Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Double-speak or blatant scaremongering - take your pick. 

Anyway Donny - as can be seen from the current Brexit talks - nobody is saying it will be easy going into an independent state. There would be much talking to be done on various issues across the board and concessions to be made on both sides. I do not pretend to have all the answers but there are enough well-tuned in people within Scotland to make it work. I have had it with Westminster- rule. The system stinks as was shown by the Scottish Tories voting against what was best for Scotland the other day to tow the party line.

Edited by Caledonian Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/01/2018 at 6:13 PM, Ally Bongo said:

Depends how you want to define "secret" since the biggest ever undeveloped oil field was "discovered" less than a year ago 60 miles west of Shetland

This is 2 years after the Unionist rags said that those on the Yes side that suggested there were undiscovered fields off Shetland that the Govt were keeping secret were conspiracy theory loonies.

This is the same Govt that asked every leader of the free world along with businesses to come out against Independence and more or less banned Outlander from being shown on mainstream UK television for fear of influencing the vote 

I guess when you are on your knees you dont see this

When people mentioned the clair oil field as the secret find it would annoy me as its been known about for over 30 years, however with me being on the cair ridge as I usually do when on a new rig i got chatting tonthe driller regarding the reserves, drilling plan ect. I was shocked when he turned and said that there is anither reservoir estimated to be the same size as the ridge only a few miles away, i quized him and asked if that was phase 3 of the claire project which he replied no, its a different feild altogether and that another “claire type” project will be required to bring it on stream, i asked why this has never made it into the mainstream to which he laughed and replied, you have a yes sticker on your has, you work it out. so maybe there was a bit of truth to the “secret oil field” all along although greatly exaggerated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

So it wouldn’t work. 

It could work.  However it won't as the UK government won't go down that route because they will do everything in their power to obstruct independence.  That's not the same as saying it wouldn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I am not denying that the way the UK government's position was reported was scaremongering - but Osbourne in that speech made it clear that he was ruling out currency union ... which is precisely my point. He couched it in language that made it seem risky, but of course he did - he was against independence.

Again, the YES campaign made no effort to clarify what the situation actually was because they knew as well as their opponents that voters were less likely to go for Scottish Sterling if it didn't have UK backing. Instead they stuck to the unsustainable argument that they could leave the club but retain the benefits - remind you of anything?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Again, the YES campaign made no effort to clarify what the situation actually was because they knew as well as their opponents that voters were less likely to go for Scottish Sterling if it didn't have UK backing. Instead they stuck to the unsustainable argument that they could leave the club but retain the benefits - remind you of anything?

For those of us with short memories, including me, here's a Guardian report on the YES currency position close to the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

Once again, I am not denying that the way the UK government's position was reported was scaremongering - but Osbourne in that speech made it clear that he was ruling out currency union ... which is precisely my point. He couched it in language that made it seem risky, but of course he did - he was against independence.

Again, the YES campaign made no effort to clarify what the situation actually was because they knew as well as their opponents that voters were less likely to go for Scottish Sterling if it didn't have UK backing. Instead they stuck to the unsustainable argument that they could leave the club but retain the benefits - remind you of anything?

I think you are correct that the currency union option was put forward as it was considered the least-risky option - or to be more correct, the option that appeared to be the least riskiest one - but I think your statement about wanting to leave the club while retaining the benefits - and linking that to the UK government's position on Brexit - is wrong.

Actually, it was more like wanting to remain in the club - at least as far as currency was concerned - and being prepared to accept the costs and limitations that would mean.   

It was fully accepted that remaining in a currency union would mean that an independent Scotland would not have full control over monetary and fiscal policy - in the same way that members of the Eurozone have ceded that power.    It is a somewhat moot point though as Scotland would not be giving something up - she currently has no power in that regard - and arguably as an "equal" although smaller partner would have more influence.

The argument - such as it was - "you can't be truly independent without having control over your own currency", the response being "tell Germany and France they aren't independent and see where that gets you".

Also, Yes were very clear that - subject to a fair division of the assets - that an independent Scotland would take on a fair share of the UK's debts, in effect the UK's national debt would become the Sterling zone's debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, aaid said:

I think you are correct that the currency union option was put forward as it was considered the least-risky option - or to be more correct, the option that appeared to be the least riskiest one - but I think your statement about wanting to leave the club while retaining the benefits - and linking that to the UK government's position on Brexit - is wrong.

Actually, it was more like wanting to remain in the club - at least as far as currency was concerned - and being prepared to accept the costs and limitations that would mean.   

It was fully accepted that remaining in a currency union would mean that an independent Scotland would not have full control over monetary and fiscal policy - in the same way that members of the Eurozone have ceded that power.    It is a somewhat moot point though as Scotland would not be giving something up - she currently has no power in that regard - and arguably as an "equal" although smaller partner would have more influence.

The argument - such as it was - "you can't be truly independent without having control over your own currency", the response being "tell Germany and France they aren't independent and see where that gets you".

Also, Yes were very clear that - subject to a fair division of the assets - that an independent Scotland would take on a fair share of the UK's debts, in effect the UK's national debt would become the Sterling zone's debt.

Yes, much of that is fair enough, and my Brexit analogy was a cheap, simplistic throwaway. I agree that the YES position was accepting the limits on sovereignty that would go with currency union. However, it left them wide open to what in fact happened - the UK government saying that they would not agree, for largely political reasons, to such a union (as I said in an earlier post, this position could well have changed had the vote gone differently and negotiations actually taken place). 

Not only for political reasons though. From memory, I think the favoured option was currency union for a limited period and that, as I argued ad infinitum on here at the time, had been shown to be unstable through the Czech / Slovak precedent that I'd experienced. There were sound monetary reasons for rejecting that scenario.

Edited by DonnyTJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Yes, much of that is fair enough, and my Brexit analogy was a cheap, simplistic throwaway. I agree that the YES position was accepting the limits on sovereignty that would go with currency union. However, it left them wide open to what in fact happened - the UK government saying that they would not agree, for largely political reasons, to such a union (as I said in an earlier post, this position could well have changed had the vote gone differently and negotiations actually taken place). 

Not only for political reasons though. From memory, I think the favoured option was currency union for a limited period and that, as I argued in finitum on here at the time, had been shown to be unstable through the Czech / Slovak precedent that I'd experienced. There were sound monetary reasons for rejecting that scenario.

The majority of people don't really think about the impacts of macro economic, fiscal or monetary policy.  They tend to be more concerned about how much - or little - money they have in their bank, that their mortgages, loans, pensions are all in sterling and so concerns about re denomination and suddenly owing more or having less were very real.

I'm not sure that the Czech-Slovak example holds in this case.   What was proposed - at least by the Yes side - was something more akin to the Eurozone, where two parties would share the same physical currency which would be underpinned by the same central bank.   There would only be Sterling, there wouldn't be a Scottish pound and an rUK pound.

Plan B - in the event of George Osborne actually telling the truth - would have been to have a Scottish pound pegged to the rUK pound and that would have been subject to the sort of speculation and pressure that occurred in 1993 with the Czech and Slovak Koruna.    Its also worth remembering that the Czechoslovak Koruna had only been an internationally convertible currency for -what - a couple of years at the point of split, a very different situation to Sterling.

Of course, that's actually held up these days as a good example of how to effectively implement a currency split and of course the Slovaks have been part of the Euro since 2009 whereas the Czechs have remained outwith the Eurozone.

Ireland pegged its currency to sterling for over 50 years following its independence although arguably the impacts of global foreign currency markets were a lot lower then.

While being interesting, I don't necessarily think you can read directly across from either the Slovakian or Irish examples to the 2014 situation and say "that is how it will be", I think they are all very different cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, aaid said:

 

I'm not sure that the Czech-Slovak example holds in this case.   What was proposed - at least by the Yes side - was something more akin to the Eurozone, where two parties would share the same physical currency which would be underpinned by the same central bank.   There would only be Sterling, there wouldn't be a Scottish pound and an rUK pound.

Plan B - in the event of George Osborne actually telling the truth - would have been to have a Scottish pound pegged to the rUK pound and that would have been subject to the sort of speculation and pressure that occurred in 1993 with the Czech and Slovak Koruna.    Its also worth remembering that the Czechoslovak Koruna had only been an internationally convertible currency for -what - a couple of years at the point of split, a very different situation to Sterling.

 

I don't think you understand the 1993 situation. There weren't separate Czech and Slovak Korunas pegged one way or the other. They'd agreed to share the one currency for a limited period (I can't off the top of my head remember the planned period, but I'm pretty sure it was at least a year). People gambled on the Czech Koruna being worth more than the Slovak when the intended split eventually came and immediately there was a run on the Slovak banks as people shifted their cash into the Czech Republic. The shared currency plan collapsed within three weeks and both countries floated their own Korunas.

Getting back to the giving up of sovereignty, looking again at reports from the time, it seems that Salmond's views on this didn't align with Mark Carney's.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I don't think you understand the 1993 situation. There weren't separate Czech and Slovak Korunas pegged one way or the other. They'd agreed to share the one currency for a limited period (I can't off the top of my head remember the planned period, but I'm pretty sure it was at least a year). People gambled on the Czech Koruna being worth more than the Slovak when the intended split eventually came and immediately there was a run on the Slovak banks as people shifted their cash into the Czech Republic. The shared currency plan collapsed within three weeks and both countries floated their own Korunas.

Getting back to the giving up of sovereignty, looking again at reports from the time, it seems that Salmond's views on this didn't align with Mark Carney's.

On Carney - that's my whole "who's suggesting that Germany and France aren't sovereign nations" point.

In the Czech-Slovak case, I think we're both right, there was a single currency, then as a result of speculation, there were separate physical currencies pegged, then the split.   Regardless of that, I don't think you it necessarily follows that that would have been the case following a Yes vote in the referendum, as I said, the economic and political situations were completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see theres been a decision regarding the childrens ward in paisley, i dont know the ins and outs of the decision, is it just me or could they have timed it a lot better? With all the bad headlines regarding the NHS it just seems that it could have been timed better, gives the press another bone to chew on, a bit like the buisness rates fiasco being announced right before the local election, madness!  I can guarantee if salmond were still at the helm the timing of both these decisions would have been better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I see theres been a decision regarding the childrens ward in paisley, i dont know the ins and outs of the decision, is it just me or could they have timed it a lot better? With all the bad headlines regarding the NHS it just seems that it could have been timed better, gives the press another bone to chew on, a bit like the buisness rates fiasco being announced right before the local election, madness!  I can guarantee if salmond were still at the helm the timing of both these decisions would have been better.  

As a Paisley resident can't say it bothers me too much, there's a brand new world class kids hospital 2 miles in the other direction.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aaid said:

On Carney - that's my whole "who's suggesting that Germany and France aren't sovereign nations" point.

Yes, I get that point. The reason I linked to the Carney report is that it said that Salmond didn't: "Salmond has repeated insisted that an independent Scotland would keep full control over all tax-raising and borrowing, and would not be required to pool any spending." 

 

10 hours ago, aaid said:

In the Czech-Slovak case, I think we're both right, there was a single currency, then as a result of speculation, there were separate physical currencies pegged, then the split.   Regardless of that, I don't think you it necessarily follows that that would have been the case following a Yes vote in the referendum, as I said, the economic and political situations were completely different.

I don't know where you're getting this from but I don't recall any "separate physical currencies pegged" and I was paying close attention at the time as I was being paid in the stuff. There were capital controls for three days between the announcement of separation and the separation itself, but upon separation the two currencies floated free.

Nor do I see what necessary difference the different economic and political situations make. The pound Sterling and the Koruna are both currencies. In a limited-term currency union people will speculate on even a small shift in value at the time of the eventual separation. If they sense that the governments don't have full commitment that shift becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The pound being more established than the koruna makes little odds to speculators - see the ERM debacle. I don't know of a single precedent for successful short-term currency union.

All of which is moot as the voters shied away from being part of a test case. But it's pretty clear that next time around the NO campaign will make the same argument and YES better have a better response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mad that we're still having this conversation. It's basically the longest standing debate on the TAMB, must be 12 years old at least now.

 

Not read all of it, but historically i find myself on the side Donny portrays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Toepoke said:

As a Paisley resident can't say it bothers me too much, there's a brand new world class kids hospital 2 miles in the other direction.

 

I did see that there was a new hospital just along the road, so why the “uproar”? Is it just political jousting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phart said:

Not read all of it, but historically i find myself on the side Donny portrays.

Same. Well not historically, in 2014 I didn’t really know much about currency or currency unions, it wasn’t important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I did see that there was a new hospital just along the road, so why the “uproar”? Is it just political jousting?

The local Labour party have certainly being dining out on it for a while.

I can see how some local residents who use the facility regularly will feel let down, but having taken my daughter to the new hospital and seen how impressive it is the decision was a no brainer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

The local Labour party have certainly being dining out on it for a while.

I can see how some local residents who use the facility regularly will feel let down, but having taken my daughter to the new hospital and seen how impressive it is the decision was a no brainer.

 

Correct. People who live in close proximity to the RAH ( the current hospital for those who do not know) will have a bit further to travel however the hospital services people from outwith Paisley.

Those people, and other Paisley residents who do not live close to the hospital, should not have much further to travel, for some the new hospital will be easier to get to as it it more accessible than the RAH. 

Of course Labour have been making the most of it, its what political parties do, especially when its a controversial subject. But as you say, the superior facilities at the new hospital made the decision. 

I am not certain but i dont think the RAH ward is closing completely, I think it is still being used for day to day appointments, it is just the operations that are being moved to the new hospital, but I am not certain. 

Anyhoo, it will give the Paisley Express something to fill its pages with  when its a quiet day for the Buddies 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I have never seen the media so relentless and organised at constantly smearing the SG it day after day

You'd think they are a tad spooked that all the shite they are throwing isn't sticking so well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark frae Crieff said:

You'd think they are a tad spooked that all the shite they are throwing isn't sticking so well. 

It’s sticking a lot more than it had previously, throw enough shit and some will stick, unionist  local authorities seem to be a huge problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×