Scottish independence

rpc

CLAPTON wrote: »

as an economist could you share you view of the economic consequences on Scotland using the pound on the Panama solution? The impact of reserves, the Scottish government budget, banking industry etc.

Look, our dear leader has a 2:2 joint degree in economics and medieval history and he says it will be fine. He worked for RBS for a while and later on used his office to support Fred the Shred in the run up to the bank's collapse.

InvestInPoker

CLAPTON

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Oh what joy, now we can turn to the EU debate....







The EU isn't a one size fits all any more than the UK is one size fits all. All the member countries have their own governments with significant powers and their policies can and do differ. Some EU countries have further devolved powers - e.g. Germany has for decades been a federation of states which all have their own powers and policies. Of course there are some areas where devolution makes no sense and the benefits from economies of scale will outweigh devolved powers.

There is no debate, the common currency without fiscal unity, coupled with a global financial crisis, has proven to be a bit of a disaster. Although I don't believe it will be the end of the Euro, this experience is enough reason for me to never support a currency union with Scotland, or between any other countries that do not have a fiscal union.

But to say that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland did not benefit from the EU is just showing ignorance. Have you been to any of these countries regularly over the last 20 years? Have you seen the new roads, power plants, railway lines, airports that could be justified on the basis of affordability because of the economic union, and that were in large parts funded by subsidies from the richer nations? That provided jobs during construction, and now provide maintenance jobs as well as enable borderless trade, and new sources of income for many? Have you spoken to people who live in those countries and have the freedom of movement inside the EU without needing visas? Have you got / do you know someone with an export business that enjoys the benefit of doing business with 26 other countries without needing to adhere to 26 different rules and regulations, without needing costly delays in customs? Have you considered the "minor" benefit of no wars between the EU members? Note I am not saying it's all marvellous - there is always room for improvement and some things badly do need improving. Just like they do inside the UK.

I find it quite disingenuous if rUK folk try and talk Scotland into staying with the UK when at the same time they support leaving the EU. There is fundamentally not much difference between the two separation activist groups - they have a selfish desire for power.

my question was

could you explain as an economist the vast benefits to the people of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland are gaining from the one size fits all EU?

yes there are unused roads and unused high speed train lines

but how would you describe the benefits of a single currency to the peoples of those countries?


is 40-50% youth unemployment worth a rail line you don't need?

ProudDad

In fairness Clapton I think the situation in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland is of their own making and would have happened anyway. Being in the EU stopped these countries collapsing. Also the EU has brought long standing peace to western europe and is an institution envied around the world. All unions have there issues and the EU isnt working maybe the UK isnt either maybe we should just dissolve both cause you cant argue for one union and against the other. I am simply arguing of changing from one union to the other as being part of a bigger union with more say on what happens in our own economy is exactly what the British nations need but these should be managed seperately.

talexuser

If the EU stopped Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland etc collapsing then being in the Euro gave them MUCH worse austerity than would have been the case if they had been able to devalue their own currencies (the only thing that has kept the UK afloat). The idea that joining the Euro gives you more say in your own economy (after shadowing the pound fails just as us shadowing the deutschmark spectacularly failed) is frankly laughable.

A._Badger

ProudDad wrote: »

In fairness Clapton I think the situation in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland is of their own making and would have happened anyway. Being in the EU stopped these countries collapsing. Also the EU has brought long standing peace to western europe and is an institution envied around the world. All unions have there issues and the EU isnt working maybe the UK isnt either maybe we should just dissolve both cause you cant argue for one union and against the other. I am simply arguing of changing from one union to the other as being part of a bigger union with more say on what happens in our own economy is exactly what the British nations need but these should be managed seperately.

Why can you not argue for one union and not the other? They are are of quite different orders of magnitude and they operate on entirely different constitutional principles.

If Scotland feels it is not master of its own destiny now, heaven help you when it is forced to adopt the Euro and has its economic policies dictated by the needs of Germany or France!

You have to decide an appropriate level or degree for the loss of sovereignty you are prepared to accept to gain the advantages of any union. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you seem to recoil at the loss of sovereignty implicit in a union with Northern Ireland, England and Wales, yet seem sanguine about the far greater loss of freedom that will pertain under rule from an unelected EU commission.

If, on the other hand, you are arguing for more intense local control be very careful what you wish for - the folk in the islands might decide to take you at your word!

Personally, I don't much mind which way Scotland votes but I do think it needs, as HMQ implied, some very clear and incisive consideration.

Gram_Parsons

I'm jist awa roond tae the polling station noo.

ProudDad

A._Badger wrote: »

Why can you not argue for one union and not the other? They are are of quite different orders of magnitude and they operate on entirely different constitutional principles.

If Scotland feels it is not master of its own destiny now, heaven help you when it is forced to adopt the Euro and has its economic policies dictated by the needs of Germany or France!

You have to decide an appropriate level or degree for the loss of sovereignty you are prepared to accept to gain the advantages of any union. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you seem to recoil at the loss of sovereignty implicit in a union with Northern Ireland, England and Wales, yet seem sanguine about the far greater loss of freedom that will pertain under rule from an unelected EU commission.

If, on the other hand, you are arguing for more intense local control be very careful what you wish for - the folk in the islands might decide to take you at your word!

Personally, I don't much mind which way Scotland votes but I do think it needs, as HMQ implied, some very clear and incisive consideration.

I have been trying to argue this point from the start however was taken off track by Claptons comparison of the UK union and EU union which I agree are totally different. Yes Scotland would give up most economic control in most cases but I favour a lender of last resorts and feel that is preferable to not having one at all. We must all remember the EU is a group of 28 countries that want to be members the same cannot be said of the UK. Also EU members have much more control over their own domestic policies than say Scotland does at the moment.

In reply to your concerns over the islands i do think a bigger voice is needed but as part of an Edinburgh administration as if they just receive similar watered down powers as we currently have then an independence movement is likely. Did a bit of study on this at uni. We have to remember these islands are closer geographically and in their needs to Oslo than London.

lazer

talexuser wrote: »

If the EU stopped Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland etc collapsing then being in the Euro gave them MUCH worse austerity than would have been the case if they had been able to devalue their own currencies (the only thing that has kept the UK afloat). The idea that joining the Euro gives you more say in your own economy (after shadowing the pound fails just as us shadowing the deutschmark spectacularly failed) is frankly laughable.

Ireland did not want a bailout - they were basically forced to take it by the EU, as them collapsing would have collapsed the EURO.


They were then forced to abide by the austerity measures imposed by the EU.


It is also worth note that Ireland now want to pay back the bailout money and borrow money elsewhere as they can access money cheaper on the international market.

black_taxi_2

No poll puts YES on a win

HUGE TURNOUT

expect red faces