
Because most of those polled think a currency union has no more implications than the notes and coin in their pockets and as long as those can still be used to buy stuff what's the problem.
The Yes campaign has neither the time nor the inclination to provide an economics tutorial on the reduced scope for independent monetary and fiscal policy that a currency union, with BoE as lender of last resort, would require.
Whether the No campaign can be bothered to point this out or whether we will just have to continue with this farrago is moot.
I'll be delighted to link a youtube of her against poor old Andrew Neil when one appears.
I fear you've been viewing things through your arse yet again Jack.
Jesus how annoying is she?! wouldn't answer one question Andrew Neil asked her... Own up Nats, which one of you is she?!
I absolutely accept your point that in and of itself the currency is irrelevant to the vast majority of Scottish voters. But surely you can see that it does have a major impact on areas which Scottish voters do care about greatly, such as the economy and whether they will be better off in an independent Scotland.
Because I am not in Scotland I cannot know whether the fact that Osborne says something automatically means that it is dismissed by great swathes of Scottish voters. The Scots I know are not like that, but they do not live in Scotland. However, if an English voice saying something that the SNP does not agree with is so utterly repellent to Scots in Scotland that they choose to ignore it whatever the message being conveyed, then we must all hope that there is a resounding Yes in September and that we can all go our separate ways.
Er, perhaps not.
Assuming they didn't choose to stay in the UK.
I thought you had traded out of your GE Most Seats binary bet a long time ago - you must be glad you didn't as am I, where I'm currently showing a profit of around £400 on a £20 bet. Even so I guess it's a bet we'd both be happy to lose!
Osborne = Adebayor
What planet are you living on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xiNTB_rgEs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54wazCHwTmA
Pork will of course counter that Adebayor isn't the sort of chap that Newcastle fans like etc etc.
I must admire Nicola Sturgeon however - she never complains about being sent out by Salmond to face the music when the going gets tough.
The currency impacts upon economy/exchange rates/interest rates/inflation....all of which people should very much, and are concerned about...
I suspect, most voters (in E&W and Scotland) at the time of polling (and now) are unaware of what exactly a currency union entails.
Given, the way Ladbrokes have framed their currency bets, they are not alone.
I guess that's because Nats are more passionate about politics than your average Scot?
I'm with the English democrat bloke on DP... I'm not British, I'm English... Very annoying when I have to tick British on forms. I'm sure Scots feel the same.
Was annoying how she didn't give a straight answer to any question though
This shouldn't be such an antagonistic process (although I agree it's much more fun if it is). I probably speak for many English Tories when I say that in principle I would like the Union to continue but if the Scots really really want out then fine - good luck. 1707 isn't the beginning of time...things change so be it.
But what really irritates us is the vituperation on the Nats' side. It mirrors the English socialists and their hatred for Tories/Fatch/etc. We don't hate left-wingers or Scottish people. We like you. We seek to help you see the error of your ways in a loving, supportive manner.
The difficulty that you face here, however, is that the majority of your co-Scottees disagree with you. I understand that's why you and the other Nats are so bitter. It's the fact that your fellow countrymen have, as far as you are concerned, betrayed you.
And that is why I can't help but feel sorry for you.
I want us to stay in a currency union with rUK by remaining a part of the UK. But if we are going to be independent surely we must make our own decisions? What if they say no, you are spending too much? Where do we go from there?
*ahem* No, I'm fine. It must be the onions.