~~~ Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 A Better Together leaflet from the start of this year What a difference a year makes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Correct. What is your point, caller? They are saying they have considerable reasons to be discontent with a currency union. The onus then lies on those who specifically say they want it to outline a persuasive case for adopting such a policy in light of those concerns. It's a preposterous position to take by the UK government when they are intentionally shrouding the argument over a currency union with doubt and not give a definitive answer to the question. You have to ask what their motives are and why they seem to find it in the interests of the Scottish people to continue with their obfuscation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bojangles Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Except it is happening, slowly but surely. Global markets are redistributing wealth to developing countries. Development aid is accounting for more as a % of GDP in the West than ever before. No one is asking for revolution, but gradually these things are changing. Whataboutery. And completely unrelated to revenue allocation. Okay you've literally just made that up. That's not what's been mooted at all. No one has suggested that the allocation of revenue should cease to be split between England and Wales. Absolutely no one. Except you. Now. The direction of travel if you paid any attention to the Silk Commission is if anything one whereby Wales is taking more responsibility for revenue raising, up to something broadly commensurate with the Calman powers, making its pot more discrete from money spent in England, not less. If you're going to lie at least be convincing. First of all, you can't know that this will happen. If anything, any proposal that would further benefit the South East would generate outright hostility from all three devolved administrations and significant swathes of North and Western England. Even insofar as London would be protected, that's not evidence that "every one of the unionist parties is only concerned with the welfare of London". It's literally untrue to say that. It's true to say that most of the policies they pursue have failed to tackle the structural disproportionate advantage enjoyed by the capital city (a problem far from unique to the UK) but to say then that that means the politicians or the parties don't *care* about other parts of the UK just has no basis in reality. You can have eyes firmly open to the nature of the problems with the Westminster state without buying into this silly narrative that the London parties hate Scotland. The UK spends 0.7% of the budget on Development Aid. Hardly revolutionary, and the centralisation of capital continues unabated within the UK. It's not lying if it's an opinion. That's why I said "It may be split a different way". I don't know exactly how they will do it, but I am 100% sure London won't lose out. I never said anything about hating Scotland. They're ambivalent at best, disdainful at worst. By your policies we shall know thee. "Whataboutery" is relevant here because it shows the government's priorities. They're only concerned with the welfare of the SE because that is what the fiscal and social policy of the UK is most concerned with. Everything from immigration to the regulation of the banking sector is almost entirely to the benefit of London. The people who I feel truly sorry for are the people of the North of England, but I'd rather we were an example to follow than making pie in the sky claims that one day we might get a government that will do something to redistribute the wealth so just hang in there for another few decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Unfortunately a fair chunk do and they are. I've seen very little of that side of things. Maybe there are folk like that out there but the fact I've seen very little of it would suggest that they're rightly being ignored. A big part of the yes argument is based on the nasty Tories, illegal wars, anti England stuff Anti-English b*****ds not wanting to get involved in illegal wars . Any specifics on the "stuff" you mentioned last? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Scotland Tonight should be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 So if we can't use our currency, what will this debt consist of? Can we use an exchange rate of £112billion UK pounds = 1 Scottish New currency? Will it be down to us to set the exchange rate to be used? As for your constant assertion that the currency is not an asset, this is incorrect. If the Yes camp can get the rUK to agree to a currency union then this will assist in persuading people that an indy scotland will be OK. At the moment, the rUK are using the currency as an asset in their argument against independence. Will consist of whatever is agreed between us and United Kingdom government. The most likely scenario is that we will be required to make a contribution to the UK Treasury in GBP for a fixed period of time roughly equal to our proportion of issued UK bonds. The UK would then pay the debt using the money we give them and we would finance all future borrowing from our own bonds, which we could issue in any denomination or currency we please, as long as the markets were willing to buy them. After that fixed period, our payments to the UK Treasury would stop. Another possibility is that we have a proportion of UK bonds apportioned to us and have to honour them as and when they fall due. Again these debts would have to be paid in GBP as they were issued in that currency. Either way, we can't just manipulate the exchange rate to shirk existing debt as it's already been issued in GBP. We could set our own currency's denomination at any value we feel like. The issue is about how stable that ratio is relative to 1) commodity values and 2) other currencies. Your drivel about it being an asset has been debunked literally hundreds of times on this forum. The word asset has a specific meaning and units of measurement are not assets. That's what a currency is. A unit of measurement calibrated by a central bank to reflect the exchange value of a basket of commodities it holds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 So tomorrow we will see, in detail, what the offer is from the Yes campaign, warts and all. I'm pretty sure that I won't agree with all of it. I'm absolutely sure that I'll be irritated at the fact that there will be gaps in the "certainty". Don't make the mistake in thinking that the SG white paper is all that's on offer, or represents the Yes campaign as an entirety. There's plenty of yes voters who disagree with the SNP approach of independence (within a quasi UK). The independence movement won't stop until we abolish the monarchy and put the final bullet in the head of the British Empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I've seen very little of that side of things. Maybe there are folk like that out there but the fact I've seen very little of it would suggest that they're rightly being ignored. Neither have I but I know there are plenty of knuckledraggers on either side of the argument, it's like racism, you don't know so many hold racist views unless you spend time conversing with them, fortunately for me, I can't be arsed with knuckledraggers so I rarely end up in a conversation involving them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Mr Bairn, are the hundreds of thousands of English people who marched against the Iraq War anti-English for doing so? If no, is it not the case that you have absolutely no evidence of the Yes campaign being inherently anti-English and therefore are trying to connect completely irrelevant issues to anti-English sentiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Mr Bairn, are the hundreds of thousands of English people who marched against the Iraq War anti-English for doing so? If no, is it not the case that you have absolutely no evidence of the Yes campaign being inherently anti-English and therefore are trying to connect completely irrelevant issues to anti-English sentiment? It's not inherently anti-English, but using it in the divorce settlement with England is anti English Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Will consist of whatever is agreed between us and United Kingdom government. The most likely scenario is that we will be required to make a contribution to the UK Treasury in GBP for a fixed period of time roughly equal to our proportion of issued UK bonds. The UK would then pay the debt using the money we give them and we would finance all future borrowing from our own bonds, which we could issue in any denomination or currency we please, as long as the markets were willing to buy them. After that fixed period, our payments to the UK Treasury would stop. Another possibility is that we have a proportion of UK bonds apportioned to us and have to honour them as and when they fall due. Again these debts would have to be paid in GBP as they were issued in that currency. Either way, we can't just manipulate the exchange rate to shirk existing debt as it's already been issued in GBP. We could set our own currency's denomination at any value we feel like. The issue is about how stable that ratio is relative to 1) commodity values and 2) other currencies. Your drivel about it being an asset has been debunked literally hundreds of times on this forum. The word asset has a specific meaning and units of measurement are not assets. That's what a currency is. A unit of measurement calibrated by a central bank to reflect the exchange value of a basket of commodities it holds. My definition of assets is as per the Oxford Dictionary: nouna useful or valuable thing or person I repeat my sentiment that the currency is currently an asset to the No campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's not inherently anti-English, but using it in the divorce settlement with England is anti English What does that even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bojangles Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Mr Bairn stepping up to the plate as the new DeeGas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 My definition of assets is as per the Oxford Dictionary: noun a useful or valuable thing or person I repeat my sentiment that the currency is currently an asset to the No campaign. A currency isn't a thing. It measures things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 It's not inherently anti-English, but using it in the divorce settlement with England is anti English Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 A currency isn't a thing. It measures things. Tut tut, measurement has no special place in the universe, it is a space time event that has tangible effects on both observer and observed, therefore, it's a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 What are people's view on bringing the Independence debate into Scottish football? Going by the attitudes seen on this forum and the attitudes of most football fans I know, there is a clear majority for independence amongst Scottish football fans. It seems like football games would provide a good opportunity for Yes Scotland to engage with people who are supportive but reluctant to get involved in the campaign. But should football and politics never mix? I think it should definitely be held inside Ibrox, and then the world will watch in horror as Ibrox destroys itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 What are people's view on bringing the Independence debate into Scottish football? Going by the attitudes seen on this forum and the attitudes of most football fans I know, there is a clear majority for independence amongst Scottish football fans. It seems like football games would provide a good opportunity for Yes Scotland to engage with people who are supportive but reluctant to get involved in the campaign. But should football and politics never mix? It isn't relevant to football, so I'd rather it was kept away. Like Dunning said, if BT/Yes want to leaflet outside the grounds, then they should be free to do so. I wouldn't allow things to go any further, and I'd be angry if my club declared some sort of official stance (even if they agreed with me). It's the sort of thing that will just piss people off and put them against each other. The only thing I've seen regarding this at a game were a few Celtic fans handing out green 'Yes' flyers when we played them in the Scottish Cup last year. I wasn't interested so didn't take one, but I think that's a fair enough way of doing things without bringing the debate to the game itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisGRAEME Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Lovely stuff on BBC News there, save the union of the sake of world war 2 and a flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Lovely stuff on BBC News there, save the union of the sake of world war 2 and a flag. I hope you're not looking for impartiality from the Beeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.