No hopers then, cowed and broken with no hope and no vision unable to think for themselves.
Hang on, Malcolm, a few minutes ago you said that ordinary NO voters were poor misguided souls. Now you've done an about face and decided you do despise them after all...
Careful you may end up your own orifice with all your stupid twisting and turning. Where did I say I despise anyone perchance. I feel sorry for lots of people who are needy and have to have others make decisions for them but you lying and making up things is beyond the pale but not unexpected.
Why does Salmond want the Bank of England to make decisions for an independent Scotland?
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
So you have never defended Salmond's currency plans, and are perfectly happy to vote Yes without knowing what currency an independent Scotland would use. I think it could be you who is the stupid thick turnip ;-)
Morning all, Peter Oborne has interesting piece in Telegraph about Cameron's options with UKIP. Once again though a commentator fails to understand that many UKIPers see Tory and Labour as all as bad each other. This is anti-politics, not anti-Cameron.
Being "anti-politics" is not a useful choice. Someone has to make policy and deliver it, often in a coalition. They should be supported with a generous spirit but not unconditionally.
The legal ownership may be as you state, but these are an exceptional piece of greek art, and would be best seen in Athens.
The bicentenial of Greek independence is near, It would be a great anniversary gift.
The Parthenon has been used by continentals as an arms dump before, with tragic and irreparable consequences. Who is to say the same would not reoccur if we returned the marbles? Let them be kept safe and sound in London.
It is doubtful that the perfidious Turks would be allowed to use the Parthenon as a munitions store again, but you never know. Or for the belligerent Venetians to lob a few shells at it.
However there are other arguments for keeping the Marbles here in the UK. We saved them: if they had been left in place, it is unlikely that many would still be there. In the century before Elgin purchased them, many had been removed and burnt to make lime. Worse, the remaining slabs were left in place until the 1990s, exposing them to the weather, acid rain, accidental damage and vandalism.
Removing the marbles actually made Greece understand what they had; they darned well did not care for it before.
More importantly, although the Greeks have made a museum to house the marbles, and care for the Parthenon and Acropolis site, they are not exactly doing a good job of preserving the rest of their ancient history. In particular, the need to prevent the uncontrolled destruction and looting of sites.
The Greeks need to show they care for their rich archaeological heritage besides the tourist-attracting moneypots.
Special pleading - "I think I could look after your house better than you do, so I'll take it off you. It's in the interest of the built environment, y'know."
We're not exactly so poor in our own history that we need to keep someone else's - yes, I know the argument that we hold them kind of legally but the reality is perfectly plain: we're sitting on someone else's relics. If we are genuinely worried about the preservation of the Marbles, we can set conditions on their protection and I dare say UNESCO would shell out a bit to help.
Leftie nonsense NPXMP. Time to tell the Greeks to fcuk off. What are they going to do? Attack us with kebabs? We could set Morris Dancers enormo haddocks on them. Goodness if we started that malarkey, lots of us would have to empty half the contents of our houses of things "liberated" by our martial ancestors in wars around the world over the past 5 centuries.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
:-) Enough barmaids to convince me of the result. No, based on my conviction that this was a tight race all along and now that the late swing will go to yes. Partly anecdotal from trips up there and a few ex pats who drink in my pub, partly gut feeling, partly sniffing the movement in the polling. I stand to be humiliated, or lauded, at the whim of PB.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
So you have never defended Salmond's currency plans, and are perfectly happy to vote Yes without knowing what currency an independent Scotland would use. I think it could be you who is the stupid thick turnip ;-)
For thick Turnips ................ THE POUND
That millstone. You Nats have become very clingy and needy of late.
There's been a great deal of debate on privacy and call interception recently. Well, in the US *someone* is going further, and building ?unofficial? cell phone towers. So who is doing it, and why?
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
"Former chairman of Frinton Conservative Ladies, Wendy Watson, 77, has thrown her support behind Mr Carswell.
She had supported the Conservatives since 1959, when she started delivering leaflets for the party.
“We helped Douglas to get elected and he proved to be the best MP we have ever had represent us,” she said.
“I was concerned about voting for Douglas next year because voting for him would have been a vote for the present Conservative leadership, so it is a relief that he had gone to UKIP and I can vote for the man we want.”"
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
So you have never defended Salmond's currency plans, and are perfectly happy to vote Yes without knowing what currency an independent Scotland would use. I think it could be you who is the stupid thick turnip ;-)
For thick Turnips ................ THE POUND
But we don't know which pound, and Salmond refuses to tell us.
To vote Yes on that basis makes you a brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull ,dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irrelevant, insensate, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless, turnip.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
"It's largely intuitive."
In other words, it's rubbish. If we were to be mad enough to sell Stonehenge (say to the Americans) then the sale was our responsibility. We have no right to demand it back. If we want it back, there needs to be a seller and a fair price.
London bridge was sold. Should we ask for the original Rennie stone cladding back from the Yanks? (Despite the fact they damaged them severely?) After all, they are beautiful and part of our heritage.
It could be argued that the Egyptian artefacts in museums all over the world have done wonders for the public's knowledge of Egypt, and for tourism to that country.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
If you don't support Alex Salmond, do you support the reasons he's giving for a YES vote? If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.
Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)
"The next time you eat a fish from the Mediterranean, just remember that it may well have eaten a corpse. As the Italian author Aldo Busi told the press just the other day: ‘I don’t buy fish from the Mediterranean any more for fear of eating Libyans, Somalis, Syrians and Iraqis. I’m not a cannibal and so now I stick with farmed fish, or else Atlantic cod.’ Personally, I prefer my fish natural, fattened on drowned human flesh, but there you go. I take the point.
Foolishly, last October Italy’s left-wing government became the first European Union country to decriminalise illegal immigration and deploy its navy at huge expense to save ‘illegal’ migrants crossing the narrow Sicilian channel in open boats from North Africa (Libya mainly) in order to bring them to Italy and thus the European Union — where most remain. Few get sent back: sent back where, exactly?"
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
"It's largely intuitive."
In other words, it's rubbish. If we were to be mad enough to sell Stonehenge (say to the Americans) then the sale was our responsibility. We have no right to demand it back. If we want it back, there needs to be a seller and a fair price.
London bridge was sold. Should we ask for the original Rennie stone cladding back from the Yanks? (Despite the fact they damaged them severely?) After all, they are beautiful and part of our heritage.
It could be argued that the Egyptian artefacts in museums all over the world have done wonders for the public's knowledge of Egypt, and for tourism to that country.
It wasn't even the Greeks who sold the marbles, it was the Turks.
It is paternalist rubbish to say that it is for the good of Egypt or any other country to take its artefacts away from it "to encourage tourism".
I believe that there should be no polling while an election is underway. But it will happen no doubt. This is a spell-binder. But anyway I hope the Oldies will win the day for common sense. After all, they're old and must be doing *something* right. Some of them (us) might be frail, but they (we) are as tough as old nails and will not be easily intimidated.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
I appears that they wouldn't. Panama is not entitled to print paper money and uses US printed US dollars. This suggests that under sterlingisation Scotland would have to use notes printed by the Bank of England.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
"The next time you eat a fish from the Mediterranean, just remember that it may well have eaten a corpse. As the Italian author Aldo Busi told the press just the other day: ‘I don’t buy fish from the Mediterranean any more for fear of eating Libyans, Somalis, Syrians and Iraqis. I’m not a cannibal and so now I stick with farmed fish, or else Atlantic cod.’ Personally, I prefer my fish natural, fattened on drowned human flesh, but there you go. I take the point.
Foolishly, last October Italy’s left-wing government became the first European Union country to decriminalise illegal immigration and deploy its navy at huge expense to save ‘illegal’ migrants crossing the narrow Sicilian channel in open boats from North Africa (Libya mainly) in order to bring them to Italy and thus the European Union — where most remain. Few get sent back: sent back where, exactly?"
I was not aware illegal entry into the UK was a criminal offence. I am pretty sure all those illegal immigrants found in tucks a few weeks ago are not languishing in prisons awaiting their court hearing.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
I appears that they wouldn't. Panama is not entitled to print paper money and uses US printed US dollars. This suggests that under sterlingisation Scotland would have to use notes printed by the Bank of England.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
Thatcher and Ravenscraig Steelworks. Sorry, how insensitive !!
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Of course you realise all the bluster and grandstanding over the currency is going to do wonders for Anglo-Scottish relations in the event of a no vote? I'm sure yes leaners are feeling really valued as a part of the UK right now.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
"It's largely intuitive."
In other words, it's rubbish. If we were to be mad enough to sell Stonehenge (say to the Americans) then the sale was our responsibility. We have no right to demand it back. If we want it back, there needs to be a seller and a fair price.
London bridge was sold. Should we ask for the original Rennie stone cladding back from the Yanks? (Despite the fact they damaged them severely?) After all, they are beautiful and part of our heritage.
It could be argued that the Egyptian artefacts in museums all over the world have done wonders for the public's knowledge of Egypt, and for tourism to that country.
It wasn't even the Greeks who sold the marbles, it was the Turks.
It is paternalist rubbish to say that it is for the good of Egypt or any other country to take its artefacts away from it "to encourage tourism".
It is nonsense to say that is what I am saying. A side effect of all the Egyptian artefacts in museums has been, undeniably, to enhance Egypt's tourism. I'm not saying that we should 'take' them for that purpose.
Some people on here have very interesting takes on ownership.
As for your Turk comment: that makes it even more interesting. If a regime changes, do all sales and legal agreements with that predecessor state automatically become void?
BTW, if it is proved that the bluestones in Stonehenge came from Wales, should they be returned to Wales?
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
Could they even do that though? Who would be guaranteeing that any Scottish note I had could be exchanged for a real one? I can't imagine banks in Scotland would be willing to take Scottish notes without such a guarantee, and I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's a promise the Scottish government could realistically make.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
"It's largely intuitive."
In other words, it's rubbish. If we were to be mad enough to sell Stonehenge (say to the Americans) then the sale was our responsibility. We have no right to demand it back. If we want it back, there needs to be a seller and a fair price.
London bridge was sold. Should we ask for the original Rennie stone cladding back from the Yanks? (Despite the fact they damaged them severely?) After all, they are beautiful and part of our heritage.
It could be argued that the Egyptian artefacts in museums all over the world have done wonders for the public's knowledge of Egypt, and for tourism to that country.
It wasn't even the Greeks who sold the marbles, it was the Turks.
It is paternalist rubbish to say that it is for the good of Egypt or any other country to take its artefacts away from it "to encourage tourism".
BTW, if it is proved that the bluestones in Stonehenge came from Wales, should they be returned to Wales?
Interesting point, although Wales as a nation has never existed, it was a collection of principalities some of which exerted influence more widely from time to time. The border was never defined until after it was conquered and subsumed wholly into England. Wales has no right to be a nation any more than the Kingdom of East Anglia, Wessex, Mercia etc. Once the 'welsh' recognise the heptarchy, I'll recognise the principalities.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
So patrons can buy drinks in your Scottish pub in rubles or euros?
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Although they are currently legal money, they have never been legal tender.
Notes issued by the Scottish banks have to be backed by Bank of England notes held by the issuing bank. The Bank of England issues special notes with denominations of one million pounds ("Giants") and one hundred million pounds ("Titans") for internal use by the other banks.
If the Scottish banks broke the rules under the current arrangements, then it would be a national problem. If they broke the rules post independence, then it would become an international problem; hence I believe the backing arrangements will be cancelled and Scotland will have to use B of E printed notes.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
So misappropriated in English
The Sultan was head of state at the time and owned the site, so he was entitled to give it to whoever he liked
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
So patrons can buy drinks in your Scottish pub in rubles or euros?
Why not? Rubles, Euros and Sterling are probably about equally likely to be the Scottish currency post-independence, pubs should be getting a head start.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
So patrons can buy drinks in your Scottish pub in rubles or euros?
No, because I can't bank those without cost to me, nor do I have capacity to work out exchange rates etc. As long as Scotland remains part of the UK, even post a yes vote, Scots notes are welcome here. After independence, I would need to review the situation depending on whether or not I could bank the notes at face value still.
Of course you realise all the bluster and grandstanding over the currency is going to do wonders for Anglo-Scottish relations in the event of a no vote? I'm sure yes leaners are feeling really valued as a part of the UK right now.
Well tough, The rest of the Uk would be doing Scotland a disservice if we keep quiet about not wanting to share a common currency with a foreign country before such a crucial vote.
its also arrogant of the SNP to dictate or assume what a foreign country (Rump UK) should do about its currency
Actually that's not a damning article about Cameron. It's a damning article about self-indulgent MPs who would countenance damaging the country because they are in huff over a perceived, or real, lack of charm by Cameron.
The basic fact is the right are better at defending unionism given it is their natural territory. As the No campaign has been handed to the left to run it has lacked real conviction and a strong central message. Darling was hopeless, defensive and boring in the last debate and even though I oppose Scottish separation I have found myself drawn towards the Yes arguments because they have a certain logic and are invariably presented with passion. I then have to slap myself and remember breaking up our country would be a disaster on so many levels. Time for some unionist big hitters to get moving. Incidentally I don't think it's remotely true the English don't care about the result - it's just that a No vote has been presented as a fait accompli for a long time. The rapidly narrowing margin means people including the PM who promised three years ago to fight for the Union with every last drop need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
There's a strong argument for saying such things are inherently inalienable, and no purchase of them could be legal.
Care to expand on that argument?
It's largely intuitive. There are things individuals own but can't sell, like your kidneys and your virginity and your vote in the indyref. I think if a UK government of any hue decided to sell Stonehenge (for physical removal from the country) to tackle the deficit most of us would feel that a parallel principle applied.
"It's largely intuitive."
It wasn't even the Greeks who sold the marbles, it was the Turks.
It is paternalist rubbish to say that it is for the good of Egypt or any other country to take its artefacts away from it "to encourage tourism".
It is nonsense to say that is what I am saying. A side effect of all the Egyptian artefacts in museums has been, undeniably, to enhance Egypt's tourism. I'm not saying that we should 'take' them for that purpose.
Some people on here have very interesting takes on ownership.
As for your Turk comment: that makes it even more interesting. If a regime changes, do all sales and legal agreements with that predecessor state automatically become void?
BTW, if it is proved that the bluestones in Stonehenge came from Wales, should they be returned to Wales?
Should the Elgin marbles be partly returned to Turkey, since the Parthenon was largely financed by the rich Greek cities of Asia minor (now Western Turkey)? - A good argument for shutting the Greeks up.
btw I don't think it is regarded as unproven that the bluestones came from Wales.
Of course you realise all the bluster and grandstanding over the currency is going to do wonders for Anglo-Scottish relations in the event of a no vote? I'm sure yes leaners are feeling really valued as a part of the UK right now.
Well tough, The rest of the Uk would be doing Scotland a disservice if we keep quiet about not wanting to share a common currency with a foreign country before such a crucial vote.
its also arrogant of the SNP to dictate or assume what a foreign country (Rump UK) should do about its currency
Don't be silly, if we really loved Scotland rather than all being pawns in the vast anti-Scotland conspiracy, we'd tell them reassuring lies about how everything would definitely be okay and they'd get whatever currency they want after independence. Being realistic about risks is something only a card-carrying member of Project Fear or Team Terror or- worst of all!- the Tory party would do.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
You could introduce your own exchange rate of say GBP1.00:SGBP1.05...
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Only idiots. Tender is tender. I don't turn away good money I can bank and profit from.
You could introduce your own exchange rate of say GBP1.00:SGBP1.05...
Actually that's not a damning article about Cameron. It's a damning article about self-indulgent MPs who would countenance damaging the country because they are in huff over a perceived, or real, lack of charm by Cameron.
The interesting thing about articles like this is how completely the media narriative has changed over the summer while the underlying probabilities of each electoral outcome have only shifted a little. It really shows how little concern the media- and politicians- have to show to reality when they construct their storylines.
The currency plan in the event of a YES is very clearly: 1. Sterlingisation for a short time while they prepare for the Groat. 2. The Groat, new central bank, blah, blah. 3. Erm...peg the Groat 1:1 to Sterling for a bit. Sort out pensions, assets/liabilites what's in Groats (revenues and bank deposits) and what's still in Sterling (ie the share of existing debt). 4. Floaty Groaty. 5. Seek to rejoin the European Union (incl Euro because that's in the rules) 6. Start the currency grief all over again
This will do wonders for Scottish business and investor confidence.
btw I don't think it is regarded as unproven that the bluestones came from Wales.
Re. the bluestones. There is a theory - and IANAE and I've no idea how credible it is - that they were deposited in Wiltshire by glacial action and were chosen by ancient man because of their local rarity. The other stones making up Stonehenge (e.g. the sarsens) are all very local, and you can still find them littered about on the surface (e.g. the Grey Wethers between Marlborough and Avebury).
''Actually that's not a damning article about Cameron. It's a damning article about self-indulgent MPs who would countenance damaging the country because they are in huff over a perceived, or real, lack of charm by Cameron.''
Much better is Oborne's article, which hints that Cameron may be throwing in the towel to the right on Europe.
I suppose a good politician knows when he is beaten.
The currency plan in the event of a YES is very clearly: 1. Sterlingisation for a short time while they prepare for the Groat. 2. The Groat, new central bank, blah, blah. 3. Erm...peg the Groat 1:1 to Sterling for a bit. Sort out pensions, assets/liabilites what's in Groats (revenues and bank deposits) and what's still in Sterling (ie the share of existing debt). 4. Floaty Groaty. 5. Seek to rejoin the European Union (incl Euro because that's in the rules) 6. Start the currency grief all over again
This will do wonders for Scottish business and investor confidence.
Oh I wouldn't worry, I'm sure the SNP would be able to come up with lots more imaginary legal advice about how easy rejoining the EU will be before they get to 5.
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
@Patrick - I think that is pretty much the only possible plan. Obviously it would need a stage 4b or 5b where they gradually move towards pegging the Groat to the Euro, probably informally initially and then in formal ERM, before finally converting all bank balances and creditor/debtor balances to Euros.
In the meantime they would presumably do some deal with the EU which gives them some sort of interim status short of full membership, thus allowing trade to continue without disruption. The EU is good at fudges like that (cf North Cyprus!)
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
Why would you give away all your cards before the vote?
OT per the Daily Mail (I know, I know) this Islamicist nutjob got killed fighting for ISIS in Syria after giving up a cleaning job that gave him security clearance at an international airport in the US. I know this whole thing sucks for the people of Iraq and Syria, but it seems like George W Bush's flypaper theory in action. Are we really sure we want the government to be taking these people's passports away and preventing them from travelling to a distant country and getting themselves killed?
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
So misappropriated in English
Says the cattle rustler nation ;-)
Alan, bit late to hand them back though and they tasted a lot better than marbles
@Patrick - I think that is pretty much the only possible plan. Obviously it would need a stage 4b or 5b where they gradually move towards pegging the Groat to the Euro, probably informally initially and then in formal ERM, before finally converting all bank balances and creditor/debtor balances to Euros.
They could of course, shock horror, just tell barefaced lies to the EU. And then create 5 unpassable tests to join the Euro and stay forever in the waiting room with zero actual intention of progressing beyond that point. And keep the Groat all the way to the end of the rainbow.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
So you have never defended Salmond's currency plans, and are perfectly happy to vote Yes without knowing what currency an independent Scotland would use. I think it could be you who is the stupid thick turnip ;-)
For thick Turnips ................ THE POUND
But we don't know which pound, and Salmond refuses to tell us.
To vote Yes on that basis makes you a brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull ,dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irrelevant, insensate, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless, turnip.
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
Why would you give away all your cards before the vote?
Maybe there is a secret masterplan to manage the seperation of England, Wales, NI from Scotland in the event of independence.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
So you have never defended Salmond's currency plans, and are perfectly happy to vote Yes without knowing what currency an independent Scotland would use. I think it could be you who is the stupid thick turnip ;-)
For thick Turnips ................ THE POUND
But we don't know which pound, and Salmond refuses to tell us.
To vote Yes on that basis makes you a brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull ,dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irrelevant, insensate, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless, turnip.
your education is progressing nicely
Look out everybody. He's back! ;-)
(Thought you might appreciate a few new words to add to your repertoire Malcolm)
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.
The No Campaign summed up in 1 picture twitter.com/JamesMcLeary/status/507378637092315136/photo/1
The Yes campaign is summed up by the idiocy of that cartoon. Project fib indeed!
But zoonies like you applaud the carcitures of Alex Salmond etc all the time as being great.
I think Alex Salmond is a pompous, blustering windbag who would tell any fib to pull the wool over the eyes of Scottish voters in order to win the vote.
Personally I think you are an insular Little Englander who is unable to educate himself on the topic and just resorts to insulting Alex Salmond rather than address the topic. You typify the unionist in that you have no interest in Scotland and perfectly show why we are where we are today.
Its a bit like the way you insult everybody who questions Yes whilst gladly supporting Salmond who out-rightly refuses to educate the Scottish electorate about his currency proposals. Talk about insular! ;-)
You stupid thick turnip do you ever read posts. I do not support Alex Salmond I support YES. For thick stupid cretins like you, there is a very big difference there.
If you don't support Alex Salmond, do you support the reasons he's giving for a YES vote? If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.
Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)
No need as an intelligent post. I do support the reason why we should have independence. Decisions on Scotland should be taken in Scotland by Scottish citizens not by people in London. There will be lots of negotiations and other things that need sorted out etc but does not change the basic premise of self determination.
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
I appears that they wouldn't. Panama is not entitled to print paper money and uses US printed US dollars. This suggests that under sterlingisation Scotland would have to use notes printed by the Bank of England.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
They do use their own currency internally though, 1 balboa = 1 dollar. Coins I believe.
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
Why would you give away all your cards before the vote?
Maybe there is a secret masterplan to manage the seperation of England, Wales, NI from Scotland in the event of independence.
I have my doubts.
More likely blind panic in the civil service.
Well I would 'hope' that this has been thought through at least, with top level dicussions with both tories and labour involved. About negotiating lines, frameworks etc.
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.
Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
Just like now then.
Exactly and despite all the bluster as Woolie says if he takes a Scottish pound toany bank , what do you think he gets for it, seems many on here would not be able to answer correctly. Just for the loonies it is 1 Bank of England pound
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
They could print them for internal use I suppose - but they wouldn't be legal tender in rUk.
I doubt that the current backing arrangements could be made to apply to a foreign country.
In the event of a YES vote I doubt any trader south of the border will accept Scottish notes come the 19th. I expect to see NO SCOTTISH NOTES ACCEPTED notices on shops, supermarkets, etc.
Although they are currently legal money, they have never been legal tender.
Notes issued by the Scottish banks have to be backed by Bank of England notes held by the issuing bank. The Bank of England issues special notes with denominations of one million pounds ("Giants") and one hundred million pounds ("Titans") for internal use by the other banks.
If the Scottish banks broke the rules under the current arrangements, then it would be a national problem. If they broke the rules post independence, then it would become an international problem; hence I believe the backing arrangements will be cancelled and Scotland will have to use B of E printed notes.
The turnip has spoken , Mark Carney will be changing his plans as we speak.
Since the PB consensus seems to reside in believing Osballs & Co that there will DEFINITELY not be a currency union in the event of a Yes vote, would any of the experts care to give their odds for there being one. At least double figures against I assume?
BTW, note Nick Palmer's admission below: legal ownership does not, in his mind, matter.
That, I fear, is a distortion of what I said. I don't think legal ownership should be used as an excuse if in reality you're sitting on someone else's goods. I'm not suggesting that the Greeks should seize the marbles through an extension of the European Arrest Warrant, merely that we should give them back because it's the right thing to do.
But if they were legally purchased, then they are not the original person's goods.
The legal purchase was from Elgin's Estate to the British Museum.
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
So misappropriated in English
The Sultan was head of state at the time and owned the site, so he was entitled to give it to whoever he liked
I think it is pretty clear that Eck's plan is a dollarised pound for a few years until Scotland joins he Euro in return for EU membership.
Would Scotland still be able to have their own notes in a dollarised pound?
I appears that they wouldn't. Panama is not entitled to print paper money and uses US printed US dollars. This suggests that under sterlingisation Scotland would have to use notes printed by the Bank of England.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
They do use their own currency internally though, 1 balboa = 1 dollar. Coins I believe.
Using dollars would be no big deal.
They call the US dollar the Balboa but they are not allowed to print paper currency. It is correct to say that they do mint Balboa coins but I cannot determine whether or how these are backed.
Coins are however small fry when compared to Giants and Titans that are used to back the current Scottish notes.
Has HMG been utterly short sighted on the prospect of Scottish Independence ?
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen." any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did. Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
Why would you give away all your cards before the vote?
On here and BT numpties outside keep insisting YES should do that surprisingly.
Mr. Away, I quite agree. It's unfair to not say anything about it, only for a Yes win to then lead to the refusal of a currency union. Scottish voters have to go into the polling booth with their eyes open.
Then perhaps we might have made the point with less anger and more concern. There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one. It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
considering the yes campaign is a 'threat' to leave us then its not going to be all sweetness and light is it? .What is the rest of the Uk supposed to do? beg for the Scots to stay but also say if you don't we still want to share everything that you want to share as well?
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
I understand the reasons and need for things to be said, but it's like anything else in life, we've all just got yo get on with it after Sept 19 regardless. I'd have liked to have heard more positive encouragement to stay alongside the uncomfortable facts. That's what has been missing for me.
Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)
But it's not a marriage, it's a constitutional settlement. Anyway, this argument is circular. What's done is done.
Comments
Elgin's acquisition was based on a letter (it was more than that, closer to a warrant, but I forget the precise Turkish term) from the Sultan permitting him to remove "some" marbles from Athens as a gift.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/jul/21/highereducation.parthenon
Enough barmaids to convince me of the result. No, based on my conviction that this was a tight race all along and now that the late swing will go to yes. Partly anecdotal from trips up there and a few ex pats who drink in my pub, partly gut feeling, partly sniffing the movement in the polling.
I stand to be humiliated, or lauded, at the whim of PB.
There's been a great deal of debate on privacy and call interception recently. Well, in the US *someone* is going further, and building ?unofficial? cell phone towers. So who is doing it, and why?
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/mysterious-phony-cell-towers-could-be-intercepting-your-calls
"Former chairman of Frinton Conservative Ladies, Wendy Watson, 77, has thrown her support behind Mr Carswell.
She had supported the Conservatives since 1959, when she started delivering leaflets for the party.
“We helped Douglas to get elected and he proved to be the best MP we have ever had represent us,” she said.
“I was concerned about voting for Douglas next year because voting for him would have been a vote for the present Conservative leadership, so it is a relief that he had gone to UKIP and I can vote for the man we want.”"
http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/11450013.Ukip_claims_"mass exodus"_of_Tory_party_members/
To vote Yes on that basis makes you a brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull ,dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-baked, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, irrelevant, insensate, laughable, ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, out to lunch, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, short-sighted, simple, simple-minded, slow, sluggish, stolid, stupefied, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless, turnip.
The cretin - we're doomed!
In other words, it's rubbish. If we were to be mad enough to sell Stonehenge (say to the Americans) then the sale was our responsibility. We have no right to demand it back. If we want it back, there needs to be a seller and a fair price.
London bridge was sold. Should we ask for the original Rennie stone cladding back from the Yanks? (Despite the fact they damaged them severely?) After all, they are beautiful and part of our heritage.
It could be argued that the Egyptian artefacts in museums all over the world have done wonders for the public's knowledge of Egypt, and for tourism to that country.
If not, then he is indeed the leader of the Big Fib.
Edit: (I'll take the thick turnip bit as read, thanks)
Foolishly, last October Italy’s left-wing government became the first European Union country to decriminalise illegal immigration and deploy its navy at huge expense to save ‘illegal’ migrants crossing the narrow Sicilian channel in open boats from North Africa (Libya mainly) in order to bring them to Italy and thus the European Union — where most remain. Few get sent back: sent back where, exactly?"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9303722/italys-decriminalising-of-illegal-immigration-has-acted-as-a-green-light-to-boat-people/
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12474/9454910/new-american-haas-team-seals-expected-ferrari-engine-tie-up-for-2016-f1-entry
It is paternalist rubbish to say that it is for the good of Egypt or any other country to take its artefacts away from it "to encourage tourism".
This is a spell-binder. But anyway I hope the Oldies will win the day for common sense. After all, they're old and must be doing *something* right. Some of them (us) might be frail, but they (we) are as tough as old nails and will not be easily intimidated.
It has been suggested on here that the reverse of those notes could feature historic characters such as Margaret Thatcher and Edward Longshanks ;-)
I'm sure yes leaners are feeling really valued as a part of the UK right now.
What is much worse is the archaeological damage all over the Middle East: satellite images show holes dug by looters everywhere.
But Greece is in theory a first world Western nation.
Some people on here have very interesting takes on ownership.
As for your Turk comment: that makes it even more interesting. If a regime changes, do all sales and legal agreements with that predecessor state automatically become void?
BTW, if it is proved that the bluestones in Stonehenge came from Wales, should they be returned to Wales?
Wales has no right to be a nation any more than the Kingdom of East Anglia, Wessex, Mercia etc.
Once the 'welsh' recognise the heptarchy, I'll recognise the principalities.
Clooney to direct a film on phone hacking:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29058747
The excellent work by the media on the Rotherham disgrace is a clinching argument against having politicians acquire a whip hand regulating the press.
Notes issued by the Scottish banks have to be backed by Bank of England notes held by the issuing bank. The Bank of England issues special notes with denominations of one million pounds ("Giants") and one hundred million pounds ("Titans") for internal use by the other banks.
If the Scottish banks broke the rules under the current arrangements, then it would be a national problem. If they broke the rules post independence, then it would become an international problem; hence I believe the backing arrangements will be cancelled and Scotland will have to use B of E printed notes.
As long as Scotland remains part of the UK, even post a yes vote, Scots notes are welcome here.
After independence, I would need to review the situation depending on whether or not I could bank the notes at face value still.
its also arrogant of the SNP to dictate or assume what a foreign country (Rump UK) should do about its currency
btw I don't think it is regarded as unproven that the bluestones came from Wales.
There are only two outcomes, in one we have to find the way forward apart without damaging ourselves, in the other we have to live together as one.
It's not like we can just turn round after Sept 29 and say 'sorry bout all the veiled threats and all'
But maybe that's just me
1. Sterlingisation for a short time while they prepare for the Groat.
2. The Groat, new central bank, blah, blah.
3. Erm...peg the Groat 1:1 to Sterling for a bit. Sort out pensions, assets/liabilites what's in Groats (revenues and bank deposits) and what's still in Sterling (ie the share of existing debt).
4. Floaty Groaty.
5. Seek to rejoin the European Union (incl Euro because that's in the rules)
6. Start the currency grief all over again
This will do wonders for Scottish business and investor confidence.
http://www.biab.ac.uk/contents/6294
Which makes it even more complex: were the bluestones heinously stolen from ancient Wales by glacial action? ;-)
I'll get my coat. Again.
Much better is Oborne's article, which hints that Cameron may be throwing in the towel to the right on Europe.
I suppose a good politician knows when he is beaten.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/britain-handed-climate-and-energy-portfolio-draft-juncker-commission-line-308201?utm_source=EurActiv+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cb43019161-newsletter_uk_in_europe&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bab5f0ea4e-cb43019161-245514803
bitthick on the Guardian comments nails it:
They've had TWO YEARS to make contingency plans for the outcome of the referendum -- but the official HMG (and even MOD) line is "we are not making plans for Scottish independence because it isn't going to happen."
any sane government would have had it sorted out in principle a year ago. The decision not to was almost the first N0 PRE-NEGOTIATION! bit of loudhailer pre-negotiating they did.
Bet they wished they'd quietly sat down at the table like adults and hashed out some in-principle plans.
In the meantime they would presumably do some deal with the EU which gives them some sort of interim status short of full membership, thus allowing trade to continue without disruption. The EU is good at fudges like that (cf North Cyprus!)
Its up to the scots to leave if they want, its up to the rest of the UK to look after itself after such a vote(which includes not sharing a currency with a foreign country). The simplest way to ensure a currency union is to vote no.
Do divorced couples still have joint bank accounts?
BTW its not a veiled threat its likely to be a hard fact . Scotland leaves the UK it will not share a currency with the UK. This needs pointing out before the vote, it would be unfair to not do so.
It proves they have a sense of humour in Brussels.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/04/ban-fracking-from-national-parks-say-majority-of-uk-public
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2742206/Somali-American-died-fighting-ISIS-cleaned-planes-Delta-Airlines-Minneapolis-airport-joined-terrorist-group.html
I have my doubts.
More likely blind panic in the civil service.
(Thought you might appreciate a few new words to add to your repertoire Malcolm)
There will be lots of negotiations and other things that need sorted out etc but does not change the basic premise of self determination.
Using dollars would be no big deal.
But yeah... probably blind panic.
Its not up to the rest of the UK to provide the positive encouragement beyond a polite 'we don't want you to leave' . Its up to the people of Scotland who want to stay to do it. If ,in a marriage , one partner starts to make noises about leaving do you have to shower them with praise and beg for them to stay? -No. You may point out the consequences and say you do not wish a divorce but the bad feeling to be honest comes when one party says it may want to split (not when the other does not shower praises on the partner that is deciding whether to go or not)
Just for the loonies it is 1 Bank of England pound
Coins are however small fry when compared to Giants and Titans that are used to back the current Scottish notes.
Anyway, this argument is circular. What's done is done.