[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

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.

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.

Indeed. The other factor is it doesn't really matter what politicians want to do, it's what BAE want to do that matters.

H&W has a drydock that's plenty big enough. But I don't know about the other facilities either.

it's what BAE want to do that matters.

It's okay, Junkyard, the British government would shut down any defamation action...

(might have said this earlier in the thread, not sure)

Defence contracting is pretty messy tbh. Salmond at his worst really, there obviously are grounds for concern.

But at the same time, there are some realities here. Portsmouth was already the worst place to build modern warships even before they decided to close it down (and moves are afoot to sell or lease the naval yard, so while rebooting Portsmouth is already a bad option it's not far from becoming completely impossible) And by all accounts there's nowhere else in the UK that can do the job.

So the UK government says T26 is the right boat for the UK, and BAE says the Clyde is the only place it makes sense to build it.

Course, anything can be overcome with the will... The rUK could blow the budget and create the capacity to build them at home. But that'd be a major financial challenge, amidst defence cuts and the other costs of relocating military assets (Trident, of course, being a big one) And we're not talking generous timescales, these boats need to go into production within the next few years to replace the aging fleet.

A thing the Yes campaign ignores is that if the UK is buying fighting ships from abroad (the Royal Navy already imports military ships), there's no particular reason why Scotland is the premier bidder- once you take away the home turf advantage of the design, we're competing with French FREMM among others. Would the rUK stick with T26 at all? It'd be an embarassing climbdown on many fronts but certainly reasonable, once you cross the rubicon of ordering frontline ships from abroad why not go the whole hog?

But then of course that contradicts the Westminster position that procuring fighting ships from abroad is unthinkable, so something's got to give. They seem quite painted into a corner.

I think a lot of people are justifiably narked at being threatened with defence job losses, when scotland already receives less than its share of defence funding, and defence contracts, and has suffered proportionally more defence job losses than the rest of the UK.

I checked the date etc when I saw this in The Herald 😆
[url=[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/better-together-invites-wrong-speaker.23987485 ]better apart[/url]

*waiting

**still waiting

***Wanders off in dismay at failed link

Link not working sorry
heres the article

[quoteIT may be called Better Together, but the No campaign has been accused of a gaffe - after it asked an SNP minister to appear as its representative in an independence debate.

Humza Yousaf was surprised to receive the request to speak against his party's flagship policy of Scottish independence.

The case of mistaken identity follows a difficult few weeks for Better Together.

The organisation has been accused of dogged negativity and faced complaints from pro-Union sources that it is running an uninspiring campaign. In an email from Better Together, Mr Yousaf was asked if he could speak at an event organised by BEMIS Scotland, the national umbrella body supporting the development of the ethnic minorities voluntary sector in Scotland, in August.

Mr Yousaf, the Scottish Government's external affairs minister, accused his opponents of being "shambolic". And he revealed that he would be taking part in the debate, organised as part of Edinburgh's JustFestival - speaking against Better Together.

Mr Yousaf said: "With gaffes like this, it's no wonder the No campaign are in such deep, deep trouble.

"They are a shambolic campaign who are dropping in the opinion polls - they don't have their finger on the pulse of Scotland, and this latest blunder proves it.

"While I look forward to speaking at the event, it will not be for the No campaign, but to outline the many benefits of an independent Scotland."

A Better Together spokesman brushed off claims of a gaffe and called on the First Minister to represent the No campaign at the debate.

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/better-together-invites-wrong-speaker.23987485 ]be calmed pie man[/url]

Honest it does work though I was tempted and it works for me!
I have not read the article
in case it fails

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/better-together-invites-wrong-speaker.23987485