Forum menu
THM BikePawl asked if the Scottish Government could ask Westminster to approach the European Commission. I thought that was a fair point so decided I would check up when I had time. So it seems an approach was made and rejected over a year ago.
But everyone seemed to agree that to do that, then you'd have to agree and put forward a precise scenario, so you're back in the trap of pre-negotiation of a hypothetical 'what if' that no doubt certain people would be turning into a 'this is what we have agreed' - particularly in a situation when the SNP have [b]still[/b] not published their independent legal advice on the issue, as they have repeatedly promised to do, despite the rUK government publishing theirs a full year ago.
Can't help feeling its a 'cake and eat it' situation where they're demanding things off everyone else, but not following through on their own promises!
Sure you would need to present a precise scenario or even 2 or 3 but that's not difficult to do and even at this stage it could be done. More than a year ago there would have been plenty time. I don't accept the prenegotiation point as that is exactly what Osborne has done on currency union.
FWIW, I blame Thatcher.
Depends what you are blaming her for of course, there is no doubt she created a mindset and attitude towards the Tory party up here.It will be at least a generation before the memory of the 80s/90s Tories government fades. Most new voters weren't born during her tenure,but she/they are still hated up here. Mind you,they do make it easy...They voted against their own leader being allowed to marry recently.
gordimhor - Member
THM BikePawl asked if the Scottish Government could ask Westminster to approach the European Commission. I thought that was a fair point so decided I would check up when I had time. So it seems an approach was made and rejected over a year ago.
That is interesting, cheers for looking.
The poll is interesting but that ICM changed their methods between the previous poll and this one. [url= http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/02/second-post-currency-row-poll-still-no-clear-impact/ ]Prof John Curtice analysis[/url]
Any analysis of the other poll just out?
I'm not sure that helps.
😀
Duckman do you know that pic has linked to your photobucket account?
Currently trying to sort that out 😕
Can't help feeling its a 'cake and eat it' situation where they're demanding things off everyone else, but not following through on their own promises!
Cannot understand why, except to confirm your own political bias, you would single out just one political party leader for this criticism
They are all guilty of only presenting the evidence that assists them and /or spinning reality to support their position
It is not just AS doing this.
Its also very poor to do this when rUK wont negotiate and them blaming him for the uncertainty - it is not of his making [ though he is probably grateful and manipulating it]
Its also very poor to do this when rUK wont negotiate
The flip side is that the whole thing is still completely speculative right now, so no point worrying about the detail too much just yet. [b]If[/b] the vote goes yes, there will be plenty of compromise on both sides.
Larry Elliot is not too impressed either:
But this is fantasy politics. The idea that after a yes vote, Scotland could quickly negotiate a currency union with the rest of the UK, and be accepted for EU membership without lengthy debate about such issues as whether Edinburgh would be eligible for a slice of the UK's budget rebate, seems improbable. The misgivings of the Bank of England and the Treasury about a currency union are valid: the experience of the eurozone is that a currency union without fiscal and banking union is inherently unstable. In the case of an independent Scotland, the tensions would quickly become apparent because the country that formed the smaller part of the currency union would have a social-democratic bent while the bigger part would, by virtue of having lost Scotland, have a more conservative economic approach.At the very least, there would be strict rules on Scotland's fiscal autonomy, with curbs on the size of its budget deficit. These sort of arrangements have proved burdensome for the smaller members of the eurozone and a post-referendum Scotland would find them difficult to accept. Perhaps that is the point: Salmond may be playing a long game in which Scots find a halfway house arrangement so unpalatable that they go for the real thing next time.
For, make no mistake, this is a halfway house. There is a case for an independent Scotland, but it is not being made in the current campaign. It would be a strange sort of freedom in which all the decisions that matter are made in London. It is an independence of sorts but it is the independence of the granny flat.
1320? I will try again...
[b]The Declaration of Arbroath[/b] is a declaration of Scottish independence, made in 1320. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, intended to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and defending Scotland's right to use military action when unjustly attacked.
Generally believed to have been written in the Arbroath Abbey by Bernard of Kilwinning, then Chancellor of Scotland and Abbot of Arbroath,[1] and sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots, Robert I, and a letter from four Scottish bishops which all presumably made similar points.
Larry has it pretty much correct there. The case for an independent Scotland has yet to be made! But as all sides seem to be saying, that is not in Scotland's interest anyway 😉
If the vote goes yes, there will be plenty of compromise on both sides.
I'm not sure why rUK will be compromising much on their sovereignty in an unbalanced deal post "Yes"
I'm not sure why rUK will be compromising much on their sovereignty in an unbalanced deal post "Yes"
Right now it's politics rather than economics that matters, the yes camp say what they think will get them a yes vote and vice-versa. So what people say is their red line now, won't necessarily be so post vote.
Right now it's politics rather than economics that matters, the yes camp say what they think will get them a yes vote and vice-versa. So what people say is their red line now, won't necessarily be so post vote.
the politics matters after a Yes vote, except now there is a pending rUK state and the politicians representing it will not be falling over themselves to give iScotland an easy ride. Remember there is a 2015 General Election, which of the major parties is going to campaign for a currency union and reduced sovereignty for rUK?
I am slow but got there in the end Duckman. First meeting of the Scottish Parliament
In the case of an independent Scotland, the tensions would quickly become apparent because the country that formed the smaller part of the currency union would have a social-democratic bent while the bigger part would, by virtue of having lost Scotland, have a more conservative economic approach.
I'm not sure that is a foregone conclusion.
The bayonets have come out.
...again..surprised I missed that little gem
the politics matters after a Yes vote, except now there is a pending rUK state and the politicians representing it will not be falling over themselves to give iScotland an easy ride.
Assuming they get a Yes vote, I can't see any reason the main parties would want to give Scotland a hard ride. It's unlikely to be a vote winner south of the border. Most of the people who feel strongly about the issue live north of the border.
I think you're ignoring the deep antipathy and distrust of any kind of currency union that exists in middle England.
Entering the ERM seemed like such a good idea at the time, but when they announced the news that interest rates had been put to 17% to try to stay in, I just had no idea how I would pay the mortgage. Us and millions of others. Leaving the ERM later that day was like a nightmare finally ending.
Any politician who tries to take us down the same fatal path of currency union had better be very brave....
I think you're ignoring the deep antipathy and distrust of [s]any kind of currency union[/s] everything that exists in middle England
FTFY 😉
It's not like we don't already have a currency union with Scotland though. The only difference is we also have a full fiscal union which may or may not continue.
All of course assuming they do vote yes.
Tbf currency union isn't the same as the ERM, but I can see how ppl would be suspicious of any shenanigans.
I don't see what's in currency union for the UK.
I don't see what's in currency union for the UK.
Given Scotland is a large trading partner with the rUK, minimising trading costs is a big plus....
Footflaps, spot on. We have a very successfully currency union. As stated before, the reason is that UNLIKE the euro zone, the UK satisfies the criteria to make currency unions (1) work and (2) a good choice.
The folly (or deceit) of yS is to simultaneously propose a currency union while taking away part of the foundations that make it successful. The reason for doings this? Simple, it's not a manifesto for independence at all. Their bluff has been called.
The position for rUK is pretty obvious. It would be absurd for any rUk political party to run the assymeteric risks proposed by yS. Hence Ed Milliband is the latest to nail his flag to the mast. There is no bluff here.
Would a move towards devo max not cause the same issues as independence with a currency union?
We have a very successfully currency union.
That depends how you define very successful. Successful for those in the SE maybe, but the what's to say things else where wouldn't be better if Scotland had been independent. It's all if's, buts and whatabouts but it's a bit of a one sided view.
There is a perversely interesting factor in the UK "recovery" in that an improving economy would bring the Tories closer to Labour in the polls, thus increasing fears of another five years under austerity for Scots, thereby possibly increasing the yS vote. Maybe that's a bit convoluted.
How AS and the southern party leaders play that one out will be interesting.
Given Scotland is a large trading partner with the rUK, minimising trading costs is a big plus....
It's more important to Scotland than the UK. In any case, private people can still trade in pounds perfectly happily - the real problem is to establish legal tender...which leads us back to the question: what would be the point of having a Scottish currency? And if there is no point, is there really a big difference between having a tenth of a say over the GBP as part of some (yet to be negotiated) currency union with rUK and just using the GBP without union? Why bother with the time and effort of a new currency or perrenial disputes over monetary policy at all?
the reason is that UNLIKE the euro zone, the UK satisfies the criteria to make currency unions (1) work and (2) a good choice.
In your opinion of course - it is not an economic fact [ do they exist?]
I am sure that is what many said when ours was implemented and the US of A and ....ah you get the point - some take longer to adjust to change than others but yes a new currency union over a larger area will create harmonisation problems in the short term
TBH economics/economists do not help itself/themself when it uses "facts" to make political points.
Any currency union can work if there is enough political will
Clearly in this case this is unlikely to happen as the bankroller - rUK is the one who wants it least and takes the heaviest risk and burden
In the EU the bankrollers want it and are happy to fund it
Its a fairly pointless debate in that it is all hypothetical
i doubt anyone believes either sides lines in the sand
_ I might start a new thread so we can make predictions as
1. they will be widely different
2. None will end up being that accurate
Basically we dont know and we have no way of knowing whatever your political view is.
Are all you blue people looking forward to having Dave and chums up there today? I do hope so. Please be careful to look after them though. It would be simply terrible if you decided to come over all Braveheart, storm the place, decapitate the lot of them, and parade their severed heads on spikes throughout the streets of Aberdeen
The beauty of freedom of speech!!!
DD, that will be interesting, the economy has been the Tories joker card all along. Will it become a trump by 2015? The converse argument is the old one about an indep Scotland giving he Tories an upper hand south of the border! Lots of twists in this one.
Kona, are you suggesting parallel currencies? Scotland is not a basket case, far from it. There would be no need for extreme measures.
The "say" argument ie would idepen Scotland have a member on MPC etc is interesting, But that only addresses the Scottish perspective. The Achilles heel is that rUK will not and should not underwrite risks of another nation without control/commitment from the other party and over policy. The technocrats and the politicians are all pointing to the € to demonstrate why. To succeed the politicians (not just the economists who understand how these things work) know that Europe has to move towards much greater interdependence including fiscal policy. The only people who are ignoring this basic fact are yS.
Still I suppose there is always some merit of standing out from the crowd!!!!
Footflaps - just found the whole Larry Elliot article. Pretty solid and great concluding paragraph.
"Kona, are you suggesting parallel currencies? "
I have no idea what parallel currencies are.
Junkyard
"In the EU the bankrollers want it and are happy to fund it"
without going to far off topic, the above comment is not completely true. Germany is pretty much the EU bankrollee and is only funding it if there rules are followed (see their recent constitutional court ruling regarding bale outs.) There are number of other countries that are a bit twitchy about the level of collective risk (Finland and Nederlands are two).
Your point about political will is correct though but only until the big bills come in. This could happen with Spain and Italy, we will all be in trouble then.
Back to the independence debate, personally I can't wait for it all to be over whatever the outcome.
An official currency...
...and another one that most people use in practice
Given Scotland is a large trading partner with the rUK, minimising trading costs is a big plus....
Not so many years ago:
[i]''I think that being outside the euro area is already penalising the Scottish economy. In the medium-term, the longer we stay out, the more damage will accumulate. The euro is an example of why Scotland needs membership status so that it can take a decision on entry into the single currency,''[/i]
[i]''Scotland is a trading nation and our main trading partner is the EU. At present, over 60% of our manufactured exports are to the EU and it is to Europe that we must look to secure Scottish prosperity and Scottish jobs,'' he told his audience of European officials and diplomats. The SNP leader quoted a recent Scottish Council for Development and Industry survey of Scottish exporters which revealed that 87% of all businesses surveyed said they were being badly hit by the value of the pound, that 69% had lost exports and a third had had to lay off staff. [/i]
What I find quite interesting about this, as a somewhat impartial person from England living in Scotland is...
AS an his bunch are stamping about saying how we'd be better on our own and not run by people with no clue what Scotland needs, playing the political and emotional A game.
When those people say "that's fine, but if you leave don't expect us to share your risks and don't forget you still owe part of this" it's "that's so unfair, why are you threatening us? Stop playing a political game to threaten us"? What do they expect? Is he really that naive? Why would it be a one-way process? It affects both of us (badly as far as I can see) if Scotland leaves - of course they will attempt to prevent it, but at the very least they would be remiss if they didn't minimise damage to their remaining constituents.
I like the Scottish cultural differences, but I like the security and buffers afforded by a union. They currently exist together, they may need fine tuning, but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Discussing currency on Monday morning, the First Minister said: "It's bluster because George Osborne expressed [the argument] as about keeing the pound."Of course the pound is an internationally tradable currency. It's not a question of keeping the pound, it's a question of whether there would be agreed a currency union. That’s the bluster aspect," the First Minister said.
AS an his bunch are stamping about saying how we'd be better on our own and not run by people with no clue what Scotland needs, playing the political and emotional A game.
When those people say "that's fine, but if you leave don't expect us to share your risks and don't forget you still owe part of this" it's "that's so unfair, why are you threatening us? Stop playing a political game to threaten us"? What do they expect? Is he really that naive? Why would it be a one-way process?
Interesting that that's the view you form from the media coverage. AS and yes campaign have been very clear that they are willing and want to take on the liabilities as well as the assets. It's the lack of negotiation and dictation of what Scotland will and won't be able to do that (in theory) that AS and yes campaign are complaining about. As Westminster wanted to not pre negotiate they shouldn't be making statements which are effectively pre negotiating.
MT dont disagree but the critical think that matter to a union is political will not economic theories. Your right it may crack but it will break due to politics not economics .
AS is being a canny politician here and trying to have it both ways for political capital - is that wise, skilled , unscrupulous - depends on your politics I guess. However but only one side has refused to negotiate before hand [ though they are happy to announce lots of negative stuff] or have a public debate and it is not AS.