Jump to content

orlandoblue

Gold Members
  • Posts

    775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by orlandoblue

  1. And he gave the YES campaign MONTHS to dismantle the argument. MONTHS!!!!

    I must be missing something. It doesn't really matter whether it is best for the UK or not to have a currency union. He has said there won't be as had Danny and Ed. Surely the yes campaign have to at least acknowledge that this is now a possibility and spell out what their next preference would be ?

  2. I think there is a way to phrase it: "We're sorry the chancellor sees it that way, we still believe that a currency union is in the best interests of both parties and we very much hope they come to their senses after the Yes vote, if we cannot reach an agreement with Westminster on a Union, our plan is..." At least makes it sound like you know what you are doing, and knew this was a possiblity. Also has the effect of removing some of the sting of Westminster's attack, while changing the story somewhat.

    Completely agree but I suspect the fear is by doing that the immediate reaction from No will be "you can't believe anything they say now "

  3. I'm hearing the bluff line and the fact that these prize winning economic thinkers say that a currency union is in the best interest of the UK and Scotland. The problem is this is actually irrelevant. If George Osborne has the authority to do it shouldn't there be a plan for the event that he does regardless of how reckless the SNP will assert that it is.

  4. On Scotland tonight the SNP chap stated that if Scotland weren't getting their share of assets (the pound) they wouldn't take their share of liabilities (the debt)

    I think this is based on the fact that Scotland wouldn't be legally obliged to take on debt. How would this then pan out with other things that they are not legally entitled to eg military assets?

  5. Noticed Iain Macwhirter is on Scotland tonight at the moment.

    Thought this article by him regarding currency was interesting.

    "But the next time you hear people assert that Scotland would become an economic basket case if it wasn't for the beneficence of the UK Treasury and the Bank of England, invite them to take a reality check. Countries such as Scotland are what the new Europe is all about. An independent Scotland would not be cutting itself off, whether it kept the pound, adopted the euro or had its own nominal currency pegged to either. There are many ways to skin the monetary cat. It just depends who's holding the knife."

    I dare say he's right but is it not the general view that if the SNP were to announce anything other than the pound it wouldn't be great for their votes?

  6. No doubt someone will correct me but as a new state, i.e. not a continuing or successor state to the UK, there is no legal requirement to take on the debt of the original state (or successor state). Salmond has repeatedly said Scotland would take it's fair share (i.e per head: 8% of the population = 8% of the debt) but they don't tehcnically have to, and might be persuaded to be more intransigent on the basis of any outright rejection of a currency union.

    Thanks for that.

    Hypothetically then, of all current uk countries votes to become independent who is responsible for the debt?

  7. It's you that looks foolish, will a :rolleyes: re-inforce my point?

    Backing Chelsea at 5/1 only has 2 outcomes, they win or they don't.

    But odds don't work like that. If you have a price of 5/1 you need to gauge the value of that by what odds are available on all the other runners.

    You know that though.

  8. Very. Spain's foreign minister is on the record saying that they wouldn't block Scotland's entry to the EU.

    Fair enough but the article was posted stating that it was a good thing that the paper has recognised that the unionists have nothing to offer.

    So within that one article it is spot on re the unionists being keech but it is completely wrong on its assertion re Spain and their veto ?

×
×
  • Create New...