[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Yes spoon,we have done it,or you have on every Indy thread. I presume you will be giving up Wales and the rest of Ireland as an example to us? Oh and the channel and falkland islands as well...mind you worth posting just for the fact sbod obviously didn't read the names of the characters in that piece 😀

I think the world is such that larger countries have a material advantage

Only in willy waving ability.

When it comes to cash in the wallet folk in small countries can do very well.

Didn't bother reading the piece in all honesty.

Danish historian's name...Olaf Gerritrightupye

Yes spoon,we have done it,or you have on every Indy thread. I presume you will be giving up Wales and the rest of Ireland as an example to us?

Take 'em, it'll make going 'abroad' for hollidays cheaper

[img] [/img]

When it comes to cash in the wallet folk in small countries can do very well.

How?

a) Large material wealth despite being small in population
b) Attracting money from other big countries with attractive tax regimes

.. anything else?

Actually, I can think of one other country at least, the one that Scotland should aspire to probably. But they don't have that much cash in their wallets.

Actually, I can think of one other country at least, the one that Scotland should aspire to probably.

Argentina?

all your post boils down to is your usual stance of "you don't agree with me so you're an idiot",

which correct me if I'm wrong, is what you got banned for?

I'm not sure that rUK has any say in what currency iS chooses to use, so no need for negotiation - nothing to do with rUK whether Scotland unilaterally adopts the pound, has a currency tied to the pound or a totally independent currency. We could be told now what the choice will be.

This was a watershed moment, when wee eck's irresponsibility went too far.

While the amount of the transfer from an iS to rUK is still open to negotiation, the structure of the debt (no change) and the currency (no union) are now set in stone

I think union is probably the least likely outcome but it is still not off the table not least because iS will ask for it and they can play hardball over debt.
How arsey each side want to get and how reasonable each side wants to be and what the outcomes will be is purely a guessing game.

How?

A, I don't recognise option B. That's just you adopting a negotiation position.

Is it Qatar?

Just for balance, small countries can do very badly as well. I just don't buy into the thinking that you have to be a big powerful country for its residents to prosper.

It is possible to disagree with me and not be an idiot, you might want to consider this approach
You were so respectful of those who disagree with you when you compared them to the religious, which promoted this exchange...again oh the ironing.

The religious believe in something with no proof, that was my comparison and not one that many would disagree with.
Obviously you've taken that as an insult, oh the ironing!

So, any examples as requested to back up your attempted belittling of me, or are you just full of hot air?
Care to address any of the points I raised, or are you sticking to your "all mouth no trousers" approach?

I'd much rather debate these issues than have a slanging match, the ball is very much in your court.

[quote=Junkyard ]I think union is probably the least likely outcome

So why not tell us what the most likely option is then? You'd think people (and businesses) might want to know that.

but it is still not off the table not least because iS will ask for it and they can play hardball over debt.
How arsey each side want to get and how reasonable each side wants to be and what the outcomes will be is purely a guessing game.

Read the Edinburgh agreement recently? We covered this one up there - Sir BS of eck can't play hardball over anything because rUK will simply point out that the EA allows them to refuse anything which isn't in their interest.

So why not tell us what the most likely option is then? You'd think people (and businesses) might want to know that.

you've taken that as an insult

So, any examples as requested to back up your attempted belittling of me, or are you just full of hot air?
Care to address any of the points I raised, or are you sticking to your "all mouth no trousers" approach?

I'd much rather debate these issues than have a slanging match, the ball is very much in your court.

So you're not prepared to actually discuss any of the points I raised then.
Fairy muff, your choice.

[quote=Junkyard ]

So why not tell us what the most likely option is then? You'd think people (and businesses) might want to know that.

Ah sorry, I meant why doesn't Sir BS of eck tell us (but then you knew that didn't you, and just wanted me to repeat your new name for him 😉 )

[url= http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2014/03/scottish-governments-economic-plan-for-independence-does-not-add-up/ ]Today's CBI criticism of the White Paper[/url] Just to start the day, another publication getting into the economic detail suggesting more problems than benefits of an iScotland.

How long before wee eck or dear nicola dismiss this as one of the 3Bs? My guess is 11:37. A little longer than normal but they have their hands tied by the need to recalculate their oil revenue figures, then plan d. That's enough of a headache for now....

La, la, la......skipity, skipity through the flower strewn meadows with the sun shining brilliantly overhead. Just mind the cliff edge!

The CBI strongly criticized devolution before 1997 - using pretty much the same arguments as now ("Uncertainty bad!").

And, personally, I don't particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence - I'd bet if there was a CBI in the 18th Century, it would be strongly critical of abolishing slavery.

Rather than dismiss it so easily and on an incorrect basis (its not a general uncertainty issue) you might like to read exactly why they argue, "that the White Paper fails to provide a coherent vision for how an independent Scotland would be better off economically from putting up barriers with its biggest export market – the UK" and the very specific points they make, not about uncertainty, but about four key areas:

1. The fiscal outlook
2. The currency
3. The internal market
4. EU membership

All pretty fundmental issues that the BoD has failed to address. I appreciate that wee eck prefers folk to walk around in la, la land as it suits his cause, but not a great strategy otherwise.

tbc "folk to walk around in la, la land" is a general observation! Not targeted at anyone 😉

The CBI strongly criticized devolution before 1997 - using pretty much the same arguments as now

With the tax raising powers not having been used, no-one can say if CBI concern was valid or not. I'm not sure if devolution has been good or bad. Whilst some things are good, the time I spent in the public sector led me to conclude Holyrood is less effective and accountable than might be expected.

To dismiss anything new the CBI says is as ridiculous as refusing to listen to Alex Salmond because he used to express admiration for Ireland's economy.

rubbish.

rubbish.

Scotland’s success today is achieved because of, and not in spite of, the Union.

It benefits from the security of a strong and stable currency and access to international trade markets, and being part of the UK also acts as a shock absorber for the Scottish economy, enabling it to weather global economic storms.

Today we are publishing our detailed analysis of the Scottish Government’s White Paper

This is evidence ? do you not think it may just have an agenda?
This article may or may not be accurate but if AS or Yes had this as the blurb to something they said you would be attacking it

Personally it is about democracy and the conservative [ small c lovers of the status quo] nature of business means they will tend to dislike change.

Junkyard - lazarus
this is evidence ? do you not think [s]it[/s] [b]THM[/b] may just have an agenda?

FTFY 😀

This is evidence ? do you not think it may just have an agenda?
This article may or may not be accurate but if AS or Yes had this as the blurb to something they said you would be attacking it

Business doesn't get a vote, but as it employs many and pays a chunk of the tax an iScotland needs, it is a voice worth listening to in amongst the rest. You can accept or reject its analysis, but don't ignore it because of your own bias.

Well put oldbloke. Surprised it needed saying TBH ( the clue is in the name!) but hey,

Ducks, a THM agenda? Yes, of course, against wee eck's BS (since it has the potential to harm not only Scotland but rUK as well.) there is nothing hidden there.

The analysis confirms the CBI’s view

Surprised it needed saying TBH

And, personally, I don't particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence - I'd bet if there was a CBI in the 18th Century, it would be strongly critical of abolishing slavery.

This all the way.

Business doesn't get a vote

Of course it does. The people who run it and the people who work for it vote. Which is most people.

And, personally, I don't particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence

Are these the fat cats who either employ you, pay tax to employ you, buy the stuff you produce or pay their employees who buy the stuff you produce?

Sbob you asked if I was bothered about Scotland being in the EU. Yes I would rather be in than out but it isnt a deal breaker.
1. You said Hang on, what do we have so far?
The President of the European Commission has stated that:
"In case there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state it will have to apply."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591167/Independent-Scotland-could-be-allowed-to-stay-in-EU.html. [b]Sir David Edward doesn’t agree[/b]
You said
"accession to the European Union will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union."
and that:
"Of course it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state."
[b]Not according to this man .[/b]
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-barroso-incorrect-on-eu-1-3313437

you said
This is further backed up by the letter mentioned above from Viviane
Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission Justice, Fundamental
Rights and Citizenship.
Which is no wonder as it completely tallies with the conditions of membership enshrined in European Law, which is all accessible on-line.
What other advice do you need?
Leaving the UK is leaving the EU, with no guarantee of re-entry. [b]I think not and Graham Avery agrees[/b]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25965703
The EU commission is the deciding body
Not quite. [b]You are correct here but Jim Currie thinks the member states will not attempt to block Scottish accession as you claim below[/b]
The EU commission and every one of its member states.
it's advice is available to the UK government if the UK govt makes a formal request
But it cannot advise on how its member states will act, and that is what you really need to know. Yes there will be tough negotiations but it can be done.
POSTED 1 DAY AGO #
[b]all links are on p57 of this thread[/b]

Are these the fat cats who either employ you, pay tax to employ you, buy the stuff you produce or pay their employees who buy the stuff you produce?

So I'm not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism? That's just ridiculous - you're basically saying that no-one is allowed to make any criticism of anything any big business does. No criticism of tax avoidance, no criticism of sweatshop labour, no criticism of low pay, zero hours contracts, Workfare or union busting just because every one of us, in some oblique way, benefits from that business.

So I'm not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism?

So I'm not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism?

Of course you are, but that's not how your post read. It looked as if you were saying the fat cats weren't important. They might be a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest, but even then they still drive the economy. So their opinion of the economic situation is important.

Tax avoidance, sweatshop labour and all are of course terrible things, but not all rich businessmen do it, and not everyone who does bad things is a rich businessman.

they dont vote though molly their employees might but the legal entity that is the company has no vote. That is also is not debatable.

They might be a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest, but even then they still drive the economy. So their opinion of the economic situation is important.

they dont vote though molly their employees might but the legal entity that is the company has no vote.

Thanks for clearing that up Junkyard, I was awfully confused 🙄

My point is that a company consists of people and those people vote. So the interests of companies and the interests of people are not necessarily separate, comrade.

only if you think a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest should be listened to.

Sigh.. if you can put down your Socialist Worker and concentrate on the meaning of the post, you'll understand my point. I'm not saying we should do whatever they want. I'm saying that the interests of fat cats aren't necessarily opposed to the interest of normal people.

I'm saying that the interests of fat cats aren't necessarily opposed to the interest of normal people.

You don't need to read the "Socialist Worker" to understand that the interests of the super rich and the interests of ordinary people are in constant conflict.

Of course if you read the "Daily Mail" (if we're going to insult each other on the basis of newspaper titles) then you probably are naive and gullible enough to believe in Reaganomics and the theory of "trickle down" economics.

Thanks for clearing that up Junkyard, I was awfully confused

Business doesn't get a vote
Of course it does. The people who run it and the people who work for it vote. Which is most people.

Business does get a "vote", and a powerful one - it uses it's (metaphorical) feet. Arguably more powerful that any tick on a ballot paper. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue altogether.

I must be an "incredible" business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people. Perhaps it has neither employees nor customers?

I must be an "incredible" business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people.

You having a degree in economics and all but you have never heard of the paradox of overproduction and the conflict between maximizing profit and minimizing wages. How amazing.

I must be an "incredible" business 

I have built several business in my life and the concept if minimizing wages has never crossed my mind, why would it? Peanuts and monkeys springs to mind. Still back to the actual point, I do look forward to finding a company that is in constant conflict with ordinary people and to see how long it survived (if such a thing has ever existed).

Edit: Gordi, there is another meaning to in-credible (as in hard to believe that such a thing exists!).

Apologies for any drunken errors, but here goes:

Sir David Edward doesn’t agree

So what?
I'm sure a lot of punters don't agree with the President of the European Commission, but their opinions hold no weight.

Not according to this man .

What man? Who the **** is he? You're really stretching now.

Leaving the UK is leaving the EU, with no guarantee of re-entry. I think not and Graham Avery agrees

I consider, along with Sir David Edward, that Article 48 would be applicable

You think that nations not in the EU are in a position to change EU law?
That's laughable.

You love playing games with your trolling don't you THM ?

Its all getting a bit snidey folks eh? I've mostly enjoyed reading through all this, apart from the personal comments..
Someone above commented about the CBI being biased- of course they are. They see the status quo as being best because independence would inevitably hit profits- whether its market uncertainty, currency issues or the prospect of an IS passing more protections for workers all of these can potentially affect profits so obviously they, and others will be happy to piss on the parade.
Business is business though, and no matter what happens profits will still be there to be made.

As much as you love answering the question Ernie.

You say how important this is (answering the question and being precise) so leave aside the reminders about Marxian economics for one moment (and the idea that they do not feature in an economics degree*) feel free to give me an example of the incredible business. Or perhaps, we shall see just who is living under the bridge...

* maybe I just studied it in a really bad place. That would explain why wee eck has such a weak grasp of basic economics too!

Apologies for any drunken errors, but here goes:

Sir David Edward doesn’t agree

So what?
I'm sure a lot of punters don't agree with the President of the European Commission, but their opinions hold no weight.

Not according to this man .

What man? Who the **** is he? You're really stretching now.

Leaving the UK is leaving the EU, with no guarantee of re-entry. I think not and Graham Avery agrees

I consider, along with Sir David Edward, that Article 48 would be applicable

You think that nations not in the EU are in a position to change EU law?
That's laughable.

You are correct here but Jim Currie thinks the member states will not attempt to block Scottish accession as you claim below

So you've found one person that thinks that wouldn't happen, well done!

Again, I apologize for my inebriation, but was that really worth a reply?

You know exactly what is meant by the paradox of overproduction and the crises which the constant need to minimize the wage bill while maximizing profit causes . But predictably you want to be a smartarse about it with your tedious sense of superiority and your patronizing and disingenuous manner.

😐

Business does get a "vote", and a powerful one

I must be an "incredible" business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people. Perhaps it has neither employees nor customers?

I have absolutely no idea how, even if it were true, this straw man would prove that businesses vote.

Can we agree that business has a voice and a powerful one. Can we also agree they dont actually vote and then get back to the real issue?

I don't particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence

Certain 19th artisans crafting things by hand 😉 may not care, but pending the overthrow of capitalism in one country (Scotland), everyone else is going to have to consider how capitalists will react to changes because it's going to impact everyone's life.

The CBI can probably be relied upon to represent the interests of (big) business and that includes playing big business's angles. The population of Scotland might decide that any miseries predicted by the CBI are a price worth paying if they eventuate, but it would be silly to just ignore them entirely.

You don't need to read the "Socialist Worker" to understand that the interests of the super rich and the interests of ordinary people are in constant conflict.

That was a little joke, not an insult. Is readig the socialist worker a bad thing? 😉 And I've never picked up a copy of the Mail in my life but of course you'd know that.

Anyway, yes, I'm sure there are super rich people who don't care about businesses and there are those who make money from businesses failing, but I didn't think we were talking about them. Most business owners, even relativel rich ones, still depend on the success of their businesses, as do their employees.

If Mr F Cat of Big Co Ltd decides to move his business to England after independence, are his staff going to be pleased that another rich tory scumbag has left? Or are they going to wish for their jobs back?

I must be an "incredible" business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people.

Well.. asset strippers, or those traders that make money when shares fall - hedge funds? I don't remember the name.

ernie_lynch - Member
You having a degree in economics and all but you have never heard of the paradox of overproduction.

Followed closely by

ernie_lynch - Member
You know exactly what is meant by the paradox of overproduction

For a simple person like me Ernie, this is all getting a little confusing. Ok, I know the whole paradox of production thing is a simple red herring you inserted to avoid the question and create a bit of trolling (as per) but at least try to keep the argument vaguely consistent if you must persist. Better still avoid it and simply answer the question. Or have you just proved that such companies are indeed, "incredible"?

Of course if the paradox of production is true, then the fact that the members of the CBI may chose to "vote" with their feet will be a positive thing for the future of la, la land. I am surprised that dear Nicola didn't point that out yesterday rather than her rather weak reposte. May be like me, she has never heard of clever enough of such important paradoxes, or she knows exactly what they are? Gosh, it's so confusing....

Anyway back to the relevant issues, good to see that Swinney is going to address the oil price issue and update "the facts." It will be fun to see how that is spun.

your tedious sense of superiority and your patronizing and disingenuous manner.

😆

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

May be like me, she has never heard of clever enough of such important paradoxes, or she knows exactly what they are? Gosh, it's so confusing....

You never have a day off do you ? I suppose you have been arrogant and patronizing all your adult life so there's little chance in you changing now. How sad 🙁

This is what a rather clever man, possibly one even cleverer than you, Nouriel Roubini, once said : [i]"what is individually rational for one firm is destructive in the aggregate".[/i] An obvious paradox there, not that you will agree of course.

And a fuller quote :

[i]"Firms in advanced economies are now cutting jobs, owing to inadequate final demand, which has led to excess capacity, and to uncertainty about future demand. But cutting jobs weakens final demand further, because it reduces labor income and increases inequality. Because a firm’s labor costs are someone else’s labor income and demand,[b]what is individually rational for one firm is destructive in the aggregate.

The result is that free markets don’t generate enough final demand.[/b] In the US, for example, slashing labor costs has sharply reduced the share of labor income in GDP. With credit exhausted, the effects on aggregate demand of decades of redistribution of income and wealth – from labor to capital, from wages to profits, from poor to rich, and from households to corporate firms – have become severe, owing to the lower marginal propensity of firms/capital owners/rich households to spend."
[/i]

A lack of [i]"final demand"[/i] or overproduction as I referred to it, is the consequence of the behaviour of individual firms.

But anyway carry on and give me a patronizing retort......

And you never have a day off from insulting people and "creating" diversionary arguments -pretty much the definition of trolling and stuff that the sticky rules ask folk to avoid. Plus ca change..

Impressive googling there, but Roubinini is really making a Keynesian rather than a Marxian point. Something one does learn with an economics degree. Given how you argue that your understanding of JMK is so superior to mine, I am surprised you didn't spot that.

I will take it now that the answer to the actual question will not be forthcoming. Not surprising, since it doesn't exist. QED.

Meanwhile, back to Scotland....

Can't we just discuss Sir BS of eck instead of all this squabbling between people who I thought were on the same side of the fence?

Can't we just discuss Sir BS of eck instead of all this squabbling between people who I thought were on the same side of the fence?

Yeah, stick with the program - it's meant to be about how us Yes people don't understand economics 😀

Ethical dilemma of the day: Last night I went to have a look at how the repainting of my new shop is getting on, and someone has stuck a great big sticker on the front door. However, it's a "Yes 2014" sticker, and they bothered to get it on straight...

Sleepwalking again Ben? 🙂

Can't we just discuss Sir BS of eck instead of all this squabbling between people who I thought were on the same side of the fence?

teamhurtmore - Member
I have built several business in my life and the concept if minimizing wages has never crossed my mind...

I did much the same. It was my policy to pay more than the other businesses in my town. I'm a firm believer that a prosperous workforce is better for productivity. Delegation of responsibility to quality staff with minimal paperwork pays off better than micromanaging with low paid staff IME.

From today's Herald

AN independent Scotland would have two choices on currency, one of which - using the pound informally and refusing to share any of the burden of the UK national debt - would be a "pretty attractive option", an adviser to Alex Salmond has said.

The comments, made by SNP MSP Joan McAlpine at a public meeting, appear to fly in the face of the Scottish Government's official position that it has a single "Plan A" on the issue of currency - a formal union with the rest of the UK.Ms McAlpine's remarks suggest the SNP may also be considering the Plan B of an informal currency union, known as sterlingisation.

You have to hand it to the real bluffers, they are remarkably persistent!! And its all delivered with a straight face and working apparently since 45% (or so) of voters believe that it is the rUK that is bluffing on the currency. Incredible. Apparently, the Easter Bunny lives in Carnoustie too!

Apparently, the Easter Bunny lives in Carnoustie too!

He gets around a bit - sightings include Kirkcaldy, Milngavie and Leuchars - although rumours suggest these could be hoaxes designed to make English newsreaders look, or should I say sound, silly!!

^ Sue Lawley couldn't even manage Bearsden, never mind Milngavie.

"Baahrsden" to rhyme with Marsden.

A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound

That could cause a bit of indigestion around here Ben 🙂

[img] [/img] teamhurtmore to the currency union thread, paging Mr teamhurtmore to the currency union thread. Thank you.

Who is Sue Lawley to discuss Scotland with such poor pronounciation? Disgusting.

a currency union will require a political mandate in 2015, I doubt that will exist, especially for the Lib Dem's 😉

Who is Sue Lawley to discuss Scotland with such poor pronounciation? Disgusting

have you ever heard the London media pronounce Todmorden or Mytholmroyd? Does that mean they can't discuss Yorkshire? 😉

Not at all big_n_daft. Only recently heard Dear Leader pronounce that his fellow smirking nationalist Farage should not be in the NE of Scotland as he does not know what a loon is.

The message apparently being, learn the useful dialect of Doric, or butt out of Scottish politics. Very inclusive don't you think?

bencooper - Member
A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound

bencooper - Member

A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound

And this government minister is...?

I'm always very persuaded by anonymous statements by "a minister".

There won't be a currency union, it would be political suicide.
No one south of the border wants it, but it seems those north of the border are simply sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La la la, it will all be ok".
The simple fact is there is too much risk for the UK to enter into such a deal.
Be careful what you wish for. 💡

Sorry stef, enjoying a dinner too much to be sidetracked by this.

I'm always very persuaded by anonymous statements by "a minister".

The Guardian is most definitely not pro-independence - I double they'd run this if it wasn't a confirmed source. The interesting bit is the bit about Trident - I wonder if this is a deliberate leak, and the position will now change to "you can have a currency union if you keep Trident".

That's not on the table, by the way - Nicola Sturgeon has already said so.

Keep up at the back, currency is yesterday's news.

It's all about unaffordable pensions this weekend.

Front page of the Herald, online version at http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/no-camp-minister-we-would-do-deal-on-currency.23824763n

Don't seem to be finding it on the Scotsman 🙄

piemonster - Member
Keep up at the back, currency is yesterday's news.
It's all about unaffordable pensions this weekend.

Aye, they're banking on it being easier to scare old folk...

I wonder if this is a deliberate leak