politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Schrödinger’s referendum as Boris wants voters to vote both

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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...

Charles said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

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

ydoethur said:

MyBurningEars said:

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...

Indigo said:

DavidL said:

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

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

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

MyBurningEars said:

ydoethur said:

MyBurningEars said:

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...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union for those interested

malcolmg said:

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

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

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

FPT:

HYUFD said:

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?

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.

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

LOL, MD you still believe that claptrap.

malcolmg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT:

HYUFD said:

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'.

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.

HYUFD said:

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?

taffys said:

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.

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

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'.

'If not 'No', when?'

HYUFD said:

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.

Reuters - Latest.

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.

HYUFD said:

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".

HYUFD said:

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.

Mr. Rose, I do expect the referendum to be called off. It's very Monty Python, voting on a proposed bail-out which doesn't exist any more.

Still, there may yet be time for twists and turns.

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

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.

TudorRose said:

On a lighter note, which would you prioritise; printing Drachmas or printing ballot papers?

Printing Euros - if they still have the plates and presses!

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.

OFF TOPIC

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.

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

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.

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

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.

Maybe Scotland should have a referendum on the Scotland Act, once it comes out of Parliament.

malcolmg said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

malcolmg said:

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.

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

HYUFD said:

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.

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

Indigo said:

Moses_ said:

Reuters - Latest.

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.

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

Indigo said:

TudorRose said:

Indigo said:

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.

chestnut said:

What is the likelihood that the Greeks already have their new currency printed?

I sincerely hope they have. It could be very messy if they do not.

MalcG We shall see how the Scots react to the Scotland Bill once it has passed

Luckyguy1983 said:

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

HYUFD said:

MalcG We shall see how the Scots react to the Scotland Bill once it has passed

For sure it will be tested next year

Dair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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.

MalcG We shall see, ultimately I think Scotland will get FFA but not yet

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

TudorRose said:

Indigo said:

TudorRose said:

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!

Good point!