Be Excellent To Each Other

As ever, very well and succinctly put Gnomes; loved your earlier Tesco store manager analogy too, very apt. I've said it before but I'll say it again: I, for one, am very glad you're here, chap.

It's also worth noting, of course, that a currency union would effectively be an underwriting of the entire Scottish finance sector (which hasn't exactly covered itself in glory these last few years), by the people (taxpayers) of the rUK, with not one penny piece of tax revenue in return, yet despite the very unambiguous statements by all three main political parties, would-be Scots Yes voters are expected to entirely ignore these realities and instead trust in the ephemeral rumours of 'unnamed' minister(s) supposedly briefing otherwise (off the record and anonymously)... as the Scots might say, you couldnae make it up.

The SNP threat of "we'll walk away from all UK debt [but still keep all assets, oil etc.]" is also a total falsehood, thoroughly debunked by people far more learned than I, but it seems to be the nature of their campaign, and the quality of their information, to keep trotting it out regardless. As I've said before: Toy Town politicians playing Toy Town politics? Personally speaking, I think the Scottish people deserved better.

If Scotland go for the 'unofficial' pound in the event of no union (which seems most likely), I'm not sure what the downsides are for UK businesses. If there is a tacit understanding that it's a 1:1 relationship, then any serious business would presumably be unaffected, at least in the short term. The Irish punt was initially used interchangably for the pound, and I assume the same would be true here.

Since a linked 1:1 pound would by definition not be able to inflate/devalue in the event of economic disparity between Scotland and rUK, I can't immediately see the downside for rUK except to potentially have a smaller, weaker trading partner (ala Greece/Spain vs. rEU). Meanwhile Scotland have to keep the currency linked to create the illusion of stability while local prices inflate and businesses start to suffer. Any businesses that didn't jump ship at the start of independence would suddenly feel a reason to go south of the border.

I am not an economist, clearly, but this seems like a much worse option than a currency union, and a pretty terrible back-up plan, especially when the health of your economy is going to be greatly determined by the variable income from oil.

FAIRER MORE EQUAL MORE JUST SCOTLAND. Urrrgh. When you see the supporters wheeling it out you just groan inwardly. Their heads are full of buzzwords and zero 'independent' thought.

Absolutely mate, spot on.

I'd also mention that, in that case, assurances of absolute bank depositor security for iScot banks would likely be viewed as empty, leading to large scale fund withdrawals and everything that this entails.

You'd think they'd have worked stuff like this out, given the years/decades they've had to do so, wouldn't you.... but then again, Salmond was proclaiming the virtues of the Euro/the Pound being a millstone around Scotland's neck etc. just a few years ago; has any (relatively) mainstream politician ever been so totally and fundamentally wrong about so many things, like ever?

As one wag noted, it is indeed ironic that the Pound is now, in fact, a millstone around Salmond's neck...

What goes around comes around, I guess.

Chucklesome move by Scottish Labour if you missed it: Delivering a giant pound coin to Salmond's residence.



Trollololol.

Lolz

I daresay he won't mind if it's a giant chocolate coin...

Latest Scots Referendum poll data and commentary from Reuters; Yes is 13-14% behind following disastrous TV debate:



http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/0 ... BW20140809

What's going to matter is the turnout. If the No side think it's a done deal, the moderate Nos might be less likely to turn out. I still think it's going to be closer than we think, but am not quite ready to run a sweepstake on it.

Oh I agree entirely; no room for any complacency whatsoever.

Latest Yougov poll puts No ahead by a stunning 20-22%:



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archi ... y/scotland

Indeed, I say this to everyone who might vote No. They must make sure they vote, because the Yessers definitely all will.

Good old Viz...

*snorts*

Not personally interested in this debate but still quite enjoy Rev Stu's writing and so I have a gander at Wings Over Scotland every now & then.

Seems he's written a booklet called the "Wee Blue Book". Download-only at the moment but currently being printed in mass quantities apparently. Totally pro-independence of course, as you'd expect.

Just the messenger, thought some of you on this thread might be interested in reading it / discussing it / rubbishing it, whatever etc.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/weebluebook/

His blue book is hilarious. A major point is that terrorists will only get Scotland because they're in the UK. Independence equals safety from the hundreds killed every year!



In other news:

http://www.thefuckingreferendum.com/

Finally, the BBC cuts through the crap and gets to the key issue - will the loss of the Scots mean we can have summertime all round?

Personally, I've never seen any issue with different timezones across the country: year round BST for England, GMT for Scotland, 200 years behind for the Isle of Wright etc etc.

I've always thought the world would be better if we all followed one damn Universal clock. It seems much more sensible to merely change the time people do things in different countries, rather than countries all doing things at the same 'clock time' with different timezones all over the place.

If we got up at 1am and worked 3am-11am in what would be our typical daylight times, what difference would that really make? We'd just have to get used to that being our local working times on the Universal clock. People in darker countries can merely choose to shift their working hours, but nobody is confused about what time it is.

It is typically London-centric thinking that makes them want to enact something nationally that would have the most benefit to them, and balls to the problem of leaving Scotland in the dark.

Alex Salmond doesn't need a plan B in the event of a Yes vote

There are business, infrastructure such as Navel Bases and well as the entire Scottish government all running on the pound.

So what are they going to do? Stop it all, they will have keep the pound in the short term and at worst find another solution, even in this event there will be so much shared interest they will just let them keep it.

Hopefully it won't be a Yes vote as long term that's not good for anybody

There seems to be a point of mass confusion here. Dare I say, mass ignorance.

People are saying 'You can't say we can't use the pound! It's Scotland's pound too!!!'.

The thing is, NOBODY is saying that, or has ever said that. Of course Scotland can use the pound. The Czech republic could use the pound if it wanted, the critical point is that it wouldn't be in a currency union.

A currency union has been ruled out, but being able to use the pound never has been for the uncontested reason being that you can't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Also, link to a proper example of Poe's Law from yesterday.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=689598891119221

Interesting critique of Stu's "Wee Blue Book" here:

http://scotslanding.wordpress.com/2014/ ... -no-voter/

That's an interesting read.

Sharp points, well articulated. A kind of level-headed dispassion that I'd like to see more of.

No.

Next question!

Shit just got real, or something.



Yep I blurred the barcodes and numbers, can't be too careful.

But which way will you vote?????

I'm inclined to blame all of my problems on other people, and also expect other people to fix all my problems, so I'm a firm YES.

I think that I would probably vote YES if I were given the chance. Not because I particulary want an independent Scotland, but I think it would make things considerably more interesting in the future, and be an incredibly dataset for how a country builds itself when not destroyed by war. We'd all be rooting for Scotland to get it right, of course, and build some form of functioning society from a blank shhet of paper. The rest of the UK could train its politicians there, and try out new social policies before using them elsewhere. And finiancial rules could be relaxed to generate income there. And experimental drugs could be used. Obviously, the downside is Plymouth becoming nuclear warhead central, but what's a few more behind those green doors that you can see in the hill?

Absolute class.

The kind of political emphemera I'd hang on to for years to come. Just think, without it, what will you say when your son is playing with his Salmon and Darling action figures and your daughter sits on your knee asks what you did in the great conflict?,

I'd vote yes, just to get rid of the whining shits.

Thanks man.

You're welcome

Are they going into the smaller cottage in October?

Vote YES for a smaller Cottage.

I thought the cottage was a UK thing, should we let them share it with us?

Of course, the real question is, is there an icing currency union?

Scottish icings will be worth less after a yes vote I would imagine, so the Scots will have to do 2 each time.

Would I have to relocate my WMDs into the big cottage?

A slightly more (ahem) 'robust' response to Stu's "Wee Blue Book" here:

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/0 ... -lies.html

Yes.

If you want to fry any food though, you'll need to do that in the small cottage.

I just noticed yesterday he's managed to scam another £50k from these utter fucking morons for 'enhanced distribution' of this piece of shit.

Seriously, if these angry Scots spent this money trying to better their own lives, rather than lining the pockets of a demagogue, they'd all be much better off.

But then I'm reminded extremists are very good at getting fools to part with their money, I was reminded of this yesterday when I watched a thing about George Galloway fundraising for Hamas through charity fronts in the US.

Another £50,000? By my approximate reckoning that's two hundred thousand pounds or more in two years or less? (There's revenue from Wings "merch" and, no doubt, continuous trickle of ongoing donations and subscriptions beyond the headline fundraisers, though even they were c.£50k + £100k + £50k on their own?)

I can't help but feel a certain admiration; that's a helluva lot of money when your overheads are pretty much zero? In business terms, after years of trying, it certainly looks like he's tapped into a rich seam of pure gold. I have to tip my hat at the sheer audacity and enterprise; I hardly think us lot here were ever going to pay a quarter of a million to be able to post on his freeware forum.

On a personal note I wish he'd done it in some other way than to try and destroy the United Kingdom, but hey. Sure beats piddling around with Apple phone games for zilch. He must be loaded now - and a 'No' vote, which will surely come, will keep loading those coffers for many more years to come, since as we all know, hard core Yessers are hardly going to just accept something so utterly trivial as, you know, the emphatically expressed democratic will of the Scottish people? No, they'll surely be vociferously and bitterly pushing for yet another tilt at this come 20th Sept and beyond ad nauseum, you mark my words. They have been, and will remain, the gift that just keeps on giving - quite literally. Great business model.

You just need to find a niche of people both passionate and idiotic enough to throw money at you to articulate their backward small-minded views better than they could.

Yep, quite the business model

If people are stupid enough to freely and willingly part with vast sums of their own money, with their eyes wide open, who are we to argue? That's business; "a fool and his money..." etc.

Sure I read something there the other day about someone sending him a big chunk of their pension?

Many, many year ago, I vaguely remember reading what Stu said he'd do after he'd 'made his first million'. I remember thinking at the time, "not in your lifetime old mate, it takes more than you've got to make a million quid". Now, however, I'm really not so sure.

As an aside, 99% of people on this forum will most likely make a million quid in their lifetime. That's both impressive and depressing at the same time.

edit: Oooh, that's a fun, depressing game! I might try and work out how much I have earned in my life so far, and compare it to my bank balance at the moment

Yeah, but you know what I mean.
I mean, have a million quid in net assets and cash.

Well, he's in his 40s, has spent most of his life living on a pittance, hasn't had the touch of a woman for most of that, sports a paedo-beard, and his life is predicated on daily mind-boiling outrage that'll see him to an early grave. So yeah, if a few quid is his only consolation, then fair play

Yeah, of course. I just think it's a interesting statistic.

It's interesting/depressing in equal measure; it has to be borne in mind that even for "ordinary" people on average salaries (let alone small or medium-sized business owners), a despairingly huge chunk of income earned by the sweat of one's brow is taken in one form of tax or other, only to be pissed away on some utterly unworthy, ridiculous, undeserving, futile, counterproductive and/or wasteful thing or other in many cases.

There's a reason why so many people resent this - especially if and when they actually bother to perform the type of analysis you mention. Conservatism and the Low Tax Economy have much to commend them...

I just checked my bank balance. Shitpants is going to stop having avocados bought for her.