scribz said
The entirety of the argument is on the Bank of England bailing out Scotland on the basis of economic collapse, the same way that the US national reserve bails out various countries as a whole, as it's the international reserve currency. That's all their disavowing has powers to do, unless the sterling becomes the national reserve currency, it cannot actually effect trade. But, again - if a huge chunk of your union was leaving without any change, and they were offering to pay for a proportional level of the debt, and that they're already your 2nd highest trading partner in the world, would you actually think it's a bad thing? I mean, put it this way - as the bank of england, there wouldn't be any more difference as it would be if scotland was simply a fully devolved country within the union. And, as you said, the Euro there.If I got to name a new currency, i'd call it the #YOLO
Frizan said
Because gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry that most of the world's population partakes in. People enjoy gaming, and they like having reputable and honest reviewers/journalist to go to when they're having doubts about something in the industry(a game, a company, etc.).This is a very common diversionary tactic used for almost anything. "Oh who cares about [insert subject of controversy here]? It doesn't matter! Focus on something ELSE!"Don't even get me started on the appeal to worse problems fallacy.
scribz said
No, it's entirely a political move. The UK would be fucking themselves up if they did that. It's the same as the US and China in trade only to a smaller scale, no side would for a second want to remove something that's win-win for the both of them. Consider that Greece is more and more relying on tourism, which is entirely dependant on international wealth of the rest of Europe, their situation is very much different from us.
Dervish said
That's the spirit! Play games for fun, not to get involved in silly spats.
idlehands said
I hear the Scots are pretty frugal and good with money, I think it'll be ok.
scribz said
Again, that's an issue all countries have at first. But we've already got so much going for us that is currently being benefitted by most in westminister. Anyone in scotland who's educated in the subject won't for a second claim that oil will fix it all, but what it will do is supply us the transition funds to get through the first few years to create the industry required. Scotland has more chance of becoming an impoverished nation under westminister than it does on it's own. To simplify this again, one end is talking about oppertunity while the other is saying "yeah but there's a potential risk". That exists with any drastic action, and the risk in this action is not disproportionately high. Especially once Westminister brings out their plan to having a joint economy, which they're only refusing as a part of a political move as of now.
scribz said
Let's throw this into context.Right now we're underepresented by our current government. They can't promise any new powers (or more so won't).They're planning on destabilizing the NHS. There's mention of potentially trying to take powers away from us.Their main argument in the general election is "What about the pound?" in which they sneakily ignored the part in which they mentioned that no laws exist that can actually stop us using the pound.