Hockey, netball, rugby league, golf.... Pretty much most team sports??
I remember a former poster who used to get really riled about this!
I havent done a sport-by-sport analysis but my guess is that in most Olympic sports Scottish athletes tend to compete in GB / GB + NI / UK teams. It is certainly the case in the biggest / most important Olympic sports (athletics and swimming).
More generally the IOC is pretty strict about the definition of countries that can compete. I am sure there are other examples but the main case I can think of where team / national boundaries dont coincide is GB / Ireland (which is different from UK / RoI) and even then the Northern Ireland athletes are entitled to choose between the two teams.
In cricket, to stop the nonsense of players being able to play for more than. One country( I mean actually doing so, not having the ability to) what about having a "rest of world" xi for non test playing countries? this would mean Eoin. Morgan, Gavin Hamilton, Robert Croft, Ryan tenDoescate etc could play at the highest level , as their ability deserves to , without compromising nationalty and having the tricky Decision of playing against their own country then playing for them
So you keep telling us, Mr Observer. You don't seem too keen on repeating why there should be such a Union. Perhaps you would care to give us an insight into your reasoning.
Because Scotland needs one very badly and will, therefore, agree to all terms set out by the rUK. And if the rUK can dictate all terms there is no disadvantage to the rUK, while being part of such a union has some marginal advantages. Salmond is right to say that there was some bluster in what the unionist politician said last week - if you read the advice from the Treasury (as opposed to Osborne's speech) combined with Mark Carney's speech there is plenty of wriggle room. However, Salmond is being less than up front with Scottish voters about Scotland's complete lack of a negotiating position. The options are: (1) have a currency union on the rUK's terms; or (2) do not have a currency union and come up with an alternative that will allow Scotland to pay its agreed share of the UK's debt. And that's it.
The Scots might need one badly but the rest of us don't. So far you've set out a negotiating position without mentioning the salient points. To date you've said that transaction costs are the big advantage, but at £500m per annum they're dwarfed by the other side of the argument the bank bail outs alone were worth 100 years of transaction costs.
To date the best observation has been Ed Balls' why would we want a CU with a country which is trying to leave it to join another CU ?
To be fair, the vast majority of the RBS losses were in ABN and Ulster Bank rather than the "Scottish bit" of RBS. Obviously HQ policy bears a hefty part of the responsibility but I don't think you can allocate all the bailout to Scotland.
A big part of the BoS losses, though, were in Peter Cummings department, which did belong in Scotland. The retail issues such as PPI are more the responsibility of the Halifax part.
Scotland would certainly be more independent in the Eurozone as it is currently structured than in any future Sterling zone.
I dont think it's possible to say that. Many of the problems with the Eurozone were not political. As one side of the debate is completely refusing to even consider the prospect of a currency union right now (despite one part of them being in favour of one between the UK and the Eurozone - the hypocrites!) it seems impossible to consider what the terms of one would be like.
How about air traffic control? All flights from London to N.America fly initially north over Scotland. Maybe Eck could refuse airspace to flights from London until Osborne bows before him with sufficient enthusiasm.
He could, but then what would he do about all the Scottish aircraft flying south, denied passage through rUK airspace? And would he only ban rUK registered aircraft, or those of foreign carriers too? And how would any ban be enforced, and with what?
Would certainly be entertaining to watch the USAF battle flight head north from Lakenheath the minute the ScotAF threatened one of Uncle Sam's aircraft.
Hockey, netball, rugby league, golf.... Pretty much most team sports??
In golf the top team a Scot can be part of is Europe; in hockey it's the UK; there used to be a Great Britain rugby league side too, but that may have gone as rugby league needs as many international teams as it can get. I have no idea about netball, but I imagine it is in a similar position to rugby.
Basically, Scotland can't be properly independent in a currency union.
Do you think the Netherlands is not "properly independent"? Why would Scotland be different?
Because the rUK has seen what has happened in the Eurozone over the last five years and will ensure that the issues which have caused so many problems are not repeated in a sterling currency union.
I find it hard to believe that the rUK government would have to push for a deal that was so much more stringent than that agreed between members of the Eurozone
The Treasury advice from last week covered this, the reason why the Sterling zone would be different than Eurozone are the asymmetric risk and the tendency of the SNP to blame the English for all their problems which would put 'intolerable pressure on the currency union'.
The euro is ultimately a political project which is why it has lasted long past a purely economic one would. The sterling zone will not have the same political drive to hold it together and therefore would need far clearer, stronger and more stingent rules from the very start.
Ok, some more detailed queries. Do Salmond address: Lender of last resort concerns? The requirement for stringent fiscal limits, which would be contrary to a spirit of independence? The fact it would require the agreement of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but all the major parties are opposed?
Also, was there any suggestion of an alternative policy? Because the current position appears to be "We can vote to be independent and then dictate to the country we just left that we'll share their currency". That's not necessarily entirely consistent with reason.
It seems to me that the whole essence of independence is that the decisions will be made by the representatives of the Scottish people in the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh.
To have Westminster politicians lecture the Scots on what London will permit just drives home the point. It would certainly encourage me to vote for Independence, had I the vote.
Dear Mr SumMe
If you propose to me an arrangement whereby you and I set up a joint bank account, I regret that I will decline the suggestion.
Is that really lecturing you?
No it isn't - is it a reasonable analogue for a currency union between Scotland and the UK? I don't think so.
Another issue with the currency union is that one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English. But you can bet your last English pound that if we had a currency union, they wouldn't stop using the psychological scapegoat one bit.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
For info - an analysis I've seen suggests a huge drop in the governing PP (conservative) vote in Spain in the Euros, a smaller drop (putting them in 1st place) for the socialists, and giant leap (tripling) for the small leftist IU, and rapid growth in a new centre party too.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, the Social Democrats and their red-green allies have built up a huge lead over the centre-right - around 52 to 39 (with 9-10 on the far right), while in Denmark the position is precisely the opposite (57-43). In all three countries the mood is to throw the rascals out, as in France. Nothing much changing in Germany. No specific anti-Europe swing in any of these, though they are national polls and the Euros often produce differences.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
Well, they are flying into Scotland - and just because they are flying north doesn'';t mean they are English.
Surely if there were no currency union English importers into Scotland would either take the hit or put up their prices. I guess Scottish importers into England would do the same. If cheaper options for consumers emerge that's capitalism for you.
But there will be a currency union.
How many votes should Scotland on the Bank of England's MPC?
To what extent should the MPC be forced to consider Scotland's economy vs, say, London or the Welsh economy?
And why?
The rUK will decide these things and let the Scots know.
The problem is, though that I suspect the Scottish economy is one of the most divergent parts of the UK economy: it has a big oil/related element, for instance.
If the rUK is closer to being an optimal currency area* than the current UK then macroeconomic theory would suggest that the interests of Scotland should be completely ignored** in policy decision making. If they want to enter an agreement on those terms...
So Salmond has deconstructed Osborne's arguments about why a currency union would be in the rUK's best interests, apparently. Had to counter the claims I suppose, but it seems pretty pointless given the decision would surely be political either way.
What is the IOC criteria out of interest? (I understand what you are saying that GB is a special case)
But the IOC views the entire entry across all sports as one big team sent by the NOC. They absolutely would not countenance different teams for different sports (as you'll see when rugby 7s and golf joins the roster). I havent got the exact IOC stuff to hand right now, will look for it later when I have a chance as I once delved quite a lot into the history of it (particularly about how / why there was an Ireland and not ROI team - it turns out that having the President of the IOC from your country has certain advantages).
one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English
I hadnt noticed the 'yes' campaign majoring on that one.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English
I hadnt noticed the 'yes' campaign majoring on that one.
I've heard pro-independence businessmen make it, albeit in more diplomatic terms.
Basically, Scotland can't be properly independent in a currency union.
Do you think the Netherlands is not "properly independent"? Why would Scotland be different?
Because the rUK has seen what has happened in the Eurozone over the last five years and will ensure that the issues which have caused so many problems are not repeated in a sterling currency union.
I find it hard to believe that the rUK government would have to push for a deal that was so much more stringent than that agreed between members of the Eurozone
The Treasury advice from last week covered this, the reason why the Sterling zone would be different than Eurozone are the asymmetric risk and the tendency of the SNP to blame the English for all their problems which would put 'intolerable pressure on the currency union'.
The euro is ultimately a political project which is why it has lasted long past a purely economic one would. The sterling zone will not have the same political drive to hold it together and therefore would need far clearer, stronger and more stingent rules from the very start.
Assymetric impact is the key issue. Easiest way to think about it is to look at mortgages:
- German mortgages are typically 30 years, fixed rate - UK mortgages are typically floating rate or 2-year fixes with a refi-or-default-to-floating model
Consequently, a 1% increase in base rates (ignoring impact on credit spreads for simplicity) has a much greater impact on the economy in the UK than in Germany
Basically, Scotland can't be properly independent in a currency union.
Do you think the Netherlands is not "properly independent"? Why would Scotland be different?
Because the rUK has seen what has happened in the Eurozone over the last five years and will ensure that the issues which have caused so many problems are not repeated in a sterling currency union.
I find it hard to believe that the rUK government would have to push for a deal that was so much more stringent than that agreed between members of the Eurozone
The Treasury advice from last week covered this, the reason why the Sterling zone would be different than Eurozone are the asymmetric risk and the tendency of the SNP to blame the English for all their problems which would put 'intolerable pressure on the currency union'.
The euro is ultimately a political project which is why it has lasted long past a purely economic one would. The sterling zone will not have the same political drive to hold it together and therefore would need far clearer, stronger and more stingent rules from the very start.
Assymetric impact is the key issue. Easiest way to think about it is to look at mortgages:
- German mortgages are typically 30 years, fixed rate - UK mortgages are typically floating rate or 2-year fixes with a refi-or-default-to-floating model
Consequently, a 1% increase in base rates (ignoring impact on credit spreads for simplicity) has a much greater impact on the economy in the UK than in Germany
Not to mention that the share of owner-occupiers in the UK is far higher than in Germany.
Thanks. I'd be interested! Anyway, it seems we have solved the independence problem. Just give Scotland its own team to bring it into line with most other sports and problem solved!
The biggest objection to our joining the eurozone has always been that a currency union can’t work without a close political union. As the whole point of Scottish independence is to end a close political union it’s been wishful think to expect the UK government (Labour or Conservative) to create a sterling currency union with an independent Scotland. It’s not vindictive or perverse. No-one here wants to take the risk, especially after the recent experience of the euro. The SNP should move on.
one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English
I hadnt noticed the 'yes' campaign majoring on that one.
You're confusing "English" with "Union"/"Tory"/"Coalition"/"London", so sorry, the blame thing doesn't work in that way. But there has historically been an element of dependency in terms of initiative, not least because everything had to be approved by Westminster and Whitehall, and I'm all for responsibility, so in fact I agree with you perhaps more than you would expect.
Mind you, what happened when the Scots got devolution and started tackling things like public smoking, alcohol, land access, feudal law,* sectarianism, etc.? Howls of protest from some or all of the unionist parties in Edinburgh and London (who then enacted some very similar provisions).
*Some of which were originally Labour initiatives and dam' good for them too. It was only when I bought a house that I discovered Scotland was just about the only country which persisted in feudal law, so that I had in theory to pay off the local laird to avoid having to do military service [in reality the payment was commuted, but that was reflected in the price of my house, and other people had real problems with such tenurial laws when they were abused].
Mr Osborne’s speech, he said, had highlighted the difference in approach between the SNP and “the Westminster establishment”. The SNP was running a “positive campaign”, built around “constructive” dealings with its opponents. The Westminster establishment, by contrast, was running a “negative campaign”, built around insulting its opponents.
Which, he said, was typical of the Westminster establishment, given how “arrogant”, “out-of-touch” and “one-sided” it was.
You may be wondering whether it’s entirely consistent to accuse one’s opponents of resorting to insults while resorting to insults oneself. If so, you’re clearly missing the nuances of this complex debate. When listening to future pro-independence speeches, please consult the following glossary of SNP words and phrases.
The fundamental flaw in the Salmond approach is that he treats the currency as an "asset". As an economist he clearly knows better and is being disingenuous. The currency is not an asset but a means of exchange that is underwritten by the taxpayers of the country that issues it.
Once you give the matter the correct analysis the inevitable question is why the rUK taxpayers should underwrite the currency of a country that has chosen to leave. There are no obvious answers and I am afraid that Salmond today did not come close to coming up with any.
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs.
Let's take at face value his figure of £500m, although I would like to see the arithmetic for that. This means that the cost for rUK would be £250m, a relatively trivial sum in the context of such a large economy and £250m for Scotland, a rather more serious figure for what would be quite a small economy.
I suspect the reality is that much of that trade will either be conducted in $ (if it is oil or gas related) or in sterling without any currency union. In short the smaller economy would end up paying not half but substantially more than half the costs or risks if they want the business. This is what happens in countries where the euro is quite dominant but the state is not a part of the EZ.
Even if I was wrong with that is rUK really going to take the risk on of underwriting the currency of a country that has chosen to leave to save £250m a year? Not a chance. He is making himself look ridiculous.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
Well, they are flying into Scotland - and just because they are flying north doesn'';t mean they are English.
The blind and deaf could read between those lines.....
@NickPalmer - "For info - an analysis I've seen suggests a huge drop in the governing PP (conservative) vote in Spain in the Euros, a smaller drop (putting them in 1st place) for the socialists, and giant leap (tripling) for the small leftist IU, and rapid growth in a new centre party too."
Yes, PP is losing a lot of votes and it does look as if it will lose power after the next Spanish GE. That should then see a resolution of the Catalonian independence issue as while PP refuses to countenance a Devomax approach - ie, giving Catalonia the same status as the Basque country, the socialists and other parties take a much more pragmatic line. The decline in the socialist vote is largely explained by their fall from grace in Catalonia, where they used to be the most voted for party in Spanish GEs.
You can keep up to date with Spanish polling here:
Looking at the figures it is very hard to see how PP can recover enough to stay in power via coalition, let alone on its own. In the past the centre right Catalonian nationalist parties have given tacit parliamentary support to PP governments. That is now off the table, of course.
Addendum - It's worth noting, though, that Spanish polling is not exactly tip top.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
Well, they are flying into Scotland - and just because they are flying north doesn'';t mean they are English.
The blind and deaf could read between those lines.....
The point is that the speech was in Scotland - not on the nationality of the Conservative minister (who as everyone knows spend most of their time in Westminster, as they need to.)
Aren’t we missing another element in the debate about a currency union? All the main parties have agreed that a referendum would be needed before we entered the currency zone operated by the states using the euro. Surely, if we are to enter something similar and as potentially risky with Scotland the clamour to have a referendum would be loud and quite consistent.
one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English
I hadnt noticed the 'yes' campaign majoring on that one.
You're confusing "English" with "Union"/"Tory"/"Coalition"/"London", so sorry, the blame thing doesn't work in that way. But there has historically been an element of dependency in terms of initiative, not least because everything had to be approved by Westminster and Whitehall, and I'm all for responsibility, so in fact I agree with you perhaps more than you would expect.
Mind you, what happened when the Scots got devolution and started tackling things like public smoking, alcohol, land access, feudal law,* sectarianism, etc.? Howls of protest from some or all of the unionist parties in Edinburgh and London (who then enacted some very similar provisions).
*Some of which were originally Labour initiatives and dam' good for them too. It was only when I bought a house that I discovered Scotland was just about the only country which persisted in feudal law, so that I had in theory to pay off the local laird to avoid having to do military service [in reality the payment was commuted, but that was reflected in the price of my house, and other people had real problems with such tenurial laws when they were abused].
The SNP deliberately uses terms like "the London parliament" over "the UK parliament" to imply Englishness rather than Britishness.
Would you mind linking to me to where the UK parties made howls of outrage over Scottish plans to target feudal law, land access or sectarianism?
The fundamental flaw in the Salmond approach is that he treats the currency as an "asset". As an economist he clearly knows better and is being disingenuous. The currency is not an asset but a means of exchange that is underwritten by the taxpayers of the country that issues it.
Once you give the matter the correct analysis the inevitable question is why the rUK taxpayers should underwrite the currency of a country that has chosen to leave. There are no obvious answers and I am afraid that Salmond today did not come close to coming up with any.
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs.
Let's take at face value his figure of £500m, although I would like to see the arithmetic for that. This means that the cost for rUK would be £250m, a relatively trivial sum in the context of such a large economy and £250m for Scotland, a rather more serious figure for what would be quite a small economy.
I suspect the reality is that much of that trade will either be conducted in $ (if it is oil or gas related) or in sterling without any currency union. In short the smaller economy would end up paying not half but substantially more than half the costs or risks if they want the business. This is what happens in countries where the euro is quite dominant but the state is not a part of the EZ.
Even if I was wrong with that is rUK really going to take the risk on of underwriting the currency of a country that has chosen to leave to save £250m a year? Not a chance. He is making himself look ridiculous.
Indeed, if there is no currency union I imagine rUK exporters will continue to charge in £ sterling. I know that's what we will do.
Salmond's aggressive reaction to Osborne's gambit is a big plus for the tories.
It puts labour in a ticklish position. Their big Scottish vote might not like them falling in behind the conservatives on this.
But if labour start to get conciliatory to Scotland, that may hinder them in England.
Rather delicate for ed.
That rather assumes that English voters are paying any attention whatever to whether we're being conciliatory or what. I did get an email yesterday from a voter asking about Labour's policy towards the indy referendum. It stood out because it's the only one I've ever had. Might change as we get closer, of course, but by and large I'd say Ed has a good range of possible approaches (including a largely delphic silence) that won't bother Labour voters in England either way.
'Bully (v). To refuse to accede to one’s opponent’s demands. See also: dictate from on high (v).
Constructive co-operation (n). The act of giving the SNP everything it wants.
Diktat (n). Any opinion about Scottish independence expressed by an Englishman.
Lecture (n). Any speech given to a Scottish audience by an Englishman.
Negative (adj). Any opinion on Scottish independence which differs from those held by the SNP. See also: bluster (n), campaign tactic (n), rhetoric (n).
Posture (v). The action of a politician who is under pressure and desperately winging it. (N.B. Applies only to English politicians.)
On topic: As this is a betting market, it deserves a cool and non-partisan analysis: there's money to be made or lost!
The comparison between Maria Miller's expenses claims and Tony McNulty's looks completely wrong. He was claiming for a house in Harrow which he didn't live in, whilst he and his wife lived in Hammersmith (see the link TSE has posted). She was claiming for her main home in London, so there's no similarity to his claim.
No-one is suggesting that she was not entitled to claim for one of a constituency or central London home, as far as I can see.
So the question is whether the fact that her parents live with her family in the London home disqualify it from the expenses reimbursement, or (to be more precise) whether that fact would have disqualified the reimbursement at the time. I don't know the answer to that, but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she was hiding anything in submitting the claim.
Cameron will be very reluctant to see a woman hounded out of the Cabinet - he's not exactly over-supplied with female Cabinet ministers.
And we know that, as Nick P reports, that the Committee seem reluctant to criticise her too strongly.
So, on balance, I don't think this is likely to tip her out of the Cabinet. 14/1 looks OK but not compelling.
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs.
Let's take at face value his figure of £500m, although I would like to see the arithmetic for that. This means that the cost for rUK would be £250m, a relatively trivial sum in the context of such a large economy and £250m for Scotland, a rather more serious figure for what would be quite a small economy.
On topic: As this is a betting market, it deserves a cool and non-partisan analysis: there's money to be made or lost!
The comparison between Maria Miller's expenses claims and Tony McNulty's looks completely wrong. He was claiming for a house in Harrow which he didn't live in, whilst he and his wife lived in Hammersmith (see the link TSE has posted). She was claiming for her main home in London, so there's no similarity to his claim.
No-one is suggesting that she was not entitled to claim for one of a constituency or central London home, as far as I can see.
So the question is whether the fact that her parents live with her family in the London home disqualify it from the expenses reimbursement, or (to be more precise) whether that fact would have disqualified the reimbursement at the time. I don't know the answer to that, but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she was hiding anything in submitting the claim.
Cameron will be very reluctant to see a woman hounded out of the Cabinet - he's not exactly over-supplied with female Cabinet ministers.
And we know that, as Nick P reports, that the Committee seem reluctant to criticise her too strongly.
So, on balance, I don't think this is likely to tip her out of the Cabinet. 14/1 looks OK but not compelling.
Bully (v). To refuse to accede to one’s opponent’s demands. See also: dictate from on high (v).
Constructive co-operation (n). The act of giving the SNP everything it wants.
Diktat (n). Any opinion about Scottish independence expressed by an Englishman.
Lecture (n). Any speech given to a Scottish audience by an Englishman.
Negative (adj). Any opinion on Scottish independence which differs from those held by the SNP. See also: bluster (n), campaign tactic(n), rhetoric (n).
Posture (v). The action of a politician who is under pressure and desperately winging it. (N.B. Applies only to English politicians.)
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs..
And that on that basis the rUK should be twice as likely to join a currency union with the US and four times as likely to join the Euro......
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs.
Let's take at face value his figure of £500m, although I would like to see the arithmetic for that. This means that the cost for rUK would be £250m, a relatively trivial sum in the context of such a large economy and £250m for Scotland, a rather more serious figure for what would be quite a small economy.
It looks rather bonkers to me; the methodology is to extrapolate and update numbers from a 1990 (!) report on the benefits of EMU membership (!!).
You are wrong about halving his £500m figure, as he seems to think that is the cost to rUK - he is oddly silent on the cost to Scotland.
Thanks for that. The methodology is indeed strange. And completely ignores the liklihood that rUK will simply impose sterling on their Scottish customers letting importers bear the risks.
On the plus side the Czech and Slovakian example suggests that there will be a drastic reduction in cross-border trade so these costs might well be reduced in any event.
They had a currency union. As Osborne pointed out it lasted 33 days! This was because the risks meant that nearly all the money was being moved to the Czech part with serious consequences for Slovakia. Had they not ended the arrangement they would literally have run out of money. It is a cautionary tale: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/czechs-and-slovaks-split-their-currency-1470651.html
On topic - I agree with fellow PB Tory, Richard Nabavi. I think if she was going over this there would be more of a clamour than there is right now. And I think Cameron is not about to lose one of the few women in his Cabinet so there isnt even a saver on her being reshuffled out after the Euro elections.
One way to underline this truth - that the pound is a means of exchange, not an asset to be divided - would be for rUK to say to the SNP: "Alright, since you want the pound so much, you can keep it. We'll keep our currency too - but simply call it something else, maybe the Quid. But you still won't get a currency union with us, cause that offers us almost no benefits, and presents big risks."
That would dramatise the fatuity of Salmond's argument.
There are still SNP supporters on Twitter who think Osborne saying no means he will empty every cash machine...
One of my friends was telling me today that his brother in law had been around. Having been undecided he was now voting yes because he hates Osborne and disagrees with pretty much everything he says on principle. There will be some like that, how many is hard to tell. We could really do with some Scottish polling on this.
As I mentioned yesterday my wife was telephone polled by Ipsos Mori on Saturday. It would move things forward somewhat if such polling was released.
A study of radical right parties links their success with minority rights... Enoch Powell argued exactly this in "The Road To National Suicide" 38 years ago
"What explains the success and failure of radical right parties over time and across countries? This article presents a new theory of the radical right that emphasizes its reactive nature and views it as backlash against the political successes of minorities and concessions extracted on their behalf. Unlike approaches that focus on competition between the extreme and mainstream parties, the theory stresses the dynamics between radical right and non-proximate parties that promote minority rights. Most notably, it derives the salience of identity issues in party politics from the polarization of the party system. The theory is tested with a new party-election-level dataset covering all post-communist democracies over the past 20 years. The results provide strong support for the theory and show that the rise and fall of radical right parties is shaped by the politics of minority accommodation. "
one of the best arguments for Scottish independence is that it would encourage the Scots to start taking responsibility for their problems rather than blame everything on the English
I hadnt noticed the 'yes' campaign majoring on that one.
You're confusing "English" with "Union"/"Tory"/"Coalition"/"London", so sorry, the blame thing doesn't work in that way. But there has historically been an element of dependency in terms of initiative, not least because everything had to be approved by Westminster and Whitehall, and I'm all for responsibility, so in fact I agree with you perhaps more than you would expect.
Mind you, what happened when the Scots got devolution and started tackling things like public smoking, alcohol, land access, feudal law,* sectarianism, etc.? Howls of protest from some or all of the unionist parties in Edinburgh and London (who then enacted some very similar provisions).
*Some of which were originally Labour initiatives and dam' good for them too. It was only when I bought a house that I discovered Scotland was just about the only country which persisted in feudal law, so that I had in theory to pay off the local laird to avoid having to do military service [in reality the payment was commuted, but that was reflected in the price of my house, and other people had real problems with such tenurial laws when they were abused].
The SNP deliberately uses terms like "the London parliament" over "the UK parliament" to imply Englishness rather than Britishness.
Would you mind linking to me to where the UK parties made howls of outrage over Scottish plans to target feudal law, land access or sectarianism?
I'm not an SNP member and I was using the geographical shorthand for convenience. And the point is that London is distant.
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
The IOD have been "lecturing" on the question of transaction costs:
Simon Walker, head of the Institute of Directors, said the First Minister's argument that businesses would force George Osborne into entering a currency union was implausible. Mr Walker said any transaction costs from an indepenent Scotland adopting a new currency would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union, adding that other factors would be "100 times more important". These included the economic instability that would be created by breaking up Britain.
Indeed. I saw in an article the other day (forget where: possibly Alex Massie), though, that in Scotland the SNP are leading with the idea of the "Indy Divi" of £600 p.a., ahead of the £500 p.a. that a survey a while back would be enough to swing people's opinions.
While you and I might hope that people would take a longer term view of the pros and cons of constitutional upheaval, could we be mispricing results if base economics is all people care about?
I'm not an SNP member and I was using the geographical shorthand for convenience. And the point is that London is distant.
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
As far as I'm aware, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper and not a unionist political party. Would you mind providing some evidence of the latter howling in outrage to these reforms?
I'm not an SNP member and I was using the geographical shorthand for convenience. And the point is that London is distant.
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
As far as I'm aware, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper and not a unionist political party. Would you mind providing some evidence of the latter howling in outrage to these reforms?
Wightman gives the figures for the voting against land reform. The DM piece is just a bonus.
Indeed. I saw in an article the other day (forget where: possibly Alex Massie), though, that in Scotland the SNP are leading with the idea of the "Indy Divi" of £600 p.a., ahead of the £500 p.a. that a survey a while back would be enough to swing people's opinions.
While you and I might hope that people would take a longer term view of the pros and cons of constitutional upheaval, could we be mispricing results if base economics is all people care about?
The last newspaper (12pp IIRC) from the Yes campaign that I received had the £600 dividend as the headline on the front page.
Curiously, when I mentioned this to colleagues from the west coast today they indicated they had not received anything similar. We have had 4 in what is a strong and clearly well funded SNP area.
Such promises depend entirely on the credibility of the maker which is why it is so odd that Salmond has invested so much in this currency issue. If he loses this argument, as he should, there will be significant collateral damage to his campaign.
I'm not an SNP member and I was using the geographical shorthand for convenience. And the point is that London is distant.
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
As far as I'm aware, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper and not a unionist political party. Would you mind providing some evidence of the latter howling in outrage to these reforms?
Wightman gives the figures for the voting against land reform. The DM piece is just a bonus.
I hardly see how mere opposition to a measure by MSPs in the Scottish parliament equates to "howls of outrage" from UK parties in London.
There are basically six steps (by my rough categorisation). Salmond’s biggest problem is that for half of these, each of the 28 EU states, including rUK and Spain, has a veto: Step 1 – Scotland applies to join the EU: Under EU law, it would have to be an independent country to apply. Step 2 – The European Commission “screens” Scottish law to see if the country is compatible with EU membership – this won’t be an issue. Step 3 – EU governments decide whether to approve Scotland’s EU application. All EU states have a veto. Step 4 – The EU and Scotland begin negotiations over individual EU policy areas. There are now 35 so-called “accession chapters” covering everything from the euro to employment law to the EU budget. Each country has a veto over the decision to both open and then to close every single chapter....... Step 5 – When the 35th chapter is agreed, the Accession Treaty with the Scottish terms of entry is drafted. Step 6 – This Treaty must then be ratified by the Parliaments of each EU country and the European Parliament. If one says no, the deal falls.
No one in England gives a monkeys about some vote in Scotland - at least. not now.
Agreed but everybody in Scotland does care, including supporters of labour's large number of Scottish MPs.
I wonder what they think of Milli and Balls cravenly falling in behind Osborne? wouldn;t they be in favour of a currency union with a country where they still have a very, very significant interest?
Hockey, netball, rugby league, golf.... Pretty much most team sports??
I remember a former poster who used to get really riled about this!
I havent done a sport-by-sport analysis but my guess is that in most Olympic sports Scottish athletes tend to compete in GB / GB + NI / UK teams. It is certainly the case in the biggest / most important Olympic sports (athletics and swimming).
More generally the IOC is pretty strict about the definition of countries that can compete. I am sure there are other examples but the main case I can think of where team / national boundaries dont coincide is GB / Ireland (which is different from UK / RoI) and even then the Northern Ireland athletes are entitled to choose between the two teams.
In cricket, to stop the nonsense of players being able to play for more than. One country( I mean actually doing so, not having the ability to) what about having a "rest of world" xi for non test playing countries? this would mean Eoin. Morgan, Gavin Hamilton, Robert Croft, Ryan tenDoescate etc could play at the highest level , as their ability deserves to , without compromising nationalty and having the tricky Decision of playing against their own country then playing for them
Point of order Mr Isam.
It is the England and Wales cricket team (and also the England and Wales Cricket board), much as they like to forget/ignore it. Scottish and Irish players have to jump through hoops to get their nationality changed, Welsh players are playing for their team as much as English ones are.
Indeed. I saw in an article the other day (forget where: possibly Alex Massie), though, that in Scotland the SNP are leading with the idea of the "Indy Divi" of £600 p.a., ahead of the £500 p.a. that a survey a while back would be enough to swing people's opinions.
Whilst the scots may be attracted by £500 sterling they might want considerably more than 600 pooonds or what ever they are to be called!!
I'm not an SNP member and I was using the geographical shorthand for convenience. And the point is that London is distant.
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
As far as I'm aware, the Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper and not a unionist political party. Would you mind providing some evidence of the latter howling in outrage to these reforms?
Wightman gives the figures for the voting against land reform. The DM piece is just a bonus.
I hardly see how mere opposition to a measure by MSPs in the Scottish parliament equates to "howls of outrage" from UK parties in London.
Because they were MSPs of UK parties - but my original posting was not well done and you are right to pull me up on it.
Hockey, netball, rugby league, golf.... Pretty much most team sports??
I remember a former poster who used to get really riled about this!
I havent done a sport-by-sport analysis but my guess is that in most Olympic sports Scottish athletes tend to compete in GB / GB + NI / UK teams. It is certainly the case in the biggest / most important Olympic sports (athletics and swimming).
More generally the IOC is pretty strict about the definition of countries that can compete. I am sure there are other examples but the main case I can think of where team / national boundaries dont coincide is GB / Ireland (which is different from UK / RoI) and even then the Northern Ireland athletes are entitled to choose between the two teams.
In cricket, to stop the nonsense of players being able to play for more than. One country( I mean actually doing so, not having the ability to) what about having a "rest of world" xi for non test playing countries? this would mean Eoin. Morgan, Gavin Hamilton, Robert Croft, Ryan tenDoescate etc could play at the highest level , as their ability deserves to , without compromising nationalty and having the tricky Decision of playing against their own country then playing for them
Point of order Mr Isam.
It is the England and Wales cricket team (and also the England and Wales Cricket board), much as they like to forget/ignore it. Scottish and Irish players have to jump through hoops to get their nationality changed, Welsh players are playing for their team as much as English ones are.
I'm getting ads asking if I support traditional marriage, which I do. When I click through, it turns out they're trying to get me to oppose gay marriage, which I also support (and for the same reasons). I don't quite follow the logic of this. It's like a campaign to oppose black people getting the vote by asking people if they support white people having the vote: people on both sides of the argument support the thing.
No one in England gives a monkeys about some vote in Scotland - at least. not now.
Agreed but everybody in Scotland does care, including supporters of labour's large number of Scottish MPs.
I wonder what they think of Milli and Balls cravenly falling in behind Osborne? wouldn;t they be in favour of a currency union with a country where they still have a very, very significant interest?
I honestly don't know. Messrs DavidL and SeanT at 4.59 pm are quite right to emphasise the need for polling, and the likelihood of some splitting of DKs, but there will also be movement of Yes and No voters as well.
On the one hand, a lot of DKs are Labour voters. On the other hand, they are mostly Old Labour in sentiment, I believe - the WingsoverScotland crowdsourced poll last summer showed that DKs tended to be left wing compared to the SNP. Given that the SNP is bang in the centre, to the left of New Labour, and given that the Labour Dks would have voted for No if they were at all happy with the status quo, then there is potential for some net loss to Yes . [EDIT: this is due to Mr Balls's pre-orchestrated alignment with the Coalition, and is on top of any other effects of the last week.]
Of course, after indy Messrs Miliband and Balls would not have any formal responsibility to the lost Labour Party element in Scotland. If Mr Cameron can concoct his little agreements with the Partido Popular in Spain in the EU Parliament generally, and on their little local problems in particular, then there may be some wish to retain good links. But one has to remember the Bain Principle, that Labour always wait to see what the SNP suggest, and vote for the opposite (even if Labour had, unusually, come up with a suggestion first and it was that suggestion which the SNP had adopted).
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas than tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
I'm getting ads asking if I support traditional marriage, which I do. When I click through, it turns out they're trying to get me to oppose gay marriage, which I also support (and for the same reasons). I don't quite follow the logic of this. It's like a campaign to oppose black people getting the vote by asking people if they support white people having the vote: people on both sides of the argument support the thing.
I believe that it is the problem of brevity - the actual question that they are trying to ask is "is your definition of 'marriage' the traditional one (ie one man and one woman)" but clearly that just sounds convoluted and not nearly so good as a soundbite.
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas then tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas then tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
Short version; "I'm right, you're all wrong, and what's more he's English. Oh, and if I don't get what I want I'm not paying my bills."
When did Salmond mention Osborne being English?
People do become sick and tired of a succession of Conservative ministers flying up to give a speech and then flying back, but on top of that no one with a semblance of understanding of the Scottish character would have made such a speech."
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas then tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
You may continue shrieking now.
Squealing like a stuck............what is the animal? :Innocent Face:
Mr. T, that's a silly idea. If we renamed our currency the Thatcher would be a better name (guaranteed to stop a currency union).
I saw a couple of excerpts from the deconstruction. Saying "I think you'll find, yes we can" doesn't really rebut the considerations of lender of last resort, or the absurdity of claiming you can demand currency union with a nation you just left.
I agree with the chap downthread who suggested Salmond's speech will be good for the Conservatives, but more specifically I think it might help Osborne. As the polling graphs Mr. Antifrank posted indicate, there's a pretty strong body of public opinion against a currency union and by Salmond bleating and annoying non-Scots and claiming Osborne's the bad guy that makes Osborne the poster boy for saying No to the currency union.
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas than tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
You may continue shrieking now.
Not just that, they have also clearly been spamming the BBC website under assumed names, where (to date) 4451 comments have been posted. The most recent begins "The SNP have lost the plot." The other 4450 say much the same thing.
David L I think both you and Richard Nabavi are missing the point that the Czech/Slovak monetary split occurred before the creation of the euro. My understanding of at least ECB thinking on this, based on its and its predecessors attitude to the Slovak case particularly, would be that the Scots would use the pound for a relatively short transitional period before joining the euro. Obviously then the debt position would be of some significance as inflation should not be an issue. The current confusion is deeply political: the SNP are frightened to admit the euro is where they will end up, the rUK establishment is frightened to admit that if given the choice of Scotland being in a monetary union with sterling or in the euro they would vastly prefer the former option. I also think that on balance this tough and hostile line taken by rUK is more likely to help the "Yes" campaign than the supporters of the Union. As a strong Unionist I therefore think it regrettable that the English are appearing to want to treat the Scots post independence as more foreign than the French currently treat the Germans.
Oh dear. The PB tories and far right wingers on PB are shrieking even more hysterically than usual.
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas than tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
You may continue shrieking now.
Not just that, they have also clearly been spamming the BBC website
LOL
Posted on here without a hint of irony. This is comedy gold. Even more amusing than when so many of the PB tories were cheering on Osbrowne's omnishambles.
It has been Nichola "give us the pound or we renege on our debts" Sturgeon as a shoo-in.....but after the Sterling zone disaster I have my doubts.....
Sturgeon's shackled to Salmond like a Mafioso's concrete overcoat. Who's behind her in the queue?
Are you willing to lay her at evens as next leader of the SNP then? If so I would like to reserve my place at the top of the queue.
Lay Nicola Sturgeon? No thank you.
How funny and original.
So your opinion is so useless you're not prepared to back it with hard cash? I think most of us suspected that already.
Bad day at the office Neil? I asked a question about who was offering a market ie reputable bookmaker. Had I wanted to wager with a stranger, I'd have said so, and offered up a bet. Make sense?
Mr. Neil, it's legitimate to opt out of accepting bets with other members of the site. That doesn't necessarily mean someone's opinion is useless.
It's also legitimate to call out someone's trolling for what it is. The guy obviously doesnt really believe that Sturgeon has no chance of being the next leader of the SNP. If there was a market she'd be heavily odds-on. He's just trying to wind people up. But at least he's not thick enough to lay her for next SNP leader at evens so there must be some hope.
Comments
What is the IOC criteria out of interest? (I understand what you are saying that GB is a special case)
A big part of the BoS losses, though, were in Peter Cummings department, which did belong in Scotland. The retail issues such as PPI are more the responsibility of the Halifax part.
Would certainly be entertaining to watch the USAF battle flight head north from Lakenheath the minute the ScotAF threatened one of Uncle Sam's aircraft.
The Treasury advice from last week covered this, the reason why the Sterling zone would be different than Eurozone are the asymmetric risk and the tendency of the SNP to blame the English for all their problems which would put 'intolerable pressure on the currency union'.
The euro is ultimately a political project which is why it has lasted long past a purely economic one would. The sterling zone will not have the same political drive to hold it together and therefore would need far clearer, stronger and more stingent rules from the very start.
Hockey is definitely not GB --- except in the Olympics! The Rugby League GB team was disbanded years ago.
Where, exactly, do these Conservative ministers fly up from? Jedburgh?
Meanwhile, in Sweden, the Social Democrats and their red-green allies have built up a huge lead over the centre-right - around 52 to 39 (with 9-10 on the far right), while in Denmark the position is precisely the opposite (57-43). In all three countries the mood is to throw the rascals out, as in France. Nothing much changing in Germany. No specific anti-Europe swing in any of these, though they are national polls and the Euros often produce differences.
If the rUK is closer to being an optimal currency area* than the current UK then macroeconomic theory would suggest that the interests of Scotland should be completely ignored** in policy decision making. If they want to enter an agreement on those terms...
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area
** red-rag to a bull...
It puts labour in a ticklish position. Their big Scottish vote might not like them falling in behind the conservatives on this.
But if labour start to get conciliatory to Scotland, that may hinder them in England.
Rather delicate for ed.
- German mortgages are typically 30 years, fixed rate
- UK mortgages are typically floating rate or 2-year fixes with a refi-or-default-to-floating model
Consequently, a 1% increase in base rates (ignoring impact on credit spreads for simplicity) has a much greater impact on the economy in the UK than in Germany
Thanks. I'd be interested! Anyway, it seems we have solved the independence problem. Just give Scotland its own team to bring it into line with most other sports and problem solved!
Mind you, what happened when the Scots got devolution and started tackling things like public smoking, alcohol, land access, feudal law,* sectarianism, etc.? Howls of protest from some or all of the unionist parties in Edinburgh and London (who then enacted some very similar provisions).
*Some of which were originally Labour initiatives and dam' good for them too. It was only when I bought a house that I discovered Scotland was just about the only country which persisted in feudal law, so that I had in theory to pay off the local laird to avoid having to do military service [in reality the payment was commuted, but that was reflected in the price of my house, and other people had real problems with such tenurial laws when they were abused].
Once you give the matter the correct analysis the inevitable question is why the rUK taxpayers should underwrite the currency of a country that has chosen to leave. There are no obvious answers and I am afraid that Salmond today did not come close to coming up with any.
His main argument is that there would be transaction costs. Well yes, that tends to happen when you export or import to a different country unless you are already in the EZ. But he once again ignores the major asymetry of those costs.
Let's take at face value his figure of £500m, although I would like to see the arithmetic for that. This means that the cost for rUK would be £250m, a relatively trivial sum in the context of such a large economy and £250m for Scotland, a rather more serious figure for what would be quite a small economy.
I suspect the reality is that much of that trade will either be conducted in $ (if it is oil or gas related) or in sterling without any currency union. In short the smaller economy would end up paying not half but substantially more than half the costs or risks if they want the business. This is what happens in countries where the euro is quite dominant but the state is not a part of the EZ.
Even if I was wrong with that is rUK really going to take the risk on of underwriting the currency of a country that has chosen to leave to save £250m a year? Not a chance. He is making himself look ridiculous.
Yes, PP is losing a lot of votes and it does look as if it will lose power after the next Spanish GE. That should then see a resolution of the Catalonian independence issue as while PP refuses to countenance a Devomax approach - ie, giving Catalonia the same status as the Basque country, the socialists and other parties take a much more pragmatic line. The decline in the socialist vote is largely explained by their fall from grace in Catalonia, where they used to be the most voted for party in Spanish GEs.
You can keep up to date with Spanish polling here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
Looking at the figures it is very hard to see how PP can recover enough to stay in power via coalition, let alone on its own. In the past the centre right Catalonian nationalist parties have given tacit parliamentary support to PP governments. That is now off the table, of course.
Addendum - It's worth noting, though, that Spanish polling is not exactly tip top.
@faisalislam: interesting phd potential on correlation between having ability to print your own banknotes, & going bust http://t.co/lgVEfvq2He
Would you mind linking to me to where the UK parties made howls of outrage over Scottish plans to target feudal law, land access or sectarianism?
Hilarious but true.
'Bully (v). To refuse to accede to one’s opponent’s demands. See also: dictate from on high (v).
Constructive co-operation (n). The act of giving the SNP everything it wants.
Diktat (n). Any opinion about Scottish independence expressed by an Englishman.
Lecture (n). Any speech given to a Scottish audience by an Englishman.
Negative (adj). Any opinion on Scottish independence which differs from those held by the SNP. See also: bluster (n), campaign tactic (n), rhetoric (n).
Posture (v). The action of a politician who is under pressure and desperately winging it. (N.B. Applies only to English politicians.)
The comparison between Maria Miller's expenses claims and Tony McNulty's looks completely wrong. He was claiming for a house in Harrow which he didn't live in, whilst he and his wife lived in Hammersmith (see the link TSE has posted). She was claiming for her main home in London, so there's no similarity to his claim.
No-one is suggesting that she was not entitled to claim for one of a constituency or central London home, as far as I can see.
So the question is whether the fact that her parents live with her family in the London home disqualify it from the expenses reimbursement, or (to be more precise) whether that fact would have disqualified the reimbursement at the time. I don't know the answer to that, but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that she was hiding anything in submitting the claim.
Cameron will be very reluctant to see a woman hounded out of the Cabinet - he's not exactly over-supplied with female Cabinet ministers.
And we know that, as Nick P reports, that the Committee seem reluctant to criticise her too strongly.
So, on balance, I don't think this is likely to tip her out of the Cabinet. 14/1 looks OK but not compelling.
It looks rather bonkers to me; the methodology is to extrapolate and update numbers from a 1990 (!) report on the benefits of EMU membership (!!).
You are wrong about halving his £500m figure, as he seems to think that is the cost to rUK - he is oddly silent on the cost to Scotland.
As i suspected, Babblepish.
Bully (v). To refuse to accede to one’s opponent’s demands. See also: dictate from on high (v).
Constructive co-operation (n). The act of giving the SNP everything it wants.
Diktat (n). Any opinion about Scottish independence expressed by an Englishman.
Lecture (n). Any speech given to a Scottish audience by an Englishman.
Negative (adj). Any opinion on Scottish independence which differs from those held by the SNP. See also: bluster (n), campaign tactic(n), rhetoric (n).
Posture (v). The action of a politician who is under pressure and desperately winging it. (N.B. Applies only to English politicians.)
On the plus side the Czech and Slovakian example suggests that there will be a drastic reduction in cross-border trade so these costs might well be reduced in any event.
They had a currency union. As Osborne pointed out it lasted 33 days! This was because the risks meant that nearly all the money was being moved to the Czech part with serious consequences for Slovakia. Had they not ended the arrangement they would literally have run out of money. It is a cautionary tale: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/czechs-and-slovaks-split-their-currency-1470651.html
Reality is not a currency they deal in
As I mentioned yesterday my wife was telephone polled by Ipsos Mori on Saturday. It would move things forward somewhat if such polling was released.
"What explains the success and failure of radical right parties over time and across countries? This article presents a new theory of the radical right that emphasizes its reactive nature and views it as backlash against the political successes of minorities and concessions extracted on their behalf. Unlike approaches that focus on competition between the extreme and mainstream parties, the theory stresses the dynamics between radical right and non-proximate parties that promote minority rights. Most notably, it derives the salience of identity issues in party politics from the polarization of the party system. The theory is tested with a new party-election-level dataset covering all post-communist democracies over the past 20 years. The results provide strong support for the theory and show that the rise and fall of radical right parties is shaped by the politics of minority accommodation. "
http://cps.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/07/0010414013516069
Sorry I was lumping the two clauses together rather - should have made it clearer, and should have finished the one list properly before going to the next. Feudal law was certainly an improvement but should not have been allowed to refer to the next clause. I think it was an all party agreement but cannot find the voting to confirm. My apologies.
On specific opposition -
Land reform - http://www.andywightman.com/?p=2097
sectarianism - you'll need to google for that yourself as it is too inflammatory and complex a subject to post only one or two URLs on, sorry (and I really, really, don't want to disrupt this website by attracting an 'unusual' type of poster, to put it one way). But I note in particular the efforts of Mr McConnell in this, and the voting in the Scottish parliament in more recent debates.
Simon Walker, head of the Institute of Directors, said the First Minister's argument that businesses would force George Osborne into entering a currency union was implausible.
Mr Walker said any transaction costs from an indepenent Scotland adopting a new currency would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union, adding that other factors would be "100 times more important". These included the economic instability that would be created by breaking up Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10640499/UK-firms-reject-Alex-Salmonds-claims-over-keeping-the-pound.html
While you and I might hope that people would take a longer term view of the pros and cons of constitutional upheaval, could we be mispricing results if base economics is all people care about?
The last newspaper (12pp IIRC) from the Yes campaign that I received had the £600 dividend as the headline on the front page.
Curiously, when I mentioned this to colleagues from the west coast today they indicated they had not received anything similar. We have had 4 in what is a strong and clearly well funded SNP area.
Such promises depend entirely on the credibility of the maker which is why it is so odd that Salmond has invested so much in this currency issue. If he loses this argument, as he should, there will be significant collateral damage to his campaign.
Step 1 – Scotland applies to join the EU: Under EU law, it would have to be an independent country to apply.
Step 2 – The European Commission “screens” Scottish law to see if the country is compatible with EU membership – this won’t be an issue.
Step 3 – EU governments decide whether to approve Scotland’s EU application. All EU states have a veto.
Step 4 – The EU and Scotland begin negotiations over individual EU policy areas. There are now 35 so-called “accession chapters” covering everything from the euro to employment law to the EU budget. Each country has a veto over the decision to both open and then to close every single chapter.......
Step 5 – When the 35th chapter is agreed, the Accession Treaty with the Scottish terms of entry is drafted.
Step 6 – This Treaty must then be ratified by the Parliaments of each EU country and the European Parliament. If one says no, the deal falls.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/matspersson/100026698/if-eu-law-is-followed-scotland-will-join-the-eu-just-before-serbia/
Agreed but everybody in Scotland does care, including supporters of labour's large number of Scottish MPs.
I wonder what they think of Milli and Balls cravenly falling in behind Osborne? wouldn;t they be in favour of a currency union with a country where they still have a very, very significant interest?
It is the England and Wales cricket team (and also the England and Wales Cricket board), much as they like to forget/ignore it. Scottish and Irish players have to jump through hoops to get their nationality changed, Welsh players are playing for their team as much as English ones are.
twitter.com/UKIP/status/435444831700013056
It hit 33,000 on 9th January.
twitter.com/UKIP/status/421342211708428289
On the one hand, a lot of DKs are Labour voters. On the other hand, they are mostly Old Labour in sentiment, I believe - the WingsoverScotland crowdsourced poll last summer showed that DKs tended to be left wing compared to the SNP. Given that the SNP is bang in the centre, to the left of New Labour, and given that the Labour Dks would have voted for No if they were at all happy with the status quo, then there is potential for some net loss to Yes . [EDIT: this is due to Mr Balls's pre-orchestrated alignment with the Coalition, and is on top of any other effects of the last week.]
Of course, after indy Messrs Miliband and Balls would not have any formal responsibility to the lost Labour Party element in Scotland. If Mr Cameron can concoct his little agreements with the Partido Popular in Spain in the EU Parliament generally, and on their little local problems in particular, then there may be some wish to retain good links. But one has to remember the Bain Principle, that Labour always wait to see what the SNP suggest, and vote for the opposite (even if Labour had, unusually, come up with a suggestion first and it was that suggestion which the SNP had adopted).
One day it might dawn on them that they are very far from the target audience and that there is a reason there are more pandas than tory MPs in scotland. If the Yes campaign upsets the right wing headbangers on PB so much then it's clearly on the right track.
You may continue shrieking now.
Ach well - there is always 2050.
Only on PB.
Look at them all GO!!
This isn't hilarious in the slightest. Shriek louder right wingers, you can do it!
Mr. T, that's a silly idea. If we renamed our currency the Thatcher would be a better name (guaranteed to stop a currency union).
I saw a couple of excerpts from the deconstruction. Saying "I think you'll find, yes we can" doesn't really rebut the considerations of lender of last resort, or the absurdity of claiming you can demand currency union with a nation you just left.
I agree with the chap downthread who suggested Salmond's speech will be good for the Conservatives, but more specifically I think it might help Osborne. As the polling graphs Mr. Antifrank posted indicate, there's a pretty strong body of public opinion against a currency union and by Salmond bleating and annoying non-Scots and claiming Osborne's the bad guy that makes Osborne the poster boy for saying No to the currency union.
Bloody odd turn of events.
I think both you and Richard Nabavi are missing the point that the Czech/Slovak monetary split occurred before the creation of the euro. My understanding of at least ECB thinking on this, based on its and its predecessors attitude to the Slovak case particularly, would be that the Scots would use the pound for a relatively short transitional period before joining the euro. Obviously then the debt position would be of some significance as inflation should not be an issue. The current confusion is deeply political: the SNP are frightened to admit the euro is where they will end up, the rUK establishment is frightened to admit that if given the choice of Scotland being in a monetary union with sterling or in the euro they would vastly prefer the former option. I also think that on balance this tough and hostile line taken by rUK is more likely to help the "Yes" campaign than the supporters of the Union. As a strong Unionist I therefore think it regrettable that the English are appearing to want to treat the Scots post independence as more foreign than the French currently treat the Germans.
Maybe that works both ways. Perhaps the English will like George Osborne's ability to make Salmond blow a gasket.
I think it will be net positive for Yes.
I am amazed No didn't see the strategic flaw in this proposition:
Osborne tells Scots there will be no currency union.
Hmm.
Posted on here without a hint of irony. This is comedy gold. Even more amusing than when so many of the PB tories were cheering on Osbrowne's omnishambles.
So your opinion is so useless you're not prepared to back it with hard cash? I think most of us suspected that already.
X will not happen.
How is that a net positive for Yes?
Incidentally, what did you make of your party calling for a purge of non-believers?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711
Indeed.
Unfunny, unoriginal, and unpleasant - I suspect such an ungallant poster won't take your bet but good luck with it.