The Scottish people have a big decision to take. At least they know now that the rest of the UK will set them adrift as far as the pound is concerned - no matter how unfair this may seem.
An independent Scotland could also find it difficult to become a member of the EU. Spain might well veto Scotland's accession or severely delay it. The fact that Scotland was already a member, because it was an integral part of the UK, might not cut any ice with Spain who are trying to block Kosovo's membership of the EU. Spain does not recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/barroso-in-kosovo-warning-on-hopes-of-eu-membership.23445822
It is not a preposterous notion that Spain will baulk at Scotland joining the EU. This is the harsh reality of politics which is quite often not based on idealism.
Spain does not want to encourage the secession of Catalonia or the Basque country. This is the type of realpolitik that the voters of Scotland have to take into account. Scotland is a small country and in a weak position.
Even if Scotland is granted admission to the EU , it might well be forced to join the Euro along with all other new member states.
Scotland cannot rely upon the rest of Britain either supporting its entry to the EU or its entry without having to accept the Euro. Britain has its own difficulties with the EU and vice versa so why worry about an independent Scotland?
Scotland may well be forced to join the EEA and maintain its own currency - in which case it will pay for the privilege of joining the European free trade area but having to obey EU rules without having a say in how those rules are set.
There is no doubt that Scotland will continue to prosper no matter what the outcome of the the independence vote. But the Scottish people must realise that they will become a small nation with very little say in international affairs. They will have no more power in Europe than Lithuania does. This is the painful reality and it cannot be glossed over by those who support independence.
Why not see the benefits of saying united with the rest of Britain? We are your friends and life will become more difficult outside of the family rather than at the heart of it.
Monday, 17 February 2014
Friday, 14 February 2014
Scottish Independence and the Pound Sterling
If I lived in Scotland I would vote No in the independence referendum. I believe that the UK should remain united even if there is a degree of self government for both Scotland and Wales and what could be wrong with a degree of autonomy for the English regions? Northern Ireland has also benefited from a form of self government and even shared sovereignty with Ireland.
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
I see no reason why the issue of Scotland remaining in the "Sterling Area" should be used as a type of political football.
At one time during the past, when the pound was under threat, the Scottish Nationalists were quite happy to traduce the pound. They have changed their minds for fear that the Scottish people might vote No if they are deprived of their Sterling.
UK national politicians from the major political parties have now joined in the argument saying that it would be impossible for Scotland to join in a currency union if it were to secede from the UK: it would not be to the economic benefit of either Scotland or the remaining parts of the UK if there were to be a currency union.
I presume that the Liberal party no longer supports British membership of the European Currency Union for the same reason. It is quite possible that the Euro nations will return to prosperity and that the Euro will again become a success and it could become an attractive possibility for Britain to join in the future.
It is nonsense to suggest that Scotland should not join the UK in a currency union if they were to become independent. Britain and Ireland effectively had a currency union between 1928 and 1978 and this was reasonably successful.
If Scotland were to join in a currency union a treaty could be used to decide on what settlement risk Scotland should take on but depending on the size of its population or its economy. An independent Scotland would probably maintain similar fiscal rules to the UK as both economies would have a similar structure.
It is disingenuous of UK national politicians to put pressure on the Scottish electorate so a currency union should be negotiated if and when Scotland votes for independence. The Scottish people would be natural allies and partners of the rest of the UK.
Whatever will be proposed next? Is the UK to deny the Scottish people a "Common Travel Area" arrangement like we have with Ireland? Are we going to erect border posts and deny Scottish people a vote if they move to England, Wales or Northern Ireland? Are we going to take "sour grapes" that far?
Scotland, if left to its own devices, could choose to use the pound Sterling as its currency for all transactions including taxation on a semi-official basis. The downside of this decision would be that the Scottish treasury could not set its own national interest rate independently.
Many countries have decided to use a foreign currency in this way. And many countries use the dollar in a process of "Dollarization" or Currency Substitution. Montenegro uses the Euro as its national currency even though it is not a member of the EU.
Scotland could choose to join the Euro or even use its own currency if allowed - there are many options available and no doubt Scotland would continue to prosper.
There are dangers that Scotland would be forced to re-apply for membership of the European Union. Spain is likely to insist on this in order not to set the precedent of a seceding nation being granted automatic membership of the EU on existing terms. Spain is wary of Catalonia seceding from Spain.
Scotland might face the possibility of being forced to join the Euro but perhaps this would be an entirely acceptable solution.
It is preferable that Scotland does not leave the Union; the whole of the UK including Scotland will be stronger if we remain united. This does not mean that the rest of the UK should pressure the Scots not to vote Yes and that we should not help them if they do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1740493.stm
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_abroad/freedom_of_movement_within_the_eu/common_travel_area_between_ireland_and_the_uk.html
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/moving_to_ireland/introduction_to_the_irish_system/right_to_vote.html#l862a3
Thursday, 6 February 2014
Climate Change and the UK floods and Beavers
Meteorologists have been at pains to point out that the recent floods in the UK cannot be attributed to climate change despite comments by David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, and the Prince of Wales. Of course there is no direct evidence. But David Cameron only said he "suspected" that climate change was linked to the abnormal weather events.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
We would all do well to listen to this. There is a connexion between the weather and the climate and that is why it rarely rains at the South Pole. The south polar climate is in general too cold for rainy weather. Weather is what happens on a short timescale and climate dictates the weather on a long timescale.
If the Antarctic ice cap melted completely it would have serious and noticeable effects on the weather in the southern hemisphere and its long term climate.
It is a scientific fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the climate. These facts were ascertained by scientists such as James Tyndall in the 19th century. Tyndall proved that there was a greenhouse effect caused by an increase to concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane in the atmosphere. Much of this proof was obtained by his work on absorption spectroscopy. He also ascertained that water vapour was the principal greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
Svante Arrhenius was one of the first scientists to make the calculations regarding the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. He worked out that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled then there would be in increase of 5 to 6 degrees Celsius in surface temperatures on the Earth.
Equally, if the concentration of carbon dioxide were to be halved surface temperatures would be reduced.
Why cannot climate change deniers accept these facts? If we were to take measures on an industrial scale to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere completely we would have a catastrophe on our hands. Our atmosphere would freeze and so would the oceans; we would all die. No sane person would advocate that we did this.
Unfortunately, we are doing the exact reverse as we are pumping industrialised quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are heating the planet up.
Much of the heat has gone into the oceans and warmer oceans mean more water vapour in the atmosphere and what does more water vapour do? It causes more rain and it also causes the atmosphere to heat up further. The additional energy in the atmosphere helps to generate more wind. We can expect more "abnormal" or "unusual" storms in the future. David Cameron's suspicion could easily become a dreadful reality.
I am not advocating that anyone should take any action to reduce their own emissions of carbon dioxide. I am only advocating that we at least admit that there might be a problem. We need to be aware that the climate is going to change and we need to take action to mitigate the problems of increased flooding and storms.
Nothing is going to be done to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. We will still have fracking and exploration of oil in the Arctic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to double from what it was at the end of the last ice age and this will happen sooner than you think.
It will take a catastrophe which kills hundreds of thousands of people to make the human species sit up and take note but by then it could be too late.
So what can the people of the UK do to protect themselves from the floods? We could abandon such areas as the Somerset levels and evacuate everybody and leave it all to nature but the upheaval and distress caused would be unbearable.
We could learn some lessons from the indigenous people of South East Asia who live in areas of heavy rainfall. They build Kampung houses on stilts. These types of house are often built on the sea shore. We could do something similar on our flood plains.
We could also learn to work with nature instead of against it and restore deciduous forests to the hill side water catchment areas above and near the flood plains. I was amused to see that some local authorities were chopping down trees to damn up streams in the catchment areas to act as buffer systems to assist natural and gradual drainage. Beavers do this and it doesn't cost a penny.
It is as shame that we have chopped down nearly all of our forests and shot all the beavers; they could have provided cost free and very effective flood protection schemes. We have been very stupid not to have protected our environment and to have chopped down or killed any plant or animal which has got in our way.
We need to be more imaginative about how we treat our environment and we need both short term and realistic long term solutions. The use of the bulldozer, chain saw and shotgun (to kill beavers etc.) is no longer a solution.
We also need to listen to Prince Charles; for on this issue he is right. As a constitutional prospective Head of State and Monarch he is expected not to intervene in national politics. But the dangers of global climate change transcend national politics and I am glad that he has reminded us of our responsibility to protect our planet and our living space..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
