Self-selecting readers' polls are usually a waste of time - they probably tell you more about the readership of the website than about the actual subject-matter in hand. But here are two questions that might just be useful to ask of the readers of a pro-independence blog. The first is inspired by the previous post, and the second is one that's been on my mind for some time. You might remember that I ran a similar poll a few years ago, and discovered to my surprise (and also to my dismay) that there was a slight majority against EU membership. But far fewer people read Scot Goes Pop back in those days, so it'll be interesting to see if the balance of opinion has changed.
Question 1. Should the pro-independence movement ostracise Tommy Sheridan?
Question 2. In the EU referendum, will you vote to 'Remain' or 'Leave'?
The voting forms can be found at the top of the sidebar. If you're viewing this on a mobile phone, you'll have to switch to the desktop version of the site.
Er, in the Sheridan poll I voted 'yes' and it is showing that all 4 votes have been for 'no'. Software issue?
ReplyDeleteIt just takes a minute or two to update. There are four votes for Yes now.
DeleteHow many gullible women were shagged by the socialist! In the name of socialism.
DeleteSee that cereal? Eat it.
Delete"gullible women" were shagged
DeleteGee whiz, a misogynist to boot.
He is so flamboyant and handsome he can just talk the drawers aff them.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh yes....Tommy! Tell me more about socialism!
DeleteWell, it involves people coming together.
Oh YES, that sounds great!! Call me sister again Tommy, it's dirrrrrty!
Jeez, both Aldo and GWC have very low opinions of women.
DeleteLovely.
Not generally speaking. I hold Margaret Thatcher in very high regard.
DeleteAnd Baroness Mone of Mayfair. Phwoooaar!! ;0)
And of course I publish that comment, the page refreshes and the vote has been counted...so ignore me.
ReplyDeleteI think the first question could have been phrased a bit better.
ReplyDeleteWho exactly are "the movement"?
I voted yes, am I a member of "the movement"?
I never got a badge, or a certificate or anything like that.
I have a more nuanced view on Tommy. I do admire his rhetoric and his enthusiasm and I see that he is good at getting events organised. However I can imagine the bad press he would attract if he were an official part of the Yes campaign. I think it's best when he's involved unofficially. But you can't vote for that.
ReplyDeleteThis echoes my own views fairly closely. I also think he has done major damage to the Socialist movement in Scotland and that he committed perjury.
DeleteFirstly: I think the wording of question one is prejudicial - few people are going to want to vote to 'ostracise' someone. Perhaps some variation of 'no platform' or 'should not be an official spokesperson' would be better.
ReplyDeleteSheridan is an egotist who damaged the socialist movement in Scotland very badly: but regrettably his former comrades in the rump SSP have spent the past ten years obsessing about him and his activities to the extent that they lost whatever purchase they once had with the section of voters they once attracted (not to mention the responsibility they have to take for lying to their own membership about the reasons for and process of getting rid of him). The blog you referenced in the last post, 'A Thousand Flowers', grew out of the SSP's old youth wing and thus exhibits all the tribalism and groupthink that you might expect.
However I voted No to question one on the grounds that Tommy is a busted flush, with little to no chance of getting elected again, hopefully one day he will realise that and go away. In the meantime it would damage the wider independence movement to spend all its time attacking him and people who associate with him, given that he's not getting back into parliament anyway.
Within the left (separate from the pro-independence movement) it is important to have a broad general dialogue about Tommy's supposed activities and the attitudes that should be taken towards them, but that is somewhat separate from the thrust of this poll.
On question 2 I treated the poll as a snapshot of my opinion now, so voted to remain, but I strongly disagree with the way the EU works at present and am open to be persuaded by a socialist case for out, if one is made.
Ostracism was one of the first things ever voted on (leaving some of the very earliest voting records, votes having been recorded on pottery ostraka). The ability to do so probably remains fundamental to democracy being about policy not personality. I think Scottish politics would be much improved if the players knew the public could annually agree to silence - just for a year, mind - the most egregiously fatuous one. That one person who just will not shut up with their endless trolling of the electorate. (It might also give the media some pause over the wall-to-wall tactic.) However, as we don't have that power, and I agree that TS is a minor issue at best - though well used for/to the old divide-and-conquer - I voted against pretending that we do.
DeleteOur national movement for independence is for everyone.We should not be ostracising anyone.
ReplyDeleteANON
DeleteYour'national movement for independence' is not for me
'This train is for...' Do you disembark when the next words aren't your given name? Or do you only pretend illiteracy on the internet? (NTA)
DeleteThe wee Dug is going to reverse the cuts. So that will take at least six years if Labour win the next election. So maybe we will see the Nat sis move from the right to the left and use their tax raising powers to top up the cuts.
DeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteI'm sorry but if the consensual shagging of casual acquaintances disqualifies one for political activity then half the democracy in the world is invalidated .
ReplyDeleteWith Tommy it's not about the shagging.
It's about lies and attacks that damaged colleagues and destroyed a vibrant political movement with huge potential. It's about hubris. It's about seriously unwise political decision making.
Of course he should not be ostracised
He didn't invade Iraq or abuse vulnerable small boys.
Problem is the general public don't understand.They tend to think it is about the shagging and the have a pretty robust view nowadays about how inconsequential that activity is in the general run of things. That's up to Tommy and Gail they say (and wouldn't you maybe do the same if the chance came along wink wink).
So Tommy ,with his abilities retains substantial popular support.
What actually should happen is that SSP and Solidarity and the injured parties should sit down in a closed meeting (having been frisked for weapons first) and they should have the whole thing out big time and understand that the causes they support are bigger than the huge and largely justified personal animosities. And move on.
Not likely to happen, I'm afraid. But one hopes
So this man who has moved from waving the Red Flag and now wraps himself up in the Saltire. A former Labour and Militant tendency then SSP then whatever next. Humiliates himself in court, splits a good party and puts the left into the wilderness. Hope he joins the Nat sis.
DeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteUnconcerned that Mr Sheridan does the horizontal bop with various and sundry partners. If the next NO campaign can find no YES bogies to castigate, they will invent them. No one's reputation is sacred to these folks. Virtue is no antidote to smear when the smearers control the media.
ReplyDeleteOutside in the real world, to the great majority of folks, the SSP is either wholly unknown, forgotten, or an irrelevance. Where it pertains to indyref2 the issue of Tommy's parliamentary electability is a non sequitur. He is an easily recognisable personality who can draw a crowd and make a convincing case for independence to certain audiences. That is what matters.
He IS a member of the pro-indy movement. He cannot be removed or detached from it anymore than a pitbull can be excluded from the genus canis because you think it lacks certain social skills.
I very much hope Scotland IS outvoted and faces the prospect of being dragged out of the EU against its will if that is the catalyst that turns 2014's majority NO to YES. Whatever it takes.
With respect to Unionism and achieving independence, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
With respect Scotland was dragged into the EEC amidst the largest porkie ever told, 'it is only going to be a trade agreement'. The SNP were against going in. So why the hell do you want to split the Union and hand your whole destiny over to the Frankfurt Bank.
ReplyDeleteAnd have you considered your next door neighbour will be your competitor and not mutual friend and ally. Freeeeedumb.
Eat your cereal.
DeleteWith little or no respect, that's complete and utter bollox. The EEC treaties contained a very clear commitment to 'ever closer union' from the 1957 Treaty of Rome onwards. The UK didn't join until 1973, with an In/Out referendum in 1975. The commitment has always been contained in the treaties and probably always will be. It's not as if it was hidden away in the small print either. It's the first phrase in the first line of the of the Treaty of Rome which was signed in 1957, 16 years before the UK joined. Please don't tell me nobody in the UK noticed the words 'ever closer union' for 16 years prior to the UK joining. Here are the exact words from the Treaty of Rome, as it was originally signed in March 1957:
Delete"Preamble
His Majesty The King of the Belgians, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty The Queen of the Netherlands,
Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,
Resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,
Affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,
Recognising that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,
Anxious to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,
Desiring to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,
Intending to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
Have decided to create a European Economic Community and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries.."
http://www.hri.org/docs/Rome57/Preamble.html
I don't want an indy Scotland to be forced to accept the toxic euro nor the EU to set our fishing policy amongst others. The EU has been captured by corporate interests as witness the treatment meted out to the Greeks. The small nations of Europe like the Scandinavian countries have given up much of the sovereignty that Norway retains.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Indy Scotland in the EU would be told - in a German accent - to basically sit at the back of the bus and shut up. There are 3 meaningful powers in Europe - Germany, France and the UK, in that order. Everyone else is either poor or tiny or both.
DeleteI believe in staying in Europe, but as part of the much more powerful and influencial United Kingdom. Take the rUK out of the picture and we're left munching on German sausage - just like the Irish and the Greeks.
If we are stuck with blighty I would far rather be in the EU because at least there is some progressive legislation enacted by the EU on employment law, human rights, and the environment that the UK. with Scotland stuck to it, would have to comply with. It would offer us some minimum protection from mad English Tories. I suspect the high score for staying in is based on that.
DeleteBut in an indy Scotland I would rather be out, like Norway.
Just staggered by the amount of pro-indy supporters who are content with the current trajectory of the European Union.
DeleteTrade is important, but sovereignty is sacred. It is being eroded insidiously, treaty by treaty. And once its gone, its bloody hard to get it back. Indy supporters of all people should realise this.
Most indy supporters aren't really independence supporters anon. They are lefty liberals who think Scotland out of the UK and even deeper into Europe than it already is will lead to some kind of socialist paradise.
DeleteEvery argument I have seen and heard in favour of independence is about social engineering, left wing economics and expanding the state. Very few people who espouse independence give the reason as 'self determination'. Most of them have a left wing political axe to grind.
Well more fool them. Self determination is everything. If youre going to sacrifice it at all make sure you a) keep a veto and b) command the highest possible price. You don't just give it away. (And I am a lefty liberal!)
DeleteInteresting poll, looks like Alistair Carmichael should have upped the stakes and committed perjury instead of just lying to journalists.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that Sheridan has already been punished. Nobody has actually ostracised Carmichael anyway - it's simply felt that he shouldn't remain in elected office unless the public give their consent in the full knowledge of what he did.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Aldo
DeleteSo in one sentence you accused someone of being a nutter, and in the next you come out with this line:
A great asset to unionism, along with Jim Sillars - who I still believe to be a British agent.
Do you not see any irony there at all?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Aldo
DeleteIt appears you have completely missed the point of my post. You accused Sheridan of being a nutter, and then said that Jim Sillars was a British intelligence agent. No evidence was put forward by you for this 'interesting' view.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Aldo
DeleteNope, you have offered no credible evidence whatsoever. Jim Sillars has always been passionate about Scottish politics. He and Alex Salmond fell out over strategy, and probably there was also a power struggle, as they were both high calibre politicians at the time, and still were afterwards. I really do not think it is fair to Jim Sillars to question his integrity and principles in the manner you have done. It just looks like a cheap shot and fairly vindictive imo.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Aldo
DeleteThe poll putting the Yes campaign in the lead was about 10 days prior to the vote if my memory serves me right. The promise of more powers was more significant than anything Jim Sillars said that may have been detrimental to the Yes campaign imo. He has said he was wrong in regards to the day of reckoning remark. But you have still failed utterly to offer any evidence for your claim, which is a pretty serious one in terms of someone's reputation. You are basically accusing Jim Sillars of being a fraud, a phony and, a Judas figure to the independence movement in Scotland. I believe that, without providing any credible evidence whatsoever, this is a very stupid thing to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'd like to vote No to the Sheridan question. I don't think he'd have too much influence either way...not that I really care.
ReplyDeleteFor the referendum question, I absolutely believe Scotland should leave the EU. However, in the very unlikely hope it'd engineer an rUK Out Scotland In result, that would drag Scotland out against its wishes, I will be tactically voting to remain.
I can't be arsed spinning up a desktop session so I won't vote at all. It's 2015, ffs.
Mandela
Ironically, you could have clicked the link to the desktop version of the site in a fraction of the time it took you to write that comment!
DeleteI voted to leave the EU, the treatment of Greece converted me to Euroscepticism. Now we have the Portuguese President proclaiming that no party that opposes the Fiscal Compact ought to be part of an EU govt. The Fiscal Compact was forced on the EZ by Germany in 2012, it effectively outlaws Keynesian style economic stimulation and makes it punishable by fines.
ReplyDeleteThe EU's treatment of Greece has actually been worse than Thatcher's treatment of Scotland, they show every sign of being an elite completely out of touch with the peripheries they govern, which is why I want independence from Westminster in the first place. But Germany is now forcing Ordoliberalism (the German variant of neoliberalism) on the entire EZ.
I support Scottish independence and thus have an interest in Scotland voting to stay and bringing about another indyref, but I simply cannot hold my nose and approve of the EU, I don't know how anyone supporting social justice can, except by not quite grasping what the EU has become.
So it is no to the GBP and the Euro for you. So do explain what we will get out of the hole in ra wa. Will we have a seperate stockmarket? Personnally I think the Nats lost because off no currency proposal. They were very immature indeed. I do accept that many Nat sis would vote for independence even knowing the economy could collapse however most people like to know what side their butter is spread on and morso if they will have butter.
DeleteIf we don't like the Fiscal Compact, then we have two options. On is to leave the EC. T'other is to work against it from within, along with other nations that may see it as detrimental.
DeleteGermany is not the EU.
* One, obviously.
DeleteThe only option would be the creation of an independent Scottish central bank and the issuing of a new currency. They were at great pains to avoid mentioning this however, as Scottish people don't want that arrangement - they want the Pound Sterling.
DeleteThe more hardline nationalists have said that in any future referendum, the SNP should back a new, separate currency. Consistent and easy to argue because Scotland is so brilliant, who could possibly think that our currency would be anything other than an instant, rip roaring success? Problem is, they might believe that having bought their own hype - but to anyone outside of the innermost circle of nationalist purists, it will seem like a really, really bad idea. Salmond knew this.
Who "wants the pound"? When was the currency plebiscite?
DeleteI couldn't care what the currency was. It is, as currencies have been since they were invented, a means of exchange. It does not matter if its cowrie shells or coke bottles. So long as everyone has confidence in it we all trade as normal.
For many people, they get paid in numbers into a bank, they hand over a plastic card to pay for things - which affects the number in the bank. The number is not real. It represents a concept which used to be currency. If they walk into their bank and demand all their money they will get a piece of paper with a number on it, or a handful of other coloured pieces of paper. Those are not real. You cannot eat them. You can exchange them for food.
And back we are to the coke bottles. Asda would take those in exchange for food, because the food processors would take them, because the farmers would take them, because the banks would take them because their customers would take them to buy food at Asda.
Scotland runs a trade surplus. It can feed itself from its own resources. We can essentially have any currency we want.
Adam Smith Institute did a very good piece on this before Indy1.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/money-banking/an-independent-scotland-should-use-the-pound-without-permission-from-ruk/
The currency crap was just a scare story. Its not an issue at all. Its just a recycling of Wilson's old lie about devaluation not affecting the pound in your pocket. The public are way more sophisticated nowadays.
Do your own research. The traditional media spout propaganda. You have nothing to fear from independence - well so long as Maths genius Kez doesn't become chancellor.
I know money is simply a concept anon, but an extremely important one. And I know that it's represented by bits of paper. But not all such bits of paper are created equal. The value and purchasing power varies from currency to currency as does confidence. Profiteers are also forever waiting in the wings, ready to exploit and take advantage of any confusion or ambiguity. The classic example of this is decimalisation - retailers used it to stealthily hike their prices, leaving people scratching their heads wondering why their money wasn't going as far as before.
DeleteHere's my main concern. I owe money in Pounds Sterling. What happens if the Scottish currency is worth less than Sterling? Will I be paid more? If not, will the government help me? Presumably debt doesn't vanish with the hoisting of a new flag - not in today's globalised world.
It is the lack of answers to questions such as this - the almost criminal lack of detail - that scuppered the yes movement.
Glasgow working class said
Delete"So it is no to the GBP and the Euro for you."
I wanted a pound currency union in the short run for the sake of stability while political arrangements changed, before a carefully planned switch to a new Scottish currency. And yes we'd have a separate stock market, what's the big deal about that? Eurozone members do even though they don't have their own currency.
Douglas Clark said
Delete"Germany is not the EU."
Try telling them that. Germany leads a little clique of mittleuropa states who have succeeded in forcing policies on southern Europe that harm their economies. I'm not confident that Scotland could change that, the PIIGS haven't. Being outside the Euro we are not subjected to Ordoliberalism, but somebody needs to needs to tell the EU it's going the wrong way.
Pre Referendum the Scottish Nat sis did not indicate they wanted a seperate stock exchange. They did say they wanted the GBP. So hardly any point in seperation! They want the cake and eat it without responsibility. They lost, says it all.
DeleteAldo said
Delete"The only option would be the creation of an independent Scottish central bank and the issuing of a new currency. They were at great pains to avoid mentioning this however, as Scottish people don't want that arrangement - they want the Pound Sterling"
All Eurozone members have central banks, iScotland would have to have one even in a pound currency union, it's really not a big deal.
There's no problem with having a new currency, it's transitions that are risky, a currency is a currency, it doesn't matter what it is, so long as any changes are forseable long in advance, and can therefore be factored in by interested parties, which is why it takes several years to get into the Euro. So, it's not that a Scottish currency has to be either a success or failure but how the transition between currencies is managed that is a success or failure or the economy it represents. The fact you talk as if a currency is a failure in itself shows you don't know what you are talking about.
"Here's my main concern. I owe money in Pounds Sterling. What happens if the Scottish currency is worth less than Sterling? Will I be paid more?"
This is the problem with a sudden Grexit from the Euro, it would bring down banks and businesses in and outside Greece because prior existing private debts would become untennable. If courts decided these debts were denominated in Euros Greeks would no longer be able to pay in devalued Drachma, but if they are denominated in Drachma the creditor still takes a hit on the value of the loan. This is why currency changes need to be carefully managed over time, it allows creditors and borrowers to factor in the coming changes by agreement.
Also the pound would go down in value if Scotland had it's own currency since it would no longer be a petrocurrency.
Glasgow said
Delete"Pre Referendum the Scottish Nat sis did not indicate they wanted a seperate stock exchange. They did say they wanted the GBP. So hardly any point in seperation! They want the cake and eat it without responsibility. They lost, says it all."
They said they wanted a pound currency union, which is fair enough in the short term, whether we stick with that, adopt the Euro or a new currency is something we could decide later, I personally favour a new currency and oppose joining the Euro either as the UK or iScotland. Scotland has already had it's own stock exchanges within the union, it only merged with London in 1973.
We were told independence would be implemented by March of 2016. That isn't exactly carefully managed, gradual change over time.
DeleteHow can you have a central bank when you share a currency? Surely in the eventof a currency union (ruled out by the UK government), there would be one central bank - the Bank of England - shared by Scotland and the continuing United Kingdom? Any banks in Scotland calling themselves 'the central bank' or issuing banknotes would be acting as a subsidiary of the Bank of England, on its orders (and so not really a central bank in the real sense).
The oil and gas industry makes up about 1.5% of the UK economy and is in steep decline. Why would its loss to the UK represent a serious devaluation of the Pound?
Here's a difficulty. If Scotland leaves the UK in response to the UK leaving the EU, then how can you expect that the EU will accept an independent Scotland that shares a currency with a non EU member that is also the dominant partner in the currency union by about 12 to 1? I would say that would be a compromise too far for the EU.
DeleteSo it's an independent Scottish currency then, paving the way for Euro membership a few years down the line. The people of Scotland don't want either though. They want the pound.
Aldo
Delete"We were told independence would be implemented by March of 2016. That isn't exactly carefully managed, gradual change over time."
Yeah "Independence" by March 2016 not a new currency.
"How can you have a central bank when you share a currency?"
You cannot even be a member of the Eurozone without having your own central bank, the ECB is basically a federation of Euro member's central banks! Within the Euro currency union they do not set their own interest rates but they function to regulate their own economies according to EZ rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_System_of_Central_Banks
"Surely in the eventof a currency union (ruled out by the UK government), there would be one central bank"
Within a pound currency union the BoE would set interest rates, but the board who decide on the rates would include some Scottish appointed members, which is more say over them than we currently have. Scotland would still need it's own financial authorities including a central bank to regulate it's own economy according to rules agreed with the BoE.
"The oil and gas industry makes up about 1.5% of the UK economy and is in steep decline. Why would its loss to the UK represent a serious devaluation of the Pound?"
Because being a petrocurrency elevates the value of the subject currency, that's partly why British manufacturing declined in the 70's and 80's, north sea oil put up the value of the pound making British goods more expensive abroad, thus atrophing sales. Fluxuations in the value of oil will have an effect on the currency, but any country with oil will find it adds to the value of their currency to different degrees, hence whatever the fortunes of the oil industry, it adds to the trading value of a currency that has one.
"If Scotland leaves the UK in response to the UK leaving the EU, then how can you expect that the EU will accept an independent Scotland that shares a currency with a non EU member"
DeleteWhy exactly would it be a problem for them? It wouldn't make any difference if Scotland was outside the Eurozone anyway. Further any EU exit would be a problem for them because all the trade laws would need to be rewritten (that means no German cars sold in Scotland/UK, all the Scotch taken from the German supermarkets until new trade laws are agreed), Scotland already being a separate jurisdiction.
I mean you seem to be assuming there some sort sentimental objection on behalf of the EU, you haven't described what economic problems there would be for them. Sure we couldn't join the Euro from a pound currency union, we'd have to have our own currency first, but I don't think we should join the Euro anyway, so no big deal. According to the Unionists the EU would refuse Scottish membership and yet force us to join the Euro at the same time!
"So it's an independent Scottish currency then, paving the way for Euro membership a few years down the line. The people of Scotland don't want either though. They want the pound."
I don't think anyone in Scotland is sentimentally attached to the pound, No voters just fear change and opt for the devil they know, they are mostly elderly after all.
It would be interesting to find out exactly how much added value comes from Scotland's oil industry. Keep in mind also that England possesses the majority of gas reserves, allows fracking and has just discovered major reserves of oil and gas on land.
DeleteSo the central banks of Europe - and the central bank of an indy Scotland under the CU plan - cannot either print money or set interest rates. Those are fundamental capabilities of a central bank. So they are not really central banks - just local regulatory bodies at best and we continue to call them central banks to protect peoples' sense of national pride and prestige.
Scotland would have members on the Bank of England board. The rUK would have lots more, however.
In the event of an independence date of March 2016 and with no agreement reached over a CU, an independent Scottish currency would have been established very swiftly. There would be no other choice for us. So that brings us back to the problem I was talking about earlier - I owe 10,000 pounds and am now paid in irn bru bottles. What do I do?
The desire for keeping the pound is not about sentimentality. It's a strong and stable currency and, as I said earlier, we all owe each other debts in Pounds Sterling. Establishing a new currency in part of Great Britain would complicate matters needlessly.
DeleteThe EU is an economic coalition of nations. Having a member state whose economy is effectively controlled by a country outside of the club is self evidently problematic and I can think of no precedent for it.
Trade with Europe wouldn't cease in the event of Scotland and / or Britain leaving the EU. It might be more expensive - but items wouldn't be banned from sale / taken off the shelves of supermarkets. That's not how it works.
I think if indy Scotland did enter the EU (potentially problematic due to Spain and rUK - if it's still a member - possibly vetoing our membership), then we will simply be subsumed within the greater German economic empire - like Greece has been. The idea that puny little Scotland can dictate terms is fanciful.
"It would be interesting to find out exactly how much added value comes from Scotland's oil industry."
DeleteIt would be impossible to say for anything longer than one moment, oil's value is always changing and a currency's value changes too according to a whole bunch of variables.
"we continue to call them central banks to protect peoples' sense of national pride and prestige."
No we don't, the EU requires them to exist because they fulfill several of the functions of a central bank, except interest rates.
"Scotland would have members on the Bank of England board. The rUK would have lots more, however."
Yes, Scotland would be disadvantaged by that, which is why I think it should eventually have it's own currency, it worth while putting up with for a bit for the sake of stability until we have financial authorities developed to manage a currency change properly. But a pound CU would still give us more influence than we now have where the BoE set rates almost exclusively according to the interests of London's financial services sector and property market. As former BoE governer Eddie George said, it's worth creating unemployment in the north east to help keep down inflation in the south.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
"In the event of an independence date of March 2016 and with no agreement reached over a CU, an independent Scottish currency would have been established very swiftly. There would be no other choice for us."
There would have to be an agreed CU by independence, it would be in both parties interests to have one. But, even if we didn't we could still use the pound without a CU, we could use the Dollar or Euro (without being an EZ member), we could have our own currency pegged to the pound, nobody can stop any country using whatever currency it likes. It really isn't as frightening a question as the unionist made out.
Carnyx, Why would Ruk be interested in accommodating an interim currency for a foreign country. RUK WOULD MOVE ON. The old Glesga stock exchange is long gone the building is iconic surrounded by restaurants and fast food shops, Nelson MacDella Place.
DeleteGlasgow
Delete"Carnyx, Why would Ruk be interested in accommodating an interim currency for a foreign country."
Because it would also be in their interests to preserve stability, lots of English businesses trade in Scotland, why would the rUK want to hurt them with the sudden introduction of cross border risks where none existed before? It wasn't in the Eurozone or Greece's interests to have a sudden Grexit because it would have caused financial collapse across the whole Eurozone, banks would fall like flies even before the financial flight and bank runs. Likewise a sudden exit of Scotland from the pound would have the same effect within the pound zone. A denial of a pound CU would hurt Scotland more, but it would also hurt rUK. Those who believed the UK govt would refuse a CU were in effect saying they think the English would cut of their noses to spite their face, I think more of them.
Carmichael didn't just lie to journalists, thats not what the case is about.
ReplyDeleteGlasgow Working Class,
ReplyDeleteAnd trolleybus expert.
There are four dominant currencies in the world, the dollar, the euro, the renminbi and drugs.
A small nation, say Iceland perhaps, can stick two fingers up at the consensus that bankers are the good guys, arrest them and send them to jail. Which is, more or less, what they did.
I suppose that Glasgow's Working Class loves bankers and the Labour Party more than sense? It is a failure of many on the left to see the status quo as an immutable reality. GWC is it's prime victim.
Anyway.
The following is what Iceland did:
Iceland's rapid return to health hinged on a series of measures that Nobel laureate Paul Krugman later referred to as "doing an Iceland." Krugman, an admirer of Iceland's dramatic comeback, has recommended a similar policy cocktail for other nations in crisis. The rules are as follows: Allow your ailing banks to collapse; devalue your currency if you have one of your own; introduce capital controls; and try to avoid paying back foreign debts.
That may sound like an extremely self-serving recipe -- and it was. Whereas billions of public money was pumped into the banking system in Ireland so that financial institutions could pay back their creditors, Icelanders voted against this route in two separate referenda. They couldn't see why they should pay for the greed of foreign investors who followed the Siren song of high interest rates to the island nation.
Jónsson only shakes his head wearily when asked if he has a guilty conscience. He claims to have been one of the few who warned of the currency bubble long before it burst. Now, he is excited about the country's new opportunities, which are remarkably similar to the ones it has always had. "A hard-working populace. A healthy democracy. A high level of education. Tourism. Natural resources, such as wind, hydro-power and geothermal energy. And fisheries. What would we be without the fisheries?"
It would take an idiot to fail to see similarities with what Scotland could have done, absent the BoE.
I am not a victim of anything. I am happy to be in the Union and have no feeling towards petty Scottish Nationalism. You should try and remember that although not perfect the trade unions and Labour Party have struggled for decades for better conditions for the working classes. Scottish Nationalists have contributed nothing.
DeleteEat your cereal splash!
DeleteAnon, scratch yer baws. Douglas, did you know the trolleybus was called silent death?
DeleteIt is of particular note, that Ireland's creditors were often German banks. The same Germany which is paymaster of the EU.
DeleteI believe that the banks should have been wound up in the UK. The B Of E should have guaranteed the deposits. The assets,mortgages, etc should have been sold off to whoever had the cash - at a discount if necessary. Those who committed any criminal activities should have been jailed, and no bonuses should have been paid.
When Korea had similar issues at the end of last century, their economy was forced open, foreigners bought up Korean companies, and they recovered.
Our economy is still debt ridden. Nobody trusts banks. The taxpayers are still on the hook. And all those public schoolboys who f@cked the rest of us are still on easy street. Still, you cant jail Bullington boys, can you?
Let us not forget that Alex Salmond and Fred Goodwin were on extremely good terms prior to the crash. In fact, didn't Salmond encourage Goodwin to take steps that ultimately proved disastrous?
DeleteOn the whole, I feel the government responded to the crisis appropriately. The important thing was continued liquidity, unbroken access to money for the public and a stable banking system upon which to achieve economic growth going forward. We secured all of those things, with less than 24 hours to go before the ATMs ceased to function.
It's the only thing I will say in favour of the Brown government.
Go eat your cereal pigface.
Delete(I woulda said fuckface, but obviously the two are interchangeable for Tories. Oink)
The United States allowed its banks to collapse in 1929. The result was 50% unemployment and the Great Depression.
DeleteI think there are probably more volcanoes in Iceland than people.
Gordon Broon did a good job with Tony Blair. The British prospered and Broon took the measures required when the recession arrived. The Scottish rich are getting richer as we speak under the Tories and Nat sis. Scot Nat si MP s are paid over 70kva year for talkin mince so why are the Nat sis moanin, is it a traditional Scottish thing just take take and moan moan.
Delete@ Aldo 9:47
DeleteNowadays there is no shortage of capital in the world. Giant companies grow in a matter of a few years from startups. There is no comparison with 1929 in America.
Businesses fail. If they are not allowed to fail then risk is removed from their modus operandi. At the very very least Northern Rock ( like Lehmans ) should have been wound up. Instead that fuckwit Brown blinked first and all those public schoolboys knew he was a patsy.
In global terms, our economy is not so massive. It is also extremely inefficient. Our GDP is inflated by the excessive cost of the shopkeeper nation. We have an excessively large number of merchants in the supply chain.
This has nothing to do with Eurovision, nor opinion polls. The first referendum was over a year ago, and the next is not for a few years. Could all you trolls please just fuck off and save your silly time wasting ammunition until it kicks off again.
James should really bring in registration.
Nice to see the old Alex Salmond was responsible for the banking crash lie.
DeleteOffering support to a major employer and hoping that it turns out well for Scotland is not a crime.
What is a crime is the constant media lies where RBS and Royal Bank of Scotland are conflated. They are not the same, never have been and never will be.
RBS is a LONDON based banking conglomerate, run from LONDON, by LONDON rules and paying tax to LONDON.
Royal Bank of Scotland is a minor part of RBS, based in SCOTLAND but run from LONDON and paying tax TO LONDON.
It's not difficult to tell the truth.
And why was the entire town of Halifax just wiped form existence in 2008?
You know, the Halifax that was responsible for destroying the Bank of Scotland.
The Halifax that needed massive bail-outs form the taxpayer.
The Halifax that just vanished when the racists started their jock banker bashing frenzy.
Scotland is unable to deal with food banks while the rich get richer. I would not trust the Nat sis with a credit union.
DeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteYou say:
DeleteI am not a victim of anything. I am happy to be in the Union and have no feeling towards petty Scottish Nationalism. You should try and remember that although not perfect the trade unions and Labour Party have struggled for decades for better conditions for the working classes. Scottish Nationalists have contributed nothing.
The Nationalists have given equality across society a concept, one you don't like or undersstand. They have removed your hateful concept that renaging on anyone is a foolishness that only a class warrior can justify to themselves.
Your thought process, that allowing many more poor people to claim benefits, whilst not withdrawing them from others is a fair and equitable way to run a society confirms your sad stupidity,
Your desire to make every benefit cost controlled. is a sad statement of your rejection of a good country.
You are an evil wee manny, GWC.
I wouldn't bother getting angry at GWC. No point in shouting at a child. I secretly think he is a yes voter and just likes to play out his fantasies on here.
ReplyDeleteI see a lot of complaints about GWC's trolling ruining this page, but to be honest it's quite easy to read the page troll-free if you just skip past the comments headed 'Glasgow Working Class' without reading a word. I personally wouldn't even bother telling him/her (not read enough comments to know!) to eat his/her cereal.
DeleteWell I was No even though I don't like Sheridan. I think he is a loud mouth but that is my opinion. I am against ostracising anybody on grounds of personal dislike and he did his time. It isn't as if he murdered 1 million Iraqis is it.
ReplyDeleteI want to leave the EU. I would have voted for leaving even before the diabolical way they treated the Greeks. It is about as democratic as Westmidden Rule as far as I am concerned and that isn't democratic at all.
The poll was closed before I got chance to vote.
Jeez.
ReplyDeleteNo bad for a 'wee lassie with a tin helmet' (© North British Labour Branch Office)
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/11/01/nicola-sturgeon-scotlands-most-popular-person/
Nicola Sturgeon is Scotland's most popular person
Out of 5,000 choices Nicola Sturgeon is the most popular and widely appreciated living person among the Scottish public ‒ four places ahead of the Queen...
...A new YouGov analysis of the profiles data of around 30,000 Scottish people reveals that out of 5,000 celebrities, public figures and representatives other popular professions in public life Nicola Sturgeon is the most beloved person in Scotland.
That is because some Scots are as thick as two planks like Anon and Skier. Name one policy besides the wine, sewage, aqueducts and roads that the Nats sis have delivered for the working classes.
ReplyDeleteEat your Cereal splash
DeleteEven the right wing Sunday Post is saying the Bookies are providing pens for Scottish school pupils. What a state Scotland is in, even Labour never got us into such a mess.
ReplyDeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteAnon you remind me of watchkeeping duties. Always there to take the call on behalf of everyone. Do you ever get a kipp or worse of all are there two of you chained to the chanty. I hope James is paying the living wage.
DeleteNaw.
DeleteJames doesn't have to. Your completely crazy shit keeps us posting.
You do realise that the mug around here is you?
Probably not.
The people that don't like Sturgeon make a lot of noise. They are bitter unionists. Sometimes it gives the impression that she is unpopular. Well that's what they want people to think. But the majority of progressive people have respect for her.
ReplyDeleteI prefer QE2 who is a diplomat on the World Scene and not a chanty rastler like wee Nicola who has just arrived on the scene and grovels to HMQ. She will end up in the House of Lords with the other wet knicker women.
DeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteWind Power, Trains? Free transport over bridges?
ReplyDeleteOch wee manny, you are just a joke.
Yes the SNP have lots of wind. As for the trains private individuals are making a profit from them. The tolls should be reintroduced to bring in revenue.
DeleteEat your cereal.
DeleteAs for the trains private individuals are making a profit from them. The tolls should be reintroduced to bring in revenue.
ReplyDeleteWe are all private individuals GWC. If you have a few pennies to your name, you too could punt it on Abello. As for re-introducing tolls, well that would make the SNP unpopular from Skye to Fife. You haven't really got a handle on this politics lark, have you?