£100 at evens - I'll be backing No all day at those odds. If @SeanT doesn't want your money I'll take it, @TheUniondivvie.
I'm not a high roller like @SeanT though so £100 will be my limit.
Sorry Pulpstar, you're not (afaik) a blustering Britnat, so no icing if I win the bet. I'll offer 9/4 for Yes which tim took (and still a lot better than the bookies).
I could go on about the implied point of my money not being as good as @SeanT's - I assure you it is even though I have less of it - Anyway onto your offer
Are you offering 4/9 on No or 9/4 on YES ?
Don't worry, I'm sure your money is even better than seant's! Just a straight Yes/No bet, I get £225 for Yes, you get c.£44.45 for No.
After all do we seriously expect an independent Scotland to have the wherewithal to police their borders as well as they could as part of the UK?
You think Farage and the kippers will be going big on how well Cammie and Clegg manage the borders as the May EU elections approach? I somehow doubt it myself.
The SNP's position is entirely ridiculous. Imagine UKIP demanding to leave the EU but insisting on having the Euro as the UK's currency. Salmond is a dangerous joke.
Poor Monica does not even know what currency the UK currently uses , when did we change to the Euro.
Poor wee Malcolm.He thinks an independent Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to have its own currency. Just like wee Eck.
Surely, if the main British political parties say they don't want a currency union with an independent Scotland, and one of the top men in the EU says that it would be very difficult for Scotland to remain in the EU if it splits from the rest of the UK, the SNP has to take those comments seriously? Also, if polling does suggest that we don't want the Scots to have a currency union, the Nats can't complain if rUK politicians takes heed? Scots Indy is certainly only for Scots to decide on, but you can't expect us to not want a say in how it affects the rest of us.
You have to be joking , they are politicians, you count your fingers after shaking hands with them. They would lie and sell their granny if there was self benefit in it. They have more faces than the town clock. Real opinions are welcome, you are unlike many of the frothers on here who just post drivel on the topic.
I'm a supporter of Scots Indy, mate, for various reasons, but I don't know enough about Scottish politics to really make much of an argument for or against. I just think that should you decide to go it alone, then I believe that I should have an interest in how it affects me. I can't begin to really understand the implications of a currency union, I have to take my lead from the politicians, who you rightly scorn, but you should remember that Salmond is a politician, and so I treat him with the same contempt as I do most of the others.
Barosso, Farage, Ed Balls, George Osborne, George Galloway ALL in cahoots ? I think you've lost it !
You might have seen an amusing list that crops up on US forums when politics are discussed, it is called LOPCATGOPATA, the "list of people conspiring against the GOP, and therefore, America", it's a very long list now.
I think we are going to need a similar list for the SNP.
And is this not the Mr Barrosso whom Unionists and Tories don't believe because he says it would be terribly difficult to renegotiate UK membership?
Yup. But the Tories don't really need to push this one, they can leave it to everyone else on the "no" side.
BTW what Barroso says here about Scottish membership being hard or impossible because there are 28 vetos is 100x as true for Cameron's hypothetical Treaty of Röfl, which is supposed to involve other member states actually making concessions, as opposed to the Scottish situation where they're just signing off on a new version of the status quo.
If the Scots aren't allowed in the Euro and perhaps go for a new currency I can see hedge funds lining up to sink em...
Or, maybe not. There was a paper once written which suggested that the Scot£ could actually appreciate !
I think, in the unlikely event of a "Yes" vote, Salmond will go for exactly this. He will then play the Braveheart card ! He can't propose it now as the SNP would be shred apart. But a Scot£ is no more unlikely to succeed than any other countries currency. Denmark, Norway, Sweden have their own. Why can't the Scots ?
Ultimately, it will be the performance of the economy that will decide a currency's fate !
heresy , the frothers on here believe Salmond has never thought of these type of things. When they see that rump UK refuses to share assets and so Scotland is left destitute with no debts and having to form its own currency , they will be buoyed by the fact that they knew Salmond was stupid. None of these turkeys have read the foreign press this week , which was unanimous that England were threatening Scotland if it choose its democratic right to independence.
So are you going to expropriate all the assets that UK HMG currently owns in Scotland? Expropriation and repudiation are not a great start to life as an independent country.
I am not pretending otherwise. I am merely stating that, contrary to your assertion, migration in the 19th and early 20th century was not restricted to the relatively well off. A lot of very poor British and Irish emigrants certainly did make the trip round the horn to Australia and New Zealand. The poverty stricken of Europe had the opportunity to emigrate in the 19th century, which is why so many of them did. Those in Asia and Africa did not.
The reality of mass immigration in the early 20th century may have been different to what we have now. But the perception clearly wasn't - hence the Alien Act 1905.
Lets be clear to avoid ambiguous terms like "relatively well off". Do you agree or disagree that travel from south Asia to the UK was less affordable to the population of the subcontinent in 1905 than it is today?
The SNP's position is entirely ridiculous. Imagine UKIP demanding to leave the EU but insisting on having the Euro as the UK's currency. Salmond is a dangerous joke.
Poor Monica does not even know what currency the UK currently uses , when did we change to the Euro.
Oh dear - maybe you should read Monica's post again:)))))
As Chancellor George Osborne tells MPs it's in Britain's interest to take part in the Irish bailout, the Irish Premier promises an election in the New Year.
A protestor following clashes with police officers after breaking through the gates of Government Buildings in Dublin, after details of the bailout for Ireland are revealed (credit:Reuters)
Mr Osborne told the Commons: "The United Kingdom, alongside the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the eurozone and other member states is participating in the international financial assistance package for Ireland announced last night.
He said it was "overwhelmingly in Britain's national interest" for Ireland to have a stable economy. The country was a major trading partner with an "interconnected" banking system with the UK.
Our Political Editor, Gary Gibbon, says the total amount of British support across three separate loan packages could reach £9billion - although most of this would be required only should Ireland default.
Sure it was - what he didn't say was the real reason: Ulster Bank (a major player south of the border) was a complete basket case and could have brought RBS down.
Assuming that a comparable situation exists for the sake of argument - i.e. that NatWest, headquartered in London, has a Scottish subsidiary RBS, it is not clear that the risk controls within the Group could possibly so cack-handed as to allow RBS to threaten the entire group. But if they were, then there would be a case for the UK government to support a Scottish bailout of British owned banks.
I am not pretending otherwise. I am merely stating that, contrary to your assertion, migration in the 19th and early 20th century was not restricted to the relatively well off. A lot of very poor British and Irish emigrants certainly did make the trip round the horn to Australia and New Zealand. The poverty stricken of Europe had the opportunity to emigrate in the 19th century, which is why so many of them did. Those in Asia and Africa did not.
The reality of mass immigration in the early 20th century may have been different to what we have now. But the perception clearly wasn't - hence the Alien Act 1905.
Lets be clear to avoid ambiguous terms like "relatively well off". Do you agree or disagree that travel from south Asia to the UK was less affordable to the population of the subcontinent in 1905 than it is today?
I agree, largely because the supply of passenger ships was much more limited than the supply of such ships for travel between the UK and Ireland, and the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And if you had made that point originally I would have agreed with you then. But you didn't. You instead made a very sweeping statement about migration only being for the relatively well off. That clearly was not the case. Neither was it the case that migration was relatively low level in the 19th and early 20th century. It was not.
As Chancellor George Osborne tells MPs it's in Britain's interest to take part in the Irish bailout, the Irish Premier promises an election in the New Year.
A protestor following clashes with police officers after breaking through the gates of Government Buildings in Dublin, after details of the bailout for Ireland are revealed (credit:Reuters)
Mr Osborne told the Commons: "The United Kingdom, alongside the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the eurozone and other member states is participating in the international financial assistance package for Ireland announced last night.
He said it was "overwhelmingly in Britain's national interest" for Ireland to have a stable economy. The country was a major trading partner with an "interconnected" banking system with the UK.
Our Political Editor, Gary Gibbon, says the total amount of British support across three separate loan packages could reach £9billion - although most of this would be required only should Ireland default.
I think you need to go back and check what 9/4 means. No wonder people are reluctant to bet with you.
Sorry, of course you're right, trying to cook the Sunday lunch at the same time. At a stake of £100 at 9/4 Yes you win £100, I win £225. Alternatively you can have £100 at 4/9 to win £44.45.
I think you need to go back and check what 9/4 means. No wonder people are reluctant to bet with you.
Sorry, of course you're right, trying to cook the Sunday lunch at the same time. At a stake of £100 you win £100, I win £225. Alternatively you can have £100 at 4/9 to win £44.45.
£100 at 4/9 to win £44.45. Done. Deal. @Peter_the_Punter to be copied in.
I can't believe my outstanding generosity is being refused. However, as the gentleman I am, I will accept your frankly stingy £100 bet, at evens: my money saying that No will win. PeterTheP to adjudicate, as per?
I think you need to go back and check what 9/4 means. No wonder people are reluctant to bet with you.
Sorry, of course you're right, trying to cook the Sunday lunch at the same time. At a stake of £100 you win £100, I win £225. Alternatively you can have £100 at 4/9 to win £44.45.
£100 at 4/9 to win £44.45. Done. Deal. @Peter_the_Punter to be copied in.
As Chancellor George Osborne tells MPs it's in Britain's interest to take part in the Irish bailout, the Irish Premier promises an election in the New Year.
A protestor following clashes with police officers after breaking through the gates of Government Buildings in Dublin, after details of the bailout for Ireland are revealed (credit:Reuters)
Mr Osborne told the Commons: "The United Kingdom, alongside the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the eurozone and other member states is participating in the international financial assistance package for Ireland announced last night.
He said it was "overwhelmingly in Britain's national interest" for Ireland to have a stable economy. The country was a major trading partner with an "interconnected" banking system with the UK.
Our Political Editor, Gary Gibbon, says the total amount of British support across three separate loan packages could reach £9billion - although most of this would be required only should Ireland default.
Sure it was - what he didn't say was the real reason:
Real reason? You mean you think Osbrowne postured, blustered and lied to the public? Good point.
You're over-interpreting my point. Osborne was correct that it is in the UK's interest for Ireland to be prosperous (you just have to look at the problems a depressed continental Europe caused for GDP growth over the last 3 years...)
But a bunch of the money they subscribed went in one door and back out to RBS, B&B, Barclays, etc. Don't forget the Irish banks had a substantial share of the UK BTL market as well, and termination of those loans would have negatively impacted house prices and therefore the capital stability of the UK banks
I can't believe my outstanding generosity is being refused. However, as the gentleman I am, I will accept your frankly stingy £100 bet, at evens: my money saying that No will win. PeterTheP to adjudicate, as per?
Consider it a Deal.
Agreed.
You do realise you just made a £100 bet at 9/4 against Yes winning, then a £100 evens bet with me on exactly the same outcome, having already (correctly) said you could get much better odds at a bookmaker?
You also realise, of course, that I goaded you into doubling this already-ludicrous, stupidly poor value bet (for you) from your initial offer of £50?
I can now go off, put £200 on Yes at a bookies, and ensure I win minimum £100 no matter what.
And you call ME an idiot??
I'm sorry, but: CHORTLE.
You win this round Dr No, but a Yes vote and Britnat Seant handing over a ton, cheap at the price. You'll just have to live with the fact you've revealed yourself as a cheeseparing, trimming little hedger rather than the swashbuckler you so want to be.
Surely, if the main British political parties say they don't want a currency union with an independent Scotland, and one of the top men in the EU says that it would be very difficult for Scotland to remain in the EU if it splits from the rest of the UK, the SNP has to take those comments seriously? Also, if polling does suggest that we don't want the Scots to have a currency union, the Nats can't complain if rUK politicians takes heed? Scots Indy is certainly only for Scots to decide on, but you can't expect us to not want a say in how it affects the rest of us.
You have to be joking , they are politicians, you count your fingers after shaking hands with them. They would lie and sell their granny if there was self benefit in it. They have more faces than the town clock. Real opinions are welcome, you are unlike many of the frothers on here who just post drivel on the topic.
Although a Kipper, I disagree with Farage on Scottish independence. I say let them have it! If they want it, they will vote for it; and if they don't, they won't.
An independent Scotland will cast the Labour party adrift, as it will lose a stronghold that has proved - until now - hard to breach. It will destroy what remains of the L/Dems but strengthen the right in the England and Wales.
For me and many Ukippers, what's not to like?
I agree Mike. Sure if I were Scottish I would be voting YES to independence.
Cant really see how Kippers can be on the NO side, when the argument from YES is so similar to the one we use re the EU
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
So Barruso tells Cameron he has no chance on renegotiation, to Tories, why are you still in denial, Cameron is mugging you off...AGAIN
Spot on: both Cameron and Salmond are spinning big time on the EU. Barrosso has exposed that today - though it's been pretty obvious for a while to anyone taking the time to look.
@TheUnionDivvie I'm very grateful for the £44.45 winging its way to me come September. My most humble gratitude.
I hope you don't put on ante post bets 7 months before a 2 horse race without knowing the state of the ground or the breeding & staying power of the runners.
@SalmondsPlanB: Tomorrow, after Barroso comments on EU membership we will be looking at the "range of options" on other organisations we could join #indyref
@TheUnionDivvie I'm very grateful for the £44.45 winging its way to me come September. My most humble gratitude.
I hope you don't put on ante post bets 7 months before a 2 horse race without knowing the state of the ground or the breeding & staying power of the runners.
I do if the price is right.
You mentioned Tim was on this bet as well ? For all his flaws Tim is a shrewdie when it come to betting.
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
The difference is there is some support within the EU for some form of change - tho nowhere near enough to please the sceptics - but they were always beyond reach anyway.
What support is there within the EU for separatism?
@TheUnionDivvie I'm very grateful for the £44.45 winging its way to me come September. My most humble gratitude.
I hope you don't put on ante post bets 7 months before a 2 horse race without knowing the state of the ground or the breeding & staying power of the runners.
I do if the price is right.
You mentioned Tim was on this bet as well ? For all his flaws Tim is a shrewdie when it come to betting.
But if you don't know the going and horses, how do you know the price is right?
@TheUnionDivvie You might want to let OGH know too, he would be very happy to take 4/9 on No though he has said he doesn't bet with forum members. He'll probably be able to deliver you alot more than £100 too.
@TheUnionDivvie I'm very grateful for the £44.45 winging its way to me come September. My most humble gratitude.
I hope you don't put on ante post bets 7 months before a 2 horse race without knowing the state of the ground or the breeding & staying power of the runners.
I do if the price is right.
You mentioned Tim was on this bet as well ? For all his flaws Tim is a shrewdie when it come to betting.
But if you don't know the going and horses, how do you know the price is right?
I know that one of the horses hasn't had the best prep and is out the handicap. The other is looking good and justifies favouritism. I'm sure you can work out which is which.
@SalmondsPlanB: Tomorrow, after Barroso comments on EU membership we will be looking at the "range of options" on other organisations we could join #indyref
They could join the EEA and NAFTA fairly easily I would have thought. It would be much better for them than the EU.
I can't believe my outstanding generosity is being refused. However, as the gentleman I am, I will accept your frankly stingy £100 bet, at evens: my money saying that No will win. PeterTheP to adjudicate, as per?
Consider it a Deal.
Agreed.
You do realise you just made a £100 bet at 9/4 against Yes winning, then a £100 evens bet with me on exactly the same outcome, having already (correctly) said you could get much better odds at a bookmaker?
You also realise, of course, that I goaded you into doubling this already-ludicrous, stupidly poor value bet (for you) from your initial offer of £50?
I can now go off, put £200 on Yes at a bookies, and ensure I win minimum £100 no matter what.
And you call ME an idiot??
I'm sorry, but: CHORTLE.
You win this round Dr No, but a Yes vote and Britnat Seant handing over a ton, cheap at the price. You'll just have to live with the fact you've revealed yourself as a cheeseparing, trimming little hedger rather than the swashbuckler you so want to be.
I think I'll cope. You just guaranteed me a free £100, no matter what happens, after you succumbed to my goading like the prize buffoon you are. And you claim to be some expert on "betting"??
Not a great day for the PB Nats.
You clutch that 'extra' £100 to yourself. As I've pointed out, it's worth taking taking a knock over the return just for the prospect of taking money off someone who's bugged to the core of their being about the possibility of something happening they have absolutely no control over.
After all do we seriously expect an independent Scotland to have the wherewithal to police their borders as well as they could as part of the UK?
You think Farage and the kippers will be going big on how well Cammie and Clegg manage the borders as the May EU elections approach? I somehow doubt it myself.
Probably not it would confuse the focus which should purely be on the arrogance of Brussels and the submissiveness of Westminster to them and not the independence issue. That does not change the reality of the issue one bit though. Losing Scotland creates an additional national security overhead and given the mess our border control is already in only makes the issue more acute!
@TheUnionDivvie You might want to let OGH know too, he would be very happy to take 4/9 on No though he has said he doesn't bet with forum members. He'll probably be able to deliver you alot more than £100 too.
I dare say he'd be able to speak for himself if that is the case.
I can't believe my outstanding generosity is being refused. However, as the gentleman I am, I will accept your frankly stingy £100 bet, at evens: my money saying that No will win. PeterTheP to adjudicate, as per?
Consider it a Deal.
Agreed.
You do realise you just made a £100 bet at 9/4 against Yes winning, then a £100 evens bet with me on exactly the same outcome, having already (correctly) said you could get much better odds at a bookmaker?
You also realise, of course, that I goaded you into doubling this already-ludicrous, stupidly poor value bet (for you) from your initial offer of £50?
I can now go off, put £200 on Yes at a bookies, and ensure I win minimum £100 no matter what.
And you call ME an idiot??
I'm sorry, but: CHORTLE.
You win this round Dr No, but a Yes vote and Britnat Seant handing over a ton, cheap at the price. You'll just have to live with the fact you've revealed yourself as a cheeseparing, trimming little hedger rather than the swashbuckler you so want to be.
I think I'll cope. You just guaranteed me a free £100, no matter what happens, after you succumbed to my goading like the prize buffoon you are. And you claim to be some expert on "betting"??
Not a great day for the PB Nats.
someone who's bugged to the core of their being about the possibility of something happening they have absolutely no control over.
Salmond and a currency union?
Before the YouGov today, I had thought a Miliband government might sign up to some form of currency union. With EW voters 2:1 against - and "no currency union" a possible GE issue if yes win, it's simply not going to happen.
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
The difference is there is some support within the EU for some form of change - tho nowhere near enough to please the sceptics - but they were always beyond reach anyway.
What support is there within the EU for separatism?
Support for separatism isn't the question - once the separation has happened it's in everyone's interests to keep the same arrangements in place. If you buy or sell from Scotland, or your citizens study in Scotland, or Scottish citizens study in yours - everything about the arrangement is mutually helpful. If it wasn't for the possible effect on their own countries it would be a simple administrative exercise. But the separatism issues mean that even if they want to let it happen, they have an incentive to make it as painful as possible when it does.
By contrast, I haven't heard of a single proposal for something meaningful Cameron might want that would attract majority support. (Admittedly it's all very vague so there aren't a lot of concrete proposals to go on.) It's easy to come up with changes that command the support of a couple of other countries including the UK, but you run up against some other blocking majority, which is why they haven't been done already. And you don't just need a majority, or a super-majority, you need unanimity. Oh, and he wants to do it in two years. Hooked onto another treaty that's also not going to happen. Cameron can't possibly believe what he says he thinks is going to happen is really going to happen.
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
The difference is there is some support within the EU for some form of change - tho nowhere near enough to please the sceptics - but they were always beyond reach anyway.
What support is there within the EU for separatism?
This uses "some" to mean "some minor, practically insignificant changes". It's going to be hilarious on here watching the Conservative loyalists claim that the UK getting the change for giving extra guidance on financial regulation or something of similar magniture is a seismic change in our relationship.
Although a Kipper, I disagree with Farage on Scottish independence. I say let them have it! If they want it, they will vote for it; and if they don't, they won't.
An independent Scotland will cast the Labour party adrift, as it will lose a stronghold that has proved - until now - hard to breach. It will destroy what remains of the L/Dems but strengthen the right in the England and Wales.
For me and many Ukippers, what's not to like?
I agree Mike. Sure if I were Scottish I would be voting YES to independence.
Cant really see how Kippers can be on the NO side, when the argument from YES is so similar to the one we use re the EU
Even if the reality of that ideological position is not in the best interests of the country at large? That doesn't sound like the common sense approach we promose. Ultimately surely its about representing the best interest of the people we represent not ideological purity. Much of the argument for leaving the EU is to improve the prosperity of the country. What are the benefits for UKr of Scotland leaving the Union? How does it improve our prosperity?
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
The difference is there is some support within the EU for some form of change - tho nowhere near enough to please the sceptics - but they were always beyond reach anyway.
What support is there within the EU for separatism?
This uses "some" to mean "some minor, practically insignificant changes". It's going to be hilarious on here watching the Conservative loyalists claim that the UK getting the change for giving extra guidance on financial regulation or something of similar magniture is a seismic change in our relationship.
I am not pretending otherwise. I am merely stating that, contrary to your assertion, migration in the 19th and early 20th century was not restricted to the relatively well off. A lot of very poor British and Irish emigrants certainly did make the trip round the horn to Australia and New Zealand. The poverty stricken of Europe had the opportunity to emigrate in the 19th century, which is why so many of them did. Those in Asia and Africa did not.
The reality of mass immigration in the early 20th century may have been different to what we have now. But the perception clearly wasn't - hence the Alien Act 1905.
Lets be clear to avoid ambiguous terms like "relatively well off". Do you agree or disagree that travel from south Asia to the UK was less affordable to the population of the subcontinent in 1905 than it is today?
I agree, largely because the supply of passenger ships was much more limited than the supply of such ships for travel between the UK and Ireland, and the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And if you had made that point originally I would have agreed with you then. But you didn't. You instead made a very sweeping statement about migration only being for the relatively well off. That clearly was not the case. Neither was it the case that migration was relatively low level in the 19th and early 20th century. It was not.
No, I didn't. You're making things up. I said "the high cost of travel relative to incomes meant rather few people could migrate and could thus be easily integrated". You accept that in the case of the Indian subcontinent this is the case, which accounts for a quarter or so of the world's population. Considering Ireland is tiny in population relative to that, overall my point that "rather few people", in terms of share of population, was entirely accurate. I never said anything about their level of wealth affecting integration, I was speaking in terms of scale of numbers.
Before the YouGov today, I had thought a Miliband government might sign up to some form of currency union. With EW voters 2:1 against - and "no currency union" a possible GE issue if yes win, it's simply not going to happen.
So Ball's statement on c.u. (not much different to Osborne's) wasn't definitive, final and binding? Glad you agree with me.
First Minister Salmond is fond of alliteration, on sober reflection he will describe Barroso's opinion as preposterous Portuguese poppycock or some other diplomatic formulation.
Yeah, right. Clearly I'm the one acting irrationally, today. What made you accept my stupidly unfair bet in the first place, hours ago?
It's because you are vexed and dismayed by the currency and EU debacles, and you couldn't bear to see a unionist chortling at your Nat discomfort, so you tried to get some emotional consolation by showing you still had faith in the cause. And you did this by accepting a wager which you have hitherto always refused (quite sensibly, as the odds I'm giving you are appalling).
I then further provoked you into upping the stake, guaranteeing me a £100 profit no matter what the result, and quite incredibly you agreed, because your judgement is clouded by this negative subconscious affect.
There, that's you psycho-analysed. I'd charge you £40 for my labours, but I guess I've had enough of your money for one day. Instead I recommend Xiemed 1mg.
Ta-ra.
I calculated potential losses & returns. It's not all about money, Seanny boy.
If support for leaving the EU continues to grow and Salmond wins we could end up with the strange situation of rUK being in and wanting out, and Scotland being out but desperate to get in.
"I think I can read unlike many on here who claim Carney ruled out a currency union. He merely pointed out the obvious in that both parties need to agree. It is far from certain that the Westminster Yellow Bellies will not agree once reality bites , they are well known for lies and u-turns. So it is perfectly reasonable to have as your plan A , a currency union. Unionists seem unable to grasp what Carney really said and continually say he ruled out a currency union, as in arrogant guys like yourself coming out with the drivel above. Stick to UKIP."
I never said Carney ruled out a currency union. He's in no position to do so. His position is that should all parties agree then such a union is entirely possible. A perfectly sound position.
What you fail to understand is that one participant has expressly ruled out a currency union. Ergo no currency union is available to an independent Scotland.
Quite what relevance your "Stick to UKIP" final sentence means to me I have no idea ?!?
Before the YouGov today, I had thought a Miliband government might sign up to some form of currency union. With EW voters 2:1 against - and "no currency union" a possible GE issue if yes win, it's simply not going to happen.
So Ball's statement on c.u. (not much different to Osborne's) wasn't definitive, final and binding? Glad you agree with me.
Edmunintokyo is right, Barroso, like him or not, is telling it straight on both fronts.
UK renegotiation will be very hard, and very unlikely to achieve what sceptics want.
Scottish accession will be long, painful and pricey, as a Spanish lesson to other seceding regions, and could easily be vetoed if snafu'd by the internal politics of any single member state
It is Westminster that is reneging so tough luck. They think we are stupid enough to leave the assets and pay Westminsters debts. Aye right, when we get our share of all the assets we will take a fair share of the real debt , excluding the £400B it owes itself and that will probably mean we owe nothing or Westminster will owe us circa £20-30B. Or they can steal the assets and receive nothing which is most likely as they will not want to pay their dues to us.
"I think I can read unlike many on here who claim Carney ruled out a currency union. He merely pointed out the obvious in that both parties need to agree. It is far from certain that the Westminster Yellow Bellies will not agree once reality bites , they are well known for lies and u-turns. So it is perfectly reasonable to have as your plan A , a currency union. Unionists seem unable to grasp what Carney really said and continually say he ruled out a currency union, as in arrogant guys like yourself coming out with the drivel above. Stick to UKIP."
I never said Carney ruled out a currency union. He's in no position to do so. His position is that should all parties agree then such a union is entirely possible. A perfectly sound position.
What you fail to understand is that one participant has expressly ruled out a currency union. Ergo no currency union is available to an independent Scotland.
Quite what relevance your "Stick to UKIP" final sentence means to me I have no idea ?!?
Jack , Osborne at no time said NO , he used the usual weasely words.
a Yes vote and Britnat Seant handing over a ton, cheap at the price. You'll just have to live with the fact you've revealed yourself as a cheeseparing, trimming little hedger rather than the swashbuckler you so want to be.
*chortle*
Not a good day for the out of touch twits.
What is really surprising is that anyone would believe the gullible posh lad SeanT on the EU after he fell for every single one of Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges and posturing on the Veto Flounce and the IN/OUT referendum. He even went so far as to indicate he thought they would WIN the next election for Cammie.
Instead Cammie's Cast Iron Referendum Posturing just made certain the kippers benefited from all the tory Eurosceptics less gullible than he and the PB tories are.
@SalmondsPlanB: Tomorrow, after Barroso comments on EU membership we will be looking at the "range of options" on other organisations we could join #indyref
They could join the EEA and NAFTA fairly easily I would have thought. It would be much better for them than the EU.
While they could join the EEA easily enough (through EFTA), NAFTA is not exactly a cost-free option. If you read the Canadian press (and I suspect the Mexian one is similar), there are many complaints about US companies using NAFTA complaints mechanisms to enforce US standards on Canadian companies.
Comments
Just a straight Yes/No bet, I get £225 for Yes, you get c.£44.45 for No.
Scotland votes Yes = not in EU = terrible fate.
Scotland votes No = still in UK and dragged out of EU = doubleplusgood.
But anyway I am not going to comment on the currency issue, as I want to see Mr Salmond's speech tomorrow. Good day!
I can't begin to really understand the implications of a currency union, I have to take my lead from the politicians, who you rightly scorn, but you should remember that Salmond is a politician, and so I treat him with the same contempt as I do most of the others.
I think we are going to need a similar list for the SNP.
BTW what Barroso says here about Scottish membership being hard or impossible because there are 28 vetos is 100x as true for Cameron's hypothetical Treaty of Röfl, which is supposed to involve other member states actually making concessions, as opposed to the Scottish situation where they're just signing off on a new version of the status quo.
Barroso exposes Cameron's renegotiation pledge as sham says UKIP Leader @Nigel_Farage http://ukip.org/newsroom/news/1167-barroso-exposes-cameron-s-renegotiation-pledge-as-sham …
I'll quite happily take £40 of your pounds in the event of a No vote and give you £90 in the event of a Yes vote though.
Assuming that a comparable situation exists for the sake of argument - i.e. that NatWest, headquartered in London, has a Scottish subsidiary RBS, it is not clear that the risk controls within the Group could possibly so cack-handed as to allow RBS to threaten the entire group. But if they were, then there would be a case for the UK government to support a Scottish bailout of British owned banks.
Good point.
But a bunch of the money they subscribed went in one door and back out to RBS, B&B, Barclays, etc. Don't forget the Irish banks had a substantial share of the UK BTL market as well, and termination of those loans would have negatively impacted house prices and therefore the capital stability of the UK banks
You'll just have to live with the fact you've revealed yourself as a cheeseparing, trimming little hedger rather than the swashbuckler you so want to be.
Salmond is a politician, therefore....
Tears of laughter etc... to the sound of the SNP bandwagon collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Cant really see how Kippers can be on the NO side, when the argument from YES is so similar to the one we use re the EU
Spot on: both Cameron and Salmond are spinning big time on the EU. Barrosso has exposed that today - though it's been pretty obvious for a while to anyone taking the time to look.
I hope you don't put on ante post bets 7 months before a 2 horse race without knowing the state of the ground or the breeding & staying power of the runners.
You mentioned Tim was on this bet as well ? For all his flaws Tim is a shrewdie when it come to betting.
What support is there within the EU for separatism?
'Option 3 #indyref http://t.co/KdLBsNs0TI'
Just go for the Groat,real independence & no more hanging onto nurse.
The Scottish Government has described comments by Manuel Barroso this morning as ‘preposterous’.
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/massive-credibility-gap-commissioners-comments
Before the YouGov today, I had thought a Miliband government might sign up to some form of currency union. With EW voters 2:1 against - and "no currency union" a possible GE issue if yes win, it's simply not going to happen.
By contrast, I haven't heard of a single proposal for something meaningful Cameron might want that would attract majority support. (Admittedly it's all very vague so there aren't a lot of concrete proposals to go on.) It's easy to come up with changes that command the support of a couple of other countries including the UK, but you run up against some other blocking majority, which is why they haven't been done already. And you don't just need a majority, or a super-majority, you need unanimity. Oh, and he wants to do it in two years. Hooked onto another treaty that's also not going to happen. Cameron can't possibly believe what he says he thinks is going to happen is really going to happen.
Yet another one that's going to rue the day.
@malcolmg wrote :
"I think I can read unlike many on here who claim Carney ruled out a currency union. He merely pointed out the obvious in that both parties need to agree. It is far from certain that the Westminster Yellow Bellies will not agree once reality bites , they are well known for lies and u-turns. So it is perfectly reasonable to have as your plan A , a currency union.
Unionists seem unable to grasp what Carney really said and continually say he ruled out a currency union, as in arrogant guys like yourself coming out with the drivel above.
Stick to UKIP."
...........................................................................
I never said Carney ruled out a currency union. He's in no position to do so. His position is that should all parties agree then such a union is entirely possible. A perfectly sound position.
What you fail to understand is that one participant has expressly ruled out a currency union. Ergo no currency union is available to an independent Scotland.
Quite what relevance your "Stick to UKIP" final sentence means to me I have no idea ?!?
"I think I can read unlike many on here who claim Carney ruled out a currency union. He merely pointed out the obvious in that both parties need to agree. It is far from certain that the Westminster Yellow Bellies will not agree once reality bites , they are well known for lies and u-turns. So it is perfectly reasonable to have as your plan A , a currency union.
Unionists seem unable to grasp what Carney really said and continually say he ruled out a currency union, as in arrogant guys like yourself coming out with the drivel above.
Stick to UKIP."
...........................................................................
I never said Carney ruled out a currency union. He's in no position to do so. His position is that should all parties agree then such a union is entirely possible. A perfectly sound position.
What you fail to understand is that one participant has expressly ruled out a currency union. Ergo no currency union is available to an independent Scotland.
Quite what relevance your "Stick to UKIP" final sentence means to me I have no idea ?!?
Jack , Osborne at no time said NO , he used the usual weasely words.
Not a good day for the out of touch twits.
What is really surprising is that anyone would believe the gullible posh lad SeanT on the EU after he fell for every single one of Cammie's Cast Iron Pledges and posturing on the Veto Flounce and the IN/OUT referendum. He even went so far as to indicate he thought they would WIN the next election for Cammie.
Instead Cammie's Cast Iron Referendum Posturing just made certain the kippers benefited from all the tory Eurosceptics less gullible than he and the PB tories are.