The Referendum Thread

[stlucifer]

I'm not disagreeing with the comments about politicians and using spin to suit their own agenda, but the minimal pricing for alcohol is not politically driven. It is driven by Health Professionals throughout Europe and as alcohol problems are particularly rife in Scotland the Scottish Government is attempting to implement a local solution to a local problem. There is a big difference.

The fact it is not a tax and actually simply forcing drinks companies to charge more for their produce highlights the fact that they know the bulk of their profit comes from dependant drinkers and it is these people who will drink less. Why else would they have any problem with the opportunity to make a profit on individual drinks?

It doesn't matter who gets the profit. As it is with the ciggie debate, (and I am an ex smoker who gave up years ago, NOT because of any financial impact. Simply a choice made as an free thinking adult), it is morally wrong to, on the one hand take funds from goods, or force others to change their price structure upwards, with the excuse that you are trying to reduce intake from minorities. What next? Tax people for not excercising?

If ANY government wants to claim the high ground they should, IMO, legislate to make the offending goods illegal and wean people off the stuff.

I don't believe the majority of law abiding, "social drinkers" should be prevented from reducing costs because of market forces. This piece of nonsensical, nanny state legislation is what I hate about the SNP. I will be voting for an independent Scotland but I will not support the SNP or any faction formed after the vote.

HIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oaksoft]

It doesn't matter who gets the profit. As it is with the ciggie debate, (and I am an ex smoker who gave up years ago, NOT because of any financial impact. Simply a choice made as an free thinking adult), it is morally wrong to, on the one hand take funds from goods, or force others to change their price structure upwards, with the excuse that you are trying to reduce intake from minorities. What next? Tax people for not excercising?

If ANY government wants to claim the high ground they should, IMO, legislate to make the offending goods illegal and wean people off the stuff.

I don't believe the majority of law abiding, "social drinkers" should be prevented from reducing costs because of market forces. This piece of nonsensical, nanny state legislation is what I hate about the SNP. I will be voting for an independent Scotland but I will not support the SNP or any faction formed after the vote.

HIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are not interested in you and neither should they be.

They are interested in preventing the next generation doing what the current generation have done by stopping the problem at source. Now you can argue all you like about effectiveness of this route but there's evidence that it is having an effect.

We need to do something about all of these "free thinkers" who are in fact a drain on our NHS.

Of course you won't get them to admit that but it's a huge financial burden on the rest of us.

Smokers and drinkers are being asked to think of the bigger picture here instead of themselves.

[Bart Simpson]

It doesn't matter who gets the profit. As it is with the ciggie debate, (and I am an ex smoker who gave up years ago, NOT because of any financial impact. Simply a choice made as an free thinking adult), it is morally wrong to, on the one hand take funds from goods, or force others to change their price structure upwards, with the excuse that you are trying to reduce intake from minorities. What next? Tax people for not excercising?

If ANY government wants to claim the high ground they should, IMO, legislate to make the offending goods illegal and wean people off the stuff.

I don't believe the majority of law abiding, "social drinkers" should be prevented from reducing costs because of market forces. This piece of nonsensical, nanny state legislation is what I hate about the SNP. I will be voting for an independent Scotland but I will not support the SNP or any faction formed after the vote.

 

  HIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is a separate point not related to this debate. However you are right about it being government measures to try and combat the ills of a significant proportion of our society. The Department of Health agrees with the same policy, but politically the current government in London have quietly dropped the policy. I don't disagree with the feeling of a 'nanny-state' but studies show this is an effective measure which will reduce the harmful drinking of those already drinking to excess and hopefully prevent others becoming addicted. It will also have very minimal effect on non-dependent drinkers. There are no politics involved, just a health argument.

[Seaside Nipper]

It is a separate point not related to this debate. However you are right about it being government measures to try and combat the ills of a significant proportion of our society. The Department of Health agrees with the same policy, but politically the current government in London have quietly dropped the policy. I don't disagree with the feeling of a 'nanny-state' but studies show this is an effective measure which will reduce the harmful drinking of those already drinking to excess and hopefully prevent others becoming addicted. It will also have very minimal effect on non-dependent drinkers. There are no politics involved, just a health argument.

It is political , it must be, you just said yourself in Englandshire they dropped it ( for political reasons ) Nicola is using it as a policy, as a good thing afasic, therfore by advocating it as the government up here, they will take the credit in terms of voter affirmation. Anyway, it matters not, fact is it is 100% nannystatism and as someone else said , it's one of those irksome things that smacks of being patronised. All this crap about the mindfull middle taking care of the misdirected and daftie brigade just gets my goat !!

[pozbaird]

That knob Osbourne opening his gob about anything has me leaning towards a 'yes' vote now.

Any time an English Tory wanker wades in - I cannot help but get riled.

[Seaside Nipper]

That knob Osbourne opening his gob about anything has me leaning towards a 'yes' vote now.

Any time an English Tory wanker wades in - I cannot help but get riled.

I must admit , this IS very true. I'm closer to a YES vote today than has been the case in the last year, I'm 51% to 49% now

[Stuart Dickson]

Ignoring the blatant inflammatory comments, do you not think that the 'good/great' Scottish Politicians in Westminster would subsequently be out of a job and therefore would need to be on the look out for new employment in Holyrood in the event of a Yes vote? As for immigration, open borders within the EU mean it is a difficult issue when one country has a need and another doesn't. However, it is still an issue that needs to be addressed and the status quo highlights the inadequacies of reserved power to individual Scottish needs within the UK. As for devolution, well I think you are in the minority and as I said in my opening points on this thread, as much as it is to your disgust, the majority of Scots believe that further control/Devo Max is the way to go. If this is the case regardless of the Yes campaign potentially ultimately falling short of independence, for now, it does suggest that not everyone is as happy as you are with Westminster. Whilst that result would also suggest that the majority of Scots still aren't quite ready for independence, it would suggest the momentum is moving away from your perspective. The squeaky wheel reference in the event of a No means if the No campaign don't come up with an alternative to the status quo, this whole process may start all over again fairly soon thereafter. You had better get the thinking cap back on rather than burying you head in the sand, people want change, it's just a question of how much and it's certainly not back to where you would want things to be. You can also use history in a number of different ways to suit your point...but the more recent past of x2 votes on devolution, our new Parliament, SNP government and a vote on independence and an apparent want for Devo Max from the population as a whole all point to one thing...the status quo isn't working.

With regard to talented unemployed MP's who knows - they may stand for election to Hollyrood, they may opt to fight for English constituencies like Michael Gove and Malcolm Rifkind, or they may simply retire and take on the usual "consultancy" position that so many former politicians appear to land up with. The one thing you have to bear in mind is that Hollyrood pay £53,000 per annum whilst MP's are paid £66,396. Would top Scottish politicians be prepared to work for less money? Certainly Gordon Brown wasn't and the only reason the likes of David Steele and Donald Dewer came North of the border was guarantee's of higher salaries because of their roles as Presiding Officer and First Minister paid more than that for a standard MP at Westminster. Perhaps Hollyrood post independence will increase MSP's salaries and expenses to match those of Westminster so as to attract such talent - it's yet another of those things that the Nationalists refuse to talk about. How popular that would be with the Scottish electorate is a different matter altogether.

On immigration - the UK current operates border controls from all member countries of the EU. You only need to visit a cross channel ferry port to witness this in action. If Scotland was to gain control of it's own immigration policy you would have to imagine that border controls would have to be put in place and I'd imagine that would have to be true regardless of whether it was done under the current administration, under Devo Max, or under Independence. Remember the UK retains 3 different types of veto when it comes to EU legislation and the UK government has always insisted on protecting the UK border.

As I've also pointed out though there is strong evidence to suggest that non EU immigrants do not want to come to Scotland. For example when the Labour Party threw open the UK doors the influx tended to occur around London, Luton, Bradford, Birmingham and other major English towns. There aren't quite so many Brazilians, Africans or Russians that have come to towns like Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Given that is the case don't you think the UK would insist on border controls if only to ensure that Scottish Airports are not just being used as a port of entry into more popular locations in England?

[Stuart Dickson]

That knob Osbourne opening his gob about anything has me leaning towards a 'yes' vote now.

Any time an English Tory wanker wades in - I cannot help but get riled.

Hmmm, OK well you better start buying up all the gold you can afford. I don't think I'd be willing to take a chance on Scotland if we didn't have the stability of Sterling and I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to give up everything I've got just cause of a deeply held prejudice against the upper middle class English.

[pozbaird]

Hmmm, OK well you better start buying up all the gold you can afford. I don't think I'd be willing to take a chance on Scotland if we didn't have the stability of Sterling and I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to give up everything I've got just cause of a deeply held prejudice against the upper middle class English.

Oh great, another Tory wanker wades in...

[Stuart Dickson]

It is a separate point not related to this debate. However you are right about it being government measures to try and combat the ills of a significant proportion of our society. The Department of Health agrees with the same policy, but politically the current government in London have quietly dropped the policy. I don't disagree with the feeling of a 'nanny-state' but studies show this is an effective measure which will reduce the harmful drinking of those already drinking to excess and hopefully prevent others becoming addicted. It will also have very minimal effect on non-dependent drinkers. There are no politics involved, just a health argument.

Ach bollocks. Of course it's political. Price fixing of this kind is extremely dubious under EU law as the Scottish Government are finding to their cost as alcohol producers prepare to take their case to court. The coalition in Westminster know this and that's why the policy wasn't adopted down there despite the advice that minimum pricing on alcohol might well be a popular policy amongst many voters.

As for the health argument - is it really effective? Would an alcoholic really drink less if you put prices up? I really do doubt it. There's also ways around minimum pricing. For example if you were that way inclined it would be fairly cheap, once you have the necessary equipment, to get in to home brewing. A quick search on the internet shows that you can make a home brew bottle of wine for 94p and a home brew bitter can cost as little as 34p per pint. Neither would be affected by minimum pricing. There was supposed to be evidence that some people were looking to set up "home brew" clubs where in return for a membership fee you could "taste" home brews for "free".

I drink very little alcohol. Nothing to do with pricing, it's just I like to savour my drink and I don't find that I do when I'm bouncing off walls. Minimum pricing would have little effect on me because I don't tend to purchase the kind of alcohol that would be affected my minimum prices. I'd love to think that raising prices would mean that everyone would become more discerning about the taste of what they drink but it's not going to happen, is it? Scottish culture seems to be about getting heavily pissed as quickly as possible and that's unlikely to change with the kind of increases in prices that were being proposed by the Scottish Government.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[stlucifer]

Oh great, another Tory wanker wades in...

Now there is something which REALLY irks me.

I have him on ignore yet I can still see his nonsense if someone sensible,.... (or you Poz! ), quotes him!!!!

[Bart Simpson]

It is political , it must be, you just said yourself in Englandshire they dropped it ( for political reasons ) Nicola is using it as a policy, as a good thing afasic, therfore by advocating it as the government up here, they will take the credit in terms of voter affirmation. Anyway, it matters not, fact is it is 100% nannystatism and as someone else said , it's one of those irksome things that smacks of being patronised. All this crap about the mindfull middle taking care of the misdirected and daftie brigade just gets my goat !!

My point is that Health care professionals throughout Europe agree this is a sensible approach that will help. Even in England!

Perhaps as the Tory government stand essentially against government intervention on these issues and argue individual responsibility is the key that that is the reason they dropped the policy, but you'd really need to ask them.

I would argue that it is potentially an unpopular policy as it on the surface could affect all drinkers rather than being a popular one as most people don't want to pay more for any commodity. Therefore I don't think it is specifically politically driven in Scotland and as I say it is a local measure to help reduce a local problem. We do have a higher consumption of alcohol per head of population than the rest of the UK and most of Europe. We do have higher rates of alcohol related health problems than the rest of the UK and most of Europe. Hence any measure which helps combat this should only be encouraged.

Health care professionals also feel it takes unilateral government action to change such widespread problems and as per my previous discussion with Stuart there is evidence from Finland I believe showing that when in their case taxation increased on alcohol overall consumption quickly fell mirrored by it quickly rising when the tax was subsequently lowered.

I appreciate it is not to everyone's taste, and I also know it won't solve the problem but it will hopefully help.

Furthermore alcohol at least from supermarkets, has never been more affordable in relative terms than it is now, a fact mirrored by rising alcohol related health problems and ever increasing alcohol consumption. Is this simply a coincidence?

I completely agree with it being nannyism, but that's how most European countries are run. Your point could also be made about wearing seat belts and this being law in the UK, but not necessarily the case elsewhere in the world...and although I'm sure there was the same debate at the time of this legislation, it is simply common sense now, with clear, almost universally accepted benefits.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Bart Simpson

[Bart Simpson]

Ach bollocks. Of course it's political. Price fixing of this kind is extremely dubious under EU law as the Scottish Government are finding to their cost as alcohol producers prepare to take their case to court. The coalition in Westminster know this and that's why the policy wasn't adopted down there despite the advice that minimum pricing on alcohol might well be a popular policy amongst many voters.

As for the health argument - is it really effective? Would an alcoholic really drink less if you put prices up? I really do doubt it. There's also ways around minimum pricing. For example if you were that way inclined it would be fairly cheap, once you have the necessary equipment, to get in to home brewing. A quick search on the internet shows that you can make a home brew bottle of wine for 94p and a home brew bitter can cost as little as 34p per pint. Neither would be affected by minimum pricing. There was supposed to be evidence that some people were looking to set up "home brew" clubs where in return for a membership fee you could "taste" home brews for "free".

I drink very little alcohol. Nothing to do with pricing, it's just I like to savour my drink and I don't find that I do when I'm bouncing off walls. Minimum pricing would have little effect on me because I don't tend to purchase the kind of alcohol that would be affected my minimum prices. I'd love to think that raising prices would mean that everyone would become more discerning about the taste of what they drink but it's not going to happen, is it? Scottish culture seems to be about getting heavily pissed as quickly as possible and that's unlikely to change with the kind of increases in prices that were being proposed by the Scottish Government.

I think your point about it not affecting you is correct, and is true for the majority of people. Therefore although the policy in my opinion could be perceived as unpopular (paying more for any commodity is inherently unpopular) seeing beyond this and coming to your conclusion on this particular part of the issue is important for the population as a whole for it to be accepted.

Those with addictions spend most if not all of their income on their addiction. Therefore if the same money buys less alcohol...they drink less alcohol. Furthermore combating the relative affordability of alcohol hopefully will mean that less people are able to afford to drink enough to become addicted.

I completely agree it only combats part of the issue. As a society we have a significant problem with binge drinking as you elude to and potentially this measure won't see a big change in that but as I say there is almost universal support from the medical community.

We've had this discussion on another thread and I'm extremely unlikely to change your view, but I've explained in the above post some evidence that suggests this could help. There is also the recent study from Canada which also supports the case, as we discussed before.

I think it will help. As I say I don't know why the Westminster Government dropped the policy, but the Department of Health agree with it and criticised it's dropping.

There are clear motives from the drinks industry to challenge the measure as it will directly impact on their profits but reducing harmful drinking. Why else do you think they are challenging the policy at every possible level when they will receive all of the proceeds of minimum pricing?

I suppose the question boils down to who you trust most. Health professionals who have patients to help and nothing to personally gain from the measure or drinks companies who have share holders and profits to protect?

As I say, I know who I trust and I accept it is not going to cure all ills, I also accept that nobody knows how much benefit will come from the policy, but I also believe it won't harm anyone and surely is worth a go given the harm excessive drinking causes.

Your point about moonshine is interesting, and I think this is a problem in parts of Eastern Europe and there are certainly programmes on the discovery channel about American mooshiners. I'm not sure this will become a significant problem though when alcohol will be just as readily available, just not in as relatively large quantities.

So in a way it comes down to trying something new that may help or accepting the status quo and doing nothing.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Bart Simpson

[Bart Simpson]

 

With regard to talented unemployed MP's who knows - they may stand for election to Hollyrood, they may opt to fight for English constituencies like Michael Gove and Malcolm Rifkind, or they may simply retire and take on the usual "consultancy" position that so many former politicians appear to land up with. The one thing you have to bear in mind is that Hollyrood pay £53,000 per annum whilst MP's are paid £66,396. Would top Scottish politicians be prepared to work for less money? Certainly Gordon Brown wasn't and the only reason the likes of David Steele and Donald Dewer came North of the border was guarantee's of higher salaries because of their roles as Presiding Officer and First Minister paid more than that for a standard MP at Westminster. Perhaps Hollyrood post independence will increase MSP's salaries and expenses to match those of Westminster so as to attract such talent - it's yet another of those things that the Nationalists refuse to talk about. How popular that would be with the Scottish electorate is a different matter altogether. 

 

On immigration - the UK current operates border controls from all member countries of the EU. You only need to visit a cross channel ferry port to witness this in action. If Scotland was to gain control of it's own immigration policy you would have to imagine that border controls would have to be put in place and I'd imagine that would have to be true regardless of whether it was done under the current administration, under Devo Max, or under Independence. Remember the UK retains 3 different types of veto when it comes to EU legislation and the UK government has always insisted on protecting the UK border. 

 

As I've also pointed out though there is strong evidence to suggest that non EU immigrants do not want to come to Scotland. For example when the Labour Party threw open the UK doors the influx tended to occur around London, Luton, Bradford, Birmingham and other major English towns. There aren't quite so many Brazilians, Africans or Russians that have come to towns like Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Given that is the case don't you think the UK would insist on border controls if only to ensure that Scottish Airports are not just being used as a port of entry into more popular locations in England?

I don't think 'talented' politicians will simply disappear though. Perhaps with more power allocated in Holyrood there will be more desire to stay closer to home and use the opportunities this affords.

As for immigration, I don't know the answer, but we do have a different need, an apparent different tolerance to the issue but no ability to influence how it affects us. Your points are fair enough regarding what the rest of the UK then do if there is devolved or independent decision making on the issue, but how do we solve our current problems within the current set up? Perhaps Scotland will be a more attractive option with independence...but yet again I'm drawn back to: do we try something different or accept the status quo?

As I've said I'm not sure we are ready yet for something completely different, but slowly more and more people are wanting more local control of local issues. As they have seen the Scottish Government and previously the Scottish Executive treading their own different alternative path to that of Westminster and doing it relatively competently this growing self confidence and want for more power at Holyrood will only increase. The question for the No campaign is can they satisfy this want and put the independence debate to rest for a generation?

[Stuart Dickson]

I don't think 'talented' politicians will simply disappear though. Perhaps with more power allocated in Holyrood there will be more desire to stay closer to home and use the opportunities this affords.

As for immigration, I don't know the answer, but we do have a different need, an apparent different tolerance to the issue but no ability to influence how it affects us. Your points are fair enough regarding what the rest of the UK then do if there is devolved or independent decision making on the issue, but how do we solve our current problems within the current set up? Perhaps Scotland will be a more attractive option with independence...but yet again I'm drawn back to: do we try something different or accept the status quo?

As I've said I'm not sure we are ready yet for something completely different, but slowly more and more people are wanting more local control of local issues. As they have seen the Scottish Government and previously the Scottish Executive treading their own different alternative path to that of Westminster and doing it relatively competently this growing self confidence and want for more power at Holyrood will only increase. The question for the No campaign is can they satisfy this want and put the independence debate to rest for a generation?

If you accept the status quo then Scotland's situation is nowhere near as dire when it comes to the size of the working population. The reason is simple. As part of the UK political union so long as the figures work out UK wide it doesn't really matter that Scotland can't attract non EU immigrants - even with the door wide open. The fact that a so called Independent Scotland would have such a desperate need for immigrants to support the economy should prove to everyone that the Better Together assertion that an Independent Scotland would struggle to meet it's pension liability is correct. As I've said before the grass isn't always greener and change for change sake is just stupid, especially when it means coming out of the worlds most successful political union to have a shot in the dark on the basis that Nicola Sturgeon has a dream of a Utopia where an omnipotent Scotland will dictate to the whole world the terms of how it will trade with Scotland.

The details of the Treasury Report into currency union are to be published later today and, according to the BBC, it's going to say that civil servants believe that the only way to make currency union work is if Scotland agrees to underwrite all UK banks, and vice versa. If UK and Scottish taxpayers agree to subsidise each other and agreements can be reached on borrowing limits and taxation levels on both sides of the border. Think about it - that's simple common sense. Indeed it's how the Euro Currency Union works right now - but it's not the post independence picture the Nationalists would have you believe. The Nationalists will tell you that Scots currently subsidise England with our oil money and that if we are Independent we'll all be better off but clearly they can't possibly meet that pledge if they continue to insist on currency union.

As for Sturgeons response to George Osbournes comments today it's quite clear that if Scotland refused to pay it's debts it would have real problems borrowing any money off the international markets. After all who is going to buy Scottish Government Bonds when they've made it clear that they can't be trusted to meet their liabilities in the future. You'd have to offer an interest rate that would be consumerate with the risk that investing in Scotland would clearly be - and that would mean much more expensive credit for Scots. Again that's hardly a scare story - it's simply following the argument to it's logical conclusion. The onus should be put on the SNP to show proof of how they intend to legally dump their debt allocation without harming the countries international reputation beyond repair.

[Lex]

What a terrible blow for Nationalists, however was always going to happen and I've been saying so for months. It amazed me that so many nats actually believed they could and would get a currency union. I'm surprised it's happened so early though, was expecting the rUK MP's to wait till about June time before announcing this.

It's amusing to see the panic and floundering among the yes campaign now their whole economic policy has been ripped apart. Imagine releasing a white paper without an alternative currency option? They're being exposed for the unprepared amateurs they are. What a mess of the currency issue they've made.

Looking forward to the next poll, as one nationalist on STV said last night, this announcement will certainly have scared a few undecided's into voting no

[bluto]

What a terrible blow for Nationalists, however was always going to happen and I've been saying so for months. It amazed me that so many nats actually believed they could and would get a currency union. I'm surprised it's happened so early though, was expecting the rUK MP's to wait till about June time before announcing this.It's amusing to see the panic and floundering among the yes campaign now their whole economic policy has been ripped apart. Imagine releasing a white paper without an alternative currency option? They're being exposed for the unprepared amateurs they are. What a mess of the currency issue they've made.Looking forward to the next poll, as one nationalist on STV said last night, this announcement will certainly have scared a few undecided's into voting no

Ach, there's only one poll that matters.

I watched the announcement, live.

Osborne's haircut is certainly an improvement.

[groucho]

Quite the oppisite this will have undecided voters voting yes .They can see this statement for what it is political gesturing and nothing to do with economics .The more the Tories stick their oar in the more people will vote YES.

[billyg]

Quite the oppisite this will have undecided voters voting yes .They can see this statement for what it is political gesturing and nothing to do with economics .The more the Tories stick their oar in the more people will vote YES.

Yes , everyone knows the tories have been caught telling porkies to the voters and this is just another one to add to the list .

[bluto]

Quite the oppisite this will have undecided voters voting yes .They can see this statement for what it is political gesturing and nothing to do with economics .The more the Tories stick their oar in the more people will vote YES.

Strange reaction.

I'd expect reaction, but not sticking fingers in ears and yelling Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.....

1. It's 90% about economics.

2. Hadn't you noticed it's all the parties?

3. Though I concede that UKIP has not yet ruled out currency union, if they win the next election.

[Lex]

Quite the oppisite this will have undecided voters voting yes .They can see this statement for what it is political gesturing and nothing to do with economics .The more the Tories stick their oar in the more people will vote YES.

This isn't what a nationalist thinks, and he said so on Itv last night.

Poor Nicola is getting ripped to shreds by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics just now. It's a bit painful to watch

[Lord Pityme]

Strange reaction.

I'd expect reaction, but not sticking fingers in ears and yelling Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.....

1. It's 90% about economics.

2. Hadn't you noticed it's all the parties?

3. Though I concede that UKIP has not yet ruled out currency union, if they win the next election.

Correction.....

It's all the english/westminister parties...... who stand to lose most from independence...

Tories - will forever be known as the party that lost the union

Lib Dems - will lose the few MP's they actually have so become a redundant force (not enough Mp's to justify a coalition)

Labour - will possibly never be elected again in our lifetime losing 50 mp's....

this bluster is not about economics, parties never stand side by side on that...

It's about so much more to them.... power! and the prospect of losing it big time..!

[bluto]

Correction.....

It's all the english/westminister parties...... who stand to lose most from independence...

Tories - will forever be known as the party that lost the union

Lib Dems - will lose the few MP's they actually have so become a redundant force (not enough Mp's to justify a coalition)

Labour - will possibly never be elected again in our lifetime losing 50 mp's....

this bluster is not about economics, parties never stand side by side on that...

It's about so much more to them.... power! and the prospect of losing it big time..!

No need for a correction, which I guess is why you've not given one despite using that word...

Groucho and billyg specified the Tories. I suggested it was all the parties.

If defending a shared pound comes down to semantics about which parties are at Westminster, then I guess the debate has been conceded.

I am guessing you went off on one about the three main parties because you have secret feelings about Nigel Farage? Otherwise there is no logic to your response.

[Lord Pityme]

No need for a correction, which I guess is why you've not given one despite using that word...

Groucho and billyg specified the Tories. I suggested it was all the parties.

If defending a shared pound comes down to semantics about which parties are at Westminster, then I guess the debate has been conceded.

I am guessing you went off on one about the three main parties because you have secret feelings about Nigel Farage? Otherwise there is no logic to your response.

No Logic...?

The simple fact is the no campaign consists of english political parties sitting in westminister desperately trying to frighten Scots into voting to suit their agenda.

The yes campaign consists of the SNP and whoever believes in it north of the border.... Farage is a creation of far right tories that actually want independence themselves... but only of a certain type, and only inclusive to people of certain ethnic backgrounds.

[bluto]

No Logic...?

The simple fact is the no campaign consists of english political parties sitting in westminister desperately trying to frighten Scots into voting to suit their agenda.

The yes campaign consists of the SNP and whoever believes in it north of the border.... Farage is a creation of far right tories that actually want independence themselves... but only of a certain type, and only inclusive to people of certain ethnic backgrounds.

From my first posts in this subject, I have asserted that there is NO INDEPENDENCE worth having if you keep the Queen, the pound and a few other things that Eck feels would scare the electorate.

Not sharing a currency IS simple economics. Currency Union without the corollary of ceding all sorts of political concessions is (it is generally agreed) the root cause of of the malaise with the Euro.

Why would the rUK want to do something like that? It would be daft economics.

Eck and Co have been asserting all will be easy-oasy about currency Union. Business, investors, banks have sought clarity for the sake of economic stability. Clarity has been offered by all parties: it won't be easy. It won't happen.

If there is Currency union it will be at a cost that is not acceptable for the rUK.

I conceded that it was only 90% economics. If you can't see that, I really don't mind.