Last week was some week wasn’t it? George Osborne, representing the ‘big boys’, ensured his speech to the Scots flooded the airways. "No pound for you people if you decide to take care of your own country. We do it better, much better and you need us to nanny you along - so there!”
Not quite what he said but that was what I understood. Perhaps the best speech the unionists have contributed - entirely free of charge too - to the independence campaign.
It wasn’t bullying claims the Guardian. It was bullying says the Express. Who should we believe? Difficult, because there is so little detail from either side, although I tend to believe that Osborne’s claims are greatly exaggerated.
At the end of Osborne’s speech one point stood out clearly. The UK is not a ‘union of equals’. We are a subsumed nation with no authority. All my lifetime politicians from Westminster have controlled is tightly. It becomes more obvious day by day. (Leave aside the controlling aspect of Alex Salmond’s government for the moment such as the state controlling every aspect of our children from the cradle).
Sterling is an internationally traded currency so Westminster cannot prevent Scotland using it after independence, but it can block the use of the Bank of England as a guarantor.
Yesterday, possibly after a quick call from No 10, Barosso decided Scotland would have a difficult time joining the EU. Of course that was music to my ears, but nonsense. Barosso, who won’t be in office at the referendum, is nervous about the Spain/Catalonia problem, hence his efforts to emphasise difficulties Scotland may or may not face regarding membership of this corrupt organisation.
So, all good fun these past few days. Are we any nearer to knowing facts from either side? Not really. It appears the unionist politicians can verbosely orate untruths at a remarkable speed and it also shows the difficulty the Yes camp has in defending its position. David and Goliath springs to mind and we all know the result of that well known bedtime story.
BBC Scotlandshire has the inside story.
Posts
30 comments:
Hello S/R,
Clearly (if Osborne is right) we are not in an equal union.
At the same time, when Labour's "Scottish Mafia" was running the UK (rubber-stamping EU diktats and inventing thousands of their own 'laws'), they did us no favours up here.
But with 90% of the EU's oil (N. Sturgeon), they're going to welcome us into the club of corruption with open arms and cream off as much as they can.
Did you actually bother to read Osborne's speech, SR? It was a cool, calm assessment of the facts based on a collective legal and expert analysis. Of course, any country can use any currency it wants - Scotland could use the dollar if it wanted. The question is if it's a currency union is achievable. Osborne, Balls, Alexander and the Governor of the Bank of England have all said that it's highly unlikely, that there are too many problems. So unlikely that it simply won't happen.
Is the Yes campaign so completely oblivious to any evidence to the contrary that it simply doesn't listen?
SNP - 'We'll get automatic EU membership.'
EU - 'No, you won't. Some countries, such as Spain, won't want you at all.'
SNP - 'Lies, lies, bullies, huff, puff.'
SNP - 'We'll use the pound.'
Rest of UK - 'You may use it but there will not be a currency union which means you won't have any kind of monetary policy.'
SNP - 'Lies, public school bullies, Tory bigots, blah, blah, waffle.'
It's amazing how often everyone else is wrong and the SNP are right.
Its not so much getting tough, as a big dose of reality. The reality of independence (true independence that is) is that its a big bad world out there. And small nations get stamped on by big ones, which is why they generally join up somehow under the wing of the big ones, or together, in order to survive.
All along Salmond has pushed the idea that you can be a small independent nation but somehow also not affected by the cold winds of international finance and geo-politics. I'm afraid you can't. When you try to tip the apple cart over (which is what an independence campaign is) you have to expect at the very least that your opposite numbers are going to make your life as hard as possible, even assuming they operate entirely within the law.
To assume that the country you are wishing to leave will wish to continue to guarantee your currency, and back your (very large) banks, is naivety in the extreme, bordering on downright deceit. Why on earth should the rUK taxpayers underwrite a foreign country's debts and financial system? Not least when all the rhetoric is how Scotland wants to be rid of the dead hand of England over it? But obviously not so rid of it so as not to benefit from the financial clout of 50m+ taxpayers.
And as for the EU, well its hardly a surprise, everyone has been saying the same for ages. All along in the campaign its been a case of the Yes camp sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending that everyone will want to bend over backwards to assist Scotland becoming an independent nation, when everyone else is saying there will be issues that they won't concede over.
The Yes camp really don't seem to have thought about this beyond 'We hate England! We've got oil! Lets leave!'.
What's 'bullying' about advising of a 'home truth'?
It's not as though the English, Welsh & Northern Irish are trying to expel Scots.
If Scotland want's to leave the game, fine; but it then relinquishes all claims to continue playing with the original toys.
"Independence" means what it says on the label.
As I've posted here before - someone who demands divorce can't expect to retain conjugal rights.
Anyone can unilaterally declare independence but if they then want to join someone else's 'club' they don't get an automatic right to join nor to make the rules.
The reason that 'David and Goliath' is of note is that it is the exception to the rule that the big guy 'always' wins. Salmond is just a wee boy who can't cut it with the big Scots like Brown, Blair and Cameron and wants his own puddle to splash in.
As I understand it …
On the 1st of May 1707 the Treaty of Union came into being.
Under Article 16 of said treaty, there was enacted the establishment and introduction of a ‘Common Currency”.
England did not adopt the Scottish system; Scotland did not adopt the English system. This was a new, mutually agreed ‘common’ to all in the Union, system.
If Scotland now reclaims her independence then the Treaty of Union is terminated and with it all associated articles of that treaty including Article 16 are likewise terminated.
Therefore the ‘Common Currency’ formed under Article 16 legally falls and so it must end.
It does NOT become the residual sovereign property or right of any signatory party to continue to use the ‘Common Currency’.
If Scotland has to establish her own currency then so must England
That is unless, by mutual agreement, they resolve between them to continue using the ‘Common Currency’.
[Sorry - for England – please read England , Wales and Northern Ireland]
Scotland (or rather a rump collection of crackpots) is terminating the agreement - not England.
The more they bully you, the more likely a Yes vote IMHO...
@ JRB 13:30
"If Scotland now reclaims her independence then the Treaty of Union is terminated and with it all associated articles of that treaty including Article 16 are likewise terminated."
I'm puzzled as to why the SNP beg for access to the 'Punnd Sasannach', if, as you claim, it shouldn't exist?
It seems to me that the SNP did not think through the ramifications of independence properly and assumed that the intention was good enough that the outcome would be to. As we all know good intentions often do not make for good outcomes as we also know that old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and how true that is. Still the upside is that Scotland could be free of that monstrosity the EU and the rest of the UK stuck with it. Then being a eurosceptic I also hope, in vain I expect, that they throw us out as well on the basis that it is not the same country that signed up to all those ghastly EU treaties. So come on Scotland vote for out just in case.
Hello Stewart, well said.
I did read it William and I also read quite a bit more information written by others.
I was trying to be objective but when I read earlier comments by Westminster and other renowned economists, I think (part) of his speech was written in a fit of pique.
Quite strange why the Scandanavian counties haven’t reunited then Sobers. Surely that would be in their best interests.
I’m quite happy if Scotland adopts it own currency Joe i.e. the groat or something, but I don’t see, in the short term, why it would harm the rest of the UK with Scotland being part of Sterling.
Brown, Blair and Cameron better politicians than Salmond Jim? I doubt that. The only reason they became party leaders was because of money in one way or another.
Great comment, thank you JRB.
If it was convenient for England, then it would William.
Exactly Dioclese.
"Quite strange why the Scandanavian counties haven’t reunited then Sobers. Surely that would be in their best interests."
They have, sort of - 3 of them are in the EU, which means they are no longer fully independent, and have subsumed themselves into a larger entity, and the 4th (Norway) is half in, but has so much wealth in its sovereign wealth fund that it can uniquely afford to tell the rest of the world to sod off if it so chooses, and has joined NATO as well so its defence is covered by larger nations in that manner. None of them are fully independent any more.
@JRB: the rUK could call its currency whatever you like, changing the name to the Guinea for example doesn't change the underlying backing for a currency, which is the wealth and size of the nation issuing it. The point is that Scotland can issue its own pound if it wants, and must stand behind it itself.
It can no more expect the rUK taxpayer to back it up financially after independence than it could expect any foreign nation's taxpayers to back it - you might as well ask the USA if it didn't mind entering a currency union. Would make sense for Scotland as oil is sold in dollars and would eliminate currency risk on a large part of its income. But I think Congress might not agree, as is its right. Just like Westminster doesn't agree to an independent Scotland using the pound, or whatever it might be called.
The Scottish government offered its proposition from the four options listed in its white paper.
All the options listed were and are viable and as such are in effect pans b,c and d.
As a political ploy Westminster throws a hissy-fit and refuses to countenance plan a. While the Scottish Government still maintains it's the best option.
Westminster's resort to hissyness is based on the fact they don't want any plan and as a consequence any change to the comfort of their establishments. This is clarified by their refusal to comment on any plan at all.
Result; Westminster exposes its democratic deficit while the Scottish Government maintains its integrity, by way of reason and responsibility.
"The Scottish government offered its proposition from the four options listed in its white paper.
All the options listed were and are viable and as such are in effect pans b,c and d.
As a political ploy Westminster throws a hissy-fit and refuses to countenance plan a. While the Scottish Government still maintains it's the best option.
Westminster's resort to hissyness is based on the fact they don't want any plan and as a consequence any change to the comfort of their establishments. This is clarified by their refusal to comment on any plan at all.
Result; Westminster exposes its democratic deficit while the Scottish Government maintains its integrity, by way of reason and responsibility"
I don't know where to begin. If all 4 options are so equally viable, why is there any problem? Option A is out, lets move on to one of the other three. Or could it be that options B, C and D have pretty severe drawbacks for an independent Scotland that option A doesn't? Mainly that you either join the Euro and face the same problems small countries on the Eurozone periphery have been having recently, or print your own currency and face the problems that entails. Whereas option A allows Scotland to piggy back on the financial clout of the rUK while retaining significant input into the decision making process, much more so than being one of 19 countries in the Euro. Of course Scotland maintains that Option A its the best option, it is - for Scotland. Maybe not for the rUK though. But I suppose those south of the border are supposed to subordinate the best interests of their population to those of Scotland?
And as for the refusal to comment on the other three options, why on earth should they be commented on? They are not within the remit of the rUK. If Scotland chooses the Euro, or the Tartan pound or to Sterlingise without currency union then the rUK cannot do anything about it. So why comment on it?
And regarding democratic deficit, the rUK is looking after the interests of the rUK public, something that I for one am very pleased about.
Without a currency that is either backed by the BoE or ECB Scotland has nowhere economically to go that is viable. I do believe Osborne means what he says about Scotland not being able to use BoE as a backstop as that is like asking your neighbour to have a joint overdraft and only one putting up the collateral. In any case as I understand it if you have to leave the EU and reapply there is no escaping joining the euro with all the dangers that implies. I do believe that the currency question has shot the yes vote out of the water and independence is out of the question which of course will cause acrimony for generations to come.
Actually I disagree that Scotland needs a currency union to survive economically, it is perfectly possible for small nations to run their own currencies. But doing so takes discipline, because one step out of line financially and the world markets will step on you like a bug. And thats why an independent Scotland can't run its own currency - there's too many socialists who would be running it, and we know how that usually ends up. They always need someone to bail them out eventually, when they've overspent other peoples money, as they always do. If you're under the ECB/BoE then there will always be a backstop to bail you out if it all goes t*ts up, if you're on your own the consequences could be drastic for the Scottish public in such a scenario. Think falling currency (ie inflation) and cuts in spending to balance the budget (because you can't borrow on the open markets) all at the same time.
Antisthenes, I think you're right. The currency and EU arguments put forward by the SNP have been completely obliterated over the last week - and that's not including other stuff like the tuition fees which was also blown apart by the EU.
The SNP's position on the currency and EU has been shown to be incompetent, at best, and outright deceitful, at worst. The Yes vote will not recover from this and the No vote will only increase from its current majority to a substantial majority as the reality sinks in across the nation.
I don’t think any country is fully independent anymore Sobers but most do their own book-keeping.
Good assessment Crinkly. Thank you.
I disagree there Sobers. The rUK is looking after the south east of England.
You’re right Antithenes. If it’s a NO vote the Scots will feel the backlash. Not a pleasant thought.
Sobers, many years ago the SNP wasn’t nearly as socialist as it is now and I feel sad about that. I think it was the result of the SNP trying to take over Labour’s position and they’ve got far too far to the left now. Doubt if they’ll ever win another election because of this and that too is disappointing.
Post a Comment