No one said they did. Thankfully Scotland won't be a one-party state except in the minds of those who wish to denigrate Scotland by suggesting it will be incapable of producing more than one electable party. But those kind of foolish people are in the minority and I doubt people take them seriously.
If Scotland had been independent since 1960, then voting trends say that we would have had a labour government for all that time. 50 years of the same government has got to be akin to a one party state.
Just saying, picking up on not getting the government we vote for an all and looking at who we actually voted for in GEs.
No one said they did. Thankfully Scotland won't be a one-party state except in the minds of those who wish to denigrate Scotland by suggesting it will be incapable of producing more than one electable party. But those kind of foolish people are in the minority and I doubt people take them seriously.
Independence is just a means to an end for Salmond and the SNP. They themselves are unable to give any provable evidence of the possible benefits to be expected. But even they would not calously wreck the economy for no purpose and so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that they want to ring-fence the Scottish vote and kick out Labour and the tories forever and for every week the economy lasts after we separate is just a bonus.
The only other possible alternative is that the SNP leadership no longer think that separation can ever succeed and a clue to this is how desparate Salmond was to get 'devo-max' put on the ballot paper, but it was simply to late. This is backed up by the fact they they are no longer campaigning but are only ever seen on the defencive or clutching at straws. Now the brovado and arrogance they displayed before their selected audiences is about to catch up with them big time and I would not trade places with him for any cost.
No one always gets the government they vote for, that's exactly why it is democratic. It has been proven that one party states tend not to be very functional.
This has become an unfortunate catch phrase for the SNP and the Independence Movement. Mainly because it is misleading, it answers the wrong question.
The question should be "Why should Scotland get a Government that it would NOT vote for?".
Most Westminster Style Representative Democracies tend towards a two party system. But the relation of these parties varies.
Canada and a centre and a right
The US has a right and a right
France has a right and a left
Australia has a centre and a left
By looking at the representation Scotland has consistently voted for over the last 50 years, it has a centre and a left, while England has a left and a right. (And yes these change over time and you can debate how much they represent that, but in general terms this would be accurate).
It is not that Scotland may get a Conservative government it did not vote for. It is that Scotland gets Conservative governments that it would not and could not vote for.
Very conspicuous how the Naysayers on here are conveniently ignoring that Daily Express story posted earlier. Quite shocking they thought they could get away with it!
Yet another example of Scotland being lied to by the Establishment.
Very conspicuous how the Naysayers on here are conveniently ignoring that Daily Express story posted earlier. Quite shocking they thought they could get away with it!
Yet another example of Scotland being lied to by the Establishment.
How many lies do the No side have to ignore?
Murdoch papers also do the same thing - Manchester 2008 comes to mind.
If Scotland had been independent since 1960, then voting trends say that we would have had a labour government for all that time. 50 years of the same government has got to be akin to a one party state.
Just saying, picking up on not getting the government we vote for an all and looking at who we actually voted for in GEs.
There are significant problems with positing a multiverse scenario.
Very conspicuous how the Naysayers on here are conveniently ignoring that Daily Express story posted earlier. Quite shocking they thought they could get away with it!
Yet another example of Scotland being lied to by the Establishment.
How many lies do the No side have to ignore?
I think you will find it is because the daily express regularly prints ridicules headlines which no one believes. It isn't exclusive to the Scottish referendum and I'm not quite sure how a daily express article counts as the establishment.
No country can be forced into a currency union with Europe.
Therefore the UK can't be forced into one with iScotland.
Also interestingly their guy tonight in Dundee said that UKIP will be asked to represent Scotland's interests in the European Parliament after the Euro elections.
I assume this was to show that UKIP will win seats in England while ignoring the polls in Scotland that show they have a good chance of winning a seat up here.
Therefore the UK can't be forced into one with iScotland.
Also interestingly their guy tonight in Dundee said that UKIP will be asked to represent Scotland's interests in the European Parliament after the Euro elections.
I assume this was to show that UKIP will win seats in England while ignoring the polls in Scotland that show they have a good chance of winning a seat up here.
I never said it could. Nor have the "Yes" campaign. They've said they will negotiate one, because they believe it's in the best interests of both parties. Of course, if you don't want one, you don't want one.
Besides not being able to tell us which country an independents Scotland will use, he thinks he can use the Bank of England as lender of last resort which effectively means that he would expect the UK to bail out our bank in the event of a fiancial crash!
The Banking Reform Act came into force in December 2013
When Scotland becomes independent it will inherit all the existing laws..
So with that in mind this is what you can expect from all banks, as a customer..
I think you misunderstand the fundamental point. If we use Sterling then that's a choice to use exactly the same currency as the rUK. The only questions would be whether that would be under a formal currency union or not and if so what the terms would be. I think you might be mistaking that for the kind of Panama Dollar arrangement whereby they issue notes backed by an equal amount of Sterling, which is exactly what happens in Scotland today. Then there's the third option where Scotland issues its own currency pegged to Sterling which ensures a 1:1 exchange rate and might actually be a better option for us.
Rest assured though that if we're using Sterling then it's going to be the same currency as the rUK.
I think you've misunderstood the issue. As there will not be CU, Scotland can still opt to use sterling, but that entails all sorts of potential problems.
I never said it could. Nor have the "Yes" campaign. They've said they will negotiate one, because they believe it's in the best interests of both parties. Of course, if you don't want one, you don't want one.
Accusing London politicians of bullying Scotland by saying no to CU! With that nonsense the SNP achieved something I'd thought impossible, i.e. to be even more ridiculous and pathetic than Westminster.
Accusing London politicians of bullying Scotland by saying no to CU! With that nonsense the SNP achieved something I'd thought impossible, i.e. to be even more ridiculous and pathetic than Westminster.
It's an obvious bullying tactic.
There is no likelihood, zero, nada, nil of rUK not accenting to pretty much every demand Scotland makes as Scotland holds all the cards if it votes Yes. It's why the No campaign is so desperate, it's why its resorting to the utterly surreal like having Gordon Brown the Pension-stealing Clown try to promote No by talking about Pensions.
People aren't stupid. They know that the reason there is no viable pension available to them today is because of Gordon Brown. Pensions is a key driver that has increased the demand for public sector employment in Scotland - its the last vestige of proper retirement saving.
Currency Union is a given, the rUK is simply too weak without it. Even if it is temporary, at least they will get some breathing space before their economy inevitably fails.
I think you've misunderstood the issue. As there will not be CU, Scotland can still opt to use sterling, but that entails all sorts of potential problems.
The basic point is that if we're using Sterling then it's the same currency as the rUK. There wouldn't be any exchange rate because it would be the same currency.
Salmond would never want to use Sterling. The interweb is littered with examples of him riduculing it. Im'e certain he will make some kind of announcement very soon regarding which currency he has planned. I expect it will be a new currency as this is the least worst and realistically his only option. The longer he leaves it though, the more riduculous he is making us look.
Last night, a spokeswoman for the independence-supporting organisation Business for Scotland said it was inappropriate for taxpayer-funded organisations to be a member of a body registered as a referendum campaigner.
She said: “We anticipate a growing BfS membership and a declining CBI one in Scotland.”
There is no likelihood, zero, nada, nil of rUK not accenting to pretty much every demand Scotland makes as Scotland holds all the cards if it votes Yes. It's why the No campaign is so desperate, it's why its resorting to the utterly surreal like having Gordon Brown the Pension-stealing Clown try to promote No by talking about Pensions.
People aren't stupid. They know that the reason there is no viable pension available to them today is because of Gordon Brown. Pensions is a key driver that has increased the demand for public sector employment in Scotland - its the last vestige of proper retirement saving.
Currency Union is a given, the rUK is simply too weak without it. Even if it is temporary, at least they will get some breathing space before their economy inevitably fails.
Just in case you forgot, Nigel Lawson had an even worse effect on pensions, but that's apparently OK as he was a Tory.
Comments
If Scotland had been independent since 1960, then voting trends say that we would have had a labour government for all that time. 50 years of the same government has got to be akin to a one party state.
Just saying, picking up on not getting the government we vote for an all and looking at who we actually voted for in GEs.
Independence is just a means to an end for Salmond and the SNP. They themselves are unable to give any provable evidence of the possible benefits to be expected. But even they would not calously wreck the economy for no purpose and so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that they want to ring-fence the Scottish vote and kick out Labour and the tories forever and for every week the economy lasts after we separate is just a bonus.
The only other possible alternative is that the SNP leadership no longer think that separation can ever succeed and a clue to this is how desparate Salmond was to get 'devo-max' put on the ballot paper, but it was simply to late. This is backed up by the fact they they are no longer campaigning but are only ever seen on the defencive or clutching at straws. Now the brovado and arrogance they displayed before their selected audiences is about to catch up with them big time and I would not trade places with him for any cost.
This has become an unfortunate catch phrase for the SNP and the Independence Movement. Mainly because it is misleading, it answers the wrong question.
The question should be "Why should Scotland get a Government that it would NOT vote for?".
Most Westminster Style Representative Democracies tend towards a two party system. But the relation of these parties varies.
Canada and a centre and a right
The US has a right and a right
France has a right and a left
Australia has a centre and a left
By looking at the representation Scotland has consistently voted for over the last 50 years, it has a centre and a left, while England has a left and a right. (And yes these change over time and you can debate how much they represent that, but in general terms this would be accurate).
It is not that Scotland may get a Conservative government it did not vote for. It is that Scotland gets Conservative governments that it would not and could not vote for.
Yet another example of Scotland being lied to by the Establishment.
How many lies do the No side have to ignore?
Murdoch papers also do the same thing - Manchester 2008 comes to mind.
There are significant problems with positing a multiverse scenario.
I think you will find it is because the daily express regularly prints ridicules headlines which no one believes. It isn't exclusive to the Scottish referendum and I'm not quite sure how a daily express article counts as the establishment.
No country can be forced into a currency union with Europe.
Therefore the UK can't be forced into one with iScotland.
Also interestingly their guy tonight in Dundee said that UKIP will be asked to represent Scotland's interests in the European Parliament after the Euro elections.
I assume this was to show that UKIP will win seats in England while ignoring the polls in Scotland that show they have a good chance of winning a seat up here.
I never said it could. Nor have the "Yes" campaign. They've said they will negotiate one, because they believe it's in the best interests of both parties. Of course, if you don't want one, you don't want one.
The Banking Reform Act came into force in December 2013
When Scotland becomes independent it will inherit all the existing laws..
So with that in mind this is what you can expect from all banks, as a customer..
https://www.flickr.com/photos/hmtreasury/11432927916/
Says who?
Salmond's last blast about Scotland needing to get out of Sterling as it was "sinking like a stone" was in 2009.
I think you've misunderstood the issue. As there will not be CU, Scotland can still opt to use sterling, but that entails all sorts of potential problems.
Accusing London politicians of bullying Scotland by saying no to CU! With that nonsense the SNP achieved something I'd thought impossible, i.e. to be even more ridiculous and pathetic than Westminster.
It's an obvious bullying tactic.
There is no likelihood, zero, nada, nil of rUK not accenting to pretty much every demand Scotland makes as Scotland holds all the cards if it votes Yes. It's why the No campaign is so desperate, it's why its resorting to the utterly surreal like having Gordon Brown the Pension-stealing Clown try to promote No by talking about Pensions.
People aren't stupid. They know that the reason there is no viable pension available to them today is because of Gordon Brown. Pensions is a key driver that has increased the demand for public sector employment in Scotland - its the last vestige of proper retirement saving.
Currency Union is a given, the rUK is simply too weak without it. Even if it is temporary, at least they will get some breathing space before their economy inevitably fails.
The basic point is that if we're using Sterling then it's the same currency as the rUK. There wouldn't be any exchange rate because it would be the same currency.
...followed by 'it's all about parity with the euro'
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Salmond+criticised+for+claiming+pound+is+'sinking+like+a+stone'.-a0191743829
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/dec/14/euro-economic-policy-currencies-europe
"Pound slips below euro on Britain's high streets
• £20 buys only €18 at UK exchange
• New rate 'key moment for economy'"
ps. Where does it say Scotland needed to get out of sterling?
I've not seen that in the news yet but this stuck me as rather hypocritical
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-more-members-quit-cbi-1-3383399
I would say deluded rather than hypocritical.
Just in case you forgot, Nigel Lawson had an even worse effect on pensions, but that's apparently OK as he was a Tory.