Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Salmond has said that he wants Scotland to remain in a sterling zone and would not use the Euro. The problem with that is that monetary policy for Scotland would still be set by Westminister and the Bank of England.

If they have total home rule or tie fully into the EU, it won't be long before their currency trading will be with the Haggis and Turnip.

Reading TIM's and Greek postings, I understand more and more why many Scots will be happy with devolution plans!

I can also see why many in Europe will be glad to see the back of the UK. Watch the trade barriers go up, if the barmy right wingers and "little nation nationalists" get their wishes.

If the UK are prepared to tear up their "contracts" or "treaties", I am sure many in Europe will be happy to oblige them.

-------------

I would think that Salmond, if the Scots devolve, would consider it a temporary measure to remain in the smaller and smaller Euro-zone.

-----------
When is Moody's next Bond rating?

Salmond might like to keep the pound sterling but, to do so, he would need an agreement with Westminster. As Haystack has already said, it would be the BoE who would control Scotland's monetary policy. The problem with this is that the BoE are a lender of last resort and it wouldn't be healthy for the Chancellor to be imposing austerity on what's left of the UK and trying to keep our AAA credit rating whilst, at the same time, a bunch of jocks are being allowed to run riot. There's no guarantee that consent from Westminster would be forthcoming.

The alternative is that Salmond still adopts the pound without any agreement with Westminster and 'does a Kosovo'. They've adopted the Euro, although they aren't in the EU and don't get any of the associated benefits of EU membership. The problem for Salmond if he goes that route is that Scotland has a large financial services sector and they would get the raving hump with Salmond because they'd then be prone to bank runs with nowhere to turn for a bailout.

I get the impression that Salmond hasn't really thought the consequences through.

As far as EU membership goes, the consensus seems to be that Scotland's membership of the EU would be automatic as they would be, in effect, a succession of the UK which is already a member. Indeed, Scotland already has its own MEPs. There does, however, seem to be a bit of confusion as to whether or not what remains of the UK could veto Scotland's membership of the EU.

In the event that Scotland had automatic EU membership, there would be no obligation whatsoever to adopt the Euro. If, however, they had to apply separately for EU membership then they would be expected to join the Euro. Theoretically they would join the Euro once their own currency had passed the convergence tests, so I don't really know what they'd do about a currency in the meantime....

2021: The New Europe

Niall Ferguson peers into Europe's future and sees Greek gardeners, German sunbathers—and a new fiscal union. Welcome to the other United States.

The EU will not let him keep the pound; they state clearly that any country joining the EU must join the Euro.

One thing I have learned since living in Scotland, is that the Scots hate the English to attempt to try and tell them what to do, understandable. Salmond hasn't got that excuse now, their fate is in their own hands. Also dress it up whichever way, similar to the rest of the United Kingdom the Labour Party even though they were led by a fellow Scot were doomed. Has been sometime since the Conservative Party had any credence north of the border and to vote for them would have been seen as the Tartan Army cheering for England in the World Cup. :O)

This could be a helpfull site https://www.gov.uk/

Starbucks facing boycott over tax: Protest groups threaten to try and close branches over revelations it hasn't paid for three years.
I did post to say we will start a boycott of this greedy vile company

Starbucks do exactky what all multinationals do. Ford, Shell,Apple, IBM etc. Companies have always chosen the country that they pay tax in by controlling the cross border price they charge for compnnents and management fees. This is nothing new. Choosing how a company pays tax has been going on since the advent of multinationals. There is very little that can be done about it. If a company such as Starbucks makes say £10m profit then they raise an equivalent management fee for the same amount from another country. Then the company makes no profit in this country. This goes on everywhere and has done for more than 50 years. Other companies do it by selective pricing of parts suchbas engines to make a car.

DAVID ROSE must be banned and never ware a england shirt again he was the person that started the fighting he was a disgrace.

You must have watched a different match.

Ihave watched and listened to all concerned he was the
person at fault . all was well till he went to the serb fans
and he was out of order big time ban him for life .

Christian nutters lose court case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

Whether you agree with what the couple did or not, the ruling statement is ridiculous.

On one hand the recorder stated that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".

On the other hand she stated that she accepted that Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.

So how could the couple have done both!

Personally, I think in cases such as this, that a person/s should have the right to provide or not to provide services as they see fit.

The "accommodation" could not drag individuals off the street into their accommodation and expect them to pay for utilising it.

I think the reverse is equally valid.

If they think homosexuality to be offensive, so be it.

If they prefer 3 in a bed so be it.

These are personal choices of "morality" or "beliefs".

yes fred you are correct . I would never allow them in my home .
and will avoid them at all times . sodom comes to mind .

I don't care much what other people think or don't think on the subject but if people are going to offer a service to the public then they should consider that people are free to conduct themselves in what way they like in "their" bedroom within reason.

When I say "their" bedroom I mean that it's their bedroom because they have rented it for a period of time.

Stan,

The only weakness I see is that there appeared to be a contract to put them up.

I believe in general that contracts should be held to.

But if I had a group of paedophiles wishing to use my premises, I would object even if the likely acts became legal.

I think both side have a right to their own morality but not to impose it on others.

-------------------


Believe I asked a few days ago, which policies would the government U-turn on first.

Didn't think Captain outrageous and Sargent Droop would have caved in so quickly.


They continue on the "Idiots Progress" with increasing signs of immaturity and ill thought out ideas of 6th form debaters.

They would be laughed out of the Cambridge University Debates Society.

What a naive group.

Mind good to see Cameron telling the EU what the "SHOULD DO"..