Unfortunately Germany profits from a weak Euro - I admit this, although it is not the intention of the German government to drive the Euro down. Also Germany has an unbalanced economy - too concentrated upon exports and with a correspondingly low domestic spending power - which does not work to the benefit of southern European countries. It is also true that most Germans are non political, and essentially Conservative in their thinking (which is why Merkel is now chancellor). However your use of words like 'domination' are relics from a bygone era. Germany needs Europe, and it needs a strong Europe with strong partners - the days of thinking in terms of hierarchy are over, with countries now being permanently interdependent upon each other. Do you think for example, that anyone in Germany has an interest in the French economy failing ? For Germany this would be a nightmare. Inevitably one country in Europe will have the highest GDP - the fact that it is Germany is largely because the USA wanted the former West Germany to be the strongest economy in Western Europe for political reasons. The reunification with East Germany has also been a success (paid for incidentally only by German money) - and Germany has always chosen the middle path in politics,; avoiding the extremes of either Thatcherism or rampant trade unionism. The goal of domination has not been a factor in German planning and it is a concept which Germans themselves would feel highly uncomfortable with (because of the past). My point here is that any allusions to Wartime Germany - either in form of quest for domination, jackboots or reference to 'Hitler and his cronies' (used by someone else on this thread) are totally misplaced. For me the biggest reason why the EU is not working effectively is because of the survival of such 'competition between nations' thinking. That the 3 central powers ie. Germany, France and the UK have such misconceptions about each others motives is the central 'European problem' and it is time we got it behind us.
I cannot believe your naivety concerning competition amongst countries, it has always been there and will be there forever. The EU is not working for several real reasons not your airy fairy tale. The Euro is a totally flawed idea. It locks it's member countries into a straightjacket of unsuitable joining exchange rates. One interest rate, which is solely in the interest of the dominant country (Germany). There are only two solutions to the Euro problem, break it up or total political union, which nobody except the political elite want. I would expect the average German feels quite pleased at their country's current position and would not like to be in the shoes of other countries' compatriots. Although the EU project has been good for European peace there is a tremendous amount of animosity building up against the hierarchy (Germany in particular) by the southern european countries.
You think that the average German feels pleased about their country's position ? Germany functions as an export economy and has, as a consequence totally neglected its own spending power. The facts behind Germany are the following : 1. 30% of all German workers earn less than the French minimum wage. 2. Living standards in Germany have never been in proportion to the contry's economic strength. 3. The country has a massive demographic problem (known to all here) namely it is the only country in Western Europe currently losing population. 4. About a third of those now working will not have a liveable pension. 5. It's rural infrastructure is primitive - rural depopulation is becomming a massive problem here. 6. The British actually have more spending power - Whole rows of houses in Berlin are currently being bought by speculators mostly from America or Britain. Please remember that I have lived in Germany for 25 years and now work in German politics. Believe me - there is no 'feel good' factor here. So please remember that other people have reasons for their beliefs before using vocabulary such as 'airy fairy' or 'naive'.
With regard to your idea of 'competition between nations' as always having been there (and always will be) - it is worth remembering that global corporations now pull the strings and not nations. In many cases single firms now have turnovers larger than the GDP of their respective countries - and they think in their own interests not those of their countries. Do you think that firms like Airbus ( half German, half French with production in England) think of international competition in the narrow way which you have described ? With multi national global players increasingly dominating proceedings the International competition you describe is becomming increasingly confined to the football pitch.
The difference with Germany is that it is financially sound and behaving correctly in that it only spends what it can afford.. France is living on borrowed time, it's spending is unsustainable which will become much more apparent in due course. Most European countries are basically bankrupt, Germany, especially after paying for unification, is nicely poised to benefit from it's sensible policies in the decades to come. Blaming countries perception of others on misconception is basically very silly.
I answered your comparison with German workers with the French by stating it was the French who had it wrong by paying an unaffordable amount. I also confronted your comment about the British having more spending power, they do but it is all borrowed money. The Germans should be admired as they provide a perfect model of keeping their financial house in order. The problem is their ethos is not shared by others in their not so cosy club of nations.
You two are way off topic now - interesting but a bit of a diversion methinks Trying to bring us back toward the Independence debate - the lesson is that currency unions are very difficult to operate. Essentially to work the economies of the participating countries have to be similar in their economic cycles - and also longer term need to be convergent. That can only really happen if there is a political dimension to make that happen - and is why some Europhiles want to see Europe mover ever closer politically. The lesson for Scotland is that this would be the same in a Sterling Union. They would have to realize that tying themselves to an economy ten times their own in population has potentially poor consequences. Their government would have to keep in step with rUK - which means to an extent adopting similar policies. They could not for example adopt a radical socialist agenda with massively increased government spending. During my early years of studying economics I saw quite clearly the problem sterling had with a fixed exchange rate against the dollar, go back to earlier times and it was the Gold Standard that we tried to fix ourselves to. Yes campaigners have completely ignored this problem and hidden behind - "we will debate it when we have won".
If an independent Scotland retains the pound, it could try doing what Jersey does - print their own notes and mint their own coins. The notes don't have "pounds sterling" printed on them, so they can't be used anywhere else (except the other CI - IoM won't even accept them). We do accept mainland currency on the island, but are advised to use the Jersey notes, as it benefits the Jersey economy.
The Scottish Times reported today that the pound is weakening as a result of the uncertainty. If that's true then a yes vote could really screw the economy for nigh on 18 months. We'll all have to start export businesses...
The practicality is easy, we already have printed Scottish money but this has no conversion rights i.e. its only really worth the paper its written on. The issue is control and the ability to use measures such as quantitative tightening or easing to control inflation / stimulate growth. As long as the economies are tightly aligned and in the same need of stimulus its ok but as soon as you get divergance you will have a big problem as you can see in Ireland.
Post independence it is unlikely the Clydesdale Bank pounds etc will remain legal tender outside of Scotland - not that it should be a problem to anyone.
They are not legal tender now. I tried arguing the point and failed so looked it up and found indeed they are not legal tender hence needed to use credit card in London pub...
I'm at a conference in Dumfries next week (nothing to do with the referendum before anyone starts!) - thank you for the warning Aberdeen
They are not legal tender now. I tried arguing the point and failed so looked it up and found indeed they are not legal tender hence needed to use credit card in London pub... http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/legal_position.php
It would seem that should Scotland try sterlingisation they will fall foul of EU rules. In a blow to the Yes campaign, Olli Rehn, vice president of the European Parliament and former commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said keeping the pound without consent from Westminster "would simply not be possible" because EU membership requires countries to have access to an independent central bank. "As to the question whether 'sterlingisation' were compatible with EU membership, the answer is that this would simply not be possible since that would obviously imply a situation where the candidate country concerned would not have a monetary authority of its own and thus no necessary instruments of the EMU," he wrote. Mr Rehn used the example of Iceland in 2008 and Montenegro in 2007, which had their applications for EU membership rejected because they did not have their own stable monetary authorities.
Before Spurf abuses you for being political or reading the No manifesto (if there is one) I would say that you have only quoted one man's opinion - albeit an important voice. This though is how Spurf argues - he finds someone quoting what he wants to hear and then reproduces it. The likely reality is that Scotland will seek negotiations with the EU as a unique case - the only part of a member state to cede from that state and then seek to remain in the EU. I would have thought that a lot of Europeans would have some sympathy with letting people who have previously been part of their club join as an exceptional case. Of course some for their own regional problems may oppose that. Nobody can know the outcome and I would have far more respect for Salmond and co if they just said that. "We will seek to have Scotland join the EU as a special case and have every confidence it will be allowed - however if we fail in that we will be perfectly content as an independent nation in the mould of Norway, Switzerland and Iceland". To me that would be honest,straightforward and clear - and accurate. Similarly on currency in his shoes I would state "we will seek a currency union with rUK as we believe it is both of our best interests; however if that fails we will establish a Scottish pound and initially will fix the exchange rate on a 1:1 basis against the pound sterling - that would enable us to revalue or devalue the currency in the best interests of the Scottish economy going forward". Again - simple honest and true. As Salmond has done neither of these things it tells me probably does not understand economics and financial matters as strongly as a man in his position ought to.
Mr Rehn did go on further Leo to talk about Scotland joining the EU, and stated that the country would have to apply through the normal routes. He did not see a short cut for them and because of the monetary issues they would probably not be accepted. No doubt the Yes campaign will not report his considered opinion.
Leo - I'm very sorry that the debate became distracted in this way. However the theme of English attitudes to the EU and to Germany in particular are relevant here. Unfortunately the ideas which I have opposed here are ones which are very entrenched in English society - ideas about Germany which often appear to be in a kind of time warp. I dread an EU referendum for this reason. Many English people appear to look more towards America than to Europe but I do not believe this to be the case in Scotland, and this is where a major problem lies. If the Scots are genuinely more pro European than the English are then this would be enough to place a future common history in jeopardy. Europe would, ultimately , rather have Scotland as a full member than a half hearted England which does little other than complain from the sidelines. If Scotland voted yes then they would still be within the UK, and still be using Sterling for at least the next 18 months. possibly through the next electoral term. During this period they would have enough time to negotiate continued membership from within (If the UK has not voted out in the meantime !). I do not see currency being a problem - think of how the problem of the inclusion of the East German Mark was done in Germany - where there is a will........and so on. I can actually see a future situation where Scotland is a member and England is outside futilely chasing after it's lost colonial partners.
The English attitude towards the EU and the domination of Germany is widely shared around the EU, obviously many countries have a very much more hostile agenda. If a free vote on remaining in the EU or not were offered to many member states some would vote to leave. Of course they would be ordered to vote again until the political elite were satisfied with the result. Expect an increasingly difficult attitude from France as their competitiveness weakens compared to Germany. The internal battles the eurozone will endure in the future will make the spat with the Uk seem innocuous.
