You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm unhappy that the uk has used north sea oil to reduce tax rates for the better off in society and to subsidise the sale of some publicly owned companies to the private sector. I guess that's just a bit too much egalitarian spirit
[quote=duckman ]Aracer,
as much as I am tempted by your example,and am enjoying the sparring on this thread,I will never debate anything on STW with you.
😆
As flattered as I am, I don't have much in the way of opinion on this issue, and only on this thread for the laffs (and I'm not even going to touch the taxation/oil revenues issue!) - feel free to debate and I'll step away.
Poor old wee eck, so he is now writing to CMD. To ask him to stop playing with the nasty boys
Mr Salmond said: "Failure to do so will be interpreted, at best, as complicity and, at worst, endorsement of this deeply anti-democratic position.
Deeply anti-democratic to tell the truth? "It's not fair, it's not fair, we prefer fairly stories....."
But he's clearly losing the grasp of basic logic now....
"We remember how Scotland reacted to the poll tax, and we have seen the groundswell of reaction to the arrogance we have seen in the past week. I am calling on them to cease and desist."
Hang on, if telling the truth is like the poll tax (?) and if it is creating such a negative reaction in Scotland surely he would want them to persist not desist. Very odd odd logic. Why would anyone take a risk on such a chancer who can't even make up his mind on such easy things.
Why would anyone take a risk on such a chancer who can't even make up his mind on such easy things
Broken record time. It's not a vote for Salmond, it's a vote for Scotland.
if telling the truth
Amazing how all you lot despise CMD, but on this issue, his word seems to be gospel?.
Well the nasty boys are simply telling the message of the independent technocrats. It's not CMD saying ths, it's all parties, the BOE, HM Treasury, etc. At least the EU haven't had to correct any made up stories yet. Oh hang on....
Poor old wee eck's team (Stiglitz and Mirrlees) are now back at the table looking for plan c and looks like they disagree. It's a bit harder for the pros to lie and keep a straight face while doing it. They have reputations to worry about.
At least the shopkeepers aren't ganging up on wee eck as well. That would be bad.......
Broken record time. It's not a vote for Salmond, it's a vote for Scotland.
Seconded.
THM, I generally appreciate your contribution on this thread. And whilst I trust Salmond as far as I could throw him. He's no worse than the Westminster alternatives.
Well the nasty boys are simply telling the message of the independent technocrats
You pays your money and you takes your choice - other technocrats (including a couple of Nobel prize winners) have said that a currency union makes sense for both countries. Whereas what Carney said was that the BoE would make it work - he was making it clear that it was a political decision.
Ok deal time, I'll stop referring to him as a chancer when he and his cronies stop calling a currency an asset. I will call it an "economists' bond"! 😉
Reading that Torygraph link.
I can't help but think the retail sector with an awful tendency to pay folk less than they need to live on, is not the most trustworthy when it comes to the Scottish Electorates best interests.
Edit: where does the Telegraph sit in the biased news story stakes. Slightly above Newsnetscotland is my guess, which takes some doing.
Bingo - people who have made an awful lot of money out of the current political system aren't the best people to ask about a new political system.
Ok deal time, I'll stop referring to him as a chancer when he and his cronies stop calling a currency an asset. I will call it an "economists' bond"!
Feel free to continue questioning him(not that you have to listen obviously, this is just my opinion). But your most effective at it when not lowering the tone to playground name calling.
You're not a politician after all.
Oh come on let's not be precious, politicians get nicknames the whole time (and this is a chat forum not the Journal of Political Economy!!) If they live up to them, the harder it is to resist. Childish I know, but when Chancer treats us all like children (even writing fairly tales for our amusement ) it's hard not to be dragged down 😉 . The letter to "CMD" (oops) is another example.
Huh, I thought that was his real name.....
Ben you are correct. Nobel economists like Stiglitz are very clear. It is not in the best interests of the Scottish people to go for full independence. That is exactly why he is recommending a currency union. It's as clear to him as the water of the Moray Firth on a summers day.
if telling the truth is like the poll tax (?) and if it is creating such a negative reaction in Scotland surely he would want them to persist not desist. Very odd odd logic
You have fallen into the trap of criticising him for being a skilled politician
The similarity is the imposition by London of a policy the scots dont like, want or voted for- surely you get that? He is sabre rattling for sure, and obviously playing to his audience, but it is likely to be effective.
Why on earth do you think he would write to him and ask him to keep bullying them? Now that is odd logic
Its politicians , they have an agenda [ just like you] and they focus on that to the exclusion of all other positions - thats not just you we all do it to a greater or lesser degree and obviously Wee eck is at the extreme* end of Scottish nationalism. I dont think you are an extreme unionist to be clear but you do value it.
I am still not getting why money is not an asset. At the point at which it is universally accepted as money [ without this it is printed pieces of paper with the value of a flyer] to be exchanged for goods it has intrinsic value as it is trusted, dependable etc. If it is not an asset then one wonders why the UK wants to keep the pound v Euro and against Scotland - why they arguing over a valueless non asset?
* i dont mean in terrorism terms but entrenched position that will not change.
thm - your quotes above in context:
On Friday, the Herald newspaper quoted a "senior coalition source" [b]saying a yes vote might not guarantee independence if talks did not go smoothly.[/b]In his letter to the prime minister, Mr Salmond urged him to distance himself from such a position as quickly and publicly as possible.
Mr Salmond said: "Failure to do so will be interpreted, at best, as complicity and, at worst, endorsement of this deeply anti-democratic position.
"We remember how Scotland reacted to the poll tax, and we have seen the groundswell of reaction to the arrogance we have seen in the past week. I am calling on them to cease and desist."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26210278
According to the Scotsman he has flipped back again from "other options" 24 hours ago to simple bare faced lies again
Salmond added: “The Chancellor will have to wake up to the fact that he cannot lay claim to assets to which Scotland has a share – such as the Bank of England and the pound – and still expect an independent Scotland to meet a share of UK liabilities.”
Meanwhile his advisors are either saying prepare for a Scottish pound (Mirrlees) or just use the pound anyway (Hughes Hallet). Blimey another representative of Scotlands finest Uni saying odd things.
Thanks for clearing that up zigzag, I don't subscribe to the herald and only read the BBC coverage of the story. May be they were biased in how they reported it !?!?
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has written to David Cameron to accuse his ministers of bullying behaviour. He claimed recent interventions in the independence debate had been contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement. Earlier this week, UK Chancellor George Osborne said a vote for independence would mean walking away from the pound. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have indicated they are also opposed to a currency union.
Um. That's why the UK (no oil fund) got a few years of low taxes for the rich, whereas Norway (oil fund) has one of the highest standards of living and happiness, and every citizen is a dollar millionaire?
Norway has one of highest taxation levels in Europe. They also have very high property prices.
The Norwegians I have worked with complained about their government just as much as we do!
The Norwegian Oil reserves are similar to the UK's but it has a much smaller population, similar to Scotland and the Oil Fund may of worked for an Independent Scotland in the Seventies but it's too late now.
The Chancellor will have to wake up to the fact that he cannot lay claim to assets to which Scotland has a share – such as the Bank of England and the pound – and still expect an independent Scotland to meet a share of UK liabilities.”
Why is this a lie? Its not they could do this and he is saying if you want us to take the bad stuff we need to get some of the good stuff- hardly the strangest negotiating position. Legally Scotland can walk away from debts as they are the UK's not scotlands- it s not likely though but it is possible if rUK plays hardball. In that case everyone looses.
TBH it is two opposing sides having a stand off before a complicated negotiation the outcome of which no one knows [ if i had to bet I would bet scotland takes some debt, use the pound and have no financial union but an "informal" agreements.]
Its obvious there will be give and take on both sides.
No one has any idea what the outcome will be.
No one has any idea what the outcome will be.
And yet, people are being asked to vote on the basis of such supposition and uncertainty.
And yet, people are being asked to vote on the basis of such supposition and uncertainty.
I'd rather take a chance on uncertainty, than what our present incumbents in westminster have in store for us.
...and people are still allowed to perpetuate a lie about how currencies work and what that means for independence. Still at least his advisors are starting to respond. Give it a few weeks and Plan D will be announced. Can't expect him to anything different in the meantime I suppose. He clearly doesn't understand how a central bank balance sheet works or the messages of Europe and elsewhere on how currency unions actually function. (Or he does and he chooses not to show it)
Cue tomorrow's speech in Aberdeeen ....get ready for more BS bingo on assets and liabilities and a shot for each of the three Bs. And on a weekday too.... 😉
saying a yes vote might not guarantee independence if talks did not go smoothly.
Surely a statement of fact? - it would be a decision for parliament, not just Cameron or the government.
And yet, people are being asked to vote on the basis of such supposition and uncertainty.
IIRC - prepared to be corrected on this- but the NO /Westminster refused to negotiate before hand { I assume they thought this would add legitimacy to the Yes vote and stop them doing this sort of thing - ie you cannot have the pound you are all doomed]
I also think we would be flattering the electorate to think they would understand it anyway - As this thread shows, me included, few of us understand the economic implications/legal stuff involved anyway.
I doubt a 2000 page document would help
PS expect round 2 of this when we have a leave the EU vote and the NO campaign has no idea what we get afterwards and will have widely varying views of varying credibility
I don't want to interfere on your referendum here, your democratic discussion here, but of course it will be extremely difficult to get t[b]he approval of all the other member states[/b][my bold] to have a new member coming from one member state.
Worth noting a current member rUK for example can vote against and scupper the plans so another nuclear option - going to be messy
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/16/independent-scotland-extremely-difficult-join-eu
I think far more of a risk at the EU level is Spain, Cyprus or Greece scuppering the plans, for their own political reasons (Spain with Catalonia obviously, but the Cypriot/Greek connection cannot be underplayed - the symbolism of a large community being able to declare independence based on a referendum, and the ongoing division of Cyprus, is a big issue - and arguably for many the main roadblock to Turkish EU membership)
The realpolitik at play here transcends far beyond Hadrians wall!
He clearly doesn't understand how a central bank balance sheet works or the messages of Europe and elsewhere on how currency unions actually function. (Or he does and he chooses not to show it)
THM - Didn't he study economics at the same uni as yourself?
I would suggest he understands perfectly but the majority, like myself, do not.
Shock horror - Scottish MP's are liars to!
[quote=Junkyard ]The Chancellor will have to wake up to the fact that he cannot lay claim to assets to which Scotland has a share – such as the Bank of England and the pound – and still expect an independent Scotland to meet a share of UK liabilities.”
Why is this a lie? Its not they could do this and he is saying if you want us to take the bad stuff we need to get some of the good stuff- hardly the strangest negotiating position. Legally Scotland can walk away from debts as they are the UK's not scotlands
You reckon Scotland has a share of the assets, but not of the liabilities?
And yet, people are being asked to vote on the basis of such supposition and uncertainty.
+1.
This is why I think the whole pack of cards will tumble to the ground - the uncertainty, the unknown, the vague promises & weak assurances of just what will happen...
Funny how one persons left of centre egalitarianism is anothers right wing selfish.
Since the social union is being promoted and on the issue of an oil fund, I would dare ben and gordimhor to say to a postie in Wolverhampton, or a nurse in Crewe, or a single mum in London, that by virtue of being Scottish they are a "dollar millionaire", and then somehow say that is an example of socialist utopia.
An oil fund comparable with Norway is a mute point anyway, as it has not happened, and nobody can say that it would have done.
On money going to tax dodgers, I thought that is precisely what the white paper set out to promote.
@Junkyard - North Sea oil has kept taxes down for everyone, in particular low/middle income earners as the UK enjoys lower taxes than it's directly comparable neighbours. Look at VAT and property tax (this in particular is much lower than in comparable countries for "normal" housing). Taxes on the rich in the UK are consistent/higher than other comparable countries. Yes Norway used it's Oil revenues to build a sovereign wealth fund, the UK did not. Had it built one it wouldn't belong to an independent Scotland anyway and in the meantime we would all have been paying higher taxes.
I find it strange people complaining that a tory lead Westminster doesn't represent Scotland. There was Labour Government with a Scot at it's centre/head for 10 years, you can't get better represented than that. If Scotland where in dependent with I imagine a left wing government you would undoubtably have higher taxes, perhaps you think that justifiable on the basis of the "additional benefits" you would receive, see blow on the expensive infrastructure you'd have to recreate.
EU Commissioner seems to have dealt another blow to the SNP fantasists this morning making it clear in his view Scotland would find it difficult to join the EU at all. If Scotland is going to be as rich as claimed here it will certainly have to be a net contributor to the EU and it's a condition of membership now that you accept the euro. To get into the EU Scotland is going to have to "bend over backwards" to appease all the various factions.
Scottish politicians would be the single greatest beneficiaries of Independence, thousands more jobs for the boys/girls and pay rises and expensive trips abroad, lots of nice embassies in the worlds capital cities and cushy foreign postings. All paid for by higher Scottish taxes.
@duckman - one of the key benefits to Scotland re retaining the status quo is you have a degree of independent government but benefit form the UK special position in Europe (assuming you regard not being int he euro and a fully signed up member of all the various legislation as an advantage). An independent Scotland would certainly have much higher taxes in order to pay for all the civil service and government infrastructure you would have to replicate.
I heard scottish house prices were racing away due to the massive influx of ex pat Scots flooding home to get residency in time to be on the polling register for the referendum 😉
Junkyard, re the sensible question as to why Sterling (or any currency) is not an asset, I'm not an economist so someone else can no doubt cover this better, however I'll try and accept being corrected if wrong.
A 'pound in your pocket' is intuitively an asset to you, because you can use it to buy stuff. No-one is questioning this. However, the pound is simply a representation of an underlying economic reality - people think it has value because of the accrued historical support of the currency, it's wide usage, and the fact that (justifiably or not) HMG will back it.
If people lose confidence in a currency due to inflationary pressure etc then it starts to lose its attractiveness as a currency, hence the situation in somewhere like Zimbabwe where the local currency becomes worthless and people use alternatives such as gold or the US$.
Sterling could be anything - printed bingo cards, poker chips, frozen peas, it is simply a medium of exchange and has no intrinsic value.
Where Salmond is being a cynical liar (and he is because he fully understands the lie he is currently telling) is in stating that the pound is an asset than can be shared, and that HMG is doing Scotland a great injustice. This is missing the point:
- if Scotland wants to share the pound it could do it independently: this would mean no control over monetary policy hence even less independence than is currently enjoyed, because currently HMG and BoE make their economic decisions with at least some cognisance of Scotland. No control over your own monetary policy means you are totally hostage to fortune, you might get high interest rates when you need the opposite, and the supply of money may be completely wrong for your position in the economic cycle.
- If Scotland wanted to be part of a currency union (like at present!) it could clearly do so, but would have to cede economic independence (both fiscal and monetary) because rUK would be suicidal to accept anything less. We are seeing an economic and social lesson in this at present in the Eurozone, where fiscal and monetary policy have been divergent. The amount of economic independence ceded would invalidate most of the argument for independence, apart from the emotional one.
I'm crap at explaining and have missed out a lot - but my key point is that people are missing the point, as Salmond is intentionally capitalising on peoples' ignorance. A currency is NOT an asset in the sense he is putting across in the media, and he knows this. This is a horrendous betrayal of the Scottish electorate.
The more I read about this, the happier I am that whichever way the vote goes, Alex Salmond won't be in charge of the country I live in.
@bainbrge you have explained it perfectly well.
Sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom, if Scotland leaves the Uk it leaves Sterling. It may subsequently chose to adopt a Scottish Pound as it's currency (shadowing the British pound if the Scots wish) but that will be short lived as if it wishes to join the EU it must adopt the euro either immediately or as soon as it qualifies economically.
Has no one found the missing dollar yet?
Anyone would think that the government had not published papers explaining how currencies work!!!
It equally deceitful to try to pretend that what happened this week (he is mixing the coalition member's comments and the other comments cleverly) is unconstitutional. The basic fact that the fundamental asymmetries between Scotland and rUK rule out a currency union from the perspective of the rUK is neither unconstitutional nor bullying. It's just the basic facts.
but that will be short lived as if it wishes to join the EU it must adopt the euro either immediately or as soon as it qualifies economically.
Why do people keep repeating this? An independent Scotland would not be forced to use the Euro. It would be need to commit to using it, but it has every right to never meet those conditions.
An independent Scotland would not be forced to use the Euro.
From what I heard today that is exactly right.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the European Union.
I suppose he is bias as we all know how much the EU loves the UK government.
@whatnobeer - do you really think Scotland could join the EU and then bluff the financial tests to avoid joining the euro for ever ? I think you'd find the EU member states would require Scotland to join the euro immediately as a condition of membership and pay a healthy annual contribution into the EU. The SNP's whole argument is based around how "well off" Scotland would be as an independent country, that's not lost on the EU is it - pay up and you can join will be their response.
@winston - the EU's statements are helping the UK government here and hurting the Scot's arguments. The EU may well not "like" the UK government, they are just pointing out the facts.
EDIT: I suppose you (and the EU) could be saying that Scotland won't be forced to use the euro as they wouldn't be joining the EU
The pound is not a shared asset because it belonged to England before the union existed as did the bank of England. Scotland stopped using the pound Scot as agreed in the acts of union 1707. If you leave the union then you leave the pound sterling and the Bank of England behind as well. The contents of the Bank of England are another thing all together and I am sure a share would go to an independent Scotland.
Well said Athgray I understand now the UK governments of various colours over the last 60 years have made an excellent job of helping the most vulnerable people in society. I should of course realise that we are all in this together and accept the growing gap between rich and poor as it's for the best really. Westminster knows what's best for everyone. ......
Aye right 😉
EDIT: I suppose you (and the EU) could be saying that Scotland won't be forced to use the euro as they wouldn't be joining the EU
I was.
I am just waiting for the accusations of bullying by the EU from the Nats.
I must admit I'm surprised Salmond went for a currency union when there are the other options, such as a Scottish pound - which isn't exactly a new concept here.
I think he went into this hoping for exactly the reaction he has got, because it seems to have upset quite a few of the fence sitters who are now on the Yes side. This would certainly fit with his reputation for being canny (sort of like duplicitous, but in a beneficial way).
If Osbourne thought it would scare folk, it seems to have misfired, and now Salmond will have popular support for whatever currency he proposes.
[quote=bainbrge ]The amount of economic independence ceded would invalidate most of the argument for independence, apart from the emotional one.
I thought that was the main argument for independence anyway, so the yes camp hasn't lost a lot.
[quote=jambalaya ]@whatnobeer - do you really think Scotland could join the EU and then bluff the financial tests to avoid joining the euro for ever ? I think you'd find the EU member states would require Scotland to join the euro immediately as a condition of membership and pay a healthy annual contribution into the EU.
Well it's working just fine for Sweden doing that - there is no requirement to join the Euro immediately on joining the EU, simply when you meet the correct economic conditions (to do otherwise would be even more economically nonsensical than Germany and Greece sharing a currency). IIRC Sweden are adopting the tactic that one of the conditions is being a member of the ERM and that there is no requirement for them to join the ERM 🙂 . All a bit of a non issue in a way though, as I think Barroso is right - if we assume that Scotland have to rejoin (and if they don't then the Euro issue doesn't arise - well at least not so long as they retain sterling as currency 😆 ), then they're going to find it extremely difficult so long as Spain have the power of veto. If AS wants to convince people different on the latter point he's going to need Spain to make a statement on the issue, and I suspect AS will join the Conservative party first.
The idea that come the first day after a YES vote Scotland would be kicked out of the EU is ridiculous and as far as I can tell has no legal standing.
Any membership agreement would be negotiated from within the EU the same way as the agreement with the UK will be conducted whilst still a member.
do you really think Scotland could join the EU and then bluff the financial tests to avoid joining the euro for ever ?
They probably could if they wanted in a similar way to Sweden.
As for a Spanish Veto I can't imagine they would want to lose access to Scottish fishing waters for a start.
I think you'd find the EU member states would require Scotland to join the euro immediately as a condition of membership and pay a healthy annual contribution into the EU.
To be fair to the Cybernats, I don't accept this is true - there is certainly room for the EU to allow a temporary derogation giving a significant period of transition, however Scotland would still have to commit to joining the Euro in the future,
Stating publicly in advance that you are planning to deliberately avoid fulfilling the criteria to stay out of the Euro is [b]hardly[/b] the best negotiation tactic to take into the room when you're trying to get the agreement of all the other EU nations to grant you membership... At the same time, pledging that your intention to join the EU and therefore Euro means that any step you take with your currency in the short term is clearly an interim measure, was hardly condusive to encouraging the rUK to join into any meaningful fiscal union, therefore that has now been ruled out... So Salmond has firmly painted Scotland into a corner!
The idea that come the first day after a YES vote Scotland would be kicked out of the EU is ridiculous and as far as I can tell has no legal standing.
[u]You're not being kicked out - you're leaving[/u], don't you get it?
Just repeating that you think its ridiculous and has no legal standing isn't going to win you the argument when the president of the EU has [b]clearly[/b] stated that that's exactly what it involves!
(ps. Sweden is a pointless example regards the Euro, because, unlike Scotland, they're not applying for membership, they're already part of the club!)
[quote=whatnobeer ]The idea that come the first day after a YES vote Scotland would be kicked out of the EU is ridiculous and as far as I can tell has no legal standing.
Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. Which bit of independence don't you understand?
The idea that come the first day after a YES vote Scotland would be kicked out of the EU is ridiculous and as far as I can tell has no legal standing.
Your not getting kicked out, you are leaving the UK and therefore the EU. You will be a new nation state, which then will have to apply to join the EU. This has been confirmed by several sources.
Do you think he's got the message yet?
[quote=ninfan ](ps. Sweden is a pointless example regards the Euro, because, unlike Scotland, they're not applying for membership, they're already part of the club!)
Not totally meaningless, as they joined the EU in 1995, at which point newly joining countries were required to commit to take up the Euro, so not really so different to the situation Scotland would have. As you point out though the difficulty is that it's kind of hard to have a stated position of not intending to join the Euro when applying to join.
I understand perfectly thank you. The message in the media is that Scotland would have to negotiate from out with the EU as if we had been kicked out. Scotland would be a member until the date of independence in which time a membership timetable/agreement would be made.
This has been confirmed by several sources
Show me the legal advice form the EU that confirms that? It's not been given because it's not been asked for.
Nothing the EU president has said directly addresses the position or is official. legal advice, its personal opinion. He also wont be in the position when we get the point of the negotiations.
Using Scottish membership or non membership as a stick to beat us with is also hypocritical given the in/out referendum that is happening in a couple of years.
Here's the thing:
AS would have us all believe that everything is going to go smoothly, there'll be no hiccups & Scotland will be fine..
The reality of the situation is that AS is promising that which he CANNOT deliver on his own. He cannot just wave a magic wand & all will be fine & dandy.
We have had numerous & repeated rebuttals of AS's promises by prominent members of both HMG, EU & the BOE et al, who, & lets be honest, are the ones who really hold Scotland's future in their hands that this transition to independence isn't a foregone conclusion & that AS cannot promise that which he has no power to deliver.
If Scotland truly wants independence I think the best thing they can do is ditch AS!
Show me the legal advice form the EU that confirms that?
Do we really want to drag up the subject of legal advice?
However, since you ask, here's that constitutional law expert from the LSE again:
Show me the legal advice form the EU that confirms that? It's not been given because it's not been asked for.
In that case its evidential use in any argument is neutral then - relying on the absence of advice that doesn't exist as proof that Barosso is wrong is just silly!
Sheesh, will be interesting to see some new polls. Which I'm guessing will be soon. Wonder how many favours Westminster has been pulling in lately.
Jose in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scotland-admission-into-eu-may-be-impossible-1-3308359
Show me the legal advice form the EU that confirms that? It's not been given because it's not been asked for.
The EU in it's current form came about with the signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. This treaty makes no mention of the state of "Scotland". This treaty would have be changed to allow the entry of Scotland.
If you look back earlier in the thread there is a link to a video of a LSE Professor, who specialises in EU Law speaking to a government committee and he is quite clear about it.
gordimhor. You will not see me claiming Westminster is perfect. Far from it in fact. The fact that a significant number of people are about to vote to leave it, is evidence enough that politically work needs done to improve it.
I hold little regard for the views of those in England also with a "don't let the door hit your arse on the way out" attitude. I reckon it shows little regard for the UK as a whole. If they value the UK as an entity it is a bit like Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns. I don't wish to see any part break away from the UK, or an independent Scotland should the situation ever arise.
The widening gap between the rich and poor in the UK is regrettable, however many no voters care enough about the UK to think this is solvable short of turning a back on the issue.
The problem the no campaign have is convincing Scottish voters that an imperfect system where money is sometimes mis-spent, and bad decisions are made, is a better option than utopia. This can seem like an uphill task.
Scotland is going to be the first non-EU country whose citizens are EU citizens. Or is my EU citizenship going to be stripped from me when they prize my UK passport out of my hands?
The point there is that it is a UK passport - NOT a Scottish passport..
Article 20: Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship
Stop being a member state, stop being a citizen - easy enough!
Here's another thing though Mr Lebowski the UK government are the only ones who can ask for the definitive EU position and yet they haven't done so nor do they intend to do so. Funny that they can give clarity to the important market, yet not to the people of Scotland who are still at this point UK subjects.
I didn't hear Mr Carney say in his speech that a currency union was not possible.
Finally we'll just have to wait and see how Mr Osbornes intervention affects the referendum but there's some evidence that currency is not a major issue to many voters. For what it's worth I will be voting yes irrespective of what currency we end up with.
ben, that is a question you have to put Manuel Barosso. I imagine hard hits of reality pointed out by presidents of the European Commission are more difficult to swallow than the so called bullying of an unpopular tory chancellor.
That's fine - the currency issue, whether we join a Formal Union with an Independent Scotland appears to be quite the issue down here from what i'm hearing. I haven't met anyone whe disagrees with the position set out by the Party Leaders on this. What you do in Scotland after that statement is immaterial to the rest of us, we just don't want Formal Currency Union status.
we just don't want Formal Currency Union status.
A fair amount of people do though from what I can tell.
ben, that is a question you have to put Manuel Barosso. I imagine hard hits of reality pointed out by presidents of the European Commission are more difficult to swallow than the so called bullying of an unpopular tory chancellor.
Actually, yes, do that, and you can ask him a non leading question about the actual situation not one that appears to miss the point 😉
Again athgray I agree with a lot of what you say. Independence is just a step along the road to achieve a fairer country or better maybe to say independence is a tool and it's up to all of us to make the best use of it. Just raising the issue has perhaps caused people throughout the UK to look at Westminster again ( people of all political views and of none).However when you see things like the herald story "Yes does not mean Yes" you realise just how big a task it is to break up the Westminster circle. In my opinion the headline is a bit sensationalist but the story is still worrying.
Are those "fair amount of people" in the UK (as it will be) or Scotland though?
It's the UK's position that is vital, Scotland can huff and puff about the UK's position being unfair and bullying but that's the UK's position - that selff determination thing is a bitch isn't it?
Are those "fair amount of people" in the UK (as it will be) or Scotland though?
In the Uk. Scots who now live in England, those with family in Scotland and business owners who do business/trade with Scotland mostly.
A minority then. I haven't met anyone who is for such a Union and this is one of those incredibly rare times when people right across the political spectrum are united in opposition to the idea.
this is really funny scotland want to keep the pound the rest of the UK are SELF DETRMINING that we dont want you too .......deal with it
How about if Scotland self-determines that England doesn't get to keep the pound? The Bank of England was set up by a Scotsman after all 😉
Hasn't the great Salmond just tried that approach and had his bum slapped?
The problem the no campaign have is convincing Scottish voters that an imperfect system where money is sometimes mis-spent, and bad decisions are made, is a better option than utopia. This can seem like an uphill task.
Exactly this + 1. Far easier and seems much more exciting for the YES campaign to promise a shiny new Scotland, than for the NO's to say stick with it as it'll be better for all of us. Except the problem is that the YES campaigns promise of Utopia is now thoroughly starting to unravel. Ah well, let's just accuse anyone who dares to point out the facts as being great big bullies.
Alex Salmond recently chortled that point repeatedly during an interview on R4 ben. James Naughty shot him down though. "Yes Mr Salmond, you keep bandying that about like it actually has any relevance."
Dear leader was a bit more coy after that. "I was just saying like."
The Bank of England was set up by a Scotsman after all 😉
And, ahem, what did he go on to do after that? 😉
Ah well, let's just accuse anyone who dares to point out the facts as being great big bullies.
Except they're not really facts, they're political negotiating positions. There aren't really any facts in any of this.
Scotland would not have any say in how the currency of the continuing UK is used. Tax policy, interest rates, borrowing. All that, no control, no influence, nothing.
And not because of some kind of bullying conspiracy, but because the alternatives are even worse.
Ninfan He quit the board set up the Darien scheme and then went into hiding until he became an actor and starred in Comfort and Joy in 1984 😆
Ah well, let's just accuse anyone who dares to point out the facts as being great big bullies.
Except they're not really facts, they're political negotiating positions. There aren't really any facts in any of this.
This seems to have already discussed at length and I think the general consensus is that these are facts, as opposed to what's contained in the White Paper which would be a work of pure fiction that even the Brothers Grimm would have been proud of!
gordimhor, I have not read the "Yes does not mean yes article". Do we know who the source is? I can not see that being the case, and neither should it be. Alastair Darling who I reckon often appears timid and hapless was fairly bullish in interview today and said categorically that a Yes vote WILL mean independence.
A couple of unnamed sources - plus Baroness Jay:
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/yes-vote-no-guarantee-of-independence-1.223772
The name alludes me Athgray but it was Labour peer iirc, Baroness Jay or someone similar.
Have not seen Only an Excuse for a few years, but caught it this hogmany. Skip to 5:10 for a laugh. Don't know if Only an Excuse is shown in England, mainly about football, but oil and currency are covered so quite topical here.