RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

So, you kind of hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph. For most pro-independence Scots, the main objective is to gain sovereign control from Westminster, and yes, the majority of them consider the English to be inherently right-wing (whether this is so or not is another discussion). A significant minority of pro-independence Scots are also anti-EU, and if you look closely you will be able to detect a slight change in the rhetoric from Sturgeon away from EU membership at all costs towards wishing a close working relationship with the EU.
I probably don't need to point out that much of the pro-EU rhetoric is political opportunism as anything else.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.

But we're not talking about economic risk. We're talking about a vote as a member vs a vote when not a member, which has then moved to leap of faith to stay in the union v leap of faith to get a Brexit that stops the free movement of people.
One is a leap of faith to keep something and one is a leap of faith to gain something. It's widely accepted that people are more reticent about taking that leap when there is a possibility you may lose something.

It's like gambling your house on the toss of a coin but with different rules. The first scenario is best of three, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, two/one heads and you keep your house, all tails and you lose your house and move to a bed sit. The second scenario is best of three as well, three heads and you win Chatsworth House, anything else you just get to keep your house. Which gamble are the general public most likely to take.

If your telling me overriding issue for Scots is getting rid of the right of centre English regardless of the fallout then this is all irrelevant but if being in the EU is as important as Sturgeon is making out then risk aversion is incredibly important.

So, you kind of hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph. For most pro-independence Scots, the main objective is to gain sovereign control from Westminster, and yes, the majority of them consider the English to be inherently right-wing (whether this is so or not is another discussion). A significant minority of pro-independence Scots are also anti-EU, and if you look closely you will be able to detect a slight change in the rhetoric from Sturgeon away from EU membership at all costs towards wishing a close working relationship with the EU.
I probably don't need to point out that much of the pro-EU rhetoric is political opportunism as anything else.

Ah, right. I may have been looking at this from slightly the wrong angle. Yes, I was suprised when I saw that circa a third of pro-independence Scots were pro-Brexit.

I have noted the move away from full EU membership. I thought this was due to a realisation that gaining access to the EU would be difficult to deliver in the short term but, now you've pointed it out, I can see the link between a third of pro-independence voters being anti-EU and the move to the EFTA.
It's a good tactical move from Sturgeon, not that I would expect anything else.

If I were the government, and looking at it from that angle, I'd argue that now the Scots are not so wedded to the EU a referendum before we leave the EU is not required as we may end up with something very close to the EFTA in all but name. Conversely, if we do leave without a far ranging deal the govt would be pretty much duty bound to allow a referendum. It's a tricky hand May has to play and everything I've seen of her so far, both at the Home Office and at no10, makes me think she doesn't have the tact and diplomacy skills to come out on top.

May says it would be unfair to have the Scottish people vote in a referendum when they wouldn't know what the outcome of our new deal with the EU will look like, which whilst I suspect isn't what May is trying to say sounds like saying the Brexit referendum isn't of value as voters didn't and don't know what the outcome of the new deal with the EU will look like

Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Continued membership of the EU whilst leaving the UK was an extremely tough sell to the likes of Spain and Belgium with separatist movements.

Continued membership of the EU when the UK is fucking off is a much easier sell. No one else with a separatist movement is going to leave so they won't be worried about the precedent. Rapid accession if the Scots are dragged out by Britain and have to apply as an independent country might be a darned sight more difficult to do.

My guess is that Sturgeon has calculated this. She therefore needs the referendum to happen before the UK actually leaves so that Scotland can negotiate staying put. I imagine she has also calculated that there will be a flood of currently UK businesses who will head north in a nanosecond if Scotland are staying in the EU as an independent country.

To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: To be counted against the risks of adopting the euro vs another currency, although such a move does remove one source of pressure from the Scottish government, provided adopting the euro was acceptable to the Scots.

Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Given the state of the pound, I'm not sure anyone will be that terrified of having to commit to having the euro at some point in the future if they meet the financial criteria. The Scots Nats could even make a virtue of being forced to only if their economy is operating well.

Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Memories would have to be short to forget the problems Greece has had. Not being in charge of your own currency limits your options if you run into trouble.

Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
Then we should see Barnsley and many others pushing for independence, being tied into the same currency as London creates huge problems for many areas of the UK. Whether in the Euro or retaining sterling the exchange and interest rate isn't going to meet everyone's needs, far from it

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Because the fiscal union works so well for large areas of the UK outside London?

In the EU system things have broadly worked well for Germany, and badly for Greece, as we see with London Vs large tracts of the North or Wales or...

However we bring together governance you're going to find areas where a single approach leaves many in a disadvantageous position, it's just how it is

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Does the UK government have more of a responsibility to safeguard the interests of Barnsley, bearing in mind that an elected representative from that area sits in that parliament, than the German government has towards the people of Greece?

At some point a state becomes too small to function (not my view but one I heard discussed by UN governance experts who were looking at the viability of Abkhazia). Government across a nation state requires compromise and an acceptance that not everyone is happy all of the time. Even at parish levels, that principe holds true.

Scotland could develop their own currency, retain the use of Sterling (risky) or join the EU (mandatory if they wish to join the EU in the future. Joining the EFTA would require the use of some currency and would the Euro be an option immediately? If they did join the Euro, how much say do they think they would have compared to Germany or France? They are a small country in a bigger club, compared to the relative influence they have within the UK.

None of that will influence those who just want to get rid of English influence. But for other voters who are concerned over how an independent Scotland would function financially, its important to understand how risky the various options are, and whilst joining the Euro would be a more straight forward approach than creating their own currency (in my view) there remain significant risks.

I'm suprised you felt the need to go beyond the fact that whilst Greece may be in a currency union with the rest of the euro zone, as Barnsley is with London, they aren't in a fiscal union, unlike Barnsley and London, and that is where the problems lie.

Because the fiscal union works so well for large areas of the UK outside London?

In the EU system things have broadly worked well for Germany, and badly for Greece, as we see with London Vs large tracts of the North or Wales or...

However we bring together governance you're going to find areas where a single approach leaves many in a disadvantageous position, it's just how it is

Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Not sure theres been any "official" announcement but chat round the fire is that snp will push for efta membership for iscot rather than eu. A la norway. Elsie (Sturgeon) is desperate not to alienate the million or so scots who voted to leave the eu, so presumably reckons efta will come across as a decent enough halfway house that she can sell to europhobe and sceptic alike. Eu membership seems to be off the table for now.

That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That would be stupid as you effectively end up a prisoner with no say which is what independence is supposed to be a move away from.

I am somewhat surprised that everyone seems to be ignoring the possibility that rather a lot of those Scottish "leave" votes might have been cast precisely in order to get a second independence referendum.

On your 1st para... the only thing that matters is moving away from England.

On your 2nd para... everyone is well aware that there was a good deal of voting for leave in order to push indy. At least 1 WM snp mp has publicly admitted it, and there are rumoured to be several more in the same boat.

That may be commonly known amongst SNP people, or north of the border, but it's completely absent from any discussion I've seen in media down here, where people talk about the great risk to Sturgeon of being too European because a fair few Nats voted leave.

It's pretty unknown to me as well, to be honest. They only folk I know who have admitted voting to leave are die-hard little Britishers who think we still run an empire.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Not that I think depressed areas in Wales or the North, or for that matter many boroughs in London itself, are anywhere near as bad as Greece or are indeed directly caused by London (taken as a whole). My point was that you can't compare Barnsley's relationship with London with Greece's relationship with the eurozone/ECB, as beyond sharing currencies their relationships are fundamentally different.
I'm also unaware of the BoE loaning Wales or 'large tracts of the north' money to plug holes in their budget under incredibly punitive terms when a major cause of their problem was the inherent flaws of the monetary union setup by the very body which now punishes them. The same body that agreed to let them into the monetary union even though they failed virtually every single requirement of entry other than the fact they wanted to be in the currency union. Not that Greece were alone in this.
Defending the Greeks with their lax attitude to accountancy laws, payment of tax and public sector pay restraint seems wrongheaded but less wrongheaded than comparing them to Barnsley.

There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
There's more to it. But once you start to bring together areas in whatever sort of union, in this instance United Kingdom or Euro Zone, you'll have areas responding differently. And the same people who'll argue against some aspects of union will then disagree with themselves by arguing for aspects of union elsewhere

Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Wholly agreed, but I still think you are comparing apples with bananas.

The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

Sorry, couldnt help it...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 3020658754

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
The contention was not being in charge of your currency limits your options, and really almost no one is actually in charge of the currency they use. Whoever sets options for the currency sees those levels applied across myriad regions and all sorts of different economic needs. So yes it's a concern for members of the Eurozone, but there's no point assuming we're doing more than applying rates which don't suit huge areas of our country, and even within regions the rates a pensioner wants to be able to live of their interest income is more than a little different to most mortgage owners

You can explain it as many different ways as you want, I still won't think it's a valid comparison.

Unless everyone gets the currency rates which suits them individually there'll be winners and losers. Though Greece has messed up way beyond just the situation with its currency.

Interestingly we could see the Greece car crash coming a long way off, also interestingly we're heading the same way.

I fully understand your position but I still don't think it's a valid comparison.

Yep. If you look purely at the numbers we are in as bad a position as Greece. Luckily, being able to control our own interest rates and money prin....sorry quantitative easing, along with a history of paying our debts means we are just about muddling along.