Buddist Monk

So I'm a little confused, are we brining in Nicholl or Gus, or Nicholl and Gus? I like wee Gus, got a lot of time for him, but I'd say Nicholl has the better contacts and experience. Has Kearney brought Murphy (his assistant at Coleraine) with him?

No, your claim was that it was a targetted and malicious attack on the civilians of Greece perpetrated by the ECB. That's tin foil hat territory. You also claimed that the EU has a track record of such behaviour. Again that is not true. Those are the outlandish claims.

I followed the link and it showed me a paywall. I still contend that while you have some validity to your comments, it's blinded by some pretty outlandish claims.

The boy made a silly statement, then accused me of red dotting him when I hadn't then complained I had asked him to clarify what he meant in the first place. Yet somehow that's my fault? ffs...

You will forgive me as I don't bother with online paywalls. However I think you are misunderstanding how this works. The debts are toxic, this leaves banks from all over the EU (not just France and Germany) with their books filled with numerous different loans that won't be paid back and in turn affect their ability to be profitable (and as much as I hate the idea we bend over to help the banks be profitable, again it's sadly the way the global economy works) so these are then transferred to a holding company, in this case it will be the ECB or the IMF. These organisations do not suffer the same fallout from holding such debts. It's not suspicious or sinister that these organisations hold this debt, if anything it benefits everyone, including the Greeks. I mean they could just write off all the debt, that is fair, the problem is that would absolutely hammer the Eurozone and in turn hammer the Greek economy more. The idea that the IMF or ECB hold these debts now is not in any way evidence that the have had some sort of malicious whip hand from the start.

Now as a socialist I sort of agree with that except for the paranoid "for existing" claim. Austerity never works, unless by working you mean making the rich richer. I think you need to devolve you clear personal dislike for the institution with the actual facts of the situation. It's just too easy, and wrong, to suggest that the ECB/EU in some way intentionally killed the citizens of Greece. What would have happened if the whole Eurozone collapsed? Far far more upheaval and pain, and would have set all of Europe (and most of the world) back to the days of 2008. As I said it was a Hobson's Choice. Greece could have left the Eurozone and gone to the Drachma but despite all the problems there was still a majority of it's citizens that supported being part of the union. Not only that, dropping to the Drachma would have caused an utter cluster f**k for Greece and a recession that would not have been cleared for at least another decade. I think it should also be noted that the Greek government of the time played politics, failing to regulate their domestic systems until it was too late and lying to their populace by claiming "it's not our fault, guv'nor, it's those pesky Germans".

Please stop it, that's just lies. Banks from all over the world lost a lot of money when the Greek economy went bust, including German and French ones. What annoys a lot of people is that the German lobby within the EU is very strong and so they tended to be the voices heard. The idea they got off "scot free" has no basis in fact. Here is Barclay's report of International exposure... I don't know where you are getting your information from but it's seems like it's either based on a subjective agenda or an ill informed source.

That isn't proof buddy, and it's absolutely no evidence that it was a malicious act by the EU in some way to intentionally harm the citizens of a member country. See the people who slate the EU over Greece, they tend to have a very limited understanding of the Greek economy, from the military junta of the 70s to the modern day. To be financially responsible you need to dot the i's and cross the t's. There is a huge psyche difference between Northern and Southern Europe. In Italy, Spain, Greece you were regularly asked by local businesses if you wanted to pay the tax. If you did they'd charge you more and there was no guarantee it was passed on so the vast majority of people didn't. When the Greeks were allowed into the Eurozone it was based on reports that simply did not cover the gap between what it should have in comparison to what they did have. This was manageable until the financial crisis hit and suddenly any leeway was lost. It should be noted, and I disagree with it although I understand why it was needed, that every government bailed out their banks. From the US to the UK to the EU to Asia. The idea that EU acted alone and with malice is simply not reflecting a true picture of the time. I hate that the banks got a free pass, and I hate that they have done very little to reward the people for the shit they put us through, it is unfortunately part of the global economy that we currently live in.

Wrong, and you've provided absolutely no evidence to prove that.

You quite simply couldn't be more wrong there. The massive mistake was allowing Greece and several other countries into the Eurozone when they were not ready for it. This was from hubris on the part of the EU. However once in the Eurozone they need to keep to certain financial targets of which they were unable to. You seem to think that this is some sort of agenda against Greece, but if they were to continue to lending to Greece they would in turn be hurting all the rest of the Eurozone. This was Hobson's Choice with Greece on one side and the rest of the Eurozone on the other. The trope that it was a German led assault on Greece is the sort of right wing bullshit perpetuated by the likes of Golden Dawn - the well known racist fuckwits who spread lie after lie after lie. Not unlike UKIP or the Front Nationale. And I say again, it in no way supports your claim that the EU has a history of fucking over it's citizens in favour of banks. If that was the case why introduce the Euro? That in itself cost the banks millions as there was currency transparency the length and breadth of the union.

If we are talking Greece we are talking a completely different thing, and that in no way backs up your claim that the EU "has a track record of fucking over it's citizens in favour of bankers and corporations." This is all about the Eurozone, and the imbalance it caused when economies which were not ready to join were rushed into it. Once instability happens the levers to control the economy are considerably weakened at a national level. I could go into depth regarding the failures (and the positives) of the Euro. It's not really anything to do with Brexit or Scottish independence though.

Completely agree with what you said, although it would be the pound, the Scottish pound. It was our currency for 500 years!

It's glib broad brush and inaccurate statements like that which gets us nowhere. The EU is far from perfect, but why don't you list this so called track record.

Sort of yes and sort of no. The issue regarding Corbyn is that he has a legacy of anti-EU voting. To try and spin it in any other way is insulting to everyone.

That has been his recent appeasement. He doesn't like the EU, doesn't want to be part of the EU and has said so for essentially 20 years. Trying to whitewash his comments before he entered power won't work with people who know his history. He voted against us joining, he voted against Maastricht, he voted against Lisbon, he voted for an EU referendum in 2011 long before Cameron offered one, he went on fucking holiday during the referendum campaign. On fucking holiday during one of the most important times of British politics. You might be willing to swallow his mealy mouthed claims, those of us who know the actual facts are not moved by them. To accuse those who criticise him as being led by the media is pathetic btw. I have no personal axe to grind with the guy, I just wish he was as honest with the EU as he has been regarding the adoption of the anti-Semitism charter. He should have stood on the Leave platform as that is where his heart lies. If he did that, I would have no problem. He didn't and hiding from campaign he took up the oxygen for a genuine pro European campaigner to take the lead. Labour are a busted flush in Scotland, they made a fucking mess of things when in coalition with the Liberals in Holyrood, they have taken our votes for granted and have reaped what they sowed with arrogant and ignorant fools like Jim "fucking" Murphy.

Do you think that if we split from the UK we would just leave our assets with the BoE and say, don't worry we'll start from scratch? You also seem to think that QE is beneficial to the financial industry, it's really really not. That is most definitely not the case. In fact it's been one of the stumbling blocks of the Brexit negotiations. Things like passporting will never be offered to London without the other tenets of the Union being adopted and London won't accept those. Brussels is most definitely not neoliberal, and what's more the decision regarding financial services will not be made there. It will be made in France and Germany as Paris and Frankfurt vie for the financial companies leaving the UK.

I've already answered this. I don't know if it's specifically @Detournement you want to get the answer from though.

Yes, I agree, it is imperative that confidence and consistency are offered. The currency issue needed tied down long before any vote was held. The problem with "sharing the pound" rather than having an independent currency (either pegged or not) is that it's perceived by many that would mean the BoE having full fiscal control over us. Which isn't the case. Another false assumption is that the BoE would need to give their consent, they wouldn't. In fact they would have no control what so ever. As I said for me independence is an existential/emotional issue and the biggest barrier of "sharing the pound" is that it doesn't seem like a independence - a point I think you raised a few posts back. Oh, and along with the currency, Queeny can go f**k herself. This causes a lot of problems for an indy ref because a lot of people hold a soft spot for her, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument that proves she should be in a position of power simply because of the vagina she came out of.

Which is why you peg it to the English pound, in the short term at least.

I know they do, or at least did, which I think is their path of least resistance in order not to spook people. The GBP is a known entity. I have laid out an alternative. I think you do the Scottish financial sector a massive disservice by suggesting we won't have any. It's also very unlikely we would have a "very different" economy to the rUK, certainly not in the short term and very doubtfully in the mid to long term. If anything Brexit actually enhances the pull of the Scottish financial industry, as companies will look as us as being a bridge between the rUK and the EU.

I think we need to live in the world of reality. As an independent Scotland we would not have the clout of the UK, but independence isn't a fiscal issue for me it's an emotional and existential one. If Brexit campaigners were honest they'd admit the UK will take a hit from leaving the EU, in the same way nationalists need to be honest and admit we will take a hit not being part of the UK. It's all about managing that difference and ensuring it doesn't hit those who are the most vulnerable. I spent about 5 years working in the financial industry, and during that time the one thing that came across very clearly is the trust the international markets have in Scottish decision making. It's the classic trope that we are all tight misers, which is untrue but fits well with sensible fiscal policies. Pegging to the BoE interest rates needs to be announced long before any actual independence happens, that allows businesses to know what exactly is happening, unlike Brexit. It's not the same as "sharing" Sterling though. The BoE has no say on whether we peg to their currency, and have no "rights" to the pound, it's a UK shared resource not an English one. They could of course set unsuitable rates, but all that would do is f**k the rUK economy rather than ours.

No, it's really not. There are many ways, but the SNP took the path of least resistance. I have detailed how Slovakia (a country roughly the same size as Scotland) achieved an independent currency the minute the country gained independence and how an independent Scottish pound would be viable both in the short and long term.

Ok, so first, Sterling isn't English. It's British and represents the merger of the English and Scottish pounds as part of the act of union. Secondly, the BoE wouldn't set out monetary policy, it would control the interest rates. This is sort of like pegging a currency to a more stable one. This is done throughout the world. Many countries peg their currency to the dollar for example. Even with a pegged currency we would still have far more control over our affairs, whether that is in or out of the EU. For example foreign affairs. So while Blair was sucking up to Gaddafi we had no direct line to the (then) Libyan government so when the request for dialogue with them about al-Megrahi was made it was ignored by the Westminster Foreign Office in case it interfered with the oil deal Blair's government was making. When the CFP was agreed by the UK they specifically denied the Scottish government involvement in that, despite that being a devolved power. So to recap, you are not correct in that the BoE would set our policy, but you are right that it would have an effect on it, but only in certain areas. Thirdly, I think the idea of using Sterling was a bad idea and left the SNP open to this sort of argument. Especially to those with a limited grasp of fiscal policy - not that I am suggesting you are but during the Indy Ref and even today with GERS figures it's clear some people with very loud voices have very little understanding. I would have preferred we went down the route of a Scottish pound initially pegged to Sterling or even the Euro, it just needs that to begin with to allow the changeover not to be taken advantage of by carpet baggers. After some time this would then be lifted and we can decide whether we wish to retain the Scottish pound or move to the Euro. This is pretty much what Slovakia did when Czechoslovakia split, they brought back the Koruna. They then later agreed to adopt the Euro. So, in short I feel that the SNP took the wrong option with the currency during Indy Ref. They should have been more bold and seen how it has worked for other similar sized countries in similar situations. I believe they took the option in order to stop the *autistic_screeching* from the financial institutions. These are the same institutions who fucked us all over during the financial crisis of course.

Whatever buddy, you seem determined to take some perceived slight from my comments, where none were offered. The telling thing is that nobody on here is agreeing with you on your initial comments and it seems I am the one you've decided to get nippy about.

Look at the Conservative Party since we joined the Europe, long before Maastricht and Major's "b*****ds", it was always riven allowing narrow factions to control the direction of power. All parties have that sort of Achilles Heel it has to be said, just that this is a party in power (just, propped up by bigots and homophobes) trying to get legislation through on the very subject it's riven on. The only "sensible thing" when Article 50 was triggered was to create a government of national unity as it's clear that the Brexit vote while partisan is not necessarily split entirely down party lines. Let's not fudge the issue, leaving Europe and the damage it will do to us now and for future generations while not equatable to a war situation it's one of the most serious things to happen in living memory. Would that unity government have moved things on better than this ghost ship of a tory party? Who knows, however there would have been a consensus large enough to carry any votes through parliament. Perhaps for us remainers it's for the best that didn't happen as I believe we would be much closer to exit than we are now. Corbyn has been a fucking disgrace. For a man who plays hard and loose with principle politics, he absolutely shat the bed when he refused to properly back remain or leave, he just "beiged" it in the hope that the tories would be more damaged then they were. The snap election exposed May's weakness but even more it showed Corbyn's weakness too. Ultimately there is no real way back now. While technically we could cancel Article 50, all the opt-outs and rebates that the UK had built up over the decades are no longer in force and if we were to stay we'd need to renegotiate those and it's pretty damned obvious that isn't going to happen. The whole "we should have a second ref" has been built up from people realising their mistake when they either voted for Brexit based on ignorance and lies or didn't vote because they didn't understand it. I turn on the TV and I see young people in their 20s going, "I voted for it, but I don't really understand it, what is it?" That infuriates me. The only solution I can see is for Scotland to join the EU as an independent country. The problem then is that we are a conservative (with a small c) country who would rather stick with the status quo than cause a problem. I am all for the will of the people, but I find it incredible that these same people can't see the blindingly obvious. As an independent nation in the EU we would have more far control over our own affairs than we do as part of the UK, regardless whether it stays in or not, and when we are pulled pillar to post by the racist and xenophobic nature of a much bigger dominating nation then you have to ask yourself, where is our pride?