Osbourne says no to currency union.

Yes spoon,we have done it,or you have on every Indy thread. I presume you will be giving up Wales and the rest of Ireland as an example to us? Oh and the channel and falkland islands as well…mind you worth posting just for the fact sbod obviously didn’t read the names of the characters in that piece 😀

I think the world is such that larger countries have a material advantage

Only in willy waving ability.

When it comes to cash in the wallet folk in small countries can do very well.

Didn’t bother reading the piece in all honesty.

Danish historian’s name…Olaf Gerritrightupye

Yes spoon,we have done it,or you have on every Indy thread. I presume you will be giving up Wales and the rest of Ireland as an example to us?

Take ’em, it’ll make going ‘abroad’ for hollidays cheaper

When it comes to cash in the wallet folk in small countries can do very well.

How?

a) Large material wealth despite being small in population
b) Attracting money from other big countries with attractive tax regimes

.. anything else?

Actually, I can think of one other country at least, the one that Scotland should aspire to probably. But they don’t have that much cash in their wallets.

Actually, I can think of one other country at least, the one that Scotland should aspire to probably.

Argentina?

all your post boils down to is your usual stance of “you don’t agree with me so you’re an idiot”,

It is possible to disagree with me and not be an idiot, you might want to consider this approach 😉
You were so respectful of those who disagree with you when you compared them to the religious, which promoted this exchange…again oh the ironing.

which correct me if I’m wrong, is what you got banned for?

You are wrong as the thread on my banning will show.

I’m not sure that rUK has any say in what currency iS chooses to use, so no need for negotiation – nothing to do with rUK whether Scotland unilaterally adopts the pound, has a currency tied to the pound or a totally independent currency. We could be told now what the choice will be.

I get your view but I think it is hard sell to say rUK can refuse a currency union and then claim it has no say on what iS does. Clearly they have a say and they have gone to the trouble of saying it. The issue is whether you wish to believe them or not. I find it hard to believe that iS would NOT try and negotiate it as part of any deal. Whether it is successful or not is another matter but the ones who decide will be the ones you say have no say

This was a watershed moment, when wee eck’s irresponsibility went too far.

I am not sure what you mean as his moment but legally the debts are rUK’s hence why they had to say that. iS can legally walk away from them. I doubt they will but if you want them to take some you may have to negotiate with them and hand over some assets [ see what I did there]

While the amount of the transfer from an iS to rUK is still open to negotiation, the structure of the debt (no change) and the currency (no union) are now set in stone

Its not like a politicians might say something and then do something else now is it.

I think union is probably the least likely outcome but it is still not off the table not least because iS will ask for it and they can play hardball over debt.
How arsey each side want to get and how reasonable each side wants to be and what the outcomes will be is purely a guessing game.

How?

A, I don’t recognise option B. That’s just you adopting a negotiation position.

Is it Qatar?

Just for balance, small countries can do very badly as well. I just don’t buy into the thinking that you have to be a big powerful country for its residents to prosper.

It is possible to disagree with me and not be an idiot, you might want to consider this approach
You were so respectful of those who disagree with you when you compared them to the religious, which promoted this exchange…again oh the ironing.

The religious believe in something with no proof, that was my comparison and not one that many would disagree with.
Obviously you’ve taken that as an insult, oh the ironing!

So, any examples as requested to back up your attempted belittling of me, or are you just full of hot air?
Care to address any of the points I raised, or are you sticking to your “all mouth no trousers” approach?

I’d much rather debate these issues than have a slanging match, the ball is very much in your court.

So why not tell us what the most likely option is then? You’d think people (and businesses) might want to know that.

but it is still not off the table not least because iS will ask for it and they can play hardball over debt.
How arsey each side want to get and how reasonable each side wants to be and what the outcomes will be is purely a guessing game.

Read the Edinburgh agreement recently? We covered this one up there – Sir BS of eck can’t play hardball over anything because rUK will simply point out that the EA allows them to refuse anything which isn’t in their interest.

So why not tell us what the most likely option is then? You’d think people (and businesses) might want to know that.

I dont have a plan B and I have given it no thought …insert your own AS gag here 😉

you’ve taken that as an insult

so it was a compliment then 🙄

So, any examples as requested to back up your attempted belittling of me, or are you just full of hot air?
Care to address any of the points I raised, or are you sticking to your “all mouth no trousers” approach?

I’d much rather debate these issues than have a slanging match, the ball is very much in your court.
Oh the ironing or are they not insults either? Bet you say they are facts with the zeal of say the religious 😉
Its a good idea to practice what you preach rather than do what you accuse others of doing.
That is my only point and clearly you disagree.

So you’re not prepared to actually discuss any of the points I raised then.
Fairy muff, your choice.

I dont have a plan B and I have given it no thought …insert your own AS gag here[/quote]

Ah sorry, I meant why doesn’t Sir BS of eck tell us (but then you knew that didn’t you, and just wanted me to repeat your new name for him 😉 )

Today’s CBI criticism of the White Paper[/url] Just to start the day, another publication getting into the economic detail suggesting more problems than benefits of an iScotland.

How long before wee eck or dear nicola dismiss this as one of the 3Bs? My guess is 11:37. A little longer than normal but they have their hands tied by the need to recalculate their oil revenue figures, then plan d. That’s enough of a headache for now….

La, la, la……skipity, skipity through the flower strewn meadows with the sun shining brilliantly overhead. Just mind the cliff edge!

The CBI strongly criticized devolution before 1997 – using pretty much the same arguments as now (“Uncertainty bad!”).

And, personally, I don’t particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence – I’d bet if there was a CBI in the 18th Century, it would be strongly critical of abolishing slavery.

Rather than dismiss it so easily and on an incorrect basis (its not a general uncertainty issue) you might like to read exactly why they argue, “that the White Paper fails to provide a coherent vision for how an independent Scotland would be better off economically from putting up barriers with its biggest export market – the UK” and the very specific points they make, not about uncertainty, but about four key areas:

1. The fiscal outlook
2. The currency
3. The internal market
4. EU membership

All pretty fundmental issues that the BoD has failed to address. I appreciate that wee eck prefers folk to walk around in la, la land as it suits his cause, but not a great strategy otherwise.

tbc “folk to walk around in la, la land” is a general observation! Not targeted at anyone 😉

The CBI strongly criticized devolution before 1997 – using pretty much the same arguments as now

They said the case had not been made for devolution and expressed concerns over the tax raising powers.

With the tax raising powers not having been used, no-one can say if CBI concern was valid or not. I’m not sure if devolution has been good or bad. Whilst some things are good, the time I spent in the public sector led me to conclude Holyrood is less effective and accountable than might be expected.

To dismiss anything new the CBI says is as ridiculous as refusing to listen to Alex Salmond because he used to express admiration for Ireland’s economy.

rubbish.

rubbish.

I’m sure you’ve got some thorough analysis and experience behind that succint response. Care to share it?

Scotland’s success today is achieved because of, and not in spite of, the Union.

It benefits from the security of a strong and stable currency and access to international trade markets, and being part of the UK also acts as a shock absorber for the Scottish economy, enabling it to weather global economic storms.

Today we are publishing our detailed analysis of the Scottish Government’s White Paper
Cannot wait they seem really impartial 😕

This is evidence ? do you not think it may just have an agenda?
This article may or may not be accurate but if AS or Yes had this as the blurb to something they said you would be attacking it

Personally it is about democracy and the conservative [ small c lovers of the status quo] nature of business means they will tend to dislike change.

Junkyard – lazarus
this is evidence ? do you not think it THM may just have an agenda?

FTFY 😀

This is evidence ? do you not think it may just have an agenda?
This article may or may not be accurate but if AS or Yes had this as the blurb to something they said you would be attacking it

Of course there is an agenda – CBI bills itself as “the UK’s premier business lobbying organisation”. So it is very clear that anything it says relates to the concerns / needs / wants of business.

Business doesn’t get a vote, but as it employs many and pays a chunk of the tax an iScotland needs, it is a voice worth listening to in amongst the rest. You can accept or reject its analysis, but don’t ignore it because of your own bias.

Well put oldbloke. Surprised it needed saying TBH ( the clue is in the name!) but hey,

Ducks, a THM agenda? Yes, of course, against wee eck’s BS (since it has the potential to harm not only Scotland but rUK as well.) there is nothing hidden there.

The analysis confirms the CBI’s view

Would you call that confirmation bias THM?
They did a report and it agrees with their view – who would have thought that would be the outcome. Given this you are of course free to say there was no bias in their report and it is all just my bias if you wish [ so far you have just done the latter though]. C’mon be fair here were AS , Mr cooper or the yes campaign to do a report that agreed with their stated view you would, rightly, say bias as would I.

Surprised it needed saying TBH

It didnt as you well know but ow my shins ow my shins 😀

And, personally, I don’t particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence – I’d bet if there was a CBI in the 18th Century, it would be strongly critical of abolishing slavery.

This all the way.

Business doesn’t get a vote

Of course it does. The people who run it and the people who work for it vote. Which is most people.

And, personally, I don’t particularly care what fat cats think about the idea of Scottish independence

Are these the fat cats who either employ you, pay tax to employ you, buy the stuff you produce or pay their employees who buy the stuff you produce?

Sbob you asked if I was bothered about Scotland being in the EU. Yes I would rather be in than out but it isnt a deal breaker.
1. You said Hang on, what do we have so far?
The President of the European Commission has stated that:
“In case there is a new country, a new state, coming out of a current member state it will have to apply.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591167/Independent-Scotland-could-be-allowed-to-stay-in-EU.html. Sir David Edward doesn’t agree
You said
“accession to the European Union will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union.”
and that:
“Of course it will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state.”
Not according to this man .
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-barroso-incorrect-on-eu-1-3313437

you said
This is further backed up by the letter mentioned above from Viviane
Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission Justice, Fundamental
Rights and Citizenship.
Which is no wonder as it completely tallies with the conditions of membership enshrined in European Law, which is all accessible on-line.
What other advice do you need?
Leaving the UK is leaving the EU, with no guarantee of re-entry. I think not and Graham Avery agrees
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25965703
The EU commission is the deciding body
Not quite. You are correct here but Jim Currie thinks the member states will not attempt to block Scottish accession as you claim below
The EU commission and every one of its member states.
it’s advice is available to the UK government if the UK govt makes a formal request
But it cannot advise on how its member states will act, and that is what you really need to know. Yes there will be tough negotiations but it can be done.
POSTED 1 DAY AGO #
all links are on p57 of this thread

Are these the fat cats who either employ you, pay tax to employ you, buy the stuff you produce or pay their employees who buy the stuff you produce?

So I’m not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism? That’s just ridiculous – you’re basically saying that no-one is allowed to make any criticism of anything any big business does. No criticism of tax avoidance, no criticism of sweatshop labour, no criticism of low pay, zero hours contracts, Workfare or union busting just because every one of us, in some oblique way, benefits from that business.

So I’m not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism?

Of course you’re “allowed” to criticise business. That’s all part of debate, but your quote was not critical. It was dismissive based on the source, not the content. That isn’t debate.

So I’m not allowed to criticise big business because in some way or another I benefit from capitalism?

Of course you are, but that’s not how your post read. It looked as if you were saying the fat cats weren’t important. They might be a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest, but even then they still drive the economy. So their opinion of the economic situation is important.

Tax avoidance, sweatshop labour and all are of course terrible things, but not all rich businessmen do it, and not everyone who does bad things is a rich businessman.

they dont vote though molly their employees might but the legal entity that is the company has no vote. That is also is not debatable.

They might be a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest, but even then they still drive the economy. So their opinion of the economic situation is important.

only if you think a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest should be listened to. I seem to recall a certain politician gets a bit of grief for apparently acting thus.

they dont vote though molly their employees might but the legal entity that is the company has no vote.

Thanks for clearing that up Junkyard, I was awfully confused 🙄

My point is that a company consists of people and those people vote. So the interests of companies and the interests of people are not necessarily separate, comrade.

only if you think a bunch of arseholes acting in self interest should be listened to.

Sigh.. if you can put down your Socialist Worker and concentrate on the meaning of the post, you’ll understand my point. I’m not saying we should do whatever they want. I’m saying that the interests of fat cats aren’t necessarily opposed to the interest of normal people.

I’m saying that the interests of fat cats aren’t necessarily opposed to the interest of normal people.

You don’t need to read the “Socialist Worker” to understand that the interests of the super rich and the interests of ordinary people are in constant conflict.

Of course if you read the “Daily Mail” (if we’re going to insult each other on the basis of newspaper titles) then you probably are naive and gullible enough to believe in Reaganomics and the theory of “trickle down” economics.

Thanks for clearing that up Junkyard, I was awfully confused

I know i read what you wrote

Business doesn’t get a vote
Of course it does. The people who run it and the people who work for it vote. Which is most people.

Business does get a “vote”, and a powerful one – it uses it’s (metaphorical) feet. Arguably more powerful that any tick on a ballot paper. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another issue altogether.

I must be an “incredible” business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people. Perhaps it has neither employees nor customers?

I must be an “incredible” business (if such a thing exists) that could survive being in constant conflict with ordinary people.

You having a degree in economics and all but you have never heard of the paradox of overproduction and the conflict between maximizing profit and minimizing wages. How amazing.

I must be an “incredible” business 

if only you were less modest!