On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 03:59:59 -0700, sm_jamieson wrote:

If I remember correctly, the oil is owned currently by the "UK
Continental Shelf". There is lots of ways it could be divided. The thing
I wonder is - which court or jurisdiction would get to decide and
enforce the split ? Simon.

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

As an enclave they would only get the oil within 12 miles of their
coast and all the major fields are outwith that.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:09:11 +0100, "J.B.Treadstone"
wrote:

1] At the moment GB has 191 embassies & high commissions across the world.
It would costs millions for an independent Scotland to try & establish
even a tenth of this representation. As they would no longer be part of
the UK, any Scot getting into trouble in a foreign land would have to seek
help from their own embassy or HC.

The 191 embassies & high commissions of the UK are part its assets and
Scotland is entitled to its share however if there isn't a Scottish
embassy in a country any EU embassy will do.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:34:29 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , J.B.Treadstone
writes

When
Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic & Slovakia, it required 30
Treaties & some 2000 legal agreements to give effect to the separation.

I get the impression that a number of the YES supporters really do believe
that they will suddenly become 'free' on 19 September. But one thing is
quite certain - and that's while any separation is going to cost the
present UK citizenship an awful lot money, the legal profession is going
to make a mint out of it.

My thoughts exactly.
IMO if Scotland does vote for independence, a lot of Scots are going to
get a nasty shock later. It seems to me that a few of the "YES" & pro
independence lobby are living in cloud-cuckoo land. The ignorance
displayed by some pro-independence Scots is quite staggering, & laughable
IMO. Oh well, I guess they'll find out the hard way.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:33:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes


But they think they are already part of the EU and hope they won't have to
start afresh as a new applicant.

They've already been told by the

He gets no say on that.

He becomes the EU ex-president at the end of the month anyway.

In message , Ian Jackson
writes
In message , Rod Speed
writes
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want
to, even if the remains of Britain doesnt like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowry shells - but they'll have no
control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they
can't go straight from borrowing GBP to EUR, because
"managing your own economy properly for a few years"
is one of the requirements for Euro admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no
one can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically
still be in the EU. Many EU members have said
"no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc. None have actually said "yes", and
a few have indicated that they would actually oppose an application for
new membership (to discourage their own separatists).

Always good to bear in mind, that much said before the referendum will
be said with at least half an eye on affecting the outcome. Most EU
states probably don't want to encourage this sort of thing, and so will
not support it at the moment.

However, if Scotland becomes an independent country, then the debate
shifts and becomes one of 'well, now it's happened, what do we want to
do about it?"

I suspect that if Sctoland does want to remain in/join the EU, ways will
be found to make it happen.
--
Chris French

Another John wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Obviously I meant: "_successfully_ registered"; meaning that
"any entity (e.g. state) which does not have the internationally
recognized territorial rights to mineral deposits [etc, and so
on, and so forth] would not successfully register a claim.

You've still got a problem with the fact that
there is no one to 'register' anything with.

[Equally obviously, this does not apply to "entities" who have
massive military forces and seem to be prepared to use them!]

And we are seeing just that in the South China Sea right now.

They don't appear to have noticed that they should have
'registered' their claims.

My dear chap: poor example, for your arguments!

We'll see...

The Chinese are building islands in the South China Sea,

Nope. Just occupying them.

*precisely so that* they can register their claims.

Nope, so they can put their troops on them.

I suppose you may be right,

No maybe about it.

in that there's no specific authority which
oversees these claims (what do I know?
I was only quoting stuff I'd read, silly me!),

In some **** rag, written by some pig ignorant journo.

unless it's the Vogons.

They don’t bother with registrations, silly.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

An independent Shetland would **** up Salmond's Grand Plans, right
enough. There's untapped wealth to the west of Shetland, I believe.
I suspect they'd go knocking on a Scandinavian door, anyway; why would
they bother with the arseholes in Westminster?

"mcp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:33:10 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes


But they think they are already part of the EU and hope they won't have
to
start afresh as a new applicant.

They've already been told by the

He gets no say on that.

He becomes the EU ex-president at the end of the month anyway.

And no EU president gets any say on that anyway.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:05:12 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want to, even if the remains
of Britain does not like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowrie shells - but they'll have no
control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they can't go straight
from borrowing GBP to EUR, because "managing your own economy properly
for a few years" is one of the requirements for Euro admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no one
can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically still be
in the EU.

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country, & no longer
part of the UK which /is/ in the EU, I would say that they would have to
apply for entry. UK entry terms, tariffs etc, were negotiated for the
/entire/ UK, which included (at the time) the countries of England, Wales,
Northern Ireland & Scotland. As Scotland would be a separate country & NO
longer part of that group of UK countries, it seems to me that
re-negotiation for EU entry would be inevitable.
And /because/ they are separate country, I would also think they would
have to have their /own/ offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in Brussels.

Many EU members have said "no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc.
None have actually said "yes", and a few have indicated that they would
actually oppose an application for new membership (to discourage their own
separatists).

Indeed, Spain being one of them (so I believe).

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:07:18 +0100, bert ] wrote:

The answer to that is simple. As applicants they will be lent enough
money to fund a central bank, and then crooked auditors will hide the
money Salmond and his chums spend on themselves, smart uniforms and
presidential palaces, and declare they are fit to join.

Bingo.

And then the scots will be enslaved by people they don't know, who
don't speak their language and who care even less about porridge and
haggis than the English ever did.

Bingo.

..And who will devise a way of getting their hands on the oil and gas as
a European energy resource.

Bingo.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:16:37 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 06:20:12 -0500, David P
wrote:

and no doubt once the Orkney and Shetland isles decide they want nothing
to do with the 'new Scotland' it will then transfer, with their
allegiance, to south of the border.

An independent Shetland would **** up Salmond's Grand Plans, right
enough. There's untapped wealth to the west of Shetland, I believe.
I suspect they'd go knocking on a Scandinavian door, anyway; why would
they bother with the arseholes in Westminster?

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/s...o-independence

"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:05:12 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want to, even if the remains
of Britain does not like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowrie shells - but they'll have no
control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they can't go straight
from borrowing GBP to EUR, because "managing your own economy properly
for a few years" is one of the requirements for Euro admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no one
can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically still
be
in the EU.

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent
country, & no longer part of the UK which /is/ in the
EU, I would say that they would have to apply for entry.

Doesn't matter what you say on how it will be done.

UK entry terms, tariffs etc, were negotiated for the /entire/
UK, which included (at the time) the countries of England,
Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland.

But Britain was not in the EU already.

As Scotland would be a separate country & NO longer
part of that group of UK countries, it seems to me that
re-negotiation for EU entry would be inevitable.

There is no reason why the EU can't say that since it had been
in the EU already, it couldn't just be a rubber stamp procedure.

And /because/ they are separate country, I would also think they would
have to have their /own/ offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in
Brussels.

Sure, but that is a separate issue to whether they
have to go cap in hand to be part of the EU.

Many EU members have said "no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc.
None have actually said "yes", and a few have indicated that they would
actually oppose an application for new membership (to discourage their
own
separatists).

Indeed, Spain being one of them (so I believe).

But don't get any say on what the EU as a whole does.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 15/09/14 08:40, News wrote:
In message , Michael Chare
writes

I do wonder whether they will conclude that full independence is not
worth the cost and the effort when they start making plans.

I tend to think that, in the event of a Yes vote, Salmond will not
let
independence fail. Money will be thrown at whatever problems arise
for
a good few years, even if doing so means passing mountainous debts to
generations as yet unborn.


Ahem. But where will he get the money?

The gas revenue.

and Independent Scottish government would have the credit status of
Phones4U.

Nope, because of the gas revenue.

And that is what will happen.

Nope, just like Norway didn't.

Salmond will run out of cash, tax anything that moves, or rather
doesn't move, because everything else will run for the border,
destroy it and end up blaming the English when no one will lend him

Fantasy.

The smart people and most of the businesses will emigrate, leaving
Scotland to sink into the pit of slime it will have dug for itself.

Think Chavez etc.

He doesn't have the gas revenue. Norway did.

You ARE full of crap.

We'll see...

Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia.

That aint REVENUE, stupid.

Yet socialism still kept the population poor.

Wrong, as always. What kept the poor poor is the
Roman Catholic church stopping them from using
contraception, stupid.

You really have nothing useful to say at all.

Wota stunning line in rational argument
you have there, you stupid gutless plonker.

Time to remove your tedious posts.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.

PLONK

Fat lot of good that will do your, you stupid gutless plonker.

So stupid that it can't even manage to work out that kill
files actually do work without them being announced
and work a hell of a lot better done that way too.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independant Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn’t matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what terms they can use the pound,
though. That remains under the control of the UK government.

Those who want independence do so for purely their own (or
possibly Scotland's) interests. Be nice if they just admitted it.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I very much doubt you've had access to the coverage of it we've had here.

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

And they suggest you take your suggestion
and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

They are desperate to remain in Europe. Joining the Euro is a requirement
for all new members.

They can then help bail out the poorer members
of the EU. After all, they say they will be one of
the richest countries in the world.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

As I thought, you've not been following what has been said by the 'Yes'
lobby.

--
*Why can't women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independant Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Those who want independence do so for purely their own (or
possibly Scotland's) interests. Be nice if they just admitted it.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I very much doubt you've had access
to the coverage of it we've had here.

Irrelevant to that last sentence.

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

And they suggest you take your suggestion
and shove it where the sun don't shine.

They are desperate to remain in Europe.

That's radically overstated. And they will remain in europe
whatever happens. And in the EU too, you watch.

Joining the Euro is a requirement for all new members.

Pity they have been in the EU for decades already.

They can then help bail out the poorer members
of the EU. After all, they say they will be one of
the richest countries in the world.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

As I thought, you've not been following
what has been said by the 'Yes' lobby.

You're wrong, as always. And no one in the YES group
who matters has ever said anything that stupid.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:16:39 +1000, jackson wrote:

snip

So you nymshifted to get out of a killfile, just so you could have the
last word. Pathetic troll.

And don't bother replying, I won't see it.

"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:16:39 +1000, jackson wrote:

snip

So you nymshifted to get out of a killfile, just so you could have the
last word. Pathetic troll.

And don't bother replying, I won't see it.

Wrong, as always.

Rod Speed posted
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independant Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what terms they can use the
pound, though.

Fraid so.
That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.
Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico
does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to borrow
money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments (because London
wouldn't back them) and therefore it couldn't manage its own public
finances independently. To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e.
launch its own currency. And that is more problematic, because it
requires Edinburgh to persuade the markets that it can and will repay
the debt.

--
Les

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:21:16 +0100, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:05:12 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want to, even if the
remains of Britain does not like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowrie shells - but they'll have no
control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they can't go
straight from borrowing GBP to EUR, because "managing your own economy
properly for a few years" is one of the requirements for Euro
admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no one
can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically still
be in the EU.

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country, & no longer
part of the UK which /is/ in the EU, I would say that they would have to
apply for entry. UK entry terms, tariffs etc, were negotiated for the
/entire/ UK, which included (at the time) the countries of England, Wales,
Northern Ireland & Scotland. As Scotland would be a separate country & NO
longer part of that group of UK countries, it seems to me that
re-negotiation for EU entry would be inevitable.

Having done some research into this, it seems that the majority of
international lawyers say that Scotland /would/ have to reapply.
Under EU law, "if a part of a state becomes separate, it becomes a third
party in relation to the European Union.
If part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that
state because it were to become a new independent state, the (EU) treaties
would /no longer/ apply to that territory.
Separate territories within a member state to join the EU would depend on
the ratification of all 28 member states."

Notable amongst people saying that Scotland /would/ have to reapply a
Professor Robert Hazell, director of the Constitution Unit at University
College, London.
Spanish PM Mr Rajoy

So for those Scots saying that they would still be part of the EU after
independence, it is either ignorance or wishful thinking on their part.

And /because/ they are
separate country, I would also think they would have to have their /own/
offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in Brussels.

Many EU members have said "no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc. None have
actually said "yes", and a few have indicated that they would actually
oppose an application for new membership (to discourage their own
separatists).

Indeed, Spain being one of them (so I believe).

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:55:44 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.
Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico
does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Montenegro is a European example, using the Euro.

Scotland can use the USD, the Euro, the GBP, the Yen, the
whateverthe****theywant, without having to ask permission from the
currency's "owners". They just need to have a serious amount in cash on
deposit - and you're right, they'd have no fiscal independence. At least
in the Euro they'd have a seat at the ECB.

Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independant Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto
Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Nothing trivial about it.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not
be able to borrow money by issuing sterling-denominated
debt instruments (because London wouldn't back them)

You've mangled that utterly.

and therefore it couldn't manage its
own public finances independently.

Wrong.

To do that, it must issue its own
debt - i.e. launch its own currency.

How odd that all those places that
use USDs manage to do that fine.

And that is more problematic, because
it requires Edinburgh to persuade the
markets that it can and will repay the debt.

How odd that all those places that
use USDs manage to do that fine.

And your line can't fly with the obvious alternative, the euro.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 09:55:44 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Rod Speed posted
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a common currency
would be to the benefit of both an independant Scotland and what
remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests of the UK at
heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what terms they can use the
pound, though.

Fraid so.
That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like. The country
whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that. Plenty use the USD for
various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will be
able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto Rico does
with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to borrow
money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments (because London
wouldn't back them) and therefore it couldn't manage its own public
finances independently. To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e.
launch its own currency. And that is more problematic, because it requires
Edinburgh to persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

If they still use the GBP after independence, it would mean they have /no/
say in how the Bank of England sets monetary policy & – even more
importantly – (as you say) Threadneedle Street would /not/ act as the
lender of last resort for Scotland's banks (just as the US Treasury would
not act as a lender of last resort to the Panamanian "Balboa - which is to
all intents & purposes is the USD by another name.)
And (as you again say) they'd have to have a Scottish central bank to
stand behind /their/ banks because the liabilities of the Scottish banks
are 12 times as big as the annual output of the Scottish economy. To put
that in perspective, in Ireland & Iceland they were eight times as big
ahead of the crippling 2007-08 banking crisis.

J.B.Treadstone wrote
J.B.Treadstone wrote
Ian Jackson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want
to, even if the remains of Britain does not like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowrie shells - but they'll
have no control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they
can't go straight from borrowing GBP to EUR, because
"managing your own economy properly for a few years"
is one of the requirements for Euro admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no one
can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically still
be in the EU.

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country, & no longer
part of the UK which /is/ in the EU, I would say that they would have to
apply for entry. UK entry terms, tariffs etc, were negotiated for the
/entire/ UK, which included (at the time) the countries of England,
Wales,
Northern Ireland & Scotland. As Scotland would be a separate country & NO
longer part of that group of UK countries, it seems to me that
re-negotiation for EU entry would be inevitable.

Having done some research into this,

We'll see...

it seems that the majority of international lawyers
say that Scotland /would/ have to reapply.

You have absolutely no basis what so ever for that claim.

No one has ever surveyed all international lawyers so it isnt
even possible to say what the majority of them say on that.

And they get no say on what actually happens anyway.

Under EU law,

This isnt EU law.

"if a part of a state becomes separate, it becomes a third
party in relation to the European Union. If part of the
territory of a member state would cease to be part of that
state because it were to become a new independent state,
the (EU) treaties would /no longer/ apply to that territory.

Separate matter entirely to what is involved in continuing to be part of the
EU/

Separate territories within a member state to join the EU
would depend on the ratification of all 28 member states."

No EU law says that either with part of a state that becomes independent.

Notable amongst people saying that Scotland /would/ have to reapply a
Professor Robert Hazell, director of the
Constitution Unit at University College, London.
Spanish PM Mr Rajoy

Pity about the rest that correctly say that there
is no precedent or EU law on that either.

So for those Scots saying that they would still be part of the EU after
independence, it is either ignorance or wishful thinking on their part.

Same is true of your claim and with Rajoy.

And /because/ they are separate country, I would
also think they would have to have their /own/
offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in Brussels.

Many EU members have said "no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc.
None have actually said "yes", and a few have indicated that they
would actually oppose an application for new membership (to
discourage their own separatists).

Indeed, Spain being one of them (so I believe).

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using a currency over which you
have no control. You might learn something for once. It's been explained
many times during the debate here in the UK - shouldn't be too hard for
you to find.

Then come back and debate it.

--
*Too many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:50:05 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
But not in their power to say under what terms they can use the pound,
though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using a currency over which you
have no control. You might learn something for once. It's been explained
many times during the debate here in the UK - shouldn't be too hard for
you to find.

Then come back and debate it.

IMO he's just talking from ignorance, & a waste of time trying to point
out legalities & facts.

Adrian wrote
Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever
on that. Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto
Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Montenegro is a European example, using the Euro.

Scotland can use the USD, the Euro, the GBP, the
Yen, the whateverthe****theywant, without having
to ask permission from the currency's "owners".

What I said.

They just need to have a serious amount in cash on deposit

Nope. None of those that use the USD have that.

- and you're right, they'd have no fiscal independence.

Bull****. And Britain doesnt have that anyway
while ever have an immense national debt.

At least in the Euro they'd have a seat at the ECB.

Fat lot of good that is when you are an irrelevant
pimple on the bum of the EU like Scotland would
be. Its still Germany that decides what happens,
because they are they ones with the serious
amounts of cash on deposit.

J.B.Treadstone wrote
Big Les Wade wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Just been listening to an SNP person stating that a
common currency would be to the benefit of both an
independent Scotland and what remains of the UK. Again.

Since she obviously doesn't have the best interests
of the UK at heart, should anyone believe her?

Doesn't matter given that only Scotland gets to vote.

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.
The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever
on that. Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals will
be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto
Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to borrow
money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments (because London
wouldn't back them) and therefore it couldn't manage its own public
finances independently. To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e.
launch its own currency. And that is more problematic, because it
requires
Edinburgh to persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

If they still use the GBP after independence, it would mean they
have /no/ say in how the Bank of England sets monetary policy

They never did, so nothing with change on that.

& – even more importantly – (as you say) Threadneedle Street
would /not/ act as the lender of last resort for Scotland's banks

And they would get to decide what happens with
the oil and gas revenue instead of which ever
fools happen to be driving the Westminster bus.

(just as the US Treasury would not act as a lender
of last resort to the Panamanian "Balboa - which is to
all intents & purposes is the USD by another name.)

And (as you again say) they'd have to have a Scottish central bank to
stand behind /their/ banks because the liabilities of the Scottish banks
are 12 times as big as the annual output of the Scottish economy.

But that would be quite different when they ****
off to Britain when Scotland becomes independent.

To put that in perspective, in Ireland & Iceland they were eight
times as big ahead of the crippling 2007-08 banking crisis.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using
a currency over which you have no control.

Don’t need to do that. I've been watching
that with the euro ever since it was invented.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using
a currency over which you have no control.

Don’t need to do that. I've been watching
that with the euro ever since it was invented.

There's a big difference between watching and understanding.

--
*I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using
a currency over which you have no control.

Don't need to do that. I've been watching
that with the euro ever since it was invented.

There's a big difference between watching and understanding.

You've proven to the world that you don't have a
****ing clue about the basics with currency unions.

Rod Speed posted
Big Les Wade wrote

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals
will be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as
Puerto Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially
correct.

Nothing trivial about it.

'Trivial' meaning 'obvious'.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to
borrow money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments
(because London wouldn't back them)

You've mangled that utterly.

Well I tried to keep it simple for you.

and therefore it couldn't manage its own public finances
independently.

Wrong.
To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e. launch its own
currency.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Manage their public finances independently? No they don't. They
manage them subject to their access to US dollars, which is strictly
limited by Washington's economic policy.

And that is more problematic, because it requires Edinburgh to
persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Borrow on the money markets? Of course they can, but only to
the extent that they can repay the loans in US dollars, which is against
strictly limited by their access to same.

And your line can't fly with the obvious alternative, the euro.

Unlike sterling, the euro was designed to be a common currency, with
special mechanisms in place from the start to give members a say in how
it is managed (and it has still run into trouble).

Anyway, what's your point, that Scotland can join the euro instead? We
shall see. It'll cost them.

--
Les

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:22:33 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Anyway, what's your point, that Scotland can join the euro instead? We
shall see. It'll cost them.

And, of course, they'd need to join the EU first (Spain's said they'll
veto accession) and meet the Euro conversion criteria, which requires
successful management of their own economy and currency.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 12:22:33 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Rod Speed posted
Big Les Wade wrote

Ah. If all you mean is that Scottish institutions and individuals
will be able to continue holding sterling accounts and notes (as Puerto
Rico does with US dollars) then of course you are trivially correct.

Nothing trivial about it.

'Trivial' meaning 'obvious'.

But in such a set-up the Scottish government would not be able to
borrow money by issuing sterling-denominated debt instruments (because
London wouldn't back them)

The rest of Britain could well reject any concept to bail out a failing
Scottish pound. (The Economist.)

You've mangled that utterly.

Well I tried to keep it simple for you.

I thought it was plain enough.

and therefore it couldn't manage its own public finances
independently.

Wrong.
To do that, it must issue its own debt - i.e. launch its own
currency.

Exactly. Furthermore, it would need some kind of currency in able to join
the EU. (The Economist)

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Manage their public finances independently? No they don't. They
manage them subject to their access to US dollars, which is strictly
limited by Washington's economic policy.

As the GBP would be strictly controlled, if the Scots chose to use that as
their currency. Tightly held Treasury apron strings would, of course,
defeat much of the point of Scottish independence.

And that is more problematic, because it requires Edinburgh to
persuade the markets that it can and will repay the debt.

How odd that all those places that use USDs manage to do that fine.

Do what? Borrow on the money markets? Of course they can, but only to
the extent that they can repay the loans in US dollars, which is against
strictly limited by their access to same.

And your line can't fly with the obvious alternative, the euro.

Unlike sterling, the euro was designed to be a common currency, with
special mechanisms in place from the start to give members a say in how
it is managed (and it has still run into trouble).

Anyway, what's your point, that Scotland can join the euro instead? We
shall see. It'll cost them.

Little doubt of that, IMO.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

But not in their power to say under what
terms they can use the pound, though.

Fraid so.

That remains under the control of the UK government.

Nope. Any country is free to use any currency they like.

The country whose currency it is gets no say whatever on that.

Plenty use the USD for various reasons.

You really should do some research into using
a currency over which you have no control.

Don't need to do that. I've been watching
that with the euro ever since it was invented.

There's a big difference between watching and understanding.

You've proven to the world that you don't have a
****ing clue about the basics with currency unions.

All you've proved is you disagree with all the experts in the UK who have
been discussing it ad nauseam. Including Salmond who doesn't have a real
alternative to a currency union, which he has been repeatedly told isn't
going to happen.

I know who I'd believe. And it's certainly not you.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/09/14 23:21, J.B.Treadstone wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:05:12 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Adrian wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

I'd suggest they join the Euro.

Since they intend to join the EU, they won't have any choice.

Wrong. They can stick with the pound if they want to, even if the remains
of Britain does not like that.

If they want to, they can also use cowrie shells - but they'll have no
control over interest rates and exchange rates.

The only question is what bridges the gap, since they can't go straight
from borrowing GBP to EUR, because "managing your own economy properly
for a few years" is one of the requirements for Euro admission.

There is no such requirement for a country that is already in the EU.

As a similar situation has not arisen previously, it appears that no one
can definitively say whether a non-UK Scotland will automatically still be
in the EU.

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country, & no longer
part of the UK which /is/ in the EU, I would say that they would have to
apply for entry. UK entry terms, tariffs etc, were negotiated for the
/entire/ UK, which included (at the time) the countries of England, Wales,
Northern Ireland & Scotland. As Scotland would be a separate country & NO
longer part of that group of UK countries, it seems to me that
re-negotiation for EU entry would be inevitable.
And /because/ they are separate country, I would also think they would
have to have their /own/ offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in Brussels.

They already do, since the EU doesn't recognise 'countries' only 'regions'

Scotland is an EU region with its own MEPS as is Wales, Northern
Ireland, Anglia, London, South East England, south West England, West
Midlands, East Midlands the North West, the North east and Yorkshire and
the Humber.

12 'independent' regions with MEPS adjusted to suit population levels.

The joke is they are already as independent as the EU will let them be
if they join the EU, already!





Many EU members have said "no/non/nee/nein/nej/nie/não" etc.
None have actually said "yes", and a few have indicated that they would
actually oppose an application for new membership (to discourage their own
separatists).

Indeed, Spain being one of them (so I believe).




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:33:21 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well as Scotland would be a completely independent country

And /because/ they are separate country, I would also think they would
have to have their /own/ offices & staff, diplomats & Euro MPs in
Brussels.

They already do, since the EU doesn't recognise 'countries' only
'regions'

Scotland is an EU region with its own MEPS as is Wales, Northern
Ireland, Anglia, London, South East England, south West England, West
Midlands, East Midlands the North West, the North east and Yorkshire and
the Humber.

ITYM "constituency". Most member states are a single constituency, others
- including the UK - are split into regional constituencies.

The joke is they are already as independent as the EU will let them be
if they join the EU, already!

Umm, hardly.

Unless, of course, you'd like to name the Scottish commissioner? Or tell
us when Scotland's next presidency of the Council of the EU starts? Or
tell us where Scotland's permanent representative office (embassy, in
effect) is based? Or... or... or...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:02:55 -0700 (PDT), sm_jamieson
wrote:



Regarding the BBC, not much can be done about Freesat reception in
Scotland, but they can remove BBC channels from the EPG, and iplayer
should treat Scotland as "abroad".
The Scots do seem to want to have their cake and eat it.

Oat or Dundee?
Compiling a list of companies I will be emailing if the Scots vote to
leave basically thanking them for enjoyment I have had from their
products in the past but in future will no longer purchase, couple of
distilleries, Tunnocks , Scottish Salmon producers association.
In the great scheme of things my £200 or so per annum spent on
Scotland is bugger all to them but if a few 1000's of English were to
do the same some might notice. And as I don't wish to visit a
hostile country then the couple of grand I spent visiting at the
beginning of the year will be the last occasion.

G.Harman

I wonder who they think will buy the electricity from their wind turbines?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/09/14 13:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
They were all capitalist countries anyway, first, creating successful
companies like Volvo, Saab, and others, which provided the financial
base for them to try their socialist experiments.

Socialism is compatible with capitalism surely? Most successful
countries have a mixture of both, and the large ones all do.

Of course. But like all mixtures, getting the proportions right is the
difficult part.

Of course, there are those who are essentially Marxists, because they see
society as comprised as an endless struggle between the proletariat and
capital.

Not realising that capital bought up all the socialist movements 20 years
ago.

Or that in any case, it is a 19th century visions of a society that has
long since ceased to exist.

What you need to understand is that the game of thrones that is Western
politics, consists in essentially saying you are on the side of X, whilst
being firmly on the other..

So called liberal and social democrats are hired by large corporate
interests to make more laws favouring large corporates, under the guise of
'being on the people's side'. The end game is that no one is actually
employed except by state funded industries or large corporates.

That way they will all do as they are told, and there won't be any
entrepreneurs to rock the boat.

Then with education in the hands if the state, and the Law in the hands of
the state, and the media firmly regulated by the state, no off message
scripts can be uttered, nor will they be tolerated.

You will dutifully buy each shiny new thing the state allows you to, with
the money they took from you in taxes being divided in two and handed back
with a note attached 'and be grateful'

Traditional socialism depended on the fact that workers were in fact
needed to multiply capital. They had, collectively, power.

Today, they are not and have not. Robots do a better job. Robots dont
vote.

All those people sitting in social housing have only two political uses.
To vote for Labour, and to consume, with productive workers money, taken
in taxes, and 'redistributed' via benefits or make-work public sector
jobs, the shiny new products of capitalisms invention. They are otherwise
surplus to requirements politically and economically, and the Labour party
has completely failed to address this point. In fact it has worsened it,
making up more makework jobs as it goes along. In addition, it has upped
taxes, worsened immigration, thus driving up house prices, and the need
for more public sector jobs in e.g. the NHS and education, whilst lowering
effective wages for the corporate wage-slave force. IN addition it has
increase regulation to such an extent that - as in Scandinavia - there is
no point in setting up your own business, because the overhead of
complying with regulations on employment and health and safety means that
any one who employs half a dozen people is de facto breaking half a dozen
regulations before they even get on the payroll.

And so they can. if they represent a threat to anyone with the ear of
government, be closed down for being 'in breach'...

And whilst you can have robot factories and wage slave workers toiling
away doing either nothing at all, or making shiny new things, in the case
of shiny new things someone has to be in a position to buy them, and thats
where banks come in. They lend the money that will never be repaid, so
that the average citizen is in debt. Or beholden to the state or a big
corporate for his job. In essence they have free access to printed money
at almost zero rates of interest, to lend to people who they end up owning
lock stock and barrel.

So the final effect is that an elite, comprising political parties like
the Labour Party, Banks and Big Corporates,and Big Media, on paper own
everything, and the citizens of the country own nothing. Worse, they are
in debt to the above organisations one way or another. And they cant even
transfer anything they do have, because that will be taxed too. Even just
owning something - a car perhaps, or a house - is taxable.

It is a slow steady transfer of capital from individuals to the State, the
Banks and to those who own the robots.

Because we don't need no stinking people do we?

Economically, we are in a very very dark place. The machinery of p
production needs no people, and the people are having their power and
their wealth stripped from them. And it is ending up in a very few hands -
of top bankers, media people, politicians and corporate boards. All the
people who support such things as the EU.

A for the rest? let them eat lentils instead., toss a few billion at te
greens to let them promote the idea that we must all live on a cupful of
brown rice a day, and be powered by windmills as electricity prices treble
and quadruple. Heck the Greens will even tell you we need less people, to
'save the planet' Which fits in nicely with the sort of classist cleansing
that the elite would like to see.

Which is why Diane Abbot absolutely considers state education is the thing
to be preserved, except for her own kids. Come on, she wants them to be
part of the new elite, not the scrapheap.

Cameron and Miliband are far closer to each other than either is to me. Or
any other ordinary decent sort of bloke I meet.

In China, the career of choice is as a communist party official, because
that's where you get paid money and do less work, and have power.

IT is however all falling apart. Largely because of one thing. Robots need
energy, and we are running out, and Robots need capital, which is all
about repaying the cost of them with what they produce, and if there is no
market because you have stripped the money from everybody, they cant sell
their products, and likewise bankers who confidently expect to be paid all
that interest on all that money they printed, won't get paid if no one can
afford to service their debt.

The top 1% may, on paper, own the 99% of everything that they do, but what
good is it? If they dont have an army of lawyers and bailiffs to take
possession if the debtors default? And even if they do? what good is it?
they don't want assets, they want income. Wore an enormous amount of debt
was consumer debt (Labour 'investing in people'), lent to people to buy
stuff that they have dutifully consumed. You can take my shut, but the
money I used to buy a MacDeathburger, is gone, for good.

And all this wonderful plan has come to and end because there are, in the
end 'limits to growth'. Without exponential growth, none of the debt
models work. And throwing more debt at an economy that cannot expand for
other reasons than lack of capital, doesn't work. Without access to more
and more debt, governments cant employ the makeworkers, and their power is
diminished. Without more debt the consumers wont buy the shiny new
products from MCApple**** factories.

Now it so happens that everyine is waking up to this, and 'Scottish
independence' is just a ruse employed by a sharp bunch of conmen who call
themselves 'national socialists', to blame it on the brits, and get more
political power. It will never succeed - can never succeed - because what
is promised is impossible, and what will be possible will be worse than
what they have.


And so people will again realise, as they are all over Europe and the
West, that those who say they are your friend and call themselves
socialists, don't give a flying **** about you. They just want your vote,
so they can swan around Being Important whilst you play with your X box
and jerk off to Jennifer Lawrence in your state supplied social housing,
on your state supplied benefits, and take your state supplied
anti-depressants to stop feeling quite so miserable.


Whatever socialism means in theory, that is what it has come to mean in
Practice. A dreary little life of politically correct conformity,
according to whatever lifestyle your Glorious Leaders feel is the one you
are going to get, where you own nothing, are worth nothing, and any
initiative to make something - for sale, or of yourself - has been
carefully educated out in the comprehensive you were forced to attend,
and made illegal by countless Acts of social legislation designed
allegedly to protect you from yourself, but which actually protect the
status quo and the new elite, from you.
.

And you wonder how people could go and convert to Islam, join a bloody
Jihad and cheerfully slice off peoples' heads for You Tube? OR get a bunch
of automatic weapons and shoot up a young socialist camp? I dont. I
understand completely. There but for the grace of God and a good education
that I probably didn't deserve, go I.



Hmm, I actually agree with most of that.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 17/09/14 13:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
They were all capitalist countries anyway, first, creating successful
companies like Volvo, Saab, and others, which provided the financial
base for them to try their socialist experiments.

Socialism is compatible with capitalism surely? Most successful
countries have a mixture of both, and the large ones all do.

Of course. But like all mixtures, getting the proportions right is the
difficult part.


[interesting dystopian analysis snipped]

You've obviously been reading "The Space Merchants" by Frederik Pohl
and Cyril M. Kornbluth (published 1952). It's a novel encompassing
exactly the situation you describe.

I think we are on the edge of a precipice.
There is no way the public and personal debts of this country can be repaid.
Hyper inflation or "renage on debt" (Calamity)
And the Scots will be worse off still if it's Yes.
The Yes many trigger the collapse.
All thanks to socialism and Nu Labour.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
harryagain wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

It was socialism ****ed up Scotland, not the English or the tories.
But socialists are too dull to see it.
Socialism has failed everywhere it has been implemented.

Care to mention what you consider a socialist country? Do you understand
what it means?

Scotland
Cuba
Venezuela
Bolivia
France
USSR
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
E Germany
Albania
Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Ukraine
All the Ex Yugoslavias
Ex Czechslovakia
North Korea
Mongolia
Previously China (Until they woke up)
Most of central Asia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Various Soviet influenced countries in Africa
(Not an exhaustive list)

Norway
Sweden
Denmark

All conspicuous failures that will take decades to fix.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie with Norway which is in a remarkably
similar situation to what an independent Scotland would be
with respect to oil and gas and leaving what it was part of too.

Holding their begging bowls out to the EUSSR/other capitalist countries.

Norway doesn’t.

Looking for more of other peoples money to spend.

Norway doesn’t.

That they will never pay back.

Even sillier than you usually manage with Norway.

Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg