I don't see why Salmond expects that an independent nation would have to bow to the demands of another independent nation.
Anybody can use the pound
Of course they can, Mr. G. However, as you well know, using another country's currency without political and economic union brings its own costs. The Turks and Caicos Islands, for example, uses the US Dollar, but where do those dollars that circulate around the Islands come from? They have to be imported, that is to say earned or borrowed at interest (which is the same thing) from the USA. It works up to a point. The people in the Turks and Caicos are permanently poorer than those in the USA, money is always scarce and so expensive and so are the essential good sthat need to be imported.
On the other hand take the Cayman Islands, They have their own currency and a much smaller population than Scotland. A much wealthier place with much higher living standards.
So, really, what is all this nonsense? Just a few weeks from a referendum? Why has a party that has been campaigning for this moment seemingly never thought through one of the basic issues for an independent country? Why should not the preference for an independent country be an independent currency? If it works for a colony such as the Caymans surely it should work for an Independent Scotland. I don't understand it.
Is there any reason why Salmond does not just say that Scotland would issue their own currency, if they could not use Pound Sterling ?
Are there implications in doing this ? Potential for higher interest rates ?
There are also potentially benign implications for setting interest rates specifically to suit Scotland so even if they were marginally higher due to less weight (only relevant if you're borrowing too much anyway) they might still be better on average over time.
I wonder if they were so set on using the Euro they're mentally paralyzed on the issue.
Fair play to @SeanT for being one of the first in the media to pick up on the plight of the Yazidi
Sorry - I'm a follower of this hippy/commie/activist/whatever she is and the timings match so-
Retweeted by Abby Martin
Graham Hancock @Graham__Hancock · Jul 29 If it's OK to sky dive, bungee jump, drive fast cars and drink booze, why is it not OK to explore our own consciousness with psychedelics?
I have a fair few of Hancock's books - 'Supernatural' and 'The Sign and the Seal' are my favourites. And 'Underworld'.
'Supernatural', of course, deals with the neurochemical theory of religiosity.
The true scale of Salmond's failure to think through the currency issue is laid bare. He needs to lance the boil immediately or he will sail on to total shipwreck.
An independent Scotland must have its own currency with a 1:1 peg to sterling. There is a respectable precedent in the form of the Irish Free State and the punt, where sterling parity was maintained for many years. The peg may not be that durable in Scotland's case and a free float may become necessary in due course. This is a secondary matter and is far less daunting than the nonsense of currency union or sterlingisation.
And then there is the small matter of the mechanics of bank account conversion and the prevention of capital flight.
Idiots failure to listen to what he says is the issue. He clearly stated that there are many options but his first preference is CU. How hard is that to understand. FFS the unionists plan B is a CU, they do not have any other choices. What kind of a turnip head are you. Intelligent people in Scotland know what he is saying.
It's silly to say that Salmond hasn't thought through or isn't aware of the alternatives, I agree.
But there's a reason he was so reluctant to say what they were in the debate, which is that those alternatives are all extremely unpopular and/or really bad. You must realise that, otherwise why wouldn't he have just listed and briefly explained the alternatives? That "I don't want to talk about because I'm focussed on " is one of the oldest and most blatant entries in the political evasiveness book.
Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939? Accepting Stalin's annexation of the Second Republic's eastern lands and Communist control of the remainder?
Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939? Accepting Stalin's annexation of the Second Republic's eastern lands and Communist control of the remainder?
Poland wanted war with Germany, bizarrely they believed they would be in Berlin within a few weeks. Of course Poland had already participated in the carve up of Czechoslovakia and continued to deny the Danzig Germans their right to self determination.
Fair play to @SeanT for being one of the first in the media to pick up on the plight of the Yazidi
Sorry - I'm a follower of this hippy/commie/activist/whatever she is and the timings match so-
Retweeted by Abby Martin
Graham Hancock @Graham__Hancock · Jul 29 If it's OK to sky dive, bungee jump, drive fast cars and drink booze, why is it not OK to explore our own consciousness with psychedelics?
I have a fair few of Hancock's books - 'Supernatural' and 'The Sign and the Seal' are my favourites. And 'Underworld'.
'Supernatural', of course, deals with the neurochemical theory of religiosity.
Mushrooms in Netherlands for me. I often feel the LSDers have something over me.
But more than anything - I am a massive Philip K Dick fan.
He liked his amphetamine. I was told by my physiatrist very directly - don't do amphetamine , don't do amphetamine - very bad for people with mental health difficulties.
The true scale of Salmond's failure to think through the currency issue is laid bare. He needs to lance the boil immediately or he will sail on to total shipwreck.
An independent Scotland must have its own currency with a 1:1 peg to sterling. There is a respectable precedent in the form of the Irish Free State and the punt, where sterling parity was maintained for many years. The peg may not be that durable in Scotland's case and a free float may become necessary in due course. This is a secondary matter and is far less daunting than the nonsense of currency union or sterlingisation.
And then there is the small matter of the mechanics of bank account conversion and the prevention of capital flight.
Idiots failure to listen to what he says is the issue. He clearly stated that there are many options but his first preference is CU. How hard is that to understand. FFS the unionists plan B is a CU, they do not have any other choices. What kind of a turnip head are you. Intelligent people in Scotland know what he is saying.
It's silly to say that Salmond hasn't thought through or isn't aware of the alternatives, I agree.
But there's a reason he was so reluctant to say what they were in the debate, which is that those alternatives are all extremely unpopular and/or really bad. You must realise that, otherwise why wouldn't he have just listed and briefly explained the alternatives? That "I don't want to talk about because I'm focussed on " is one of the oldest and most blatant entries in the political evasiveness book.
Is there any reason why Salmond does not just say that Scotland would issue their own currency, if they could not use Pound Sterling ?
Are there implications in doing this ? Potential for higher interest rates ?
There are also potentially benign implications for setting interest rates specifically to suit Scotland so even if they were marginally higher due to less weight (only relevant if you're borrowing too much anyway) they might still be better on average over time.
I wonder if they were so set on using the Euro they're mentally paralyzed on the issue.
There are rules about joining the Euro. I am fairly sure that one talks about having one's own currency that performs within certain bands. So a precondition for joining the Euro, outside Salmond's fantasy of a welcome mat being laid out, would require Scotland to have run its own currency and its own central bank.
I really do wonder what the SNP have been thinking about all these years. They worked so hard to get to this moment and now it has arrived they have no answers for any of the questions that were bound to be asked.
Maybe its a Scottish thing. Brown was desperate to be prime minister but had no idea what to do with the office when he finally achieved it. The SNP have worked so hard for the referendum they have forgotten why they wanted it, save in BraveHeart terms.
Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939? Accepting Stalin's annexation of the Second Republic's eastern lands and Communist control of the remainder?
Poland wanted war with Germany, bizarrely they believed they would be in Berlin within a few weeks. Of course Poland had already participated in the carve up of Czechoslovakia and continued to deny the Danzig Germans their right to self determination.
Not sure about the Polish aiming for Berlin, but the Slovaks, after gaining independence from Czechoslovakia, participated in the German invasion.
I don't see why Salmond expects that an independent nation would have to bow to the demands of another independent nation.
Anybody can use the pound
Of course they can, Mr. G. However, as you well know, using another country's currency without political and economic union brings its own costs. The Turks and Caicos Islands, for example, uses the US Dollar, but where do those dollars that circulate around the Islands come from? They have to be imported, that is to say earned or borrowed at interest (which is the same thing) from the USA. It works up to a point. The people in the Turks and Caicos are permanently poorer than those in the USA, money is always scarce and so expensive and so are the essential good sthat need to be imported.
On the other hand take the Cayman Islands, They have their own currency and a much smaller population than Scotland. A much wealthier place with much higher living standards.
So, really, what is all this nonsense? Just a few weeks from a referendum? Why has a party that has been campaigning for this moment seemingly never thought through one of the basic issues for an independent country? Why should not the preference for an independent country be an independent currency? If it works for a colony such as the Caymans surely it should work for an Independent Scotland. I don't understand it.
Hurst, my personal opinion is that it will be a good few years before we see any real changes and so it makes sense for both sides to continue as we are until we have made all the changes and see divergence.
"Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939?"
Crikey, Cap'n Doc, we did declare war on Germany, you know. A war that cost hundreds of thousands of British dead and the bankruptcy of the nation. What more do you think we should have done in 1939?
"Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939?"
Crikey, Cap'n Doc, we did declare war on Germany, you know. A war that cost hundreds of thousands of British dead and the bankruptcy of the nation. What more do you think we should have done in 1939?
Avast, Mr Llama! The only offensive move on the ground in the West was the Saar "Offensive":
I don't see why Salmond expects that an independent nation would have to bow to the demands of another independent nation.
Anybody can use the pound
Of course they can, Mr. G. However, as you well know, using another country's currency without political and economic union brings its own costs. The Turks and Caicos Islands, for example, uses the US Dollar, but where do those dollars that circulate around the Islands come from? They have to be imported, that is to say earned or borrowed at interest (which is the same thing) from the USA. It works up to a point. The people in the Turks and Caicos are permanently poorer than those in the USA, money is always scarce and so expensive and so are the essential good sthat need to be imported.
On the other hand take the Cayman Islands, They have their own currency and a much smaller population than Scotland. A much wealthier place with much higher living standards.
So, really, what is all this nonsense? Just a few weeks from a referendum? Why has a party that has been campaigning for this moment seemingly never thought through one of the basic issues for an independent country? Why should not the preference for an independent country be an independent currency? If it works for a colony such as the Caymans surely it should work for an Independent Scotland. I don't understand it.
Hurst, my personal opinion is that it will be a good few years before we see any real changes and so it makes sense for both sides to continue as we are until we have made all the changes and see divergence.
Mr. G., I can see why an independent Scotland might want such a safety net. I am however totally at a loss to see why it would be in the interests of the English taxpayer to provide it.
This guy as to be careful what he says,especially where I live,the muslim community are angry here,they have Palestinian flags in they windows or from they cars and protesting outside the local Mcdonalds for the last few nights.
Is there any reason why Salmond does not just say that Scotland would issue their own currency, if they could not use Pound Sterling ?
Are there implications in doing this ? Potential for higher interest rates ?
There are also potentially benign implications for setting interest rates specifically to suit Scotland so even if they were marginally higher due to less weight (only relevant if you're borrowing too much anyway) they might still be better on average over time.
I wonder if they were so set on using the Euro they're mentally paralyzed on the issue.
There are rules about joining the Euro. I am fairly sure that one talks about having one's own currency that performs within certain bands. So a precondition for joining the Euro, outside Salmond's fantasy of a welcome mat being laid out, would require Scotland to have run its own currency and its own central bank.
I really do wonder what the SNP have been thinking about all these years. They worked so hard to get to this moment and now it has arrived they have no answers for any of the questions that were bound to be asked.
Maybe its a Scottish thing. Brown was desperate to be prime minister but had no idea what to do with the office when he finally achieved it. The SNP have worked so hard for the referendum they have forgotten why they wanted it, save in BraveHeart terms.
Is there any reason why Salmond does not just say that Scotland would issue their own currency, if they could not use Pound Sterling ?
Are there implications in doing this ? Potential for higher interest rates ?
Scotland could have its own currency and peg it to the pound, but that would mean it running its economy to suit maintaining that parity. Its economy, interest rates etc would be at the whim of an outside country. If scotland chose to have an independent floating currency it would have to back and support that currency. It would have to do this against the background of the dollar the euro and the pound not to mention the Norweigan kroner. If salmond says 'if we can't have the pound we won't take the debt' then we can surely turn round and say 'you can't have our cold and currency reserves and special drawung rights'. Quite what the IMF would make of an independent scottish currency would make interesting reading. In fact, quite how any of this would work out for any putative scottish currency is anybody's guess.
But the other problem is that an independent Scotland would have to join the EU, join the Euro (like all new members) and join Schengen (like all new members). Is this what Scots want to vote for? Salmond has been peddling a pig in a poke for years and living off the back of being a protest party and making a very average fist of managing a very large local government authority.
I don't see why Salmond expects that an independent nation would have to bow to the demands of another independent nation.
Anybody can use the pound
Of course they can, Mr. G. However, as you well know, using another country's currency without political and economic union brings its own costs. The Turks and Caicos Islands, for example, uses the US Dollar, but where do those dollars that circulate around the Islands come from? They have to be imported, that is to say earned or borrowed at interest (which is the same thing) from the USA. It works up to a point. The people in the Turks and Caicos are permanently poorer than those in the USA, money is always scarce and so expensive and so are the essential good sthat need to be imported.
On the other hand take the Cayman Islands, They have their own currency and a much smaller population than Scotland. A much wealthier place with much higher living standards.
So, really, what is all this nonsense? Just a few weeks from a referendum? Why has a party that has been campaigning for this moment seemingly never thought through one of the basic issues for an independent country? Why should not the preference for an independent country be an independent currency? If it works for a colony such as the Caymans surely it should work for an Independent Scotland. I don't understand it.
Hurst, my personal opinion is that it will be a good few years before we see any real changes and so it makes sense for both sides to continue as we are until we have made all the changes and see divergence.
No - it makes sense for one side. Unfortunately for you.
Please join David Attenborough, Ben Ainslie, Dan Snow, Steve Redgrave etc and sign Better Together's new letter on how much they value the union with Scotland (obviously Malcolm G and other Yes backers excepted) https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939? Accepting Stalin's annexation of the Second Republic's eastern lands and Communist control of the remainder?
Poland wanted war with Germany, bizarrely they believed they would be in Berlin within a few weeks. Of course Poland had already participated in the carve up of Czechoslovakia and continued to deny the Danzig Germans their right to self determination.
Bizarre is certainly a word to describe your post.
Went to a funeral today, saw a chap I had't seen for a year. Like me he is an occasional punter who basically regularly loses. Three weeks ago he was going to kempton for the evening in a box with work. Before he went using his Ladbrokes online account which he has had for 8 years, he had a bet on three horses in various singles doubles and a treble. The bet cost him £45. Amazingly they all won at big prices and the bet returned £10,200.00. He had never ever won anything anywhere near this before. Last weekend using his online account he went to place a £20 double on the horses. Ladbrokes would only allow him a maximum of 80 p. How sad is that! A chap has a bit of luck and Ladbrokes behave inn this way.
Please join David Attenborough, Ben Ainslie, Dan Snow, Steve Redgrave etc and sign Better Together's new letter on how much they value the union with Scotland (obviously Malcolm G and other Yes backers excepted) https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
A few years ago the Guardian tried something like that with voters in, IIRC Ohio. Rebounded rather spectacularly!
OKC Both sides are doing it, Brian Cox, Frankie Boyle and the Proclaimers and Sean Connery etc are all pushing Yes. There is a difference anyway between Guardian readers writing patronising letters to Ohio rednecks on why Bush was so awful, and a positive message about why the rest of the UK wants Scotland to stay in the union and how they value its contribution!
Comments
On the other hand take the Cayman Islands, They have their own currency and a much smaller population than Scotland. A much wealthier place with much higher living standards.
So, really, what is all this nonsense? Just a few weeks from a referendum? Why has a party that has been campaigning for this moment seemingly never thought through one of the basic issues for an independent country? Why should not the preference for an independent country be an independent currency? If it works for a colony such as the Caymans surely it should work for an Independent Scotland. I don't understand it.
UKIP 29.2%
Lab 25.2%
Con 24.9%
Grn 8.0%
LD 7.0%
AIE 1.7%
BNP 1.2%
ED 0.9%
Oth 1.9%
I wonder if they were so set on using the Euro they're mentally paralyzed on the issue.
'Supernatural', of course, deals with the neurochemical theory of religiosity.
But there's a reason he was so reluctant to say what they were in the debate, which is that those alternatives are all extremely unpopular and/or really bad. You must realise that, otherwise why wouldn't he have just listed and briefly explained the alternatives? That "I don't want to talk about because I'm focussed on " is one of the oldest and most blatant entries in the political evasiveness book.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840
Minor point to Eck - It's the UK pound and you intend to leave. Try the rouble - Putin's looking for friends.
Not coming to Poland's assistance in any meaningful way after war was declared against Hitler in 1939?
Accepting Stalin's annexation of the Second Republic's eastern lands and Communist control of the remainder?
But more than anything - I am a massive Philip K Dick fan.
He liked his amphetamine. I was told by my physiatrist very directly - don't do amphetamine , don't do amphetamine - very bad for people with mental health difficulties.
Obviously we all know what happened.
Anyway apparently I'm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoaffective_disorder by my last diagnosis.
I really do wonder what the SNP have been thinking about all these years. They worked so hard to get to this moment and now it has arrived they have no answers for any of the questions that were bound to be asked.
Maybe its a Scottish thing. Brown was desperate to be prime minister but had no idea what to do with the office when he finally achieved it. The SNP have worked so hard for the referendum they have forgotten why they wanted it, save in BraveHeart terms.
Crikey, Cap'n Doc, we did declare war on Germany, you know. A war that cost hundreds of thousands of British dead and the bankruptcy of the nation. What more do you think we should have done in 1939?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
Nothing. Considering Hitler hadn't killed many people at the time, that was the ''proportionate response''
Calls by George Galloway for Bradford to be "declared an Israel-free zone" are being investigated by West Yorkshire Police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28687233
This guy as to be careful what he says,especially where I live,the muslim community are angry here,they have Palestinian flags in they windows or from they cars and protesting outside the local Mcdonalds for the last few nights.
All the more remarkable are David Ward's comments in that story.
If scotland chose to have an independent floating currency it would have to back and support that currency. It would have to do this against the background of the dollar the euro and the pound not to mention the Norweigan kroner. If salmond says 'if we can't have the pound we won't take the debt' then we can surely turn round and say 'you can't have our cold and currency reserves and special drawung rights'.
Quite what the IMF would make of an independent scottish currency would make interesting reading.
In fact, quite how any of this would work out for any putative scottish currency is anybody's guess.
But the other problem is that an independent Scotland would have to join the EU, join the Euro (like all new members) and join Schengen (like all new members). Is this what Scots want to vote for?
Salmond has been peddling a pig in a poke for years and living off the back of being a protest party and making a very average fist of managing a very large local government authority.
Tsonga plays Murray in the QF as Murray has a walkover against Gasquet.
https://www.letsstaytogether.org.uk/
tim did always like a bit of the badger....