"Such is the desperation within this camp that John McTernan, former adviser to Tony Blair, has dirtied his knees by coming crawling to yours truly. In the fight to stop independence, he writes, “the preachers of old time religion” – including myself – need to take to the streets of Scotland. Desperation and chutzpah have been rolled into one neat package. It was the likes of McTernan who championed policies that fuelled the independence movement, who sidelined and demonised dissident voices who protested: critics who – if listened to – may have prevented this unfolding debacle. And now New Labour ideologues come crawling to those they demonised to help prevent the all-too-plausible break-up of the country they are partly responsible for."
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Regardless of that, if Scotland had Devomax, it would never expect cash from the south again. Is that correct?
The pound slid the most in more than a year against the dollar and U.K. banks led shares lower after a poll showed a majority in favor of Scottish independence. Brent oil fell below $100 for the first time since June 2013.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Sorry if I'm stirring up something that's already been bad-temperedly done to death but wouldn't Scotland have to join Schengen to be in the EU? I know Sweden cracked the cheat codes for staying out of the Euro, but is there a similar trick for Schengen? If not it's not obvious that the various separatism-phobic countries like Spain would agree to make things easy for Scotland by giving them a special dispensation. And making Scotland join Schengen would annoy England as well, which would be fun for the other member states who Cameron has been dicking around at every possible opportunity.
If that was the case, we would then see the prospects of border crossings at Gretna Green
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
Which is all fine and dandy whilst one Scottish pound equals one of our English pounds.
But imagine down the road a Scottish leftie profligate like, ooh, I dunno - Gordon Brown - gets his hands on power in Scotland, pledging to give the magic money tree a damn good shaking.... How long is parity going to last then?
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Sorry if I'm stirring up something that's already been bad-temperedly done to death but wouldn't Scotland have to join Schengen to be in the EU? I know Sweden cracked the cheat codes for staying out of the Euro, but is there a similar trick for Schengen? If not it's not obvious that the various separatism-phobic countries like Spain would agree to make things easy for Scotland by giving them a special dispensation. And making Scotland join Schengen would annoy England as well, which would be fun for the other member states who Cameron has been dicking around at every possible opportunity.
I was generalising that first-world borders seem to be pretty fuss-free these days, using EU as example. Not saying the border would in fact be intra-EU (and it wouldn't be Schengen because UK isn't, anyway).
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The issue isn't oil running out, it's oil maintaining its current high price. The first peak oil was based on volume the second is based on price.
The USA has quickly moved from being an oil importer to being able to export oil. Currently legislation from 40 years ago stops major exporting but this is now being challenged not least becasue the USA has a BOP problem worse than ours.
So the premium on oil because it comes from unstable nations run by whackjobs may gradually start to disappear. Then add in the growth of renewables.
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
Why does there need to be a "main" national broadcaster at all? Especially if it is also a "State" one like the BBC?
If the state got out of the soap opera business where it has no place being then we could enjoy multiple deregulated channels competing in an open market. And no biased BBC and no telly tax.
One pleasant bonus of a YES vote will be the dismemberment of the BBC.
Different issue. I said if a Murdoch-controlled one was dominant......
A Scot BBC is viable with the licence fee. It would be better if they took the bold step and went th Irish route and had the state broadcaster free to watch with a small tax subsidy. It would create space for Scottish entrepreneurs.
Mr. Carnyx, the problem would be Scottish MPs voting on English matters. It would affect a vast majority of areas and be clearly indefensible.
Of course, there's an easy answer: an English Parliament. But Westminster won't go for that because it'd emasculate Parliament as is, leaving it with just Treasury, Foreign and Defence departments.
So, instead I imagine we'll either get English votes on English matters (better but probably insufficient) or the attempt to carve up England (absolutely despicable and unacceptable).
I sympathise entirely: especially after the effective retraction/clarification on the devo proposals thiis morning, it's increasingly looking as if they'd rather lose Scotland than have to have a shakeup.
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
Why does there need to be a "main" national broadcaster at all? Especially if it is also a "State" one like the BBC?
If the state got out of the soap opera business where it has no place being then we could enjoy multiple deregulated channels competing in an open market. And no biased BBC and no telly tax.
One pleasant bonus of a YES vote will be the dismemberment of the BBC.
Different issue. I said if a Murdoch-controlled one was dominant......
A Scot BBC is viable with the licence fee. It would be better if they took the bold step and went th Irish route and had the state broadcaster free to watch with a small tax subsidy. It would create space for Scottish entrepreneurs.
It would also create a funding crisis for the rBBC.
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
Why does there need to be a "main" national broadcaster at all? Especially if it is also a "State" one like the BBC?
If the state got out of the soap opera business where it has no place being then we could enjoy multiple deregulated channels competing in an open market. And no biased BBC and no telly tax.
One pleasant bonus of a YES vote will be the dismemberment of the BBC.
Different issue. I said if a Murdoch-controlled one was dominant......
Related, nevertheless. Massive deregulation is the only way to break market dominance and ensure that there isn't ever a main player again; be tthat an individual, a company or a viewpoint.
Why will we have less money, you trying to say we are subsidised by rest of UK. That old chestnut has been shown to be absolute rubbish. I say again we will spend our money on what matters , I don't think running up £1.5 trillion debt is a union benefit, so a freedom bonus will not be any worse
I didn't say you'd have less money; I asked whether you'd have a budget surplus or if you'd need to borrow. You ignored the question and wittered on about fairness (SNPnewSpeak for FREEDOM!!!), so I concluded that for you FREEDOM!!/fairness was more important than how much your cruel Westminster oppressors would allow you to borrow.
I doubt we will be awash with spare cash , but doubt we will be worse off , initially at least. If you actually read what I said , we would have all our own money and be able to spend it how and where we wished. Currently we do not have that option. So I would opt for less money and freedom to spend it rather than more money and someone telling me where I spend it. Is that clear enough, no mention of any juvenile freedom bonuses etc, we are discussing this up here as adults.
That's the crucial bit, and the bit which Salmond should be more honest about. Independence, especially in a currency union, could make you worse off, but it's worth it for FAIRNESS!!!
And, with your puerile playground name-calling that plagues these boards, you should maybe be a little less eager to claim the grown-up-high-ground. You're very easy to push off.
What are you talking about, I have been very civil to you and you revert to insults. Get lost.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
Which is all fine and dandy whilst one Scottish pound equals one of our English pounds.
But imagine down the road a Scottish leftie profligate like, ooh, I dunno - Gordon Brown - gets his hands on power in Scotland, pledging to give the magic money tree a damn good shaking.... How long is parity going to last then?
You might want to check how much George Osborne is borrowing, and update your "magic money tree" references.
The problem with Scottish parity is that Scotland might need to break it in order to apply to join the Euro. Did not Ireland float the punt for a couple of years for this reason?
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Regardless of that, if Scotland had Devomax, it would never expect cash from the south again. Is that correct?
I'd have thought so, certainly for a decade or two and barring something really unexpected.
[Caveat: this is not devomax in the trivial sense currently being abused on the news.]
Of course that's the logic. But have you ever tried using Scottish notes down South? People don't like them. They are suspicious. They take them - but often rather reluctantly.
That's because they have to bank them separately. Scottish notes are only issued in Scotland. An English shop has to take them to their English bank separately from English notes so the English bank can send them back up North.
That's a pain, which is why they are reluctant. It's also arguably more expensive.
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
It would be better if they took the bold step and went th Irish route and had the state broadcaster free to watch with a small tax subsidy. It would create space for Scottish entrepreneurs.
The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Populus neatly reversing the Monday/Friday pattern. I imagine ICM will revert to the mean too from their +7 poll last time so it'll look like a big shift to the Tories today, even if nothing is actually happening in national VI. With the indyrerf and the conferences coming up, it probably makes sense to take all polls with a certain detachment for the next few weeks.
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
OKC... no worse than a Westminster controlled puppet in my book
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
Why does there need to be a "main" national broadcaster at all? Especially if it is also a "State" one like the BBC?
If the state got out of the soap opera business where it has no place being then we could enjoy multiple deregulated channels competing in an open market. And no biased BBC and no telly tax.
One pleasant bonus of a YES vote will be the dismemberment of the BBC.
Different issue. I said if a Murdoch-controlled one was dominant......
A Scot BBC is viable with the licence fee. It would be better if they took the bold step and went th Irish route and had the state broadcaster free to watch with a small tax subsidy. It would create space for Scottish entrepreneurs.
It would also create a funding crisis for the rBBC.
Loss of 8.4% of income, offset by not having to do BBC Alba or the Scottish news? (Glasgow studios are owned physically by a commercial firm)? And with some offset by flogging Drs Who, Attenborough, etc. Is that really a funding crisis rather than a cut? (Serious question.)
BTW IIRC not paying your licence fee is not a crime in Scotland, but a civil matter.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
If the Scottish bank misbehaved, and printed more notes that it lodged, this would be a national problem.
Post-independence, such action would become an international problem; hence I cannot envisage the arrangement continuing.
However, the Yes newspaper I picked up in Scotland yesterday poses the question "Will we keep the pound?"
To this question, apparent agony aunt Rona Mackay replies "Yes. It makes complete sense to do so and it helps everyone. And by keeping the same historic Scottish banknotes, your mortgage, savings or credit card rates and pension entitlements remain the same too"
So, the Scots are being reassured about something to which the answer is unknown.
Serious question: is Rupert after becoming (or at least hosting) the new Scottish state broadcaster?
He could not be worse than the EBC. They are reviled now for their bias. Given we pay £330 million for them and Ireland get same for £21 million there will be spare money for a decent Scottish broadcasting company. Murdoch would be no worse than the BBC.
Just been scrolling down after being away down and come across this.
Mr G has posted some tripe on occasion but if he’d really be happy with a Murdoch-controlled main national broadcaster, then he does need professional psychiatric care.
Why does there need to be a "main" national broadcaster at all? Especially if it is also a "State" one like the BBC?
If the state got out of the soap opera business where it has no place being then we could enjoy multiple deregulated channels competing in an open market. And no biased BBC and no telly tax.
One pleasant bonus of a YES vote will be the dismemberment of the BBC.
Different issue. I said if a Murdoch-controlled one was dominant......
A Scot BBC is viable with the licence fee. It would be better if they took the bold step and went th Irish route and had the state broadcaster free to watch with a small tax subsidy. It would create space for Scottish entrepreneurs.
It would also create a funding crisis for the rBBC.
A relatively small one. A lot of the BBC spending is not fixed, it is operational and can be ended within a year. Of course they would have to send just a couple of people to a news story and not the half a dozen teams they send at present. They may also have to end all the suppurating "home life" shows..... zzzzz Parting would be such sweet sorrow (not).
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Regardless of that, if Scotland had Devomax, it would never expect cash from the south again. Is that correct?
I'd have thought so, certainly for a decade or two and barring something really unexpected.
[Caveat: this is not devomax in the trivial sense currently being abused on the news.]
"We're going to keep all of our goodies now, but could expect a share of yours in 20 years" - shows how unacceptable Devomax would be to the south.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
Scots already suffer a bit of resistance, when using them. After a YES I expect significant resistance. I wouldn't accept them if I were offered them as payment. If I did take them, how could I be sure the person I handed them on to would also take them? How could I be sure there wouldn't be come huge crisis in 2 months, during the divorce, rendering them worthless in England, or everywhere?
You THICKO they don't accept them now, you wibbling blob get back under the covers in case you are scared by the dark. What a jessie.
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
What extraordinary tripe. Just try inserting Northern in front of England and see what sense it makes. It doesn't.
Mr. Gadfly, that's the problem. They're saying "It's our pound, it makes sense" etc etc, but it's not the case that Scotland could demand as of right that English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers prop up their financial sector.
I concur entirely with those below stating that Labour are paying the price for the relentlessly negative attacks on the evil English Tories. *sighs*
If No wins, I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge will end up getting the credit.
Why will we have less money, you trying to say we are subsidised by rest of UK. That old chestnut has been shown to be absolute rubbish. I say again we will spend our money on what matters , I don't think running up £1.5 trillion debt is a union benefit, so a freedom bonus will not be any worse
I didn't say you'd have less money; I asked whether you'd have a budget surplus or if you'd need to borrow. You ignored the question and wittered on about fairness (SNPnewSpeak for FREEDOM!!!), so I concluded that for you FREEDOM!!/fairness was more important than how much your cruel Westminster oppressors would allow you to borrow.
I doubt we will be awash with spare cash , but doubt we will be worse off , initially at least. If you actually read what I said , we would have all our own money and be able to spend it how and where we wished. Currently we do not have that option. So I would opt for less money and freedom to spend it rather than more money and someone telling me where I spend it. Is that clear enough, no mention of any juvenile freedom bonuses etc, we are discussing this up here as adults.
That's the crucial bit, and the bit which Salmond should be more honest about. Independence, especially in a currency union, could make you worse off, but it's worth it for FAIRNESS!!!
And, with your puerile playground name-calling that plagues these boards, you should maybe be a little less eager to claim the grown-up-high-ground. You're very easy to push off.
What are you talking about, I have been very civil to you and you revert to insults. Get lost.
You've swung between reasonably civil and highly insulting. (And if I couldn't hack it I wouldn't post here.)
You told me, this morning, to grow up and that this was an adult discussion. I merely pointed out that you post an exceedingly-high-proportion-for-one-man of the playground insults on here (awaits 'the bigger boys did it to me first'), so proving that behaving like an adult isn't your forte.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Unless Scotland adopts a different immigration policy to FUK. A more "welcoming" immigration policy. And that just happens to be Salmond's explicit intention.
In which case there will have to be a proper border. With guards. It is inescapable, otherwise it makes our immigration policy pointless. So there WILL be a frontier.
Look on the bright side, you'll soon be able to write a book called "The Strange Death of Labour in Scotland"
Once the SNP's lies on currency, oil, EU membership and so on become apparent soon after the yes vote there is only one party that the Scots are going to turn to, and it's not the Greens. Scottish Labour will do very well from independence.
Having reflected on Mike Smthson's words yesterday about assessing the two polls and that there was probably doubts on YES being in the lead, I regretably agree. But, I may be cheered up with a surprising win for YES.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
everywhere?
Sean, Scotland could perhaps resurrect the ancient use of seashells as currency. As in many primitive societies, they could be strung together - and have a double use as body art. Perhaps slung from the sporran?
Now we are sure , the real loonies are being wheeled out. Thick as mince is back , stick to being a Kate Bush wannabe friend
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Regardless of that, if Scotland had Devomax, it would never expect cash from the south again. Is that correct?
I'd have thought so, certainly for a decade or two and barring something really unexpected.
[Caveat: this is not devomax in the trivial sense currently being abused on the news.]
"We're going to keep all of our goodies now, but could expect a share of yours in 20 years" - shows how unacceptable Devomax would be to the south.
I was thinking of a major disaster such as a nuke blowing or something else which made assumptions invalid. And it could be the other way.
If there's a Yes, I wonder if on the 19th the Treasury might withdraw permission for Scottish banks to print their own notes?
- a statement of intent. We were not fibbing about a currency union so better get used to importing your notes from 'abroad'
- Alex Salmond was lying to you all along
- We are not going to roll over in the negotiations
Wouldn't change the result, but might have a bearing on future elections and the negotiated outcomes?
More to the point, who in their right mind will accept those notes, in England?
everywhere?
From a technical perspective, the Scottish Banks deposit with the Bank of England the equivalent amount in Pounds Sterling to that they have in issued bank notes. If BoS or Clydesdale wants to print another £10 note, it needs to send £10 to the Bank of England first.
The consequence of this is that Scottish bank notes are - effectively - fully underwritten by the BoE. I believe - although I could be wrong - that you can turn up in Threadneedle Street, hand over a Scottish bank note to the cashier, they will hand you a crisp BoE one. They will then reduce the amount that the Scottish bank is required to deposit with the BoE.
There is no reason why this should change immediately post independence vote.
Robert, why do you bother writing sense here, the frothers are out of control, truth or logic means nothing to them , they are deranged.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Unless Scotland adopts a different immigration policy to FUK. A more "welcoming" immigration policy. And that just happens to be Salmond's explicit intention.
In which case there will have to be a proper border. With guards. It is inescapable, otherwise it makes our immigration policy pointless. So there WILL be a frontier.
Look on the bright side, you'll soon be able to write a book called "The Strange Death of Labour in Scotland"
Once the SNP's lies on currency, oil, EU membership and so on become apparent soon after the yes vote there is only one party that the Scots are going to turn to, and it's not the Greens. Scottish Labour will do very well from independence.
How ? Their raison d'etre is spending money they don't have.
Promising free money a la Salmond doesn't mean they have any more than he has. The default position is more likely to be two LoC parties piss off everyone, followed by by a lurch to the right as people seek a degree of certainty even if that means facing up to reality.
Could the new royal baby be born during the General Election campaign, and what kind of impact would that have on media coverage?
I've not seen a due date for the baby, yet, but last time the announcement was made about six months before the birth. suggesting a March date, but April may also be possible. Parliament is due to be dissolved at the end of March 2015.
Whether or not the birth is before the formal start of the General Election campaign, it will push politics out of the news for a few days in the immediate run-up to the election, disrupting the campaign teams' timetables, which may not affect all parties equally.
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
Does that even make sense? He seems to be blaming Labour for blaming Tony Blair's Labour government.
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
What extraordinary tripe. Just try inserting Northern in front of England and see what sense it makes. It doesn't.
The Deerin article does make as much sense if Northern England replaces Scotland in that context.
BTW, someone commented that the ST claimed yesterday that two ministers as well as Messrs Cameron and Osborne (?) would have to go in the event of a Yes vote. Were they Tory specifically and were they identified? If Tory then Mr Mundell must presumably be one (junior S of S for Scotland). I also wondered about Mr Hammond for his [edit: reportedly] unhelpful interventions re Trident (annexation of Faslane to EWNI, and 'they don't mean it on currency' sort of comment) as I can't think who else could be held responsible.
If not necessarily Tory we have Messrs Alexander and Carmichael but Mr M would surely resign anyway - he was honourable enough to join the SNP in not breachinng the West Lothian Question over student fees - and that gives us too many.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Unless Scotland adopts a different immigration policy to FUK. A more "welcoming" immigration policy. And that just happens to be Salmond's explicit intention.
In which case there will have to be a proper border. With guards. It is inescapable, otherwise it makes our immigration policy pointless. So there WILL be a frontier.
Look on the bright side, you'll soon be able to write a book called "The Strange Death of Labour in Scotland"
Once the SNP's lies on currency, oil, EU membership and so on become apparent soon after the yes vote there is only one party that the Scots are going to turn to, and it's not the Greens. Scottish Labour will do very well from independence.
Or maybe the Scottish Tories will get some credit for having told it how it was?
No, you're right.....those bastard Tories will have come up north and stolen all that oil in Scotland's waters at dead of night. And robbed them of the right to use their pound. And blocked their membership to the EU.
The Scots will forever be looking for someone to blame for things not being as they believed they would be.... Nothing is ever the fault of a Scot. (Spoken as someone who has lived with one for twenty-odd years..nothing has ever been her fault. Turns out there are three people in our marriage - myself, the wife and the Mysterious Damage Fairy.....)
If No wins, I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge will end up getting the credit.
It is a stunning contrast between the flourishing British royal family continuing on and on - and the statist barren Nat McPanda family facing a bleak future.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Unless Scotland adopts a different immigration policy to FUK. A more "welcoming" immigration policy. And that just happens to be Salmond's explicit intention.
In which case there will have to be a proper border. With guards. It is inescapable, otherwise it makes our immigration policy pointless. So there WILL be a frontier.
Look on the bright side, you'll soon be able to write a book called "The Strange Death of Labour in Scotland"
Once the SNP's lies on currency, oil, EU membership and so on become apparent soon after the yes vote there is only one party that the Scots are going to turn to, and it's not the Greens. Scottish Labour will do very well from independence.
It does seem plausible that another party promising magic money tree economics will replace the SNP after independence. But, when that 2nd version of socialism inevitably fails (as with Hollande and the Venezuela experiment) then hopefully a party with a classical liberal economic policy will be given the chance to turn it around.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Sorry if I'm stirring up something that's already been bad-temperedly done to death but wouldn't Scotland have to join Schengen to be in the EU? I know Sweden cracked the cheat codes for staying out of the Euro, but is there a similar trick for Schengen? If not it's not obvious that the various separatism-phobic countries like Spain would agree to make things easy for Scotland by giving them a special dispensation. And making Scotland join Schengen would annoy England as well, which would be fun for the other member states who Cameron has been dicking around at every possible opportunity.
I was generalising that first-world borders seem to be pretty fuss-free these days, using EU as example. Not saying the border would in fact be intra-EU (and it wouldn't be Schengen because UK isn't, anyway).
It all would be easy if rUK joined Schengen, which would be the sensible thing to do, but for various reasons the English aren't very enthusiastic about that kind of thing at the moment. That means it would be quite a serious PITA if Scotland had to join Schengen, which is one of the conditions for joining the EU. If I've got this right Scotland would have to filter everyone coming from England to see if they're an EU citizen or not, and if not check and stamp passports to police over-staying etc. Presumably there would be something similar when coming from Scotland to England, depending on the English rules, although that would be up to the English.
The question is then whether Scotland could avoid joining Schengen when it joined the EU. The rules say new entrants have to join, so staying out would take either some kind of technical loophole or the express consent of all 28 member states. I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The issue isn't oil running out, it's oil maintaining its current high price. The first peak oil was based on volume the second is based on price.
The USA has quickly moved from being an oil importer to being able to export oil. Currently legislation from 40 years ago stops major exporting but this is now being challenged not least becasue the USA has a BOP problem worse than ours.
So the premium on oil because it comes from unstable nations run by whackjobs may gradually start to disappear. Then add in the growth of renewables.
As well as the global oil price, the other factor is extracting more oil from N Sea fields that are already mature. The more oil you try to extract from a mature field, in general the more costly the oil becomes. So owners of mature fields may decide just to cap those fields, if that oil becomes more expensive than the global price.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Carnyx you are wasting your time talking intelligently to cretins
If No wins, I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge will end up getting the credit.
It is a stunning contrast between the flourishing British royal family continuing on and on - and the statist barren Nat McPanda family facing a bleak future.
Actually the pandas exemplify, in your terms, Mr Cameron's Big Society - they are employed by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland which is a charity (and one with royal imprimatur).
King Cole, the Greek race, which was mentioned recently and first raised during the height of the crisis, was always mental.
I agree more European races are unlikely. Most places find it hard to make money because the sport's so greedy, so many circuits need government funding, and the government then uses the event as a marketing exercise for the nation and its tourism. I just hope we don't lose classics like Spa to add one more tedious but lucrative street circuit to the calendar.
Azerbaijan is next year (or the year after, I forget), and there's Mexico to join as well.
Any other word from your insider sources?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), at least the news will report something other than Scotland in the coming days (the referendum is historically important, but that doesn't mean saturation coverage can't be irritating).
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
Does that even make sense? He seems to be blaming Labour for blaming Tony Blair's Labour government.
Deerin blames the "view" It is all about the smearing/presentation of the way Scottish people should view the UK.
As in Deerin's "In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed."
It is a stunning contrast between the flourishing British royal family continuing on and on - and the statist barren Nat McPanda family facing a bleak future.
The McPanda adjusted remarkably well to life in Scotland.
"Hey babe, I'll get more bennies if I'm pregnant!"
The question is then whether Scotland could avoid joining Schengen when it joined the EU. The rules say new entrants have to join, so staying out would take either some kind of technical loophole or the express consent of all 28 member states. I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
BreakingViews is suggesting a cable rate of $1.50-1.65 based on the range from late 2010 to early 2014. They expect the bottom of the range to be a floor, if not yet a target.
Making the same point as mine, but much better written. Chris Deerin.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over." https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
Does that even make sense? He seems to be blaming Labour for blaming Tony Blair's Labour government.
Deerin blames the "view" It is all about the smearing/presentation of the way Scottish people should view the UK.
As in Deerin's "In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed."
Yes but surely "this view" is supposed to be Labour blaming Westminster, which gives us Labour blaming Labour.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Carnyx you are wasting your time talking intelligently to cretins
And the Grown Up award goes to ........ MrMalcolmG!! Come on MalcyG; give us a speech
King Cole, the Greek race, which was mentioned recently and first raised during the height of the crisis, was always mental.
I agree more European races are unlikely. Most places find it hard to make money because the sport's so greedy, so many circuits need government funding, and the government then uses the event as a marketing exercise for the nation and its tourism. I just hope we don't lose classics like Spa to add one more tedious but lucrative street circuit to the calendar.
Azerbaijan is next year (or the year after, I forget), and there's Mexico to join as well.
Any other word from your insider sources?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), at least the news will report something other than Scotland in the coming days (the referendum is historically important, but that doesn't mean saturation coverage can't be irritating).
IIRC next year sees both Mexico and Azerbaijan. My source had grave doubts over another race in Sochi. However, I will probably be able to get further and better info in a couple of weeks.,
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
The Union shouldn't favour Scotland financially over the other nations.
English politicians offering Devomax and more treats for the north will be slaughtered at the polls.
Devomax (proper devomax, not devo-a-little-wee-bittockie-more-maybe like this week) would not be a matter of giving treats to the north - the Scots would keep their own resources and fend for themselves, and charged a sub for foreign affairs and defence etc. Subsidy junkie problem solved. What's not to like for a DM reader?
So you wouldn't come crawling for extra wee handouts when the oil run outs?
The way things are going in that sort of timescale, it'll be water - both fresh and tidal - that will be crucial by that time.
Carnyx you are wasting your time talking intelligently to cretins
It's OK - you weren't included in the conversation.
I'd rather they had independence than gift them Devomax anyway. The current set up is bad enough.
Frankly, offering concessions after people have started voting is desperate. The unionists need to be arguing for the Union and telling people that Salmond's vision is a fantasy. Independence means a complete break, fending for yourself. Border controls. Passport to visit your family (or your place of work) in England. No safety net, no military, no shared security, no shared currency (unless it's the Euro), no BBC.
Why are BT not explaining this?
Let's not be silly. Border controls will be minimal (like NI/Eire, and most intra-EU borders), security - NATO and benefit of being in our back yard, and you say "no BBC" like it's a bad thing and like Sky had been disinvented.
Sorry if I'm stirring up something that's already been bad-temperedly done to death but wouldn't Scotland have to join Schengen to be in the EU? I know Sweden cracked the cheat codes for staying out of the Euro, but is there a similar trick for Schengen? If not it's not obvious that the various separatism-phobic countries like Spain would agree to make things easy for Scotland by giving them a special dispensation. And making Scotland join Schengen would annoy England as well, which would be fun for the other member states who Cameron has been dicking around at every possible opportunity.
I was generalising that first-world borders seem to be pretty fuss-free these days, using EU as example. Not saying the border would in fact be intra-EU (and it wouldn't be Schengen because UK isn't, anyway).
It all would be easy if rUK joined Schengen, which would be the sensible thing to do, but for various reasons the English aren't very enthusiastic about that kind of thing at the moment. That means it would be quite a serious PITA if Scotland had to join Schengen, which is one of the conditions for joining the EU. If I've got this right Scotland would have to filter everyone coming from England to see if they're an EU citizen or not, and if not check and stamp passports to police over-staying etc. Presumably there would be something similar when coming from Scotland to England, depending on the English rules, although that would be up to .
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
How about not buggering up your allies and fellow member states for no reason?
Scotland can surely take the traditional way out for these things if it did get nasty - fail to fulfil one of the criteria for being a Schengen country.
I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
How about not buggering up your allies and fellow member states for no reason?
Scotland can surely take the traditional way out for these things if it did get nasty - fail to fulfil one of the criteria for being a Schengen country.
How about not buggering up your allies and fellow member states for no reason?
you've clearly misunderstood the workings of the EU
If the Scottish bank misbehaved, and printed more notes that it lodged, this would be a national problem.
Post-independence, such action would become an international problem; hence I cannot envisage the arrangement continuing.
However, the Yes newspaper I picked up in Scotland yesterday poses the question "Will we keep the pound?"
To this question, apparent agony aunt Rona Mackay replies "Yes. It makes complete sense to do so and it helps everyone. And by keeping the same historic Scottish banknotes, your mortgage, savings or credit card rates and pension entitlements remain the same too"
So, the Scots are being reassured about something to which the answer is unknown.
OK. My post was about post independence vote, but prior to actual independence.
If a Scottish Bank deliberately printed more notes than it was entitled to, it's directors would have committed a very serious criminal offence - they would almost certainly be guilty under the Currency and Banknotes Act of 1928.
Not only that, but I suspect that all the Scottish Banks gets their banknotes printed by De La Rue, the world's largest private printer of banknotes. If they believed that a Scottish Bank was exceeding its legal authority, they would refuse to print notes, because they would not wish to be accessories to the crime. (And, more importantly, it would be incredibly commercially dumb to facilitate something like that.)
Post actual independence in 2017 (or whenever), one would obviously expect the current situation to change somewhat.
Lesley Riddoch in the Scotsman on how BT are messing up. Inter aliis,
"Is 51 per cent a flash in the pan? Can Ed Miliband win back errant Labour voters? Will a new offer of “devo-something” work?
Firstly, time is on the side of Yes. The confidence-enhancing 51 per cent vote has been reached with 10 days still to go – time to recover from any inevitable resurgence in the No vote, new scare stories or fresh devolutionary offers. On the other hand, the close proximity of September 18th raises legal questions about the ability of UK civil servants to work on George Osborne’s “devo-more” offer and the fairness of such a last-minute change of policy when so many Scots have already cast postal votes. Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. By contrast all five political parties at Holyrood agreed to decouple their rates from Westminster pay scales so MSPs will get a modest 1 per cent pay rise this year in line with other public sector workers. The Scottish Parliament is evidently more in tune with public sentiment than the “Mother of Parliaments” – again."
I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
How about not buggering up your allies and fellow member states for no reason?
Scotland can surely take the traditional way out for these things if it did get nasty - fail to fulfil one of the criteria for being a Schengen country.
It wouldn't be for no reason, it would remove a barrier that is currently making it harder for your citizens to come and go to and from Scotland. It would also incentivize rUK to ultimately join as well, which would do the same on a larger scale.
But yeah, I suppose they could fail to fulfil one of the criteria, as they presumably will with the Euro.
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
If the Scottish bank misbehaved, and printed more notes that it lodged, this would be a national problem.
Post-independence, such action would become an international problem; hence I cannot envisage the arrangement continuing.
However, the Yes newspaper I picked up in Scotland yesterday poses the question "Will we keep the pound?"
To this question, apparent agony aunt Rona Mackay replies "Yes. It makes complete sense to do so and it helps everyone. And by keeping the same historic Scottish banknotes, your mortgage, savings or credit card rates and pension entitlements remain the same too"
So, the Scots are being reassured about something to which the answer is unknown.
Not only that, but I suspect that all the Scottish Banks gets their banknotes printed by De La Rue, the world's largest private printer of banknotes. If they believed that a Scottish Bank was exceeding its legal authority, they would refuse to print notes, because they would not wish to be accessories to the crime. (And, more importantly, it would be incredibly commercially dumb to facilitate something like that.)
Interestingly, De La Rue don't have any printing facilities in Scotland.
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
I suspect it’s the language, but agree some proper research would be useful.
I wonder if the Mayor of Zeebrugge is worried - his ferry port may be under siege as immigrants look to board a boat to Rosyth to be part of the socialst utopia ?
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
Horses for courses.
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.
@Neil Anyone on benefits is entitled to a mansion (with free rent), a 48 inch colour TV, three mobile phones, and a holiday at an international resort once a year, I read that in the tabloids, so it must be true. (cosmetic surgery is available on request)
If the UK joined Schengen it would mean the death of our welfare state and NHS.
Want to expand on that?
We have a needs based approach to welfare and the NHS. Most other European countries have contribution based systems. Hence Calais....
It would be interesting to know precisely why the UK is so popular that people are prepared to go to such lengths to escape France (and other EU countries) to get to it. Has anyone researched it properly? I doubt welfare / NHS would be top of the list personally. Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits?
Anyone who is not certifiably insane? You do realise that people and their families do actually, you know, die of "war / famine / poverty etc."? And that "life on benefits" looks, to an African in a famine, like Donald Trump's lifestyle looks to you and me?
Some dotty posts on here this morning. I think I will do some work.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/scotland-decides-union-tories
"Such is the desperation within this camp that John McTernan, former adviser to Tony Blair, has dirtied his knees by coming crawling to yours truly. In the fight to stop independence, he writes, “the preachers of old time religion” – including myself – need to take to the streets of Scotland. Desperation and chutzpah have been rolled into one neat package. It was the likes of McTernan who championed policies that fuelled the independence movement, who sidelined and demonised dissident voices who protested: critics who – if listened to – may have prevented this unfolding debacle. And now New Labour ideologues come crawling to those they demonised to help prevent the all-too-plausible break-up of the country they are partly responsible for."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-07/pound-slides-on-scotland-gold-holds-gains-after-payrolls
But imagine down the road a Scottish leftie profligate like, ooh, I dunno - Gordon Brown - gets his hands on power in Scotland, pledging to give the magic money tree a damn good shaking.... How long is parity going to last then?
The USA has quickly moved from being an oil importer to being able to export oil. Currently legislation from 40 years ago stops major exporting but this is now being challenged not least becasue the USA has a BOP problem worse than ours.
So the premium on oil because it comes from unstable nations run by whackjobs may gradually start to disappear. Then add in the growth of renewables.
Any odds on the name being Edward Longshanks ?
The problem with Scottish parity is that Scotland might need to break it in order to apply to join the Euro. Did not Ireland float the punt for a couple of years for this reason?
[Caveat: this is not devomax in the trivial sense currently being abused on the news.]
http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/09/08/what-can-the-1995-quebec-referendum-tell-us-about-the-scottish-referendum/
That's a pain, which is why they are reluctant. It's also arguably more expensive.
"Every Scottish Labour politician continued to blame the Tories for all society’s ills – it was an easy hit with the voters. The SNP and the Lib Dems happily joined in. And this England they all talked about: it made the hair on the back of your neck stand up. A foreign land of sinister experiments on the poor, of cackling toffs stubbing out cigars on passing immigrants, of warmongers obsessed with Jesus, George W and oil.
In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed. Reform and innovation became dirty words. In 2010, when a moderate Tory/Lib Dem coalition came to power, it was treated like the Gestapo had taken over."
https://medium.com/@chrisdeerin/wrestling-with-smoke-7fa728a21318
BTW IIRC not paying your licence fee is not a crime in Scotland, but a civil matter.
Post-independence, such action would become an international problem; hence I cannot envisage the arrangement continuing.
However, the Yes newspaper I picked up in Scotland yesterday poses the question "Will we keep the pound?"
To this question, apparent agony aunt Rona Mackay replies "Yes. It makes complete sense to do so and it helps everyone. And by keeping the same historic Scottish banknotes, your mortgage, savings or credit card rates and pension entitlements remain the same too"
So, the Scots are being reassured about something to which the answer is unknown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/currency/11/12/intraday.stm
Rotherham Borough Council's chief executive Martin Kimber is to step down after scandal over sexual abuse in town says BBC.
I concur entirely with those below stating that Labour are paying the price for the relentlessly negative attacks on the evil English Tories. *sighs*
If No wins, I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge will end up getting the credit.
You told me, this morning, to grow up and that this was an adult discussion. I merely pointed out that you post an exceedingly-high-proportion-for-one-man of the playground insults on here (awaits 'the bigger boys did it to me first'), so proving that behaving like an adult isn't your forte.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/italy-post-race-analysis.html
Not too dramatic in title terms, but good for Williams to get ahead of Ferrari.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29109918
'It would also create a funding crisis for the rBBC.'
Not all bad news then.
Promising free money a la Salmond doesn't mean they have any more than he has. The default position is more likely to be two LoC parties piss off everyone, followed by by a lurch to the right as people seek a degree of certainty even if that means facing up to reality.
It isn't anywhere near enough, though.
I've not seen a due date for the baby, yet, but last time the announcement was made about six months before the birth. suggesting a March date, but April may also be possible. Parliament is due to be dissolved at the end of March 2015.
Whether or not the birth is before the formal start of the General Election campaign, it will push politics out of the news for a few days in the immediate run-up to the election, disrupting the campaign teams' timetables, which may not affect all parties equally.
If not necessarily Tory we have Messrs Alexander and Carmichael but Mr M would surely resign anyway - he was honourable enough to join the SNP in not breachinng the West Lothian Question over student fees - and that gives us too many.
No, you're right.....those bastard Tories will have come up north and stolen all that oil in Scotland's waters at dead of night. And robbed them of the right to use their pound. And blocked their membership to the EU.
The Scots will forever be looking for someone to blame for things not being as they believed they would be.... Nothing is ever the fault of a Scot. (Spoken as someone who has lived with one for twenty-odd years..nothing has ever been her fault. Turns out there are three people in our marriage - myself, the wife and the Mysterious Damage Fairy.....)
On other matters, my sources inside F1 are very doubtful indeed about a Greek, or indeed any more European races. Further afield, yes.
The question is then whether Scotland could avoid joining Schengen when it joined the EU. The rules say new entrants have to join, so staying out would take either some kind of technical loophole or the express consent of all 28 member states. I assume rUK would be on board, but it's not obvious what's in it for the other 27.
I agree more European races are unlikely. Most places find it hard to make money because the sport's so greedy, so many circuits need government funding, and the government then uses the event as a marketing exercise for the nation and its tourism. I just hope we don't lose classics like Spa to add one more tedious but lucrative street circuit to the calendar.
Azerbaijan is next year (or the year after, I forget), and there's Mexico to join as well.
Any other word from your insider sources?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), at least the news will report something other than Scotland in the coming days (the referendum is historically important, but that doesn't mean saturation coverage can't be irritating).
As in Deerin's "In this view, the Blair government wasn’t a necessary attempt to accommodate Labour values and modernity, it was proof that the worst of the English character had triumphed."
"Hey babe, I'll get more bennies if I'm pregnant!"
http://www.breakingviews.com/21163402.article?h=42dfff3bcb8789c6f2386b58ea688fa9&s=2
BreakingViews is suggesting a cable rate of $1.50-1.65 based on the range from late 2010 to early 2014. They expect the bottom of the range to be a floor, if not yet a target.
However, I will probably be able to get further and better info in a couple of weeks.,
Scotland can surely take the traditional way out for these things if it did get nasty - fail to fulfil one of the criteria for being a Schengen country.
People who were already permanent postal voters, or who applied for one between mid-August and the 3 September deadline, should already have theirs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-29106532
you've clearly misunderstood the workings of the EU
If a Scottish Bank deliberately printed more notes than it was entitled to, it's directors would have committed a very serious criminal offence - they would almost certainly be guilty under the Currency and Banknotes Act of 1928.
Not only that, but I suspect that all the Scottish Banks gets their banknotes printed by De La Rue, the world's largest private printer of banknotes. If they believed that a Scottish Bank was exceeding its legal authority, they would refuse to print notes, because they would not wish to be accessories to the crime. (And, more importantly, it would be incredibly commercially dumb to facilitate something like that.)
Post actual independence in 2017 (or whenever), one would obviously expect the current situation to change somewhat.
Good IndyRef polling news. I'm told that the face-to-face TNS survey should be out overnight - a day earlier than expected
http://news.sky.com/story/1331489/uk-offers-to-send-ring-of-steel-to-calais
"Is 51 per cent a flash in the pan? Can Ed Miliband win back errant Labour voters? Will a new offer of “devo-something” work?
Firstly, time is on the side of Yes. The confidence-enhancing 51 per cent vote has been reached with 10 days still to go – time to recover from any inevitable resurgence in the No vote, new scare stories or fresh devolutionary offers. On the other hand, the close proximity of September 18th raises legal questions about the ability of UK civil servants to work on George Osborne’s “devo-more” offer and the fairness of such a last-minute change of policy when so many Scots have already cast postal votes. Meanwhile, with consummate bad timing, the Commons expenses watchdog has confirmed MPs’ pay will rise by 10 per cent next year, taking salaries to £74,000. By contrast all five political parties at Holyrood agreed to decouple their rates from Westminster pay scales so MSPs will get a modest 1 per cent pay rise this year in line with other public sector workers. The Scottish Parliament is evidently more in tune with public sentiment than the “Mother of Parliaments” – again."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/lesley-riddoch-better-together-losing-stardust-1-3534149
But yeah, I suppose they could fail to fulfil one of the criteria, as they presumably will with the Euro.
Alternatively, a new Scottish currency could appreciate compared to Sterling, as it would at least have the support of North Sea oil income. You would expect that Sterling - North Sea oil would be a far weaker currency than at present. Then Scottish homeowners could be seeing their mortgage payments cut drastically in an instant.
How much worse does the English trade deficit get if you take out North Sea Oil?
If you treat the McPoond as a petro currency then the rest of scottish goods get hammered on the exchange rate and industry hollows out, nobody goes to the Edinburgh Festival because it's too expensive and the natives go on lots of shopping trips to Newcastle.
Then when oil tanks, as it must, you've got Middlesboro in kilts.
Anyone on benefits is entitled to a mansion (with free rent), a 48 inch colour TV, three mobile phones, and a holiday at an international resort once a year,
I read that in the tabloids, so it must be true.
(cosmetic surgery is available on request)
' Who goes to great lengths to escape war / famine / poverty etc. in order to live a life on benefits? '
Still a much better quality of life with the option to work if they want to.
If they are genuine refugees why haven't they claimed asylum in France or Italy?
Some dotty posts on here this morning. I think I will do some work.