RISE NOW AND BE A NATION AGAIN !

[Posh Pete]

Like I said in a previous post. The lack of any Uk regional policy will be one of the reasons I'll be voting Yes.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lic-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south

And getting rid of nuclear weapons - all of them - will be a bonus.

 

[Toddy]

Scottish MP Jim Hood

Would vote NO even if it made Scots poorer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuj1bKFldlc&sns=em

 

[Posh Pete]

How about this ... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_chart

As you can see, public spending has not been at those levels since the 1920s and before. We could certainly cut spending to those levels if we axed the health service, made people pay for anything beyond primary education, returned the transport system and energy distribution and production to private hands. We've already done that of course, check your gas bill! We could also make officers in the forces pay for their commissions, use forced recruitment and bounties for all the rest. We could build workhouses for the poor, run by ATOS maybe? No state pensions of course or maybe minimal ones for the really feeble, if they qualify through a means and morality test.

What you're asking for is a return to Victorian society not just Victorian values. Be careful what you wish for!

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

OK 35% was a bit ambitious and was a figure I used as an illustration of the sort of shift in spending plans it would take to get me to vote yes although 34.5% was achieved by a labour government in 2000 - 2001. under Tony Blair. Then we got an old fashioned tax, borrow and spend prime minister in the shape of Gordon Brown and it went from a respectable 40.9% to 47.7% before he was booted out. The actual percentage of GDP a government spends will vary from year to year but over the term of one government I don't think it is unrealistic to set a limit of spending no more than 40% of GDP. However the actual percentage is not quite as important to me as a commitment that a Scottish government was willing to set a limit on just how hard they would squeeze tax payers and I don't think either the SNP or the current Scottish Labour party would be willing to do that. They are too wedded to the idea of robbing the rich to give to the poor. Only the rich manage to hide their money away and it is actually the middle class who get robbed and the money goes to the feckless workshy breeding machines while the real poor like OAPs and those scraping by on the minimum wage that pays less than the housing benefit of a workless family of 5 just stay poor. Here are the actual percentages of GDP spent by government since 1963. As far as I know we have had a health service, free schools and even free university education during most of the years when it was below 40%

1963-64 38.5
1964-65 38.1
1965-66 39.6
1966-67 41.4
1967-68 44.6
1968-69 43.4
1969-70 42.5
1970-71 42.7
1971-72 42.6
1972-73 41.9
1973-74 44.4
1974-75 48.6
1975-76 49.7
1976-77 48.6
1977-78 45.6
1978-79 45.1
1979-80 44.6
1980-81 47.0
1981-82 47.7
1982-83 48.1
1983-84 47.8
1984-85 47.5
1985-86 45.0
1986-87 43.6
1987-88 41.6
1988-89 38.9
1989-90 39.2
1990-91 39.4
1991-92 41.9
1992-93 43.7
1993-94 43.0
1994-95 42.5
1995-96 41.8
1996-97 39.9
1997-98 38.2
1998-99 37.2
1999-00 36.3
2000-01 34.5
2001-02 37.7
2002-03 38.5
2003-04 39.3
2004-05 40.5
2005-06 41.2
2006-07 40.9
2007-08 41.0
2008-09 44.5
2009-10 47.7
2010-11 46.8
2011-12 45.4
2012-13 43.1

 

[gerarddwatts]

So - what exactly are you saying?

"you're Scottish - you're not allowed to watch BBC if you are independant!"

We'll watch what the hell we like - thanks!


I'd love to watch Hammie Hamster in - "Tales From The Riverbank"................


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/xgUeWec-Aew" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But it looks like you've not got too many riverbanks left .............


Al

Of course we can....as we can now CNN... etc....but it would be good to watch our own domestic tv, rather than that of a foreign country, for that is what BBC will be...

 

[Posh Pete]

OK 35% was a bit ambitious and was a figure I used as an illustration of the sort of shift in spending plans it would take to get me to vote yes although 34.5% was achieved by a labour government in 2000 - 2001. under Tony Blair. Then we got an old fashioned tax, borrow and spend prime minister in the shape of Gordon Brown and it went from a respectable 40.9% to 47.7% before he was booted out. The actual percentage of GDP a government spends will vary from year to year but over the term of one government I don't think it is unrealistic to set a limit of spending no more than 40% of GDP. However the actual percentage is not quite as important to me as a commitment that a Scottish government was willing to set a limit on just how hard they would squeeze tax payers and I don't think either the SNP or the current Scottish Labour party would be willing to do that. They are too wedded to the idea of robbing the rich to give to the poor. Only the rich manage to hide their money away and it is actually the middle class who get robbed and the money goes to the feckless workshy breeding machines while the real poor like OAPs and those scraping by on the minimum wage that pays less than the housing benefit of a workless family of 5 just stay poor. Here are the actual percentages of GDP spent by government since 1963. As far as I know we have had a health service, free schools and even free university education during most of the years when it was below 40%

1963-64 38.5
1964-65 38.1
1965-66 39.6
1966-67 41.4
1967-68 44.6
1968-69 43.4
1969-70 42.5
1970-71 42.7
1971-72 42.6
1972-73 41.9
1973-74 44.4
1974-75 48.6
1975-76 49.7
1976-77 48.6
1977-78 45.6
1978-79 45.1
1979-80 44.6
1980-81 47.0
1981-82 47.7
1982-83 48.1
1983-84 47.8
1984-85 47.5
1985-86 45.0
1986-87 43.6
1987-88 41.6
1988-89 38.9
1989-90 39.2
1990-91 39.4
1991-92 41.9
1992-93 43.7
1993-94 43.0
1994-95 42.5
1995-96 41.8
1996-97 39.9
1997-98 38.2
1998-99 37.2
1999-00 36.3
2000-01 34.5
2001-02 37.7
2002-03 38.5
2003-04 39.3
2004-05 40.5
2005-06 41.2
2006-07 40.9
2007-08 41.0
2008-09 44.5
2009-10 47.7
2010-11 46.8
2011-12 45.4
2012-13 43.1

I take it taxes are OK when they are spent on Tornados and other items of defence spending?

That's the problem with taxes: everyone sees them from their own perspective or viewed through the distorting lens of the Daily Mail front page. Here's the reality on welfare spending - http://straighttothesource.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/welfare-spending-breakdown/

Which bit is the bit your refer to as "the feckless workshy breeding machines"? You'll note that state pensions takes up 45% of the overall budget.

The point I was making above is simple: we can have low taxes or we can have a decent and humane society which caters for the needs of most people through their lives , including bikers who want to ride on safe, well maintained public roads. We can't have both.

You were right about one thing of course: the middle classes bear the brunt of taxation but they (and their children) also gain the most from an ordered, well educated society. The problem with the current bunch in London and the leadership of the Labour Party is that they want to kid us on: we can have low taxes AND we can have the kind of social democracy we've had since 1945. That's utter pish.

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

The radio suggested this morning that Osbourne is going to announce tomorrow that an Independent Scotland will not be able to continue using the £.

An SNP spokesman then was interviewed, who accused the UK Government of bullying, and went on to say the use of the £ is linked hand and glove with how much debt Scotland would be willing to accept.

The gloves are coming off.

 

[Toddy]

We Love You, You Badtards

by derekbateman
What happened to my love-bombing? Where are those arms that reached out all the way from the Olympic Velodrome? Where is the shared history and where the shared principles? What happened to the family of nations bound by ties of blood and history? Am I to think that on the back of Please don’t go are added the words or you’ll pay for it?

Now I don’t expect an easy ride from a cold-hearted, self-interested clique used to telling everyone what to do, but some consistency might help with the credibility.

Were we not told that there would be no pre-negotiation? What is a statement *(always assuming it comes) that there will be no deal on currency but staking out a negotiating position? Making a declaration in absolute terms – always assuming this isn’t smoke and mirrors – is negotiating because they are ruling out one option from future talks, or so it seems. If they do that then it has implications for the position taken by the Scottish side who are obliged to respond. That is called negotiation. Will there now follow more of this on for example EU membership, defence assets etc? Or is it the case that they say one thing and do another and can’t be trusted?

The message contained in these briefings to journalists is that Britain is not an equal country of equal national rights. It is a statement – by all the main Unionists – that Scotland has no stake in the UK. We have, according to them, contributed nothing to the pound, made no impact on the UK’s finances, the reserves and fiscal policy and as a result deserve nothing out of it. Is it £300 or £400 billions in oil revenues and they count for nothing. How much in corporation tax from Royal Bank alone over the years? We have been taken for a ride, if they are right. What they are saying is that Britain belongs to them, lock, stock and barrel and more fool the Scots for thinking they were really partners.

It is difficult to see how they can pretend now to love Scotland with more melancholic sub-Wordsworth fancies when they unite behind vindictive John Bull obduracy. Even at risk to their own interests they will resist the economic logic.

What on earth do Labour people in Scotland make of their party shoulder to shoulder with the Tories threatening the Scots by denying them access to their own currency? How many humiliations can they stand? Isn’t this issue an area for a distinctive Labour voice? They are the party of liberal conscience and could strike a separate, less strident anti-Scottish tone by standing to one side and doing a Carney by saying of course it’s possible but they would have to weigh up the implications if they are elected. Instead the rush along behind the Tories like their little Labour helpers.

Interesting that Jackie Baillie couldn’t answer on Newsnight when asked if she supported the currency blockade. Either Labour in Scotland wasn’t informed in advance – again – or they are unconvinced by it. They will know this is a hard sell on the doorstep. Why can’t we use our own currency? Because our friends the Tories say so…

Still you can see how the fear game is the only hand they can play. Scare the elderly and the pensioners, ignore the truth about Scotland being able to meet pension commitments more easily than the UK and wring your hands a lot. It will frighten those with knock knees.

But to be fair this is a campaign and you have keep moving. They have been determined to push Yes into offering a Plan B as it is obviously their trump card. No doubt they will link it to the Euro which they still think – against a lot of evidence – is toxic. If this statement is ever made, the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement is dead and this becomes more of a fight than a debate. Their plan is not to win but to crush. But at least what will happen is that experts will now focus on this decision and, as we found in the Financial Times reports on our finances, it will emerge just what Scotland does bring to the currency table and I await with interest the Unionist business types going public. If they trade in Scotland how can they agree with this position? And as they don’t will they be intimidated into keeping quiet?

This has to be seen as a challenge, a kind of toe-to-toe argument, and the proportionate response is No Pound: No Debt.

The English trolls are already bellowing online that it isn’t fair…Scotland can’t just walk away and has a moral responsibility to take its share etc…funny how it’s changed from We won’t miss you…our economy’s too big to notice. It may be dawning that Scotland has cards to play and dumping all the debt on them is one of them.

*(Wouldn’t it be just like the Tories to renege on the Osborne statement and give us something less affirmative?)

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

Tornados were never a value for money aircraft but they are all now being scrapped to be replaced with Typhoons and Lightnings. The first duty of any government is to keep the country defended but you won't get me jumping up and down to defend the way the ministry of defence has squandered vast sums on useless projects over the years. Wasting taxpayers money is wrong whether it is due to bureaucratic inefficiency or buying houses to allow a family of 12 to keep on breeding at tax payer's expense. I am all in favour of a decent humane society which caters for the needs of people throughout their lives but it has to be one that has incentives for people to take some responsibility of their own welfare.

I don't need the press to tell me about the abuse of our welfare budget. I see the same individuals every day standing outside the pub smoking, usually with a mobile phone stuck permanently to their ear, knowing that they have never held down a job. The group of teenage girls with 2 or three kids in tow sitting in the bus behind you discussing how they have been dumped again by the latest child's father and complaining that the government are not giving them enough of my money to live on. I didn't shag them why should I pay to bring up their kids.

I will soon be one of the beneficiaries of the 45% of the welfare budget but when I get gaga and need my nappy changed I will end up in some granny farm enjoying exactly the same facilities as the guy in the next room. The difference will be my house will be getting sold to pay for my care while he will be enjoying it for free. We might even have earned the same amount over our working lives and paid the same taxes but he chose to stay in a council house and spend his money on foreign holidays, fags, booze and the bookies.

You are right in that we can't have low taxes and the kind of social democracy we've had since 1945. Neither can we have the kind of social democracy we've had since 1945 and carry on ignoring the consequences of relieving individuals of responsibility for making sensible provision for themselves. When the current welfare state was first envisaged by Beveridge it was seen as subsistence level support. Often overlooked in Beveridge's report was that he favoured a level of benefit set at subsistence level only, as he did not want to take away individual initiative. "Management of one's income is an essential element of a citizen's freedom," he wrote. But he also regarded social welfare as an individual's right. He summarised his scheme by saying: It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance - of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it. He stated his proposals were "an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness."

I have serious doubts about the UK government getting to grips with this problem but I have absolutely no doubt that an independent socialist Scotland would do nothing to help the sqeezed middle and indeed would try to squeeze even more in an effort to make us all equally poor and dependent on them remaining in office to keep the giros coming.

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

by derekbateman
What happened to my love-bombing? Where are those arms that reached out all the way from the Olympic Velodrome? Where is the shared history and where the shared principles? What happened to the family of nations bound by ties of blood and history? Am I to think that on the back of Please don’t go are added the words or you’ll pay for it?

Now I don’t expect an easy ride from a cold-hearted, self-interested clique used to telling everyone what to do, but some consistency might help with the credibility.

Were we not told that there would be no pre-negotiation? What is a statement *(always assuming it comes) that there will be no deal on currency but staking out a negotiating position? Making a declaration in absolute terms – always assuming this isn’t smoke and mirrors – is negotiating because they are ruling out one option from future talks, or so it seems. If they do that then it has implications for the position taken by the Scottish side who are obliged to respond. That is called negotiation. Will there now follow more of this on for example EU membership, defence assets etc? Or is it the case that they say one thing and do another and can’t be trusted?

The message contained in these briefings to journalists is that Britain is not an equal country of equal national rights. It is a statement – by all the main Unionists – that Scotland has no stake in the UK. We have, according to them, contributed nothing to the pound, made no impact on the UK’s finances, the reserves and fiscal policy and as a result deserve nothing out of it. Is it £300 or £400 billions in oil revenues and they count for nothing. How much in corporation tax from Royal Bank alone over the years? We have been taken for a ride, if they are right. What they are saying is that Britain belongs to them, lock, stock and barrel and more fool the Scots for thinking they were really partners.

It is difficult to see how they can pretend now to love Scotland with more melancholic sub-Wordsworth fancies when they unite behind vindictive John Bull obduracy. Even at risk to their own interests they will resist the economic logic.

What on earth do Labour people in Scotland make of their party shoulder to shoulder with the Tories threatening the Scots by denying them access to their own currency? How many humiliations can they stand? Isn’t this issue an area for a distinctive Labour voice? They are the party of liberal conscience and could strike a separate, less strident anti-Scottish tone by standing to one side and doing a Carney by saying of course it’s possible but they would have to weigh up the implications if they are elected. Instead the rush along behind the Tories like their little Labour helpers.

Interesting that Jackie Baillie couldn’t answer on Newsnight when asked if she supported the currency blockade. Either Labour in Scotland wasn’t informed in advance – again – or they are unconvinced by it. They will know this is a hard sell on the doorstep. Why can’t we use our own currency? Because our friends the Tories say so…

Still you can see how the fear game is the only hand they can play. Scare the elderly and the pensioners, ignore the truth about Scotland being able to meet pension commitments more easily than the UK and wring your hands a lot. It will frighten those with knock knees.

But to be fair this is a campaign and you have keep moving. They have been determined to push Yes into offering a Plan B as it is obviously their trump card. No doubt they will link it to the Euro which they still think – against a lot of evidence – is toxic. If this statement is ever made, the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement is dead and this becomes more of a fight than a debate. Their plan is not to win but to crush. But at least what will happen is that experts will now focus on this decision and, as we found in the Financial Times reports on our finances, it will emerge just what Scotland does bring to the currency table and I await with interest the Unionist business types going public. If they trade in Scotland how can they agree with this position? And as they don’t will they be intimidated into keeping quiet?

This has to be seen as a challenge, a kind of toe-to-toe argument, and the proportionate response is No Pound: No Debt.

The English trolls are already bellowing online that it isn’t fair…Scotland can’t just walk away and has a moral responsibility to take its share etc…funny how it’s changed from We won’t miss you…our economy’s too big to notice. It may be dawning that Scotland has cards to play and dumping all the debt on them is one of them.

*(Wouldn’t it be just like the Tories to renege on the Osborne statement and give us something less affirmative?)

Can you imagine the rates that the money markets would charge a new untested economy that had just defaulted on its share of a national debt. Currently the UK government can issue a 10 year bond and pay only 2.78%. Greece on the other hand has to pay 11.35% to borrow money for the same period. This is the equivalent of the government's mortgage rate. Imagine if your mortgage rate jumped 8.5% next month.

Sterling is a negotiable currency so there is absolutely nothing to stop an independent Scotland using the pound, or the US dollar for that matter. The difference is they would have to buy those pounds or dollars on the open market and anybody with money in a Scottish bank would have no lender of last resort to back it up with guarantees so if you have savings and want to go independent you need to buy gold before independence day and stick it somewhere safe.

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

Can you imagine the rates that the money markets would charge a new untested economy that had just defaulted on its share of a national debt.

This is why there is no plan B.

It's also interesting to see that the Chancellors from Labour and the Liberals will be backing Osborne's position of not sharing the £.

How often do we get all the major parties in agreement?

 

[Packer]

How about this ... http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_chart

As you can see, public spending has not been at those levels since the 1920s and before. We could certainly cut spending to those levels if we axed the health service, made people pay for anything beyond primary education, returned the transport system and energy distribution and production to private hands. We've already done that of course, check your gas bill! We could also make officers in the forces pay for their commissions, use forced recruitment and bounties for all the rest. We could build workhouses for the poor, run by ATOS maybe? No state pensions of course or maybe minimal ones for the really feeble, if they qualify through a means and morality test.

What you're asking for is a return to Victorian society not just Victorian values. Be careful what you wish for!

Victorian values? Singapore has a Government GDP percentage of 16.3%. OK, it's little more than a city state but the population is around 5 million, the place is clean, roads are great, it has a stunningly efficient fast, prompt and cheap as chips to the user mass transit system, it has a vast social housing scheme and appears to a visitor to be a very pleasant place to live. It also has extensive health facilities which whilst not free are heavily subsidised and their is an optional Medi-Care scheme that people can contribute to.

Hong Kong is similar, it manages a 17% figure. Surely an independent Scotland could manage sub 40%? Canada does and that is a vast country over which to maintain infrastructure and has a publicly funded health care system, free at the point of use.

It's not about Victorian values, it's about the mindset of government and the population.

Examples of gross waste in the UK include the currently news worthy Environment Agency. Despite having had to cut staff by 10% it still has more staff than the equivalent agencies in Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany and Austria put together. Only the US with 80 times the land area and six times the population has a larger agency. Last year this billion pound agency spent £395 million on staff (average salary >£35,250); (£592 million including pensions) compared to £219 million on capital projects, and just £20 million on maintaining rivers. More was spent on PR last year than on dredging – £2.7 million.(Figures lifted from the Somerset levels thread, posted by DutchBryn)

Avoidable costs include the NHS spending around £1.7 billion last year (2012) on treating obesity because people choose to eat and drink themselves to ill health, expected to rise to £35 billion by 2030. This is not intelligent use of taxpayers' funds, nor is it what the father of the welfare state envisaged or apparently wanted. These will not be the only examples.

The UK government at all levels, and the associated civil service, is not fit for purpose. Along with much of the rest of western Europe it is a bureaucratic mess of inefficiency, waste and corruption. How would that despicable clown Peter Mandelsen be sat in the House of Lords having had to resign from public office in the UK twice if it wasn't for the corruption of Bliar who sent his pal to be given a small fortune in the EU prior to knighting him? The current Scottish government is no better. The parliament building? The Edinburgh tram scheme? Pathetic.

It could be so much better. It's not a case of returning to Victorian values, more a case of not expecting the government to take responsibility for everything and individuals accepting that they must take responsibility for themselves, their actions, their decisions and their children. Earn the money before you spend it. If you can't afford the rent don't buy fags and booze or have a flutter at the bookies. If you want to eat yourself to ill health make sure you save enough for your medical treatment as you go, or your funeral.

A properly independent Scotland could be a success, just not under a Labour or SNP administration. Independent within the EU?



Sadly I haven't yet seen any politicians that are worthy to found an independent Scotland. At least the UK struggles on after a fashion and the risk of bankruptcy appears to be declining.

 

[morty]

i agree.

 

[Toddy]

Reminds me of some posters on this thread....

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dHW-RDJOJTo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=dHW-RDJOJTo

 

[Deleted account Cooperman]

Reminds me of a lying wee fecker

As the SNP cling desperately to something they don't own i.e. the £, who said:

in 1999:

'The pound is a millstone around Scotland's neck'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204

In 2009 (to SpanishTV):

'As you know , we're in sterling and sterling is sinking like a stone.'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/salmond-defends-claim-that-sterling-is-sinking-like-a-stone-1.899142

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

A properly independent Scotland could be a success, just not under a Labour or SNP administration. Independent within the EU?



Sadly I haven't yet seen any politicians that are worthy to found an independent Scotland. At least the UK struggles on after a fashion and the risk of bankruptcy appears to be declining.

You have said in a couple of lines what it took me dozens to do. Well done.

 

[Toddy]

The Wolves are coming

".....

 

[Deleted account 210516001]

The last Scottish wolf was killed by Sir Ewan Cameron in 1680 in Killiecrankie. These metaphoric wolves are heading for the same fate without a plan B for the national currency. Who in their right mind is going to vote yes to independence when the only guarantee that their savings would be worth exactly the same on the first day of independence as they were the day before is slippery Eck's word that the three other UK parties are bluffing. If I want to take that kind of risk I can play poker.

 

[Toddy]

BBC.......at it again

BBC Scotland's reputation on the line as confusion grows over Osborne currency threat.

Claims that a currency union are set to be explicitly ruled out by UK Chancellor George Osborne tomorrow have become mired in confusion after it emerged the Chancellor will in fact be responding to a UK Treasury paper which will lay out tests and conditions his own officials claim are required for such an agreement to operate.

Initial reports from BBC Scotland yesterday insisted Mr Osborne would explicitly rule out a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Yesterday BBC Scotland's Westminster correspondent Tim Reid announced he had been briefed by sources close to George Osborne who had, he claimed, told him that the Chancellor would explicitly rule out a currency union with an independent Scotland.

However it has now emerged that the Chancellor will not in fact reject a currency agreement but will instead reject a set of tests drawn up by officials from his own Treasury department.

According to the BBC's UK political editor Nick Robinson, a Treasury review to be published tomorrow will state the three conditions department officials will say are needed for a successful currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK are.

They will be:

Underwrite each others banks
Allow taxpayers in one country to subsidise the other
Reach broad agreements on tax, spending and borrowing levels on both sides of the border
It is then expected that George Osborne will say that such conditions would be "unacceptable", for the UK and Scotland. Mr Osborne is also expected to be joined in his rejection of the UK Treasury conditions by his Labour party counterpart Ed Balls and Lib Dem coalition partner Danny Alexander.

The apparent watering down of Mr Osborne's 'threat' has been seized on by the Scottish Government who have claimed the original briefing given to BBC Scotland is now "unravelling".

Commenting on the latest reports, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the threat to bully Scots will "backfire spectacularly".

She added: "But the reality is the Tory Chancellor and his Labour and Lib Dem helpers are all over the place, with their briefing fast unravelling.

"First we were told George Osborne was going to rule out a currency union, but now it is being reported that he will outline a Treasury paper with a series of tests and conditions which would be their starting point in negotiations to secure a Sterling area.

"That is a very long way from what was initially briefed, and simply underlines the fact that the Treasury themselves know – whatever the bluff and bluster of Westminster politicians – that a shared Sterling area is overwhelmingly in the rest of the UK’s economic interests following a Yes vote."

If the new reports are true then it will prompt questions as to the manner of BBC Scotland's initial reporting after the broadcaster's news reporters spent Tuesday evening and all of Wednesday insisting that Mr Osborne would explicitly rule out a formal currency union.

The news has dominated BBC Scotland news output, with several of its presenters and reporters demanding the Scottish Government bow to demands from the No campaign for a so-called currency plan B. On Wednesday morning on Radio Scotland, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded to repeated questions from interviewer Gary Robertson by suggesting the presenter apply the same scrutiny to the apparent threats emanating from Westminster.

The BBC's reports have also found their way into print media and other news outlets with resulting attacks on the Yes campaign and Scottish Government.

 

[Devon]

The last Scottish wolf was killed by Sir Ewan Cameron in 1680 in Killiecrankie. These metaphoric wolves are heading for the same fate without a plan B for the national currency. Who in their right mind is going to vote yes to independence when the only guarantee that their savings would be worth exactly the same on the first day of independence as they were the day before is slippery Eck's word that the three other UK parties are bluffing. If I want to take that kind of risk I can play poker.

I see jabba and kranky are squealing they are being bullied but why would the remaining UK allow a foreign country (Scotland) to control and dictate our own currency? The nationalist are talking about independence but when they are offered it via their own shiny new currency and control of their own finance, they shit themselves
It's nice to see jabba being told to stop making his 'Alex in Wonderland' demands and come up with a proper plan for an independent Scotland. Welcome to the real world jabba.