Forum menu
I'm disappointed to hear that your commitment to Scottish Freedom doesn't appear to take up much of your time.
Nah, I just know there's not much point discussing it on here 😉
Much more fun discussing it in person.
Not head much from the Irish tbh. I'd be interested in any other articles worth reading.
This one doesn't say all that much tbh.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/irish-seem-lost-for-words-on-scottish-independence-1.1869769
It doesn't exactly take long to look at Twitter occasionally, and copy-and-paste anything here that seems interesting.
Twitter is only as good as those you follow.
Google alerts is also handy.
Is Scotland currently independent? Its not and it is currently a member of the EU as is it is part if the UK.
you need to get this through your skull: Scotland is not a member of the EU. The EU has 28 members. Scotland is not one of them.
You might confuse yourself less if you use the terminology "member states". You will then look at the [url= http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm ]list [/url]of member states of the EU, and see that Scotland isn't on there; and then you will realise that not only is Scotland not a member state of the EU, but it cannot be a member state of the EU because it isn't a state.
Scotland is [i]geographically [/i]within the EU in the same way that Alton Towers is within the EU. But Alton Towers is not an EU member. Neither is Thorpe Park. (Center Parcs is seems continental, though, at least from the reviews on Mumsnet).
[img] 
[/img]
On the Twitter front, a musician I follow has seriously disappointed me this weekend - comparing the relationship between Scotland & England directly to the situation in Gaza 🙁
Its very disappointing to find your musical heroes to be somewhat facile & hard of thinking.
Twitter, literally a self selecting medium.
Pros and cons to it really. But the flaws are very real.
you need to get this through your skull: Scotland is not a member of the EU. The EU has 28 members. Scotland is not one of them.
Scotland is currently a non-independent country part of a union that's a member of the EU, and whose population are EU citizens.
It's a unique situation. Unique situations require unique solutions, and a sensible one will be negotiated.
Twitter, literally a self selecting medium.Pros and cons to it really. But the flaws are very real.
Absolutely - I do follow Better Together as well, but there's always the risk that you get self-referential and everyone just starts quoting each other,
It's a unique situation.
in what sense is it unique?
bencooper - Member"I'm disappointed to hear that your commitment to Scottish Freedom doesn't appear to take up much of your time."
Nah, I just know there's not much point discussing it on here
Yes I had noticed how you can't be bothered discussing Scottish independence "on here". 🙂
.
in what sense is it unique?
That's a very easy one. It's unique because as Alex Salmond points none of the rules which would normally apply need to be applied to Scotland.
EU membership, NATO commitments, currency union, cause difficulties and awkward questions to be asked ? Don't worry Scotland because is special, and anyone who says differently is just been completely "negative".
In fact Scotland is so different that after it becomes "independent" it will be able to cut taxes and increase public spending, presumably after Alex Salmond has waved his magic wand. And again if anyone suggests differently then they are just being negative.
It's a unique situation. Unique situations require unique solutions, and a sensible one will be negotiated.
This will be very interesting to see - Personally I think Scotland should be independent, but I don't think they have a cat in hells chance of joining the eu as Spain will veto it, due to the catelan and basque issues
[quote=ernie_lynch ]In fact Scotland is so different that after it becomes "independent" it will be able to cut taxes and increase public spending, presumably after Alex Salmond has waved his magic wand. And again if anyone suggests differently then they are just being negative.
I just got defriended by TJ for pointing that one out to him 🙁
Oh well, AS and his worthy advisers (Stiglitz, Mirlees etc) now have the final chance to put things straight. The Scottish affairs select committee has just pronounced the idea of a CU as a 'dead parrot.'
They conclude that no present or future government could enter a CU without destroying their political and economic credibility.
“The committee also believes that such clarity is necessary: not only because a joint currency would be against the best interests of both the continuing United Kingdom and a separate Scotland, but also because the people of Scotland deserve to know before the referendum what the true consequence of their vote might be,” the MPs said.
Quite. They must have been reading this thread.
Not surprisingly, a spokesman for AS dismissed their findings! Common Alex, time to earn you money and show us plan D!
But Ian Davidson, the Labour chair of the committee, said there would definitely be no union: “No ifs, no buts, no fudges, no deals”. That had been firmly stated by the leadership of the UK’s three main political parties. “There is no shadow of doubt. All were unequivocal,” he said. “The Scottish government tries to give the impression that a currency union is still a possibility. It is not. This parrot is dead.”
They really have been reading this thread....
[b]In such a situation, a separate Scotland's interest rates and key aspects of its public finances, tax and spending choices would be decided by a Government and in a Parliament where Scotland was no longer represented.[/b]
Be careful what you wish/vote for!!!!
More snake oil anyone?
EDIT:
MY BOLDIn such a situation, a separate [b]Scotland's interest rates[/b] and key aspects of its public finances, tax and spending choices [b]would be decided by a Government and in a Parliament[/b] where Scotland was no longer represented.
I am not an economists but could you remind the class exactly how the Uk interest rates are set?
I was labouring under the misconception that it was set by the Bank of england who were completely independent of government and had been since 1998. is this really not the case? If you could forgive the troll and answer the question I would be delighted to read your clarification as it appears you have quoted an inaccuracy that you would consider a lie were AS to do it.
It would seem you do indeed have some snake oil to peddle.
Go on insult your way out of that one THM whilst not explaining the role of MPC to the class. Thi is exactly what you moan at AS for doing and you are informed enough to know exactly how interest rates are set and you know it is not by parliament
I believe you would call the committee report politically motivated were it not for the fact that you agree with with those no voters from west minister saying what they think about the referenduum.
I would also have thought the report was Ultra vires given their remit but lets ignore that bit.
you need to get this through your skull: Scotland is not a member of the EU*. The EU has 28 members. Scotland is not one of them.
That is true scotland is not a member state the UK is. However Scotland is a member of the UK.
If scotland was not in the EU [ by virtue of being in the UK] then people born in scotland are not EU citizens and when you went there you would not be in the EU. That is clearly not the case because it is in the EU.
Using your argument if the EU signed a treaty[ on behalf of all the members] your argument would be that the UK is not part of it as the EU signed it and the UK is not named on the list. Its not a great argument.
I think Ben is correct in that it is unique in the sense a current part of the EU will stop being a member and need to reapply /apply for membership. So far all they have had is new countries, not currently part of the EU, apply [ and East Germany via unification.
I also think it is correct that the Spanish are likely to be the main obstacle but I bet the EU can find a fudge through that somehow if they will it.
I am not an economists but could you remind the class exactly how the Uk interest rates are set?
I was labouring under the misconception that it was set by the Bank of England who were completely independent of government and had been since 1998. is this really not the case?
A political decision made by the UK parliament, The 1998 Bank of England Act, Scotland would have no say in in the appointment of members of the MPC, in the target inflation rate, or whether the constitution, function or role of the MPC changed in the future.
Essentially, its entirely a creation of the UK parliament, and therefore remains entirely under UK government control.
[quote=Junkyard ]I was labouring under the misconception that it was set by the Bank of england who were completely independent of government and had been since 1998.
Well kind of. The decisions they make are completely independent, the target they are required to meet is set by government.
Though I suppose in the context of an "independent" Scotland being in a currency union with the rUK, it is quite independent.
This would be a very different discussion if John Major had joined the Euro all those years ago, rather than making such a fuss.
@Junkyard
Interest rates are set by the MPC/BoE according to the criteria set by Government eg UK ecomonic activity, inflation target etc
Finances, tax and spending are set by the Government
So whilst you might argue Interest Rates are nto set directly by the Government everything else is.
JY an independent Scotland will have the euro, sooner (possibly immediately upon joining) or later.
Don't feed, it's more fun just to watch - freedom of speech and all that.
WOOOSH.
I also think it is correct that the Spanish are likely to be the main obstacle but I bet the EU can find a fudge through that somehow if they will it.
You bet, they'll want the VAT Scotland generates! Scotland will indeed be a special case in that regard.
I don't agree with your point on interest rates though; the committee's terms of reference are set by the Treasury. The Term can be changed at any time if the Treasury don't like the rate as set by the Committee.
You bet, they'll want the VAT Scotland generates! Scotland will indeed be a special case in that regard.
@blurty - genuine question as I don't understand your point. Scottish VAT stays in an independent Scotland. Also how much VAT does a 5m person country produce anyway, not much on an EU wide basis. The argument for keeping Scotland in the EU by the other countries would be based on the size of their budget contribution. Spain is positioned against as they are concerned about creating a precident for Basque or Catalan regions to become independent knowing they could join the EU easily/at all.
Essentially, its entirely a creation of the UK parliament, and therefore remains entirely under UK government control.
Your point is that it is independent but they could absolve it .
I dont disagree but interest rates are currently not set by the parliament which was the claim.
the target they are required to meet is set by government.
Source please that they set an interest rate target please. I know they set an inflation one of 2 % [ with a letter punishment]Even if true it would be a guideline/order rule and the parliament still do not set the interest rate as per the quote.
Don't feed, it's more fun just to watch - freedom of speech and all that.WOOOSH.
Everytime you call me a name it is just an admission you have no facts to counter what I said. That must really irritate 😛
Do government set interest rates in the UK - its not a hard question
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/overview.aspx
Interest rates are set by the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee. The MPC sets an interest rate it judges will enable the inflation target to be met. The Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is made up of nine members – the Governor, the two Deputy Governors for Monetary Policy and Financial Stability, the Bank's Chief Economist, the Executive Director for Markets and four independent members appointed directly by the Chancellor. The appointment of independent members is designed to ensure that the MPC benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that gained inside the Bank of England.Members serve fixed terms after which they may be replaced or re-appointed.
Each member of the MPC has expertise in the field of economics and monetary policy. Members do not represent individual groups or areas. They are independent. Each member of the Committee has a vote to set interest rates at the level they believe is consistent with meeting the inflation target. The MPC's decision is made on the basis of one-person, one vote. It is not based on a consensus of opinion. It reflects the votes of each individual member of the Committee.
A representative from the Treasury also sits with the Committee at its meetings. The Treasury representative can discuss policy issues but is not allowed to vote. The purpose is to ensure that the MPC is fully briefed on fiscal policy developments and other aspects of the Government's economic policies, and that the Chancellor is kept fully informed about monetary policy.
It is just not true to claim parliament sets interest rates and no amount of you name calling me will make the claim [ which is not even yours] correct. Snake oil served with insults a truth do not make
So whilst you might argue Interest Rates are nto set directly by the Government everything else is.
Its not me arguing it is the case parliament does not set interest rates this is just the truth; it is set by the Bank of England.
I was not as foolisha s claim the others were not set by the govt.
The broad point of the article would remain true but that point re interest rates is incorrect, untrue and it is strange a sommitee would publish this [ like an admission of lack of understanding/hype/spin] and an economist then cite it ...it is almost as if they are scoring political points whatever the truth is now who does that remind you of 😀
It is just not true to claim parliament sets interest rates
Point of order, he didn't claim that parliament sets interest rates, as you now claim he did.
he said that they were [b]decided[/b] by - which, given they hold the reigns of the process, is still true.
"If scotland was not in the EU [ by virtue of being in the UK] then people born in scotland are not EU citizens and when you went there you would not be in the EU. That is clearly not the case because it is in the EU."
You are being uncharacteristically stupid and/or deliberately obtuse.
Don't feed ninfan. Anyone can go to the BOE website to see the answer. Back under the bridge now.
Nice diversion from the fact that Westminster has stated its position clearly again - will AS and his advisors finally answer the basic question......
will AS and his advisors finally answer the basic question......
Maybe, probably just after they release their legal advice on EU membership 😉
@ Jambalaya
I think the UK makes a net contribution of about 15billion Euro to the EU. Assuming iScotland would generate about 10% of that (Given Scottish social deprivation, Vs an 'Accession State' deal on Rebates) then I think that would put Scotland in the top third of contributors.
I think the EU will indeed fudge together a deal to keep iScottish contributions rolling in!
I take your point about the Basques and Catalans (and I'm sure lots of other would-be separatist regions), but I'm sure the Spanish could be persuaded to participate in the fudge.
MM intersting scribble ninfan tbh its a pin dance I dont really want to have [ you might have a bit of a point to be fair ] however parliament does not decide the committee does. It is just not trie to claim otherwise hence THM insults me rather than smack me down with counter facts.
Its also a bit disingenuous to claim they create an independent committee but still hold the reigns could you explain the mechanism to me then eh 😉
Parliament does not set the rate despite your scribbles.
i think you are meant to call me a troll when I say something you disagree with that is factually correct. As Scotland is in the UK and as the UK is in the EU scotland is [ currently]in the EU. Use the example of the EU signing a treaty then and explain how we [ the UK]are not in it because only the EU is mentioned. I still think it is a weak argument though of course the signing named member state is the UK which is made up of scotland [ and others]. It is in the EU whilst it remains in the UK union.You are being uncharacteristically stupid and/or deliberately obtuse.
Anyone can go to the BOE website to see the answer. Back under the bridge now.
I looked and guess what
The 1998 Bank of England Act made the Bank independent to set interest rates.
Surprising eh 😉
I know facts are nothign compared to insults but hey I only have facts with which to prove my case so I hope you can forgive me.
No amount of insulting me will turn that statement into a truth. The B of E set interest rates independently and it is not set by the parliament as that quote claimed. If it were true you would have used some facts rather than childish insults to "support" the point.
Expressing your inability to defend this [ its not even you who said it ]by calling me names is an interesting tactic for educated debate 🙄
Every time I read troll we both know what it means
@JY please read my post, the UK Government sets everything TMH said it does. Interest rates are not set directly but via the fact that the Government sets the rules by which the BoE plays. In any case all of this would be set with reference to the UK economy with no reference to an independent Scotland which was the point being made by the Scottish Office
Troll = Ronseal. No need to make it any more obvious. It's just getting silly now.
Thank you jambalaya - or as the BOE website says, it's has "operational" independence with responsibilities "clearly defined by parliament" and "accountable to the HoC Treasury Ctte,"
Not surprisingly the gov got their own analysis right. But yS supporters need to spin and distract. Plus ca change.....
[quote=Junkyard ]Its also a bit disingenuous to claim they create an independent committee but still hold the reigns
Is is more or less disingenuous than forming an independent country where the economic reigns are held elsewhere?
I meant it was beyond your grasp not that it was actually difficult to grasp; imagine you not getting that eh.
Resorting to personal insults 😥 I must really have upset you when I proved you wrong again.
Its not personal you do not get it is just the truth as you are still here thinking you proved me wrong FWIW you do not prove someone wrong by simply asserting it over and over again and you are still alone in thinking that politicians dont spin or brief off the record.
It is not even close to controversial to claim this.
[s]About equal I would say aracer [/s]
It is BS and lies when AS does it but credible and rational when a no voter claims this.
Interest rates are not set directly but via the fact that the Government sets the rules by which the BoE plays
Excellent so we agree that parliament does not decide interest rates as was originally claimed and we agree the B of E does it. .
Its quite simple does parliament decide the interest rate or does the B of E committee? its not trolling to say it is not parliament who decide the rate it is just true.
the BOE website says, it's has "operational" independence with responsibilities "clearly defined by parliament" and "accountable to the HoC Treasury Ctte,"
It may well say that THM but it has not said parliament decide interest rates and what it says specifically on interest rates is what they said when i quoted them
you cannot deny this. Have you got a quote of then saying parliament decided interest rates? No you have not hence the insults Furthermore THM if you must quote could you actually cite the page please and give a full quote rather than the odd bit slotted together? It can be easy to mislead doing this and take something out of context to suggest it means or says something it does not.Interest rates are set by the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee[ibid]
Basically produce a quote form them that says something other than they set interest rates independently or that proves parliament decide them.
I await some more insults as my reward for you being unable to do this and not able to deal with it.
FNF, it's a well established tactic - illustrated yet again. Brave to show how little one knows on a public forum, but hey how, that is everyone's prerogative. More worryingly, there are folk who actually live in Scotland and who are voting who don't get how this works either. Still they have been warned.....
I can only find one word suitable as a response to Thm's post above....Pish
At the very least with a yes vote we can [b]choose[/b] to give away influence or the power to make decisions.
Are you still refusing to actually engage THM?
Well done JY. THM can't argue with the facts so he's sorting to his usual tactics of playing the man.
On the contrary, I simply ignore trolls but happy to engage with anyone else. As an economist, I also know how monetary policy works including the difference between operational independence over a tool of policy and actual independence (as do the other posters above who work in this field) Subtle differences I know (and clearly beyond some) but critical ones. But as others also point out, the troll is saying I said something that I didn't (ie, something about [b]setting[/b] IRs) for the obvious reason - he is hungry - but since that is neither my point, nor the point made by the Ctte, I simply choose to ignore this as well.
To come back to the quote, the conclusion is valid. If folk want to ignore that when the vote, then so be it, they have been warned. It's like eating/drinking too much, sometimes your need to be actually sick to learn the lessons. This would be some hangover......
WNB, indeed you can choose to give away all significant power to a foreign country if you so desire, but excuse me if I still think that this was not the point of this whole vanity project. Oh, and as the Ctte suggest don't moan (again) when rates are "set" within a context that is inappropriate for Scottish needs - that will have been your choice after all. You have been warned.....
Yes, WNB, listen to what the grown-ups are telling you 😉
I'm not an economist. So perhaps I miss certain subtleties of the issues. But basic facts - Scotland is productive enough and rich enough to manage fine and be successful on our own. Anyone doubt that? No-one does, not even anyone on the No side.
Worrying about currency and the like is like obsessing over the bathroom tiles when you buy a new house. Important, sure, but not a deal breaker.
Indeed Ben, so why not propose that instead of the current mess. Re the currency/bathroom analogy I would simply remind you of the simple point made by one of the leading economists of the modern era (JM Keynes) - he who controls the currency, controls the country. History has shown that time and time again, it is the biggest deal breaker of all, perhaps?
But to avoid the confusion (!?!) that the comments made yesterday the Ctte's summary is a little clearer in its choice of words
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmscotaf/499/49903.htm
The result remains the same.
A separate Scotland entering into a currency union with the continuing UK would mean the Scottish Government handing over control of its monetary policy, including interest rates, and much of its economic policy to a country in which it had no representation.Similarly, it is difficult to see any benefit to the United Kingdom of accepting the risk of default by Scottish banks and neither side is likely to accept sharing control of their tax and spending policies with what would, by then, be a foreign government.
You heard it here first! Ironically perhaps, I have a "lunch and learn" session at work today on how monetary and fiscal policy work. Hopefully, there will be no one wanting to have a sad, tangential argument [b]with himself [/b]in the audience!
Indeed Ben, so why not propose that instead of the current mess
Because, and we've gone over this many times, the currency union wasn't made up by Alex Salmond when he was sitting on the lav, it was what an independent group of experts including a couple of a novel prize winners agreed was the best option, after a lot of of analysis.
No country has complete control of the levers of its economy, but at the moment we have none - with independence we can choose things like this, including choosing who we have unions, political or economic, with.
Not true, you have control over several levers of power (and more is being promised). Slightly odd that the S Gov choose not to use all of them (tartan tax anyone?), given how important this obviously is, but this always has been a topsy-turvey debate. Your intended outcome will result in less not more. But hey, that's your choice.
I think they won Nobel prizes rather than a book to read!! 😉 Mirlees in particular writes impressive stuff on taxation
Oh and as you know, the bright guys came up with several options as even the DO admits....
He told the BBC programme: "The fiscal commission working group set out not just a plan B as you put it but B, C, D, E and F, a range of viable currency options for an independent Scotland
YS just happen to have chosen the one that rUk will not accept for good reason.
Ha, yes, autocorrect strikes again 😉
It is a bugger that - especially on an Apple device (I already edited my autocorrect above!!)
Any way work now, have a good day.
basic facts - Scotland is productive enough and rich enough to manage fine and be successful on our own. Anyone doubt that? No-one does, not even anyone on the No side.
Like Ireland was?
[i]"we have everything it takes for a Celtic Lion economy to take off in Scotland."[/i]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7042726.stm