Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know if this has passed you by somewhere along the way. But in general political parties tend to change and evolve on policy platforms. So a policy that might have been in place 5, 15 or 70 years ago, isn't written in stone forever more. It doesn't make anyone 'right' or 'wrong'. It's just what happens. If all political parties never change policy, women wouldn't have the vote, and gay relationships would still be illegal. It's how politics works on specific issues.


This one :-

Scotland, as in independent country, would have to show stabilility for up to two years in order to join, using it's own currency. Now, those 'two years' weren't going to magically appear immediately after independence were they ? So 'just joining the Euro' wasn't an option. Greece must've 'passed' somehow. There's more about that in the wikipedia article if you're interested.

Try an article or two ( from right of centre this time) ..

http://www.wealthynation.org/uk-mulling-capital-controls/

and from Swinney/Salmond in 2012...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18411198

This is all very old water under the bridge now though isn't it.

this is exactly the sort of lying garbage that SNP excel at : it is meaningless

just one example when it mentions that UK government doesn't have control of interest rates

the FACTS are that the UK government can take control of interests rates at any time it chooses : if Scotland were in a sterling zone they would have zero control of interest rates.

the key difference between a sovereign government and a regional
authority

Shakethedisease

Chadsman wrote: »

So in a nutshell currency union with the Eurozone bad; currency union with rUK good and rUK gets no say in the matter.

If iScotland wanted to join the Euro from the first day of independence there would have been a Euro-fudge. Had anyone at the time suggested it could not happen SNP supporters would have been queuing up to say how wrong they are.
Weird what events can do- now SNP supporters are queuing up to U-turn saying how bad currency union with the Eurozone is.



The first article appears to be arguing for Sterlingisation but still calling it currency union. Do you accept that different countries economies always diverge because their governments have different policies on all sorts of different matters a la Eurozone economies? The article also implies monetary policy is only about interest rates- it is much more than that.

In the second article John Swinney says he wants a sterling zone but it sounds more like currency union without saying what the SNP is offering rUK in return. It says 'Ministers also said... an independent Scotland could have a seat on its [BoE] Monetary Policy Committee' but again does not mention what iScotland would offer rUK in return.
Just supposing rUK did agree to this but circumstances came about where the monetary policy needs of iScotland were the opposite to those of rUK, whose needs are the committee going to follow? The Scottish member would be very easily out voted.

If Scotland should ever vote for independence I will wish you the very best of luck and bon voyage but it would be political suicide for any PM to agree to a currency union.

But you are at least the first person who has ever tried to explain SNP policy and for that I thank you.
:beer:

Look I wouldn't worry too much about it now. According to 99.9% of posters on this forum and commentary up until the referendum. Scotland would've been kicked out of the EU instantly on the stroke of midnight 19/09/14 had there been a Yes vote. So there would've been no chance of joining the Euro anyway....

However, it didn't stop 99.9% of posters on this thread and elsewhere, carping on about Scotland joining the Euro anyway. Even though Scotland would've been kicked out of the EU and didn't meet the criteria anyway ? Joined up thinking went awol I think somewhere along the line. Shame the media parroted most of it really.

Simply put, the Yes campaign ( though not all of it, the Greens and and a fair lots of others were in favour of a new currency ).. put forward the option that they would be seeking a sterling zone/currency union as they were of the opinion, for the reasons I've already given you. That a sterling zone/currency union was in the best interests of both the rUK and an iScotland short to medium term.

The No campaign thought otherwise for a multitude of different, but just as valid ( am sure for them ) reasons. And that's fine too. I can assure you that they did indeed get plenty of 'say' on this ( now hypothetical ) matter. There is also the slight problem of UK debt which would've had to be been worked out. Most recent countries who've gone independent... walk away debt free. I know many think I post that to wind them up.. but it doesn't stop it being true. ( Feel free to check, especially Russia ).

What happened however, was that a currency union and Scotland 'losing the pound' got conflated to mean the same thing. Obviously these are two different issues. Imo the Yes campaign floundered on this.. not because they were right or wrong.. but because they simply didn't get the airtime to separate the two issues. This meant that there were a lot of scared people out there... generally older and less internet savvy.. who really did think that the pound in their purse or wallet would be worthless overnight. The same goes for mortgage and interest rates. All headlines covered the story as Scotland 'losing the £'.... not 'Scotland refused a currency union'...

If a referendum is on the cards at some point in the future. I'm betting there will be some lessons learnt. More than likely, it'll be a new currency. <---- which will also be completely monstered and torn to bits by the press/pro union campaign anyway.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

this is exactly the sort of lying garbage that SNP excel at : it is meaningless

just one example when it mentions that UK government doesn't have control of interest rates

the FACTS are that the UK government can take control of interests rates at any time it chooses : if Scotland were in a sterling zone they would have zero control of interest rates.

the key difference between a sovereign government and a regional
authority

They don't have any control on interest rates now Clapton. So no change there then. I thought the UK Government weren't in charge of interest rates either these days ? Was he wrong ?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Look I wouldn't worry too much about it now. According to 99.9% of posters on this forum and commentary up until the referendum. Scotland would've been kicked out of the EU instantly on the stroke of midnight 19/09/14 had there been a Yes vote. So there would've been no chance of joining the Euro anyway....

However, it didn't stop 99.9% of posters on this thread and elsewhere, carping on about Scotland joining the Euro anyway. Even though Scotland would've been kicked out of the EU and didn't meet the criteria anyway ? Joined up thinking went awol I think somewhere along the line. Shame the media parroted most of it really.

Simply put, the Yes campaign ( though not all of it, the Greens and and a fair lots of others were in favour of a new currency ).. put forward the option that they would be seeking a sterling zone/currency union as they were of the opinion, for the reasons I've already given you. That a sterling zone/currency union was in the best interests of both the rUK and an iScotland short to medium term.

The No campaign thought otherwise for a multitude of different, but just as valid ( am sure for them ) reasons. And that's fine too. I can assure you that they did indeed get plenty of 'say' on this ( now hypothetical ) matter. There is also the slight problem of UK debt which would've had to be been worked out. Most recent countries who've gone independent... walk away debt free. I know many think I post that to wind them up.. but it doesn't stop it being true. ( Feel free to check, especially Russia ).

What happened however, was that a currency union and Scotland 'losing the pound' got conflated to mean the same thing. Obviously these are two different issues. Imo the Yes campaign floundered on this.. not because they were right or wrong.. but because they simply didn't get the airtime to separate the two issues. This meant that there were a lot of scared people out there... generally older and less internet savvy.. who really did think that the pound in their purse or wallet would be worthless overnight. The same goes for mortgage and interest rates. All headlines covered the story as Scotland 'losing the £'.... not 'Scotland refused a currency union'...

If a referendum is on the cards at some point in the future. I'm betting there will be some lessons learnt. More than likely, it'll be a new currency. <---- which will also be completely monstered and torn to bits by the press/pro union campaign anyway.

find me a quote from the SNP where they clearly laid out the 'powers' Scotland would have in a currency union with England

e.g. Would Westminister have the legal powers to determine the interest rate pertaining to both England and Scotland?

Would Scotland be able to determine how much QE or money printing it could do?

If a Scottish bank (assuming there is such a thing) went bankrupt, who would bail it out?

Would the Scottish government be able to borrow money without English restraint/permission?

elantan

Yes Diane is having a ball just now ( have been following her for a wee while )

Have had to stop following Ruth as she was bursting ma heid ... Johan is funny though

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

Yes Diane is having a ball just now ( have been following her for a wee while )

Have had to stop following Ruth as she was bursting ma heid ... Johan is funny though

wonderful women, Cambridge educated : MP for Hackney: she's absolutely passionate about the merits of state education and that private education should be outlawed

well, except for her own son, who, for totally understandable reasons, she sent to a private school

well you would, wouldn't you?

Chadsman

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Simply put, the Yes campaign ( though not all of it, the Greens and and a fair lots of others were in favour of a new currency ).. put forward the option that they would be seeking a sterling zone/currency union as they were of the opinion, for the reasons I've already given you. That a sterling zone/currency union was in the best interests of both the rUK and an iScotland short to medium term.

I can see there would be some benefits to iScotland by a currency union but these would be outweighed by having no say in practice on its own monetary and fiscal policies. The benefits to rUK of a currency union would be at best slim if that meant its own monetary and fiscal policies had to accommodate the needs of a foreign nation.

iScotland asking rUK for a currency union is like a big debtor to a bank asking the bank to wipe an unauthorized overdraft cos that would reduce its unauthorized lending.

At least with sterlingisation iScotland could control its own fiscal policy.
IMHO iScotland having its own currency would make far more sense.

As for iScotland walking away debt free- if its first act was to unilaterally renounce its debts that would make raising any future capital on markets very difficult.
But it would be UK that got to decide what assets iScotland could have and the rUK portion of UK could easily out vote the Scottish portion.
...not to mention making life awkward over EU membership.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
There is also the slight problem of UK debt which would've had to be been worked out. Most recent countries who've gone independent... walk away debt free. I know many think I post that to wind them up.. but it doesn't stop it being true. ( Feel free to check, especially Russia ).
...

I think it's reasonable to flesh out all possible scenarios. Walking away from circa 8.5% of the national debt is certainly one such scenario. What's that ? £100bn+

What would happen to any future state pension commitments for Scottish pensioners? Would that debt from rUK to Scottish pensioners be expected to be honoured?

To avoid any tit for tat actions, it is better if they work these things out beforehand.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They don't have any control on interest rates now Clapton. So no change there then. I thought the UK Government weren't in charge of interest rates either these days ? Was he wrong ?

the UK government is sovereign and can decide to allow the BoE to set interest rates or take back that function if it so chooses.

As long as the BoE broadly agrees with the government of the day, then the BoE's interest rates setting powers will stay : once there is serious disagreement then the government will intervene

So you are 100% wrong : the legal powers are 100% the UK government

so lets confirm :
SNP are totally happy that

-London would set scottish interest rates
-London would determine how much QE/money printing
-London would determine the borrowing amounts of Scotland government
-Scotland wouldn't have a banking industry unless London allowed and regulated it.


frankly not much different to now or indeed when scotland joins the Euro.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

the UK government is sovereign and can decide to allow the BoE to set interest rates or take back that function if it so chooses.

As long as the BoE broadly agrees with the government of the day, then the BoE's interest rates setting powers will stay : once there is serious disagreement then the government will intervene

So you are 100% wrong : the legal powers are 100% the UK government

so lets confirm :
SNP are totally happy that

-London would set scottish interest rates
-London would determine how much QE/money printing
-London would determine the borrowing amounts of Scotland government
-Scotland wouldn't have a banking industry unless London allowed and regulated it.


frankly not much different to now or indeed when scotland joins the Euro.

Blimey, one of those sentences was true. :shocked:

I knew if I read this thread often enough it was bound to happen.

Need to sit down now.