So what if the UK government now says No, the BoE won't be the lender of last resort for Scotland.
What then?
Seems like a daft open goal to me, but I am 10,000 miles away.
That cannot be what the SNP is saying. In order to be a recognised independent country both parties in the divorce negotiation will have to agree a final package. As the rUK can certainly live with the status quo Scotland is not really going to be in a position to dictate terms. I am sure that Salmond and co understand this.
Well, in the case of energy it's an actual, quite interesting policy that nobody's talking about, combined with a spinny gimmick. But they'll fight the election on gimmicks, as is traditional in the British political system.
I assume you're referring to the proposed restructuring of the market after the gimmick price freeze.
Those whose opinions matter are very much talking about it, and this is the kind of thing they are saying:
[ Peter Atherton at Liberum Capital] said the Labour leader's promise of an energy bill freeze and threat to break up large energy utilities had badly damaged confidence and raised the cost of capital for some firms by as much 20%.
"Big ticket items such as offshore windfarms have been killed stone dead. If any board directors [of the big six] were stupid enough to agree to try to raise money in the City now they would be told to 'get stuffed'. They [banks or others] would be very reluctant to finance even the independent power providers who are not directly in the firing line," he said.
So what if the UK government now says No, the BoE won't be the lender of last resort for Scotland.
What then?
Seems like a daft open goal to me, but I am 10,000 miles away.
There is not a snowflake's chance in hell of the UK acting as a lender of last resort for a foreign country over whose budget they have no control. Salmond must know that.
Assuming good faith and non-crazy people they'd do a deal over the basic parameters of Scotland's budget. The catch is that the resulting independent Scotland ends up having to be quite fiscally conservative, and not very independent...
I'm not sure I follow all this - if Scotland goes independent but keeps the pound then, like (for example) Greece with the Euro, it will have very little say over what happens with the currency it's using. Therefore, Scotland will either have to keep / get its national finances under control (i.e. manageable debt and deficit) or accept the consequences as seen in (for example) Greece. Is that all correct?
If I have understood correctly, won't Scotland simply have to follow similar (or indeed more severe) austerity as the UK government has been doing over the last few years? Or is the SNP's argument that actually Scotland will automatically be in a significantly better financial position once it is independent? I think that's the bit I'm not following; how will Scotland not be in a similar position to that which the whole of the UK is currently in, namely having a still-massive deficit to reduce and (eventually...) turn into a year-on-year surplus?
I'm not sure I follow all this - if Scotland goes independent but keeps the pound then, like (for example) Greece with the Euro, it will have very little say over what happens with the currency it's using. Therefore, Scotland will either have to keep / get its national finances under control (i.e. manageable debt and deficit) or accept the consequences as seen in (for example) Greece. Is that all correct?
If I have understood correctly, won't Scotland simply have to follow similar (or indeed more severe) austerity as the UK government has been doing over the last few years? Or is the SNP's argument that actually Scotland will automatically be in a significantly better financial position once it is independent? I think that's the bit I'm not following; how will Scotland not be in a similar position to that which the whole of the UK is currently in, namely having a still-massive deficit to reduce and (eventually...) turn into a year-on-year surplus?
I'm not sure what Salmond's position is but that sounds right. The other thing to add would be that there are strong incentives for small countries in free markets with large countries to have quite aggressively right-wing tax and spending policies, and in particular low taxes and unburdensome regulations for business.
Has anyone ever done any research into how much of Scotlands extra state spending is accounted for by the more geographically spread population and subsequent expensive rural subsidies across the board?
That's the rationale given for that extra state spending in Scotland. However, given that the bulk of Scotland's population is in fact not geographically spread (being concentrated in a very tight band), I've yet to see much evidence that the extra money is in fact used for those rural subsidies. Instead, it seems to be diverted to the central belt.
Not watching the feed (Salmond is like a Scottish Balls), but I'm surprised at the surprise that's met his apparent claim that if he doesn't get the pound etc then Scotland won't pay its debts. I'm sure I read that elsewhere in the last day or two.
It's immensely juvenile. You cannot dictate terms in a negotiation.
However, he isn't trying to win a negotiation. He's trying to win a referendum. I'm sure a certain sort of Scotsman might be swayed by the underlying sentiment of brave Scotland standing up to the evil English. If Salmond wins the referendum he will then simply u-turn during negotiations.
Or, he'll have his first act as leader (which he will be, if Yes wins) of independent Scotland to be defaulting on debts. Given recent history, that would be phenomenally unwise.
Assuming good faith and non-crazy people they'd do a deal over the basic parameters of Scotland's budget. The catch is that the resulting independent Scotland ends up having to be quite fiscally conservative, and not very independent...
I'm sure they would, but it wouldn't include the Bank of England being the lender of last resort. That is a non-reversible open commitment, and no UK government is going to make it.
You are right that an independent Scotland would have to be fiscally conservative. There'd be no-one to bail them out, so facts would trump rhetoric. Still, within a tight public-spending environment I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a prosperous country, once they've adapted to having to stand on their own two feet; the economy is pretty strong and really quite diverse for a country of less than 6 million people. The cost of borrowing would be a bit of a problem, at least for the first few years whilst the markets assessed their credit-worthiness.
Ah, it's OK. The UK has no say in the matter, panic over:
An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency and the arrangements for monetary policy.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission - the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. The Fiscal Commission proposed a practical and workable model, including governance and institutional arrangements that would create a successful and robust framework.
The Commission's analysis shows that it will not only be in Scotland's interests to retain Sterling but that - post independence - this will also benefit the rest of the UK.
Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken on a shareholder basis.
Does no one within the EU ever stop to think how their interventions will play out in member states? I say this as someone who is very pro-immigration.
Not watching the feed (Salmond is like a Scottish Balls), but I'm surprised at the surprise that's met his apparent claim that if he doesn't get the pound etc then Scotland won't pay its debts. I'm sure I read that elsewhere in the last day or two.
...If Salmond wins the referendum he will then simply u-turn during negotiations. Or, he'll have his first act as leader (which he will be, if Yes wins) of independent Scotland to be defaulting on debts. Given recent history, that would be phenomenally unwise.
I realise that politicians make u-turns all the time (and wisely, some of the time - 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?') but this is a particularly large hostage to fortune, ISTM. Large, painted in bright stripes, and carrying a rather loud airhorn along with a sign saying in luminous lettering, 'Look, hostage to fortune here'...
They still have to get off the fence. And crap policies are crap policies whether they're floated 12 months out or 6 months out, the difference being at 12 months you have more time to recognise it and correct it.
Judging by the few they've floated so far the voters seem to quite like Labour's crap policies, and it's the crappest ones they like the most.
Err these policies being what exactly ?
To date what you're calling policy isn't. It's spinny gimmicks.
Well, in the case of energy it's an actual, quite interesting policy that nobody's talking about, combined with a spinny gimmick. But they'll fight the election on gimmicks, as is traditional in the British political system.
Well I'd agree that Labour don't have a monopoly on daft gimmicks, but most of the spinny stuff is more of a post cold war trend as there was subsequently little to debate on economics. However given the shortage of money and the general crap the UK is in, it will be interesting to see how long the politicos can put off the day when they actually do have to face up to problems and can no longer just paper over the cracks.
Does no one within the EU ever stop to think how their interventions will play out in member states? I say this as someone who is very pro-immigration.
What are they supposed to do, stop producing reports because they'll upset somebody somewhere in one of the member states?
I wonder if launching the Indie Ref White Paper at a Press Conference was a mistake? You've an audience of cynical hacks - the whole atmosphere feels very flat. If they'd done it in Parliament they'd have had at least the SNP MSPs cheering things on.....
This currency mess is going to get bigger and bigger and smellier and smellier for the SNP. They need a sensible, workable and controllable answer ASAP. Saying 'we will do as we please with the Pound and screw you guys in London' is a position that the average 4 year old will be able to destroy. If the Bank of England says No then it's a No. Back to the drawing board for Salmond.
I think the intelligent Right will swing behind UKIP to stop Labour. We have "lent" LD our votes to stop the Tories - and did it very successfully. Born out of desperate days of the 80's , I dare say. Over many GE's we polished it to perfection. So much so, many LD's thought it was their vote.
Lol - this is the issue that will lose it for the Nats.
I think it's one of many. After so many years of campaigning, I'm perpetually surprised at how little thought they've put into "what happens if we win".
This currency mess is going to get bigger and bigger and smellier and smellier for the SNP. They need a sensible, workable and controllable answer ASAP. Saying 'we will do as we please with the Pound and screw you guys in London' is a position that the average 4 year old will be able to destroy. If the Bank of England says No then it's a No. Back to the drawing board for Salmond.
Bit late for that. This is formally in their White Paper.
Lord only knows why they've such a God-awful hash of this most basic of all questions. They've had fifty years to think about it, and five years since the Euro option began to fall apart.
"Alex Salmond’s favourite columnist Joan McAlpine is getting very excited about today’s white paper published by the SNP. Here she is getting more than a little carried away in her piece for the Daily Record this morning:
“It makes America’s historic Declaration of Independence look like a Post-it note.”"
This currency mess is going to get bigger and bigger and smellier and smellier for the SNP. They need a sensible, workable and controllable answer ASAP. Saying 'we will do as we please with the Pound and screw you guys in London' is a position that the average 4 year old will be able to destroy. If the Bank of England says No then it's a No. Back to the drawing board for Salmond.
Bit late for that. This is formally in their White Paper.
Lord only knows why they've such a God-awful hash of this most basic of all questions. They've had fifty years to think about it, and five years since the Euro option began to fall apart.
Mr. Dickson, whilst No shouldn't get complacent, neither should Yes.
That said, the devolution move of Blair et al. was just bloody stupid. Whether from a unionist or Labour party political perspective, it was bloody idiotic.
Of course, if you're a separatist it was rather lovely.
The betting markets say the opposite.
You think favourites win all the time, not much clue on betting have you
Ah, it's OK. The UK has no say in the matter, panic over:
An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency and the arrangements for monetary policy.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission - the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. The Fiscal Commission proposed a practical and workable model, including governance and institutional arrangements that would create a successful and robust framework.
The Commission's analysis shows that it will not only be in Scotland's interests to retain Sterling but that - post independence - this will also benefit the rest of the UK.
Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken on a shareholder basis.
It's so feeble it must be a joke - or a trick. Perhaps Salmond is hoping an English toff will say "no way are we giving you a say in the BoE, no way will it be the Lender of Last Resort for Scottish Banks" - then he can turn around and claim the horrible English Tories are picking on us again, hoots och aye neeps and tatties etc.
And then he can get a majority from the Purely Disgruntled and Anglophobic?
It seems high risk, but then he needs to take risks because the polls are grim for him. He has nothing to lose.
Salmond is betting everything on tartan anger.
Salmond was reconciled to a NO vote years ago. All his political guile [ he is Britain's best politician ] was aimed at Devo Max which, for practical purpose, is independence anyway. All minus Foreign affairs and Defence.
The Tories will also give him Devo Max in rreturn for lower representation in the HoC for Scotland. A win win situation for SNP and the Tories.
Scotland will try for independence in a more favourable time. There always is a favourable time sooner or later. In Scotland's case, it will be when Europe is riding high and the UK not faring so well.
Local issues will play a large part in this election, and the local council will be up for election at the same time. Labour run Thanet District Council is not popular locally with some poor financial decisions that been made. I don't think Labour are really in with a chance, but they may pick up some Lib Dem support. Laura Sandys does have a good reputation as a constituency MP. It will certainly be an interesting election should Farage choose to stand there.
As the referendum approaches surely people who get to vote in it will want to know about things like currency, closure of Nuclear bases, oil revenue projections, share of the debt, etc. The practical arrangements. What 'Independence' actually means.
Please, please tell me the Nats have got some sensible answers to these. They can't surely have overlooked the main issues around independence in their manifesto can they?
Mark Ferguson, blog editor of Labourlist tweets: Interesting that the SNP are trying to craft Independence as a retail offer. And by "interesting" I of course mean morally bankrupt
I wonder if launching the Indie Ref White Paper at a Press Conference was a mistake? You've an audience of cynical hacks - the whole atmosphere feels very flat. If they'd done it in Parliament they'd have had at least the SNP MSPs cheering things on.....
Lol - this is the issue that will lose it for the Nats.
I think it's one of many. After so many years of campaigning, I'm perpetually surprised at how little thought they've put into "what happens if we win".
This currency mess is going to get bigger and bigger and smellier and smellier for the SNP. They need a sensible, workable and controllable answer ASAP. Saying 'we will do as we please with the Pound and screw you guys in London' is a position that the average 4 year old will be able to destroy. If the Bank of England says No then it's a No. Back to the drawing board for Salmond.
Bit late for that. This is formally in their White Paper.
Lord only knows why they've such a God-awful hash of this most basic of all questions. They've had fifty years to think about it, and five years since the Euro option began to fall apart.
They never expected to win an overall majority so soon, and therefore be obliged to call a referendum - is my explanation.
Salmond's preferred method was independence by stealth - devolution to devomax to de facto independence to independence, over 20-30 years. And at that he was doing well. But then he went and won a majority, forcing his own hand at exactly the wrong moment (when the euro was ruled out as an option).
He could still win, but the currency issue is horrible for them - I can't see any obvious workaround for them, either.
Like all porkbarrellers, Salmond thought the Euro couldn't fail - all their eggs were in the Brussels basket.
I wonder if launching the Indie Ref White Paper at a Press Conference was a mistake? You've an audience of cynical hacks - the whole atmosphere feels very flat. If they'd done it in Parliament they'd have had at least the SNP MSPs cheering things on.....
LOL, balanced view as ever
What do you make of the press conference?
Surely having an audience that was at least partially in favour would be a better idea than a largely hostile one?
As the referendum approaches surely people who get to vote in it will want to know about things like currency, closure of Nuclear bases, oil revenue projections, share of the debt, etc. The practical arrangements. What 'Independence' actually means.
Please, please tell me the Nats have got some sensible answers to these. They can't surely have overlooked the main issues around independence in their manifesto can they?
Don't be silly.. all Salmond has to do is paint himself in woad and 'Cry FRREEDOM!!!'
London Labour is as likely to upset and alienate decent proud Scots as London Tories. They just don't understand the Scots, regardless of political allegiance. We don't like being told what's good for us, even if it is.
What has amazed me over the last twenty years is just how few English politicians, of any stripe, have the faintest clue about the Scots psyche. They just don't "get" Scots. If they did then they wouldn't find themselves in the mess they're in.
Saving the Union would have been easy-peasy lemon squeezy if they had made the right moves twenty years ago. But the moment has long gone.
Stuart like most rightie residents of rUk I am mildly against Indy for Scotland.
However - if YES wins I will be for it and as soon as possible.
41 less Labour MPs 11 less LD MPs 6 less SNP MPs
Worst case is 1 year of Lib/Lab before they are turfed out.
I am very right and very strongly for independence, cannot wait to get the dead hand of Westminster removed from Scotland.
Does no one within the EU ever stop to think how their interventions will play out in member states? I say this as someone who is very pro-immigration.
What are they supposed to do, stop producing reports because they'll upset somebody somewhere in one of the member states?
Produce reports that show some understanding of the views of others, and are seeking less to dictate and more to inform. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
There is no reason why an Independent Scotland could not retain the £ sterling as its unit of currency as for example the US $ is an accepted unit of currency as in say the Bahamas where it is interchangeable at 1 to 1 with the Bahamas Dollar . That does not mean that Scotland would have any more influence on the B of E than the Bahamas has on the US treasury . Nor does it mean that pound notes issued by Scottish banks would be as widely accepted throughout the world as B of E notes , try getting a US bank to accept Bahamas dollars on a one to one basis .
I'm not sure I follow all this - if Scotland goes independent but keeps the pound then, like (for example) Greece with the Euro, it will have very little say over what happens with the currency it's using. Therefore, Scotland will either have to keep / get its national finances under control (i.e. manageable debt and deficit) or accept the consequences as seen in (for example) Greece. Is that all correct?
If I have understood correctly, won't Scotland simply have to follow similar (or indeed more severe) austerity as the UK government has been doing over the last few years? Or is the SNP's argument that actually Scotland will automatically be in a significantly better financial position once it is independent? I think that's the bit I'm not following; how will Scotland not be in a similar position to that which the whole of the UK is currently in, namely having a still-massive deficit to reduce and (eventually...) turn into a year-on-year surplus?
Kevin, the current suggestion is that Scotland puts more into Westminster than they get out , if you include everything. Therefore when out they will be better off given they will have same liabilities but higher amount of money. Not heard anybody say it will be significantly better off nor that there will be tough times ahead , what they say is that they will be able to introduce policies to suit Scotland that will improve things longer term. Worst case start point is we will eb same as we are
As the referendum approaches surely people who get to vote in it will want to know about things like currency, closure of Nuclear bases, oil revenue projections, share of the debt, etc. The practical arrangements. What 'Independence' actually means.
Please, please tell me the Nats have got some sensible answers to these. They can't surely have overlooked the main issues around independence in their manifesto can they?
Don't be silly.. all Salmond has to do is paint himself in woad and 'Cry FRREEDOM!!!'
Here's a swing voter that the Kippers and Tories must appeal to.
"A man emerged naked from a storage cupboard of a Premier Inn with a fire extinguisher hose up his bottom. Joseph Small, 20, threw his clothes off and grabbed the appliance from the fourth floor of the budget Leicester Square hotel. He then rammed the hose between his buttocks and began touching himself, Westminster Magistrates' Court heard. Small also urinated on the carpet and a lift door before having to be escorted down to reception by a member of staff who wrapped him in a towel. He then hurled abuse at the Bangladeshi man, barking at him: 'This country has been taken over by Al-Qaeda - go back to Pakistan'.
"'He shouted at Mr Hassan: 'This country has been taken over by Al-Qaeda - go back to Pakistan”. 'The defendant then called a special constable 'Turkish' and his colleague 'Romanian', before referring to another officer as a 'paedo'. 'He then emphasised to one officer, who was English, that he was from Sheffield and an Englishman'. - See more at: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/surreal/?id=80#sthash.pvYxHggt.dpuf"
The xenophobia says UKIP, but the fire extinguisher suggests traditional Tory, tough one to call.
He sounds a bit like Lord Watson. He could go far in politics.
This currency mess is going to get bigger and bigger and smellier and smellier for the SNP. They need a sensible, workable and controllable answer ASAP. Saying 'we will do as we please with the Pound and screw you guys in London' is a position that the average 4 year old will be able to destroy. If the Bank of England says No then it's a No. Back to the drawing board for Salmond.
Bit late for that. This is formally in their White Paper.
Lord only knows why they've such a God-awful hash of this most basic of all questions. They've had fifty years to think about it, and five years since the Euro option began to fall apart.
They never expected to win an overall majority so soon, and therefore be obliged to call a referendum - is my explanation.
Salmond's preferred method was independence by stealth - devolution to devomax to de facto independence to independence, over 20-30 years. And at that he was doing well. But then he went and won a majority, forcing his own hand at exactly the wrong moment (when the euro was ruled out as an option).
He could still win, but the currency issue is horrible for them - I can't see any obvious workaround for them, either.
Sean, You have no clue what you are talking about , best sticking to your usual fluff.
There is no reason why an Independent Scotland could not retain the £ sterling as its unit of currency as for example the US $ is an accepted unit of currency as in say the Bahamas where it is interchangeable at 1 to 1 with the Bahamas Dollar . That does not mean that Scotland would have any more influence on the B of E than the Bahamas has on the US treasury . Nor does it mean that pound notes issued by Scottish banks would be as widely accepted throughout the world as B of E notes , try getting a US bank to accept Bahamas dollars on a one to one basis .
Mr. Dickson, whilst No shouldn't get complacent, neither should Yes.
That said, the devolution move of Blair et al. was just bloody stupid. Whether from a unionist or Labour party political perspective, it was bloody idiotic.
Of course, if you're a separatist it was rather lovely.
To be frank, we were astounded when Tony Blair kept the devolution promises of John Smith. We thought that meaningful devolution would be buried with Smith, but Donald Dewar pulled an absolute blinder on Blair.
Did any other member of Blair's shadow cabinet or cabinet ever pull off a bigger victory over their boss?
Gibraltar row escalates as Spain opens UK diplomatic bag Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention. Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain. Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
Just had a weird false start. Tried signing in to post something, but then had to sign in again.
Anyway, a court will hear today the unscrupulous ways of Leicestershire archaeologists and the dim-wittedness of Grayling in a decision that offends common sense. We'll see whether the judge possesses magisterial wisdom or is a bewigged buffoon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098783
We killed him, we get to keep him!
I think you will find that it was a combination of Welshmen and mercenary French that killed him - aided by treasonous scousers.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
Gibraltar row escalates as Spain opens UK diplomatic bag Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention. Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain. Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
William Hague needs to send in the crack troops- Eck waving the Indy White Paper which he could biff the Spanish with. 700+pages should leave a fair sized bruise!
There is no reason why an Independent Scotland could not retain the £ sterling as its unit of currency as for example the US $ is an accepted unit of currency as in say the Bahamas where it is interchangeable at 1 to 1 with the Bahamas Dollar . That does not mean that Scotland would have any more influence on the B of E than the Bahamas has on the US treasury . Nor does it mean that pound notes issued by Scottish banks would be as widely accepted throughout the world as B of E notes , try getting a US bank to accept Bahamas dollars on a one to one basis .
And the Bahamas certainly don't print US dollars.
No , they print Bahamas dollars just as Clydesdale Bank print Scottish pound notes which although widely accepted in England it is not obligatory to do so .
As a side issue (!), threatening not to pay its share of UK debts doesn't seem to be a tactic likely to assist an independent Scotland in its attempts to be admitted to the EU. Never mind the UK, other member states such as Spain would be keen to establish the principle that seceding states have to pay their way.
Does no one within the EU ever stop to think how their interventions will play out in member states? I say this as someone who is very pro-immigration.
What are they supposed to do, stop producing reports because they'll upset somebody somewhere in one of the member states?
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Somebody ought to explain that to the Bitter Together outfit.
The SNP's plan for independence seems to be akin to a teenager wanting to leave his house, but come back every night for meals and for their clothes to be cleaned...
There is no reason why an Independent Scotland could not retain the £ sterling as its unit of currency as for example the US $ is an accepted unit of currency as in say the Bahamas where it is interchangeable at 1 to 1 with the Bahamas Dollar . That does not mean that Scotland would have any more influence on the B of E than the Bahamas has on the US treasury . Nor does it mean that pound notes issued by Scottish banks would be as widely accepted throughout the world as B of E notes , try getting a US bank to accept Bahamas dollars on a one to one basis .
And the Bahamas certainly don't print US dollars.
No , they print Bahamas dollars just as Clydesdale Bank print Scottish pound notes which although widely accepted in England it is not obligatory to do so .
I would suspect in the event of an Indy Scotland, Clydesdale Bank £20 may be less widely accepted south of Hadrians wall.
As a side issue (!), threatening not to pay its share of UK debts doesn't seem to be a tactic likely to assist an independent Scotland in its attempts to be admitted to the EU. Never mind the UK, other member states such as Spain would be keen to establish the principle that seceding states have to pay their way.
I find it amusing that on the same thread Unionists are lambasting Spain over Gibraltar whilst simultaneously claiming them as their great ally in the fight against Scottish independence.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
As a side issue (!), threatening not to pay its share of UK debts doesn't seem to be a tactic likely to assist an independent Scotland in its attempts to be admitted to the EU. Never mind the UK, other member states such as Spain would be keen to establish the principle that seceding states have to pay their way.
I find it amusing that on the same thread Unionists are lambasting Spain over Gibraltar whilst simultaneously claiming them as their great ally in the fight against Scottish independence.
Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Spain's undoubted opposition to Scottish independence and its guaranteed veto of automatic EU membership is driven entirely by internal concerns.
Salmond was reconciled to a NO vote years ago. All his political guile [ he is Britain's best politician ] was aimed at Devo Max which, for practical purpose, is independence anyway. All minus Foreign affairs and Defence.
The Tories will also give him Devo Max in rreturn for lower representation in the HoC for Scotland. A win win situation for SNP and the Tories.
Scotland will try for independence in a more favourable time. There always is a favourable time sooner or later. In Scotland's case, it will be when Europe is riding high and the UK not faring so well.
LOL
Complete and utter horseshit.
Try reading up on the McKay commission before repeating such stupidity.
Few things are funnier than the PB tories cringingly obsequious Cameroons and Alan Partridge like out of touch twits opining on here so utterly cluelessly.
It's just as gratifying watching little Ed's idiot spinners on this as it is Cammie's or calamity Clegg's. All the more so since so many PB tories are usually shrieking about Falkirk while parroting inept SLAB spin in the very next breath.
I look forward to little Ed, calamity Clegg or Cammie having a press conference on their detailed vision for a better scotland, except of course they don't have one.
This is all about trust just like it was in 2011 and just like the UK election will be in 2015. By the time that sinks it it will be far too late for those still too dumb to realise the independence referendum is a choice between two very different options and BOTH are going to be under scrutiny whether No likes it or not.
Kevin, the current suggestion is that Scotland puts more into Westminster than they get out , if you include everything. Therefore when out they will be better off given they will have same liabilities but higher amount of money. Not heard anybody say it will be significantly better off nor that there will be tough times ahead , what they say is that they will be able to introduce policies to suit Scotland that will improve things longer term. Worst case start point is we will eb same as we are
All right, that's fair enough - if independent Scotland-in-waiting can convince rUK that this is indeed the case. And, like others have said, what if rUK is not convinced? Scotland refuses to pay its debts? Mmm, that always turns out well. Or maybe independence doesn't go ahead at all?
Face it, Scotland will simply not be able to dictate terms to rUK, and for Salmond to pretend otherwise (if that indeed is what he's doing; I've not been watching the press conference) is utterly daft. Or so ISTM.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
But then Salmond will say "Look, they won't let us be free, they won't even negotiate" - and he wins on a patriotic surge.
I reckon this is his strategy. Be luridly provocative, make highly dubious assertions, but then paint the English as Scot-haters and oppressors when they are provoked into criticism of his ridiculous assertions.
But Scotland cannot be independent until both sides agree it. That is just a legal fact. Of course, the Scots could unilaterally declare independence and some countries in far off parts of the world (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc) might recognise that - but in terms of a currency, membership of international bodies, trade and so on it would be an absolute disaster. Salmond knows all this. I would not take much notice of what he says in the run up to the referendum. If he wins, though, there will very rapidly be a series of major U-turns. There is no alternative to that. There really isn't.
But Scotland cannot be independent until both sides agree it. That is just a legal fact. Of course, the Scots could unilaterally declare independence and some countries in far off parts of the world (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc) might recognise that - but in terms of a currency, membership of international bodies, trade and so on it would be an absolute disaster.
Legally Scottish independence could be decided unilaterally by the United Kingdom.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
On the contrary. You would have to be delusional to believe anyone who supports Yes ever thought that the unionist press and unionist parties would ever be satisfied with the answers on these questions. It is also of no consequence since it is the scottish public who will have to be persuaded not the amusing SLAB and Con-Dem politicians or their incompetent spinners. The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them. That certainly didn't stop the 2011 landslide.
If Scots can't be persuaded that they would need to pay their fair share on independence, then YES is a certainty. If Scots can be persuaded of that, then as from today NO is pretty near a certainty. Tying the currency into a threat to walk away from the UK's historical debts is a desperate roll of the dice.
There is no reason why an Independent Scotland could not retain the £ sterling as its unit of currency as for example the US $ is an accepted unit of currency as in say the Bahamas where it is interchangeable at 1 to 1 with the Bahamas Dollar . That does not mean that Scotland would have any more influence on the B of E than the Bahamas has on the US treasury . Nor does it mean that pound notes issued by Scottish banks would be as widely accepted throughout the world as B of E notes , try getting a US bank to accept Bahamas dollars on a one to one basis .
And the Bahamas certainly don't print US dollars.
No , they print Bahamas dollars just as Clydesdale Bank print Scottish pound notes which although widely accepted in England it is not obligatory to do so .
I doubt its directly analogous to the Bahamas - does the Bahamas have deposits with the Fed equal to the amount of Bahamas $ in circulation, as is the case with the Scottish banks? Or does it operate a peg, like the Guernsey & Jersey pound?
If I was rUK I'd want to hang on to all our debt. Giving some of it to Scotland would in effect be defrauding the good people who have bought it. You buy 30-year gilts in good faith and then suddenly find that some of it has died and turned a horrible tinge of blue.
Not watching the feed (Salmond is like a Scottish Balls), but I'm surprised at the surprise that's met his apparent claim that if he doesn't get the pound etc then Scotland won't pay its debts. I'm sure I read that elsewhere in the last day or two.
It's immensely juvenile. You cannot dictate terms in a negotiation.
However, he isn't trying to win a negotiation. He's trying to win a referendum. I'm sure a certain sort of Scotsman might be swayed by the underlying sentiment of brave Scotland standing up to the evil English. If Salmond wins the referendum he will then simply u-turn during negotiations.
Or, he'll have his first act as leader (which he will be, if Yes wins) of independent Scotland to be defaulting on debts. Given recent history, that would be phenomenally unwise.
LOL, Mr D , you boys do not like it up em as cpl jones would say. You cannot have it all ways, if we are to pay your debts we want something in return.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
On the contrary. You would have to be delusional to believe anyone who supports Yes ever thought that the unionist press and unionist parties would ever be satisfied with the answers on these questions. It is also of no consequence since it is the scottish public who will have to be persuaded not the amusing SLAB and Con-Dem politicians or their incompetent spinners. The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them. That certainly didn't stop the 2011 landslide.
Absolutely - it is down to the Scottish people. But that does not mean that the SNP put forward a convincing case today. They have no real answer to the Sterling issue and they are just wrong about EU membership - as Spain will make clear over the coming weeks. Given the time they have had to put a case together I was genuinely expecting more. But that is a view from afar, of course; maybe they can get away with less.
Kevin, the current suggestion is that Scotland puts more into Westminster than they get out , if you include everything. Therefore when out they will be better off given they will have same liabilities but higher amount of money. Not heard anybody say it will be significantly better off nor that there will be tough times ahead , what they say is that they will be able to introduce policies to suit Scotland that will improve things longer term. Worst case start point is we will eb same as we are
All right, that's fair enough - if independent Scotland-in-waiting can convince rUK that this is indeed the case. And, like others have said, what if rUK is not convinced? Scotland refuses to pay its debts? Mmm, that always turns out well. Or maybe independence doesn't go ahead at all?
Face it, Scotland will simply not be able to dictate terms to rUK, and for Salmond to pretend otherwise (if that indeed is what he's doing; I've not been watching the press conference) is utterly daft. Or so ISTM.
Kevin, no share of assets and other goodies means we do not pay UK debts , seems reasonable. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Unionists can try to kid on they are tough but we are not as stupid as Westminster seem to believe.
As a side issue (!), threatening not to pay its share of UK debts doesn't seem to be a tactic likely to assist an independent Scotland in its attempts to be admitted to the EU. Never mind the UK, other member states such as Spain would be keen to establish the principle that seceding states have to pay their way.
I find it amusing that on the same thread Unionists are lambasting Spain over Gibraltar whilst simultaneously claiming them as their great ally in the fight against Scottish independence.
Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Spain's undoubted opposition to Scottish independence and its guaranteed veto of automatic EU membership is driven entirely by internal concerns.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership.
It really is 'sales training 101' - 'anticipate objections' - they don't need to go into huge detail on plan B, as Plan A is still the desired outcome - but to pretend it doesn't exist opens a huge hostage to fortune. I also though the staging poor - launching it in front of an audience of cynical hacks....I think Bella Caledonia got one question, but apart from that it was 'what about the currency' repeat.....
If Scots can't be persuaded that they would need to pay their fair share on independence, then YES is a certainty. If Scots can be persuaded of that, then as from today NO is pretty near a certainty. Tying the currency into a threat to walk away from the UK's historical debts is a desperate roll of the dice.
It's an absolute non-starter as there is no way that the UK government would agree to any independence settlement on that basis. But Salmond is not stupid, he knows this. What he says now and what may happen during a negotiation are two very different things.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
But then Salmond will say "Look, they won't let us be free, they won't even negotiate" - and he wins on a patriotic surge.
I reckon this is his strategy. Be luridly provocative, make highly dubious assertions, but then paint the English as Scot-haters and oppressors when they are provoked into criticism of his ridiculous assertions.
LOL, you boys do not like fairness, typical England position , I should win and so I am going to take my ball away ,ha ha ha. Do you ever read your posts.
...if we are to pay your debts we want something in return.
No one's talking about an independent Scotland paying rUK's debts, merely its fair share of the current UK's debts. Of course, what is that 'fair share' is a key question, hence my comment above. But Scotland won't be able to simply tellrUK what the fair share is; where's the leverage for Salmond et al in order for them to get their own way? EDIT - crosspost
Kevin, no share of assets and other goodies means we do not pay UK debts , seems reasonable. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Unionists can try to kid on they are tough but we are not as stupid as Westminster seem to believe.
Who's talking about Scotland not having a share of the UK's assets? The two parties (Scotland and rUK) will obviously have to agree as to what constitutes a fair share of the current UK's assets and debts, but I don't see what Scotland's leverage will be. I'm not saying rUK will try to screw over Scotland, but AFAICT most of the cards will lie with rUK.
Gibraltar row escalates as Spain opens UK diplomatic bag Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention. Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain. Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
William Hague needs to send in the crack troops- Eck waving the Indy White Paper which he could biff the Spanish with. 700+pages should leave a fair sized bruise!
Start imposing intensive border checks on trucks carrying Spanish fruit and veg into the UK.
Convoys of rotting produce being rejected by UK supermarkets would soon focus minds in Madrid.
Sure. But Salmond doesn't care. He has put every penny on Tartan. He is playing to Win and will say anything to achieve that, no matter how nonsensical. Once/if he gets his Yes vote, it will all be history.
The tricky thing for Unionists is how do you approach someone who is obviously lying and blustering, but who is doing it under a flag of patriotism?
If you lecture or sneer it may actually boost his popularity.
The traditional way of fighting a referendum is to lie and bluster back. Referendums are even more dishonest than normal electoral campaigns, because there's no do-over to worry about five years down the road.
But that does not mean that the SNP put forward a convincing case today. They have no real answer to the Sterling issue and they are just wrong about EU membership
No, they have no real answer that you or the unionist spinners like over those issues. Hardly the same thing. The sheer hilarity of presenting unionist parties and spinners not being convinced today as proof of anything is a very telling sign of just how out of touch some people are on PB. Which is of course nothing new.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them.
So why the heck did they launch their White Paper in front of the press and not in Parliament where at least they'd have some on their side? The stage management sucked.
Gibraltar row escalates as Spain opens UK diplomatic bag Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention. Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain. Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
William Hague needs to send in the crack troops- Eck waving the Indy White Paper which he could biff the Spanish with. 700+pages should leave a fair sized bruise!
LOL, get one of the RN Navy boats to harass Spanish shipping or ask a border guard to blow raspberries at the Spanish. The spineless wonders will do nothing as Spain rubs their noses in it.
Ooops see where that got them last week , Spanish rolled about the decks laughing at them.
. I would not take much notice of what he says in the run up to the referendum.
Of course you wouldn't and why would the scottish public?
LOL
Just like nobody should take much notice of what you predict after your amusing Romney hilarity.
But I have been proved 100% correct up to now with what I have said about Spain and Catalonia, and the EU's attitude to membership for secessionist states.
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
But Scotland cannot be independent until both sides agree it. That is just a legal fact. Of course, the Scots could unilaterally declare independence and some countries in far off parts of the world (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc) might recognise that - but in terms of a currency, membership of international bodies, trade and so on it would be an absolute disaster. Salmond knows all this. I would not take much notice of what he says in the run up to the referendum. If he wins, though, there will very rapidly be a series of major U-turns. There is no alternative to that. There really isn't.
Sure. But Salmond doesn't care. He has put every penny on Tartan. He is playing to Win and will say anything to achieve that, no matter how nonsensical. Once/if he gets his Yes vote, it will all be history.
The tricky thing for Unionists is how do you approach someone who is obviously lying and blustering, but who is doing it under a flag of patriotism?
If you lecture or sneer it may actually boost his popularity.
That is true. But Salmond has to maintain his line for 10 more months under intense scrutiny. If the Scots want independence they'll vote for it in the knowledge that it will look very different to what is currently being promised.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them.
So why the heck did they launch their White Paper in front of the press and not in Parliament where at least they'd have some on their side? The stage management sucked.
Sour grapes from Scotland hater. It is their white paper, their vision for Scotland assuming they get elected after the YES vote. Done with style and no question unanswered.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
Ho ho.
So, Scotland votes Yes and Westminster says No? What happens then? Are you planning on sending gunboats up the Forth?
Gibraltar row escalates as Spain opens UK diplomatic bag Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention. Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain. Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
William Hague needs to send in the crack troops- Eck waving the Indy White Paper which he could biff the Spanish with. 700+pages should leave a fair sized bruise!
Start imposing intensive border checks on trucks carrying Spanish fruit and veg into the UK.
Convoys of rotting produce being rejected by UK supermarkets would soon focus minds in Madrid.
You really believe these cowardy custards would actually do something positive other than whinge
It's an absolute non-starter as there is no way that the UK government would agree to any independence settlement on that basis.
I think that's wrong. If Scotland voted yes I'd be happy to keep all the UK's debt to avoid having to listen to Salmond any longer, instruct the BoE to set rates for rUK only, and avoid the risk of Salmond tarnishing our lovely gilts with his militancy.
...if we are to pay your debts we want something in return.
No one's talking about an independent Scotland paying rUK's debts, merely its fair share of the current UK's debts. Of course, what is that 'fair share' is a key question, hence my comment above. But Scotland won't be able to simply tellrUK what the fair share is; where's the leverage for Salmond et al in order for them to get their own way? EDIT - crosspost
Kevin, no share of assets and other goodies means we do not pay UK debts , seems reasonable. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Unionists can try to kid on they are tough but we are not as stupid as Westminster seem to believe.
Who's talking about Scotland not having a share of the UK's assets? The two parties (Scotland and rUK) will obviously have to agree as to what constitutes a fair share of the current UK's assets and debts, but I don't see what Scotland's leverage will be. I'm not saying rUK will try to screw over Scotland, but AFAICT most of the cards will lie with rUK.
Kevin, I do not see you mentioning a fair share of the assets supporting that debt. We own the assets as well as the debts. They are not mutually exclusive.
It appears that unnecessary deaths increased last year by 27% over the year before. Perhaps we can look forward to Jeremy Hunt making his daily appearance on TV to explain why. It seems Tory disregard for the poor and the elderly is the main reason.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
Ho ho.
So, Scotland votes Yes and Westminster says No? What happens then? Are you planning on sending gunboats up the Forth?
It's more a case of what the Scottish government would do. UDI would be a disaster.
According to the FT, Salmond really has threatened to renege on Scotland's share of UK debts if he's not given his way on the Bank of England.
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
But then Salmond will say "Look, they won't let us be free, they won't even negotiate" - and he wins on a patriotic surge.
I reckon this is his strategy. Be luridly provocative, make highly dubious assertions, but then paint the English as Scot-haters and oppressors when they are provoked into criticism of his ridiculous assertions.
But Scotland cannot be independent until both sides agree it. That is just a legal fact. Of course, the Scots could unilaterally declare independence and some countries in far off parts of the world (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc) might recognise that - but in terms of a currency, membership of international bodies, trade and so on it would be an absolute disaster. Salmond knows all this. I would not take much notice of what he says in the run up to the referendum. If he wins, though, there will very rapidly be a series of major U-turns. There is no alternative to that. There really isn't.
Sure. But Salmond doesn't care. He has put every penny on Tartan. He is playing to Win and will say anything to achieve that, no matter how nonsensical. Once/if he gets his Yes vote, it will all be history.
The tricky thing for Unionists is how do you approach someone who is obviously lying and blustering, but who is doing it under a flag of patriotism?
If you lecture or sneer it may actually boost his popularity.
What a parody , have you ever listened to unionists, all they do is lie , sneer and bluster. Your brain must be addled.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them.
So why the heck did they launch their White Paper in front of the press and not in Parliament where at least they'd have some on their side? The stage management sucked.
You really are living in a different world if you think the reception would have been any less hostile from the unionist parties and press whether it was in Holyrood, Westminster or anywhere else. You deal with the press head on because they're coming at you anyway and they aren't your real target to begin with. Now that the press is out of the way the white paper and it's message goes to where it was always intended. On the ground with the logistics of the ground campaign that Yes have been working away at for years while No was still entranced by media appearances. No aren't going to know what hit them unless they get off their arse and start working on that ground campaign because those relying on SLAB to get a small army of activists out there clearly haven't heard about SLAB's membership numbers of late or the complete shambles at the heart of SLAB with Lamont and her boss little Ed not exactly best placed to convince their activists that they know best after Falkirk.
BBC's Have Your Say has a fantastic comment on the Scottish Independence White Paper:
"Separated, Europe will pummel these fair islands into dust. The old will starve, the young will be enslaved, and the weak will be fed to batteries of caged ponies. Our womenfolk will wail as they roast cats over oil drums and ask why we abandoned them. That's what'll happen."
I'm still trying to work out whether it's a wildly unionist UKIPper or a wilful parody, but either way it's brilliant.
Incredible. So what's to stop the rUK government from saying Right, we're keeping half the gas and oil as it was developed by British companies, not Scots - on and on and on.
This could get very messy and very rancorous very quickly. Again, I wonder if that is Salmond's plan - the only way to victory in the teeth of adverse polls is to cause chaos and bitterness...
All the UK government will do is say that we are not prepared to negotiate on the basis that Salmond has set out. Thus, Scotland would not become independent. It's as simple as that.
Ho ho.
So, Scotland votes Yes and Westminster says No? What happens then? Are you planning on sending gunboats up the Forth?
They will get the speedboats across from Gibralter and start shouting at us.
Not that impressed by the SNP today. Obviously, they have to present a best case scenario, but there are so many holes in their arguments about issues such as Sterling and EU membership. As Richard N says below, they have had plenty of time to work through these things but have not managed to come up with any convincing answers. That is a poor show.
The SNP are well used to having the con-dems labour and almost all of the press against them.
So why the heck did they launch their White Paper in front of the press and not in Parliament where at least they'd have some on their side? The stage management sucked.
Sour grapes from Scotland hater. It is their white paper, their vision for Scotland assuming they get elected after the YES vote. Done with style and no question unanswered.
no question unanswered
Really?
You can't see past your Eck-worship to spot constructive criticism - why do you think a hostile press was a better audience than a partially appreciative parliament?
Comments
Those whose opinions matter are very much talking about it, and this is the kind of thing they are saying:
[ Peter Atherton at Liberum Capital] said the Labour leader's promise of an energy bill freeze and threat to break up large energy utilities had badly damaged confidence and raised the cost of capital for some firms by as much 20%.
"Big ticket items such as offshore windfarms have been killed stone dead. If any board directors [of the big six] were stupid enough to agree to try to raise money in the City now they would be told to 'get stuffed'. They [banks or others] would be very reluctant to finance even the independent power providers who are not directly in the firing line," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/22/national-grid-profit-payout-shareholders-ofgem
If I have understood correctly, won't Scotland simply have to follow similar (or indeed more severe) austerity as the UK government has been doing over the last few years? Or is the SNP's argument that actually Scotland will automatically be in a significantly better financial position once it is independent? I think that's the bit I'm not following; how will Scotland not be in a similar position to that which the whole of the UK is currently in, namely having a still-massive deficit to reduce and (eventually...) turn into a year-on-year surplus?
It's immensely juvenile. You cannot dictate terms in a negotiation.
However, he isn't trying to win a negotiation. He's trying to win a referendum. I'm sure a certain sort of Scotsman might be swayed by the underlying sentiment of brave Scotland standing up to the evil English. If Salmond wins the referendum he will then simply u-turn during negotiations.
Or, he'll have his first act as leader (which he will be, if Yes wins) of independent Scotland to be defaulting on debts. Given recent history, that would be phenomenally unwise.
You are right that an independent Scotland would have to be fiscally conservative. There'd be no-one to bail them out, so facts would trump rhetoric. Still, within a tight public-spending environment I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a prosperous country, once they've adapted to having to stand on their own two feet; the economy is pretty strong and really quite diverse for a country of less than 6 million people. The cost of borrowing would be a bit of a problem, at least for the first few years whilst the markets assessed their credit-worthiness.
An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency and the arrangements for monetary policy.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission - the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. The Fiscal Commission proposed a practical and workable model, including governance and institutional arrangements that would create a successful and robust framework.
The Commission's analysis shows that it will not only be in Scotland's interests to retain Sterling but that - post independence - this will also benefit the rest of the UK.
Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken on a shareholder basis.
So that's all right then.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/7
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10474186/Bulgarian-and-Romanian-migrants-will-help-economy.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100247673/are-the-european-commission-really-anti-eu-sleeper-agents/
Does no one within the EU ever stop to think how their interventions will play out in member states? I say this as someone who is very pro-immigration.
but
England in monetary union (£) = good
Lol - this is the issue that will lose it for the Nats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shxiy7l5b_4
Sticking his nose into our business again eh ? He will rue the day...
In other news, I see Berlusconi is to be Russia's ambassador to the Vatican. I can only assume that's an elaborate joke.
Lord only knows why they've such a God-awful hash of this most basic of all questions. They've had fifty years to think about it, and five years since the Euro option began to fall apart.
"Alex Salmond’s favourite columnist Joan McAlpine is getting very excited about today’s white paper published by the SNP. Here she is getting more than a little carried away in her piece for the Daily Record this morning:
“It makes America’s historic Declaration of Independence look like a Post-it note.”"
The Tories will also give him Devo Max in rreturn for lower representation in the HoC for Scotland. A win win situation for SNP and the Tories.
Scotland will try for independence in a more favourable time. There always is a favourable time sooner or later. In Scotland's case, it will be when Europe is riding high and the UK not faring so well.
No, Salmond, you cannot have the pound. One's not running a pick and mix constitution here, cupcake. #whitepaper
(joke) Queenie gets it spot on....
Please, please tell me the Nats have got some sensible answers to these. They can't surely have overlooked the main issues around independence in their manifesto can they?
Surely having an audience that was at least partially in favour would be a better idea than a largely hostile one?
Odds on favourite with some !! Still 5-2 with BWin tho... 2-1 Hills...
Did any other member of Blair's shadow cabinet or cabinet ever pull off a bigger victory over their boss?
Britain strongly condemned Spain today after it emerged that a diplomatic bag was opened at the border with Gibraltar in breach of the Vienna Convention.
Spanish Guardia Civil officers opened the bag belonging to the British Government last Friday as it was being taken across the border from Gibraltar to Spain.
Spanish police searched the bag before returning it to a courier. It is not known what was inside it or why they opened the bag.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3932326.ece
They're behaving despicably.
Talk about having your cake and eating it.
Complete and utter horseshit.
Try reading up on the McKay commission before repeating such stupidity.
Few things are funnier than the PB tories cringingly obsequious Cameroons and Alan Partridge like out of touch twits opining on here so utterly cluelessly.
It's just as gratifying watching little Ed's idiot spinners on this as it is Cammie's or calamity Clegg's. All the more so since so many PB tories are usually shrieking about Falkirk while parroting inept SLAB spin in the very next breath.
I look forward to little Ed, calamity Clegg or Cammie having a press conference on their detailed vision for a better scotland, except of course they don't have one.
This is all about trust just like it was in 2011 and just like the UK election will be in 2015.
By the time that sinks it it will be far too late for those still too dumb to realise the independence referendum is a choice between two very different options and BOTH are going to be under scrutiny whether No likes it or not.
Face it, Scotland will simply not be able to dictate terms to rUK, and for Salmond to pretend otherwise (if that indeed is what he's doing; I've not been watching the press conference) is utterly daft. Or so ISTM.
LOL
Just like nobody should take much notice of what you predict after your amusing Romney hilarity.
EDIT - crosspost Who's talking about Scotland not having a share of the UK's assets? The two parties (Scotland and rUK) will obviously have to agree as to what constitutes a fair share of the current UK's assets and debts, but I don't see what Scotland's leverage will be. I'm not saying rUK will try to screw over Scotland, but AFAICT most of the cards will lie with rUK.
Convoys of rotting produce being rejected by UK supermarkets would soon focus minds in Madrid.
Ooops see where that got them last week , Spanish rolled about the decks laughing at them.
But Scotland cannot be independent until both sides agree it. That is just a legal fact. Of course, the Scots could unilaterally declare independence and some countries in far off parts of the world (Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela etc) might recognise that - but in terms of a currency, membership of international bodies, trade and so on it would be an absolute disaster. Salmond knows all this. I would not take much notice of what he says in the run up to the referendum. If he wins, though, there will very rapidly be a series of major U-turns. There is no alternative to that. There really isn't.
Sure. But Salmond doesn't care. He has put every penny on Tartan. He is playing to Win and will say anything to achieve that, no matter how nonsensical. Once/if he gets his Yes vote, it will all be history.
The tricky thing for Unionists is how do you approach someone who is obviously lying and blustering, but who is doing it under a flag of patriotism?
If you lecture or sneer it may actually boost his popularity.
That is true. But Salmond has to maintain his line for 10 more months under intense scrutiny. If the Scots want independence they'll vote for it in the knowledge that it will look very different to what is currently being promised.
Absolutely. Which is why I think rUK should keep all its debts. And tell you what, you can keep all the oil with our compliments.
If Scotland votes yes I really think rUK is better giving Scotland exactly what it wants, maybe more, to secure a quick divorce.
If rUK gets into a protracted argument that will in the end cost more than a few upfront costs taken immediately.
If Scotland votes yes it can start with a clean slate and issue its own debt.
So, Scotland votes Yes and Westminster says No? What happens then? Are you planning on sending gunboats up the Forth?
I think that's wrong. If Scotland voted yes I'd be happy to keep all the UK's debt to avoid having to listen to Salmond any longer, instruct the BoE to set rates for rUK only, and avoid the risk of Salmond tarnishing our lovely gilts with his militancy.
Go with our blessing.
"Separated, Europe will pummel these fair islands into dust. The old will starve, the young will be enslaved, and the weak will be fed to batteries of caged ponies. Our womenfolk will wail as they roast cats over oil drums and ask why we abandoned them. That's what'll happen."
I'm still trying to work out whether it's a wildly unionist UKIPper or a wilful parody, but either way it's brilliant.
Really?
You can't see past your Eck-worship to spot constructive criticism - why do you think a hostile press was a better audience than a partially appreciative parliament?