Scottish Independence and other political topics.

[The RDBD]

"I find it highly annoying that the YES campaign have totally overlooked the fact that using the pound would mean they
can't join the EU as they wouldn't meet the financial criteria for membership."

Wouldn't the claim be that the economy of an independent Scotland is too weak to yield to
the Eurozone, so they would wish to retain their present currency in the current climate (which AFAIK is
what nations like Bulgaria have done) ??

 

[afcftw]

Link them.

I think I did earlier in this thread, can't be bothered to go back and find it

 

[afcftw]

A quick google search has found one website who ran the story (it was all over the place at the time so I'm sure there are plenty of other versions of the same story).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotlands-use-pound-without-4153682

The man who's job was European Commissioner for monetary and economic affairs and the euro, has said they couldn't keep the pound and join Europe. He didn't beat around the bush, straight to the point.

 

[Spurf]

I think I did earlier in this thread, can't be bothered to go back and find it

I found it for you. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/indepdent-scotland-not-join-eu-without-central-bank

He is talking about the EMU.

If people cannot see the major problems it would cause to the EU if Scotland were excluded then there is really little point in continuing this discussion.

In any case the need for Independence comes before ALL other considerations of currency, EU etc. The modern world is so interlinked that all these matters would be resolved, and always keep in mind that the country that has the biggest interest in seeing Scotland thrive is England. Scotland is England's biggest customer.

Anyone who thinks that England would not co-operate with an Independent Scotland and vice versa, is not being realistic IMO.

 

[The RDBD]

"Anyone who thinks that England would not co-operate with an Independent Scotland and vice versa, is not being realistic IMO."

Co-operation as in not opposing Scotlands' entry to the EU etc, fine.
Co-operatiion as in agreeing to a needless (for UKminus) currency union, naive at best.

 

[NSIS]

If we are talking about selling the idea of viable, working independence to the Scottish public, then important issues such as currency, and EU membership, have to be clearly defined.

As discussed, there are OPINIONS on both sides of the debate. For me, there is certainly more than enough credible opinion that there would be no currency union. EU membership for a breakaway state from an existing member, is also in serious doubt.

The FACT is that neither the SNP, nor the Yes campaign could tell the voters with any certainty what the answers to these questions are. They failed to convince enough of the Scottish public that their opinions were enough to risk a country's entire future upon.

 

[PowerSpurs]

If we are talking about selling the idea of viable, working independence to the Scottish public, then important issues such as currency, and EU membership, have to be clearly defined.

As discussed, there are OPINIONS on both sides of the debate. For me, there is certainly more than enough credible opinion that there would be no currency union. EU membership for a breakaway state from an existing member, is also in serious doubt.

The FACT is that neither the SNP, nor the Yes campaign could tell the voters with any certainty what the answers to these questions are. They failed to convince enough of the Scottish public that their opinions were enough to risk a country's entire future upon.

I don't agree. Countries smaller than Scotland, and those bigger than the UK exist throughout the world, including within the EU and also with and without currency union. There is no data that unambiguously shows which arrangement is best, it really is just a matter of opinion. The debate should have been solely about whether the Scots wanted to become smaller and more independent and what the pros and cons of that are, not about the details of implementation where no-one has a clue, whatever they claim and everyone has something to lose, which never makes for honest debate.

 

[The RDBD]

"There is no data that unambiguously shows which arrangement is best, it really is just a matter of opinion."

And politics.
An independent Scotland with an economic profile (GDP, debt etc) ~10% of the current UK, would
be fine to join the EU and adopt the Euro.

But we know that EU members with their own regional grief (Belgium, Spain etc) are highly likely to
vote against.

 

[Spurf]

A quick google search has found one website who ran the story (it was all over the place at the time so I'm sure there are plenty of other versions of the same story).

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independent-scotlands-use-pound-without-4153682

The man who's job was European Commissioner for monetary and economic affairs and the euro, has said they couldn't keep the pound and join Europe. He didn't beat around the bush, straight to the point.

Read it all, it is about the commitment to join the EMU as I just said in the post above. That's his view, it is not a unviversal view and it does not consider the problems for the EU in this situation, which I have highlighted on a number of occasions.

These are just political positions and they would all change in the event of Scottish Independence. You just can't exclude 5.5 million Scots, 160,000 EU citizens working in Scotland and 60,000 EU Students in Scotland, not to mention Scots working and living in the EU. That is the real issue not the money.
Not forgetting that Scotland also has 10% of Europes fishing, 25% of it's renewable energy, and 60% of it's oil.

No wonder the Establishment pulled out all their best propaganda to keep this poor country that needs help to survive in the Union.

 

[Spurf]

If we are talking about selling the idea of viable, working independence to the Scottish public, then important issues such as currency, and EU membership, have to be clearly defined.

As discussed, there are OPINIONS on both sides of the debate. For me, there is certainly more than enough credible opinion that there would be no currency union. EU membership for a breakaway state from an existing member, is also in serious doubt.

The FACT is that neither the SNP, nor the Yes campaign could tell the voters with any certainty what the answers to these questions are. They failed to convince enough of the Scottish public that their opinions were enough to risk a country's entire future upon.

No the fact is we failed to convince the over 65's that their pensions or NHS were safe. We won the under 65,s. The over 65's are the group who use the internet least therefore took their info from TV and MSM, just like you.

 

[Spurf]

I don't agree. Countries smaller than Scotland, and those bigger than the UK exist throughout the world, including within the EU and also with and without currency union. There is no data that unambiguously shows which arrangement is best, it really is just a matter of opinion. The debate should have been solely about whether the Scots wanted to become smaller and more independent and what the pros and cons of that are, not about the details of implementation where no-one has a clue, whatever they claim and everyone has something to lose, which never makes for honest debate.

Thank you.

 

[DevAdvocate]

http://fivemillionquestions.org/blo...-framing-of-the-scottish-independence-debate/

 

[Spurf]

"Anyone who thinks that England would not co-operate with an Independent Scotland and vice versa, is not being realistic IMO."

Co-operation as in not opposing Scotlands' entry to the EU etc, fine.
Co-operatiion as in agreeing to a needless (for UKminus) currency union, naive at best.

It depends which economist you chose to believe.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Keep out of this discussion about ISIS Dev, you were MILES away from my point.

 

[The RDBD]

"It depends which economist you chose to believe."

No, it doesn't.
Basic schoolboy economics showed me that an independent Scotland with surgically separated
debt offers no material gain for the UK to have currency union with.

 

[afcftw]

No the fact is we failed to convince the over 65's that their pensions or NHS were safe. We won the under 65,s. The over 65's are the group who use the internet least therefore took their info from TV and MSM, just like you.

Ridiculously over simplifying things.

 

[Spurf]

"It depends which economist you chose to believe."

No, it doesn't.
Basic schoolboy economics showed me that an independent Scotland with surgically separated
debt offers no material gain for the UK to have currency union with.

Then try some grown up economics.

Perhaps you need to look at the bigger picture rather than just a few isolated figures. Mutual business, Balance of Payments, Oil revenue, Energy supplies, Financial Services, Whisky sales, Trident, The EU, all point to a currency Union.

Economist seem to have a habit of missing the bigger picture, perhaps over reliance on their figures is the problem and when it comes to predictions they are woeful.

 

[NSIS]

L

I don't agree. Countries smaller than Scotland, and those bigger than the UK exist throughout the world, including within the EU and also with and without currency union. There is no data that unambiguously shows which arrangement is best, it really is just a matter of opinion. The debate should have been solely about whether the Scots wanted to become smaller and more independent and what the pros and cons of that are, not about the details of implementation where no-one has a clue, whatever they claim and everyone has something to lose, which never makes for honest debate.

You fail to grasp the importance of a central bank. The lender of last resort. The guarantor of it's currency. Yes, Scotland can shadow the pound, so called sterlingisation, but without the umbrella of the central bank that issues that currency. Therefore, the Scottish pound would trade worldwide on the credit rating of Scotland alone. Their credit rating as a newly formed independent country would be far lower than the UK. And their borrowing costs much higher.

In Europe, those countries in the Euro have the the backing of the ECB., something that several of them have needed to avoid bankruptcy in recent years. Countries outside of the single currency, such as Bulgaria, have no protection from the ECB. their credit rating is much lower, therefore their cost of borrowing is much higher.

This is Something I already illustrated in highlighting the difference in borrowing cost between the USA and a USD based economy, such as Ecuador.

 

[Spurf]

Ridiculously over simplifying things.

In that case you have no need to worry have you.

 

[Spurf]

L

You fail to grasp the importance of a central bank. The lender of last resort. The guarantor of it's currency. Yes, Scotland can shadow the pound, so called sterlingisation, but without the umbrella of the central bank that issues that currency. Therefore, the Scottish pound would trade worldwide on the credit rating of Scotland alone. Their credit rating as a newly formed independent country would be far lower than the UK. And their borrowing costs much higher.

In Europe, those countries in the Euro have the the backing of the ECB., something that several of them have needed to avoid bankruptcy in recent years. Countries outside of the single currency, such as Bulgaria, have no protection from the ECB. their credit rating is much lower, therefore their cost of borrowing is much higher.

This is Something I already illustrated in highlighting the difference in borrowing cost between the USA and a USD based economy, such as Ecuador.

No you fail to grasp the inherent econimic strength of Scotland that could easily have a HIGHER credit rating than the UK. The Scottish economy is stronger than the rUK. You keep trotting this stuff out and each time display your lack of knowledge about Scotland. Your theories are fine you are just applying them to the wrong case.