[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Again,you ignore(as you have done from the start of this thread) why he can never claim to be impartial. Oil fund? yes that would have been a great idea,shame that in no small way he played a part in it never happening in the 70's.

"Never impartial"...... 😀 . A funny way to start the week, thanks! I guess the answer is still no then?

Sorry Ben, forget that source as a place to find the answer. What was I thinking to mention it's again? Crazy.....

I have read it,I have told you that on a number of occasions.Feel free to tell me how he can be considered impartial in any part of the independence debate.

True you know that bit in the introduction where he lays out his claims for impartiality (to the best that this can be achieved) - was he a liar 😉 ?

Still the "misrepresentation" of McCrone's position is nothing new. But to come back to ben's question, I guess his explanation of methods is neither good nor impartial enough. Where would you suggest that Ben looks?

As you know throughout the book, he addresses a number of key questions from different perspectives acknowledging where IHO the analysis is correct or not. As he says himself, there are points where he disagrees with the conclusions of the yS campaign, so perhaps he should be airbrushed from the debate? It wouldn't be the first time. But the fact that in each chapter he presents alternative arguments and assesses their pros and cons, make him a lot more readable and sensible as a source that plenty of other suggestions.

True you know that bit in the introduction where he lays out his claims for impartiality (to the best that this can be achieved) - was he a liar ?

Revisionist would be more polite.

On Banks.

I saw an interesting analysis of the situation in New Zealand. There all their large banks are now owned by Australian Banks. The authorities in NZ are very worried as history has shown that if there is a crises regulators and governments, quite naturally, only spend their tax payers money on supporting local (ie in country) banks. As such the NZ authorities are trying to force the Aussie banks to separately capitalise and incorporate their NZ subsidiaries. This is consistent with TMH's point above.

@Northwind on the euro I appreciate the arguments that the Yes supporters have made here, it's just I don't believe they have any merit. Let's wait and see.

[quote=jambalaya ]@Northwind on the euro I appreciate the arguments that the Yes supporters have made here, it's just I don't believe they have any merit. Let's wait and see.

It's not just the yes supporters in this case - quite a few of us on the other side (I'm sure I claimed to be impartial when this thread started, but I don't think I'll try that line now) also agree that in a practical sense there is no way that a country can be forced to join the Euro. There are a number of criteria which must be met before joining the Euro and no country can be forced to meet those criteria - to do otherwise would make the whole thing even more of a train crash than it is already. The only unique thing about the situation with iS is that presumably it would be joining the EU having expressed the intention not to join the Euro, which as I mentioned above would I think be unique - though almost certainly not sufficient to bar membership of the EU. Whether they get to join on the terms they'd like is another matter though...

..though almost certainly not sufficient to bar membership of the EU

Not complying with the Copenhagen criteria would be sufficient to bar membership of the EU.

The question is whether Scotland would be made an exception if it said it wasn't prepared to fully comply.

Jambalaya, this seems to be the trend with banks driven out of the UK. It seems to make sense to me. Obviously for their own interests RBS, HBOS and possibly the Asset managers (eg Aberdeen) have all the contingencies in place to show that they have the correct level of backing come the "wrong" decision :wink . But I think an iS would still want to have the local operations capitalised separately. Interesting experiment to see how the ROCE would differ between locations.

Who knows we may even have a watered down Vickers in place by then?

That's exactly the same situation as presently exist: if you're not locally capitalized, you don't get local government deposit guarantees. Nothing new there. You just make sure to have enough assets locally.

This is all a distraction: if Macedonia can have a competitive banking market with mostly foreign owned banks, then I think Scotland can too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

@aracer - all countries now joining the EU have to commit to take the euro and to present a plan as to how they will meet the criteria. If an iS is to be as rich as the SNP says it will have to take it straight away. I do not believe for a second the EU will allow iS to sneak in on the basis of the "we are already a member" nonsense and keep the shadow pound or whatever. Also as debated earlier there is long line of countries waiting to join the EU, if Scotland is to jump the queue it will have to "pay up" in many regards, the euro I believe is just one of those. There must be a chance that the UK is negotiating an EU exit before an iS has formally been created.

@Northwind - I may be opinionated but I am not a troll, if I post something it's because I believe it, even if that view may appear misguided to others.

we have dont this debate before - not even all that long ago.
I forget who posted and which EU politician they quoted [ president] There are currently members who have agreed to the principle but are not actually trying to join and wont have to until the electorate vote to join so iS will be no different - they commit to it but do not have to do it.

We are going round in circles here

I do not believe for a second the EU will allow iS to sneak in on the basis of the "we are already a member"

Its the EU - and I assume THM will agree here, give the fudge they did to ensure the Euro there is nothing they wont /cannot do.

@Junkyard, but why would the EU fudge anything for a country of 5m people ? Particularly after Greek debacle. The requirements for joining have changed. Existing members got in before the rules changed, so they have their fudge. I think the only thing Scotland has to offer the EU is money, they have to make a significant contribution to the annual budget. The members who have joined recently eg Poland, Bulgaria, Romania they offer large populations and the politically motivated expansion of the EU to the East.

Anyway I appreciate you may have done this debate before. Most of what's being gone over here has been done before in the thread.

Aye it has

The interesting one is the citizens of scotland - currently EU citizens - as far as I am aware there are no rules re stripping them of citizenship so they could [ surely whether you like the EU we can all agree to this] literally make up any old shit they like.
If they are prepared to ignore referenduums on the constitution this is nothing.
personally nothing the Eu does surprises me

jambalaya - Member

@aracer - all countries now joining the EU have to commit to take the euro and to present a plan as to how they will meet the criteria. If an iS is to be as rich as the SNP says it will have to take it straight away.

I've never called you a troll 😕 But I will say, this post shows a basic lack of understanding. There is no possibility of Scotland "having" to take the euro straight away- in fact there's no possibility of Scotland even being eligible to take the euro straight away, if we wanted to, we don't meet the basic criteria (obviously impossible for a new nation to have been a member of ERM2 for 2 years).

So it requires both that the EU does a complete about turn and starts forcing countries to join the Euro, and also that they throw out the qualifying criteria and let countries take the Euro regardless of economic suitability. The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane.

Have a number of countries just not met the criteria for the euro,and has that been part of the post Greek tightening up by any chance?

The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane

So it requires both that the EU does a complete about turn and starts forcing countries to join the Euro, and also that they throw out the qualifying criteria and let countries take the Euro regardless of economic suitability. The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane.

That argument goes both ways though - the Scottish alternative involves the entire EU, all 28 nations, all but two of whom have either joined or had to commit to joining the Euro as part of the deal, turning round with open arms and allowing Scotland to join while openly stating from the outset they have no intention of doing it. Frankly I think thats a pipe dream, if nothing else due to the precedent it sets for future countries who might want to join.

Zulu are you familiar with saying one thing and doing another 😉

Its a bit late for that isn't it Junky?

Subterfuge only usually works if you don't publicly announce it first 🙂

he is probably hoping no one can understand his accent

Aye fair point

ninfan - Member

Frankly I think thats a pipe dream, if nothing else due to the precedent it sets for future countries who might want to join.

The precedent of being in the EU with no intention of joining the Euro is already established, and the EU's attitude to that is uncomplicated- ain't care. (to the extent of appointing an ex-swedish leader president of the EU) Sweden of course is still committed to joining the euro, some day not now, and the exact same option applies to all other new EU members- "commit" to take the euro when it suits you.

The Scottish Government's position isn't that Scotland will never join the euro, and that's an important distinction- it's the same situation that most of the existing non-Euro EU members are in- either no current plan to join, or very longterm "intentions" with no obvious movement towards it. Fully a quarter of the EU are in the same position.

duckman - Member
Have a number of countries just not met the criteria for the euro,and has that been part of the post Greek tightening up by any chance?

Isn't the more important or relevant question - Has any country ever met either entry or Maastricht criteria. Not even those well behaved Germans did that, the French didn't and the Italians simply cheated. As for the Greeks, with a little help from Goldman Sachs they really took the piss. But chickens ultimately come home to roost.

The incentive for the EU to fudge matters is much higher when we are talking about countries that are openly trying to integrate themselves with a bigger union. Scotland is doing the opposite with obvious knock on effects elsewhere. Hard to imagine that encouraging our friends in Europe to bend over backwards!

YS is clear on its ultimate intention to be part of the EU. Another irony - another example that independence in economic policy is not a desire despite the rhetoric. Definitely an African elephant with ears that big.

The interesting one is the citizens of scotland - currently EU citizens - as far as I am aware there are no rules re stripping them of citizenship so they could

teamhurtmore - Member

The incentive for the EU to fudge matters is much higher when we are talking about countries that are openly trying to integrate themselves with a bigger union. Scotland is doing the opposite

Er, no it's not, it's doing exactly that. It doesn't want some elements of the integration but that's a million miles away from "the opposite of integration". The opposite of integration is, well, having a referendum about leaving I suppose. Or, Scotland not joining the EU. Or, resisting Scotland joining the EU. But joining the union? No.

We have done the argument about Europe about three times now. Why are the no posters so adamant that Scotland wont join,especially as there is a large movement in their country to have the UK leave?
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg was in Scotland yesterday telling us about our increased devolved powers. Good of him,but somehow I don't see him being in any position to grant them much after the vote,no matter which way it goes. Anyway McCrone suggests we will see no more devolved powers after a no vote,so to keep his fanboy happy and based on the pasting we got in 79,I will go with ignoring Clegg( Scots name for those evil flesh eating horsefly's BTW)

It doesn't want some elements of the integration

Euphemism of the day! 😉

Now I know there is a big difference between what is being voted for and what even the SNP actually wants - but you have to recognise the stark divergence between a nation that wants independence from a union in order to have freedom to take control over its own decisions (cough, but leave that aside) and the EU which is clearly moving towards higher levels of integration including in time full fiscal and monetary union. The future EU will not be a trade zone and history has proven that it cannot be a currency union without being a fiscal one too.

So irrespective of how many oatcakes AS wants to have and eat, this basic fact (elephant) remains. Cherry picking the pros and ignoring the cons simply won't work with EU as the rUK will ultimately find out. The status quo in Europe is clearly unsustainable as Draghi's sticking plaster will last only so long.

But as I have said before and irrespective of any of the above, there is something very odd about wanting to a leave a union that largely satisfies the requirements of a union to join one that doesn't - unless the "real" underlying motive is basically an anti-English one 😉 Nothing else makes sense, but then again nothing new there.

teamhurtmore - Member

you have to recognise the stark divergence between a nation that wants independence from a union in order to have freedom to take control over its own decisions (cough, but leave that aside) and the EU which is clearly moving towards higher levels of integration including in time full fiscal and monetary union.

No, I really don't. This idea of "absolutely everything independent or you're not independent at all" is a curious one and it's one that seems to be held exclusively by No people. Scotland doesn't want to declare independence from the world, it's not a James Blish novel.

The obvious counterargument's been put forward many times- if Scotland in the EU isn't meaningfully independent, then the UK isn't meaningfully independent, nor any other EU state. The only way the argument really makes sense is if you want to take the UK out of the EU entirely. Or go fully integrated- because if being in Europe at all means you have no meaningful independence, why not go the whole hog?

In either case- what better proof of meaningful independence could there be? The decision to apply to the EU or not, and thereafter to stay or to go, will be one for Scotland to make.

This. Biggest threat to my business at the moment is that one union we're in (the UK) will take us out of another union (the EU). Without Scottish independence, there's nothing we can do about that - we're stuck with whatever the rest of the UK wants. With independence, we can decide for ourselves.

This argument that Scotland can't be independent and want to be in the EU is like someone saying you can't be an independent person and decide to get married. It's being free to choose that matters.

It's really not that curious - and I am not suggesting that anyone has "full" independence obviously - but AS cannot argue that he wants full power over all instruments of economic policy for an iS and then argue that he wants to remain part of a currency union with either rUK or EU. They are contradictory objectives that are incompatible. To be part of any union required a ceding of independence and sovereignty. This is the clearest message of all.

He would be much more honest to say - we want to introduce an S£ within an appropriate timeframe and will accept the pros and the cons that go with that choice. At least some in the SNP and yS are honest enough to say that up front, of course there are risks with such a policy but independence comes with those risks. Simple.

Edit for x-post. Remember JM Keynes Ben - "he who controls the currency, controls the country" - as true now as it was when he said it.

teamhurtmore - Member

It's really not that curious - and I am not suggesting that anyone has "full" independence obviously - but AS cannot argue that he wants full power over all instruments of economic policy for an iS and then argue that he wants to remain part of a currency union with either rUK or EU. They are contradictory objectives that are incompatible.

Nope. Because one of the reasons to control these is to be able to make our own decisions of what to do with them. Being part of the EU and ceding some control is a policy decision in itself. Independence gives us that power, which we currently lack. And, critically, it gives us the power to take that back, if that becomes desirable.

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

FWIW I would imagine an independent Scotland would definitely want to be in the EU. Agreed it would be for an iS to decide whether it wanted to apply to join.

@ben - so your business can make an argument that it wishes to be in the EU, the question is how much is it willing to pay to join, not directly but via a contribution made by an iS and its the taxpayers money (yours) iS are spending and whether you would want the euro. As you know I don't think iS can have one without the other.

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

That's why I said it was a rough analogy.

bencooper - Member

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

Even if that was a good analogy it'd still be pretty tasteless...

I like strained analogies. It's more like driving. At the moment, we're in the back seat of a big family car, we can influence the direction a little but in the end, it's going where dad chooses. Post independence, we're driving a smaller car. We can go where we want, within the restraints of the road. We can listen to our passengers, follow another car, or drive onto a train to the continent and go where it's headed. We can even hand over the keys to someone else and let them drive. But we can always take the keys back. And if we want, we can get high and drive the wrong way down the motorway, but we probably won't.

Some might say, we're not passengers, we're locked in the boot 😉

That's pretty tasteless to anyone who's been kidnapped 😉

Okay, forget the analogies. It's simply a matter of do we want to decide for ourselves whether we're in the EU, or do we want it decided by a parliament over which we have little influence - and which is being driven by UKIP.

What AS is telling you you'll get

[img] [/img]

What you think you're getting

[img] [/img]

What you're actually getting

[img] [/img]

This thread has taken a turn for the better 🙂 (ps that was a poor pun)

@northwind - you elect MPs to Westminster, the Labour party have had a couple of Scottish leaders and a PM. You have your own parliament and many of your own laws. You seem to me to have a great deal of input into where you are headed. If that isn't enough to satisfy you given all the benefits you get from being part of the Union then you should leave.

@ben I'd be quite surprised if the anti EU support in Scotland was much different than it is in the UK.

Properly understood there's no such thing as standalone EU citizenship, just citizenship of a state that is an EU member. If you're a UK citizen today but stop being a UK citizen tomorrow, you don't carry on being an EU citizen (unless you have citizenship of another EU state).

I have seen it argued either way as there is no definitive law/rules regarding this.

I accept your view makes most sense but we are talking about the EU here.

NW the driving analogy has made this thread worthwhile - genuine laughter from me Chapeau

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/policy-primers/uk-eu-citizenship-and-free-movement-persons
"Who determines who is a citizen of the Union?"

Northwind, in your reply earlier to thm, are you suggesting that Scotland has to become independent so that on a currency union we can make a decision to allow the UK to make deciscions for us, except as things stand the UK will not want to make decisions based on our decision?

@Junkyard have you seen it argued Scotlands way by anyone from the EU and I don't mean a Scottish person at the EU, I mean someone independent ideally senior ?

FWIW I think Citizen of the Union is just marketing spin by politicians. The EU doesn't issue passports etc, it's not a country you can be a citizen of.

Excuse me if this sounds discriminatory but I have this image of an irate kilted Scotsman clinging on to his EU citizenship papers screaming "you'll not take what's rightfully mine away from me sonny"

Excuse me if this sounds discriminatory

Is that the posh way of saying "I'm not racist, but..."?