Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
And another contrary voice.
"David Cameron received a blow on the first day of a visit to Scotland when a former senior British diplomat said "tough but sensible" negotiations would be held on forming a currency union in the event of a vote for independence.
Better Together clearly have a job of work to do if they want a decisive pro union result in this campaign.
|
Well Salmond keeps on quoting the 'Senior unnamed Government source' who said of course there would be a currency union. He always stops short at the bit where that same source says keeping Trident at Faslane would be a likely bargaining chip for that.
And in any case not having control of your own currency isn't full independence IMO.
But yes the Better Together campaign is atrocious. I'd have thought they'd be able to comprehensively shoot down the Guess campaigns lies and spin with ease.
---------- Post added at 07:57 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------
Quite a good article with some very valid points raised.
http://ianssmart.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-question.html
Quote:
But there is one big exception to this aspired for unimportance in Nationalist mythology and that's in what happens if we vote Yes on 18th September. For then apparently the World will for the next eighteen months be at our beck and call. Not only will we be admitted to the EU but we will be admitted on a timescale and indeed terms of our choosing. Not only will the British Government allow us to join a currency union they will do so without *even asking their electorate. Indeed, Angus Robertson has even suggested they would cancel their General Election for our convenience. Not only would we be welcomed in to the NATO (expressly) Nuclear Alliance, we would be so welcome while closing that alliance's most important Eastern Atlantic Naval Base and indeed while possibly promulgating a constitution that forbade the stationing of nuclear weapons within our territorial jurisdiction!
So what if, just if, our negotiations with the EU over membership are not concluded by "Independence Day", specified in the White Paper to be 24th March 2016? What if, by then, the rest of the UK has not in fact agreed a currency union? What if the USA has insisted that the price of NATO membership is the retention of the "non-negotiable" Trident Submarine Base?
What happens then? Is Independence postponed?
Well here is where matters take a more sinister turn. There is a reason that Independence Day is scheduled for 24th March 2016, rather than, say, 24th June 2016 or indeed perhaps the entirely logical 18th September 2016.
There is a Scottish General Election scheduled for 5th May 2016.
Let's just speculate as to the fate of a Party who, by then, might have been exposed as misleading the Scottish people on the ease with which Independence: EU membership; currency union ; NATO membership would be accomplished. Who were faced with mass unemployment at the Clyde shipyards and the (formerly) Edinburgh Banks. Whose "optimism" over oil receipts had proved unfounded leading to them having to set a budget for the year ahead involving deep cuts to pensions and benefits and steep increases in personal taxation. Whose unilateral promise of an open border but a different immigration policy were belied by the customs barriers now erected by the British Government? What would be the electoral fortunes of such a Party?
Would they not inevitably say that on 18th September 2014 past people had voted for independence. And for that Independence to take place on 24th March 2016. The unfulfilled premises to that vote were "not their fault." Independence, without the EU; without the Pound; without NATO; without an open border would just have to go ahead. The people could vote for who they liked on 5th May 2016. The incoming Government, of whatever stripe, would be faced with a fait accompli.
|