An Independent Scotland?

Do you think the yes camp are going to ask Billy Connelly for an endorsement? ;)
 
Steep said:
It seems to be more likely that Scotland will leave the EU if we don't vote for Independence, if the folk of England vote to quit the EU in 2017 (or whenever that referendum will be) and we have not chosen to separate.
Click to expand...

Aye, i agree with you that could be a real risk unless the political parties find a way to neuter UKIP who seem to me at the moment like the acceptable face of racism.

Don't get me wrong, the EU isn't perfect. Far from it. But overall I think we gain more out of it than we lose. Sure we have to play by some of the rules we don't like and don't want. But then isn't that pretty much what all of us have to do each day anyway? I'm sure there are some laws I don't like. Others I do that you may disagree with.

Plus much of the laws that UKIP are banging on about so much would have to be replaced by near identical laws anyway. Would we simply want to see the Human rights act scrapped entirely and not replaced? No. I'd quite like to have some rights thank you very much.

I think history is going to look back over the next 18-24 months and see it as quite a pivotal moment. Especially if Scotland decide to break away then England decide to quit the EU. Essentially the UK will go from the 7th-8th largest economy in the world to two tin pot nations that will be taken as seriously as Ecuador on the world stage.
 
I do think that a Human Rights law is necessary, but unfortunately it's abused and has many faults as we constantly see. A good example of the problems from having poor/non existent Human Rights Laws is America, but I feel that it's wrong that Brussels can supersede our own legal system. It should be more of a case that the EU provide guidelines for our laws.

It also angers me that many countries simply ignore EU laws and appear to get away with it, yet we constantly adhere to it. It's a good testament to the British in that we strive to provide a decent and safe environment and I personally feel that Britain is one of the safest countries in the world with good protection for the public, but we must also be able to stand up for ourselves and our citizens against the bureaucracy of the EU and unrealistic/unreasonable EU judges. At the end of the day it is us who are directly effected by such rulings and not them.

The EU should really be what it was originally intended, a trade agreement. With all the European countries being part of such a large trade agreement does make Europe powerful - I don't feel all the additional legislation, in particular criminal legislation, is necessary. We've got our own legal systems for that and therefore it just seems like a massive power grab by overzealous EU politicians. If we left the EU I don't believe for a minute that they would suddenly stop trading with us, we are a large customer to many - just like Russia won't (or would be very silly to do so) switch off the Gas and Coal deliveries. They would suffer financially on a massive scale and couldn't afford to do this.

As for UKIP, they are very similar to the SNP in my eyes in that they are basically a protest group. They play on and are very vocal about many of the injustices which the public seem to be sick of, but the worry is that if they get in power is there a sinister undercurrent which will raise its head and take things to the extreme? I don't take a lot of the media hype about them seriously as I'm sure a lot of it is aimed as discrediting their party because the bigger ones are getting worried, but I don't doubt that there's also a very bad element hiding in their ranks who are keeping quiet until the time is right.

My worry is that the current Government doesn't seem to deal with problems quick enough and this simply gives parties such as UKIP additional ammunition. You see media reports starting to filter through on certain issues and you know yourself what's going on - it doesn't take a genius most of the time. Yet it seems to take the Government years before they have the courage or sense to start addressing it and by then it can be too late. On the flip side, I suspect were UKIP in charge then they'd react prematurely which would probably do more harm than good.

I think the current Government is quite sensible, but they seem to lack courage. We are a very strong country in the eyes of the EU, who know this. Does anyone remember how it wasn't all that long ago that Germany and France started getting all chummy and anti-British? Then suddenly Germany realised that it's actually the British who are a strong country and France are far from it. Suddenly we were Germany's new best friend. We should take advantage of this and start being much more firm with OUR rules because they certainly can't afford to lose us.
 
No of course they won't stop trading with us. But it will affect trade several ways.

1) If UK left the EU and went solo then we'd have to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The terms of which simply cannot be as good as we have now (ie. no barriers).
2) If UK leaves the EU but becomes a member of the EEA then we must still implement all the rules & regulations of the EU but crucially we'd be no longer able to vote upon them.
3) Our financial services sector which rightly or wrongly accounts for 10% of our economy would have a huge incentive to leave London and set up in Paris/Frankfurt.
4) The influx of Eastern European immigrants would halt ("yay" i hear all the UKIP fans shout). Except we'd be woefully short of young workers who actually want to work in the less glam but ultimately essential jobs like factory labour, picking fruit etc. Those sorts of jobs our UK raised young seem to find beneath them.

I'm digressing now but for me leaving the EU would be a long term disaster. I think the UK as a whole should remain together and as an integral part of the EU. No we won't like ALL the laws but the good outweigh the bad.

Sure we can ultimately take our ball home because we don't want to play by certain rules but it's flipping lonely stood at the sidelines like billy no mates whilst everyone else just carries on regardless.
 
I agree about the young workers, I think job snobbery is present among them. You would think the government would start promoting the benefits of the EU more clearly to the public so that they aren't always receiving the negative stuff via the press? There are countries not in the EU though that don't have a problem with trade but I agree it's not a straight forward process and I'm currently of the opinion that we would probably be better off in the EU, but should be [strongly] negotiating better rules and agreements.
 
simon ess said:
I did, and it seems we came to different conclusions.

I thoroughly dislike A.S.by the way, but not because of that article.
Click to expand...
We all have our despised politicians, for me it's the whole tory cabinet but more specifically Eric Pickles an odious and despicable man. I remember him from when he ran Bradford and he was all that was bad about Thatcherism. You couldn't caricature him he is a walking talking caricature. Salmond on the other hand is the very model of reasonableness when compared to Pickles even if he does want to destroy the union.

Steve
 
gman said:
I do think that a Human Rights law is necessary, but unfortunately it's abused and has many faults as we constantly see. A good example of the problems from having poor/non existent Human Rights Laws is America, but I feel that it's wrong that Brussels can supersede our own legal system. It should be more of a case that the EU provide guidelines for our laws.
Click to expand...
In the UK we have a concept called "supremacy of parliament" (or parliamentary supremacy, if you prefer) which means that the legislative body is supreme to all other institutions, including the courts. The reason that EU law can conflict with (and potentially overrule) UK law is due to an Act of the UK parliament saying that it can (the European Communities Act of 1972), although the debate still rages in legal circles. If you're interested in this stuff, put "Factortame" into your search engine of choice and read (you'll be reading for hours!)

This is different from Human Rights legislation, which is nothing to do with the EU.
 
I was under the impression that EU Law doesn't recognise the supremacy of parliament concept and as the UK Courts recognise the supremacy of EU Law doesn't this create a very complex state of play? Regarding Human Rights, I know we have our own Human Rights Act, but isn't it the EU convention on this which is causing problems which in turn brings us back to the problem of our courts recognising the supremacy of EU law? lol
 
Another question. How does Salmond think he's going to negotiate with the EU? I know that he thinks that Scotland should be given temporary membership for 18 months whilst they negotiate and that it'll all be sorted by then. Let's put that aside for the moment because I think it's a very unrealistic timescale but let's park it....

You need every single member to agree to let Scotland join before they could join. As such there's going to be 28 member states to win around. As I said before the EU can barely agree what colour the sky is so getting 28 entire countries to agree is going to be tough in 18 months. As I've already mentioned Spain may decide to vote no because of Catalonia. But what about the Euro?

From what I've read the Scots don't want the Euro and overwhelmingly want to keep the pound. In fact that's the main reason why SNP have cannily forgotten their previous policy of joining the Euro and now don't even talk about it. But wait.......all the recent entrants to the EU have had to commit to joining the Euro. Latvia have just switched. Estonia joined in 2011 and Lithuania will join in 2015. What are the chances of Scotland joining the EU but winning an opt-out of the Euro? A currency which the other countries have had to adopt as a condition of entry? Will Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania be happy to give Scotland a pass? To make a special exception they were never given? I highly doubt it.

Oh and whilst we're on the subject. I know Salmond brushes aside the notion that rUK won't share Sterling. But what would the impact be on Scotland if that were to happen? Well you could keep using the pound but your currency and more importantly central bank is now in another country. With no lender of last resort in Scotland, the Scottish banks would pretty much be forced to move to rUK or another EU country. Or you could join the Euro straight away I guess. Good luck with that.
 
Gadgeteer - firstly you're making assumptions that Scotland would not simply continue as a member state when there's a very real possibility that we would, but, supposing we had to re-apply - here's what a Belgian MEP Mark Demesmaeker has to say about that. Support for Scotland is high in Europe despite what some inconsequential bureaucrats may say.

Mark Demesmaeker said:
We live in exciting times. In several European countries, citizens, movements and political parties are acting for self-determination, be it autonomy or independence. In essence, the right for self-determination means that a nation can decide its own future.

The developments in Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque country, Flanders and other stateless nations are natural processes. The exercise of the right for self-determination can lead to different results; from reform within a state to the creation of new states. Europe can play a very valuable role here, but deliberately chooses not to do so. The attitude of European institutions and their leaders in particular, is highly disappointing. European commission president José Manuel Barroso, council president Herman Van Rompuy and others are doing everything to thwart the democratic processes in Catalonia and Scotland. They propagate fear and anxiety to assert that there is no place for new states from within the EU.

The simple question then is this: how can nations that have been part of the EU for decades suddenly fall outside the EU because their people opt for what they think is best for them? How can their citizens all of a sudden be stripped of their European citizenship? To these questions, Barroso and Van Rompuy have given me no legal answer at all, despite having asked them on several occasions to provide one. For the sake of stability, they propagate nonsense.

The EU is based on the principles of democracy and freedom, and therefore can no longer ignore these peaceful developments. To decide otherwise would undermine the credibility of the millions of citizens who choose self-determination, democracy and European commitment.
Click to expand...

Again re Sterling, the rUK government is NOT going to cut off it's nose to spite us since a currency union would be the safest bet for both at least to begin with. Supposing you're right though, Why should the Scottish government not be lender of last resort for the banks? if those banks are regulated properly there's no reason why that could not be done. Iceland is a case in point for poor regulation but even there they are not exactly bankrupt.

Changing circumstances - i.e. the virtual crash of the Euro changed the SNPs minds about joining it, a purely selfish and correct choice on their part.
 
gman said:
I was under the impression that EU Law doesn't recognise the supremacy of parliament concept and as the UK Courts recognise the supremacy of EU Law doesn't this create a very complex state of play?
Click to expand...
It is very complex, but the reason that the UK courts recognise EU law is that UK law says that they must. The UK parliament remains supreme as the source of UK law as it has the ability to repeal the European Communities Act, which gives effect to EU law in the UK in the absence of specific legislation or statutory instrument.

gman said:
Regarding Human Rights, I know we have our own Human Rights Act, but isn't it the EU convention on this which is causing problems which in turn brings us back to the problem of our courts recognising the supremacy of EU law? lol
Click to expand...

The HRA brings into UK statute the European Convention of Human Rights, which allows appeal cases bought under said convention to be heard in UK courts. We were already signatories to his convention and prior to this, if an appeal in a case raised a conflict between UK law and our convention obligations, it necessarily got bounced straight to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with attendant costs and delays as there was no UK statute under which the appeal could be argued. So, the HRA allows appeals to be heard in our senior courts which should speed the process along and reduce costs, although following a hearing in our Supreme Court (formerly the Law Lords) the possibility of appeal to Strasbourg still exists.

Nothing to do with EU law. The ECHR is a treaty for members of the Council of Europe (CoE), not members of the EU.
 
Steep said:
Gadgeteer - firstly you're making assumptions that Scotland would not simply continue as a member state when there's a very real possibility that we would, but, supposing we had to re-apply - here's what a Belgian MEP Mark Demesmaeker has to say about that. Support for Scotland is high in Europe despite what some inconsequential bureaucrats may say.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty much accepted by everyone, even Salmond that Scotland will need to reapply. That's why i said let's park the temporary membership issue. You quote some Belgian MEP I've never heard of but have you heard what Jose Manuel Barroso (EC President) said? He says it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to join the EU. I don't think he could have been any clearer really. Again, this was dismissed by Salmond & co as they dismiss every piece of news that they don't want to hear. Is he some inconsequential bureaucrat too?


Steep said:
Again re Sterling, the rUK government is NOT going to cut off it's nose to spite us since a currency union would be the safest bet for both at least to begin with.
Click to expand...
Why not? You assume that rUK will go "Sure....use our currency, no conditions attached until you decide you don't want to. Even though you've just voted to leave us".

Put another way. Do divorcing couples use pure logic? Or do emotions often cloud our judgements? Would I share a joint account with my wife who just told me she's leaving me when she's unwilling to give me any assurances that she won't spend all the money then later leaving me in the lurch? I think not!

Steep said:
Supposing you're right though, Why should the Scottish government not be lender of last resort for the banks? if those banks are regulated properly there's no reason why that could not be done. Iceland is a case in point for poor regulation but even there they are not exactly bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Because EU law says that banks have to have a lender of last resort. Since Scotland wouldn't have it's own currency the BoE would be the central bank in question. Since BoE is in England, this means all the main Scottish banks would have to move their headquarters to the rUK....to comply with EU law. Until such time as iScotland either adopts the Euro or the UK agree to share.
 
onomatopoeia said:
It is very complex, but the reason that the UK courts recognise EU law is that UK law says that they must. The UK parliament remains supreme as the source of UK law as it has the ability to repeal the European Communities Act, which gives effect to EU law in the UK in the absence of specific legislation or statutory instrument.



The HRA brings into UK statute the European Convention of Human Rights, which allows appeal cases bought under said convention to be heard in UK courts. We were already signatories to his convention and prior to this, if an appeal in a case raised a conflict between UK law and our convention obligations, it necessarily got bounced straight to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with attendant costs and delays as there was no UK statute under which the appeal could be argued. So, the HRA allows appeals to be heard in our senior courts which should speed the process along and reduce costs, although following a hearing in our Supreme Court (formerly the Law Lords) the possibility of appeal to Strasbourg still exists.

Nothing to do with EU law. The ECHR is a treaty for members of the Council of Europe (CoE), not members of the EU.
Click to expand...


So basically is someone isn't happy with the UK ruling the just appeal to the EU courts?
 
It was easier to answer your points within the quote itself..

gadgeteer said:
I think it's pretty much accepted by everyone, even Salmond that Scotland will need to reapply. That's why i said let's park the temporary membership issue. You quote some Belgian MEP I've never heard of but have you heard what Jose Manuel Barroso (EC President) said? He says it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to join the EU. I don't think he could have been any clearer really. Again, this was dismissed by Salmond & co as they dismiss every piece of news that they don't want to hear. Is he some inconsequential bureaucrat too?

What you think is pretty much accepted is neither here nor there, it's not accepted at all because so far the European parliament has refused to answer questions on the subject. No reason why you should have heard of Mark Demesmaeker, I hadn't either until he made that statement. You mention JM Barroso, he's one of those inconsequential bureaucrats I spoke of and is the person refusing to validate his statements, it was simply not for him to make those assertions in the first place. The fact that he's unwilling or unable to provide legal backing to support them speaks volumes.

Why not? You assume that rUK will go "Sure....use our currency, no conditions attached until you decide you don't want to. Even though you've just voted to leave us".

Put another way. Do divorcing couples use pure logic? Or do emotions often cloud our judgements? Would I share a joint account with my wife who just told me she's leaving me when she's unwilling to give me any assurances that she won't spend all the money then later leaving me in the lurch? I think not!

The divorcing couple analogy simply isn't valid, there wouldn't be any storming out and slamming of doors this isn't the ending of some emotional attachment. Any negotiations would be carried out by civil servants and an amicable settlement reached because it would be in the interests of both to do so.

Because EU law says that banks have to have a lender of last resort. Since Scotland wouldn't have it's own currency the BoE would be the central bank in question. Since BoE is in England, this means all the main Scottish banks would have to move their headquarters to the rUK....to comply with EU law. Until such time as iScotland either adopts the Euro or the UK agree to share.

You misread what I wrote, I said 'if' you are right and there is no currency union, Scotland would have it's own currency, what is wrong with the Scottish Government being the lender of last resort for its banks? there is precedence for it and as long as the banks are properly regulated there would not be another Iceland here.
Click to expand...
 
gman said:
So basically is someone isn't happy with the UK ruling the just appeal to the EU courts?
Click to expand...
Only if there is grounds for an appeal and only once the UK court appeals process has been exhausted.
 
Steep said:
It was easier to answer your points within the quote itself..
You misread what I wrote, I said 'if' you are right and there is no currency union, Scotland would have it's own currency, what is wrong with the Scottish Government being the lender of last resort for its banks? there is precedence for it and as long as the banks are properly regulated there would not be another Iceland here.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok, yes I misunderstood you. Yes Scotland could set up their own Scottish pound (or whatever) but then that sort of flies in the face of the idea of joining the Euro doesn't it? It also won't be a very popular currency if people think that soon it'll be ditched. And won't that affect the exchange rate?


Steep said:
What you think is pretty much accepted is neither here nor there, it's not accepted at all because so far the European parliament has refused to answer questions on the subject. No reason why you should have heard of Mark Demesmaeker, I hadn't either until he made that statement. You mention JM Barroso, he's one of those inconsequential bureaucrats I spoke of and is the person refusing to validate his statements, it was simply not for him to make those assertions in the first place. The fact that he's unwilling or unable to provide legal backing to support them speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

But doesn't that in itself speak volumes about the entire Yes campaign. And that is that what Salmond is asking Scotland to do is essentially take a HUGE gamble on a lot of things that are at the very least unknowns and at worst people have already spoken.

On the currency union point. All three major parties have ruled it out on the advice of the very civil service that would be negotiating currency union!?! And we can all see what happened to the Lib Dems after they went back on their manifesto pledge on student loans. I really doubt Tories, Labour and especially the Lib Dems would be so quick to go back on their word that there will be no currency union. That would be akin to electoral suicide and give UKIP an even BIGGER boost. And one thing MP's are good at is saving their own skin.
 
gadgeteer said:
Ahh ok, yes I misunderstood you. Yes Scotland could set up their own Scottish pound (or whatever) but then that sort of flies in the face of the idea of joining the Euro doesn't it? It also won't be a very popular currency if people think that soon it'll be ditched. And won't that affect the exchange rate?
Click to expand...

Again you're either misunderstanding or putting words in my mouth. I've not said anything about joining the Euro and if Scotland went with it's own currency it's wouldn't be in any way temporary.

gadgeteer said:
But doesn't that in itself speak volumes about the entire Yes campaign. And that is that what Salmond is asking Scotland to do is essentially take a HUGE gamble on a lot of things that are at the very least unknowns and at worst people have already spoken.
Click to expand...

The European governing body can't speak about the membership of Scotland until a request is actually made and that cannot happen until after a yes vote. Likewise they (Barroso) should not be saying anything against for the same reasons. What Barroso said was nothing more than personal opinion which carries no weight either here in Scotland or in the EU parliament and he has refused to back it up, probably because he accomplished what he was asked to do, sow the seeds of doubt.

gadgeteer said:
On the currency union point. All three major parties have ruled it out on the advice of the very civil service that would be negotiating currency union!?! And we can all see what happened to the Lib Dems after they went back on their manifesto pledge on student loans. I really doubt Tories, Labour and especially the Lib Dems would be so quick to go back on their word that there will be no currency union. That would be akin to electoral suicide and give UKIP an even BIGGER boost. And one thing MP's are good at is saving their own skin.
Click to expand...

They did not take advice from the civil service, they took what they wanted from what one man said, what he said has already been refuted by other civil servants, academics and others who know better. And these politicians have already gone back on the promise of David Cameron that 'everything' would be negotiable in the event of a yes vote, why would you think they wouldn't backtrack again? Not that it matters, any negotiating will be carried out by civil servants, not by politicians.

The above has already been covered more than a few times in this thread.
 
Speaking of not taking legal advice, or should we say lying about taking legal advice when it comes to the EU.... enter Mr Salmond lol

Regarding entry to the EU being unknown until an application has been made, I see this as being no different from wanting a currency union which you won't know until the time, yet Salmond seems happy enough to give HIS opinion as if it's fact.

A little bit of hypocrisy going on here.
 
Last edited:
I said the EU couldn't speak on the issue until asked, I didn't say no one could figure the positive outcome for themselves.

Hypocrisy? try David Cameron and his sidekicks continually sniping from the sidelines but saying "no no, it's nothing to do with us" any time they are asked to come up here and engage in any kind of debate about the guff they spout.
 
Not all questions have been stupid, some have others have been merely repetitive. Different opinions are what make the world go round and I for one wish anyone with a different opinion to mine long life and happiness.
 
Steep said:
The European governing body can't speak about the membership of Scotland until a request is actually made and that cannot happen until after a yes vote. Likewise they (Barroso) should not be saying anything against for the same reasons. What Barroso said was nothing more than personal opinion which carries no weight either here in Scotland or in the EU parliament and he has refused to back it up, probably because he accomplished what he was asked to do, sow the seeds of doubt.
Click to expand...
This is the problem with the yes camp. Your simply not prepared to accept that there may very well be difficulties in becoming a member of the EU. That you would have to negotiate your place and your contribution. I can only assume the stance is because you realise it would be disastrous electorally to admit now at such a late stage. I didnt have to be this way, you could have prepared for such a position in the beginning.

Steep said:
They did not take advice from the civil service, they took what they wanted from what one man said, what he said has already been refuted by other civil servants, academics and others who know better. And these politicians have already gone back on the promise of David Cameron that 'everything' would be negotiable in the event of a yes vote, why would you think they wouldn't backtrack again? Not that it matters, any negotiating will be carried out by civil servants, not by politicians.

The above has already been covered more than a few times in this thread.
Click to expand...

I am assuming your taking about Macpherson, and if so, he most definitely did say no to currency union. I'm not sure who these other civil servants are but I am not aware of any advice to the contrary, certainly not from a civil servant. Again the downright refusal of accepting the possibility of no currency union and again it didn't have to be this way. It could have been planned for and a real alternative could have been readied. I had assumed that this is why there was such a long period between announcing the referendum and the actual vote. Now you have the uncertainty for the electorate on polling day and that will not bode well for the yes camp.

I personally find the response to possible problems that independence may bring from the yes camp very disappointing. Whenever there are any unfavourable reports on the consequences of independence all we hear is we're being bullied or the bettertogether camp are always negative. I rarely seen any alternative plan for these very real difficulties an independent Scotland may face.

And whilst it will probably surprise you Hugh but I do feel sorry for committed nationalist like yourself. You perhaps had a real opportunity here to capture the prize and although I obviously do not know which way the vote will go I serious think the Yes camp have blown it.

Steve
 
This is a problem with the no camp not the yes camp, they refuse to allow that a smooth transition might be possible because it would destroy all the hard work they've done putting out these scare stories in the first place.

It's not that "I" am not prepared to accept that there may be difficulties, it's that I don't believe that there will be any thing like the problems the Westminster lot want everyone to think. Every time someone down South (and it's always someone down South, never anyone from the actual better together campaign who should be doing it) comes out with a sound byte about how there won't be this or you can't do that or you can't have the other it's shown to be horlicks, not by the demon SNP but by independent sources.
The main problem we have is that these sound bytes are picked up by the press and headlined but they don't publish the counters to them until days later (if at all) when it's too late.
 
Steep said:
They did not take advice from the civil service, they took what they wanted from what one man said
Click to expand...

You mean Sir Nicholas Macpherson one of the most senior civil servants in the country who is also the permanent secretary to the treasury? That one man? Personally it sounds to me like he's in one of the best positions in the UK to be speaking about it. I'd say ignore it at your peril. In fact I think he said that it "....needed to be made absolutely crystal clear that a monetary union was not on the table.". I'm not really sure it gets any clearer than that.

Yet the yes campaigners have stuck their heads in the sand. As I said before it has become politically impossible for the main parties to back down from this position given they've stated publicly that it's not on the table and ignoring that advice would open themselves up for electoral suicide not to mention the press would have an utter field day.

Steep said:
What Barroso said was nothing more than personal opinion
Click to expand...
Again...the personal opinion of someone who you would expect to have more intimate knowledge than the rest of us on how future negotiations will go. You know....given he's the president and everything.

Using the same logic, Salmond is only expressing his personal opinion on how things will go and there's no credible evidence he'll be able to negotiate a good deal for Scotland to join the EU.

Steep said:
Again you're either misunderstanding or putting words in my mouth. I've not said anything about joining the Euro and if Scotland went with it's own currency it's wouldn't be in any way temporary.
Click to expand...
I'm not putting words in your mouth. What I am referring to is the fact that EU membership conditions stipulate member states must adopt the Euro. Given you want to join the EU you'll need to accept this term. As I explained earlier, I don't rate your chances of persuading countries who've had to suck this one up to join to give Scotland a pass. Ergo a Scottish currency will be temporary. Unless of course you don't want to join the EU in which case yeah that's cool. Banks can stay and use the Scottish pound. Except you won't be in the EU.....so banks will want to move into the Eurozone....like England or France or Germany!
 
jakeblu said:
I am assuming your taking about Macpherson, and if so, he most definitely did say no to currency union.
Click to expand...

Actually he didn't say that, what he said was "I would advise strongly against a currency union as currently advocated…" he didn't rule out a union full stop and neither did Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, if the conditions for a union were favourable.

The Edinburgh agreement says - the referendum is be conducted ‘so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people’ and that the two Governments would be ‘working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communications and mutual respect. - If a currency union can be worked out to the benefit of both sides who in their right minds would vote against it?


Tom Hunter, Scotlands richest man and 'undecided' has put his money to use getting independent analysis of the questions he thinks are grey areas. The report he commissioned from Professor Leslie Young (of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing) says...

  • The UK Government was relying on a “lurid collage of fact, conjecture and fantasy” in making its argument.
  • The evidence cited by Permanent Secretary to the Treasury Sir Nicholas MacPherson used by the UK government to justify its decision on a currency union is fundamentally flawed.
  • Its claim that Scotland’s financial system is “far too big”, and would therefore expose UK taxpayers to heavy burdens, is unsubstantiated.
  • Its claim that the likely misalignment of the fiscal policies of the UK and an independent Scotland would put “intolerable pressure” on the currency union is evasive — and unsubstantiated.
  • Currency union would not bring on the tensions that drove the Eurozone crisis. Were a financial crisis to arise, the two governments and the central bank could quickly agree to head off any downward economic spiral with decisive action, given their shared values and culture, virtually identical business, financial and fiscal systems, and the familiarity, goodwill and respect that obtain between their electorates.
  • The Treasury claims are invalidated, not by errors of fact, but by errors of logic. These errors are subtle and difficult to disentangle. But only subtle logical error could have led Treasury to claim, in effect, that past risky behaviour by investment bankers in London, inadequately supervised by the Bank of England, somehow disqualifies an independent Scotland to be a currency union partner of England.
 
Last edited:
gadgeteer said:
I'm not putting words in your mouth. What I am referring to is the fact that EU membership conditions stipulate member states must adopt the Euro. Given you want to join the EU you'll need to accept this term.
Click to expand...

See my last reply for the Mr Macpherson actually said.

As I also said earlier, you are making assumptions, not least that Scotland would 'have to apply' for membership, that is far from being a certainty. The fact is that there has never been a situation like the one that would exist so there is no rule or set of guidelines to follow. Which is why the EU has said nothing so far, it's not a question they want to have to answer until they have to.
 
Re Mr Barroso this is what Tom Hunter had to say about that -

"Turning to Europe earlier this week I met Judge David Edward, ex-European Court Judge, a man in my view beyond reproach and as he describes himself a ‘moderate unionist’. David is in the no camp, however that hasn’t stopped him prevailing in identifying the need for detailed negotiation around Scotland’s entry to the EU, rightly noting it was wrong of Barosso to prejudge the outcomes of said.

David makes it absolutely clear there is an obligation to negotiate Scotland’s position within the EU and of course that a unanimous vote of all 28 nations is completely required to see us in. However he pours scorn on the ‘all but impossible’ remarks of the EC President."

http://scotlandseptember18.com/sir-tom-hunter-opinion-piece-sunday-times-scotland/
 
Your problem is Hugh, Professor Leslie Young (of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing) will not be the one who decides on a currency union. Its already been stated by me and many others on this thread the UK has not been minded to share their currency, or anybody elses for that matter, with anyone and I do not see that as changing any time soon.

Steve
 
Steep said:
See my last reply for the Mr Macpherson actually said.
Click to expand...

What Macpherson actually said and I quote
"I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland. There is no evidence that adequate proposals
or policy changes to enable the formation of a currency union could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments
in the foreseeable future"

Pretty unequivocal really

Steve
 
jakeblu said:
Your problem is Hugh, Professor Leslie Young (of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing) will not be the one who decides on a currency union. Its already been stated by me and many others on this thread the UK has not been minded to share their currency, or anybody elses for that matter, with anyone and I do not see that as changing any time soon.

Steve
Click to expand...

I know you've said it and so have a couple of temporary caretaker politicians in Westminster but their reasoning was flawed and they have no choice but to accept the agreement DC signed in Edinburgh. "working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communications and mutual respect " You have accept that politicians manipulate the truth to make it fit their immediate needs and are not going to admit to something that endangers their position (until they have no choice). I have posted independent assessments by people who have no position to maintain or axe to grind refuting your main points. Accept that I'm right or prove me wrong with something other than what some politician says.
 
Steep said:
Professor Leslie Young (of the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing) says...

  • The UK Government was relying on a “lurid collage of fact, conjecture and fantasy” in making its argument.
  • The evidence cited by Permanent Secretary to the Treasury Sir Nicholas MacPherson used by the UK government to justify its decision on a currency union is fundamentally flawed.
  • Its claim that Scotland’s financial system is “far too big”, and would therefore expose UK taxpayers to heavy burdens, is unsubstantiated.
  • Its claim that the likely misalignment of the fiscal policies of the UK and an independent Scotland would put “intolerable pressure” on the currency union is evasive — and unsubstantiated.
  • Currency union would not bring on the tensions that drove the Eurozone crisis. Were a financial crisis to arise, the two governments and the central bank could quickly agree to head off any downward economic spiral with decisive action, given their shared values and culture, virtually identical business, financial and fiscal systems, and the familiarity, goodwill and respect that obtain between their electorates.
  • The Treasury claims are invalidated, not by errors of fact, but by errors of logic. These errors are subtle and difficult to disentangle. But only subtle logical error could have led Treasury to claim, in effect, that past risky behaviour by investment bankers in London, inadequately supervised by the Bank of England, somehow disqualifies an independent Scotland to be a currency union partner of England.
Click to expand...
This seems to be very focused on one side and doesn't seem to be balanced. Has this been very selectively quoted to show one side in a better light?
 
jakeblu said:
What Macpherson actually said and I quote
"I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland. There is no evidence that adequate proposals
or policy changes to enable the formation of a currency union could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments
in the foreseeable future"

Pretty unequivocal really

Steve
Click to expand...

We're actually both right but picked different bits of his letter, it matters not though since what he wrote was horlicks. :)

PDF -
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...4YakDMNn5BZjlkZBA&sig2=nUFeZIHlF-gI3fWRDZ-Atg
 
HuntingMartians said:
This seems to be very focused on one side and doesn't seem to be balanced. Has this been very selectively quoted to show one side in a better light?
Click to expand...

The full reports are here - long reading but pretty damning of the UK governments position.

Part A of the report from March is linked at the bottom of the page here http://scotlandseptember18.com/eminent-professor-questions-hm-treasury-advice-on-currency-union/
Part B from April is linked at the bottom of the page here http://scotlandseptember18.com/currency-options-for-an-independent-scotland/
 
Please can we stop going round in circles over the issue of EU membership? Everybody seems to assume that an independent Scotland has to be either in or out of the EU. But there is no precedent and no reason to assume that a different solution won't be developed if it has to be. (Remember, politics is the art of the compromise.)

The nearest analogy is probably Greenland, though even here I'm not sure how relevant it is, since Greenland isn't an independent country. It is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark; I'm not an expert and it's very hard to generalise in these areas, but its status in Denmark might be comparable to Scotland's status in the UK. (Or perhaps a devo-max Scotland. But probably less similar to an independent Scotland.)

But Greenland does have a unique relationship with the EU. After Greenland gained a measure of home rule in 1979, it held a referendum on membership of the EU (actually EEC as it was then) and the people voted to leave. It took 3 years to negotiate Greenland's new relationship with the EEC.

Interestingly citizens of Greenland are still Danish citizens (in the same way that citizens of, say, the Falklands are UK citizens) and therefore they are also EU citizens. Clear as mud!
 
But it's the SNP themselves and especially Salmond who is committed to joining Scotland to the EU. Therefore it seems logical to assume that iScotland wants to join.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27180301

Steep said:
As I also said earlier, you are making assumptions, not least that Scotland would 'have to apply' for membership, that is far from being a certainty. The fact is that there has never been a situation like the one that would exist so there is no rule or set of guidelines to follow. Which is why the EU has said nothing so far, it's not a question they want to have to answer until they have to.
Click to expand...

And that's my entire argument in a nutshell. That the Yes camp are asking the Scottish electorate to take a HUGE gamble. And that's exactly what it is. A gamble. Like you said, there's no certainty at all. Certainly for the EU it's unchartered waters. It COULD go swimmingly well. But given recent experiences of the EU I wouldn't want to count on that.

The rUK have said "NO" to currency sharing so you now have additional uncertainty over even what currency you would use.

Two absolutely central planks of the 'yes' argument which are totally uncertain. Add on top of that, Salmond is proposing higher spending and lower taxes! :rolleyes:

Essentially what the 'Yes' campaign is asking the voters to do is roll the dice and trust them that everything will be cushdy. I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust an MP as far as I could throw them.
 
You trust a politician when it suits you gadgeteer, like when you trust Osborne et al to be telling the truth over currency.

Of course Scotland would be taking a big risk, it's the biggest risk any of us will likely take in our lives. I and I hope a majority of my fellows believe that risk is worth taking.
 
gadgeteer said:
And that's my entire argument in a nutshell. That the Yes camp are asking the Scottish electorate to take a HUGE gamble. And that's exactly what it is. A gamble. Like you said, there's no certainty at all.
...
Two absolutely central planks of the 'yes' argument which are totally uncertain.
...
Essentially what the 'Yes' campaign is asking the voters to do is roll the dice and trust them
Click to expand...
But you seem to be assuming that if the Scots vote against independence, then everything goes back to being as it was before. I don't think that's at all justified.

I don't want to keep rewriting the same post again and again, but you'll find it a couple of pages back. Short version: Nobody on either side knows what they are actually voting FOR. The dice are already rolling and BOTH sides are asking the Scots to trust them to able to secure a "better" outcome.

I think the ONLY certainty is what @Steep mentioned: that in the event of independence, the Edinburgh agreement will have the two camps "working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communications and mutual respect ". Note that this does not apply if the Scots vote no.
 
Steep said:
I know you've said it and so have a couple of temporary caretaker politicians in Westminster but their reasoning was flawed and they have no choice but to accept the agreement DC signed in Edinburgh. "working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communications and mutual respect " You have accept that politicians manipulate the truth to make it fit their immediate needs and are not going to admit to something that endangers their position (until they have no choice). I have posted independent assessments by people who have no position to maintain or axe to grind refuting your main points. Accept that I'm right or prove me wrong with something other than what some politician says.
Click to expand...

I had read the whole memo before I posted the final paragraph which looks pretty unequivocal regarding a currency union.

Since when was Macpherson a politician. It's exactly the position of the yes camp, that it's all bluff, that has forced Macpherson to publish his letter.

"It has claimed that we are blustering, bluffing - in effect, casting aspersions on the UK government's integrity.

"My view in this case, and it's a very exceptional case, is that if publishing advice could strengthen the credibility of the government's position, then it was my duty to do it."

It's like your sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah

Steve
 
“My argument is that if you are promoting it as authentic and of great worth, you cannot promote it from a nation of drunks.”
Alex Salmond


The truth cometh lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top