On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
Agreed. If YES wins we will point to this week as being the pivotal moment. One man's careerism/ vanity/stupidity could have cost the union.
Logic says it has to be a Scot. What's more, given that YES will be much worse for labour and the LDs, it is probably a senior Scottish Tory minister - which, interestingly, narrows the number of possible candidates to zero.
Have they said senior minister? My initial thought was that it was a Scottish Lib Dem, after all their conference is going on right now. However it's been said that a Lib Dem would be unlikely since the mention of trident as a negotiating chip. I'm still convinced it's a Scot though. Just look at the quote. 'It's inconceivable that Westminster would abandon Scotland'. Er... it would be Scotland that's abandoning Westminster. It's hard to imagine a non-Scot talking in those terms nowadays. It sounds rather patrician and patronising.
If there was a "government minister" at all, it would be one who was happy to anonymously brief the Guardian with an anti-government story that damages Danny Alexander.
Sounds to me as if it is Cable, after all he does have some Scottish connections.
On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
We seem to be expecting politicians to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Eck started it, with his ludicrous contention that there would be a currency union despite the fact that it is not within his control to deliver one. Now all party leaders on the Unionist side state that they do not wish to agree such a currency union - but who's to say that someone else will not be in charge, or there will be some sort of coalition, or even that events dear boy make such a union look more enticing in the future?
For a minister to say that he thinks there will be a currency union, despite current Unionist politicians coming out against it, seems to me to be a reasonable opinion to express.
The currency story is bad for No because it puts all of their dumb claims under the spotlight. Any unionist who argues otherwise has taken leave of their critical capacities. Bloody dreadful campaign - the scare stories just aren't working.
Any campaign based on fear rather than optimism was bound to be poor. I am not sure it will be enough to help the Yes campaign limp to a win as to be honest their tactics and planning have been bloody awful as well.
Personally I hope that the Yes vote wins through but I have to say whatever the result it will be more due to the varying degrees of incompetence on both sides than due to any brilliant strategy.
A currency union based on the idea that one side of the union is planning to quit in half a decade is inherently unstable, and would be immediately attacked by the markets. Look at how speculators attacked the euro whenever there was a hint that one country might quit. Look at the pain Germany has gone through to try and save that shared currency.
Speculators never attacked the Euro. Speculators attacked the sovereign debt of countries that looked like they wouldn't be able to pay it in either the Euro or their own. This could be a problem for Scotland if the markets think they'll eventually default and/or devalue, but it's a problem for Scotland whatever currency they use. The workaround is to borrow in foreign currency (including by saying you'll honour bonds in English pounds, in the event that Scotland no longer uses UK ones).
In any case in the event that Scotland's banks started falling apart, the English will be sufficiently integrated that they'll be on the hook like Germany was for Euro area banks, regardless of the currency they're using. If you're going to end up with a de-facto responsibility for potential liabilities, you may as well negotiate a proper banking union so you keep some control over the risks.
Piffle.
What's more, it's in England's national interest to refuse a formal currency union as it means all those nice finance jobs will move to London from Edinburgh.
But if course, in Salmond-world, England will never act in her own interests, but will always do what's best for Scotland, first. Especially during a messy and acrimonious divorce.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten. Would be far better for Scotland to leave them in the crap and go their own way but we are made of better stuff.
Mr. G, all the top UK economic politicians have said no. The non-Scottish Britons clearly don't want a currency union either.
A complete volte-face would deal double damage to any politician because they'd be both defying the public's wishes *and* doing so having previously, categorically, promised the exact opposite. And don't forget there's an election in 2015.
On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
Agreed. If YES wins we will point to this week as being the pivotal moment. One man's careerism/ vanity/stupidity could have cost the union.
Logic says it has to be a Scot. What's more, given that YES will be much worse for Labour and the LDs, it is probably a senior Scottish Tory minister - which, interestingly, narrows the number of possible candidates to zero.
Given the fools that are in the cabinet, it is far from certain the person is Scottish. I would agree that it is likely to be a Tory given they have most to benefit from YES.
On the subject of the Brazilian rent boy, I wonder what his exact date of birth is. If he's 19 now and Mr Menzies paid for his services 18 months ago, it's possible that he was under 18 at the time. Which would mean that Mr Menzies would have engaged in child prostitution.
If there was a "government minister" at all, it would be one who was happy to anonymously brief the Guardian with an anti-government story that damages Danny Alexander.
Sounds to me as if it is Cable, after all he does have some Scottish connections.
On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
We seem to be expecting politicians to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Eck started it, with his ludicrous contention that there would be a currency union despite the fact that it is not within his control to deliver one. Now all party leaders on the Unionist side state that they do not wish to agree such a currency union - but who's to say that someone else will not be in charge, or there will be some sort of coalition, or even that events dear boy make such a union look more enticing in the future?
For a minister to say that he thinks there will be a currency union, despite current Unionist politicians coming out against it, seems to me to be a reasonable opinion to express.
LDs deny it is a LD and are v. unhappy they are being blamed.
Could be a Scot in an EWNI seat - but amongst ministers IIRC that gives only Mr Gove. He does not as far as I know have any critical responsibilities vis a vis Scotland, unless there is a secret contingency plan for a negotiating team which includes him.
Or Mr Mundell MP? He is (a) a Tory (b) in a Scottish seat and (c) have a position in the Scotland Office IIRC (as a junior subundersatrap) and (d) would therefore be involved in negotiations, or would he? Naah. He'd be on the wrong side of the Debatable Lands.
None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy. I suspect the reason is that they and Salmond do not want this, any more than England wants a currency union.
The same reason a bunch of independent countries want Frankfurt and Brussels running their economic policies. It's harder to do business if the value of your unit of exchange fluctuates, because you agree to a contract to buy or sell something at a rate that will make you a profit, then for unpredictable reasons unrelated to your business it ends up losing you money instead.
That said, referendums are organized lying contests, and nothing anyone says before a referendum has much bearing on what they'd do after a referendum. Maybe Salmond's end-game is Euro membership.
Who is the anonymous Government minister? Has anyone considered that it might be David Cameron? He fits the bill better than almost any other candidate.
'None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy.'
They still have someone to blame when it all goes tits-up?
Don't talk bollocks. Given it will take many years to unravel all the institutions in the UK it would be folly to try and have different currencies in the short term. It will be best for all to have a currency union for 5-10 years whilst the governments and businesses get all the changes required sorted out. London will not be running Scotland's economic policy , it will purely be a currency union that will set rules for both countries. Scotland will still be in control of all its fiscal policies. Perhaps the rules will curb the London fetish for borrowing beyond its means.
Mr. G, all the top UK economic politicians have said no. The non-Scottish Britons clearly don't want a currency union either.
A complete volte-face would deal double damage to any politician because they'd be both defying the public's wishes *and* doing so having previously, categorically, promised the exact opposite. And don't forget there's an election in 2015.
Morris they lie and do 180 degree turns all the time, it will be BAU for them. They have been very stupid but again that is also normal practice and will deserve all they get when they are humiliated into turning.
On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
Agreed. If YES wins we will point to this week as being the pivotal moment. One man's careerism/ vanity/stupidity could have cost the union.
Logic says it has to be a Scot. What's more, given that YES will be much worse for Labour and the LDs, it is probably a senior Scottish Tory minister - which, interestingly, narrows the number of possible candidates to zero.
Given the fools that are in the cabinet, it is far from certain the person is Scottish. I would agree that it is likely to be a Tory given they have most to benefit from YES.
Maybe it's Mark Menzies (Con, Scottish and a 'top Tory' according to the tabloids) and the rent boy thing is just an excuse? As any fule kno, opposing the settled view of PB Unionists on currency union is a far greater sin than doing drugs with rent boys.
Mr. G, this is a different order of magnitude, and the electoral consequences would be significant. It's a substantial enough matter that I would have to either abstain, spoil my ballot, or vote for a minor party instead of backing the Conservatives to beat Balls.
Arguing for a temporary transitional arrangement is quite a different matter to arguing for currency union.
Like I said, the Yes campaigners do not want currency union either, what they are trying to do is convince undecided mostly SLAB voters is that independence is really devo-max. It is a convenient lie that seems to be working.
'None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy.'
They still have someone to blame when it all goes tits-up?
Don't talk bollocks. Given it will take many years to unravel all the institutions in the UK it would be folly to try and have different currencies in the short term. It will be best for all to have a currency union for 5-10 years whilst the governments and businesses get all the changes required sorted out. London will not be running Scotland's economic policy , it will purely be a currency union that will set rules for both countries. Scotland will still be in control of all its fiscal policies. Perhaps the rules will curb the London fetish for borrowing beyond its means.
A complete volte-face would deal double damage to any politician because they'd be both defying the public's wishes *and* doing so having previously, categorically, promised the exact opposite. And don't forget there's an election in 2015.
The public wouldn't care. They'll just want the politicians to work something out that doesn't cause them too much trouble.
As far as going back on a promise goes: 1) They're politicians. Going back on promises is what they do for a living. The day after a referendum is a whole new world. 2) Most of the action would happen after the 2015 election, not before. 3) They'd probably do the thing with a worthy cross-party, non-partisan delegation, which is the traditional way to do the opposite of what you told the voters. FPTP is a zero-sum game, so it doesn't matter if the voters end up hating me, as long as they end up hating you as well. The way Obama put it when trying to cut a deal on benefit cuts or some similar subject that everyone was pretending to be opposed to was something like, "It's important that both sides get into the boat at the same time, or it'll capsize".
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're 100% wrong on that. The public would be hugely unimpressed with both the deceit and the new position in and of itself. The English, Welsh and Northern Irish do not want a currency union.
Before the 2015 election a currency union would have been ruled out. Performing a u-turn on that would be like voting for a UKIP government and Farage giving away our whole rebate and signing up to the euro.
There's a cross-party, non-partisan consensus *against* currency union, not for it.
It's good to have an old-fashioned sex and drugs scandal.
No it isn't. These things are private matters. The prurient tabloid headlines destroy people's lives.
What destroys "people's lives" is their own behaviour not the reporting of questionable and potentially illegal activity by politicians who should know better.
Relatively harmless fun being had by a single man. So you have never broken the law then?
MP resigns as PPS because of "relatively harmless fun"
It's a theory.
Oh come off it, Jack. He resigned to stop it become a "story" and bogging the Tories down just as they seem to be getting the wind in their sales. If it hadn't been for the drug angle (which I suspect would be the bit that he denies - he has said clearly not not all of the allegations are true) then I doubt it would have got any traction at all.
That said, it's a nasty and irrelevant story that does the Sun absolutely no credit at all.
Could be but without running its own currency for a number of years it is difficulty to see how Scotland could meet the entry criteria for the Euro. I expect there are those that say the details of treaties and rules made under them don't matter and that they will be waived in the interest of realpolitik.
Forgive me Frank but you seem unable to take on board the very simple fact that the LibDems and Conservatives are agreed on the direction of economic policy. Indeed one of the biggest economic reforms of the Coalition, that of pension and saving reform came from LibDem minister Steve Webb.
Webb may have done the detailed work - and he is an expert in the field, so I'm not diminishing his contribution - but don't forget that it was in the Tory manifesto.
We will reward those who have saved for their retirement by ending the effective obligation to buy an annuity at age 75 page 12
Arguing for a temporary transitional arrangement is quite a different matter to arguing for currency union.
Like I said, the Yes campaigners do not want currency union either, what they are trying to do is convince undecided mostly SLAB voters is that independence is really devo-max. It is a convenient lie that seems to be working.
'None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy.'
They still have someone to blame when it all goes tits-up?
Don't talk bollocks. Given it will take many years to unravel all the institutions in the UK it would be folly to try and have different currencies in the short term. It will be best for all to have a currency union for 5-10 years whilst the governments and businesses get all the changes required sorted out. London will not be running Scotland's economic policy , it will purely be a currency union that will set rules for both countries. Scotland will still be in control of all its fiscal policies. Perhaps the rules will curb the London fetish for borrowing beyond its means.
We agree totally , I would not go as far as saying it is a lie, more their opening negotiating position on the 5 available currency options. It was enough to get the Better NOT Together members at each others throats. These guys are being outwitted at every cut and turn. The person who thought Darling was up to winning anything should be shot , makes it all seem as if Dave is not as stupid as he looks and sounds, indeed he could almost be a YES man.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're 100% wrong on that. The public would be hugely unimpressed with both the deceit and the new position in and of itself. The English, Welsh and Northern Irish do not want a currency union.
What's the evidence that's leading you to believe the voters have strong opinions on this? (I don't mean the people here who also care deeply about the West Lothian Question, I mean the voters at large.)
Mr. Tokyo, I think you're 100% wrong on that. The public would be hugely unimpressed with both the deceit and the new position in and of itself. The English, Welsh and Northern Irish do not want a currency union.
Before the 2015 election a currency union would have been ruled out. Performing a u-turn on that would be like voting for a UKIP government and Farage giving away our whole rebate and signing up to the euro.
There's a cross-party, non-partisan consensus *against* currency union, not for it.
MD, I am sure the snake oil boys will be able to sell it to a gullible electorate, no doubt in a coalition where both parties can claim it was not their idea. We all know what these guys pledges are worth and breaking them does not do them much harm.
Might be time to retire the phrase "rent boy" - something pretty sinister and homophobic about it.
It would seem my post fell foul of the political correctness of Vanilla.
reclassifying rent boys is as politically correct as reclassifying prostitutes as "sex workers"
Next you will be telling me that the BBC will be editing the Dambusters film because Guy Gibson's dog was called by an name that we are now no longer legally allowed to use(not that one would) even though black guys use it in common parlance.
Why not just call him a male prostitute, which is what he is?
While this is not a subject that I know anything about, "rent boy" may convey additional information. I suspect - but this is an assumption - that the majority of male prostitutes are substantially younger than their punters, and the term conveys something of the disapproval associated with this fact.
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
On the issue of the anonymous minister, calling for him/her to be shot is a little silly. But they need to come out, say it was a mistake and resign from the government. Not only does the comment suggest that a currency union is going to happen, it also suggests Better Together are lying. And if they're lying about this what else might they be lying about? It could hardly be worse.
Agreed. If YES wins we will point to this week as being the pivotal moment. One man's careerism/ vanity/stupidity could have cost the union.
Logic says it has to be a Scot. What's more, given that YES will be much worse for labour and the LDs, it is probably a senior Scottish Tory minister - which, interestingly, narrows the number of possible candidates to zero.
I could imagine though it could be someone like Micheal Ancram (obviously not him, as he is retired) but it could be senior peer with strong Scottish links.
Could be but without running its own currency for a number of years it is difficulty to see how Scotland could meet the entry criteria for the Euro. I expect there are those that say the details of treaties and rules made under them don't matter and that they will be waived in the interest of realpolitik.
I doubt it would happen that quickly - I'd expect either a transitional (UK) currency union arrangement or a separate currency with a Sterling peg.
IIUC they'll need an treaty to join the EU in any case, so if both Scotland and the rest of the EU wanted Scotland in the Euro I guess technically they could write in an exception to the entry rules, and they wouldn't need to ignore or waive anything. But that kind of thing makes it harder to see the accession treaty going through in any reasonable time-frame, especially since the UK would have a veto and probably wouldn't want to see it happen.
The problem is that a currency union will cause too much trouble for both sides. It would not be sustainable without a consensus on economic and borrowing policy between both countries. As a rUK government would be quite to the right of Scotland on these, there would be trouble from day one. Currency union will not happen, so politicians will not need to change their views.
Political seperation does lead to a reduction in cross border trade almost everywhere it happens, so any peg of a Scottish pound may only needed for a few years anyway. A currency peg is what Salmond wants and is quite different to a currency union. With the unstable price of oil and a Scottish pound a petrocurrency, it would present some difficulties to an independent Scotland.
A complete volte-face would deal double damage to any politician because they'd be both defying the public's wishes *and* doing so having previously, categorically, promised the exact opposite. And don't forget there's an election in 2015.
The public wouldn't care. They'll just want the politicians to work something out that doesn't cause them too much trouble.
As far as going back on a promise goes: 1) They're politicians. Going back on promises is what they do for a living. The day after a referendum is a whole new world. 2) Most of the action would happen after the 2015 election, not before. 3) They'd probably do the thing with a worthy cross-party, non-partisan delegation, which is the traditional way to do the opposite of what you told the voters. FPTP is a zero-sum game, so it doesn't matter if the voters end up hating me, as long as they end up hating you as well. The way Obama put it when trying to cut a deal on benefit cuts or some similar subject that everyone was pretending to be opposed to was something like, "It's important that both sides get into the boat at the same time, or it'll capsize".
Arguing for a temporary transitional arrangement is quite a different matter to arguing for currency union.
Like I said, the Yes campaigners do not want currency union either, what they are trying to do is convince undecided mostly SLAB voters is that independence is really devo-max. It is a convenient lie that seems to be working.
'None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy.'
They still have someone to blame when it all goes tits-up?
Don't talk bollocks. Given it will take many years to unravel all the institutions in the UK it would be folly to try and have different currencies in the short term. It will be best for all to have a currency union for 5-10 years whilst the governments and businesses get all the changes required sorted out. London will not be running Scotland's economic policy , it will purely be a currency union that will set rules for both countries. Scotland will still be in control of all its fiscal policies. Perhaps the rules will curb the London fetish for borrowing beyond its means.
We agree totally , I would not go as far as saying it is a lie, more their opening negotiating position on the 5 available currency options. It was enough to get the Better NOT Together members at each others throats. These guys are being outwitted at every cut and turn. The person who thought Darling was up to winning anything should be shot , makes it all seem as if Dave is not as stupid as he looks and sounds, indeed he could almost be a YES man.
There might well be five or even one thousand currency options available after a Yes vote but currency union with the UK isn't one of them. It's off the table, definitively.
The problem is that a currency union will cause too much trouble for both sides. It would not be sustainable without a consensus on economic and borrowing policy between both countries. As a rUK government would be quite to the right of Scotland on these, there would be trouble from day one.
I think you're underestimating Salmond's agility there. Small countries next to big countries tend to go low-tax, low-spending, low-regulation. If anything the tension would be that Scotland was trying to snaffle business from rUK by out-right-winging them.
Could be but without running its own currency for a number of years it is difficulty to see how Scotland could meet the entry criteria for the Euro. I expect there are those that say the details of treaties and rules made under them don't matter and that they will be waived in the interest of realpolitik.
I doubt it would happen that quickly - I'd expect either a transitional (UK) currency union arrangement or a separate currency with a Sterling peg.
IIUC they'll need an treaty to join the EU in any case, so if both Scotland and the rest of the EU wanted Scotland in the Euro I guess technically they could write in an exception to the entry rules, and they wouldn't need to ignore or waive anything. But that kind of thing makes it harder to see the accession treaty going through in any reasonable time-frame, especially since the UK would have a veto and probably wouldn't want to see it happen.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you are confusing joining the EU and joining the Euro, the former requires a treaty requiring the consent of all current members the latter doesn't. What it does require is the country to meet the convergence criteria. To admit a country to the Euro that has not met the convergence criteria cannot be done without amending or ignoring the criteria. They did it for Greece, or rather they pretended to believe the transparent tissue of lies Goldman Sachs put together, but without its own currency Scotland could not even put up the same case as Greece. It could not in anyway shape or form meet the entry criteria.
The problem is that a currency union will cause too much trouble for both sides. It would not be sustainable without a consensus on economic and borrowing policy between both countries. As a rUK government would be quite to the right of Scotland on these, there would be trouble from day one.
I think you're underestimating Salmond's agility there. Small countries next to big countries tend to go low-tax, low-spending, low-regulation. If anything the tension would be that Scotland was trying to snaffle business from rUK by out-right-winging them.
I think Salmond favours a Scandanvian rather than a Cayman model.
Could be but without running its own currency for a number of years it is difficulty to see how Scotland could meet the entry criteria for the Euro. I expect there are those that say the details of treaties and rules made under them don't matter and that they will be waived in the interest of realpolitik.
I doubt it would happen that quickly - I'd expect either a transitional (UK) currency union arrangement or a separate currency with a Sterling peg.
IIUC they'll need an treaty to join the EU in any case, so if both Scotland and the rest of the EU wanted Scotland in the Euro I guess technically they could write in an exception to the entry rules, and they wouldn't need to ignore or waive anything. But that kind of thing makes it harder to see the accession treaty going through in any reasonable time-frame, especially since the UK would have a veto and probably wouldn't want to see it happen.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you are confusing joining the EU and joining the Euro, the former requires a treaty requiring the consent of all current members the latter doesn't. What it does require is the country to meet the convergence criteria. To admit a country to the Euro that has not met the convergence criteria cannot be done without amending or ignoring the criteria. They did it for Greece, or rather they pretended to believe the transparent tissue of lies Goldman Sachs put together, but without its own currency Scotland could not even put up the same case as Greece. It could not in anyway shape or form meet the entry criteria.
Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first. My point is then that if they've got to pass a treaty to let Scotland into the EU, and everyone was cool with them also joining the Euro, there would be no particular technical problem to sticking a line in the accession treaty saying, "Scotland can skip the convergence criteria", since a treaty of the full EU can revise any previous treaty of the full EU.
The problem is that a currency union will cause too much trouble for both sides. It would not be sustainable without a consensus on economic and borrowing policy between both countries. As a rUK government would be quite to the right of Scotland on these, there would be trouble from day one.
I think you're underestimating Salmond's agility there. Small countries next to big countries tend to go low-tax, low-spending, low-regulation. If anything the tension would be that Scotland was trying to snaffle business from rUK by out-right-winging them.
I think Salmond favours a Scandanvian rather than a Cayman model.
At the risk of repeating myself, what a politician says they're going to do before a referendum has no particular predictive power on what they're actually going to do after a referendum.
Scottish voters aren't going to choose the Cayman model, but if that's what it takes to stop a giant sucking sound as businesses relocate to rUK, the Cayman model's what they're going to get (*).
(*) TBF, more likely something in between the two.
On the subject of the Brazilian rent boy, I wonder what his exact date of birth is. If he's 19 now and Mr Menzies paid for his services 18 months ago, it's possible that he was under 18 at the time. Which would mean that Mr Menzies would have engaged in child prostitution.
That's the age of consent here. Is that the age of consent in Brazil?
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
it would take some time even if that was what they wanted. You have to meet the criteria and after that be in ERM for 2 years minimum so it would not be a short term ( under 5 years ) option.
On the subject of the Brazilian rent boy, I wonder what his exact date of birth is. If he's 19 now and Mr Menzies paid for his services 18 months ago, it's possible that he was under 18 at the time. Which would mean that Mr Menzies would have engaged in child prostitution.
That's the age of consent here. Is that the age of consent in Brazil?
The child prostitution laws in the UK set 18 as the relevant age limit. It's separate from the age of consent. The activities seem to have occurred in the UK since Mr Menzies showed the young man round Parliament.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
it would take some time even if that was what they wanted. You have to meet the criteria and after that be in ERM for 2 years minimum so it would not be a short term ( under 5 years ) option.
I agree, Mr. G., but in the interim Scotland would not be doing itself any favours by sheltering behind Sterling's skirts. Its a bit like a young driver, either you carry on being a named driver on your parent's policy or you have your own - more expensive to begin with but you build up your own history much quicker and so the end rewards are much greater and appear sooner.
Lots of questions re EDM - Comparisons are with Sep 2013 where there is one:
Thinking about Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party, do you think he... Has or has not made it clear what he stands for? Has made it clear what he stands for? 26(+9) Has not: 58(-9) DK 16 (+1)
Is in touch or out of touch with ordinary voters? In touch: 29(+8) Out of touch: 55(-3)
Has been trustworthy or untrustworthy? Trustworthy: 31 (+3) Untrustworthy: 38(+2)
Has been decisive or indecisive? Decisive: 20 Indecisive: 60
Is likeable or dislikeable? Likeable: 31 Dislikeable: 48
Has been a strong or weak leader of his party? A strong leader: 14 (+5) Weak: 46(-6) Neither: 31(+3)
Thinking about Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party, do you think he... Does or does not understand what British business needs to make it a success? Does understand what British business needs to make it a success: 26 Does Not: 48
Has been too close to the Trade Unions, too distant, or has got the balance about right? Has been too close to the Trade Unions: 29(+4) Too distant:: 13(-7) About right: 29(+7)
Would or would not be up to the job of Prime Minister? Would be up to the job of Prime Minister: 25 (+8) Would not: 56(-7)
These poll findings show what utter nonsense it is to claim that people are recoiling from Labour because they're supposedly "too leftwing" (even though their current economic policy of big cuts is more rightwing than anything Tony Blair ever espoused). If Ed has some balls then maybe, MAYBE, he'll take this as a sign to ignore the blinkered Progress/Blair groupies
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
You're reading me backwards. My point is that assuming the order of things has to be: 1) (Accession) treaty of 28 2) Join EU 2= or 3) Join Euro
...you had to pass a treaty of 28 before you got to the Euro step in any case, so while you're at it you can legally modify away any inconvenient restrictions from previous treaties affecting Euro entry in Scotland's particular case without needing to call anyone at Goldman Sachs away from their busy global-conspiracy-organizing duties.
Lots of questions re EDM - Comparisons are with Sep 2013 where there is one:
Thinking about Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party, do you think he... Has or has not made it clear what he stands for? Has made it clear what he stands for? 26(+9) Has not: 58(-9) DK 16 (+1)
Is in touch or out of touch with ordinary voters? In touch: 29(+8) Out of touch: 55(-3)
Has been trustworthy or untrustworthy? Trustworthy: 31 (+3) Untrustworthy: 38(+2)
Has been decisive or indecisive? Decisive: 20 Indecisive: 60
Is likeable or dislikeable? Likeable: 31 Dislikeable: 48
Has been a strong or weak leader of his party? A strong leader: 14 (+5) Weak: 46(-6) Neither: 31(+3)
Thinking about Ed Miliband's leadership of the Labour party, do you think he... Does or does not understand what British business needs to make it a success? Does understand what British business needs to make it a success: 26 Does Not: 48
Has been too close to the Trade Unions, too distant, or has got the balance about right? Has been too close to the Trade Unions: 29(+4) Too distant:: 13(-7) About right: 29(+7)
Would or would not be up to the job of Prime Minister? Would be up to the job of Prime Minister: 25 (+8) Would not: 56(-7)
These poll findings show what utter nonsense it is to claim that people are recoiling from Labour because they're supposedly "too leftwing" (even though their current economic policy of big cuts is more rightwing than anything Tony Blair ever espoused). If Ed has some balls then maybe, MAYBE, he'll take this as a sign to ignore the blinkered Progress/Blair groupies
Quite right, Mr. 565, Labour should espouse and then when elected implement a policy of massive state spending, high tax and high borrowing. Can't be any downside to that, surely. I am amazed that ever other country hasn't already thought of it. We'd all be rich if we just borrowed more.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten.
I really can't be arsed to get involved in the Scottish referendum, but some Nat bollocks just can't be allowed to stand without being shot down. There's no great material number of "oil jobs" in London that would move to Scotland from London in the event of independence. The jobs that need to be in Scotland to run North Sea oil and gas exploration and production and the associated processing plants are already in Scotland.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
Got a possible Bahrain bet in mind, but the markets will take a day or two to get going. Reasonable start to this season (mind you, 2013 started with a great opening bet and then become relentlessly mediocre). It's also likely to be our first dry qualifying session.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
it would take some time even if that was what they wanted. You have to meet the criteria and after that be in ERM for 2 years minimum so it would not be a short term ( under 5 years ) option.
I agree, Mr. G., but in the interim Scotland would not be doing itself any favours by sheltering behind Sterling's skirts. Its a bit like a young driver, either you carry on being a named driver on your parent's policy or you have your own - more expensive to begin with but you build up your own history much quicker and so the end rewards are much greater and appear sooner.
Hurst , I disagree, given the time it will take to split everything up and split all the services it makes eminent sense for both parties in the short term at least, and who knows it may be a good thing long term given I am no currency expert. Every other country that has went independent has managed without too much hassle so I do not see it as an issue whatever we use. Just scaremongering and bluster from Westminster. We heard the same at devolution, how we would be £5000 a head worse off and lo and behold it was bollocks. It is hard to see us being worse off than we are now under Westminster.
Quite right, Mr. 565, Labour should espouse and then when elected implement a policy of massive state spending, high tax and high borrowing. Can't be any downside to that, surely. I am amazed that ever other country hasn't already thought of it. We'd all be rich if we just borrowed more.
Glad I've won you over.
**
The crucial poll finding is the one asking whether Labour's policies are radical: only 20% say they are (breaking down to 12% saying "radical and bad", and 8% saying "radical and good"). That compares to a total of 41% saying the Tories' policies are radical (24% radical and bad, 17% radical and good).
The media narrative that Labour have promoted some radical Marxist programme is one of the most ludicrous political narratives I've ever come across, and this polling shows pretty clear the public agree. The problem is that Labour's confused, timid and contradictory policies haven't spelt out what the hell the party is for, again as confirmed by the polling: when asked if the policies are too radical, 47% say they genuinely don't know what the policies are, and 58% say Ed Miliband has not made it clear what he stands for.
As the most electorally-successful politician of the 20th century said, "Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides".
The currency story is bad for No because it puts all of their dumb claims under the spotlight. Any unionist who argues otherwise has taken leave of their critical capacities. Bloody dreadful campaign - the scare stories just aren't working.
Any campaign based on fear rather than optimism was bound to be poor. I am not sure it will be enough to help the Yes campaign limp to a win as to be honest their tactics and planning have been bloody awful as well.
Personally I hope that the Yes vote wins through but I have to say whatever the result it will be more due to the varying degrees of incompetence on both sides than due to any brilliant strategy.
Richard - fair enough. Well argued as ever. We will agree to differ on our preferred outcome but your analysis is hard to dispute.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten.
I really can't be arsed to get involved in the Scottish referendum, but some Nat bollocks just can't be allowed to stand without being shot down. There's no great material number of "oil jobs" in London that would move to Scotland from London in the event of independence. The jobs that need to be in Scotland to run North Sea oil and gas exploration and production and the associated processing plants are already in Scotland.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
To answer your bollocks , the oil company director in London last week was lying then when he said there were 20,000 oil jobs in London that would need to move north if no currency union. You would be better sticking to idle chat about Kate Bush and cups of tea, more your level. Also we can't be arsed with your pathetic opinions that shoot nothing down other than your knowledge of the topic.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
3 countries, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican use and issue their own euro currency though they are not EU members. An independent Scotland could adopt the euro as its official currency before joining the EU. However it would be just in the same position as if it continued to use the £ without a formal currency agreement with rUK.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
3 countries, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican use and issue their own euro currency though they are not EU members. An independent Scotland could adopt the euro as its official currency before joining the EU. However it would be just in the same position as if it continued to use the £ without a formal currency agreement with rUK.
easterross, did your mother have an enjoyable lunch. Have you not had any insight into who the "out of the loop" cabinet minister is yet from your contacts.
We had a wonderful lunch thanks as appeared to be the other 180 diners eating in the Morangie today.
As for the Guardian story, I have no doubt Nick Watt was given the story, I don't think it was made up or stretching the truth. I cant decide whether it was cock-up or quite intentional. Personally I think as soon as Scotland votes YES, there will be a considerable hardening of attitude towards us by English politicians and Welsh politicians from the Labour Party. I can see a clear advantage at GE2015 for those willing to play the "let's put the Scots in their place" agenda.
I just don't think the YESNP have a clear strategy beyond achieving a YES vote. Maybe in their heart of hearts they know that they will lose office on independence because there will be a massive realignment of political groupings in Scotland post independence.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten.
I really can't be arsed to get involved in the Scottish referendum, but some Nat bollocks just can't be allowed to stand without being shot down. There's no great material number of "oil jobs" in London that would move to Scotland from London in the event of independence. The jobs that need to be in Scotland to run North Sea oil and gas exploration and production and the associated processing plants are already in Scotland.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
To answer your bollocks , the oil company director in London last week was lying then when he said there were 20,000 oil jobs in London that would need to move north if no currency union. You would be better sticking to idle chat about Kate Bush and cups of tea, more your level. Also we can't be arsed with your pathetic opinions that shoot nothing down other than your knowledge of the topic.
Can you provide a link? I am very sceptical about those figures, but as I haven't seen the original comments couldn't say one way or another.
We had a wonderful lunch thanks as appeared to be the other 180 diners eating in the Morangie today.
As for the Guardian story, I have no doubt Nick Watt was given the story, I don't think it was made up or stretching the truth. I cant decide whether it was cock-up or quite intentional. Personally I think as soon as Scotland votes YES, there will be a considerable hardening of attitude towards us by English politicians and Welsh politicians from the Labour Party. I can see a clear advantage at GE2015 for those willing to play the "let's put the Scots in their place" agenda.
I just don't think the YESNP have a clear strategy beyond achieving a YES vote. Maybe in their heart of hearts they know that they will lose office on independence because there will be a massive realignment of political groupings in Scotland post independence.
Au contraire, surely. They do have firm proposals: interim government arrangements and cross-party discussions on a new constitution, etc., and take it from there as people vote, etc. As so often, see the White Paper.
As for the SNP, whether or not it survives in that form hardly matters compared to the democratic wish of the Scottish electorate. But if it was disbanded after a Yes that would hardly be a defeat, any more than much of the RAF being disbanded in 1945-6 suggested that it lost the war.
I'm curious to learn what "Clegg’s secret plan to brandish support in second round of the EU debate" refers to.
He's scored a signed, full-colour photo of Martin Schulz.
According to the FT this week, Labour do not want Schulz campaigning in the UK as they think he is too pro EU. This shows Labour' European commitment; not letting their candidate for the EU commission president be better known in the UK.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
3 countries, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican use and issue their own euro currency though they are not EU members. An independent Scotland could adopt the euro as its official currency before joining the EU. However it would be just in the same position as if it continued to use the £ without a formal currency agreement with rUK.
Kosovo does as well. It used to use the Deutsche mark. It is probably a better analogy for Scotland than the three you list, which are micronations with a long history of accommodation with a bigger neighbour. You also forgot Andorra.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten.
I really can't be arsed to get involved in the Scottish referendum, but some Nat bollocks just can't be allowed to stand without being shot down. There's no great material number of "oil jobs" in London that would move to Scotland from London in the event of independence. The jobs that need to be in Scotland to run North Sea oil and gas exploration and production and the associated processing plants are already in Scotland.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
To answer your bollocks , the oil company director in London last week was lying then when he said there were 20,000 oil jobs in London that would need to move north if no currency union. You would be better sticking to idle chat about Kate Bush and cups of tea, more your level. Also we can't be arsed with your pathetic opinions that shoot nothing down other than your knowledge of the topic.
Can you provide a link? I am very sceptical about those figures, but as I haven't seen the original comments couldn't say one way or another.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
Montenegro also. Lovely little country that it is.
Parts of Switzerland seem quite happy to use Euros when produced by tourists, though the CHF remains the official currency.
I would have thought that the Euro would make good sense for a Scotland that wants to increase trade with the EU. If Scotland wants to increase trade with rUK it would seem more sensible to vote No rather than have a currency union.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
3 countries, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican use and issue their own euro currency though they are not EU members. An independent Scotland could adopt the euro as its official currency before joining the EU. However it would be just in the same position as if it continued to use the £ without a formal currency agreement with rUK.
Kosovo does as well. It used to use the Deutsche mark. It is probably a better analogy for Scotland than the three you list, which are micronations with a long history of accommodation with a bigger neighbour. You also forgot Andorra.
"Parts of Switzerland seem quite happy to use Euros when produced by tourists"
So are shops and bars in parts of England happy to accept Euros. It is just another way of ripping off the tourists - the exchange rates they work to ought to be criminal. Got bugger all to do with the overall economy.
meanwhile if they don't then all those oil jobs in London will move north. England has more to lose than Scotland , hence why they will really be keen once they have been beaten.
I really can't be arsed to get involved in the Scottish referendum, but some Nat bollocks just can't be allowed to stand without being shot down. There's no great material number of "oil jobs" in London that would move to Scotland from London in the event of independence. The jobs that need to be in Scotland to run North Sea oil and gas exploration and production and the associated processing plants are already in Scotland.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
To answer your bollocks , the oil company director in London last week was lying then when he said there were 20,000 oil jobs in London that would need to move north if no currency union. You would be better sticking to idle chat about Kate Bush and cups of tea, more your level. Also we can't be arsed with your pathetic opinions that shoot nothing down other than your knowledge of the topic.
Can you provide a link? I am very sceptical about those figures, but as I haven't seen the original comments couldn't say one way or another.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
It sounds like the type of false memory found in Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. Time to get off the sauce.
"Can you join the Euro without joining the EU? I'm assuming you'd have to do the second to be able to do the first"
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
it would take some time even if that was what they wanted. You have to meet the criteria and after that be in ERM for 2 years minimum so it would not be a short term ( under 5 years ) option.
I agree, Mr. G., but in the interim Scotland would not be doing itself any favours by sheltering behind Sterling's skirts. Its a bit like a young driver, either you carry on being a named driver on your parent's policy or you have your own - more expensive to begin with but you build up your own history much quicker and so the end rewards are much greater and appear sooner.
Hurst , I disagree, given the time it will take to split everything up and split all the services it makes eminent sense for both parties in the short term at least, and who knows it may be a good thing long term given I am no currency expert. Every other country that has went independent has managed without too much hassle so I do not see it as an issue whatever we use. Just scaremongering and bluster from Westminster. We heard the same at devolution, how we would be £5000 a head worse off and lo and behold it was bollocks. It is hard to see us being worse off than we are now under Westminster.
It won't matter to me which currency you use but it might matter a lot to your compatriots. This idea that it will take years to split everything up is interesting though. Surely if the Scots vote for independence then that is what they want and should get, not hanging about on English coat-tails for years on end whilst negotiations take place.
Why, from either side, negotiations should take more than 6 months is beyond me. Actually, I reckon the negotiations could be done in an afternoon - the only thing to talk about is Faslane/Coulport. "How long will you give us to get our boats and weapons out of Scotland?" "Forty-eight hours" (or whatever period you want to come up with), "OK, good luck". What else is there to negotiate before Scotland becomes an independent country?
The smaller the country, the less likely it is to have a fully independent currency and monetary policy. This is because the cost of currency instability is high and more bonds issued in small country currencies are usually liquid and investors demand a premium to hold them: therefore their governments make the choice to either (a) adopt a neighbour's currency wholesale, or (b) enter an ERM type system to 'tie' their currency to another's.
So: microstates like the Vatican, Monaco, San Marino have taken on use of the Euro wholesale. Before the Euro, a Luxembourg Franc was - in acutality - a Belgian Franc.
Other smaller countries yoke their currency. So, Denmark (although not a member of the Euro) has tied its currency to the Euro (within a 2.5% band). Hong Kong has tied its currency to the US Dollar. The Irish government - until the mid 1970s IIRC - tied the Punt to the Pound. The Baltic states tied their currencies to first the Deutschmark, and then the Euro.
If we look around Western Europe for countries smaller than Scotland that have their own currencies, and who aren't tied to another, well, we have one, really: Norway.
Scotland can - of course - choose the Scottish Florint (or whatever) route. But it is worth remembering that isn't without its costs either. Buyers of government debt like to buy in currencies they understand (Dollar, Euro, Pound, Swiss Franc... Yen if they absolutely have to). This means that smaller countries tend to issue government debt in currencies other than their own: so there is lots of US Dollar denominated debt out of Latin America, and quite a lot of Euro debt out of Eastern Europe.
Might be time to retire the phrase "rent boy" - something pretty sinister and homophobic about it.
It would seem my post fell foul of the political correctness of Vanilla.
reclassifying rent boys is as politically correct as reclassifying prostitutes as "sex workers"
Next you will be telling me that the BBC will be editing the Dambusters film because Guy Gibson's dog was called by an name that we are now no longer legally allowed to use(not that one would) even though black guys use it in common parlance.
Why not just call him a male prostitute, which is what he is?
While this is not a subject that I know anything about, "rent boy" may convey additional information. I suspect - but this is an assumption - that the majority of male prostitutes are substantially younger than their punters, and the term conveys something of the disapproval associated with this fact.
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
Maybe we should ask @SeanT, but isn't it the case with *all* prostitution that it's usually about some older bloke wanting to have sex with some young thing.
Might be time to retire the phrase "rent boy" - something pretty sinister and homophobic about it.
It would seem my post fell foul of the political correctness of Vanilla.
reclassifying rent boys is as politically correct as reclassifying prostitutes as "sex workers"
Next you will be telling me that the BBC will be editing the Dambusters film because Guy Gibson's dog was called by an name that we are now no longer legally allowed to use(not that one would) even though black guys use it in common parlance.
Why not just call him a male prostitute, which is what he is?
While this is not a subject that I know anything about, "rent boy" may convey additional information. I suspect - but this is an assumption - that the majority of male prostitutes are substantially younger than their punters, and the term conveys something of the disapproval associated with this fact.
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
Maybe we should ask @SeanT, but isn't it the case with *all* prostitution that it's usually about some older bloke wanting to have sex with some young thing.
"... isn't it the case with *all* prostitution that it's usually about some older bloke wanting to have sex with some young thing..."
Not in my experience, quite the reverse in fact, but that goes back many years to knocking-shops in the Far East. Perhaps you have more recent knowledge (careful your Dad might be reading this).
. And in any case he can say it's temporary: Do the deal for five years and see how things go.
Any currency union that declares itself to be "temporary" will be hounded to destruction by the market from day one. Whatever the realpolitic, it has to declare itself permanent and immutable, like the Faslane base we're getting in return.....
It could be tricky for a peg, but how do you hound a currency union to destruction? The whole point is that there's only one unit of exchange, so you can't sell the Scottish ones for English ones or vice versa. This is why there's still a Euro.
Scottish Bond Rates? Or would Scotland not borrow anything?
But what would I, or Sir Nicholas McPherson know?
First, the Scottish Government is still leaving the option open of moving to a different currency option in the longer term. Successful currency unions are based on the near universal belief that they are irreversible. Imagine what would have happened to Greece two years ago if they had said they were contemplating reverting to the Drachma.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
I could easily imagine that there are 20,000 oil jobs in England. Not only the head offices but, for instance, all the oil traders etc.
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
Might be time to retire the phrase "rent boy" - something pretty sinister and homophobic about it.
It would seem my post fell foul of the political correctness of Vanilla.
reclassifying rent boys is as politically correct as reclassifying prostitutes as "sex workers"
Next you will be telling me that the BBC will be editing the Dambusters film because Guy Gibson's dog was called by an name that we are now no longer legally allowed to use(not that one would) even though black guys use it in common parlance.
Why not just call him a male prostitute, which is what he is?
While this is not a subject that I know anything about, "rent boy" may convey additional information. I suspect - but this is an assumption - that the majority of male prostitutes are substantially younger than their punters, and the term conveys something of the disapproval associated with this fact.
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
Maybe we should ask @SeanT, but isn't it the case with *all* prostitution that it's usually about some older bloke wanting to have sex with some young thing.
I give you the example of Wayne Rooney. If you don't want to sully your thoughts, the link title says it all...
Might be time to retire the phrase "rent boy" - something pretty sinister and homophobic about it.
It would seem my post fell foul of the political correctness of Vanilla.
reclassifying rent boys is as politically correct as reclassifying prostitutes as "sex workers"
Next you will be telling me that the BBC will be editing the Dambusters film because Guy Gibson's dog was called by an name that we are now no longer legally allowed to use(not that one would) even though black guys use it in common parlance.
Why not just call him a male prostitute, which is what he is?
While this is not a subject that I know anything about, "rent boy" may convey additional information. I suspect - but this is an assumption - that the majority of male prostitutes are substantially younger than their punters, and the term conveys something of the disapproval associated with this fact.
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
Maybe we should ask @SeanT, but isn't it the case with *all* prostitution that it's usually about some older bloke wanting to have sex with some young thing.
That is so inaccurate that I suspect you are trolling
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
I could easily imagine that there are 20,000 oil jobs in England. Not only the head offices but, for instance, all the oil traders etc.
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
It's more likely that Malcolm's simply made the whole thing up.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
It is complete and utter garbage. By its very nature the oil industry is one that does not require people living in a particular country and jobs move from one country to another continuously. Many (indeed most) of the oil companies operating out of Aberdeen do not have head offices within the UK so it would make no difference whether Scotland was independent or not nor whether there was a currency union or not.
This sort of rubbish is as bad as those who claim any part of the Oil industry would leave because of an Independent Scotland. Both arguments completely fail to understand the nature of the oil industry and its employment profiles.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
I could easily imagine that there are 20,000 oil jobs in England. Not only the head offices but, for instance, all the oil traders etc.
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
It's more likely that Malcolm's simply made the whole thing up.
You would like to think that but we are not all like you, some people have principles , I have no need to imagine things. Think yourself lucky you are doing it anonymously as you would certainly not say it to my face.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
I could easily imagine that there are 20,000 oil jobs in England. Not only the head offices but, for instance, all the oil traders etc.
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
It's more likely that Malcolm's simply made the whole thing up.
. Think yourself lucky you are doing it anonymously as you would certainly not say it to my face.
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
Don't know if it just me, but I find this quite ironic coming from Malcolm! Normally company directors in London are unionist drones ;-)
Charles , not found it yet, think it was International Business Times. It was a Director of a company in London and he said that 20,000 oil jobs would need to transfer north if there was not a currency union.
malcolm, as you clearly like to defer to people who have Director of an Oil Company on their cv, then as such a person, let me tell you again - the 20,000 number is complete bollocks.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
I could easily imagine that there are 20,000 oil jobs in England. Not only the head offices but, for instance, all the oil traders etc.
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
It's more likely that Malcolm's simply made the whole thing up.
You would like to think that but we are not all like you, some people have principles , I have no need to imagine things. Think yourself lucky you are doing it anonymously as you would certainly not say it to my face.
It's good to have an old-fashioned sex and drugs scandal.
Speak for yourself. What they do in their own time is no inter No it isn't. These things are private matters. The prurient tabloid headlines destroy people's lives.
I think most people enjoy seeing their leaders caught with their trousers down, from time to time.
A fairly small profit margin, but I was two from two on the betting front, so I can't complain.
Bahrain, I think will be good for Mercedes, Williams and Force India, and (relatively) bad for Red Bull. Could be wrong, though. That assumption is based on the many straights and the difficulty teams should have (noted during testing) with fuel in Bahrain.
It'll also (presumably) have the first dry qualifying of the season. If Williams can do better there, they stand an off-chance of a podium. Assuming the drivers don't hit each other.
Comments
'None of the Yes campaigners on here have given a sound reason why an independent Scotland would want London running its economic policy.'
They still have someone to blame when it all goes tits-up?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/malaysia-post-race-analysis.html
NB Bahrain is just next week.
If there was a "government minister" at all, it would be one who was happy to anonymously brief the Guardian with an anti-government story that damages Danny Alexander.
Sounds to me as if it is Cable, after all he does have some Scottish connections.
Personally I hope that the Yes vote wins through but I have to say whatever the result it will be more due to the varying degrees of incompetence on both sides than due to any brilliant strategy.
A complete volte-face would deal double damage to any politician because they'd be both defying the public's wishes *and* doing so having previously, categorically, promised the exact opposite. And don't forget there's an election in 2015.
Could be a Scot in an EWNI seat - but amongst ministers IIRC that gives only Mr Gove. He does not as far as I know have any critical responsibilities vis a vis Scotland, unless there is a secret contingency plan for a negotiating team which includes him.
Or Mr Mundell MP? He is (a) a Tory (b) in a Scottish seat and (c) have a position in the Scotland Office IIRC (as a junior subundersatrap) and (d) would therefore be involved in negotiations, or would he? Naah. He'd be on the wrong side of the Debatable Lands.
That said, referendums are organized lying contests, and nothing anyone says before a referendum has much bearing on what they'd do after a referendum. Maybe Salmond's end-game is Euro membership.
Lab 27 (+14)
Con 17 (-9)
UKIP 17 (+4)
LD 5 (-6)
Green 1 (-1)
SNP 2 (nc)
Plaid 1 (nc)
Another better one for the LDs
Like I said, the Yes campaigners do not want currency union either, what they are trying to do is convince undecided mostly SLAB voters is that independence is really devo-max. It is a convenient lie that seems to be working.
As far as going back on a promise goes:
1) They're politicians. Going back on promises is what they do for a living. The day after a referendum is a whole new world.
2) Most of the action would happen after the 2015 election, not before.
3) They'd probably do the thing with a worthy cross-party, non-partisan delegation, which is the traditional way to do the opposite of what you told the voters. FPTP is a zero-sum game, so it doesn't matter if the voters end up hating me, as long as they end up hating you as well. The way Obama put it when trying to cut a deal on benefit cuts or some similar subject that everyone was pretending to be opposed to was something like, "It's important that both sides get into the boat at the same time, or it'll capsize".
Before the 2015 election a currency union would have been ruled out. Performing a u-turn on that would be like voting for a UKIP government and Farage giving away our whole rebate and signing up to the euro.
There's a cross-party, non-partisan consensus *against* currency union, not for it.
That said, it's a nasty and irrelevant story that does the Sun absolutely no credit at all.
Could be but without running its own currency for a number of years it is difficulty to see how Scotland could meet the entry criteria for the Euro. I expect there are those that say the details of treaties and rules made under them don't matter and that they will be waived in the interest of realpolitik.
We will reward those who have saved for their retirement by ending the effective obligation to buy an annuity at age 75 page 12
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/files/conservative-manifesto-2010.pdf
But you are right that there is a rather dismissive overtone to the term - but probably no more than, for example, the use of the term "street walker" rather than "prostitute"
IIUC they'll need an treaty to join the EU in any case, so if both Scotland and the rest of the EU wanted Scotland in the Euro I guess technically they could write in an exception to the entry rules, and they wouldn't need to ignore or waive anything. But that kind of thing makes it harder to see the accession treaty going through in any reasonable time-frame, especially since the UK would have a veto and probably wouldn't want to see it happen.
Political seperation does lead to a reduction in cross border trade almost everywhere it happens, so any peg of a Scottish pound may only needed for a few years anyway. A currency peg is what Salmond wants and is quite different to a currency union. With the unstable price of oil and a Scottish pound a petrocurrency, it would present some difficulties to an independent Scotland.
Mr. Tokyo, I think you are confusing joining the EU and joining the Euro, the former requires a treaty requiring the consent of all current members the latter doesn't. What it does require is the country to meet the convergence criteria. To admit a country to the Euro that has not met the convergence criteria cannot be done without amending or ignoring the criteria. They did it for Greece, or rather they pretended to believe the transparent tissue of lies Goldman Sachs put together, but without its own currency Scotland could not even put up the same case as Greece. It could not in anyway shape or form meet the entry criteria.
Scottish voters aren't going to choose the Cayman model, but if that's what it takes to stop a giant sucking sound as businesses relocate to rUK, the Cayman model's what they're going to get (*).
(*) TBF, more likely something in between the two.
I think you can, providing you sign up to joining the Euro as soon as you meet the entry criteria (save for Denmark and the UK which negotiated opt outs).
The point in question though is not an independent Scotland's ability to join the EU, but whether it could join the Euro and whether it could do so without meeting the entry criteria.
http://www.france24.com/en/20140326-french-unemployment-february-labour-ministry-hollande/
1) (Accession) treaty of 28
2) Join EU
2= or 3) Join Euro
...you had to pass a treaty of 28 before you got to the Euro step in any case, so while you're at it you can legally modify away any inconvenient restrictions from previous treaties affecting Euro entry in Scotland's particular case without needing to call anyone at Goldman Sachs away from their busy global-conspiracy-organizing duties.
There are some jobs which are in Scotland as part of multi-nationals having exploration/production activity in the North Sea and deciding they might as well have their UK presence in Aberdeen too. Those jobs would be at risk of repatriation back south of the border.
The huge driver for oil company activity is tax. It can sometimes make more sense to drill a 1:5 chance of finding oil/gas if there is a favourable tax regime in that country, versus a 1:3 chance where the regime is less amenable to setting off the costs of that drilling. If there were any realistic prospect of oil companies experiencing a low-tax, pro-business environment in an independent Scotland, they would no doubt be welcoming independence. On the contrary though - the oil industry expects it would be milked.
I'm curious to learn what "Clegg’s secret plan to brandish support in second round of the EU debate" refers to.
http://order-order.com/2014/03/30/read-guidos-column-in-the-sun-on-sunday-online-25/
Got a possible Bahrain bet in mind, but the markets will take a day or two to get going. Reasonable start to this season (mind you, 2013 started with a great opening bet and then become relentlessly mediocre). It's also likely to be our first dry qualifying session.
Every other country that has went independent has managed without too much hassle so I do not see it as an issue whatever we use. Just scaremongering and bluster from Westminster. We heard the same at devolution, how we would be £5000 a head worse off and lo and behold it was bollocks. It is hard to see us being worse off than we are now under Westminster.
**
The crucial poll finding is the one asking whether Labour's policies are radical: only 20% say they are (breaking down to 12% saying "radical and bad", and 8% saying "radical and good"). That compares to a total of 41% saying the Tories' policies are radical (24% radical and bad, 17% radical and good).
The media narrative that Labour have promoted some radical Marxist programme is one of the most ludicrous political narratives I've ever come across, and this polling shows pretty clear the public agree. The problem is that Labour's confused, timid and contradictory policies haven't spelt out what the hell the party is for, again as confirmed by the polling: when asked if the policies are too radical, 47% say they genuinely don't know what the policies are, and 58% say Ed Miliband has not made it clear what he stands for.
As the most electorally-successful politician of the 20th century said, "Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides".
Also we can't be arsed with your pathetic opinions that shoot nothing down other than your knowledge of the topic.
Lab 37.1%
Con 33.7%
UKIP 12.0%
LD 9.5%
Cameron -6% (+4)
Miliband -19% (-5)
Clegg -36% (+3)
Approval among own party:
Cameron 82% (-1)
Miliband 39% (-6)
Clegg 56% (-6)
Approval among Ukip voters:
Cameron -53% (+3)
Miliband -62%
Clegg -76%
As for the Guardian story, I have no doubt Nick Watt was given the story, I don't think it was made up or stretching the truth. I cant decide whether it was cock-up or quite intentional. Personally I think as soon as Scotland votes YES, there will be a considerable hardening of attitude towards us by English politicians and Welsh politicians from the Labour Party. I can see a clear advantage at GE2015 for those willing to play the "let's put the Scots in their place" agenda.
I just don't think the YESNP have a clear strategy beyond achieving a YES vote. Maybe in their heart of hearts they know that they will lose office on independence because there will be a massive realignment of political groupings in Scotland post independence.
As for the SNP, whether or not it survives in that form hardly matters compared to the democratic wish of the Scottish electorate. But if it was disbanded after a Yes that would hardly be a defeat, any more than much of the RAF being disbanded in 1945-6 suggested that it lost the war.
Maybe I am doing you a dis-service, and you too have this on your cv? Nah - thought not....
Parts of Switzerland seem quite happy to use Euros when produced by tourists, though the CHF remains the official currency.
I would have thought that the Euro would make good sense for a Scotland that wants to increase trade with the EU. If Scotland wants to increase trade with rUK it would seem more sensible to vote No rather than have a currency union.
So are shops and bars in parts of England happy to accept Euros. It is just another way of ripping off the tourists - the exchange rates they work to ought to be criminal. Got bugger all to do with the overall economy.
It won't matter to me which currency you use but it might matter a lot to your compatriots. This idea that it will take years to split everything up is interesting though. Surely if the Scots vote for independence then that is what they want and should get, not hanging about on English coat-tails for years on end whilst negotiations take place.
Why, from either side, negotiations should take more than 6 months is beyond me. Actually, I reckon the negotiations could be done in an afternoon - the only thing to talk about is Faslane/Coulport. "How long will you give us to get our boats and weapons out of Scotland?" "Forty-eight hours" (or whatever period you want to come up with), "OK, good luck". What else is there to negotiate before Scotland becomes an independent country?
So: microstates like the Vatican, Monaco, San Marino have taken on use of the Euro wholesale. Before the Euro, a Luxembourg Franc was - in acutality - a Belgian Franc.
Other smaller countries yoke their currency. So, Denmark (although not a member of the Euro) has tied its currency to the Euro (within a 2.5% band). Hong Kong has tied its currency to the US Dollar. The Irish government - until the mid 1970s IIRC - tied the Punt to the Pound. The Baltic states tied their currencies to first the Deutschmark, and then the Euro.
If we look around Western Europe for countries smaller than Scotland that have their own currencies, and who aren't tied to another, well, we have one, really: Norway.
Scotland can - of course - choose the Scottish Florint (or whatever) route. But it is worth remembering that isn't without its costs either. Buyers of government debt like to buy in currencies they understand (Dollar, Euro, Pound, Swiss Franc... Yen if they absolutely have to). This means that smaller countries tend to issue government debt in currencies other than their own: so there is lots of US Dollar denominated debt out of Latin America, and quite a lot of Euro debt out of Eastern Europe.
Not in my experience, quite the reverse in fact, but that goes back many years to knocking-shops in the Far East. Perhaps you have more recent knowledge (careful your Dad might be reading this).
But what would I, or Sir Nicholas McPherson know?
First, the Scottish Government is still leaving the option open of moving to a different currency option in the longer term. Successful currency unions are based on the near universal belief that they are irreversible. Imagine what would have happened to Greece two years ago if they had said they were contemplating reverting to the Drachma.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279460/Sir_Nicholas_Macpherson_-_Scotland_and_a_currency_union.pdf
Perhaps they are making the heroic assumption that all of these jobs would need to move north if Scottish oil was in a different currency than sterling? But they may have forgotten that most oil is traded in US dollars...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/rooney-admits-sex-with-a-granny-6952363.html
This sort of rubbish is as bad as those who claim any part of the Oil industry would leave because of an Independent Scotland. Both arguments completely fail to understand the nature of the oil industry and its employment profiles.
http://www.scottishenergynews.com/energy_jobs/20000-new-jobs-to-be-created-in-north-sea-oil-and-gas-sector-in-2014/
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/malaysia-post-race-analysis.html
A fairly small profit margin, but I was two from two on the betting front, so I can't complain.
Bahrain, I think will be good for Mercedes, Williams and Force India, and (relatively) bad for Red Bull. Could be wrong, though. That assumption is based on the many straights and the difficulty teams should have (noted during testing) with fuel in Bahrain.
It'll also (presumably) have the first dry qualifying of the season. If Williams can do better there, they stand an off-chance of a podium. Assuming the drivers don't hit each other.