BiggestNizzy wrote:I thought Carney's argument was a need for controls rather (to stop us doing a Greece) than not allowing us a seat on the bank of England board. Can't remember who said it but everything is negotiable to say something is off the table is not the way to enterinto any negotiation as it removes your bargaining chips.
If rUK plays hard and says no what will Scotland say no to? What would rUk do with Trident?, rUK would have to pay the Scottish banks £3- £4 Billion to buy back all that Scottish currency. rUK get's all the national debt. etc etc.
I personally don't see a yes vote winning as people get scared and are afraid to take risks it's definatly better the devil you know (thats why so many battered wifes stay with their husbands). I am suprised the yes campaign arn't making a bigger thing of the loss of the Barnett formula.
No thats not what Carney said at all
- he said he as head of the Bank of England that he would address rules for a fiscal agreement along the lines that Salmond wants
IF he was asked to do so by
both the Leader of an Independent Scotland and the PM of the Westminster parliament - Cameron/Clegg Milliband have all been quite clear that that is not in the interests of the UK and will never happen. Carney actually said he would do 'HIS BEST TO FRAME SUCH rules' if asked, which is very different from what Salmond keeps quoting Carney as saying - that 'he would do it'.
Carney then went onto say that such an agreement in Salmonds terms would look very much like the Euro, and went onto say that events in Greece/Spain/Italy/Portugal where the Euro gives those countries access to Euro [German] rates of interest without binding them to rules on borrowing and tax rates allowed them to have everything today - or yesterday, and have the Germans pay for it today. Which is clearly a very bad thing. Carney spoke of the realisation amongst Euro politicians that their political scheme of a single central currency would not work without there being single central borrowing and tax rates etc etc ...... ie the individual nation states need to surrender sovereignty [Carney used exactly these words] of their economic levers to Brussels in order to make the Euro work in future- and that Economic ministers in the EU were currently engaged as to how to bring that about. Carney therefore made the point that surrendering such control of tax, borrowing etc etc all the economic levers was the exact opposite of what Salmond is after in seeking independence - and that this needed to be addressed if it was going to work.
However Salmond/Sturgeon/Swinney have repeatedly failed to answer this question, burying it in this emotive cover up that London is trying to bully Scotland.
Put simply Salmond wants an arrangement very much like the existing Euro, he fails to explain why he thinks that is a good idea after the catastrophe of the last few years, and more to the point why any one in the rest of the UK would ever want that in the light of experience let alone the UK's deep deep dislike of not just the Euro but the idea that Brussels usurps more and more power.
this is not about sentiment, it's about an economy/financial system that works, and not having a system where one country can create debt in another -
- my question is - how does Salmond get away with avoiding the issue?
why is this not being thoughtfully discussed in Scotland
- why are the no campaign so bloody stupid as to not make it clear that the debate is about the rest of the UK's right to choose not to be put in the same situation that Spain, Greece, Portugal etc put Germany in the last few years! and has nothing to do with what is stamped on the change people carry in their pockets! And that Salmond calling Westmninster /the rest of the UK bullies for saying no..... is a complete con to avoid actually answering the serious questions Carney put to the SNP in his speech.
) I think this is indicative as to why you (as an individual) sometimes end up in cyclical arguments in cyberspace on other subjects because I cannot see how you could possibly formulate that question looking for clarification as to what I said if you actually read what I wrote.
