GREAT News! According to David Crines those of us who have loans and mortgages don’t have to repay them. And if lenders come looking for their money then we can just claim they’re bullying us and send them on their way.
Tough on those with pensions and savings though, because they would be bullying debtors if they want their cash back, their wealth gone. I truly never thought I would see the end of capitalism and a return to jungle menatlity in my lifetime.
Isn’t this nonsense the real consequence of Mr Crines’s disdain for his “troika” of European Central Bank, IMF and EU Commissioners, and little thanks for their digging out of its financial hole a Greece that created its own problem through woeful mismanagement of its economic affairs and accepted the help offered by these agencies? You borrow the money, you pay it back, else chaos.
To compound his suspect logic, Mr Crines would rather have a Norway-style agreement than a Greek situation?
Norway may have the benefits of the single market but it still has to agree to the four freedoms, yet doesn’t have any real say in the policies and regulations now “dictated” to it by the EU. Is this the “regaining of sovereignty” that was “won” by brexiteers and voted for by only 25% of the population?
Greece on the other hand remains in the EU, benefiting from the help it received from the very agencies Mr Crines denigrates.
Isn’t the sad truth that if a Brexited Britain ever did get into the financial difficulties as Greece did, and it has happened before, and is forecast by many to happen in a no-deal post-Brexit then it will only be the IMF we could turn to. Can’t we all just imagine the pain of the financial screws tightening?
Please deal me out of this Brexit nonsense!
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
DAVID McEwan Hill states (Letters, September 26) “I do not wish to bore our readers with a protracted debate (on currency)”. If Scots are serious about independence, we cannot afford to be bored with discussions on planning for that event.
Unfortunately, Mr McEwan Hill’s latest contribution confirms the concern I expressed in my letter of September 25 that he simply does not understand the consequences of his approach to the establishment of a Scottish currency, despite his assurance that this is his preferred choice. I am sorry, but his latest contribution is no more than a series of platitudes which add absolutely nothing to readers’ understanding of what is at stake.
He repeats his earlier claim that “the independent Scottish Government will consider a number of options on what we will adopt as our currency”. This really is nonsense, if we are serious about independence, and the Scottish Government which takes us to independence should have that all worked out before the referendum that confirms Scots want independence.
If we repeat the risible approach followed in 2014, demanding a currency union, which would have left Westminster in charge of the “independent” Scottish economy, together with “full fiscal autonomy” which can’t work inside a currency union, the referendum will be lost before a vote is cast.
Better Together had much of its work done for it, as it argued the difficulties of creating a new currency for a newly independent state would ensure the Scottish economy would create lower living standards for Scots for decades to come. To some extent, that view was confirmed by the Growth Commission, which advocated “sterlingisation” for at least the first decade of “independence”.
Anyone interested in independence would do well to read an account of how the Czech and Slovak Republics established their separate currencies when Czechoslovakia decided to split in 1993. It has become a model of how a new currency can be achieved with a minimum of stress.
While they are at it, the Scottish Government in post during the build-up to a referendum should prepare an account of Scotland’s share of UK assets, something which was strangely absent from the debates in 2014. We cannot continue to talk blithely about the inherent riches an independent Scotland would enjoy but do nothing to ensure Scots will be able to enjoy them as soon after independence is declared as is possible.
Jim Fairlie
Crieff
WORSE than Corbyn pinching SNP policies (Labour accused of pinching policies from Scottish Government, September 27) Richard Leonard, in a party political broadcast on the BBC on Wednesday, was claiming that the SNP had “timidly accepted” austerity, blatantly forgetting that in 2015 the Labour voted with the Conservatives to continue austerity policies while all SNP MPs voted against.
He indicated Labour would start a Scottish Investment Bank, apparently forgetting there already is one instigated by the SNP. He claimed Labour would introduce free school meals for all, which is already SNP policy for P1-P3 in Scotland.
Unfortunately many who will watch a Labour Party broadcast are likely to believe these are Labour ideas. Just another type of deliberate “fake news”.
Jim Stamper
Bearsden
I SHOULD like to publicly express my admiration for James Watt, founder of Brewdog, for his triumph of decency over hate by returning the rednecks’ beer (Time called on free pints for Trump fans, September 28).
On a lighter note I look forward to Kezia Dugdale’s next media event, “I’m a bankrupt, get me out of here”.
Joe Cowan
Balmedie
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here