Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Those dastardly Irish!
the SNP have saved the foxes!
- Thread starter skeptichaggis
- Start date
See wiki on Currency Unions. Among the "disbanded" is
Prior to 1928 there were no official Irish banknotes; the money in circulation was paper issued by either the Bank of England or private banks of issue, of which there were then eight, some of which circulate notes in N Ireland to this day.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I can't believe that this thread has gone 63 posts without a "what does the fox say?" reference.
And now I have a mental image of David Cameron saying "wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-POW!". I need to go wash my brain out with soap.
And now I have a mental image of David Cameron saying "wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-POW!". I need to go wash my brain out with soap.
Francesca R
Girl
Wanting it isn't. Trying to bounce another party into it against that party's will using threats to default on debt obligations . . . is inconsistent with it. Totally.
The SNP wants to run Scotland. OK. But it does not believe in the principle of self determination. Except where it is opportunistic and expedient to pretend.
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
Negotiating about what share of the UK's national assets Scotland should have versus what share of the national debts Scotland is obliged to pay is not a threat, its the normal way two sovereign states would negotiate when they're separating.
Similarly, when Ireland left they agreed to drop their objections to the results of the Border Commission in return for Britain agreeing to drop their demand that Ireland pay any share of the national debt. Britain wasn't planning to partition Scotland, so I suppose Alex Salmond had to come up with the currency union demand as a means to achieve the same clean slate Ireland got on independence.
What nonsense. Even if the first part of your post was true, it would in no way imply the second part. The SNP wanted to use the pound but the unionists said no. The Irish Free State and the successor Irish Republic in fact DID use the pound, so the issue has not inconsistent with a desire for political self determination.
In fact this is backed up by the SNPs own European manifesto for the last EU elections which states as follows
"We will not seek membership of either the Eurozone or the Schengen area. We will retain sterling as our currency and remain a member of the common Travel area."
So there was always the intention to have a currency union with England and in fact retain a common borders policy. This is very interesting given the Tories policies on Immigration.
"We will not seek membership of either the Eurozone or the Schengen area. We will retain sterling as our currency and remain a member of the common Travel area."
So there was always the intention to have a currency union with England and in fact retain a common borders policy. This is very interesting given the Tories policies on Immigration.
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
Calling a putative currency union with another (independent) state (which is what the rest of the UK would have become) a "national asset" is precisely what contradicts any notion of self determination. It was a colossal blunder the SNP made if they wanted to keep up pretence of adhering to the self determination principle. If you think an independent Scotland had any right whatsoever to share a currency with the rest of the UK then you also either do not believe in self determination or you don't understand it. In either case you are in no position to advocate it.
This currency union between two independent states did not exist before the referendum. In no sense did any one party have a "claim" on something that did not and could not exist unless both parties desired it to.
Unless one party believed (erroneously) that it could impose it against the wish of the other. Which is absolutely contrary to self determination. Which the SNP is not an adherent to unless it suits its agenda.
You're moving the goal posts. The question is not one of right to use the pound against the will of the unionists. The question is, whether a wish to continue to use the pound is consistent with a desire for self determination.
As I have shown, such a wish on the part of Ireland, both the Free State, then the fully independent Republic, is in no way inconsistent with the self determination of that state.
Please look at this where you may read that
Convertibility was effected through a guarantee that any Irish pound notes would be paid at par (without fee, margin or commission) in sterling at the Bank of England in London, acting as agency for the Currency Commission. This guarantee was printed on a panel on all Irish banknotes up until 1960.
And the linked source shows a picture of this wording on the note. Payable to Bearer on demand in London. The removal of these words in 1960 made no difference to the parity of the monetary units.
Now we are not talking about the Irish right to enforce this arrangement on the UK, but whether a wish to maintain such an arrangement is consistent with a desire to secure self determination. Clearly and manifestly it is. I want Scotland to be independent, but I really don't care what currency that independent Scotland uses, as long as it is a stable and secure one.
Francesca R
Girl
Rejected. See post 64. I already agree a desire to have a currency union is not the issue.
But the belief one has a right to do so, or "a claim" to do so because something that can not exist unless both parties desire it is somehow a "national asset". That is inconsistent with adhering to the principle of self determination.
I am moving no goal posts. You on the other hand are attempting to do so my claiming I have written something I have not. That rarely works and it will not in this thread.
You got a response in # 65. Can you explain to me how a "claim" on a "national asset" is inconsistent with adhering to the principle of self determination?
Francesca R
Girl
There is no claim. There is no presumption of any claim. There certainly is no right to share a currency with the rest of UK the way many Scottish Nationalists believed there was. Such a claim or right only exists in the minds of those who believe they can force governance arrangements on independent sovereign states that are not their own. That this belief applies to many Scottish Nationalists is highly damning to any idea that they may support self determination in general.
Prior to the indyref, the UK government and main opposition party all accepted that if one party (Scotland) did not voluntarily wish to be in a political union with the rest, that party could not be compelled to do so against its will. The rest of the UK had precisely zero claim on, or right to preserve, the union. In the event of a yes vote, none of the unionist parties would be saying that the union was a "national asset" and that Scotland could be compelled to stay in it if it did not want to.
Contrast this with the shenanigans pulled by Salmond et al about currency union. Talk about hypocrisy.
Prior to the indyref, the UK government and main opposition party all accepted that if one party (Scotland) did not voluntarily wish to be in a political union with the rest, that party could not be compelled to do so against its will. The rest of the UK had precisely zero claim on, or right to preserve, the union. In the event of a yes vote, none of the unionist parties would be saying that the union was a "national asset" and that Scotland could be compelled to stay in it if it did not want to.
Contrast this with the shenanigans pulled by Salmond et al about currency union. Talk about hypocrisy.
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
Actually Scotland used the pound long before 1603(union of the crowns)never mind 1707. Its as much ours as anyone's. Besides what's Cameron going to do-invade to stop us.
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
Scotland (independent) could certainly have used the pound, as in "sterlingisation". But it would have lacked a lender of last resort or a monetary policy set with its needs in mind. Consequently it would have earned a dodgy credit rating (regardless on whether it de-facto defaulted to the rest of the UK.). For this reason the SNP had no time for that idea, quite understandably.
In the union "the pound" certainly is as much Scotland's as it is England's, or Wales's or NI's.
But a post-Scottish independence currency union is nobodies. It fails to exist unless two or more nations want it.
In the union "the pound" certainly is as much Scotland's as it is England's, or Wales's or NI's.
But a post-Scottish independence currency union is nobodies. It fails to exist unless two or more nations want it.
Last edited:
Using the pound, but having no say in interest rates, monetary policy and so on........how do you think that will work out for Scotland? Same, better or worse than now?
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
Thing is we all know that whatever is said by Westminster in the event of Scottish independence a currency agreement would be reached. This agreement would probably make neither side entirely happy but it would happen.
Westminster knows this,Edinburgh knows this,committed unionists know this,committed SNP voters know this,anyone with two brain cell knows this. The only people who don't know this are people who have a hard time finding Scotland on a map of Scotland.
Back to the actual point of the post-you know foxes. In the media today police in Kent are looking for a gang of youths who set there dogs on a fox. The fox got away. It then was "just" terrified like a fox on a legal fox hunt before it is shot just before the hounds get it. The only difference is that the dog owners dress,the above group in tracksuits and hoodies and the"legal"group in fancy dress. Oh and the social class of the perpetrators. Guess which is legal.
Westminster knows this,Edinburgh knows this,committed unionists know this,committed SNP voters know this,anyone with two brain cell knows this. The only people who don't know this are people who have a hard time finding Scotland on a map of Scotland.
Back to the actual point of the post-you know foxes. In the media today police in Kent are looking for a gang of youths who set there dogs on a fox. The fox got away. It then was "just" terrified like a fox on a legal fox hunt before it is shot just before the hounds get it. The only difference is that the dog owners dress,the above group in tracksuits and hoodies and the"legal"group in fancy dress. Oh and the social class of the perpetrators. Guess which is legal.
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
Personnaly, I would be prepared to be worse of. Not everything is about money.
Mmm. The Scots currency and the English currency - in practice the silver penny - lost parity in 1367, after which 6 Scots pence were worth 5 English ones. By 1603 the Pound Sterling was worth twelve pounds Scots.
The Treaty of Union provided for the continuance of a Mint in Edinburgh, striking coins according to Sterling weight and fineness. But it was forced to cease operation in 1709. That was almost, but not quite, the first Westminster infringement of the Treaty of Union.
skeptichaggis
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 692
Dammit,dammit,DAMMIT. I was really,really hoping you would not know that. Serves me right for trying to be clever.
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,092
I personally find it bizarre that any two-brain-celled person could think that a country that has stood implacably opposed to the Euro for twenty years and more would suddenly be only too happy to enter into a currency agreement with Scotland.
No, it really wouldn't. The English voters would never stand for an independent Scotland having a say in English economic policy, or in English economic policy being set to favour Scotland. You only have to look to the reaction towards UK money being used to support Greece to see that.
The fact that Scottish people don't seem to grasp this is odd. The fact that they seem to think that it's an insult to or attack on Scotland by those beastly English is just plan stupid.