RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Because the fiscal union works so well for large areas of the UK outside London?

In the EU system things have broadly worked well for Germany, and badly for Greece, as we see with London Vs large tracts of the North or Wales or...

However we bring together governance you're going to find areas where a single approach leaves many in a disadvantageous position, it's just how it is

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Because the fiscal union works so well for large areas of the UK outside London?

In the EU system things have broadly worked well for Germany, and badly for Greece, as we see with London Vs large tracts of the North or Wales or...

However we bring together governance you're going to find areas where a single approach leaves many in a disadvantageous position, it's just how it is

Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

It's pretty unknown to me as well, to be honest. They only folk I know who have admitted voting to leave are die-hard little Britishers who think we still run an empire.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

Sorry, couldnt help it...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 3020658754

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

I fully understand your position but I still don't think it's a valid comparison.

Yep. If you look purely at the numbers we are in as bad a position as Greece. Luckily, being able to control our own interest rates and money prin....sorry quantitative easing, along with a history of paying our debts means we are just about muddling along.

Donny osmond wrote:Sorry, couldnt help it...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 3020658754

Most sensible and educated post of the day. Other than the flat earth stuff, obviously.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

I fully understand your position but I still don't think it's a valid comparison.

Yep. If you look purely at the numbers we are in as bad a position as Greece. Luckily, being able to control our own interest rates and money prin....sorry quantitative easing, along with a history of paying our debts means we are just about muddling along.

I'm not worried if you agree, I'm just going with your note I could state my case as many different ways as I want, so we'll be at this for a while.

And we've muddled along for now. But we haven't reached the pinch points Greece has on number of workers Vs number of pensioners, we are getting there though and no one in politics is standing up with any sensible plan as they want votes instead of making hard decisions. Broadly we either need to carry on with lots of immigrants, probably increase the rate, and hope that offsets enough, or we need to massively reduce pensions, or maybe both.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

I fully understand your position but I still don't think it's a valid comparison.

Yep. If you look purely at the numbers we are in as bad a position as Greece. Luckily, being able to control our own interest rates and money prin....sorry quantitative easing, along with a history of paying our debts means we are just about muddling along.

I'm not worried if you agree, I'm just going with your note I could state my case as many different ways as I want, so we'll be at this for a while.

You are Rowan and I claim my £5.

Still no announcement from snp on their plans for iScot joining some other more acceptable union post independence.

Before the last ref they did consider EEA/EFTA and rejected it at the time. Indeed they produced a paper called "Scotland in the EU" from which the below screen shots are taken. If EEA/EFTA is a route to go down, there will be some answers needed, if not necessarily given.

They said absolutely explicitly on radio 4 yesterday that their policy is to be in the EU .

Ah ok well thats good to know

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:They said absolutely explicitly on radio 4 yesterday that their policy is to be in the EU .

What program was that on?

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I fully understand your position but I still don't think it's a valid comparison.

Yep. If you look purely at the numbers we are in as bad a position as Greece. Luckily, being able to control our own interest rates and money prin....sorry quantitative easing, along with a history of paying our debts means we are just about muddling along.

I'm not worried if you agree, I'm just going with your note I could state my case as many different ways as I want, so we'll be at this for a while.

You are Rowan and I claim my £5.

I was about to say I feel unclean, but maybe that's just getting back from a run and being in need of a shower

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:They said absolutely explicitly on radio 4 yesterday that their policy is to be in the EU .

Someone should tell their foreign affairs spokesman at WM...

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... o-join-eu/

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:They said absolutely explicitly on radio 4 yesterday that their policy is to be in the EU .

Someone should tell their foreign affairs spokesman at WM...

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/ne ... o-join-eu/

I think you're misunderstanding what he said. He was saying that they would mainatin continuous membership of EFTA, not that their aim was merely to join EFTA. If there's any headline in that it's the surreptitious dropping of the idea that they'd manage to maintain continuous membership of the EU.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

Based on nothing other than a gut feeling, my guess would be that most in favour of an independent Scotland and Brexit, would likely see the former outweigh the latter if it came down to a second Indy ref.

That may be utter bollocks.