[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

genuine q alert
Is it really the case they MUST?
For example the above says aims which can mean they aim to do it but do not meet the criteria and still join? I am not trying to wiggle I honestly dont know the answer here and I am intrigued.
your link also starts with

Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) represents a major step in the integration of EU economies. It involves the coordination of economic and fiscal policies, a common monetary policy, and a common currency, the euro. Whilst all 27 EU Member States take part in the economic union, some countries have taken integration further and adopted the euro. Together, these countries make up the euro area.

I dont know the answer but I am interested.

NW - I assumed that you read your own sides documentation. It's very clear in this case. As the Scottish Government present it

Under Article 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) makes clear, [b]an EU Member State is only permitted to join the Eurozone [/b]and adopt the Euro as its currency when four economic tests have been met.

Apologies for previous abuse is not necessary. Education is a noble profession! 😉

Remember the best case for voting no is normally found in yS documentation.

THM, you've clarified nothing there, what are you getting at? we don't want to join the euro so the relevance of your post is... I don't know frankly. We'll not be able to relocate Scotland to the mediteranean either. Telling us we can't do things we don't want to do is just odd.

ernie_lynch - Member

If you don't want monetary union then don't apply to be a member of the EU.

Jesus christ, have we really not debunked this often enough? It is incredible.

So why does the Scottish Government put such "incredible stuff" on THEIR website. Is it a joke?

Note, I a quoting the Scottish government - ask them what they are getting at? Seems pretty obvious to me....

EDIT: LOL you are stating their position 8O...is this your famous neutrality again? Your taking some information out of context at best and wilfully misleading at worst. It does not support the claim they have to join the Euro now does it ?
Still you accuse AS of smoke and mirrors lies and distortions

His point was they do not want to join. you have not even remotely answered that question
Education is a noble profession and it involves answering questions

the actual article you quote is available [url= http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/5894/15 ]HERE[/url]
is pretty clear on the issue that they dont have to....lets just take the preceeding pre amble to that quote eh

Notwithstanding the clear economic case supporting the retention of sterling as Scotland's currency following independence, [b]critics of independence have claimed that under EU rules an independent Scotland would have no choice but to become a member of the Eurozone and adopt the Euro as its currency following independence.

This assertion is incorrect on two counts.[/b]

First, the simple fact that eleven EU Member States do not use the euro as their currency[78] - only two of which formally have an opt-out from the relevant articles in the Treaty - itself demonstrates this is a wholly misleading claim. The Member States that do not use the euro include Sweden, a member since 1995, along with many of the countries acceding to the EU in 2004 and 2007.

Second, as explained in detail below, it ignores both the prerogatives Member States retain in determining whether, and when it is appropriate - in terms of their economic self-interest - to adopt the Euro, and the economic pre-conditions that Member States must satisfy (under EU law) before being allowed to join the Eurozone. It is simply not in the interests of individual Member States or of the Eurozone as a whole to encourage a country to adopt the Euro against its own economic self-interest or the economic interest of the Eurozone as a whole.

As already noted, the decision of the Scottish Government that an independent Scotland will retain sterling is one based on economic considerations and economic evidence. The analysis of the FCWG demonstrates that adopting the Euro immediately following independence would weaken the Scottish economy and, by extension, weaken the wider Eurozone economy.

The Euro was adopted as the EU single currency in 1999, with Euro notes and coins being introduced into circulation and replacing the national currencies of the participating countries on 1st January 2002. The legal base for the introduction of the Euro, and the rules governing Member States' eligibility to adopt the Euro as national currency, was set out in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which entered into force in 1993. Both the UK and Denmark secured an "opt-out" from the Treaty provisions relating to the Euro, and neither are under an obligation to participate in the single currency arrangement. Both countries can, however, "opt-in" to Euro membership if they wish, assuming they meet the strict pre-requisites for membership.

Since 1993 successive UK Governments have maintained the position that while membership of the Eurozone is not entirely ruled out, this would only be contemplated if a number of economic "tests" demonstrated this was in the UK's best economic interests and providing the majority of the public endorsed adopting the Euro as the UK currency in a referendum. In 2003 the Treasury published results of the five economic "tests" deemed appropriate to determining if Eurozone entry was economically desirable, and found these tests were not satisfied. Since then, and particularly against the backdrop of the financial and economic crisis, official and public opinion in the UK has significantly hardened against Eurozone membership under any circumstances.

Under Article 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) makes clear, an EU Member State is only permitted to join the Eurozone and adopt the Euro as its currency when four economic tests have been met. These are generally referred to as the "convergence criteria" and are designed to ensure a new Eurozone member will avoid any significant domestic economic disturbance upon entry. The four tests are:

Now what is it you call AS again when you accuse him of this? I forget...what was that about taking a fact and then smoke and mirrors

Obviously the documentation of EUs treaties is bobbins!

Another odd reason to join - they waste money on lawyers and documentation that is total bobbins. brilliant. It gets better and better.

No wonder yS get so angry. Trying to pretend this stuff makes sense would test anyone's patience and credibility.

teamhurtmore - Member

So why does the Scottish Government put such "incredible stuff" on THEIR website. Is it a joke?

Are you feeling quite alright? The quote from the website doesn't support what Ernie is saying.

I don't know if it supports what you're saying or not, right now I just have no idea what point it is you'd like to make.

See no evil etc...

Seems like a good idea, otherwise your sanity would be under threat.

Junky - To be fair we did that many, many pages ago: Any new applicant nation has to formally commit to joining the Euro in the future, although they may not fulfil the criteria to adopt the Euro at the time of their membership.

Pretending that you can successfully negotiate membership, including that commitment, whilst making public proclamations that you're lying about it and have no intention of adopting it seems like getting off on the wrong foot a little, doesn't it?

Ssshhhh, that's nasty talk ninfan.

you mean like the bit where they said why it was wrong or just the bit you want to quote?
They have stated the criteria for joining the EU zone as laid out by the EU they also say pretty clearly why they wont have to join the euro zone

what about this from the same article

It is very clear that there are simply no conceivable circumstances in which an independent Scotland would be "forced to join" the Eurozone.

I do not know why you are taking it out of context and claiming it is confusing tbh or even more incredulously that it supports your view. Its the complete opposite of what you are saying.

Any new applicant nation has to formally commit to joining the Euro in the future, although they may not fulfil the criteria to adopt the Euro at the time of their membership.

Sorry THM - I'm sure that SNP's team of crack negotiators, pumped with success after getting everything they wanted out of their meetings with Dave and Gideon without having to concede a thing, will fly straight out and bargain the best possible deal for Scotland - before flying out to Gaza, bringing peace to the middle east, and stopping on the way back to smooth things over in the Korean DMZ, and back in time for tea and biccies.

Edit:

Junky - Official line from the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

THM's finally snapped 😆 Are you going to read this in the morning, possibly with a [i]really[/i] bad headache, and go "WTF does my post even say?"

Ninfan; agreed it is a somewhat uneasy tactic, but that's the nature of the beast- it is the exact position occupied by Sweden, who have committed to join the euro, then held a referendum to rule it out, without ever renouncing their commitment to join.

The route to EU membership without the euro is a well trodden and accepted one- that's why all new accession treaties include a commitment to join the euro but have absolutely no penalty or consequence for not doing so.

This is, to be blunt, a subject that we've done too many times to the exact same conclusion.

Here, have a lovely UK government link

Sober as a judge, hence able to read!

Any idea why the Maastricht criteria were out in place and why A140 exists?

[quote=ninfan ]Sorry THM - I'm sure that SNP's team of crack negotiators, pumped with success after getting everything they wanted out of their meetings with Dave and Gideon without having to concede a thing, will fly straight out and bargain the best possible deal for Scotland - before flying out to Gaza, bringing peace to the middle east, and stopping on the way back to smooth things over in the Korean DMZ, and back in time for tea and biccies.

You english FFS it will be Irn Bru and tunnocks
I dont think even AS thinks this will happen but he will say it if he thinks it will win some votes 😉

Sober as a judge, hence able to read!

Northwind - Member

Jesus christ, have we really not debunked this often enough? It is incredible.

"Debunked" what ?

I'm not the messiah btw.

ernie_lynch - Member

"Debunked" what ?

See how I quoted your post, so you'd know what bit I was referring to? You're welcome.

it is the exact position occupied by Sweden, who have committed to join the euro, then held a referendum to rule it out, without ever renouncing their commitment to join.

There remains a significant difference - they didn't tell anyone till [b]after[/b] they got membership - Scotland are announcing it [b]before[/b] even entering negotiations 😆

See how I quoted your post, so you'd know what bit I was referring to? You're welcome.

You're in a right grumpy mood ain't ya ?

You quoted this :

ernie_lynch - Member

If you don't want monetary union then don't apply to be a member of the EU.

So what's been "debunked" ?

ernie_lynch - Member

So what's been "debunked" ?

The thing that you said.

ninfan - Member

There remains a significant difference - they didn't tell anyone till after they got membership - Scotland are announcing it before even entering negotiations

No, it's not so significant- as borne out by all those recent accession treaties I also mentioned, whose commitment to join the euro is designed to be nonbinding and ignorable. It really is just a case of looking at the real world cases, the EU makes no attempt to enforce euro membership.

they didn't tell anyone till after they got membership - Scotland are announcing it before even entering negotiations

Poor man he can never get it right for you can he 😉

I think it's would be very hard not to be angry having to defend such tosh. I think we need to be more sympathetic, perhaps.

JL still seems to be missing this is a solid LW position supporting independence. Damn puppets.

The thing that you said.

So it's not true - if you don't want monetary union then it's fine to apply to be a member of the EU ?
Fair enough if that's what you want to believe.

Although I don't understand why anyone who enthusiastically supports the EU should be so strongly opposed to one of its central aims.

ernie_lynch - Member

So it's not true - if you don't want monetary union then it's fine to apply to be a member of the EU ? Fair enough if that's what you want to believe.

You could, of course, read my posts explaining why we know this is the case, with precedent and real world examples. Or any of the huge number of commentaries on the subject, including that one I posted from the House of Commons research library. Just sayin'.

Although I don't understand why anyone who enthusiastically supports the EU should be so strongly opposed to one of its central aims.

Isn't it worse than that? YS recognises that the €-zone is basically a fudge but then claims bizarrely that this represents something that is more in the interests of Scotland than the alternative. Forget Derren Brown, it's more Tommy Cooper.

At least les francais are waking up and smelling le cafe if today's FT is anything to go by.

This is, to be blunt, a subject that we've done too many times to the exact same conclusion.

read my posts explaining why we know this is the case, with precedent and real world examples. Or any of the huge number of commentaries on the subject, including that one I posted from the House of Commons research library.

Well you're obviously convinced by your own point of view, that's excellent.

Let's have someone else say it then, that nice Herman Von Rumpoy that we keep hearing from:

“At this stage the Czech Republic is not meeting all the criteria, so the problem is not a problem today. But even if you meet the criteria, then of course the Czech Republic has to make its own decision in its own constitutional order. So I will not interfere in this internal debate; it’s up to the Czech Republic to make up its mind.“

So suburbanreuben, why do you believe it's not true? What part of my argument do you think is false?

I'll ask the same question of Ernie, with no expectation of success.

Is the CZ about to apply for Euro membership? Your right I must have been drinking if that's the case.

I'll ask the same question of Ernie, with no expectation of success.

Listen mate, you're clearly in no mood for rational debate - I can see that you're far too angry for that.

I am somewhat surprised that AS is so willing to negotiate joining the EU without getting his fair share of its assets - i.e. its currency.

Scotlands 18 month timescale looks somewhat less realistic when you look at those numbers!

Is the CZ about to apply for Euro membership? Your right I must have been drinking if that's the case

you mean they have joined the EU but not the Euro zone and they dont have to - it counters your claim . Why is this having to be explained to you?

YS recognises that the €-zone is basically a fudge but then claims bizarrely that this represents something that is more in the interests of Scotland than the alternative

Listen mate, you're clearly in no mood for rational debate - I can see that you're far too angry for that

I am very chilled tonight but clearly I'm not going to get to engage in any sort of debate, because you'll ignore anything you don't feel like responding to and make odd personal comments instead...

and THM is still largely speaking in tongues. I mean really, can anyone translate this for me? "JL still seems to be missing this is a solid LW position supporting independence."

On that subject btw,

teamhurtmore - Member

Is the CZ about to apply for Euro membership?

Nope, they're choosing not to despite having committed to joining, exactly as Scotland would have to- that's kind of the entire point. And the european council president confirms that adopting the euro is purely an internal matter for the Czech Republic, into which the EU will not interfere. So it is a fine real world example of the EU's position on making new members joining the euro.

And that is rational debate eh rather than a goad

Well quite a rational comment. Although I can tell that you probably don't agree.

Obviously not a "debate" though, I don't think there's really much point trying for a rational debate. Specially with you throwing in the laughing emoticons for good measure.

Northwind - Member

I am very chilled tonight..

Now that has made me smile 😀

you'll ignore anything you don't feel like responding to

Luckily you're "very chilled" so you won't be bothered by that.

JL - apparently some Westminster labour stooge, rather than a democratically elected and worthy leader of S labour
LW - apparently a political persuasion that is united in favour of a yes vote

Both tosh obviously, but spouted with enough regularity that I though abbreviations would suffice. You may recall the rather fanciful hypothesis posted about 10 pages back, that support for/against was spilt along political lines and that there was near unanimity among LW (left wing) politicians in favour.

Nah, I don't remember that tbh, I ignore most of the drivel. So is it Johann Lamont then? Even knowing what the abbreviations are supposed to mean, I still can't really see how it all fits into the subject at hand, bit random?

ernie_lynch - Member

Luckily you're "very chilled" so you won't be bothered by that.

Bothered? Course not. Nonplussed, I suppose, since apparently posting dry facts makes me look angry. Is it my accent?

Specially with you throwing in the laughing emoticons for good measure.

We'll apparently she is quite important in Scottish politics despite the recent desperate recent TV showings and she is left wing (ok labour but kind of LW) but oddly not in favour of this new utopia proposed by the deceitful one. Only mentioned it as she was doing some more blustering today. But easy to airbrush under thoughtspeak.

TBH, I've kinda lost track of all the TLAs used by THM. With those, and the special language he's made up for himself (The deceitful one? Thoughtspeak?) it's pretty hard to work out what's going on.

Missed this by Philip Stephens in the ft a few days ago, but very pertinent

Mr Salmond promotes a prospectus that is both flimsier on facts and more powerful politically. His pitch is that Scots should think of what might be if only they cut the shackles of the union. [b]Many of his policies and assertions do not bear scrutiny. No matter. [/b]Mr Salmond, a professional politician to his fingertips, has tapped into the contemporary mood of anti-politics. Scotland’s first minister is the plucky insurgent battling the Tory-led establishment at Westminster.
In this guise, he has something in common with Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-Europe UK Independence party, and Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London whose ambition is to replace Mr Cameron as prime minister.[b] All three are untroubled by hard economic facts or harsh political realities. Their maverick qualities make an easy connection with voters that allows them to shrug off inconvenient truths. [/b]In an age of deep mistrust of politics, they contrive to make a plausible, often populist case that they are different.

The trouble is that the truth catches up with you in the end.

Sorry Ben it was a cryptic bastardisation of 1984s newspeak and thoughtcrime. Creepily accurate....

i wish people would speak ,clearly ,unemotionally and accurately just as as you do 😕
Yes down with this sort of thing
Again guilty of the same thing but superb 😀 [ for ernie]

I am not sure many would disagree with that assessment of AS or the others but they are successful at what they do. Its kinda of the game in politics and the methods are often dirty. Does anyone really expect any political party to deliver on its manifesto? Anyone believe the Tory green pledges pre election? Anyone ? Or labours this time?

He may well be amongst the worst but sadly that also make him one of the best.

Anyway, have we done the bit where defence secretary Philip Hammond warned that an independent Scotland would face threats from space?

Jumped the shark.

She was talking about something completely unconnected, so the lack of context makes it pretty much impossible to guess what the abbreviation is.

@Ben, I'll field this one- googled it and "thoughtspeak" is the method Andalites use to communicate, because they have no mouths. It's from a kid's tv series I think. Hope that clears everything up.

Anyway, did you have any further thoughts on HVR's thoughts on how [i]of course[/i] euro adoption is an internal matter that the EU won't interfere with, and what this tells us about the accession treaty commitment to joining the euro? I know you appreciate a good HVR quote.

Yes NW, it is clear that under the Treaty all states except Denmark and the UK are obliged to join the euro (go and read what the EU says). The fact that several don't for the sole reason that they cannot meet the required criteria is a fitting indictment of the folly of imposing a single currency on an area that is not an optimal currency one. Plus the fact that fudge rules. So AS should feel v much at home.

Scuse me, but he was very clear that he wasn't talking about not meeting the criteria. "But even if you meet the criteria, then of course the Czech Republic has to make its own decision"

Oh, I'll just acknowledge the very cheap shot "(go and read what the EU says)", poor form that, it couldn't be any clearer that I know the official EU position. No need.

Equally clear are the obligations in member states - unless quoting the treaty is indeed a thought crime?

All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.

Source: The EU Commission - they could be lying of course!

Anyway I though you guys had already discredited vP and barosso?

it couldn't be any clearer that I know the official EU position

So why are you disputing it ? Or aren't you ?

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm ]

Quote :

[b][i]All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. [/i][/b]

Which is exactly what THM said.

.

EDIT : [i]"Source: The EU Commission - they could be lying of course!"[/i]

To be fair I think the line now is that the rules will be changed so that Scotland is made an exception. Presumably little ol' Scotland with its population smaller than London's will have enough clout to do that.

teamhurtmore - Member

Equally clear are the obligations in member states

Yup. And the contradiction between the two demonstrates that the commitment to join the euro is an irrelevance. A requirement on paper, trumped by what we can all see is the reality. So why you continue to hold it up as being somehow important, or make strange comments suggesting I'm saying anything else, I don't know. The point is really very simple.

Since von rumpoy's words in this case are just echoing by the eu's actions, I think you'll struggle to discredit his comments. He is simply stating what is clearly the case, same as I am.

ernie_lynch - Member

So why are you disputing it ?

As I have explained already; there is no dispute about the EU treaty, nor have I ever suggested there is. It's simply the case that the treaty does not reflect the reality (as I have demonstrated, with real world examples and with confirmation on the record from the EU Council President)

This isn't a difficult distinction to understand. We don't need to change the rules, and we're not asking for anything different or new. We just want to use the same approach other members do.

(frankly, they[i] should[/i] change the rules; an unenforced and unenforcable treaty is worse than pointless. But for Scotland's purposes, it's not important)

Northwind - Member

THM's finally snapped Are you going to read this in the morning, possibly with a really bad headache, and go "WTF does my post even say?"

If you think [i]I[/i] need to wait until the morning to do that then you have underestimated me firstly as an opponent, and secondly as an alcoholic. 😀

I know this thread is heated, but is it all this shouty?
Maybe it would be best to continue this conversation offline, in the pub perhaps?
I appreciate you all would be conceding the home advantage.

Northwind - Member
But more to the point, shall we also agree that what Pres. Barroso says in interviews is not "the will of the EU", on account of it's not a dictatorship?

"Hangover" (???) not withstanding, I admire the impressive mental gymnastics that are required to dismiss the words of one EU official 20 hours or so ago while (and with a straight face) standing behind those of another (HvP) even when they fly in the face of the Treaty. Did someone mention selective quoting before! Still as the quote from the FT notes, yS like UKIP are past masters at "shrugging off inconvenient truths." This pattern is clear in pretty every major point of policy, it is indeed newspeak. And incredible that it is now taken as gospel.

As I have explained already; there is no dispute about the EU treaty, nor have I ever suggested there is. It's simply the case that the treaty does not reflect the reality (as I have demonstrated, with real world examples and with confirmation on the record from the EU Council President)

This isn't a difficult distinction to understand. We don't need to change the rules, and we're not asking for anything different or new. We just want to use the same approach other members do.

(frankly, they should change the rules; an unenforced and unenforcable treaty is worse than pointless. But for Scotland's purposes, it's not important)

You see when you make your point calmly without over emotive rhetoric I make an effort to understand your point. So OK I get it, no matter how clear the rules concerning the accession process for a new member states you're not bothered as you feel that past examples prove that the rules are ignored.

I guess to could apply that argument and attitude to more than just the Euro, for example, the European Fiscal Compact which is another rule/legal requirement for new member states.

It would certainly help to overcome another serious criticism of the nationalists intention, ie, to slash taxes whilst at the same time increase significantly public spending. By ignoring the European Fiscal Compact an independent Scotland would be able to run up the huge budgetary deficit which their low revenue/high spending policy would inevitably cause.

Now I don't disagree that the EU regularly ignores its own rules when it feels that it's convenient to do so, although it's generally the big boys such as France, Germany, and the UK, which do, but I think for the Yes camp to offer it as a realistic strategy to be comfortably relied on isn't very convincing, and overstates how much the EU is likely to bend over backwards for Scotland.

Still I guess if your arguments are weak then you need to rely on such presuppositions - beggars can't be choosers.

And btw you still haven't explained why anyone who enthusiastically supports the EU would be so strident in their opposition to a central aim of the EU - monetary union ? Have you got an answer ?

ernie_lynch - Member

no matter how clear the rules concerning the accession process for a new member states you're not bothered as you feel that past examples prove that the rules are ignored.

There's no "feel" about it, all the past examples prove that the rules are ignored. And not quietly ignored, but openly and happily ignored by the EU.

teamhurtmore - Member

"Hangover" (???) not withstanding, I admire the impressive mental gymnastics that are required to dismiss the words of one EU official 20 hours or so ago while (and with a straight face) standing behind those of another (HvP) even when they fly in the face of the Treaty

No gymnastics whatsoever, it is 2 very seperate posts. In one, it was claimed that Pres. Barosso's words represent "the will of the EU" which is just silly. So it's not about dismissing his opinion, it's about putting it in a proper context.

In the other, we have von Rumpoy who as I say, is backed up by the clear actions of the EU.

Ironically, I could level the exact same accusation back at you, you've been happy to see von rumpoy quotes for as long as you liked what he was saying... And now you seem to want to discredit him, even though you can't deny the truth of what he's saying- play the man, as ever.

But hey, for the fun of it, forget about him entirely and just look at the EU's actions, not his words describing those actions, it doesn't weaken my point at all.

oops, post is too old...

ernie_lynch - Member

And btw you still haven't explained why anyone who enthusiastically supports the EU would be so strident in their opposition to a central aim of the EU - monetary union ? Have you got an answer ?

Does it really need to be explained? Why do you think the UK is in the EU but not the Euro? There is far more to the EU than monetary union.

So OK I get it, no matter how clear the rules concerning the accession process for a new member states you're not bothered as you feel that past examples prove that the rules are ignored.

Never mind the fact that all the experts (except a few on STW) agree that the treaties and rules do not cover the situation iScotland would be in. Or the fact that having iScotland leave the EU would cause a lot of trouble and against a who host of EU principles.

I am going to agree with sbob here its starting to just get big hitter/bitter/ranty.

Ernie your posts are little more than digs NW [ I admire your calmness] assessment of what happens seem to be reasonable - certainly you cannot deny it but you still have sarcasm
THM your posts are at best incoherent and at worst guilty of everything you rail against. You wibble on about Newspeak [ whilst calling someone the deceitful one]as if you are some bastion of truth and moderate language usage never mind how you use a quote bit that was embarrassing last night

I fear this may just be descending into ernie taking the piss and THM doing his play the man thing

The position [ thanks for finally posting some proof] is as NW says they all commit on paper to it but they are not forced to in reality- unless you can prove otherwise THM/ernie with real world examples and all, rather than do snidey BS?
If you wish to claim the source is weak perhaps you can point to examples of the Euro being forced on countries ?

I realise we disagree and I am straying into getting personal myself here but can we not just disagree politely and try and concentrate on facts presented and present them in a credible way

rather than misquote, take the piss and use newspeak to complain about newspeak.

I am not optomisitc

Ok, so I have read a fair few of these pages and the overall impression that I get is

- EU: An iS wants to join and the rUK will not object. At the moment no one is sure what rules will apply, but there will have to be significant negotiations. At the best case it will be seamless and an iS will join the EU with the same benefits as the existing UK. At the worst case an iS will be considered as a new nation and Scotland and the people living is Scotland will have left the EU. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle

- Currency: An iS will use Sterling. A currency union is probably unlikely, since all rUK leaders have said that they will not support it. For the supporters of a currency union (generally from the yS camp) who point out that it is the interests of the rUK to be in a currency union, this is a political decision and as such the outcome may not be sensible.

- Pre-negotiations: Given both the Scottish and UK parliaments agreed to have no pre-negotiations, some of the complaints about it not happening seem a little unreasonable. The Scottish Govt have issued a 'White Paper' on what they would like the outcome to be, it seems rather crass to claim that responses to that of being pre-negotiations.

- Timescales: 16 months to work out all the details is going to be tight. Just the EU and Currency could take that long. While the yS campaign can claim that discussions should start days after an Yes vote, you do need to have the other parties to be involved. That is the rUK, the EU, NATO, UN. An iS cannot control their time scales or availabilities. In addition does a small nation have the resources to be able to do all of this, and achieve an outcome that is acceptable the iS

However all of this can be ignored. We cannot predict what the outcomes of the negotiations will be, we cannot predict if people will be better off or worse off in 5, 10, 25 or 50 years time. Independence is an act of faith. You either want it or you don't. There is a real risk that it all goes pear shaped - an iS has no currency and is outside the EU. If you are prepared to accept that AND still want independence then vote Yes. If you are only wanting Independence because you will be better off and will get your way on all points, then perhaps a does of realism is required

"rather than misquote, take the piss and use newspeak to complain about newspeak."

Also, to call something newspeak in a way that makes it obvious they haven't read 1984 and don't actually get the point about newspeak.

I support independence for me it is both an end in itself and a start of ofa process wh ich can lead to further changes such as wider participation in politics especially among poorer or disadvantaged communities. I would hope that in an independent Scotland something like thecommonweal could be adopted by a genuine left of centre party.
[url= http://www.allofusfirst.org ]thecommonweal[/url]
Sadmadalan there are lots of risks associated with independence but some are there with the union too .

Junkyard - lazarus

I am going to agree with sbob here

Excellent, so it's decided then.
We'll all reconvene in my 16th century local, which as well as currently serving "Piledriver" at £2.50 a pint, also has a pint on at the moment that tastes like Fox's Crinkle Crunch Butter biscuits!
Huzzah!

there are lots of risks associated with independence but some are there with the union too

There are risks in anything, the union will change over time, it always has, sometimes for your benefit, sometimes against. My problem with the current yS is that it is not a true vision. It wants independence but to remain in EU. It wants to manage its own finances, but as a junior partner in a currency union. Where is the big vision of a better Scotland? At the moment the yS seems to be treating it as an academic exercise.

What the entire UK needs at the moment is less centralisation. More decisions to be taken at local levels. Either regionally (e.g. Scotland, Wales, Wessex, London) or lower. Central government should only do those activities which need to be done at the centre. This does mean that we will not have a single health system, we will have different policing targets, we will have different planning regimes, etc. But that is a different argument.

Junkyard - lazarus
I am going to agree with sbob here its starting to just get big hitter/bitter/ranty.

Ernie your posts are little more than digs......

I stopped right there. I've mostly ignored your posts on this thread JY and only started to read that one because I could see that it mentioned my name.

You're quick to accuse others of being unreasonable and motivated purely by personal animosity and yet that describes precisely your own behaviour. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Despite your relentless attempts to accuse me of personalizing the debate it's clear from the fact that I am repeatedly agreeing with THM, someone who I normally strongly disagree with on political issues, that personal differences have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my stance on Scottish independence. The same is true of Z-11.

So have a think about it fella and try to stick to the topic instead of your tedious personal off topic attacks 💡

You're quick to accuse others of being unreasonable and motivated purely by personal animosity and yet that describes precisely your own behaviour. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

+1. Better to enjoy than to feed IMO.

Despite your relentless attempts to accuse me of personalizing the debate it's clear from the fact that I am repeatedly agreeing with THM, someone who I normally strongly disagree...

United by Scotland and religion - a heady cocktail that one! A Blessed Easter to you Ernie.

I love the bllx about facts when the central premise of this whole debate is a blatant lie. Despite that, a very interesting topic.

You start with a personal dig ernie they say you dont do it ...that is just your sense of humour I assume.....I do struggle to teel when you are just taking the piss and when you mean.... I suspect you like that.

relentless attempts to accuse me of personalizing the debate

Obviously ernie you are not doing it to those you are agreeing with but check out this exchange with me or the one with NW yesterday and reflect on those?
Its reasonable to say I have done it as well - I even mentioned it in my post Ernie.
Shall we call the appeal a resounding failure then?

Back to the defence thing - because, frankly, I find it more interesting than the endless arguments around currency and the EU - the rUK is going to have a wee problem with it's shiny new aircraft carriers according to Private Eye. The drydock in Portsmouth is only just big enough to hold the Illustrious, and the new carriers are 3 times the size.

So the only place the rUK's carriers can be repaired and maintained, unless the rUK wants to build a whole new drydock facility, is at Rosyth in Scotland.

Ben you have been proven wrong on currency and the EU. Maybe that is why you are starting to get bored?
Big infrastructure projects are good for the economy. I imagine people in
Portsmouth will jump at the chance for a bigger dry dock. We don't build war ships in foreign countries I am afraid, another negative aspect of the yes campaign.

fasternotfatter - Member

We don't build war ships in foreign countries I am afraid,

We do though.

No need to worry about ship contracts - it has been decreed that rUK WILL place its future orders with Scottish shipbuilders and any idea to the contrary should be dismisses as bullying, bluster , or a bluff (you decide which one).

That the beauty of voting yes, there is a guy who can be will make all these things happen.

Ben, have you wondered what they might be carrying while they are in port for a wee bit of maintenance?

Don't ask, don't tell......

Ben you have been proven wrong on currency and the EU.

For a given value of proof 😀

Ben, have you wondered what they might be carrying while they are in port for a wee bit of maintenance?

Some sailors? A travel chess set? Not nuclear weapons - I presume that's what you're hinting at - because no navy would ever leave nuclear weapons onboard a ship in drydock. Not that the carriers would ever carry nukes anyway.

not in dry dock no, but.......nuclear carriers need TLC at times too though.

Still that is another thing you will not have to worry about. There will be no Nukes GUARANTEED (?)

You mean the nuclear power plant? Yes - Scotland has nuclear power stations, we're not planning to get rid of those, so a nuclear-powered ship wouldn't be an issue.

So the only place the rUK's carriers can be repaired and maintained, unless the rUK wants to build a whole new drydock facility, is at Rosyth in Scotland.

Wow, so Northern Ireland are leaving the UK too? That will be news to the staff at Harland and Wolff!

That's a good point, I forgot about H&W. The construction is in Rosyth because the skills and other facilities are there - otherwise they could have used Inchgreen. Whether H&W could be scaled back up to handle the carriers I don't know.

Though there was a ranty article in (I think) the Telegraph suggesting that if Scotland gets independence we should take NI with us.

That's a very good idea Ben - historically we can blame a lot of NI's troubles on you Scots 😉

Not my fault, I'm a Partick Thistle fan 😉

Can I just go on record as saying we dont know what will happen with defence and it will be a big fudge on various issues [ nukes/navy/Nato/etc] to ensure the sovereignty of this great Island we call home.

Which version of the fantasy either side paints you will find to be the most convincing has already been determined by whether you want a union or not.
The facts, which are few, are only the ones that support your view, everything else is a deceitful or bullying politician, depending on which side you are on, with an agenda.

At the end you both claim victory.

It's probably a fair summary of each issue we will do turn by turn.

Whether H&W could be scaled back up to handle the carriers I don't know.