Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
I am not sure that capital controls are going to be the key here. Most of the money has already gone. What will change is that no new money will come into their banks to allow them to operate.
I think that the EU commitment to the free movement of people is about to be seriously challenged. If I was Greek with my money already abroad and spoke a foreign language I would leave. Now. And for a good number their best foreign language is probably English.
That country is about to fall apart. If those muppets who have been representing them don't end up hanging off a lamp post they will have got better than they deserve.
How fast can Greece print 20 euro notes? (the highest denomination they have plates for)
Of course: in the event of Grexit, the government will want to try and get the whole economy onto the New Drachma as soon as possible. Therefore, I would expect there to be a compulsory exchange of Euros for New Drachma - not only in bank accounts but in notes and coins. It may be that possession of a Euro note in Greece becomes illegal - at least during the transitional period.
Off topic, I'm at some distant relatives place, and apropos of nothing someone speaks of signing a petition to save the human rights act but they were in two minds as they believe in human rights just not for Muslims.
From subsequent comments I think they were referencing only things like deporting terror suspects, but even if only overly blunt language I guess I can understand some of the fears of politicians of the public being a lynch mob in waiting.
Bit added to that BBC link: "Greece will probably have to "announce a bank holiday on Monday, pending the introduction of capital controls", a source told the BBC's Robert Peston."
How on Earth will capital controls work within the Schengen area? Will we see border guards on duty on Monday, and if so who will be employing them, the Greek army?
I am not sure that capital controls are going to be the key here. Most of the money has already gone. What will change is that no new money will come into their banks to allow them to operate.
I think that the EU commitment to the free movement of people is about to be seriously challenged. If I was Greek with my money already abroad and spoke a foreign language I would leave. Now. And for a good number their best foreign language is probably English.
That country is about to fall apart. If those muppets who have been representing them don't end up hanging off a lamp post they will have got better than they deserve.
How fast can Greece print 20 euro notes? (the highest denomination they have plates for)
Of course: in the event of Grexit, the government will want to try and get the whole economy onto the New Drachma as soon as possible. Therefore, I would expect there to be a compulsory exchange of Euros for New Drachma - not only in bank accounts but in notes and coins. It may be that possession of a Euro note in Greece becomes illegal - at least during the transitional period.
sounds like some enterprising people should fly down there with a suitcase full of greenbacks and buy Euros at a discount...
Just a sanity check here. Has anyone ever left the EU? I can't think of any nation doing it. Or turned down offered membership?
Only Greenland in 1985, when it changed its status from a Territory to a Dependency of Denmark. Technically the other British (some French/Dutch) colonies were never actually members so they didn't 'leave' in the same way.
Obviously that's not leaving the EU as it wasn't around in 1985 but I think the idea is right. Greenland was never a member, but it was a part of the EEC and then it ceased to be so.
I have a feeling Algeria was technically part too, because it had a brief spell as an integral part (not mere colony) of France. There is an animated map of EEC/EU expansion I saw on wiki that illustrated this but I don't think I have ever seen a written reference, so would welcome clarification from the more knowledgeable.
Algeria was technically ruled as part of France from 1830 to de Gaulle's withdrawal in 1962 - it was the French answer to Ireland. Therefore, it was also a member of the forerunner of the EU. However, different rules applied at that stage and Algeria isn't generally included on the list of countries 'leaving' the EU/EEC - that's limited to Greenland.
There are a number of overseas territories which are counted as 'Outer Most Regions' and are full territorial and economic members of the EU. These include French Guiana, three French islands in the Caribbean, Mayotte and Reunion (also both French) in the Indian Ocean and three Atlantic Island groups (Azores, Madeira and Canaries). These are as much parts of the EU with all its rights as France or Spain.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Tactically it seems an error is all I don't dispute they can do it, but there are other battles on that front to focus on
For the purposes of pedantry, what was the distinction that means Algeria "doesn't count" but Greenland does? (Incidentally the EU expansion map on wiki doesn't initially show Algeria as part of "political Europe", but does later. Not sure if this was due to reorganisation of France, change in European rules or a mistake in wiki.)
For the purposes of pedantry - the EEC was officially founded in 1957 but didn't start actually operating as a fully-fledged entity (CAP etc) until it merged with the ECSC in 1962 which was after Algeria became independent.
Turns out there is a wiki article on withdrawal from the EU - which lists Algeria, Greenland and Saint Barthélemy! So we can take that as the definitive list I suspect...
If I could see a way in which we could get the advantages of a free market, an ability to influence the development of the rules of that market so they did not harm our areas of competitive advantage and yet regain control of much of our domestic agenda I would vote for out. But I'm struggling to see it at the moment.
The EU isn't a free trade area now, and doesn't show any real signs of becoming one in the foreseeable future, its a customs union, something that has never before been tried between countries where one is not in effect the vassal state of the other.
Not so. Germany evolved from a Zollverein (i.e. Customs union) of multiple German states. "The foundation of the Zollverein was the first instance in history in which independent states had consummated a full economic union without the simultaneous creation of a political federation or union." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein
Felix/kle4 If indyref2 is in the SNP manifesto will be interesting to see if it increases the level of unionist tactical voting on the constituency vote
I seriously doubt that SLab will be willing to urge their supporters in parts of the highlands and borders to vote tactically Tory or even LD. On that basis, as a Tory I would argue against any tactical Labour vote. The same for me would apply to the LDs under Farron.
Most Scottish Tories want to see SLAB brought to it's knees in Holyrood 2016, in part in revenge for 1997 but also because they do not want to inadvertently support any form of SLAB revival which might give them hope for 2020.
I think the Scottish Tories are playing a longer game here, that with a hollowed out SLAB down maybe as low as 15% in May 2016, they can start to look like a serious contender for the official opposition to the SNP.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Don't need to make it up. We can do what we like. Whist all the 56 SNP MP's can do is play musical chairs with Denis Skinner.
Gotta love the UK electorate.....
Just the kind of balanced opinion I would expect from a Tory fan(**)boy like you
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Tactically it seems an error is all I don't dispute they can do it, but there are other battles on that front to focus on
It's just the SNP getting their knickers in a twist about it. Committee are about holding the government to account, not providing a venue for a single party to pretend they represent something they don't.
For the purposes of pedantry, what was the distinction that means Algeria "doesn't count" but Greenland does? (Incidentally the EU expansion map on wiki doesn't initially show Algeria as part of "political Europe", but does later. Not sure if this was due to reorganisation of France, change in European rules or a mistake in wiki.)
For the purposes of pedantry - the EEC was officially founded in 1957 but didn't start actually operating as a fully-fledged entity (CAP etc) until it merged with the ECSC in 1962 which was after Algeria became independent.
Turns out there is a wiki article on withdrawal from the EU - which lists Algeria, Greenland and Saint Barthélemy! So we can take that as the definitive list I suspect...
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Tactically it seems an error is all I don't dispute they can do it, but there are other battles on that front to focus on
It is an obvious stupidity, but as you see by Charle's comment , the rich Tories think it is justified and their right. Fairness to them is doing what benefits them , not what is fair and proper. Only in a "democracy" like the UK could this type of thing be seen as fair, you just cannot believe these people are so crass.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Don't need to make it up. We can do what we like. Whist all the 56 SNP MP's can do is play musical chairs with Denis Skinner.
Gotta love the UK electorate.....
Just the kind of balanced opinion I would expect from a Tory fan(**)boy like you
but its the right opinion. the SNP are powerless in Westminster but they know how to clap inappropriately
Of course the parties will not officially urge their voters to back their opponents, but all it takes is a few leaflets saying 'only Labour/Tories/LDs can beat the SNP here' and the door is opened for tactical voting. Regardless of your own personal views if much of the SNP campaign is focused on using any excuse for indyref 2 then some No voters will use their votes tactically accordingly
Calum Rubbish SLab is a shadow of its former self and there is no point wiping out SLAB entirely to set up for 2020 if Scotland becomes an independent country by 2020. Most Scottish Tories are unionists first and foremost and the enemy now at Holyrood is the SNP
luckyguy1983 As far as I see it Cameron and Hammond/Hague have arguable been more aggressive to Russia than Obama/Kerry, especially when, Alaska apart, Russia is closer to our doorstep
Yes, they have. And as you correctly observe, we have more to fear from Russia and less to gain by antagonising them than the US. And Cameron was ruder to Pakistan, and more welcoming to the Dalai Lama, and keener to get rid of Gadaffi. Yet these all reflect America's geopolitical aims, not ours. Not only are we following the US; we are acting as stalking horses for them on the world stage. Something that is obviously immensely damaging to our own interests, as we don't have the military clout to back up our (their) bellicose stances.
We need a national debate about this, but people wilfully close their eyes. America *funded* GCHQ. We spy for them. A foreign country. Do the British people know and give their consent to the fact that we're a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's most rapacious superpower? Do the more politically aware audience on PB accept it? Or do we just not want to think about it?
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Don't need to make it up. We can do what we like. Whist all the 56 SNP MP's can do is play musical chairs with Denis Skinner.
Gotta love the UK electorate.....
Just the kind of balanced opinion I would expect from a Tory fan(**)boy like you
but its the right opinion. the SNP are powerless in Westminster but they know how to clap inappropriately
The first time this will ever have happened and you and clowns like MM are so smug you think it is correct and proper. Smug Tory idiots.
Hilary Benn showing how useless both he and Labour are in the face of attacks by ISIS. He carefully avoids making any mention of Islam in the UK and Europe and is less use than a wet blanket - that at least can help to put out a fire.
Of course he would not want to bring the truth to Labour's core vote.
Out of interest, does the SNP have a set position (akin to a manifesto) on independence aims/desires, or (given there's no vote after the last was lost) do they just have the vaguer goal of independence?
I'm just wondering where the party stands on currency, given the view of the UK (ex-Scotland) is that there's sod all chance of a currency union with us, post-independence, and the eurozone does not necessarily look lovely. A Scottish pound (at least briefly) would seem the best option.
luckyguy1983 As far as I see it Cameron and Hammond/Hague have arguable been more aggressive to Russia than Obama/Kerry, especially when, Alaska apart, Russia is closer to our doorstep
Yes, they have. And as you correctly observe, we have more to fear from Russia and less to gain by antagonising them than the US. And Cameron was ruder to Pakistan, and more welcoming to the Dalai Lama, and keener to get rid of Gadaffi. Yet these all reflect America's geopolitical aims, not ours. Not only are we following the US; we are acting as stalking horses for them on the world stage. Something that is obviously immensely damaging to our own interests, as we don't have the military clout to back up our bellicose stances.
We need a national debate about this, but people wilfully close their eyes. America *funded* GCHQ. We spy for them. A foreign country. Do the British people know and give their consent to the fact that we're a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's most rapacious superpower? Do the more politically aware audience on PB accept it? Or do we just not want to think about it?
The Tory fanboys think it makes them big shots by being the US's lapdog. They love pretending they are tough and important.
Hilary Benn showing how useless both he and Labour are in the face of attacks by ISIS. He carefully avoids making any mention of Islam in the UK and Europe and is less use than a wet blanket - that at least can help to put out a fire.
Of course he would not want to bring the truth to Labour's core vote.
Out of interest, does the SNP have a set position (akin to a manifesto) on independence aims/desires, or (given there's no vote after the last was lost) do they just have the vaguer goal of independence?
I'm just wondering where the party stands on currency, given the view of the UK (ex-Scotland) is that there's sod all chance of a currency union with us, post-independence, and the eurozone does not necessarily look lovely. A Scottish pound (at least briefly) would seem the best option.
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
luckyguy1983 As far as I see it Cameron and Hammond/Hague have arguable been more aggressive to Russia than Obama/Kerry, especially when, Alaska apart, Russia is closer to our doorstep
Yes, they have. And as you correctly observe, we have more to fear from Russia and less to gain by antagonising them than the US. And Cameron was ruder to Pakistan, and more welcoming to the Dalai Lama, and keener to get rid of Gadaffi. Yet these all reflect America's geopolitical aims, not ours. Not only are we following the US; we are acting as stalking horses for them on the world stage. Something that is obviously immensely damaging to our own interests, as we don't have the military clout to back up our bellicose stances.
We need a national debate about this, but people wilfully close their eyes. America *funded* GCHQ. We spy for them. A foreign country. Do the British people know and give their consent to the fact that we're a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's most rapacious superpower? Do the more politically aware audience on PB accept it? Or do we just not want to think about it?
The Tory fanboys think it makes them big shots by being the US's lapdog. They love pretending they are tough and important.
I think they're in denial about it. It's amusing to think how quickly we'd become a 'rogue state' if we started making things difficult for the US. 'Wicked Cameron trying to re-establish the British Empire' 'Threat to Ireland and the Nordic states'.
Of course the parties will not officially urge their voters to back their opponents, but all it takes is a few leaflets saying 'only Labour/Tories/LDs can beat the SNP here' and the door is opened for tactical voting. Regardless of your own personal views if much of the SNP campaign is focused on using any excuse for indyref 2 then some No voters will use their votes tactically accordingly
Quite. If the 2016 campaign is fought on health, education and domestic policy then these issues will be how people decide their votes. If however the govt ignore the usual politics and campaign only on constitutional issues then they can expect voters to react accordingly. In this second scenario there will be tactical voting whether the SNP like it or not.
LuckyGuy1983 Obama voted against the Iraq War, Cameron for it, it was Cameron who pushed for intervention in Libya and against Assad, Obama was more hesitant, hundreds of Brits were killed on 9/11 and more Brits were killed in Tunisia yesterday than any other nationality
LuckyGuy1983 Obama voted against the Iraq War, Cameron for it, it was Cameron who pushed for intervention in Libya and against Assad, Obama was more hesitant, hundreds of Brits were killed on 9/11 and more Brits were killed in Tunisia yesterday than any other nationality
I know - that's what I've just said. You may have misunderstood my point?
Mr. Financier, I think it was Mr. T (SeanT, not TimT) who said that as the Nazis thought themselves the master race, so ISIS think themselves the master faith. It's a decent comparison though there are some significant differences, of course.
It seems that, by asking the Greek people what they think, Tsipras has committed the ultimate sin in the eyes of the establishment.
Is that really what you think? That it was ok to arse about making inflammatory and insulting speeches, negotiate supposedly in good faith and then announce at the end of the process that you are going to have a referendum and recommend a No vote? What an arse. He let his country down badly.
AFN bringing up the similarity of today and the 1930s regarding the appeasement of Islam in the UK today and the appeasement of Hitler etc then.
Stupid analogy, what is the fascination with the 1930s.
May was also dreadful, no mention of immigration, failures of foreign policy regarding liberal interventionism, more diversity requiring us to sacrifice our liberty. Same old failed rhetoric.
LuckyGuy1983 Anyway Australia is the closest ally of the US, not the UK, Wilson did not send British troops into Vietnam, Australia did.
At the end of the day in WW2 it was US troops who liberated Europe from the Nazis alongside Brits. I recently revisited the D-Day beaches and 10,000 Americans died on the first day at Omaha and Utah alone, they did not have to die, many US isolationists wanted to keep the US out of the war, however you seem keener to make overtures to Putin, forgetting that once the US had liberated western Europe they left free democracies, the Soviets once they had taken Eastern Europe left an Empire
Britain is to send a two-mile long fence to France to stop illegal migrants boarding Channel Tunnel trains.
Security around the train line at Coquelles and the ferry port of Calais is being stepped up after a dramatic escalation in the number of people trying to sneak into Britain.
Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to send a 'very clear message' that people will not be able to get through to the UK but ruled out searching all vehicles once they arrive on British soil.
On topic, though I don't doubt there's huge calculation behind Boris' statements, for once I totally agree with him. Cameron clearly hasn't (and was never going to) extracted any worthwhile concessions, and the fact he's been told there will be no treaty changes and has conceded clearly underlines this fact. When the Euro was bailed out, there legally should have been changes to the treaties, but Cameron let the opportunity slip away (despite gaining a poll boost by pretending to use our veto). Any credible negotiation needs a threat of withdrawal, and Cameron will not contemplate withdrawal.
As I said here some weeks ago, this is the last chance for anyone who is even vaguely dissatisfied with the direction of travel of the EU to influence the process. There is nothing to be gained by voting 'Yes', and (since they will obviously not want to lose a donor country) nothing to lose by voting 'No'.
Britain is to send a two-mile long fence to France to stop illegal migrants boarding Channel Tunnel trains.
Security around the train line at Coquelles and the ferry port of Calais is being stepped up after a dramatic escalation in the number of people trying to sneak into Britain.
Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to send a 'very clear message' that people will not be able to get through to the UK but ruled out searching all vehicles once they arrive on British soil.
As things exist at present, there is no option other than to search all vehicles leaving France. Also all lorries should have locked rear doors and sides.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
The European Central Bank can no longer give emergency liquidity to Greek banks due to the breakdown of talks between Athens and its creditors and doubts over Greece remaining in the euro, former ECB board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in remarks published on Sunday. The coming week is likely to be dramatic for Greece's citizens, who will try to get their money out of their banks but will "very probably not be able to do so," Bini Smaghi said in an article in daily Corriere della Sera.
"Given the uncertainty over Greece remaining in the euro the ECB will no longer be able to supply liquidity to the Greek banks, who in turn will be unable to supply euros to their clients," he wrote.
Smaghi, an Italian economist, served on the ECB's Frankfurt-based executive board from 2005 to 2011. The ECB has been steadily raising the ceiling of so-called Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Greece's cash-strapped banks as negotiations continued to try to stave off a sovereign debt default.
We are about to see what happens to a country that loses its lender of last resort. It will not be pretty. It may not move many votes in Scotland but it really should. There is none so blind etc.
Of course the parties will not officially urge their voters to back their opponents, but all it takes is a few leaflets saying 'only Labour/Tories/LDs can beat the SNP here' and the door is opened for tactical voting. Regardless of your own personal views if much of the SNP campaign is focused on using any excuse for indyref 2 then some No voters will use their votes tactically accordingly
You already tried that. the Pouters spent the entire election campaign with their various Wheels rolling all over the place including mass leafleting by their diehard, frothing bigots.
Pouters now sound just like Scottish Labour with their message of "next time it will be different, honest guv".
OK, I'm puzzled. Surely the negotiations with Greece are either at an end or have moved on since the offer on which the referendum is purportedly based. In which case the referendum in Greece can't possibly be binding on the Eurozone/EU or IMF - so what's the point?
On a lighter note, which would you prioritise; printing Drachmas or printing ballot papers?
Sandpit Indeed, whether tactical voting occurs or not depends on the SNP's manifesto and on how they conduct the campaign
Tories and Labour in Westminster are conducting things very well for the SNP, they can sit back and watch these bozos increase the SNP's support. Welching on more powers, jerrymandering committees, slashing budgets of the poorest people makes it very easy for the SNP to look good.
We are about to see what happens to a country that loses its lender of last resort. It will not be pretty. It may not move many votes in Scotland but it really should. There is none so blind etc.
David, difference is it is London that hoses our money away and racks up the debt , not us. Greece on the other hand borrow it themselves.
LuckyGuy1983 Anyway Australia is the closest ally of the US, not the UK, Wilson did not send British troops into Vietnam, Australia did.
At the end of the day in WW2 it was US troops who liberated Europe from the Nazis alongside Brits. I recently revisited the D-Day beaches and 10,000 Americans died on the first day at Omaha and Utah alone, they did not have to die, many US isolationists wanted to keep the US out of the war, however you seem keener to make overtures to Putin, forgetting that once the US had liberated western Europe they left free democracies, the Soviets once they had taken Eastern Europe left an Empire
'Australia should not embrace America, writes its former prime minister, but preserve itself from Washington’s reckless overreach.'
But that is their problem, and their debate to have, and ours is ours.
I'm not sure what America's role in WWII has to do with the effective surrender of our national sovereignty to a foreign power - any foreign power. Do you think it's ok that the US built our national monitoring station unbeknown to the public?
OK, I'm puzzled. Surely the negotiations with Greece are either at an end or have moved on since the offer on which the referendum is purportedly based. In which case the referendum in Greece can't possibly be binding on the Eurozone/EU or IMF - so what's the point?
On a lighter note, which would you prioritise; printing Drachmas or printing ballot papers?
I think its fair enough tbh. Syriza were elected on the platform of stay in the euro but with no austerity, after months of negotiation they have eventually realised that this is not an option, so they are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro. They are also saying that they think leaving is the right answer, which advise the people can take or leave.
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
We'll believe the Loyalists nonsense about refusing currency union as long as Scotland wants it when they explain how they will prop up Sterling with a Zero Resources economy. And we's not just talking about zero resources in terms of what you pull out the ground. rUK would be negative on electricity and is about to tip into the negative on potable water.
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
Of course the parties will not officially urge their voters to back their opponents, but all it takes is a few leaflets saying 'only Labour/Tories/LDs can beat the SNP here' and the door is opened for tactical voting. Regardless of your own personal views if much of the SNP campaign is focused on using any excuse for indyref 2 then some No voters will use their votes tactically accordingly
You already tried that. the Pouters spent the entire election campaign with their various Wheels rolling all over the place including mass leafleting by their diehard, frothing bigots.
I think my usual experience of being leafleted involves a harmless retired old lady wandering down the road with a bag of leaflets. But do they do things differently in Scotland? It doesn't sound like a very nice place to live, if so.
The European Central Bank can no longer give emergency liquidity to Greek banks due to the breakdown of talks between Athens and its creditors and doubts over Greece remaining in the euro, former ECB board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in remarks published on Sunday. The coming week is likely to be dramatic for Greece's citizens, who will try to get their money out of their banks but will "very probably not be able to do so," Bini Smaghi said in an article in daily Corriere della Sera.
"Given the uncertainty over Greece remaining in the euro the ECB will no longer be able to supply liquidity to the Greek banks, who in turn will be unable to supply euros to their clients," he wrote.
Papandreou would recognise this play, his negotiations went fine right up until he suggested asking the Greek people what they thought, then the ECB turned off the taps and his government fell. This is another blatant attempt by the euro power brokers at regime change.
I think its fair enough tbh. Syriza were elected on the platform of stay in the euro but with no austerity, after months of negotiation they have eventually realised that this is not an option, so they are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro. They are also saying that they think leaving is the right answer, which advise the people can take or leave.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Mr. Dair, you wouldn't be negotiating with a 1970s Northern Irish political faction.
And I very much doubt the UK would want even a temporary currency union with a country that had voted to depart. Why act as lender of last resort to a foreign nation with a financial sector proportionally larger than the UK's?
I also wonder whether the SNP seriously propose another vote held as soon as they can get away with it, or whether they're raising it to keep the more excitable elements on their own side engaged and happy (as well as potentially strengthening their hand when wringing powers from Westminster).
I don't know about others, but I for one could do with a little light relief for a change and I'm hoping that HenryG will come up with a few of his choice betting suggestions during the Wimbledon fortnight.
I think its fair enough tbh. Syriza were elected on the platform of stay in the euro but with no austerity, after months of negotiation they have eventually realised that this is not an option, so they are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro. They are also saying that they think leaving is the right answer, which advise the people can take or leave.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
SO, what dreamworld do you live in, there is no redistribution from London. I was there last week and all you can see are cranes and building work, they are sucking up all our money and spending it on themselves. We have heard all this pooling and sharing rubbish and more and more people realise it is just garbage, lots of pooling but little sharing. You are correct that it will end it all next time, there will not be a need for a third.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
The polling is compelling, Scotland wants Full Fiscal Autonomy and this means no more Barnett. They want it because they know that the £12bn of Fiscal Transfers to London are larger than the £7.6bn alleged Deficit including these transfers.
One academic study by Edinburgh Uni during the campaign showed that every time Labour, Tories or Liberals talked about FFA, SNP support rose.
Of course the parties will not officially urge their voters to back their opponents, but all it takes is a few leaflets saying 'only Labour/Tories/LDs can beat the SNP here' and the door is opened for tactical voting. Regardless of your own personal views if much of the SNP campaign is focused on using any excuse for indyref 2 then some No voters will use their votes tactically accordingly
You already tried that. the Pouters spent the entire election campaign with their various Wheels rolling all over the place including mass leafleting by their diehard, frothing bigots.
I think my usual experience of being leafleted involves a harmless retired old lady wandering down the road with a bag of leaflets. But do they do things differently in Scotland? It doesn't sound like a very nice place to live, if so.
''They are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro.''
That was always the choice wasn;t it? Syriza were in effect elected on a totally bogus platform, namely the Greeks could end austerity and keep the euro. That was never deliverable.
Even now, it seems no politician has the courage to say it to the Greeks.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Tactically it seems an error is all I don't dispute they can do it, but there are other battles on that front to focus on
It is an obvious stupidity, but as you see by Charle's comment , the rich Tories think it is justified and their right. Fairness to them is doing what benefits them , not what is fair and proper. Only in a "democracy" like the UK could this type of thing be seen as fair, you just cannot believe these people are so crass.
It doesn't interest me particularly. I've no assets in Scotland, so I'm not fussed.
The SoS for Scotland is responsible to the UK Parliament, so should be held to account by representatives of the UK parliament. There's a reasonable case to make that he should also be expected to appear from time to time before a panel of MSPs. But there's no constitutional argument that only SMPs should hold him to account in Westminster.
Mr. Taffys, the Greek electorate do appear to want two impossible things before breakfast. Ending austerity and staying in the eurozone together was always going to be a tall order.
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
We'll believe the Loyalists nonsense about refusing currency union as long as Scotland wants it when they explain how they will prop up Sterling with a Zero Resources economy. And we's not just talking about zero resources in terms of what you pull out the ground. rUK would be negative on electricity and is about to tip into the negative on potable water.
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Loyalist lunacy.
Whereas Scotland would be enjoying the salad days of endless juice being provided by windmills and an oil boom.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Fair point - but doesn't that suggest that we should all be queuing up outside banks in the morning?
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
The polling is compelling, Scotland wants Full Fiscal Autonomy and this means no more Barnett. They want it because they know that the £12bn of Fiscal Transfers to London are larger than the £7.6bn alleged Deficit including these transfers.
One academic study by Edinburgh Uni during the campaign showed that every time Labour, Tories or Liberals talked about FFA, SNP support rose.
Can you link to the FFA polling and the support for an end to Barnett? Of course, not even the SNP is now pretending Scotland pays in more to the UK than it gets back.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
SO, what dreamworld do you live in, there is no redistribution from London. I was there last week and all you can see are cranes and building work, they are sucking up all our money and spending it on themselves. We have heard all this pooling and sharing rubbish and more and more people realise it is just garbage, lots of pooling but little sharing. You are correct that it will end it all next time, there will not be a need for a third.
Cranes and buildings do not preclude wealth transfers. The Scottish government's own figures make clear the redistribution occurs. I am all for it myself, though I can see why fundamentalist nationalists and right wing Tories hate it.
Dair The SNP is pushing for FFA beyond the Scotland Bill and the Smith Commission Plans, however as Cameron has said they seem reluctant to use the actual powers they get to increase taxes and spending. Holyrood is not actually about more powers, that was Westminster, if the SNP put indyref2 in their manifesto and use any excuse as a grounds for it in the campaign unionist voters will vote tactically on the constituency vote accordingly
And I very much doubt the UK would want even a temporary currency union with a country that had voted to depart. Why act as lender of last resort to a foreign nation with a financial sector proportionally larger than the UK's?
The ignorance about what a Lender of Last Resort is, how it works and who is responsible is just staggering.
The UK Lender of Last Resort is a COMMERCIAL function of the Bank of England and provided to ALL banks regardless of headquarters of operation which operate in the United Kingdom. Banks pay a premium in order to participate and lodge deposits with the Bank of England at a cost to them. Post independence any remaining casino banking functions of Scottish Banks operating in London would remain unchanged.
Are you confusing Lender of Last Resort with Deposit Guarantees (which are a function of government)?
The European Central Bank can no longer give emergency liquidity to Greek banks due to the breakdown of talks between Athens and its creditors and doubts over Greece remaining in the euro, former ECB board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in remarks published on Sunday. The coming week is likely to be dramatic for Greece's citizens, who will try to get their money out of their banks but will "very probably not be able to do so," Bini Smaghi said in an article in daily Corriere della Sera.
"Given the uncertainty over Greece remaining in the euro the ECB will no longer be able to supply liquidity to the Greek banks, who in turn will be unable to supply euros to their clients," he wrote.
Papandreou would recognise this play, his negotiations went fine right up until he suggested asking the Greek people what they thought, then the ECB turned off the taps and his government fell. This is another blatant attempt by the euro power brokers at regime change.
The ECB decision was inevitable as soon as the negotiations had clearly failed. Syriza isn't "just" saying that the people should decide. They're saying that they disagree with the deal, want the people to reject it, but are also demanding that - in the interim - the ECB continue pouring in support, and that everyone just ignores the repayment deadlines that can't be met.
Even if the ECB received political pressure eg from France to go along with this, legally they can't. They are legally obliged to stop supporting banks which are insolvent and the failure of negotiations and apparent inevitability of Greek default means that is what the Greek banks are.
I'm not saying blame the Greek government for everything by the way. Just saying the ECB have a much narrower framework to act in than the other actors in this sorry drama, so it would be wrong to think of their decision today as a last chance lost, or a decision primarily motivated by spite or a desire to kick the Greeks out or to teach others a lesson. The parameters of their decision were already set by others.
LuckyGuy1983 Regardless of what the late Malcolm Fraser says, John Howard was the most fully pro-US Australian PM for decades and stood shoulder to shoulder with George W Bush and sent Australian troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, he won 4 successive elections.
Considering the cuts we are presently making to defence obviously we may have to rely on the Americans to fund some of our security
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
We'll believe the Loyalists nonsense about refusing currency union as long as Scotland wants it when they explain how they will prop up Sterling with a Zero Resources economy. And we's not just talking about zero resources in terms of what you pull out the ground. rUK would be negative on electricity and is about to tip into the negative on potable water.
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Loyalist lunacy.
Nicola Sturgeon is a Loyalist, as she confirmed last week. You are going to need another term.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Fair point - but doesn't that suggest that we should all be queuing up outside banks in the morning?
Only if you have more than £85,000 stored under any banks that share banking license. Ironically the best place to put your money would seem to be RBS, since its owned by the government, it can't go bust.
I see Unionists at Westminster are due to make another major error, not content with back peddling on their referendum promises they are now going to pack the Scottish Affairs Committee with English MP's, whilst pushing EVEL, LOL you could not make it up.
Seriously? For God's sake who's brilliant idea was that I wonder.
Because that's the way that it has always been done?
And about 50% of the population of Scotland didn't vote SNP even if they have most of the MPs.
Tactically it seems an error is all I don't dispute they can do it, but there are other battles on that front to focus on
It is an obvious stupidity, but as you see by Charle's comment , the rich Tories think it is justified and their right. Fairness to them is doing what benefits them , not what is fair and proper. Only in a "democracy" like the UK could this type of thing be seen as fair, you just cannot believe these people are so crass.
It doesn't interest me particularly. I've no assets in Scotland, so I'm not fussed.
The SoS for Scotland is responsible to the UK Parliament, so should be held to account by representatives of the UK parliament. There's a reasonable case to make that he should also be expected to appear from time to time before a panel of MSPs. But there's no constitutional argument that only SMPs should hold him to account in Westminster.
Charles, did you forget there are 59 MP's in Westminster and that previous committee's have always been comprised of MP's from Scottish seats. How odd that now we have SNP MP's that tradition is being traduced. It is ill concealed Tammany Hall politics.
I think its fair enough tbh. Syriza were elected on the platform of stay in the euro but with no austerity, after months of negotiation they have eventually realised that this is not an option, so they are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro. They are also saying that they think leaving is the right answer, which advise the people can take or leave.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Which banks?
The biggest (non-Greek) owner of Greek debt is a British bank, HSBC, which has $5bn worth. Then there are a couple of holders of about $3bn worth (Credit Agricole is one, I forget the others). There are a bunch of hedge funds that own debt too, and a few distressed debt funds.
It's worth remembering a few things:
1. Banks hold provisions against Greek government debt. So, HSBC may have $5bn of Greek debt on its balance sheet, but I suspect it will have (guessing here) $2bn of provisions against it. If Greece did default such that recovery was zero, then HSBC would only have to recognise another $3bn of losses.
2. The banks that hold Greek government debt are big, profitable and well capitalized. Take HSBC: it makes about $18bn a year pre-tax profit. BNP is slightly smaller, but it still makes more than $10bn a year. In this context, losing a billion or two is embarassing, but won't even push a bank into an annual loss.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
SO, what dreamworld do you live in, there is no redistribution from London. I was there last week and all you can see are cranes and building work, they are sucking up all our money and spending it on themselves. We have heard all this pooling and sharing rubbish and more and more people realise it is just garbage, lots of pooling but little sharing. You are correct that it will end it all next time, there will not be a need for a third.
Cranes and buildings do not preclude wealth transfers. The Scottish government's own figures make clear the redistribution occurs. I am all for it myself, though I can see why fundamentalist nationalists and right wing Tories hate it.
SO , it is all one way traffic , from us to London.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
SO, what dreamworld do you live in, there is no redistribution from London. I was there last week and all you can see are cranes and building work, they are sucking up all our money and spending it on themselves. We have heard all this pooling and sharing rubbish and more and more people realise it is just garbage, lots of pooling but little sharing. You are correct that it will end it all next time, there will not be a need for a third.
Cranes and buildings do not preclude wealth transfers. The Scottish government's own figures make clear the redistribution occurs. I am all for it myself, though I can see why fundamentalist nationalists and right wing Tories hate it.
SO , it is all one way traffic , from us to London.
No, it's not. But I understand why you want it to be true.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Fair point - but doesn't that suggest that we should all be queuing up outside banks in the morning?
Only if you have more than £85,000 stored under any banks that share banking license. Ironically the best place to put your money would seem to be RBS, since its owned by the government, it can't go bust.
The government chose to allow RBS to default on some of its subordinated obligations, so just because it is majority owned by the government does not mean that you - as a depositor - are completely safe.
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
We'll believe the Loyalists nonsense about refusing currency union as long as Scotland wants it when they explain how they will prop up Sterling with a Zero Resources economy. And we's not just talking about zero resources in terms of what you pull out the ground. rUK would be negative on electricity and is about to tip into the negative on potable water.
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Loyalist lunacy.
Whereas Scotland would be enjoying the salad days of endless juice being provided by windmills and an oil boom.
We produce more electricity than we need and oil boom is just a juvenile irrelevance, we have some that will produce an amount of revenue, it is not the be all and end all.
The polling is compelling, Scotland wants Full Fiscal Autonomy and this means no more Barnett. They want it because they know that the £12bn of Fiscal Transfers to London are larger than the £7.6bn alleged Deficit including these transfers.
One academic study by Edinburgh Uni during the campaign showed that every time Labour, Tories or Liberals talked about FFA, SNP support rose.
Can you link to the FFA polling and the support for an end to Barnett? Of course, not even the SNP is now pretending Scotland pays in more to the UK than it gets back.
If you trawl back through the Site Which Cannot Be Mentioned Or Linked To you will find it all laid out.
Mr. Dair, the lender of last resort ultimately stands behind financial institutions which might otherwise fail (hence the money thrown at RBS and Lloyds [previously HBOS] to keep them afloat).
If you don't have a currency union and a Scottish bank (post-independence) is running out of money and about to fail, from whence will the money flow?
Scotland's financial sector is proportionally larger than England's. I cannot see why, post-independence, the UK would see it as desirable to put the UK taxpayer at risk for the privilege of providing a foreign nation who had rejected the union with a financial safety net.
If Scotland wanted independence, it would have it. And if it wants independence in the future, it will have it. But independence means standing on your own two feet.
Calum Yers, but if, as Robertson suggest, the 'material event's clause could not just be the EU referendum but arguments not enough powers have been devolved to Scotland in the Scotland Bill or even the level of austerity then that would put a different take on things
You really are in your own dreamworld.
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
Is there any evidence that Scots want an end to Barnett? The SNP calling a second referendum on the basis that the Tories want to mitigate austerity in Scotland by retaining UK-wide redistribution of wealth from London and the south of England to elsewhere would be a gamble. But maybe this does need to happen. Scots should have the right to vote on whether to become poorer so that fundamentalist nationalists can get their international border. The outcome of a second referendum would surely end the issue for once and for all.
SO, what dreamworld do you live in, there is no redistribution from London. I was there last week and all you can see are cranes and building work, they are sucking up all our money and spending it on themselves. We have heard all this pooling and sharing rubbish and more and more people realise it is just garbage, lots of pooling but little sharing. You are correct that it will end it all next time, there will not be a need for a third.
It's not your Scottish money fuelling the cranes and building works. As any fule kno - it is dodgy Russian and Chinese money.
Loving the sulky victim mentality though, malc. Going to be a race to the bottom with the Greeks to see who can be the most self-pitying man of Europe....
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Fair point - but doesn't that suggest that we should all be queuing up outside banks in the morning?
Only if you have more than £85,000 stored under any banks that share banking license. Ironically the best place to put your money would seem to be RBS, since its owned by the government, it can't go bust.
The government chose to allow RBS to default on some of its subordinated obligations, so just because it is majority owned by the government does not mean that you - as a depositor - are completely safe.
Allowing RBS to default on consumer deposits might be seen as politically courageous though!
The ECB decision was inevitable as soon as the negotiations had clearly failed. Syriza isn't "just" saying that the people should decide. They're saying that they disagree with the deal, want the people to reject it, but are also demanding that - in the interim - the ECB continue pouring in support, and that everyone just ignores the repayment deadlines that can't be met.
Even if the ECB received political pressure eg from France to go along with this, legally they can't. They are legally obliged to stop supporting banks which are insolvent and the failure of negotiations and apparent inevitability of Greek default means that is what the Greek banks are.
I'm not saying blame the Greek government for everything by the way. Just saying the ECB have a much narrower framework to act in than the other actors in this sorry drama, so it would be wrong to think of their decision today as a last chance lost, or a decision primarily motivated by spite or a desire to kick the Greeks out or to teach others a lesson. The parameters of their decision were already set by others.
Absolutely correct.
I believe it was the IMF who effectively pulled the plug. They told Tsipiras that they could not extend the deadline on the 30 June payment unless his government was supporting the referendum. If the June 30th payment is missed, then Greece goes into default, and the ECB is legally obliged to declare that Greek government bonds can no longer be used as collateral. At which point Greek banks become insolvent.
Holding the referendum *after* the IMF deadline was either a masterstroke or a dreadful error. Some people have suggested that the only way to avoid the banks all going bust is to have a week of bank holidays in Greece, thus allowing the banks not to have to consider the question of their solvency until after the referendum. Sensible as that would be, I can't believe Tsipiras will go for it.
Mr. G, I have confidence in the ability of Scotland to run its own monetary policy.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
We'll believe the Loyalists nonsense about refusing currency union as long as Scotland wants it when they explain how they will prop up Sterling with a Zero Resources economy. And we's not just talking about zero resources in terms of what you pull out the ground. rUK would be negative on electricity and is about to tip into the negative on potable water.
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Loyalist lunacy.
This is a particularly silly post. Please find ANY economics textbook that talks about a "Zero Resources Economy" (complete with capital letters, like a proper economic term!) then applies it to an entire country the size of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is sub-GCSE economics, enhanced by the view that anyone who disagrees with it is "economically illiterate".
All countries are interdependent. Even North Korea is not an autarky and engages in trade for vital resources that it does not possess. Your examples are nothing special - it is true that no nation can do without electricity and water, but there are indeed countries that import them. The UK has been "negative" on food for over a century. We have neither starved to death nor has our currency collapsed because of it. In terms of the balance of payments, imported electricity and water would likely be a drop in the ocean for rUK compared to the deficit on manufactured goods, for instance.
I don't know whether to believe the opinion polls in Greece:
In the poll by Alco for the Proto Thema Sunday paper, 57 percent said they believed Greece should make a deal with its EU partners while 29 percent wanted a rupture. A separate poll by Kapa Research for the To Vima newspaper found 47.2 percent of respondents would vote in favor of a new, painful agreement with Greece's creditors, compared to 33 percent who would vote no and 18.4 percent undecided.
Mr. Dair, the lender of last resort ultimately stands behind financial institutions which might otherwise fail (hence the money thrown at RBS and Lloyds [previously HBOS] to keep them afloat).
If you don't have a currency union and a Scottish bank (post-independence) is running out of money and about to fail, from whence will the money flow?
Scotland's financial sector is proportionally larger than England's. I cannot see why, post-independence, the UK would see it as desirable to put the UK taxpayer at risk for the privilege of providing a foreign nation who had rejected the union with a financial safety net.
If Scotland wanted independence, it would have it. And if it wants independence in the future, it will have it. But independence means standing on your own two feet.
Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding.
Lenders of Last Resort do NOT provide Capital injections. Which is what happened with RBS and Lloyds TSB which were undercapitalised and the UK Government decided to recapitalise them at the taxpayers expense.
This is quite different to provision of Liquidity (which is what a Lender of Last Resort does).
Anything beyond Liquidity is a question of governmental choice and there is nothing to preclude an independent Scottish Government from making such a choice. Technically there is nothing to stop an independent Scottish Government from also acting as Lender of Last Resort but as the Bank of England and ECB already exist this would be pointless.
And again, activity outside of Scotland which required Liquidity support would be a matter for the Lender of Last Resort applicable for that jurisdiction so regardless of Currency Union, the Bank of England would still be responsible (and have a Commercial Contract to provide) any Liquidity support for activities of Scottish banks in London.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
Indeed, but that plays both ways, the EU might have dramatically underestimated the contagion from a GrExit and several large banks might go bust, I doubt the EU is in a big hurry for that to happen either.
Fair point - but doesn't that suggest that we should all be queuing up outside banks in the morning?
Only if you have more than £85,000 stored under any banks that share banking license. Ironically the best place to put your money would seem to be RBS, since its owned by the government, it can't go bust.
The government chose to allow RBS to default on some of its subordinated obligations, so just because it is majority owned by the government does not mean that you - as a depositor - are completely safe.
Allowing RBS to default on consumer deposits might be seen as politically courageous though!
SO , it is all one way traffic , from us to London.
You are aware that 90% plus of the cranes in London are building on privately owned land, generally blocks of flats, that are sold off plan to foreigners? The seed money to get things going is also generally from outside the UK....
No public money involved.
If you want the same in Edinburgh, I suggest a targeted campaign in the coastal areas of China(*), advertising the joys of living in Boney Scotland.
* The reason for this is that buying a flat in London gives you several things. One, is the rising property market. Two is the rental income. Three is that the price puts you through the investment criteria for a visa. If you are in the Chinese middle classes, an investment in property that also gives you an exit strategy in case things go back to The Fun Old Days(**) is considered a brilliant idea
Comments
From subsequent comments I think they were referencing only things like deporting terror suspects, but even if only overly blunt language I guess I can understand some of the fears of politicians of the public being a lynch mob in waiting.
I think the Scottish Tories are playing a longer game here, that with a hollowed out SLAB down maybe as low as 15% in May 2016, they can start to look like a serious contender for the official opposition to the SNP.
We need a national debate about this, but people wilfully close their eyes. America *funded* GCHQ. We spy for them. A foreign country. Do the British people know and give their consent to the fact that we're a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's most rapacious superpower? Do the more politically aware audience on PB accept it? Or do we just not want to think about it?
Of course he would not want to bring the truth to Labour's core vote.
I'm just wondering where the party stands on currency, given the view of the UK (ex-Scotland) is that there's sod all chance of a currency union with us, post-independence, and the eurozone does not necessarily look lovely. A Scottish pound (at least briefly) would seem the best option.
Also, let it not be forgotten I rightly called the total lack of desire for a currency union before polling confirmed that and the entire UK political establishment agreed. It's a serious question, and one that must be considered before any theoretical second referendum.
In this second scenario there will be tactical voting whether the SNP like it or not.
May was also dreadful, no mention of immigration, failures of foreign policy regarding liberal interventionism, more diversity requiring us to sacrifice our liberty. Same old failed rhetoric.
Farage the only one talking sense.
At the end of the day in WW2 it was US troops who liberated Europe from the Nazis alongside Brits. I recently revisited the D-Day beaches and 10,000 Americans died on the first day at Omaha and Utah alone, they did not have to die, many US isolationists wanted to keep the US out of the war, however you seem keener to make overtures to Putin, forgetting that once the US had liberated western Europe they left free democracies, the Soviets once they had taken Eastern Europe left an Empire
As I said here some weeks ago, this is the last chance for anyone who is even vaguely dissatisfied with the direction of travel of the EU to influence the process. There is nothing to be gained by voting 'Yes', and (since they will obviously not want to lose a donor country) nothing to lose by voting 'No'.
'If not 'No', when?'
It is compelling that the evidence points to the current Scotland Bill being insufficient to meet the desires of the general electorate in Scotland. The SNP will ride that backlash to an increased Majority and a Second Referendum.
Your dreams that new leaders of Scottish Labour and that somehow the Scotland Bill can be sold as more than the utter pup it is doesn't translate into the public mood. Scotland wants more, it can vote SNP and get more.
Meanwhile the opposition in Scotland will ignore the politics, ignore the debate and issue dodgy dossiers trying to portray comments about football as evil, anti-English rabble rousing.
The European Central Bank can no longer give emergency liquidity to Greek banks due to the breakdown of talks between Athens and its creditors and doubts over Greece remaining in the euro, former ECB board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said in remarks published on Sunday. The coming week is likely to be dramatic for Greece's citizens, who will try to get their money out of their banks but will "very probably not be able to do so," Bini Smaghi said in an article in daily Corriere della Sera.
"Given the uncertainty over Greece remaining in the euro the ECB will no longer be able to supply liquidity to the Greek banks, who in turn will be unable to supply euros to their clients," he wrote.
Smaghi, an Italian economist, served on the ECB's Frankfurt-based executive board from 2005 to 2011. The ECB has been steadily raising the ceiling of so-called Emergency Liquidity Assistance to Greece's cash-strapped banks as negotiations continued to try to stave off a sovereign debt default.
Pouters now sound just like Scottish Labour with their message of "next time it will be different, honest guv".
On a lighter note, which would you prioritise; printing Drachmas or printing ballot papers?
Welching on more powers, jerrymandering committees, slashing budgets of the poorest people makes it very easy for the SNP to look good.
Still, there may yet be time for twists and turns.
'Australia should not embrace America, writes its former prime minister, but preserve itself from Washington’s reckless overreach.'
But that is their problem, and their debate to have, and ours is ours.
I'm not sure what America's role in WWII has to do with the effective surrender of our national sovereignty to a foreign power - any foreign power. Do you think it's ok that the US built our national monitoring station unbeknown to the public?
Of course the economic illiteracy of the Loyalists sees them apply the same paternalistic nonsense that they apply to other parts of the debate and somehow they just think Sterling will survive "because it will".
Loyalist lunacy.
I think its fair enough tbh. Syriza were elected on the platform of stay in the euro but with no austerity, after months of negotiation they have eventually realised that this is not an option, so they are saying to the Greek people in effect, we cant give you what you wanted, so do you want to stay in the euro with austerity or leave the euro. They are also saying that they think leaving is the right answer, which advise the people can take or leave.
But if they vote 'yes' there isn;t any guarantee that (a) the damage won't already have been done irreversibly or (b) that the EU/Eurozone and IMF will give the Greeks anything.
And I very much doubt the UK would want even a temporary currency union with a country that had voted to depart. Why act as lender of last resort to a foreign nation with a financial sector proportionally larger than the UK's?
I also wonder whether the SNP seriously propose another vote held as soon as they can get away with it, or whether they're raising it to keep the more excitable elements on their own side engaged and happy (as well as potentially strengthening their hand when wringing powers from Westminster).
I don't know about others, but I for one could do with a little light relief for a change and I'm hoping that HenryG will come up with a few of his choice betting suggestions during the Wimbledon fortnight.
Come on Henry, help cheer us up a tad.
One academic study by Edinburgh Uni during the campaign showed that every time Labour, Tories or Liberals talked about FFA, SNP support rose.
That was always the choice wasn;t it? Syriza were in effect elected on a totally bogus platform, namely the Greeks could end austerity and keep the euro. That was never deliverable.
Even now, it seems no politician has the courage to say it to the Greeks.
The SoS for Scotland is responsible to the UK Parliament, so should be held to account by representatives of the UK parliament. There's a reasonable case to make that he should also be expected to appear from time to time before a panel of MSPs. But there's no constitutional argument that only SMPs should hold him to account in Westminster.
The UK Lender of Last Resort is a COMMERCIAL function of the Bank of England and provided to ALL banks regardless of headquarters of operation which operate in the United Kingdom. Banks pay a premium in order to participate and lodge deposits with the Bank of England at a cost to them. Post independence any remaining casino banking functions of Scottish Banks operating in London would remain unchanged.
Are you confusing Lender of Last Resort with Deposit Guarantees (which are a function of government)?
Even if the ECB received political pressure eg from France to go along with this, legally they can't. They are legally obliged to stop supporting banks which are insolvent and the failure of negotiations and apparent inevitability of Greek default means that is what the Greek banks are.
I'm not saying blame the Greek government for everything by the way. Just saying the ECB have a much narrower framework to act in than the other actors in this sorry drama, so it would be wrong to think of their decision today as a last chance lost, or a decision primarily motivated by spite or a desire to kick the Greeks out or to teach others a lesson. The parameters of their decision were already set by others.
Considering the cuts we are presently making to defence obviously we may have to rely on the Americans to fund some of our security
The biggest (non-Greek) owner of Greek debt is a British bank, HSBC, which has $5bn worth. Then there are a couple of holders of about $3bn worth (Credit Agricole is one, I forget the others). There are a bunch of hedge funds that own debt too, and a few distressed debt funds.
It's worth remembering a few things:
1. Banks hold provisions against Greek government debt. So, HSBC may have $5bn of Greek debt on its balance sheet, but I suspect it will have (guessing here) $2bn of provisions against it. If Greece did default such that recovery was zero, then HSBC would only have to recognise another $3bn of losses.
2. The banks that hold Greek government debt are big, profitable and well capitalized. Take HSBC: it makes about $18bn a year pre-tax profit. BNP is slightly smaller, but it still makes more than $10bn a year. In this context, losing a billion or two is embarassing, but won't even push a bank into an annual loss.
Like this: http://i.imgur.com/Pq2zSqO.jpg
If you don't have a currency union and a Scottish bank (post-independence) is running out of money and about to fail, from whence will the money flow?
Scotland's financial sector is proportionally larger than England's. I cannot see why, post-independence, the UK would see it as desirable to put the UK taxpayer at risk for the privilege of providing a foreign nation who had rejected the union with a financial safety net.
If Scotland wanted independence, it would have it. And if it wants independence in the future, it will have it. But independence means standing on your own two feet.
Loving the sulky victim mentality though, malc. Going to be a race to the bottom with the Greeks to see who can be the most self-pitying man of Europe....
I believe it was the IMF who effectively pulled the plug. They told Tsipiras that they could not extend the deadline on the 30 June payment unless his government was supporting the referendum. If the June 30th payment is missed, then Greece goes into default, and the ECB is legally obliged to declare that Greek government bonds can no longer be used as collateral. At which point Greek banks become insolvent.
Holding the referendum *after* the IMF deadline was either a masterstroke or a dreadful error. Some people have suggested that the only way to avoid the banks all going bust is to have a week of bank holidays in Greece, thus allowing the banks not to have to consider the question of their solvency until after the referendum. Sensible as that would be, I can't believe Tsipiras will go for it.
All countries are interdependent. Even North Korea is not an autarky and engages in trade for vital resources that it does not possess. Your examples are nothing special - it is true that no nation can do without electricity and water, but there are indeed countries that import them. The UK has been "negative" on food for over a century. We have neither starved to death nor has our currency collapsed because of it. In terms of the balance of payments, imported electricity and water would likely be a drop in the ocean for rUK compared to the deficit on manufactured goods, for instance.
In the poll by Alco for the Proto Thema Sunday paper, 57 percent said they believed Greece should make a deal with its EU partners while 29 percent wanted a rupture. A separate poll by Kapa Research for the To Vima newspaper found 47.2 percent of respondents would vote in favor of a new, painful agreement with Greece's creditors, compared to 33 percent who would vote no and 18.4 percent undecided.
Lenders of Last Resort do NOT provide Capital injections. Which is what happened with RBS and Lloyds TSB which were undercapitalised and the UK Government decided to recapitalise them at the taxpayers expense.
This is quite different to provision of Liquidity (which is what a Lender of Last Resort does).
Anything beyond Liquidity is a question of governmental choice and there is nothing to preclude an independent Scottish Government from making such a choice. Technically there is nothing to stop an independent Scottish Government from also acting as Lender of Last Resort but as the Bank of England and ECB already exist this would be pointless.
And again, activity outside of Scotland which required Liquidity support would be a matter for the Lender of Last Resort applicable for that jurisdiction so regardless of Currency Union, the Bank of England would still be responsible (and have a Commercial Contract to provide) any Liquidity support for activities of Scottish banks in London.
No public money involved.
If you want the same in Edinburgh, I suggest a targeted campaign in the coastal areas of China(*), advertising the joys of living in Boney Scotland.
* The reason for this is that buying a flat in London gives you several things. One, is the rising property market. Two is the rental income. Three is that the price puts you through the investment criteria for a visa. If you are in the Chinese middle classes, an investment in property that also gives you an exit strategy in case things go back to The Fun Old Days(**) is considered a brilliant idea
** Which, of course, weren't fun at all