Well, I happen to like Krugman .. and I'm not too impressed with what I looked up and found out about the .. wait for it .. hold your breath ..... ;) .............THE STONE. Don't get me wrong I do realize it's a special piece - but
the only person I know who uses this phrase and his ilk is extelecom. I'm real sorry about the loss of history for all our countries. The ISIS has been having a grand party doing all that too .. It sounds at least as if the Brits didn't totally destroy the sacred 'stone' .. (OH MY GOD) I can't believe I hear myself saying that).. They have one over the IS.
Now, Please tell me how I am misinterpreting your post?
I 100 percent agree with Krugman on having your own currency and Canada and Spain .. etc.
LOL, funny to see your reaction. Krugman, whom you like, seems to me to be simply pointing what he sees in some danger of the yes, vote. Right or wrong in the future (if not this time, i reckon, yes, is likely to get there one day) and based on recent historical experience, which he cites some of, and on Krugman's own record on austerity vs stimulus et al and recent history on that, Krugman has been pretty spot on. Yep, you did, i think, acknowledge in saying you liked him, too .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=106097182 .. lol, and yeah, your "irked" there chuckle, good on you, sideeki! .. now hold your breath, lol, as here is some more of Krugman's 'parental'? observations on what he sees as some more pitfall within a Scotland yes .. first, to link Stephanie's
as it really should be read first by those who haven't read it .. ok, :) .. now ..
Even More On Scotland
September 10, 2014 11:50 am September 10, 2014 3:21 pm 149 comments
I’m going on Channel 4 in a couple of hours, and doing more homework. One thing that is likely to come up is the fact that some reputable economists .. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00419554.pdf (pdf) have concluded that Scotland-on-the-pound would be OK. What’s my answer?
It is, in short, that this analysis doesn’t seem to reflect the unpleasant things we’ve learned from the euro crisis. To be blunt, the reassurances from the working group sound like the kind of thing euro defenders used to say pre-2010. Unfortunately, we’ve discovered that sharing a currency without sharing a government is a lot more dangerous than even euro skeptics realized.
We are told, for example, that Scotland need not worry because its fiscal position is relatively strong. But that was true — or appeared to be true — of Spain and Ireland before the euro crisis. What we’ve learned, alas, is that a seemingly strong fiscal position can evaporate very fast in a crisis — especially if banks need to be bailed out. In that context, it’s interesting to note that Scotland’s banks are very big relative to the size of the country, because they serve much of the UK. Nothing wrong with that as long as you have a political union; but without, what’s to prevent an Irish-type situation in which a small country is trying to bail out big banks?
We’re also told that the Bank of England would of course provide liquidity — in effect, act as lender of last resort — to Scottish banks. Are we sure about this? It took the ECB years to step up to the plate in the euro crisis, in part because it turned out that you needed a lender of last resort to governments as well as fInancial institutions; even now, the ECB’s efforts rely to an important extent on a bluff, in the sense that nobody knows what would happen if OMT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outright_Monetary_Transactions] were actually required. Assuming that England — possibly an England run by a Conservative-UKIP coalition! — would be there when needed is a big leap of faith.
An earlier version of this blog post misspelled the given name of the president of the National Front in France. It is Marine Le Pen, not Marie.
[oops, a touch of patriarchal presumption there, Paul? lol]
Let me say that I do understand why some people would like to be out of David Cameron’s UK — just as some of us coastal liberals occasionally wonder what America could be like without the old Confederacy. But getting currency realities right is crucial. The European project is a noble idea, and the euro is a grand gesture in support of that idea — but the willingness to ignore macroeconomics for the sake of that grand gesture may end up making Marine Le Pen president of France. You really have to get these things right, or else.
LOL, i only chuckled at your "irked" because i have never been much of a nationalist, nor ever felt under the influence, at all, of ancestry. Just different there, is all. Chuckle. LOL, a bit of history here, most of which some would definitely, and fairly, see as good reason to support your independence, yes, position.
The peculiar history of Scotland and England’s union
By Ishaan Tharoor September 11 Comments 35
A Scottish Saltire flag is raised over 10 Downing Street in London, September 9, 2014. (REUTERS/Luke MacGregor)
For years, Scotland was eyed by England's European rivals as an ally and potential staging ground for an assault on the English. Scottish nobles curried favor and hatched plots in the courts of Spain and France. Queen Elizabeth I's execution of her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1587 is seen as a precursor to the launching of the Spanish Armada -- an epic, botched invasion of England.
After Elizabeth died, though, her crown was given in 1603 .. http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofthecrowns/index.asp .. to Mary's son, James VI of Scotland, who sat as monarch for both nations. There was nothing necessarily strange about this: modern nationalism makes us believe that our rulers ought to share our ethnic identity. But for most of human history, royals and their political elites existed on a different plane from their subjects, swanned around in foreign lands as youths, married nobility from other kingdoms, and spoke languages vastly different from the vernaculars of the peasants and soldiers who toiled in their name.
Despite sharing a monarch, England and Scotland maintained separate parliaments, courts and almost everything else. The brutal English Civil War led to the beheading of James's son Charles I .. http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/TheStuarts/CharlesI.aspx. The English resisted various bids to unite commercially and politically with Scotland. What eventually compelled the Treaty of Union in 1707 -- the moment that made the two countries part of Cameron's "family of nations" -- was Scotland's need for economic aid [see Krugman's] and England's suspicion and fatigue .. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/acts_of_union_01.shtml .. with the "rogue" state [again, lol] to its north.
England allowed free trade; Scotland agreed to a line of foreign Protestant kings taking the throne of their United Kingdom. It was a pact born less out of a sense of fraternity than pragmatic necessity. [I see Krugman's as voicing what he sees as "pragmatic" concerns] Of course, not all were happy. The Jacobites .. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/299035/Jacobite, supporters of the Stuart dynasty of James I's descendants, backed at times by the French, waged a long-running rebellion that was only decisively put down in 1745.
It was only after the 18th century, as a disproportionate number of Scots got involved in Britain's imperial adventures overseas, that a true sense of shared identity .. http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/society/c_scottishidentity.html .. emerged. Those in the "Yes" camp likely appreciate its tenuousness more than those seeking to keep this union intact.
Ishaan Tharoor writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. He previously was a senior editor at TIME, based first in Hong Kong and later in New York.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
