Forum menu
Ben,there isnt a plan b for currency. AS is relying on the rUK trading off using the pound in return for something missile shaped,certainly till England can build something capable of storing them. I have always favoured independence,but I always wanted it to be an incremental process to avoid upheaval, eg devo max. Since Cameron's best move was ensuring it was off the table( wonder why he might be afraid of it...) The it is a "yes" now. Afterwards I expect it to basically be a decade of devo max with an slow process of becoming fully independent. Should we vote no,and it is close,then history suggests we will be put firmly in our place,just like the last time,and Scotland will have another 35 years of watching our industries traded with Spain,getting to test new taxes etc.
In the desire to portray yes voters as "Mel Gibson wannabies" A lot of people seem to forget or ignore the fact that the Scots have twice voted in a party that favours independence. Yet the no campaign has been to try and scare us or point out how good things are just now,despite voters telling them that they aren't.
All the pros and none of the cons. He is an economic magician.
I dont think he really believes this any more than GO believes that iS mortgages will be £5 k per year worse off - they are both describing BS scenarios to suit their political agenda....it is still what politicians everywhere do.
if you believe that Scotland can walk away with and live with no debt
Everyone believes this, even you, because it is a fact [ one of the few areas where we do have facts]. No one actually thinks they will but everyone accepts they can.
As for Plan B - GO has no plan B either - and ben is correct it is just at the willing waving stage.
Ducks your probably correct that a smooth transition to independence would have been the best but I dont think this is what will happen
How skilfully and how willing each side is to horse trade is anyones guess tbh...but i imagine few of look on with admiration at the choice of candidates.
AS doesn't have another plan, he has been truthful about that (!) and admitted that F Comm are working on next alternative (not that difficult). Since he doesn't actually want policy independence he started with the € before moving on the the £. No he has to accept that his goals will promotable require (in time) a seperate current and accept that this has pros and cons.
Scotland cannot walk away - that is the fact - in the future an iS will still need to raise capital via the financial markets. The worst thing that they could do would be to destroy credibility by walking away from UK debt ("technical default" since actual default cannot happen by defitnitely). That would be extreme folly. It is not a fact it is BS. Highly appropriate BS in the context though. This is the real bluff be bluster and HM Treasury know that full well as does anyone with a basic graps of global capital markets. AS is not that stupid in practice.
Bloody IPad autocorrect above - too late to edit
No - now
Promotable - probably
Current - currency
Be - and
Graps? 😉
Missed that one Ben!!!!
iPads are a nightmare for typos 😉 and unintentional autocorrects!
AS doesn't have another plan, he has been truthful about that (!)
Amusingly I find it hard to believe he has not thought of a Plan B at some point. I can see why he wont ever say what it is publicly. Amusing role reversal here with me thinking he is being dishonest and you believing him 😀
I think they can leave debt therefore it is true. Neither of us think they will so I dont see the sense in debating whether it would be folly or prudent as it wont happen.
OK its sunny i have carb loaded its ride o clock
See you in two hours 😉
athgray - Member
I can see if you win, you have no concern in trodding on the views of a large portion of fellow Scots....
Just like if they win, they won't care about my views? That's what happens when you win/lose a vote.
If only we could get rid of this troublesome democracy stuff. Perhaps by having an elected house full of sock puppets to keep the masses happy, but with an upper house full of people who share our values to keep the sock puppets under control. With an establishment controlled press we would have no problem convincing the masses they have democracy.
Now how can we go about getting such a system? Oops, we already have it... 
THM turn the autocoreect off ! I think by complaining abiut your ipad auto correct you may br reinforcing North/South divide steriotypes 😉
@ben you are taking a percentage of the land, the top bit as it where. An interesting side factoid is that whilst you are getting more than 9% of the area you are getting less than 9% of the value. I personally don't see the parallels between Scotland and Canada/Australiia examples, they left the Empire many years ago when natural rescourcex where cheap/plentiful/undiscovered. You can try the moral/historical argument all you like but its not going to count for anything. Scotland (may) want to leave the UK, it has to do it on the UK's terms.
Weve been round the currency thing many times, AS knows he has to takr the euro if he wants to be in the EU. He equally knows he cannot say so as its likely to be a massive vote loser.
As no one has answered my questions on Scottish banks, I'll do so research myself. Standard. Life I believe set up a bank but not sureif they still have it as it didnt reallywork out. TSB, RBS, BOS are just brands owned by UK banks.
epicyclo, I find some of your views deeply troubling. Even if the result goes in favour of No, I understand a significant number of Scots are not happy. A No result will not be cause for celebration. Not wishing to see the UK break up in future, the views of this large portion of FELLOW Scots will have to be considered. I would like to think we could move to a devo max arrangement. Your use of 'they' to describe the other side is perhaps most worrying of all.
Jambalaya - I know! On banks, I have explained on here earlier. Depends on legal status eg branch v subsidiary.
As no one has answered my questions on Scottish banks, I'll do so research myself. Standard. Life I believe set up a bank but not sureif they still have it as it didnt reallywork out. TSB, RBS, BOS are just brands owned by UK banks.
What is your question? Whether there will be any retail banks in Scotland after independence? Whether there will be any Scottish-headquartered banks after independence? It's unclear what you're asking.
athgray - Member
epicyclo, I find some of your views deeply troubling. Even if the result goes in favour of No, I understand a significant number of Scots are not happy. A No result will not be cause for celebration. Not wishing to see the UK break up in future, the views of this large portion of FELLOW Scots will have to be considered. I would like to think we could move to a devo max arrangement. Your use of 'they' to describe the other side is perhaps most worrying of all.
True enough, if it is a No vote, then we will continue to keep working for separation. In the same way as we have for the last 100 years, peacefully and using the democratic process.
As for a devo max, that would have been a good solution but it was not offered.
I believe a federated UK with independent parliaments for each of the respective countries might have worked.
As far as I am concerned, any solution which includes an unelected upper body is unacceptable, and I will always oppose it.
We're a Jock Tamsons bairns
[i]As for a devo max, that would have been a good solution but it was not offered.[/i]
Was it even asked for? Didn't the SNP campaign for an independence referendum and not devo max? In the event of a no vote devo max needs to provide benefits to Scotland and the rUK. If it doesn't then it shouldn't happen, Scots should take into account that they might not get devo max and vote accordingly in the independence referendum.
fasternotfatter - Member
...Didn't the SNP campaign for an independence referendum and not devo max? In the event of a no vote devo max needs to provide benefits to Scotland and the rUK. If it doesn't then it shouldn't happen, Scots should take into account that they might not get devo max and vote accordingly in the independence referendum.
The independence movement is much more than just the SNP, so there's divergent opinions on what is best.
I agree, devo isn't on offer, so the only choice is to vote Yes for independence (or otherwise).
Judging by some of the comments coming from the unelected house, it looks like if we vote No, then we will once again be punished for our temerity in wanting separation - just like 1979.
At least this time we know what to expect if we're daft enough to believe vague promises from the UK govt.
The independence movement is much more than just the SNP, so there's divergent opinions on what is best.
Except that it isn't, is it ? Last Scottish general election the SNP received 45% of the vote, the latest opinion poll puts support for Scottish independence at 34%
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/18/uk-scotland-independence-polls-idUKKBN0DY0D020140518
So a good chunk of SNP voters don't support independence. If support for independence doesn't even extend to all SNP supporters then it's not likely to extend much beyond the SNP.
Scotland (may) want to leave the UK, it has to do it on the UK's terms.
ernie_lynch - Member
The independence movement is much more than just the SNP, so there's divergent opinions on what is best.
Except that it isn't, is it ? Last Scottish general election the SNP received 45% of the vote, the latest opinion poll puts support for Scottish independence at 34%...
Oh dear.
Let's see, on one hand we have an actual vote - which shows 45%.
On the other hand we have a poll, which is basically extrapolated opinion based on a small sample, and it shows 34%
Which to believe? Reality, or the politically motivated poll?
BTW the polls before the last election were also similarly very pessimistic about the SNPs chances. It's almost as if there was a guiding hand...
they left the Empire many years ago when natural rescourcex where cheap/plentiful/undiscovered
Okay, let's look at this in detail - you want to divide the oil reserves up by population, right?
Is that the relative population today, on the day of independence, or when the oil is actually pumped out of the well? Because population number change.
And is that all the oil that is possibly in the North Sea? We don't know how much there is. Or is it only the declared reserves? In which case what do we do when more oil is discovered, or it turns out a well doesn't have as much as predicted?
Now, does this only apply to oil, or does it apply to other resources? Coal? Gas? Shale oil? Limestone, silica sand, gold, timber? Same questions apply to those - how on earth do you divide those up by population?
It's totally unworkable, which is why it's never happened - never mind the reason that it's in Scottish territory so it's Scottish.
Oh dear.Let's see, on one hand we have an actual vote - which shows 45%.
On the other hand we have a poll, which is basically extrapolated opinion based on a small sample, and it shows 34%
Which to believe? Reality, or the politically motivated poll?
Oh dear.
You think there is a "politically motivated" conspiracy involving Reuters and ICM.
Last Scottish general election the SNP received 45% of the vote, the latest opinion poll puts support for Scottish independence at 34%.
do any of these polls show that no tories, labour supporters, lib dems or others support independence
Your a big fan of the polls what do they show? i looked for as much as two perhaps three minutes then got bored
i did find this though
Wilson is part of a quiet revolt that may, some polls suggest, swing the result, seeing as many as 250,000 Labour supporters vote yes
Its the guardian though - well what would you expect 😉
Its certainly more a SNP than the others but not exclusively...more bitter toegther project fear eh 😛
BTW the polls before the last election were also similarly very pessimistic about the SNPs chances. It's almost as if there was a guiding hand...
IIRC most polling companies recorded a big swing to SNP in the run up nearer to the election did they not? It was just that Panelbase recorded a high SNP result further out from the actual vote?
That's a question btw.
do any of these polls show that no tories, labour supporters, lib dems or others support independence
Well I guess that some Tory, Labour, and LibDem voters, will be supporting "independence", which would put support for independence among SNP supporters even lower.
Bearing in mind that most supporters of Scottish independence will have voted SNP, and most SNP supporters will support independence, it shows that support for independence isn't, contrary to claims made by epicyclo, "much more than just the SNP". It's probably a little more, but not "much more".
Your a big fan of the polls what do they show?
I recognise that within limitations they can provide a reasonable assessment of public opinion. This recognition isn't based on whether or not the opinion polls are saying what I want them to say.
A little while ago, in fact only a week or two ago, all the saltire waving nats on here were wetting themselves in excitement because the opinion polls were showing shifts in their favour, now that this no longer appears to be the case they are instead dismissing opinion polls as some sort of "politically motivated" conspiracy.
Engage in hypocrisy if you want, but I prefer not to.
[b]Bencooper, this page:[/b]
Okay, let's look at this in detail - [u]you want to divide the oil reserves up by population[/u], right?Is that the relative population today, on the day of independence, or when the oil is actually pumped out of the well? Because population number change.
And is that all the oil that is possibly in the North Sea? We don't know how much there is. Or is it only the declared reserves? In which case what do we do when more oil is discovered, or it turns out a well doesn't have as much as predicted?
[u]Now, does this only apply to oil, or does it apply to other resources? Coal? Gas? Shale oil? Limestone, silica sand, gold, timber?[/u] Same questions apply to those -[u] how on earth do you divide those up by population?
[/u]
It's totally unworkable, which is why it's never happened - never mind the reason that [u]it's in Scottish territory so it's Scottish.[/u]
[b]Bencooper, page 12 of this very thread:[/b]
Then divide by the percentage of the UK population who live in Scotland.
Yup, absolutely. [u]Everything gets shared that way[/u] - assets, liabilities, things where no-one can agree if they're assets or liabilities, [u]everything. It's the only fair way to do it.[/u]
ernie_lynch - Member
Oh dear.
You think there is a "politically motivated" conspiracy involving Reuters and ICM.
Nope, I just think the polls have proven to be wildly inaccurate, so either their methodology is wrong or they are being manipulated. Take your choice.
The only thing that counts is the actual vote.
Talking of which, we have one coming up....
You made it very clear that you think the opinion polls are "politically motivated". Read your own posts.
I already know what I think.
Just thought you might like to consider why they are so far out.
Ninfan, I refer you to my reply way back on page 12 - you're confusing an asset and a natural resource.
Well you don't seem to know what you think. Firstly you dismissed the ICM poll as "politically motivated", then when you realised the absurdity of that you backtracked and claimed that you meant "wildly inaccurate".
There's a big difference between "politically motivated" and "wildly inaccurate", as I'm sure you realise.
you're confusing an asset and a natural resource.
Given your stance on what a currency is
Hahahahahahahahah 😆
However I'll repeat your own words to you again
[i][u]Everything[/u] gets shared that way - assets, liabilities, things where no-one can agree if they're assets or liabilities, [u]everything[/u]. It's the only fair way to do it.[/i]
So, which part of the word [i]Everything[/i] did I not understand Ben?
...put support for independence among SNP supporters even lower.
I would think that support for independence among SNP supporters would be very high, among SNP voters is another thing. Don't confuse the two.
ernie_lynch - Member
Well you don't seem to know what you think...
I do, however I have no control over your interpretations.
Ernie I asked for evidence [polls]to support your claim repeating it is not actually evidence.
Engage in hypocrisy if you want, but I prefer not to.
I asked for the polls you did not post any and I am the hypocrite 😯
FWIW I dont actually have much of an opinion here tbh I asked for evidence what you gave me was your opinion again with some really hurtful nasty words...meany 🙄
so do you have polls showing what way supporters of each political party intend to vote or not? we dont need to debate it we could have actual facts rather than your opinion for a third time.
I asked for the polls you did not post any and I am the hypocrite
I haven't called anyone a "hypocrite". I suggested that being enthusiastic about opinion polls when they are in your favour but then dismissing them when they weren't amounted to hypocrisy.
You either pay attention to opinion polls or you don't, irrespective of whether they back up your agenda or not. I thought the logic behind that was obvious.
As for your question whether I "have polls showing [i]blah blah[/i]" I know better than to try and engage in any meaningful debate with you, especially on this thread.
You predictably come out with bollox like "you gave me was your opinion again with some really hurtful nasty words", or "you called me a hypocrite", and quite frankly I can't be arsed beyond superficial and cursory comments. And I generally avoid reading most of what you post - I suggest that you perhaps take a reciprocal attitude towards me ? 🙂
Do either of you need a cuddle?
JY might.....I've been hurtful and nasty to him apparently.
So, which part of the word Everything did I not understand Ben?
Okay, I should probably have been clearer. "Everything" doesn't include air, soil, the British sense of humour, natural resources, and pretty much anything that's, well, nonsense to try to share by population.
So how do you think it would work? How would you divide up the oil?
I'm supposed to be the one clinging to some idea despite the facts 😉
and pretty much anything that's, well, nonsense to try to share by population.
Like the pound?
So how do you think it would work? How would you divide up the oil?
Like the pound?
You continue to want to pick and choose your interpretation of what amounts to an 'asset' that can be divided in the most dubious and preferential fashion Ben!
It remains a lot easier and achievable to allocate equitable shares of the oilfields than it is to share the 'asset' of an established currency...
If iScotland wants a share of banknotes then that is fine. It just doesn't get the rUK as a lender of last resort.
[quote=ninfan ]
bencooper » and pretty much anything that's, well, nonsense to try to share by population.
Like the pound?
😆
[quote=konabunny ]
Like all "obvious" things I'm not sure it's at all obvious - though it would probably help if you listed those you think you have now. Isn't there an EU rule about banks having to be based in the country in which they do most of their business?
Are you suggesting that there would be no banks in an independent Scotland? Are you predicting that HSBC, the Coop and whoever else has outlets would simply withdraw from the market? Are you saying investment banks wouldn't arrange finance for businesses? Is that your question?
I think you're referring to jambalaya's question, not mine, despite quoting me. I was assuming the question was about banks being head-quartered in iS rather than just having branches there, though I may have been wrong about that.
It remains a lot easier and achievable to allocate equitable shares of the oilfields
Go on, then - how do we do it? By reserves? By resources? By area? When do we pick to compare populations? What do we do about capital investment costs, fluctuating oil prices, etc etc?
I haven't called anyone a "hypocrite".
How did i manage to quote you saying it then? Though I suppose you could claim you were accusing someone of engaging in hypocrisy but you were not actually calling them a hypocrite. it would be disingenuous but you could do it
You either pay attention to opinion polls or you don't, irrespective of whether they back up your agenda or not. I thought the logic behind that was obvious.
Apparently what you do ernie is say what they say twice and when someone asks you to produce them you say
As for your question whether I "have polls showing blah blah" I know better than to try and engage in any meaningful debate with you, especially on this thread.
I will aspire to treat being asked to prove what i claim about polls [facts] with the maturity you have done
Aracer - yes, sorry, that's right!
Dare it mention the McCorne book again as one source for examining how you spilt various items such as oil etc?
It woiuld be odd for Scotland not to ask RBS and HBOS to established separately capitalised subsidiaires in Scotland, if nothing else for a bit of nationalistic face saving.
Jambalaya - MemberWeve been round the currency thing many times, AS knows he has to takr the euro if he wants to be in the EU
I don't know if you believe this or not but I'm pretty sure we've been over the reasons it's wrong about 3 times in this thread alone.
I have to admit from a purely intellectual curiosity perspective I would quite like Scotland to vote yes, as AS applying to join the EU with the stated intention of not joining the Euro (which I think would be a unique position - I don't think even Sweden did that) is one of many things I'd like to see how the negotiations go. In case of doubt, I'm not suggesting they won't be allowed in if he does that, simply that it could result in some interesting diplomacy.
Dare it mention the McCorne book again as one source for examining how you spilt various items such as oil etc?
You can if you want,but as pointed out by,well...everybody, nobody up here trusts him or ever will. Making conciliatory noises about our ability to manage post split is just him trying to broaden the appeal of his amazon cash in. Nor does it disguise the fact that had the report not been "kept from falling into the nationalists hands" (his suggestion and the bit you keep missing,) then devolution/independence would have been a certainty on a much better financial footing.
You have read the book then? What did you think of how he explained the pros and cons on the various methods of apportioning various assets, liabilities etc?
Having led the industry and development departments for the Scottish governments that rules him out as being credible does it? The one guy who was championing an oil fund right from the start rather than as an afterthought, and we should dismiss him out of hand??? How very odd....
I hope no Scottish Uni employs/employed him given such a lack of trust, that would be terrible wouldn't it? Imagine him teaching economics or business?
Again,you ignore(as you have done from the start of this thread) why he can never claim to be impartial. Oil fund? yes that would have been a great idea,shame that in no small way he played a part in it never happening in the 70's.
"Never impartial"...... 😀 . A funny way to start the week, thanks! I guess the answer is still no then?
Sorry Ben, forget that source as a place to find the answer. What was I thinking to mention it's again? Crazy.....
I have read it,I have told you that on a number of occasions.Feel free to tell me how he can be considered impartial in any part of the independence debate.
True you know that bit in the introduction where he lays out his claims for impartiality (to the best that this can be achieved) - was he a liar 😉 ?
Still the "misrepresentation" of McCrone's position is nothing new. But to come back to ben's question, I guess his explanation of methods is neither good nor impartial enough. Where would you suggest that Ben looks?
As you know throughout the book, he addresses a number of key questions from different perspectives acknowledging where IHO the analysis is correct or not. As he says himself, there are points where he disagrees with the conclusions of the yS campaign, so perhaps he should be airbrushed from the debate? It wouldn't be the first time. But the fact that in each chapter he presents alternative arguments and assesses their pros and cons, make him a lot more readable and sensible as a source that plenty of other suggestions.
True you know that bit in the introduction where he lays out his claims for impartiality (to the best that this can be achieved) - was he a liar ?
Revisionist would be more polite.
On Banks.
I saw an interesting analysis of the situation in New Zealand. There all their large banks are now owned by Australian Banks. The authorities in NZ are very worried as history has shown that if there is a crises regulators and governments, quite naturally, only spend their tax payers money on supporting local (ie in country) banks. As such the NZ authorities are trying to force the Aussie banks to separately capitalise and incorporate their NZ subsidiaries. This is consistent with TMH's point above.
@Northwind on the euro I appreciate the arguments that the Yes supporters have made here, it's just I don't believe they have any merit. Let's wait and see.
[quote=jambalaya ]@Northwind on the euro I appreciate the arguments that the Yes supporters have made here, it's just I don't believe they have any merit. Let's wait and see.
It's not just the yes supporters in this case - quite a few of us on the other side (I'm sure I claimed to be impartial when this thread started, but I don't think I'll try that line now) also agree that in a practical sense there is no way that a country can be forced to join the Euro. There are a number of criteria which must be met before joining the Euro and no country can be forced to meet those criteria - to do otherwise would make the whole thing even more of a train crash than it is already. The only unique thing about the situation with iS is that presumably it would be joining the EU having expressed the intention not to join the Euro, which as I mentioned above would I think be unique - though almost certainly not sufficient to bar membership of the EU. Whether they get to join on the terms they'd like is another matter though...
..though almost certainly not sufficient to bar membership of the EU
Not complying with the Copenhagen criteria would be sufficient to bar membership of the EU.
The question is whether Scotland would be made an exception if it said it wasn't prepared to fully comply.
Jambalaya, this seems to be the trend with banks driven out of the UK. It seems to make sense to me. Obviously for their own interests RBS, HBOS and possibly the Asset managers (eg Aberdeen) have all the contingencies in place to show that they have the correct level of backing come the "wrong" decision :wink . But I think an iS would still want to have the local operations capitalised separately. Interesting experiment to see how the ROCE would differ between locations.
Who knows we may even have a watered down Vickers in place by then?
That's exactly the same situation as presently exist: if you're not locally capitalized, you don't get local government deposit guarantees. Nothing new there. You just make sure to have enough assets locally.
This is all a distraction: if Macedonia can have a competitive banking market with mostly foreign owned banks, then I think Scotland can too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_the_Republic_of_Macedonia
@aracer - all countries now joining the EU have to commit to take the euro and to present a plan as to how they will meet the criteria. If an iS is to be as rich as the SNP says it will have to take it straight away. I do not believe for a second the EU will allow iS to sneak in on the basis of the "we are already a member" nonsense and keep the shadow pound or whatever. Also as debated earlier there is long line of countries waiting to join the EU, if Scotland is to jump the queue it will have to "pay up" in many regards, the euro I believe is just one of those. There must be a chance that the UK is negotiating an EU exit before an iS has formally been created.
@Northwind - I may be opinionated but I am not a troll, if I post something it's because I believe it, even if that view may appear misguided to others.
we have dont this debate before - not even all that long ago.
I forget who posted and which EU politician they quoted [ president] There are currently members who have agreed to the principle but are not actually trying to join and wont have to until the electorate vote to join so iS will be no different - they commit to it but do not have to do it.
We are going round in circles here
I do not believe for a second the EU will allow iS to sneak in on the basis of the "we are already a member"
What is important is how accurate your belief is not whether you hold it.
Its the EU - and I assume THM will agree here, give the fudge they did to ensure the Euro there is nothing they wont /cannot do.
@Junkyard, but why would the EU fudge anything for a country of 5m people ? Particularly after Greek debacle. The requirements for joining have changed. Existing members got in before the rules changed, so they have their fudge. I think the only thing Scotland has to offer the EU is money, they have to make a significant contribution to the annual budget. The members who have joined recently eg Poland, Bulgaria, Romania they offer large populations and the politically motivated expansion of the EU to the East.
Anyway I appreciate you may have done this debate before. Most of what's being gone over here has been done before in the thread.
Aye it has
The interesting one is the citizens of scotland - currently EU citizens - as far as I am aware there are no rules re stripping them of citizenship so they could [ surely whether you like the EU we can all agree to this] literally make up any old shit they like.
If they are prepared to ignore referenduums on the constitution this is nothing.
personally nothing the Eu does surprises me
jambalaya - Member@aracer - all countries now joining the EU have to commit to take the euro and to present a plan as to how they will meet the criteria. If an iS is to be as rich as the SNP says it will have to take it straight away.
I've never called you a troll 😕 But I will say, this post shows a basic lack of understanding. There is no possibility of Scotland "having" to take the euro straight away- in fact there's no possibility of Scotland even being eligible to take the euro straight away, if we wanted to, we don't meet the basic criteria (obviously impossible for a new nation to have been a member of ERM2 for 2 years).
So it requires both that the EU does a complete about turn and starts forcing countries to join the Euro, and also that they throw out the qualifying criteria and let countries take the Euro regardless of economic suitability. The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane.
Have a number of countries just not met the criteria for the euro,and has that been part of the post Greek tightening up by any chance?
The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane
Its the EU i am still not ruling either out 😉
So it requires both that the EU does a complete about turn and starts forcing countries to join the Euro, and also that they throw out the qualifying criteria and let countries take the Euro regardless of economic suitability. The former is incredibly unlikely and the latter would be insane.
That argument goes both ways though - the Scottish alternative involves the entire EU, all 28 nations, all but two of whom have either joined or had to commit to joining the Euro as part of the deal, turning round with open arms and allowing Scotland to join while openly stating from the outset they have no intention of doing it. Frankly I think thats a pipe dream, if nothing else due to the precedent it sets for future countries who might want to join.
Zulu are you familiar with saying one thing and doing another 😉
Its a bit late for that isn't it Junky?
Subterfuge only usually works if you don't publicly announce it first 🙂
he is probably hoping no one can understand his accent
Aye fair point
ninfan - MemberFrankly I think thats a pipe dream, if nothing else due to the precedent it sets for future countries who might want to join.
The precedent of being in the EU with no intention of joining the Euro is already established, and the EU's attitude to that is uncomplicated- ain't care. (to the extent of appointing an ex-swedish leader president of the EU) Sweden of course is still committed to joining the euro, some day not now, and the exact same option applies to all other new EU members- "commit" to take the euro when it suits you.
The Scottish Government's position isn't that Scotland will never join the euro, and that's an important distinction- it's the same situation that most of the existing non-Euro EU members are in- either no current plan to join, or very longterm "intentions" with no obvious movement towards it. Fully a quarter of the EU are in the same position.
duckman - Member
Have a number of countries just not met the criteria for the euro,and has that been part of the post Greek tightening up by any chance?
Isn't the more important or relevant question - Has any country ever met either entry or Maastricht criteria. Not even those well behaved Germans did that, the French didn't and the Italians simply cheated. As for the Greeks, with a little help from Goldman Sachs they really took the piss. But chickens ultimately come home to roost.
The incentive for the EU to fudge matters is much higher when we are talking about countries that are openly trying to integrate themselves with a bigger union. Scotland is doing the opposite with obvious knock on effects elsewhere. Hard to imagine that encouraging our friends in Europe to bend over backwards!
YS is clear on its ultimate intention to be part of the EU. Another irony - another example that independence in economic policy is not a desire despite the rhetoric. Definitely an African elephant with ears that big.
The interesting one is the citizens of scotland - currently EU citizens - as far as I am aware there are no rules re stripping them of citizenship so they could
Properly understood there's no such thing as standalone EU citizenship, just citizenship of a state that is an EU member. If you're a UK citizen today but stop being a UK citizen tomorrow, you don't carry on being an EU citizen (unless you have citizenship of another EU state).
teamhurtmore - MemberThe incentive for the EU to fudge matters is much higher when we are talking about countries that are openly trying to integrate themselves with a bigger union. Scotland is doing the opposite
Er, no it's not, it's doing exactly that. It doesn't want some elements of the integration but that's a million miles away from "the opposite of integration". The opposite of integration is, well, having a referendum about leaving I suppose. Or, Scotland not joining the EU. Or, resisting Scotland joining the EU. But joining the union? No.
We have done the argument about Europe about three times now. Why are the no posters so adamant that Scotland wont join,especially as there is a large movement in their country to have the UK leave?
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg was in Scotland yesterday telling us about our increased devolved powers. Good of him,but somehow I don't see him being in any position to grant them much after the vote,no matter which way it goes. Anyway McCrone suggests we will see no more devolved powers after a no vote,so to keep his fanboy happy and based on the pasting we got in 79,I will go with ignoring Clegg( Scots name for those evil flesh eating horsefly's BTW)
It doesn't want some elements of the integration
Euphemism of the day! 😉
Now I know there is a big difference between what is being voted for and what even the SNP actually wants - but you have to recognise the stark divergence between a nation that wants independence from a union in order to have freedom to take control over its own decisions (cough, but leave that aside) and the EU which is clearly moving towards higher levels of integration including in time full fiscal and monetary union. The future EU will not be a trade zone and history has proven that it cannot be a currency union without being a fiscal one too.
So irrespective of how many oatcakes AS wants to have and eat, this basic fact (elephant) remains. Cherry picking the pros and ignoring the cons simply won't work with EU as the rUK will ultimately find out. The status quo in Europe is clearly unsustainable as Draghi's sticking plaster will last only so long.
But as I have said before and irrespective of any of the above, there is something very odd about wanting to a leave a union that largely satisfies the requirements of a union to join one that doesn't - unless the "real" underlying motive is basically an anti-English one 😉 Nothing else makes sense, but then again nothing new there.
teamhurtmore - Memberyou have to recognise the stark divergence between a nation that wants independence from a union in order to have freedom to take control over its own decisions (cough, but leave that aside) and the EU which is clearly moving towards higher levels of integration including in time full fiscal and monetary union.
No, I really don't. This idea of "absolutely everything independent or you're not independent at all" is a curious one and it's one that seems to be held exclusively by No people. Scotland doesn't want to declare independence from the world, it's not a James Blish novel.
The obvious counterargument's been put forward many times- if Scotland in the EU isn't meaningfully independent, then the UK isn't meaningfully independent, nor any other EU state. The only way the argument really makes sense is if you want to take the UK out of the EU entirely. Or go fully integrated- because if being in Europe at all means you have no meaningful independence, why not go the whole hog?
In either case- what better proof of meaningful independence could there be? The decision to apply to the EU or not, and thereafter to stay or to go, will be one for Scotland to make.
This. Biggest threat to my business at the moment is that one union we're in (the UK) will take us out of another union (the EU). Without Scottish independence, there's nothing we can do about that - we're stuck with whatever the rest of the UK wants. With independence, we can decide for ourselves.
This argument that Scotland can't be independent and want to be in the EU is like someone saying you can't be an independent person and decide to get married. It's being free to choose that matters.