Originally Posted by Big Brian (Post 35834042)

Maybe in the EU but we sure don't want it in the UK.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35834114)

Since the UK has decided to have a vote on leaving how many outside forces have interfered with threats of consequences if we leave?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35834116)

I think you may be confusing 'their views/impact assessments' with 'threats of consequences'.

I think you wouldn't be complaining if these people made statements in support of Brexit.... ;)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35834103)

You may well be correct ,after all we are often told by our chancellor that the economic forecast is uncertain ,i just don't see how ,as Damien suggested, that, that uncertainty would be increased by us leaving when all the major institutions are linked ,if one crashes they all crash whether in the EU or not

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35834125)

I would prefer it if outsiders just kept out of it. there is having an opinion and out right saying if you leave these are the consequences of it which in Obamas case he did.

I know there are pro's and con's for leaving and staying in the EU but the Brexit campaign isn't using fear techniques to scare people into voting.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35834127)

I am not talking of a 2008 style crash but slower economic growth as companies stall their investment because of increased costs to one of our biggest markets and less flexible movement of people and services which are important for those companies which operate across Europe. That's not to stay they can't operate like this, of course they can as they do elsewhere, but that their costs increase and it may be more competitive then to put more investment in places like Germany where they'll still have that access.

The response to this is that people still trade with nations that they do have deals with but to suddenly have even minor tariffs is a hit to companies and deal in bulk. To longer to be able to sell services to many nations as if it were your own is a hit.

The boss of Siemens (or former boss) had a good article about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...s-UK-boss.html

I also linked to this FT article a while back but it's worth seeing again as it's relatively measured and fair. It looks at the different scenario and largely concludes there would be an impact from leaving: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46ly9CC4x

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------



The SNP did this as well though. Any time anyone said there would be a cost to Scotland leaving the Union they shouted scaremongering, any time we said you can't have a Currency Union they said it was bulling and any time people dismissed their notion of unicorns and rainbows in a Independent Scotland skeptics were dismissed as Project Fear.

When your campaign is based on the idea that the status-quo is better than the given alternative then all you have is to argue what you would lose. This isn't the most inspiring message but it's what there is, sometimes the choice isn't great and you can't sell it as anything other than the best of an imperfect situation.

Remain are entitled to argue that there would well be a nasty economic hit if we withdraw from the a large single market without much of any idea of what we will replace it with.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35834125)

I would prefer it if outsiders just kept out of it. there is having an opinion and out right saying if you leave these are the consequences of it which in Obamas case he did.

I know there are pro's and con's for leaving and staying in the EU but the Brexit campaign isn't using fear techniques to scare people into voting.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35834164)

So is the "Disastrous Decision" the supporters of the EU making overconfident claims????

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35834127)

I am not talking of a 2008 style crash but slower economic growth as companies stall their investment because of increased costs to one of our biggest markets and less flexible movement of people and services which are important for those companies which operate across Europe. That's not to stay they can't operate like this, of course they can as they do elsewhere, but that their costs increase and it may be more competitive then to put more investment in places like Germany where they'll still have that access.

The response to this is that people still trade with nations that they do have deals with but to suddenly have even minor tariffs is a hit to companies and deal in bulk. To longer to be able to sell services to many nations as if it were your own is a hit.

The boss of Siemens (or former boss) had a good article about it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/1...s-UK-boss.html

I also linked to this FT article a while back but it's worth seeing again as it's relatively measured and fair. It looks at the different scenario and largely concludes there would be an impact from leaving: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/70d0bfd8-d...#axzz46ly9CC4x

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------



The SNP did this as well though. Any time anyone said there would be a cost to Scotland leaving the Union they shouted scaremongering, any time we said you can't have a Currency Union they said it was bulling and any time people dismissed their notion of unicorns and rainbows in a Independent Scotland skeptics were dismissed as Project Fear.

When your campaign is based on the idea that the status-quo is better than the given alternative then all you have is to argue what you would lose. This isn't the most inspiring message but it's what there is, sometimes the choice isn't great and you can't sell it as anything other than the best of an imperfect situation.

Remain are entitled to argue that there would well be a nasty economic hit if we withdraw from the a large single market without much of any idea of what we will replace it with.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35834155)

The "Independant(ish)" Bank of England stated they would not guarantee monitary union if Scotland exited the UK.

No matter what the result of the referendum there will be uncertainty in the money markets and the stock markets, no doubt due to futures buying/selling when no-one knew what the future would be.

Originally Posted by Big Brian (Post 35834226)

You can have a currency union of sorts. Take the Dollar for example. How many other Countries use it linked to the US Economy. I know this doesn't give you full economic autonomy but it does work in some cases. This was not made clear by the Independence Campaign. In Fact, I think they thought all they had to do was hold the referendum and it was won. I was for independence but looking at it in the same way I look at leaving the EU. That would have worked though admittedly it would have been hard at first as will leaving the latter. In the end, I believe the price is well worth paying.

---------- Post added at 09:02 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------



Perhaps they should follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. LOL!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35834253)

Not to take this too far off topic, but Dollarisation (which, it now turns out, is what Salmond would have done in the event of Yes), can work in some limited circumstances, if you intend to surrender all but a fig leaf-sized chunk of your independence - it works in Panama, where a very large chunk of that country's national income comes from the canal, and is therefore paid in Dollars anyway. They're never going to run out. It didn't work in Argentina, where they pegged their currency to USD until it became impossible to sustain. The country is still paying the economic cost of that folly.

The currency issue is still the trump card in any argument over Scottish independence. Almost all of Scotland's economic activity outside Scotland is in England - vastly more than with the EU. To create a currency barrier, whether with the Euro or by resurrecting Pound Scots, would be crippling. To use Sterling, whether directly or via a currency peg, would result in independence in name only. I can't believe anyone who truly wishes for Scotland to be a fully independent, self-determining nation state would be stupid enough to believe that's what they would get in currency union with England.

And be in no doubt - if Scotland applies to join the EU independently of the U.K., it will first be compelled to set up its own central bank, and then to adopt the Euro. As a Euro-leaver, I trust you already understand the negative implications of that.

EDIT
I should also ask, rhetorically, why anyone would be stupid enough to entrust the task of nation-building to a gang of amateurs who clearly never gave a moment's thought to the currency issue while writing their so-called "white paper".

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35834213)

From the link...