Osbourne says no to currency union.

And the lesson of Europe is that monetary union (not strictly what is being proposed, but close enough) requires…….

….”_ I _ C _ _ Union” too.

What is it about failing to learn the lessons of history?

I’ve forgotten and it’s all become a bit confused….can we have a list of posters on each side of the debate Yes / No

konabunny – Member
What kind of western capitalist democracy should Scotland look like?

Which ever it decides.

You can only answer glibly because there hasn’t been any clear model articulated. In fact, the only concrete statement the Yes campaign has made indicate that the western capitalist democracy that iScotland should be like is…the UK!

teamhurtmore – Member

Believe what you will. The evidence is there ask Mark Carney. Oh then again perhaps not, he tells it as it is….”conceding sovereignty” must lose something in translation.

Apparently so, “a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty” in Mark Carney’s words becomes “ZOMG CONCEDE ALL TEH SOVEREIGNTYZ” in yours.

aracer – Member

duckman » At least he was able to post the picture this time.

I suggest you try checking exactly what I posted last time before you claim incompetence

Well I would,but even the mods have got tired of you incompetence and have deleted it.

So we have THM using the argument of the thing he thinks wont happen to prove that iS will have less freedom

This thread is beyond satire now – Can you imagine his reaction if AS did this
Aracer you have clearly argued it must be substantive change and then attacked any suggestion of radical change as “fairy tale” without actually explaining what these policies were. It is not a straw man to suggest you have done what you have clearly done

You can only answer glibly because there hasn’t been any clear model articulated. In fact, the only concrete statement the Yes campaign has made indicate that the western capitalist democracy that iScotland should be like is…the UK!

Its your assumption it has to be radical so , as We reject that premise, we do not really have to answer the question.
Out of interest which western capitalist [ redundant surely as they are all capitalist] democracy would you say is radically different from the UK currently? Which one should they want to copy?
If you can give an example that is within the harmonised EU zone as well that would be a great help 😕

Pointless debate as we all agree it wont be that much different and only some seem to think that radical change is a pre requisite.
It is not however much you wish to think it is.

I’m oot again, this ‘debate’ is full of contrary bawbags. Enjoy!

can’t wait to see what comes to light in the future over the who was ‘looking after their mates’ regards the Tram scheme, or the Holyrood building

Would that be the same SNP minority administration that tried to stop the tram project in 07 and was defeated by a coalition of labour libdem and tory.

Labour were in charge when the parliament was built too.

Well NW listen to what your man is saying,* He wants complete independence in decision making (read intro of BoD), so that rules out any form of union. But he wants to still use the pound. You cannot have both unless your are deceiving someone. So either you have a form of “dollarisation” with no control or you do not have independence on policy making. Unless of courss, you live in la, la land. You decide, it’s very simple

No wonder your “boss” loses his hair over this – but that’s having to endure Quebec and Scotland with the result that you end up “looking a little silly.” (His words, I believe)

Anyway it’s those trolls, bullies and incompetent economists (sic^3) in the NIESR whose turn it is to argue that MU is unsustainable as proposed.

An increasing impressive and wide range of “bullies” out there!

Or perhaps, they are just…….

The mods haven’t touched it! 😆

Plenty of evidence on this forum to show that I’m more than capable of posting pics of strawmen if that’s what I want to do. Having gone to quite a lot of effort to post what I did, it is somewhat disappointing that you think it was accidental!

In the event of a yes vote, will you all shut up?

😛

When a thread degenerates into arguing about the style of arguing, I think it is fair to say that nobody wins.

I’m oot again, this ‘debate’ is full of contrary bawbags. Enjoy!

Oh no it isn’t!

(Had to be done)

Nobody wins with trolling, but it doesn’t stop.

THM saying “read something” rather than providing quotes is code for “Actually it doesn’t say that”. And in this case, it’s trying to turn “Decisions made in Westminster will be made here” into “All decisions made in Westminster will be made here, Westminster must have no influence on us”

I checked out the introduction of Bod, the only words are “Here comes Bod”. I think you might have meant the introduction of the White Paper “Scotland’s Future”, in which Alex Salmond actually says “We will work in partnership with the rest of the UK to share the pound for our mutual benefit”. Something else lost in translation from English to THMish?

Underwriting this is the same old nonsense… that somehow independence that isn’t absolute and total, isn’t independence at all. By that definition, absolutely no country in the world is independent, so we might as well not bother.

It’s a giant leap to go from “some ceding of national sovereignty” to “ceding of all financial controls”, or even “most”. And the argument that a currency union leads to a Scotland that has less power than it has today is totally dependent on making that leap.

The quote given is from SF directly (well the website). Their exact words not mine.

To guide you through how the rest works, read the NIESR article today. The steps from (possibly) having one member on an MPC to the conclusion I reach are all neatly laid out. Even the troll might get it and I am sure you would find it easy.

It’s an interesting read either way. It turns some standard ideas in their head which is always a good thing!

I’m not sure I’ve actually argued that, though I can’t be bothered trying to check exactly what I wrote 20 pages back, let alone 120, so I won’t deny it – I’ve certainly queried what the point is if there is no significant advantage to the new political structure when there are known disadvantages. I’m not sure what the contradiction is between that and pointing out that suggestions of how things will be substantially socially different in iS are unrealistic. Again it’s far too much trouble to find a direct quote in this thread (which must cause you all sorts of angst 😉 ) but I’m talking about the “fairer society” stuff. ernie does a far better job than I can of explaining why that won’t happen (I agree it is a laudable aim, just not that it is a realistic one).

….”_ I _ C _ _ Union” too.

What is it about failing to learn the lessons of history?
You become shit at deciphering [ or possibly making] anagrams?
Is that it 😉

By that definition, absolutely no country in the world is independent, so we might as well not bother.

Its a global world and interdependence exists for good or for bad
For example UK helped bail out Ireland as our economy is so tied to its performance and it would probably do the same if iS went belly up
I dont think it is unfair to say that uk currency union reduces iS options/independence though.

the argument that a currency union leads to a Scotland that has less power than it has today is totally dependent on making that leap.

You also need to ignore the fact they have a govt currently they did not vote for who are less keen on the EU than they are whilst making this decision,

Even the troll might get it and I am sure you would find it easy.

He got the double insult not that you troll eh 🙄
adds to the list of things THM objects to and does …page 12 now just from this thread 😉

I hope you get the humour there.
I dont troll and report me if you are so concerned – uses aracers straw man

I can’t be bothered trying to check exactly what I wrote 20 pages back, let alone 120, so I won’t deny it

😀
Aye My view on it as well

It just seems strange that some bemoan it for a lack of radicalism { i dont think it s a pre requisite at all tbh] and then attack the radicalism as fairy tales. Ie no matter what they do it will be criticised. that was my real objection, you are not the worst culprit. Shall we say score draw 🙂

noli cibos de troglodytae

teamhurtmore – Member

To guide you through how the rest works, read the NIESR article today. The steps from (possibly) having one member on an MPC to the conclusion I reach are all neatly laid out

…and starts to trip over basic false assumptions at step 1 😕 1 seat of 9 doesn’t make you effectively powerless unless the other 8 all vote in synch, there’s no reason to think that’ll be the case- there’s no comment at all on the likely makeup of the panel but will it be crossparty? Regional? Fully independent of westminster?

Read on a little further and… what the… THM’s arguing with himself again! A minute ago, Scotland would have to give up all her sovereignty on financial matters, and that’s been a THM theme for a hundred pages. Now he’s presenting us with a report stating that’s completely unneccesary. “If there were to be negotiations over a monetary union there would be no need for the UK to constrain Scotland’s fiscal policy”, “This research shows that in a monetary union between two different sized nations there is no incentive for the larger country to impose fiscal constraints on the smaller country”

So which do you believe? Have you been wrong all this time or are NIESR’s 2 researchers wrong in this? Or is it all a joke again, lolz?

The report also seems to assume that the only benefit to the rUK of a banking union would be potential fund transfer from Scotland in the event of an rUK banking crisis. Anyone who paid attention to previous bailouts can see straight away that’s false- since the rUK would suffer massively in the event of a Scottish banking failure. The impact on the rUK economy of, for instance, an RBOS failure is almost the same the day after independence as the day before. This is why the US federal reserve bailed out Barclays, and why the UK supported Ireland. The idea of a “scottish bank” or an “rUK bank” is as false as the idea of a UK bank today.

Actually the reason why I think the report is interesting (glad you read it or part of it, unlike the troll, I thought you might) is that it does indeed challenge some of my assumptions and those widely held by both sides of the debate. Hence, my choice to mention it.

They question several assumptions with some really interesting ideas that are not widely held. But despite all of this, they come to same conclusion and the idea that the proposal will not create the desired outcome.

So hence you need to add them to the list if bullies etc.

(Differences on this topic aside 😉 , I hope you enjoyed it. The NIESR write some good stuff including their basic stuff on currency options. This was certainly one that challenges pre-conceptions. One for the Oxbridge guys to get their teeth into)

P.s. Do read the bit about why the fiscal constraints may not be necessary. Not for the reasons you might think.

The idea of a “scottish bank” or an “rUK bank” is as false as the idea of a UK bank today.

Not true. In fact worse than that. The new regulatory regime driven by the US who do not want a repeat of the events you describe will go much further by making individual units separately capitalised. In effect creating as series of national banks within global or regional banking groups. It’s a major pain for Deutsche and Barclays.

Plus as I have mentioned before, HBOS and RBS are already adjusting legal structures to make sure they are based in the most suitable location to reduce their credit risk. If it didn’t matter, why would they be bothering to do this. It would be a waste of time and money. And Scottish financiers are too canny to do that.

I thought I’d answered that in my last, though I was probably trying to answer a slightly different question, so I’ll try again.

I don’t see any contradiction in the two points. The first point is that there won’t be a radical change and that without one it seems you won’t get the advantages being claimed, but you still get the disadvantages people are trying to ignore. The second point is simply debunking the claim that there will be a radical change – not without any real change in the way government works (and no, getting rid of unelected peers won’t have a real positive effect – though I can understand why it has an ideological appeal).

AH right thanks some seemed to be saying it had to be radical to be worth doing but i get the point being made.
or simple enough for this troll 😀

I dont agree but i see the point- it has some merit to it.
Its true both alternatives have strengths and weaknesses and , some of the yes are selling an unrealistic dream/goal/aspiration. It is what politicians do. Robertson being a No one doing the same.

However some folk will take a penalty for living with freedom be it kids leaving home or nations leaving a union [ iS v UK or UK v EU]
Cheers though

teamhurtmore – Member

Not true. In fact worse than that. The new regulatory regime driven by the US who do not want a repeat of the events you describe will go much further by making individual units separately capitalised. In effect creating as series of national banks within global or regional banking groups. It’s a major pain for Deutsche and Barclays.

That misses the point though- the crossborders impact remains, even if you managed to create totally separate regionalised, capitalised units (which changes the bailout picture immensely of course) a bank failing in one nation still drags everything else around it downwards- they’re too integrated into the economy at large. It’s 2 seperate issues and the result is still that no bank is an island- the impact of RBOS (for example) collapsing wouldn’t just be felt in Scotland so it’s in the rUK’s interest to stabilise scottish banks, and vice versa.

Well yes and no! True the actual impact (bail outs aside) will of course extend beyond national boundaries and so it should. Separately capitalised or not they are or at least should be globally managed.

On the other point, I prefer (as an ex-I banker) to think it from the bank’s perspective and in particular the crucial question of managing your funding costs. Leaving aside national sentiments either way, it would make sense for Scottish banks to locate their operations in locations that offer them the most protection and hence minimises their funding costs. The ability or otherwise to stand behind the institution is one important element determining the bank’s own cost of funds. Similarly in 99% of cases, an individual company’s credit rating and hence funding costs are capped/limited above the sovereign. For FServices, location is pretty obvious and quietly each of the banks has already done what it needs to do. That’s just common business sense.

@Northwind I would strongly argue that the UK do nothing to stabilise an independent Scotlands banks, that’s a matter for Scotland. What the UK regulator should do is ensure all UK institutions have an appropriate (ie minimal) exposure to Scottish Banks as they are domiciled in a small country of 5m people. As I posted earlier I believe AS really wants Devo Max so that he can be certain the UK will stand behind Scotland if it goes wrong. Cameron has called his bluff with this referendum. AS may win the vote but he’s not actually getting what he wants.

Re RBOS the likelihood is it woukd never have grown to the scale it did if it where based in an independent Scotland, well not unless then Scottish regulators where as negligent as the Icelandic ones. So arguably RBS wouldn’t have been a problem for an independent Scotland as it would have been a small regional bank,

That hits your funding cost too….

…nobody gets what they want in practice!!!!

jambalaya – Member

As I posted earlier I believe AS really wants Devo Max so that he can be certain the UK will stand behind Scotland if it goes wrong.

Lots of people believe that, it’s weird though really- all Salmond had to do to get devo max, was call for that instead of independence. So you’re working on the assumption that he just accidentally asked for the wrong thing, for his entire career, and chose a far harder route that doesn’t get him what he wants instead of a very easy one that does? And not one person ever said anything?

Meanwhile, the one thing that Cameron could have done to remove all risk of losing Scotland, was offer devo max. At a stroke, the yes vote falls in half. But to do that, he’d lose the chance to retain the status quo. And it’d be politically impossible for Salmond to refuse it- he’d have to sell it to his own party as a “stepping stone to independence” because he fundamentally cannot be opposed to devolution.

Some people think Salmond played Cameron. Some think Cameron played Salmond. I think they both got the result they wanted, the all or nothing option. Because frankly, they would have to be morons, surrounded by morons, to get to where we are today by any other route.

And say what you like about either of them, you can’t call them morons. Most other insults are applicable.

Pointless debate as we all agree it wont be that much different

I think you’ve encapsulated the point perfectly: an independent Scotland won’t be that much different from Scotland as it is now. So why bother going through the time, cost and fannying around of independence?

I think you’ve encapsulated the point perfectly: an independent Scotland won’t be that much different from Scotland as it is now. So why bother going through the time, cost and fannying around of independence?

I think Northwind has answered this a couple of times.

Some of those voting yes, do not wish to continue in the direction the UK is taking. And the price of dissolving the Union is one worth paying to achieve the desired divergence.

Whether that’s achievable is another matter.

konabunny – Member
….an independent Scotland won’t be that much different from Scotland as it is now. So why bother going through the time, cost and fannying around of independence?

Because while we won’t be much different England will be.

We will still be looking after our needy, frail and incapable, while yours will be victimised and starving to death. I suppose that solves the problem though.

We’ll still be in the EU, you probably won’t be.

So yes, probably not much different here.

We will still be looking after our needy, frail and incapable, while yours will be victimised and starving to death. I suppose that solves the problem though. We’ll still be in the EU, you probably won’t be.

Anyone would think that the recovery in the UK was relatively poor and that the situation in the EU was so much better. Whereas……

Is this the kind of revisionism required to support yS? I guess the Audit Commission was talking bobbins when they claimed that substantial health inequalities remain in Scotland despite the issue being prioritised (apparently so?) by Holyrood. Of course all this will change for the better with one X on the spot!!

teamhurtmore – Member
…Of course all this will change for the better with one X on the spot!!

Sure will.

And did I mention we won’t have weapons of mass destruction?

And still have free University.

Anyone would think that the recovery in the UK was relatively poor and that the situation in the EU was so much better. Whereas……

Whereas the UK “recovery” is built on a London housing bubble, more investment banking speculation, and millions of people in zero-hours contracts.

And yet, even though we’re told that the country has recovered back to pre-crash levels, austerity policies are to continue. And not just continue, the cuts will deepen. But wait, Labour will get into power and reverse the cuts! Oh, wait, no they won’t – they’ve pledged to continue the cuts too.

I think you’ve encapsulated the point perfectly: an independent Scotland won’t be that much different from Scotland as it is now. So why bother going through the time, cost and fannying around of independence?

Scotland isn’t changing, the rest of the UK is – we want off this ride.

And the nukes can **** off too.

I think the so-called recovery is a false one.

A bit like when a spendthrift gets a new credit card and spends up big and thinks they’re wealthy.

Fur coat, no knickers comes to mind.

Debt is rocketing up. It has to be repaid, and guess what? It has to be repaid.

Handy for people in the North of England

So why bother going through the time, cost and fannying around of independence?

I refer to you why kids leave home when it wont be that much different costs more and involves fannying around.
Others have mentioned tangible benefits/differences.
I think the main one is they will GAS about their needy and never have a Tory govt and all the damage they do.

THM whilst demographic and lifestyle differences exist between rUK and iS it is clear that scotland has a greater commitment to its needy citizens than the more right wing UK govt
Tuition fees, home care, bedroom tax but to name three
To discuss economic issues when they discusses social ones was AS like levels of missing the point and not even the point they made.
I am unsure as to whether you realised this and therefore sidestepped it or just missed the point accidentally

substantial health inequalities remain in Scotland

You mean the south east is wealthier and wealthier people live longer…well who knew that eh ?

And still have free University.

What do you mean by “still have”…….do you mean like Scotland has now as a fully integrated part of the UK ?

You know that the yes camp are scraping the bottom of the barrel when they offer what exists at the present as an advantage of “independence”.

.

We will still be looking after our needy, frail and incapable, while yours will be victimised and starving to death.

Is that statement part of “project fear” which I’ve heard so much about ? The frail starving to death sounds quite scarey, doesn’t it ?

And Salmond has not yet shown everyone his magic wand which will allow a big tax cuts, a massive boost in public spending, and, wait for it……..the rabbit out of the hat……..NO DEFICIT !!!!!

Has he got one ? You need a magic wand if you want to combine neoliberal policies of low taxation with socialist policies of welfare provisions.

Ah but I hear you say that once “independence” has been gained people will no longer have to vote SNP and they will be able to vote for parties which are happy to put Scotland at a “tax disadvantage” with the rest of the UK.

If Scotland votes yes and separates itself from the rest of the UK life for the people of Scotland will, I have no doubt, carry on pretty much the same – nothing terrible will happen.

Slowly, too slowly probably for people to notice as it happens, Scotland will fall behind. The promises and commitments that were made by the nationalists will be forgotten and ignored.

And, and this is the important bit, the people of Scotland will be every bit as dissatisfied with their government as everyone else in the Western world is.

There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.