Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Ulysses]

17 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

And indeed the unionists as to how they divest Scotland from its share of the organisations such as the BoE.

 

Indeed, but how do proponents of independence see that working? That's not me ignoring your point or AyrJambo's.  I'm saying that people would expect that stuff to be worked out.

[BlueRiver]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If Poland doesn't meet the criteria it's not far off.

 

Most of the 10 in the 2004 accession group have adopted the euro - Czechia, Hungary and Poland haven't. 

 

Bulgaria (2007) wants to join, but doesn't meet the inflation criteria.  Its currency is directly fixed to the euro.

 

Romania (2007) doesn't meet the convergence criteria for a number of reasons, and its currency floats. 

 

Sweden, remarkably, doesn't have an opt-out.  But the EU hasn't pushed the issue even though Sweden has long since met the convergence criteria.  Oddly enough, Sweden is obliged to join the euro, but it first has to spend two years in the Exchange Rate Mechanism - and membership of that is voluntary!

 

Denmark has an opt-out.  Its currency is in the ERM, and it is limited to moving 2.25% above or below its central exchange rate against the euro.

 

Apologies. I forgot those lot were a subsequent accession group and thought they were part of the 2004 group. Of course I should've known better considering the Romanian immigration topic came up after 2004. 

 

Cheers for the rest of it though! Very interesting case regarding Sweden! 

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

No but the BofE is a UK asset like armed forces, embassies, buildings, equipment and should be included in any divvying up of such assets

 

 

So what's the plan? 

 

What do you propose here? What does it mean for an independent Scotland's currency? How does one "divvy" up a central bank? 

 

None of these questions are for me to answer. 

[AyrJambo]

2 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

So what's the plan? 

 

What do you propose here? What does it mean for an independent Scotland's currency? How does one "divvy" up a central bank? 

 

None of these questions are for me to answer. 

 

Up for negotiation and most probably resulting in some kind of cash payment to to a Scottish central bank to reflect the common ownership of the current central bank

 

 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Up for negotiation and most probably resulting in some kind of cash payment to to a Scottish central bank to reflect the common ownership of the current central bank

 

 

 

What does this mean for a future currency then? 

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Cheers for the rest of it though! Very interesting case regarding Sweden! 

 

Sweden and the euro is a really good example of how the EU operates at its most flexible. 

 

Making the last step in joining the euro mandatory, but making the second to last step voluntary, is so "Brussels" it's unreal.

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Up for negotiation and most probably resulting in some kind of cash payment to to a Scottish central bank to reflect the common ownership of the current central bank

 

 

 

What sort of cash payment?  I don't mean a suitcase full of used twenties, I mean how much?

[AyrJambo]

7 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

What sort of cash payment?  I don't mean a suitcase full of used twenties, I mean how much?

 

I don't know will depend on what is negotiated

A proportion of the fixed assets, foreign currency reserves, stocks, govenment bonds etc held by the Bank of England?

What proportion is also negotiable - most assume based on population percentage but could be other criteria

 

 

Edited May 7 by AyrJambo

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

I don't know will depend on what is negotiated

A proportion of the fixed assets, foreign currency reserves, stocks, govenment bonds etc held by the Bank of England?

What proportion is also negotiable - most assume based on population percentage but could be other criteria

 

 

 

So for clarity is your vision for an independent Scotland's currency to be one that is backed by reserves received through this negotiated division of assets with the BoE? 

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

I don't know will depend on what is negotiated

A proportion of the fixed assets, foreign currency reserves, stocks, govenment bonds etc held by the Bank of England?

What proportion is also negotiable - most assume based on population percentage but could be other criteria

 

 

 

 

If the assets were being divided up, wouldn't the liabilities have to be divided up using the same criteria?

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If the assets were being divided up, wouldn't the liabilities have to be divided up using the same criteria?

I'm sure in 2014 the SNP said Scotland would happily take their share of the national debt should they be allowed to use the BoE.

And if the BoE still said no they'd be within their rights to walk away from it.

[BlueRiver]

4 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

I'm sure in 2014 the SNP said Scotland would happily take their share of the national debt should they be allowed to use the BoE.

And if the BoE still said no they'd be within their rights to walk away from it.

 

What does "using the BoE" mean? 

 

I'm not sure how two potentially divergent economies could be served by the same central bank. Especially one that would have a much larger focus on the much larger economy of our southern neighbours than us. 

 

Do we really want to be in a situation where our monetary policy is set by a foreign country? 

[Ulysses]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

I'm sure in 2014 the SNP said Scotland would happily take their share of the national debt should they be allowed to use the BoE.

And if the BoE still said no they'd be within their rights to walk away from it.

 

That's government debt, which is a different thing altogether. 

 

As far as I can tell - and I'm not an expert - the Bank of England has about a trillion pounds in assets, and about a trillion pounds in liabilities. Its net assets seem to be about £5 or £6 billion.

 

I'm guessing - and only guessing - that the proposed starting point in establishing a Scottish central bank would be to proportionately divide up the assets and liabilities, which seems fair and logical.

[AyrJambo]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If the assets were being divided up, wouldn't the liabilities have to be divided up using the same criteria?

 

That is indeed one of the basic questions...

 

Start fresh with no debt and no assets (from the UK)

 

Or negotiate a proportion of assets AND a proportion of debt

[XB52]

34 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

 

Do we really want to be in a situation where our monetary policy is set by a foreign country? 

You mean like the last 300+ years??

OK maybe not foreign but the policy is designed to suit England always, understandably so as the much larger 'partner'

[XB52]

30 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

That is indeed one of the basic questions...

 

Start fresh with no debt and no assets (from the UK)

 

Or negotiate a proportion of assets AND a proportion of debt

Your last sentence is the common sense approach; something totally lacking on here🙂

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, BlueRiver said:

 

So for clarity is your vision for an independent Scotland's currency to be one that is backed by reserves received through this negotiated division of assets with the BoE? 

 

That could certainly be a starting point

It is immaterial how those reserves are received -  they would become foreign currency reserves held by the Scottish central bank no?

[BlueRiver]

24 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Your last sentence is the common sense approach; something totally lacking on here🙂

 

I don't think many people have disputed it as a potential starting point beyond some that loudly pondered why we should take any portion of the debt/liabilities at all. 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

27 minutes ago, XB52 said:

You mean like the last 300+ years??

OK maybe not foreign but the policy is designed to suit England always, understandably so as the much larger 'partner'

 

So this begs the question of why bother if we'd be reducing ourselves to an even weaker position in the partnership. 

 

Independence but completely beholden to English economic and monetary policy with absolutely zero political representation or input into either? 

[BlueRiver]

I'd also be curious as to which aspects of current monetary policy you feel are not designed with the whole of the UK in mind XB52? 

[hughesie27]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

I'd also be curious as to which aspects of current monetary policy you feel are not designed with the whole of the UK in mind XB52? 

The NI Brexit deal that avoids a hard border?

[BlueRiver]

3 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

The NI Brexit deal that avoids a hard border?

 

What aspect has regard to monetary policy set by the BoE for the UK in particular? 

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

What aspect has regard to monetary policy set by the BoE for the UK in particular? 

I've no idea, it wasn't a rhetorical question. 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

It isn't really though. It's for your lot to put forward a sound basis for what our future currency arrangements would be. 

 

So the pound is 'ours' at the moment and given that the BoE is also 'ours' do you forsee a barrier to continue using the pound as a currency?

[Ulysses]

57 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

That could certainly be a starting point

It is immaterial how those reserves are received -  they would become foreign currency reserves held by the Scottish central bank no?

 

That's not quite it.  The assets of the BoE are mainly made up of its deposits in other financial institutions and its loans to them.  The liabilities of the BoE are mainly made up of money other financial institutions have on deposit with it and loans made to it.  There's more or less a trillion of each, with a slight excess of assets of about 5 to 6 billion.  That's more or less what the balance sheets of all central banks look like, except that the amounts vary from country to country.

 

So it isn't as simple as saying that the net assets are £5 billion and doing a bank transfer for a percentage of that to the new central bank.  If you do the exercise fully, you should end up with a percentage of the assets and liabilities all transferring.  The net assets figure you'd end up with at the new central bank would in all likelihood be the same, but there would also be gross assets and liabilities behind the net assets.  Whatever loans and deposits the new central bank would have outside Scotland would usually be foreign currency assets (though not necessarily reserves), whereas loans and deposits to institutions in Scotland would be in the domestic currency.  Whatever loans and deposits institutions outside Scotland would have with the new central bank would usually be foreign currency liabilities, whereas loans and deposits made by institutions in Scotland would be domestic currency liabilities.

 

I'm aware that the Danish central bank holds foreign currency reserves (for reasons I mentioned to Blueriver a wee while ago).  I think currently it holds about £70 billion, probably denominated in euro for the most part.  If the DKK rises beyond its upper limit against the euro, the bank sells off its DKK reserves and buys euro instead to bring the price back down into line.  If the DKK falls below its lower limit against the euro, the bank sells off its euro reserves and buys DKK instead to bring the price back up into line.  I'm no doubt oversimplifying the process, but that's a reasonable description.  When there's a shift between DKK and euro reserves, the overall asset position of the bank doesn't change; it just gets shifted between currencies.  However, logically there is a cost to doing this.  The bank isn't buying and selling to profit from the best market rates, and it doesn't get to control the timing of its transactions.  At worst, the bank will regularly lose out on exchange rate fluctuations when it switches assets between the currencies, and at best it has to spend money on transaction and system costs.  Denmark is probably a good example of how things might operate if an independent Scotland was trying to run its own currency with a reasonably stable link to the value of sterling (or indeed the euro).

 

Edited May 7 by Ulysses

[jambomjm74]

2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

And indeed the unionists as to how they divest Scotland from its share of the organisations such as the BoE.

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

The BoE is owned by the UK government. 

If Scotland were to leave the UK the BoE would still act as the central bank for the rUK. The question is what impact does Scotland leaving have on the BoE and on the BoE's currency the GBP, its assets and liabilities?

 

We currently have no monetary control, no benefits and significant cost all of which have grown exponentially since we were advised we'd be better together. 

 

I assume the 'austerity on steroids' of which you speak is not the one we've had for the last 14 years but perhaps the one about to be unleashed on our already decimated public services once the Labour party, that has vowed to continue the Tory economic policy, has got in and realised just how much economic damage has been done to the UK in the last 14 years and particularly the last 3 years?

 

 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

54 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

So the pound is 'ours' at the moment and given that the BoE is also 'ours' do you forsee a barrier to continue using the pound as a currency?

 

If there is no monetary union then yes I do. Maybe not instantly but in time. 

[jambomjm74]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The BoE is owned by the UK government. 

If Scotland were to leave the UK the BoE would still act as the central bank for the rUK. The question is what impact does Scotland leaving have on the BoE and on the BoE's currency the GBP, its assets and liabilities?

 

We currently have no monetary control, no benefits and significant cost all of which have grown exponentially since we were advised we'd be better together. 

 

I assume the 'austerity on steroids' of which you speak is not the one we've had for the last 14 years but perhaps the one about to be unleashed on our already decimated public services once the Labour party, that has vowed to continue the Tory economic policy, has got in and realised just how much economic damage has been done to the UK in the last 14 years and particularly the last 3 years?

 

 

 

 

Labour over spent

Torries over cut 

SNP promised the world and took Scotland backwards.. with someone else always to blame. They lost focus and the opportunity by appealing to margin causes and failing so badly at the day job. 

Will it come again, undoubtedly as we face into a new world order, but it is gone for now.

The time for independence was in the 70s the oil monies would have paid for it and could have sorted things for the better.  

 

 

[manaliveits105]

29 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

Fair comment 

[JudyJudyJudy]

31 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

Yep !! 

[hughesie27]

38 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

Wouldn't Scotland pretty much overnight become one of the leading nations in existing and potential renewable energy sources? That'd help the Green journey.

 Well over 90% of our Electricity is from renewable sources already.

[hughesie27]

Scottish Government elects Swinney with a majority.

[jack D and coke]

21 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Labour over spent

Torries over cut 

SNP promised the world and took Scotland backwards.. with someone else always to blame. They lost focus and the opportunity by appealing to margin causes and failing so badly at the day job. 

Will it come again, undoubtedly as we face into a new world order, but it is gone for now.

The time for independence was in the 70s the oil monies would have paid for it and could have sorted things for the better.  

 

 

Andrew Neil said the oil was a burden in the 70’s too. 
The rhetoric has never changed. 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Playing the race care to the very end . 
 

 

 

 Shut the door on your way out,  you a complete and utter failure  

no humility , no dignity , no class 
 

 

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1787847745757127150?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

Edited May 7 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

Andrew Neil said the oil was a burden in the 70’s too. 
The rhetoric has never changed. 

 

Frankie Boyle . Another one who can’t tell you what a woman is . 

[jack D and coke]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

Frankie Boyle . Another one who can’t tell you what a woman is . 

Aw ffs  

[XB52]

1 hour ago, BlueRiver said:

I'd also be curious as to which aspects of current monetary policy you feel are not designed with the whole of the UK in mind XB52? 

Surely that's not a serious question? It is designed to support the SE of England, mostly London. Other parts of the UK are an irrelevance.

[i wish jj was my dad]

Aye, nobody at all used his faith against him. Nobody called him 'Hamas'. Nobody referred to his 'terrorist pals' and nobody said 'he comes over here.' 

I'm comfortable having respect for opposing views while having contempt for obsessive bigots. 

[Japan Jambo]

and today's caption competition..

 

 

(BBC Website 07.05.2024)

Edited May 7 by Japan Jambo

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Japan Jambo said:

Laughing at the Scottish electorate . Can’t  believe their luck that’s their fab boys and girls and those in between still hing on to every lie they spin. The gravy train continues . If a picture said a 1000 words 

[escobri]

5 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

and today's caption competition..

 

 

(BBC Website 07.05.2024)

"And then she launched the iron at her 🤣"

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, escobri said:

"And then she launched the iron at her 🤣"

😂😂😂😂

[luckydug]

17 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Playing the race care to the very end . 
 

 

 

 Shut the door on your way out,  you a complete and utter failure  

no humility , no dignity , no class 
 

 

https://x.com/stvnews/status/1787847745757127150?s=46&t=Uyg6zS_aUfEwlXY6vOoxzQ

 

 

Whatever his failings as FM he doesn't deserve this kind if shit.

All your comments should be applied to yourself. 

[BlueRiver]

28 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Surely that's not a serious question? It is designed to support the SE of England, mostly London. Other parts of the UK are an irrelevance.

 

Any specific example? 

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, jambomjm74 said:

You’ve got this wrong.. 
The Bank of England is the U.K. central bank, if Scotland were to leave the U.K. the Bank of England would remain as the central bank for the U.K. and that would be that. 

A new nation “Scotland” could ask the Bank of England to act as its central bank “unlikely long term”  it could use the £ sterling much as many South American countries use the dollar ie someone else’s currency. This would mean no monetary control and effectively totally aligned to the U.K. add in our complete reliance on U.K. trade, we are and would be tied in for decades. A sort of Sudo independence- we’d have a flag and a border but be governed by our neighbour but without the benefits and at a cost. 
It is more likely that Scotland would require its own central bank and have to set this up and pay for this …. Reserving and loans costs ..
Also more likely is that it would bend to ECB governance in its journey back into Europe, which would mean austerity on steroids “Greece II”. Ask the Greeks how they prioritise things like coal fired power stations in the their Green journey as that’s all they can afford to do.

Simply the best solution is devolution that works for the people of Scotland and not what we have now a populist “all words no action” shambles. A govt that focuses on Education, Healthcare and Jobs not the Hate Monster and men in women’s prisons. 

 

 

 

 

Again that assumes that rUK continues to exist

The UK of GB (leave Ireland/NI out for the moment) exists because the Kingdoms of Scotland and England signed a bilateral treaty

If one of those signatories dissolves the union by rescinding the treaty where does that leave UK of GB?

Scotland wouldn't be "leaving" the UK in the way that the UK left the EU

The very existence of the UK would be in question

 

No doubt England will want to continue as rUK but that is something to be negotiated perhaps for a more favourable distribution of UK assets and liabilities

And that is where  the suggestion of Scotland not taking any of the UK debt comes from.....if England/wales/NI want to continue as rUK with the UK seat on permanent Security Council  etc then they should continue as rUk with ALL of the UK debt

A negotiating point

 

1 hour ago, BlueRiver said:

 

If there is no monetary union then yes I do. Maybe not instantly but in time. 

 

Any suggestion of using Sterling that I have heard has been a temporary arrangement until a Scottish currency is launched

Edited May 7 by AyrJambo

[manaliveits105]

21 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

and today's caption competition..

 

 

(BBC Website 07.05.2024)

Frank get the door ! 

[BlueRiver]

Just now, AyrJambo said:

 

Again that assumes that rUK continues to exist

The UK of GB (leave Ireland/NI out for the moment) exists because the Kingdoms of Scotland and England signed a bilateral treaty

If one of those signatories dissolves the union by rescinding the treaty where does that leave UK of GB?

Scotland wouldn't be "leaving" the UK in the way that the UK left the EU

The very existence of the UK would be in question

 

No doubt England will want to continue as rUK but that is something to be negotiated perhaps for a more favourable distribution of UK assets and liabilities

 

 

Any suggestion of using Sterling that I have heard has been a temporary arrangement until a Scottish currency is launched

 

Oh I wouldn't say I've heard anyone propose it forever either. 

 

However "temporary" is very ill-defined. 

[BlueRiver]

Last night I was accused of ill-thought out pish and bluster but I don't actually think half the folk on this thread can distinguish between monetary policy and fiscal policy. 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

11 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Whatever his failings as FM he doesn't deserve this kind if shit.

All your comments should be applied to yourself. 

Exactly. The boy just wasn't up to it and should never have been in the job but some of the shite flung at him has been disgusting. 

Speaking of lies, I remember some lies spread about him on here last summer suggesting he was a sexual predator. Couldn't be backed up of course and it never got the traction intended but it didn't stop the flow of shite being served up.