The PM does not get to decide if there's a currency union Boss, in fact by the time the bargaining starts he might not even be PM. So I take what he says with a large pinch of salt as I have always done, and it amazes me how people who do not trust the Tories as far as they could throw them, suddenly start accepting his/their words as Gospel when it comes to Independence. I'm not buying it.
It's a weird one that. I can't believe Ulster authorities are happy being part of an Ireland team, but it seems to be no issue.
I never said he decides (soley), just he is the leader, he is the PM and his words will have an impact with a percentage of the "don't know" voters. But again, how much difference we won't know, until Friday! Then we start to find out real answers.
As far as Rugby is concerned, it's all one country. The 4 main province teams are Ulster, Leinster, Munster, & Connacht. I think there is something like 8-9 Ulster players in the Ireland squad.
Scotland independence impacts on me. The rest of us should have a vote too. Also, I would have thought that the best way to derail the yes campaign would be to promise another referendum in, say, 10 years time. That way they could say something like 'see how you like the new devolved powers, and if you don't, vote yes in 10 years'. As it is I think the no campaign has not been handled very well because I think there was an assumption of a no vote. They seem to have realised too late that yes is a real possibility. And the unanswered questions stemming from yes are many and huge.
I've covered this already, if we give everyone a vote who it may impact upon, where do you draw the line? Do you give Stockbrokers in New York a vote as it may affect them too? You could end up having 50 million people having a vote, 40 million of whom will never live in Scotland.
vim, I cannot agree with another referendum in 10 years because that devalues a referendum. I've only known one in my lifetime which was about European membership. We can't have too many because they'll lose their importance. It should just be once and once only.
"The PM does not get to decide if there's a currency union" No, the Parliament of the time should. Or even better, let the will of the UK people on this issue be decided by a ... referendum. "it amazes me how people who do not trust the Tories as far as they could throw them, suddenly start accepting his/their words as Gospel when it comes to Independence." The "gospel" of no currency union comes from those ITK who are studying the topic and concluding there is no material gain for the UK to even bother with it.
"The Bank of England has ruled out any currency union" Ignoring all these statements, there is no material gain for UKminus to enter into a currency union with an independent Scotland that has been detached with surgical precision (its own national debt etc) . Sterling will rightly devalue a bit, but remain a strong and respected market currency. UKminus will have 9/10th of the GDP of the UK, but its national debt / GDP ratio will remain about the same as that of the UK.
The Bank of England has indeed ruled out currency union, and rightly so. As I have said before, no Central bank is going to underwrite the debt, or act as lender of last resort, to a country, or it's Banks, over whom they have no financial or regulatory control. It would be madness to do so. The currency will take a hit in the short term. Longer term, a portion of the lost oil revenue will be offset by not having to pay for Scotland's higher per capita public spending. In any case, the UK or rUK will have to start making adjustments for lower North Sea oil revenues anyway. They are declining, and will continue tom do so.
Interesting, but there's a lot of "coulds" in there!....a lot may depend on how much is there, if it's there. And how much it costs to extract. That would all be set against a background of, quite possibly, declining oil prices.
Let's face it, there are lots of Ifs and Buts on both sides of the debate, but the people saying this are completely Neutral, they have no Political axe to grind whatsoever.
Of course there are. The other intangibles are shale oil production. Some estimates place US oil production above that of Saudi Arabia by 2020. At the moment, the cost of extraction is relatively high, but the expected improvements in efficiency will likely lower that cost. Then there is the Iran question. At the moment, sanctions limit their production severely. However, should relations with Iran continue to moderate, or improve, then sanctions may well be lifted. They will be eager to gain the revenues from increasing their production sharply.
Latest from CNN is that the No vote will win because a million jobs will be lost if independence happens.
[video=youtube_share;MxzrSyvLmVo]http://youtu.be/MxzrSyvLmVo[/video] "we have the typical, committed passionate Yes supporters who want to pick up badges and flags and stickers" I think that has been mentioned a few times
They are not completely neutral Dev. They need people to invest in exploration in order to line their pockets. Oil and gas consumption have to decrease if the planet is going to survive but they are so short sighted they will not realise this until the sea swallows up their fancy houses.
