The Dirty Independence Question

[Buff124]

The point is the difference in UK Govt rhetoric toward Ireland compared to that being deployed towards an electorate currently involved in deciding whether or not to remain part of the UK .

[Buff124]

the loan money is created, not borrowed.

Is interest paid on gilts ?

[eFestivals]

Is interest paid on gilts ?

when the UK govt borrows money for itself, yeah.

It doesn't print money to loan to itself because that devalues the value of the already-existing money.

That doesn't matter with loaning Ireland money, because all that is created is offset by the new asset which is Ireland's loan; as long as the 'new' money is destroyed as it's repaid, it's a smoke and mirrors trick that the markets accept.

Essentially, that new sterling is backed by an Irish taxpayer's guarantee rather than the more-normal (for Sterling) UK taxpayers guarantee - tho of course if Ireland defaulted, it's UK taxpayers that would cover the loss. The UK accepts that risk, because of the punitive fiscal conditions that Ireland had to accept as a condition of the loan.

Just go back to that FT article. Do you think that amount of profit could be made if interest wasn't paid on the full loan of £7Bn?

These are currency issues you need to understand if you think Scotland has a right to a CU or is deserving of a CU being mutually agreed with it.

Edited May 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

when the UK govt borrows money for itself, yeah.

It doesn't print money to loan to itself because that devalues the value of the already-existing money.

It doesn't print money to loan to itself due to the Bank Of England being independent of the UK Govt since 1998 ?

Edited May 5, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

The point is the difference in UK Govt rhetoric toward Ireland compared to that being deployed towards an electorate currently involved in deciding whether or not to remain part of the UK .

In normal circumstances sovereign states do not loan money to other sovereign states. Instead, it's done via the money markets.

Ireland was deeply in the shit. If there's even the remotest thought for you that iScotland will be in the same position of needing international monetary support because its bankrupted itself along with punitive fiscal measures imposed onto it, why the fuck would you vote indy?

Some things are worth the trade-off. A country that cannot run its finances is worth nothing.

[Buff124]

Therefore the BoE makes any profit rather than the UK Govt de jour

[eFestivals]

It doesn't print money to loan to itself beacuse the Bank Of England has been independent of the UK Govt since 1998 ?

even when it wasn't in the current format, it didn't loan to itself. That's how a country ends up like Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

It does do tricks tho - like the current £375Bn "quantitative easing" - which is a similar trick to what was done with the loan to Ireland.

[Buff124]

I'll try this one again.....

The point is the difference in UK Govt rhetoric toward Ireland compared to that being deployed towards an electorate currently involved in deciding whether or not to remain part of the UK .

[eFestivals]

Therefore the BoE makes any profit rather than the UK Govt de jour

and the shareholder of the BoE is...?

The BoE used to retain the profits of stuff like this, but George changed the rules so that the profits from the loan and from QE come back to the treasury.

I still don't get what of this is of any relevance or interest to an independent Scotland.

[eFestivals]

I'll try this one again.....

The point is the difference in UK Govt rhetoric toward Ireland compared to that being deployed towards an electorate currently involved in deciding whether or not to remain part of the UK .

what exactly?

[Buff124]

what exactly?

Don't worry about it.

[eFestivals]

PS: you Scots love to see stuff as rhetoric, but as that was the totality of Scottish education at one time not so long ago, perhaps that's why.

Alongside rhetoric, there's also true statements of intent. Perhaps worth remembering?

[eFestivals]

Don't worry about it.

It's not worrying me cos none of it affects me, but it seems to be worrying you.

But perhaps your worries are the result of yet another misunderstanding of yours? Like the one you had with the Irish loan?

Perhaps you're seeing the politics of the real world as being anti-Scotland? Oh well, hopefully you'll learn that turning Scotland down is allowed, and not in any way nasty.

[Buff124]

Ireland was deeply in the shit.

A country that cannot run its finances is worth nothing.

Yet the poverty level in RoI is still lower than in the UK,and 6% lower than in Northern Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/poverty-levels-in-north-higher-than-in-republic-1.1736881

[Buff124]

it was created it out of thin air. That's what you do when own the printing presses.

Oh dear.

That's why I find this quote from George Osborne puzzling

UK cuts interest rate on Republic of Ireland loan - BBC News July 2011

The UK gave its loan to Ireland late last year, at the same time as the EU and International Monetary Fund agreed to support the country. The UK has trimmed the rate on the loan from 5.8% to 3.5%.

Mr Osborne added that the UK would "still be more than covering the cost of our borrowing".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14256280

So the UK Govt did have to borrow the money to fund the loan ?

[Buff124]

This too makes me wonder.

Belfast Telegraph - 11 JUNE 2012

The UK will slash the interest rate on its bilateral loan to Ireland for a second time, UK financial secretary to the Treasury Mark Hoban said in a written ministerial statement.

Mr Hoban said: "Following the agreement last year, the Treasury have now in principle agreed the new, lower interest rate on the bilateral loan to Ireland. The new rate will represent the UK's cost of funds plus a small service fee of 0.18%."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/uk-to-cut-ireland-loan-rate-again-28760013.html

[Buff124]

Been reading a bit about the British-Irish Council.

Membership of the Council comprises representatives of the Irish and British governments and of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, together with representatives of the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey.

The Council is unique in that it is the only international forum in which these 8 members participate. All members act in accordance with their own democratic procedures and remain accountable to their respective elected institutions.

The formal purpose of the Council as outlined in strand 3 of the agreement is "to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands... the BIC will exchange information, discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant administrations".

http://british-irishcouncil.org/about

Would iScotland get chucked out and have to re-apply for membership ?

[LJS]

Ok guys

what do we make of this?

apparently it is Better Together's Cinema Ad

It appears thay have finally abandoned project fear

http://www.scotsman.com/video/news/better-together-cinema-ad-unveiled-3531099755001

[LJS]

We all like balance

So I thought I would share this which does nothing more or less than demonstrate that there despite Neil's cast iron certainties & indisputable facts - there are in fact other opinions out there:

The English could not prevent an independent Scotland from adopting the pound without damaging their own interests, writes Michael Fry

The debate about Scotland and sterling has become so acrimonious and confused that most people joining in it have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1-3208275

[kaosmark2]

It appears thay have finally abandoned project fear

While a lot of those campaigning against Scottish independence have been talking about the downsides, I'd argue that "project fear" is an invention of Salmond's in retaliation to his (not necessarily the whole of the yes campaign's) claims about what Scotland would get. Politicians going "hang on, you won't get that, we'll be under no obligation to give it to you" isn't exactly trying to scare the Scottish populace. Like the yes side are claiming the best possible scenario, the no side are claiming the worst. I don't think on that front either campaign has been full of any more bollocks than the other.

It's not negative campaign tactics to point out that the perfect scenario claimed by the other camp isn't actually a guaranteed outcome. I don't like the way they've presented that, but they were right to make the point.

[kaosmark2]

We all like balance

So I thought I would share this which does nothing more or less than demonstrate that there despite Neil's cast iron certainties & indisputable facts - there are in fact other opinions out there:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/michael-fry-sterling-in-scotland-is-up-to-us-1-3208275

Whether letting Scotland join the pound is in rUK's interests depends on a whole host of other things. There are scenarios where it'd be beneficial for just Scotland, just rUK, for both, and for neither.

I don't agree with some of Neil's debate tactics here, but as I understand it he's arguing "if the white paper contains the policies an independent Scotland would introduce, rUK would be undermining it's own interests by supporting them early, as part of the policy there involves taking business from the rest of the UK". I'd say that's a fairly accurate outlook. While there are a lot of situations where rUK would benefit from helping an independent Scotland, the vision that the SNP specifically are laying out contains one where it won't.

Edited May 5, 2014 by kaosmark2

[LJS]

While a lot of those campaigning against Scottish independence have been talking about the downsides, I'd argue that "project fear" is an invention of Salmond's in retaliation to his (not necessarily the whole of the yes campaign's) claims about what Scotland would get. Politicians going "hang on, you won't get that, we'll be under no obligation to give it to you" isn't exactly trying to scare the Scottish populace. Like the yes side are claiming the best possible scenario, the no side are claiming the worst. I don't think on that front either campaign has been full of any more bollocks than the other.

It's not negative campaign tactics to point out that the perfect scenario claimed by the other camp isn't actually a guaranteed outcome. I don't like the way they've presented that, but they were right to make the point.

On 18 January 2013, pro-Union journalist Joyce McMillan wrote in the Scotsman: "The truth is that the tone of the No camp’s response to the independence debate has – in too many cases – been so reactionary, so negative, and so fundamentally disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament as an institution, that I now find it hard to think of voting with them, no matter what my views on the constitution. And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp"

[LJS]

Whether letting Scotland join the pound is in rUK's interests depends on a whole host of other things. There are scenarios where it'd be beneficial for just Scotland, just rUK, for both, and for neither.

I don't agree with some of Neil's debate tactics here, but as I understand it he's arguing "if the white paper contains the policies an independent Scotland would introduce, rUK would be undermining it's own interests by supporting them early, as part of the policy there involves taking business from the rest of the UK". I'd say that's a fairly accurate outlook. While there are a lot of situations where rUK would benefit from helping an independent Scotland, the vision that the SNP specifically are laying out contains one where it won't.

I don't totally disagree with you - the 3 main UK parties are united in opposing independence so it is not in their interests from that point of view to give any credence to any of the claims of the yes campaign. Indeed, steeped as they are in decades of confrontational politics, they seize on any opportunity to undermine the claims of the yes campaign.

The problem arises, when the sun rises on the day after the referendum & Scotland has voted Yes.

North of the border we will have the mother of all hangover's from a night of celebration.

South of the border the hangover will be no less real as rUK wakes up to a new reality.

What do they do when they realise that all the things they have ruled out as unthinkable are suddenly in the rUK's interest's almost as much as they are Scotland's?

[Buff124]

, I'd argue that "project fear" is an invention of Salmond's

No, the term was coined by Better Together.

This from an interview with BT chief Blair McDougall in March this year

"No interview with McDougall would be complete without mention of "Project Fear", the in-house joke that got out - via the Sunday Herald - and came back to bite the campaign.

An ironic name for Better Together among its own staff, it was seized on by the Yes side as the perfect summation of the Unionist campaign.

He no longer denies the phrase came from Better Together, and tries to laugh it off as trivia, but he's obviously uncomfortable.

Is he still kicking himself?

"Not particularly, no. Look, these things, people get very excited about them, but are they really going to influence people's views in terms of how they vote? I don't think so."

Was it his personal coinage? "No."

Has he stopped using it? "I don't think we're going to get into this."

Did Alistair Darling not pick up the phone and say, "What the hell was that about?"

There is a weary pause. "I think we've said everything we've got to say."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/no-boss-unionist-parties-cant-agree-on-more-powers.23568841

[kaosmark2]

"And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument, and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitudes of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp"

I find this to be true all the time. Both in terms of politics and just debates with other people. I often find myself playing Devil's Advocate arguing against what I actually believe in just because I find those I agree with using ridiculous arguments and attitudes.

Also, I find the "yes" campaign to be pretty terrible as well.

I don't totally disagree with you - the 3 main UK parties are united in opposing independence so it is not in their interests from that point of view to give any credence to any of the claims of the yes campaign. Indeed, steeped as they are in decades of confrontational politics, they seize on any opportunity to undermine the claims of the yes campaign.

The problem arises, when the sun rises on the day after the referendum & Scotland has voted Yes.

North of the border we will have the mother of all hangover's from a night of celebration.

South of the border the hangover will be no less real as rUK wakes up to a new reality.

What do they do when they realise that all the things they have ruled out as unthinkable are suddenly in the rUK's interest's almost as much as they are Scotland's?

I think the problem comes not from what they're saying but how they're saying it, the complete opposite of my issues with the yes campaign. The no campaign are saying things I agree with in a repellent manner, while the yes campaign are spouting lies and bullshit but doing so in a way that appears optimistic and like a different brand of political campaigning. The thing here though, is that "no" is by definition a negative word, and it's hard to campaign against something without appearing to have some of that attitude.

Of course, the "no to av" campaign won, but they won on the basis of lies and bullshit as well as negativity (not to mention being a "measly little compromise"). The Scottish independence referendum will be won either by a side that's talked bollocks throughout, or by a side that's been negative throughout. Personally, I'd rather go with those that are being honest, as they're all being c**ts.

No, the term was coined by Better Together.

Fair enough.