MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Without a government that has been voted for no we can't, no idea what bencooper thinks he knows, but like I say democracy states that it's impossible to predict or know.
So it's not a reasonable question to ask the wider yes campaign. It's a reasonable question to the wider bencooper campaign aye. but he seems to know things that we cannot know! 
btw I don't think it's certain the uk will be using the pound in 20 years time either, there will come a time when there is more pressure for the uk to adopt the euro, the natural progression of the EU would point towards that(edit: especially if you/we have something like a lab lib coalition running things when that happens).
Btw the Yes campaign may be getting reported as stalling down in England, but up here on the ground, nah, not even close, very much on the ascendancy, I don't care what any poll says.
Common sense (and history) tells you that you do enter into a currency union (or any union?) if the other party views it as being only a temporary situation. The risks become assymetric and untenable. At best, the use of the £ is a temporary solution for an iS, so it's should be glaringly obvious what the rUK position should be (ignoring the fact that politicians are in charge for one moment).
If you want bets, the like.ihood of £ outlasting the € over the next 20 years is pretty obvious. Since the Euro area does not satiety the critieria for a successful currency union, the € will fail at some point. Politics can stand in the face of economic truths for only so long. In the end, economics wins over politics, it becomes merely a matter of when not if.
The euro will not fail.teamhurtmore - Member
the € will fail at some point.
ernie_lynch - Member
...Bencooper freely volunteered the information that the long term plan isn't currency union. So it's reasonable to ask what it is...
No, it's not reasonable because that is not something that can be settled right now.
The longterm plan is for the elected government of an independent Scotland to decide.
That happens after the referendum.
If you want a nice pension, that is the one financial bet that is sure to come home. A form of € may exist, but not the current one. It cannot by definition.
The longterm plan is for the elected government of an independent Scotland to decide.
Wrong, it's (a CU) for rUK to decide, or at least agree. To suggest otherwise, as the deceitful one does, is arrogance and ignorance in the extreme. Or should we say, bullying and bluster?
the likes of greece or one of the other countries that are struggling may well decide to go their own way, but to be honest, that'll only strengthen the euro, if the uk ever decided to enter, that'd strengthen it further, so yes it may be different in the future, but weaker no.teamhurtmore - Member
If you want a nice pension, that is the one financial bet that is sure to come home. A form of € may exist, but not the current one. It cannot by definition.
Only reason countries have struggled under the euro isn't becuse of the euro, it's been because of piss poor management and corruption of their own personal finances. Ie they rode a gravy train they couldn't afford.
Ok, I thought it was for other reasons.....
What other reason can there be for so much unemployment in the likes of spain, during the good time, too many people taking out(corruption) and not enough investment(piss poor management) to ensure that the economy would be robust enough to ride out a recession. why else would a country with lower average wages and and be able to compete. we scraped through like less-troubled because our economy was more robust and dynamic. why is germany doing so well, re investment.teamhurtmore - Member
Ok, I thought it was for other reasons.....
very simplistic aye, but that's the general jist.
seosamh77 - MemberI don't care what any poll says.
That's the spirit ! Chin up old boy.
That's it, you tell us from England how we're feeling, that'll boost the no campaign! 😉ernie_lynch - MemberThat's the spirit ! Chin up old boy.
why is germany doing so well, re investment.
Not quite that simple is it? I mean German workers have endured years under a deliberate programme of aggressive wage restraint supported by both employers and unions,
German wages barely moved in real terms from 2002 to 2007, whilst in the rest of Europe they were going up, same with government spending, theirs was going down (as %age of GDP) while nearly everyone elses was going up - Essentially the Germans went into the recession super lean, because they were incredibly prudent and controlled during the boom years (hard choices which were unpopular at the time domestically)
iow good management.
you tell us from England how we're feeling
Have you got special glasses which lets you see what others can't see ?
Because from where I'm sitting I can't see where anyone is telling you how you're feeling.
You claim not to care what any poll says, that's excellent. But it's [b][i]you[/i][/b] expressing how [b][i]you[/i][/b] feel. No one is telling you.
you need a sense of humour transplant at times, you really do!ernie_lynch - Member
you tell us from England how we're feeling
Have you got special glasses which lets you see what others can't see ?Because from where I'm sitting I can't see where anyone is telling you how you're feeling.
You claim not to care what any poll says, that's excellent. But it's you expressing how you feel. No one is telling you.
I'm perfectly happy with the sense of humour I've got that the present thanks.
And to be honest I'm finding some of your posts absolutely hilarious.
I rest my case!
Gordimhor here is the poll link. [url= http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/NewsnetScotlandPollv5.pdf ]newsnet panelbase poll[/url]
Bencooper freely volunteered the information that the long term plan isn't currency union. So it's reasonable to ask what it is.
It's sweet the way you keep mistaking me for someone in the Scottish government 😀
I have no idea what the short, medium or long term plans are. An independent commission said that a currency union would be the best option, so I'll go with that advice, but it's not an issue I'm losing a lot of sleep over.
In any negotiation, of course you don't tell the other side what your fallback negotiating positions are - you'd be nuts to give away info like that. But the No side keep assuming that, because Yes haven't said what a plan B could be, there's no plan B.
The deputy first minister is pretty clear what the fallback position is;
"Scottish Government has made clear it will retain sterling as the currency of an independent Scotland. Accordingly it will not be in any position to meet the prerequisites for membership of the Eurozone. I have enclosed some further quotes from experts to reinforce this point."
you'd be nuts to give away info like that
😉
Source:
[quote=bencooper ]In any negotiation, of course you don't tell the other side what your fallback negotiating positions are - you'd be nuts to give away info like that. But the No side keep assuming that, because Yes haven't said what a plan B could be, there's no plan B.
That depends what the fallback positions are - I explained a few pages ago why if plan B was to have a totally independent currency it would be advantageous in negotiations to let the rUK know that if plan A is still to have a currency union.
I have since realised that doesn't mean plan B is to keep the pound with no currency union, or have a Scottish currency pegged to the pound. I can see some other reasons for keeping quiet
- there is no plan B, or they've not worked out what plan B is
- they're not actually bothered about the negotiations, just the referendum and want to keep it quiet as breaking away from the pound entirely will lose them support
- they're a bit dim
With a UK general election in May 2015, there's no prospect of GO conceding currency union before then as he'd be toast in the Westminster elections were he to do so. The persistent refusal of the Yes campaign to understand he's no way out of that commitment is remarkable.I sincerly hope the no campaign continue the currency issue as their number one card, It'll drive no voters away the longer it goes on. no-one believes osborne.
oldbloke - MemberWith a UK general election in May 2015, there's no prospect of GO conceding currency union before then as he'd be toast in the Westminster elections were he to do so.
People keep saying this, but why? Simple matter to pitch it, better together, keep doing easy business with scotland, etc etc. The biggest issue seems to be the trap they've made for themselves, having sworn blind it won't happen. But I can't see voters casting them out because of a currency union per se.
It might be a simple matter to pitch it, but believe me when i say that i haven't met a single person who thinks the idea is acceptable. Quite the opposite in fact, & as it would have to be a policy platform it would be electoral suicide in the UK.
The polling doesn't agree with that. Ugov poll says 26% in favour, 53% against so not the black/white case you reckon.
But leaving that aside, that doesn't make it a vote breaker. Regardless of the split of opinion why do you believe it would be a central issue for the election? More important than the economy in general, jobs, schools, the NHS... It's not something without its advantages and it's not something that immediately impacts the lives of people in the rUK (unless they do cross-border business or travel, in which case they may be saying good work)
For any politicians (in rUK) to accept CU would show a level of economic ineptitude that should immediately disqualify them from any senior office of state.
NW, perhaps some of the pop of rUK are also fooled by the currency = assets and we share assets and liabilities BS. Such deceit works north of the border, so why not in the south?
Anyway good to see wee eck show some self awareness in recognising (1) that women are increasingly seeing though his BS and (2) this is note a vote for the SNP. I wonder why that is.....?
Because it affects our taxes in the event of a Scottish failure - put it this way, would you Scots be happy to be tied into an unequal and potentially financially damaging contract that had very little upside but a huge potential detriment with a separate & independent Nation? Of course not, that's why we don't want it.
Most people i speak to about Scots independence are either indifferent or want Scotland gone & some are unhappy about the prospect but i haven't yet met anyone who would accept CU with Scotland.
It boils down to not wanting our taxes bailing you out, which is a pretty simple & fundamental idea.
bencooper - MemberIt's sweet the way you keep mistaking me for someone in the Scottish government
I mistook you for duckman actually 🙂
It was him who said :
duckman - MemberA currency union isn't long term independence,it would be handy short term while we found our feet. It's the single biggest issue surrounding Indy
The confusion arose because you suggested that not knowing what the long term plan was
was reasonable.
I appreciate that the Yes supporters each have their own idea what this "independence" will mean for Scotland. I appreciate that you don't all sing from the same hymn sheet. I appreciate that you don't have a plan. And I appreciate that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I realise all that.
I said several pages ago that the Yes argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I can't see much evidence to suggest that assessment is far from wrong.
The "plan" from the Yes camp appears to be : Hopefully we will get lucky and it'll all come out in the wash.
Another reason why there is no plan b is that without a currency union the majority of Scots won't vote for independence. The only way to guarantee a currency union and safeguard all the trade that Scotland does with the rest of the UK is to remain in the currency union you are in already. It is called the united Kingdom. 🙂
muddydwarf - MemberBecause it affects our taxes in the event of a Scottish failure
Which is a far-off might-do. Meanwhile many people will see the day to day benefits immediately, other people will see the benefits that it brings in the negotiations... I've no doubt many people would be against it for various reasons of assorted quality but it's a big leap from "many people are against this" to "political suicide".
Picture the scene
[i]Negotiations: day one, hour one, everyone sits down round the table, says good morning, coffee and biscuits are served.[/i]
[b]George Osbourne[/b]: “Well, we said before the referendum that a currency union was highly unlikely. During the referendum campaign we had a look at it. we took the advice of the Treasury and they advised us that it’s not in our national interest, and we’re not going to do it, I’m not doing it, Ed balls has agreed that he's not doing it. End of, Let’s move on...Now what shall we talk about?"
[i]Which is a far-off might-do.[/i]
We have just gone through the biggest recession since the great depression of the 1930s. I seem to remember the UK bailing out a few banks that are based in Scotland so it does not require an active imagination to see the rest of the UK having to bail out the banks of an independent Scotland should we join a currency union. We trade with lots of countries and don't have currency unions with them. I don't think Scotland is too wee to go it alone and I am sure you think the same about the rest of the UK without a currency union.
Simply put, its not in our interests to enter a CU with Scotland despite what Mr Salmond has said & many of us in the UK do not see any or enough potential benefit - but we do see the huge & disproportionate risk entailed. Scotlands economy/tax base isn't large enough to return the favour should it be needed so its a simple equation for us, too much risk/not enough reward.
It won't happen because we won't vote for it. By all means toddle off into Independence & good luck, but you're not doing it on my taxes thank you very much.
In fairness if it did happen you probably get the same situation as Ireland, ie the bailout would just be a long term loan that will be paid back eventually. So if Scotland did go tits up and England bails us out, ultimately that will be beneficial to England. Certainly wouldn't be to it's detriment.fasternotfatter - MemberI seem to remember the UK bailing out a few banks that are based in Scotland so it does not require an active imagination to see the rest of the UK having to bail out the banks of an independent Scotland should we join a currency union.
The uk loaned Ireland 7bn as part of the international loan deal to bail them out. That money wasn't a gift.
I said several pages ago that the Yes argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I can't see much evidence to suggest that assessment is far from wrong.
Actually Ernie,we have lots of plans for Scotland post Indy,it is called the white paper,only slightly more fanciful than the Scottish Analysis that THM keeps referring us to as "fact." AS has been offering to debate this with anybody from Westminster since it was launched.
If Westminster are unwilling to discuss anything in the white paper as they refuse to negotiate any potential seperation other than saying "no you won't nah nah nah" while sticking their fingers in their ears,whose fault is it the claims in the white paper cannot be proven or rebuked? It has been referred to on here as a good poker/bridge strategy,yet the Nat's are the only ones who are devious.
Z-11,Osbourne does open negotiations with that line...Wee Eck takes out a clothes peg for the currency and an eviction notice for faslane...That should stimulate debate.
Actually Ernie,we have lots of plans for Scotland post Indy
Mmm, I see lots of evidence of "intentions" but very little or no evidence of any "plans". The get out clause appears to be "we don't know the political makeup of future Scottish governments" and is used every time anyone asks for details.
As an example I was looking at the Yes Scotland website yesterday in the section concerning "a fairer society", the intention I was told, is for an independent Scotland to have a fairer society. However they couldn't go into any detail about how that would be achieved as it would depend on the political makeup of future Scottish governments.
In other words : "just have faith in us and trust us". Which is pretty much what all politicians will say if they can get away with it, and hardly signifies a new type of politics.
So yeah, an appeal to faith, hope, and wishful thinking, seems a fair assessment to me. And from what I gather appears to be Yes Scotland's achilles heel, ie, lack of detail and carefully laid out convincing plans is encouraging Scots to vote No.
I said several pages ago that the Yes argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I can't see much evidence to suggest that assessment is far from wrong.
Whereas the No argument is based on pessimism, fear, and short-term self-interest. See, I can over-generalise too 😉
However, even if what you said was true, I'd still vote Yes. It's good to have hope in the future.
only slightly more fanciful....
Progress at last!
than the Scottish Analysis that THM keeps referring us to as "fact."
Hmm, not quite, but hey why stick to what people actually say? AS doesn't do, so why should those unfortunate enough to swallow his guff? Still waiting for Godot here.....what page was the unanswered challenge on now?
AS has been offering to debate this with anybody from Westminster since it was launched.
The equivalent of debating with a shouty Nick Farage spouting mindless but vaguely populist gobbledygook. Mildly amusing political satire/ammunition for jumping of a bridge (depending on your state of mind) but of little value otherwise.
See, I can over-generalise too
No, that isn't over generalisation, it's talking nonsense. The No argument is based on "better together", [i]better[/i] is not a pessimistic term. Nor is it anything which anyone should fear. And there's nothing short term about it.
We should welcome the deceitful one opening up with "we will make no financial transfers in recognition of UK debt" and "FO from Faslane now". The immediate reaction would be obvious domestically and internationally......be careful what you wish for. It would be funny if it were not so serious.
No, that isn't over generalisation, it's talking nonsense. The No argument is based on "better together", better is not a pessimistic term. Nor is it anything which anyone should fear. And there's nothing short term about it.
Spoken like an advertising man - they use the word "better" so they're optimistic? I'm guessing you don't remember any of the pessimistic stuff - we'll be international outcasts, we'll aid terrorists and enemies, we'll lose the BBC, we'll have guards along the border, etc etc. The No campaign has been one scare story after another, their big problem is that they struggle to say anything positive - Alastair Darling keeps saying "we must make the positive case for the union" without actually making one.
It's as if he seems to think that, if he says there's a positive case, people will believe him.
And there's so much short-term about it. Why are so many Westminster MPs and Lords on the No side? Because they like their perks and expenses and guaranteed directorships, with independence they'd be out on their ears. Why are some rich company directors so vocal on the No side? Because they like the status quo which let them get so rich without asking too many questions.
We should welcome the deceitful one opening up with "we will make no financial transfers in recognition of UK debt" and "FO from Faslane now". The immediate reaction would be obvious domestically and internationally
Domestically, everyone would be very happy to see those hellish weapons gone, internationally investors would be very interested in a country with huge material resources and no debts. No?
No ( the ? wasn't needed)
What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.
An independent Scotland may not be perfect, but it will be a damn sight better than that corrupt system.
we'll be international outcasts, we'll aid terrorists and enemies, we'll lose the BBC, we'll have guards along the border, etc etc.
Well it sounds like staying in the Union will be a very positive thing to do then ! 🙂
I don't know what it's like in Northern Britain today but here Down South it's bathed in glorious sunshine....so I'm off on a bike ride. Toodle-oo
What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.
I must try and find that bit, it sounds unusual.
Have a nice ride Ernie! I thing I will do the same thing....
Hmm
, not quite, but hey why stick to what people actually say?
More suggesting people are misquoting you? If you have never said the Scottish Analysis was factual,why have you been posting them up as a "compelling argument" (your words) for why the union works?
Ernie,maybe get a improved example of "better" than the no campaign use,they seem to define it differently to you.
Hmm, not quite, but hey why stick to what people actually say?[s] AS[/s] THM doesn't do, so why should those unfortunate enough to swallow his guff?
FTFY 😉
internationally investors would be very interested in a country with huge material resources and no debts. No?
No, international investors would see a country that had declining material resources and an uncertain financial future (oil production going downwards), was currently running a deficit, and had a history if not paying its debts - plus the likelihood of the country you've just ripped off blackballing your EU membership!
Just imagine the outcome of negotiations if Scotland tries to 'have its cake and eat it' anyway - overnight you need to build computer systems to handle everything from benefits to child support to car registration, because the UK cuts off your access to all those institutions. Sorry Ben, I think you guys are really overestimating the strength of your negotiating position!
that is particularly amusing! 😆epicyclo - Member
What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.
In all fairness,he hasn't said he approves of the current system. Anyway as a Londoner,he would prob be more worried about the soaring cost of food if we left... 😆
[quote=duckman ]Z-11,Osbourne does open negotiations with that line...Wee Eck takes out a clothes peg for the currency and an eviction notice for faslane...That should stimulate debate.
Yes - debate about what the Edinburgh agreement actually says.
Still going? Solved anything yet?
may not approve but he's yet to provide any evidence that things will change! So he either lives in lala land or advocates the status quo! Which considering when we have the like of farrage paraded about on the tele in a blatant attempt to further shift the centre line to the right well it doesn't look all that great from here.duckman - Member
In all fairness,he hasn't said he approves of the current system. Anyway as a Londoner,he would prob be more worried about the soaring cost of food if we left...
For any politicians (in rUK) to accept CU would show a level of economic ineptitude that should immediately disqualify them from any senior office of state
So its still on the table then 😉
Yes argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I can't see much evidence to suggest that assessment is far from wrong
Can you tell me if rUK will be in the Eu in 5 years time?
The argument works both ways though there is more uncertainity with iS
seem to remember the UK bailing out a few banks that are based in Scotland so it does not require an active imagination to see the rest of the UK having to bail out the banks of an independent Scotland should we join a currency union.
Its a debatable point how Scottish they were tbh but- as already mentioned- the UK bailed out Ireland because its economy was so important to the UK that it made sense., the same is likely to be true of an iS whether in a currency union or not. If it went totally tits up rUK would not be unaffected by this and its best interests are likely to be served by "propping it up" as you would no doubt call it. They are unlikely to just watch it collapse.
What duckman said - good post fella
The get out clause appears to be "we don't know the political makeup of future Scottish governments" and is used every time anyone asks for details.
You have read political manifestos and heard polticians speak? is it really your claim that this is the only one full of vague aspirational pish thin on details?
The immediate reaction would be obvious domestically and internationally
I doubt the financial markets would go oh look their is a country with absolutely no debt whatsover we best not lend to them...which company looks best the one with zero debt or the one with shitloads as a lending risk?
What debts it has none - they are not and never were her debts they are the UK's and still are. As for running a deficit - yes just her and [almost]every other govt in the world then ehwas currently running a deficit, and had a history if not paying its debts
The markets have no morals they will see that they will be fine and they will lend. There was certainly a few links to economists saying this earlier in the thread - I forget how impartial the analysis was but it is not as clear cut as they would all run away going not least because fiscally a debt free iS is clearly in a stronger financial footing that a debt ladden one - you cannot deny that FACT.
THM Could you at least try and reign in your AS stuff [ we have all got it[...the shouty farage accusation when you do this is irony of the [s]highest[/s] lowest order.
Sorry been away for a bit and have cracked ribs so cannot ride today...enjoy all you lucky sods who can ....gentle spinning on the turbo for me 😕
Thanks for the link fnf . No access to a computer at the moment so I can't read it today.
zokes - Still not a customer
Still going? Solved anything yet?
Nope
I'm not here to solve things, I'm here because I like a good argument 😀
The people I need to convince aren't on STW. They're people like my mother - she's undecided at the moment, perhaps because she only recently got British citizenship. And people like her friends, who are worried that after independence they won't be able to go on holiday to Scarborough.
People who are a bit more, well, normal - they haven't read obsessively about it all.
[quote=Junkyard ]What debts it has none - they are not and never were her debts they are the UK's and still are.
Except Scotland is part of the UK, hence the debts partly belong to it. The fact that rUK has agreed it will honour the debts post independence (which is had to do to avoid market panic which would affect iS just as much as rUK) if iS walks away does not change that.
JY may technically be correct, but would be interested to see how international money lenders may feel about that legal technicality. As the rUK would also not be the UK that ran up the debt, could it argue that the debt becomes null and void? Doubt it.
athgray - Member ...As the rUK would also not be the UK that ran up the debt, could it argue that the debt becomes null and void? ...
The rUK is holding itself out as a continuing state and Scotland as a new state.
Hence the threats that Scotland would not be eligible for membership of the EU, NATO etc.
A continuing state keeps the obligations and memberships, but of course a new state has no debt or memberships...
There is also opinion that because the UK was formed by a treaty between 2 sovereign countries, then both will be continuing states when the treaty is undone.
I think most Scots would find not taking a share of the debt repugnant though, but if grandstanding rUK politicians try to prevent us having our share of the UK's assets, then that attitude may change.
Exactly - the No campaign want it both ways. Either Scotland is a continuing state, in which case it inherits all the assets, obligations, debts and treaties of the UK, or it's a new state in which case it inherits nothing, including the debt.
Now I'm all in favour of Scotland agreeing to fund a share of the rUK's debt, but not without reciprocal sharing of the assets.
An iS would need to be a regular borrower in international capital markets. In that context, no sane politician would start life for an independent state by staging a "technical" default. Even by AS's standards that would (beyond the rhetoric) be an act of extreme folly. Imagine starting life with a Panama solution to currency management and a technical default. Ridiculous in the extreme.
It would not be helpful to the rUK (the bit that many YES supporters conveniently like to forget) however we saw in January that AS nonsense led to a very clear declaration that the rUK would honour all outstanding debt irrespective of the result. At least one party is behaving responsibly and maturely. Who would have thought that from a posse of Tories, Labour and LDs!
It must be very embarrassing that the leaders of yS are able to make our terrible troika appear responsible and mature. Still there is always one silver lining.
[quote=aracer ]Junkyard » What debts it has none - they are not and never were her debts they are the UK's and still are.
Except Scotland is part of the UK, hence the debts partly belong to it. The fact that rUK has agreed it will honour the debts post independence (which is had to do to avoid market panic which would affect iS just as much as rUK) if iS walks away does not change that.
The law is clear on this and it disagrees with you. I dont even think No argues they could not do this legally it is that clear cut.
Morally I doubt anyone disagrees that Scotland is as liable for this as she is liable to get a fair share of the assets. I assume it will be used as a bargaining chip but it is most unlikely she will refuse to take any but they would be daft to not pretend they might - why weaken your hand before you negotiate? How much depends on how rUK acts as much as their [iS] stubbornness I would imagine.
Currency, EU membership, debts, Nuke bases, NATO...I cannot see either side getting all they wish and i doubt either side will capitulate like a Clegg though. It will be a messy,terse, tense and shitty negotiation...not that unlike here 😀
On the contrary, a country that didn't pay a debt that it was not its debt would be seen as sensible and prudent. And, just as importantly, more solvent.
Really, it's Osborne et al who are being reckless and irresponsible by ruling out perfectly sensible options for political reasons. Remember that there's no paper trail for the "no currency union" thing - it was made up on the hoof because Alastair Darling thought it'd help. Just like Theresa May declaring there would be border controls, it's something they just make up on the spur of the moment to see if it scares people.
Luckily, most people aren't that easily cowed.
Sorry Ben, not even close. It would reckless and irresponsible to accept a proposal that carries such obviously assymetric risk. Hence the unilateral position and the clear advice - not an option. The "be prepared to call their bluff advice" is equally obvious. I spent the bulk of my early career managing capital raisings for governments and institutions or investing in them. In all that time, I cannot remember one occasion where any new or existing state manged it's debt management strategy in the way that seems to being imagined by the more radical (or ignorant) yS supporters.
Forget BT, the rUK should be resolutely clear in rejecting such nonsense and simply ignore it. If yS want to talk hogwash, let them get on with it. They will only have themselves to blame when the cold hard face of reality hits them as it inevitably would and AS knows. Despite behaviour and language that suggest the opposite, AS is not a fool, he is simply bluffing. Call his bluff and move on.
Ben it is not just "Osborne et al" that don't want a currency union it is also the majority of people in the rest of the UK, can't independence supporters just accept this and move on? The fact that a currency union is still an issue makes the independence movement look very weak.
It kinda undermines that when senior No politicians say a currency union might still happen, and when No advisers agree with them. Which makes sense when really a currency union would be good for the rUK as well.
But one should never underestimate a Tory's ability to cut off someone else's nose to spite their face.
I have always said this would not be the amicable divorce claimed by dear leader. I get ridiculed for suggesting a bleak outlook for iScotland. Few here get ridiculed for their nonsensical belief that things are so bleak now. If anyone wants to see forces of darkness just watch the yS promo video. Westminster is Mordor. If Scotland is being raped then I can't see it.
I wonder what drives dear leaders beliefs. He has supported independence all his adult life, however most of his arguments did not stack up in the early 70's during his student days. Scotland was still electing Tory MP's, North Sea oil was in it's infancy, we voted for the common market, we were getting traditional left leaning Labour governments, Scotland was not proving the region of choice for the vast bulk of UK immigrants. Margaret Thatcher and the miners strike had not yet happened. Renewable energy and the banking sector not yet on the scene. All the while he was earning temporary bans from his party. As far as I can see you could only really give him Trident/Polaris.
I would say he feels the same as a great many Scots in that he does not and never has felt any connection to the people of the UK. That is a shame.
Do I think the people of Lockerbie and Carlisle should be subject to the same treaties, members of the same international organisations, use the same currency? Of course I do, but that is because they come from the same country.
Do I think the people of Lockerbie and Carlisle should be subject to the same treaties, members of the same international organisations, use the same currency? Of course I do, but that is because they come from the same country.
What about the people of Dublin and Belfast?
Again, you're assuming that independence is purely Alex Salmond's personal crusade. It's not - there are many non-SNP people in favour of independence, it's so much bigger than Alex Salmond.
[quote=bencooper ]Now I'm all in favour of Scotland agreeing to fund a share of the [s]r[/s]UK's debt, but not without reciprocal sharing of the assets.
I think we're all happy with that, and some of us don't have the strange idea that the currency is an asset.
[quote=bencooper ]It kinda undermines that when senior No politicians say a currency union might still happen, and when No advisers agree with them. Which makes sense when really a currency union would be good for the rUK as well.
senior No politicians plural? No advisors? I thought it was just a lone wolf, who if the rumours are correct has a history of grinding axes.
Also as pointed out numerous times there are some quite serious disadvantages to that scenario for rUK - was that "la la la" I heard you saying as you put your fingers in your ears?
Ben the senior politician you refer to is supposedly Vince Cable, with the way the lib dems are doing in the polls he will be lucky to be in parliament let alone in a coalition come 2015 so his influence on any separation negotiations will be nill. So one minor lib dem politician undermines the chancellor and the what 58% of people in the rest of the UK think? I just do not see it.
Is the reason you can't admit that a currency union is no longer an option for an independent Scotland because it couldn't function without one?
I cannot remember one occasion where any new or existing state manged it's debt management strategy in the way that seems to being imagined by the more radical (or ignorant) yS supporters.
What debt strategy ?they do not have any only the UK has debt. Your clear about other stuff say EU membership and[ lets call them assets] and who keeps them so why not just accept it here as well.
you like to be clear about facts so
Does Scotland have any debts legally post devolution?
How many of these states were anything like this and we were ones seceding from a union. I dont recall a situation like this so what are you comparing it to?
TBH its a pointless debate they could walk away legally but they wont. the only issue is how much they take and , like everything else, none of us know,
EDIT:
some of us don't have the strange idea that the currency is an asset
GENUINE QUESTION - do you have a link to anything explaining the rational behind this -google ans THM were no help
ta
Is the reason you can't admit that a currency union is no longer an option for an independent Scotland because it couldn't function without one?
Why not? Loads of countries manage fine without a currency union with the UK.
fasternotfatter - MemberBen the senior politician you refer to is supposedly Vince Cable, with the way the lib dems are doing in the polls he will be lucky to be in parliament let alone in a coalition come 2015 so his influence on any separation negotiations will be nill.
It's not relevant whether or not he'd be in the negotiations- it's relevant that he confirmed what so many people believed, that the official line was a lie, told purely for short-term political reasons to mislead the public and sabotage the democratic process, as part of the very positive No campaign.
If scotland was not in a currency union with rUK would this not be worse for scotland re the debt?
They would be obliged to pay out in pounds I assume and therefore this would , I assume, affect the currency.
Does it make it stronger or weaker?
What are the risks?
Is it asymmetrical?
Thats some more genuine questions.
[quote=fasternotfatter ]Is the reason you can't admit that a currency union is no longer an option for an independent Scotland because it couldn't function without one?
I doubt ben is actually that keen on a currency union, but I'm sure he's aware that some people who might vote yes would be put off if there wasn't going to be one. That's fundamentally what this is all about and why the Yes campaign is so worried by it.
[quote=Junkyard ]If scotland was not in a currency union with rUK would this not be worse for scotland re the debt?
They would be obliged to pay out in pounds I assume and therefore this would , I assume, affect the currency.
Don't forget that they can't be prevented from using the pound as currency (or having their own currency directly linked to the pound), one or other of which seem the most likely options if they become independent.
On the contrary, a country that didn't pay a debt that it was not its debt would be seen as sensible and prudent. And, just as importantly, more solvent.
This is just yet more wanting to have your cake and eat it. 'We want all of the advantages of the union and none of the disadvantages of being independent, and if we don't get everything we want we're going to throw our toys out of the pram'.
Repeatedly claiming iS will have no debt is disingenuous at best.
