Osbourne says no to currency union.

Home Forum Chat Forum Osbourne says no to currency union.

Viewing 40 posts - 2,601 through 2,640 (of 12,715 total)
  • Osbourne says no to currency union.
  • Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    I think the SNP have nailed their colours a bit to the mast on trident… And it’s definitely something that scottish people desire. Personally i’d be happy with a land lease scheme, as long as I’m not paying for the thing or taking responsibility for it, but a lot of people aren’t.

    What is still on the table though is timescales- even the SNP can still negotiate a long withdrawal, and that could easily be the lifespan of Trident. The replacement will want revised infrastructure anyway so it turns a large part of that from a relocation cost into a repurposing cost which would have existed anyway. Not to mention taking the rush out of things.

    Politically it’s got to be difficult for the UK to continue to pretend to be an independent nuclear superpower while unable to host their own weapons or fleet, mind, not to mention that it’d effectively become a subsidy to Scotland’s economy. But these become effectively arguments against replacing trident at all rather than arguments against basing Trident in Scotland- an argument already won up here.

    ninfan
    Member

    What is still on the table though is timescales- even the SNP can still negotiate a long withdrawal, and that could easily be the lifespan of Trident.

    Seemingly not – according to the Guardian report of the Sky News interview, Alex has said today

    “We have said unambiguously Trident will have to be removed in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland. That is not up for negotiation”.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/30/alex-salmond-pound-threat-demolished-minister-currency-scottish-no

    Now – thats not actually true of course, what they said in the white paper was that they would make an agreement on the safe removal of trident “This would be with with a view to the removal of Trident within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence”

    I have no doubt that Alex ‘misspoke’ however he seems to have just painted himself into a corner by making another commitment over and above that in the white paper, and one that is going to be bloody difficult to find a way out of!

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    So he has, good spot. What a bellend, he’s gained nothing by that either.

    (I like Alistair Carmichael’s comments at the bottom btw, yes the poor impoverished No campaign with the entire national media and UK government behind them…)

    ninfan
    Member

    This is a big cock up, because that comment is going to come back on him with more detailed analysis in the coming weeks!

    edit: you’re right – no gain whatsoever, I can only put it down to either overconfidence or sheer arrogance, but that was just sloppy!

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Mind you in the richter scale of cockups, it doesn’t even register compared to government ministers admitting that currency union is on the cards and that the government’s so happy to lie to everyone. That goes right to the heart- and is doubly corrosive since so many people already believed it was the case.

    But it’s stupid anyway, since at the moment they’re doing a good enough job of hanging themselves.

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Subscriber

    Northwind – Member
    I think the SNP have nailed their colours a bit to the mast on trident… And it’s definitely something that scottish people desire. Personally i’d be happy with a land lease scheme, as long as I’m not within 5,000 miles of it

    Fixed it. šŸ™‚

    Don’t like being a nuclear target or on top of nuclear waste being dumped into our water.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    epicyclo wrote:

    Don’t like being a nuclear target

    Were you not paying attention further up the thread when it was pointed out to you that the base for the Trident subs (which could actually be anywhere in the world and don’t need to return there for months) isn’t actually a target.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Kind of a moot point, if it gets to the point where people are throwing nuclear weapons around to the extent that the UK’s a target we’re all ****ed, it doesn’t matter that much whether you’re ****ed in the fireball or ****ed in the aftermath really. Probably cooler to burn out than to fade away šŸ˜‰

    Though having said that Faslane was a designated USSR nuclear target. The reason the trident replacement wants 4 subs is because that’s the minimum required to keep 1 on patrol at all times (there is some suggestion that 3 is adequate) but the bases are still certainly targets.

    dragon
    Member

    Faslane will stay the Yanks will be involved as mentioned above and will want it to stay. easy to get around the country issue you just designate it rUK sovereign territory as happens plenty with military bases elsewhere.

    piemonster
    Member

    All this talk of nukes really just reminds of what a total, and utter bunch of ******* we as a species can be.

    ninfan
    Member

    Though having said that Faslane was a designated USSR nuclear target.

    True, though its worth commenting that even without the Vanguard class submarines (trident carrying) that Alex and his mates want rid of, Then Faslane would still be a target for the Vanguard subs that they are happy to keep

    Oh, and for the FOGB huge NATO armaments depot where they store the conventional weapons that Alex is keen to keep, and the huge NATO fuel depot, and the other NATO fuel depots to the north, and the deep water jetties, and lets not forget the great big long runways that would be used to stage aircraft to defend the GIUK gap, or the radar stations, or the Clyde shipyards…

    Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

    All this talk of nukes really just reminds of what a total, and utter bunch of ******* we as a species can be.

    Why? Kill us, we kill you – perfectly balanced, Europe has been torn apart by war after war after war for centuries, we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!

    gordimhor
    Member

    List of wars in Europe during the post-WW2 periodGreek Civil WarĀ (Greece)Basque ConflictĀ (Spain and France)The TroublesĀ (UK and Ireland)Invasion of CzechoslovakiaĀ (USSR)Ten-Day WarĀ (Slovenia vs. Yugoslavia)Croatian War of IndependenceĀ (Croatia vs. Yugoslavia)East Prigorodny ConflictĀ (North Ossetia vs. Russia)Ā (Transnitria vs. Moldavia)Bosnian WarĀ (Bosnia vs. Yugoslavia)Albanian RebellionWar of DagestanSecond Chechen War

    :

    Suez CrisisĀ (UK and France)Ā (France and Spain)Bizerte crisisĀ (France)Angolan War of IndependenceĀ (Portugal)Dhofar RebellionĀ (UK)Mozambican War of IndependenceĀ (Portugal)Shaba IĀ andĀ IIĀ (France and Belgium)Falklands WarĀ (UK)Afghanistan War

    t hasn’t been all that peaceful ninfan

    Junkyard
    Member

    He mentioned Africa etc

    He used an example of a small country bullying a larger one and he used a wink to indicate he was sarcastically negating your point about small countries not bullying large ones. to discuss whether scotland was involved, was better or worse is irrelevant as small country bullied a larger one hence woosh.

    Hey I can handle Scotland saying no to Trident Can you not handle us saying no to a currency union?

    You need to remove your us and them, I am not voting in this and reside in england.

    the UK is declining an offer and AS is make a threat in return.

    repeating this will not make it true. Is he not decling your offer of taking on some debt? legally it is no this so its a choice he declines.
    rUK declines currency when asked iS declines debt when asked…..where is the difference here beyond you agreeing with one and not the other? I get it that you cannot see they are the same thing,IMHO due to your bias, so shall we leave it now?

    I also agree AS was foolish there as it is obvious that both cock ups are pretty big. He needs to be able to negotiate his way out of his current position and that level of entrenchment is not helpful. Still he seems a skilled politician so reversing his position should come easy to him.

    we only found peace when war became too horrific to contemplate!

    I thought it only ended when brave Thatcher and Regan brought the iron curtain to its knees šŸ˜‰
    I dont disagree with your point tbh

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    ninfan – Member

    Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

    Only Aracer.

    But it’s beside the point; most people object to Trident and more so the Trident replacement because it’s a big sick joke, a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.

    ninfan
    Member

    it hasn’t been all that peaceful Ninfan

    Yes, and 1968 was the only year without a British serviceman dying on active service somewhere in the world!

    But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before, five million in the Napoleonic wars, 16 million plus in WW1, 30 million plus in WW2, repeated millions in other repeated wars over the same soil. The wars quoted aren’t between nuclear powers, which have become the great leveller.

    a multi-billion pound white elephant that by definition you must never use.

    While one side has it, so must the other – its not something that can be uninvented and even if there were none now, the first thunder of any major war would see the race build them.

    Junkyard Africa is a continent and not a country.

    You need to remove your us and them, I am not voting in this and reside in england.

    A referendum would be needed for a currency union and I would be voting against that. Why should the UK be the lender of last resort to iScotland? I wish an independent Scotland all the best but would not want the UK to have the responsibility of bailing Scotland out should things go wrong. If the majority of Scots want independence then I respect their decision, the majority of people in the UK do not want a currency union with an iScotland, can you not respect that?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    ninfan wrote:

    Does anyone seriously think for one second that Scotland would be off the target list if everything went mushroom shaped?

    Surely they must be targetting Sir BS of Eck, and if not can’t we subscribe him?

    Northwind wrote:

    Only Aracer.

    I was simply suggesting that it wouldn’t be targetted because of having nuclear strike capability given the strike capability isn’t there (and by the time any boats sailed it would all be well over), happy to accept it might be a target for other reasons, and the presence or absence of the Trident subs doesn’t really make any difference to whether you’re likely to be killed in a nuclear strike if you live nearby.

    junkyard wrote:

    Is he not decling your offer of taking on some debt? legally it is no this so its a choice he declines.
    rUK declines currency when asked iS declines debt when asked…..where is the difference here beyond you agreeing with one and not the other?

    The significant difference is that the debt ties in with the real assets – the ones which are tradeable – the ones which Sir BS would like a share of, and not all of which are located in Scotland, so he has to negotiate if he wants any of those. That and the Edinburgh agreement means that rUK actually holds all the cards if iS tries asking for anything which isn’t seen to be in the best interests of rUK. The other difference is that there is a quite clear moral reason for iS to take on some of the debt, not doing so has other consequences for them.

    konabunny
    Member

    But nothing on even begins to compare with the levels of turmoil seen in Europe in the years before

    MAD didn’t stop “turmoil” from happening, it just displaced it to Soviet-NATO proxy wars in the third world. The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos compares with WW2 quite easily.

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    The carpet bombing of Vietnam and Laos wasn’t by proxy though. The United States were quite prepared to bomb third world countries directly themselves.

    Junkyard
    Member

    The significant difference is that I dont like Sir BS of eck

    FTFY

    What do you mean the Edinburgh agreement?
    It is available here and i see nothing in it that says rUK holds all you say – its just a document about the actual referendum – ie how to conduct it

    Is it something different you are referring to? Have I missed something skimming it?

    It does contain this gem as the final paragraph

    The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed,
    through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

    You can see this happening before your very eyes currently never mind at negotiations/bullying.

    bencooper
    Member

    That’s just common sense really – there isn’t any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it’s not like the UK doesn’t already buy military kit from other countries.

    sbob
    Member

    bencooper – Member

    It really doesn’t help the way everyone (especially the mainstream media) confuse a currency union with “keeping the pound”. We’re keeping the pound, no-one can stop us

    If you knew what plan B was all along then why didn’t you tell us?

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    fasternotfatter – Member

    A referendum would be needed for a currency union

    Says who?

    piemonster
    Member

    That’s just common sense really – there isn’t any yard in the rUK where they could be built, and it’s not like the UK doesn’t already buy military kit from other countries.

    Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.

    duckman
    Member

    Hello,been in Albion with a bunch of pupils. Have l missed much since Thursday? šŸ˜›

    piemonster
    Member

    No, it’s exactly the same bickering. But the poo being flung around is a slightly different tone of brown.

    bencooper
    Member

    Short to medium term, yes. Long term, I doubt it.

    I’m not so sure – the UK doesn’t manufacture it’s own explosives and propellants much any more, the big ordnance factories like Bishopton were closed down and they are now made in South Africa. Surely the MoD would just invite tenders from any company capable of building ships?

    The concept that the UK should be in control of the manufacture of it’s defence hardware went out the window years ago.

    whatnobeer
    Member

    Nice to see what some of us have been saying for a long time come out in the press, firstly on the currency point and secondly on the point of ship building contracts etc. I wonder how much other stuff will come out in the next few months.

    piemonster
    Member

    Don’t buy it sorry. Politics will come into play and what’s best will eventuallygo out the window. It’ll be a while before the MOD needs another super carrier, by which time the Clyde May well not be fit for purpose. If Scotland wants a sustainable ship building I believe it needs to look beyond the MOD.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Bear in mind Scotland will have a significant defence budget and no Trident to pay for… The SNP plan is to be building 4 T26s (or equivalent) frinstance as well as smaller boats. That’s a significant amount of work but less than UK procurement is expected to provide.

    The talk of “not building abroad” is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn’t currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they’ll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)

    But it’s not that simple- yes there’s political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we’d likely do badly. There’s a reason UK military shipyards aren’t building tons of ships for other nations.

    What complicates that is that T26 was designed as an inside job for production in the UK, so Scotstoun is still going to be an excellent place to build them. But frankly for the rUK it’ll probably make more sense just to buy FREMM, one of the reasons for doing it solo is to keep it inhouse.

    duckman
    Member

    So now there is a bit of a split on the “Osborne says no” starting point of the this thread,and from “dahn sarf” as welL…Can anybody tell me where THM has gone? I mean,he may be a slow eater but… šŸ˜€

    piemonster
    Member

    He’s still eating his tea

    konabunny
    Member

    He’ll have had his tea.

    piemonster
    Member

    But it’s not that simple- yes there’s political bullshit and blatant lies here, but weirdly they might conceal a simpler truth, which is that an independent Scotland would have to compete on relatively even terms with the rest of the world for these contracts, and we’d likely do badly. There’s a reason UK military shipyards aren’t building tons of ships for other nations.

    Pretty much sums it up for me. Its either a highly politicized decision, or your competing with far better shipyards. Or some ungodly mix of the two.

    The talk of “not building abroad” is nonsense, UK does lots of defence procurement abroad, including shipbuilding- the last River classes were built in Thailand frinstance. And I think that with the closure of Portsmouth, the rUK doesn’t currently have a military yard that can build T26s. (BAe seem to believe they’ll be building T26s in Scotland come what may)

    I was pretty clear that mid term ships will continue to be built, but long term. Nothing I’ve seen gives me confidence that an iScotland will retain shipbuilding. It needs to move away from the MOD. And I’m not sure that comparing a Super carrier with a river class boat is that sensible. Small things like that aren’t very political, Flag Ships are. And the last thing BAE is, is free from politics.

    Premier Icon michaelbowden
    Subscriber

    Why is it the Yes supporters are quite happy to accept the anonymous UK Government source that said currency union is still on the table but not happy to accept the named Scottish source who said that keeping Trident in Scotland is still on the table in exchange for currency union?

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Think it’s largely context. For the SNP at least it’s been an absolutely central point right from day 1. Before day 1 in fact. Whereas the “no currency union” thing is something that seemed to conveniently appear from nowhere at a convenient point in the campaign and was widely doubted even before the leak. So it’s on shakier ground in the first place, so calling it into doubt takes more easily.

    But I am a Yes supporter and perfectly happy that a deal can be made on trident. The best case scenario for that is that we stop paying for it, we stop being responsible for it, but we still get the economic boost- principles aside that’s a total win for scotland and still a win for the rUK too. But it is a point of principle for many. Unfortunately! And a full on political commitment for some.

    It’s one of the things I’d hoped might be a spin-out from the referendum, that it’d kickstart debate on Trident replacement nationally. (it’s still to be hoped that post-independance the ruk cans the whole thing tbh).

    whatnobeer
    Member

    I’m with Northwind on this one. Mt issue with Trident is the cost rather than the fact that they’re nuclear subs. I’d be reasonably happy with a compromise of letting rUK have Faslane in return for things I personally see as more important.

    duckman
    Member

    Another vote for giving up Faslane. I think a lot of the English adopt the idea that Scots hate them and that is why we are apparently cutting our noses off to spite our pusses,a convenient train of thought. It isn’t about that for the majority of us and a common interest in Faslane will force us to remain close. I will also think more kindly of Westminster if don’t pay for Trident.

    bencooper
    Member

    Retaining Faslane long-term is not going to work – would the rUK government really be happy having their independent nuclear deterrent under the control of Scotland?

    Because whenever Scotland wanted, we could cut off supplies, cut off power, blockade the port, any number of things. Not saying we would, but it’s a possibility that no sensible government would take with such an important strategic asset.

Viewing 40 posts - 2,601 through 2,640 (of 12,715 total)

The topic ‘Osbourne says no to currency union.’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top