T
Upvote
0
When Tony Blair was in office he effectively created a series of bear traps that we are now experiencing. It is plainly obvious that devolution would lead to the desire to run ones own affairs. Blair did this not because it was in the nations interests but because it achieved a short term goal of increasing popularity in Scotland.
The unfairness of Scotland having its own parliament and then also having a say in the UK parliament was devise and more clever than people realise.
England would of course be more prosperous without scotland but there is an argument that from a political perspective we benefit from being seen as a larger country on the global stage.
Alex Salmon is not a statesman he is a nationalist that has simply not thought his argument through, for the English it wont affect us, but for Scotland it will be a disaster, no question.
Salmon wants independence because he has a kind of OCD that drives his rational. His desire is driven by fear and anger. Scotland is a country with a population of 6 million people. Its like Londoners saying lets call independence from the rest of the UK. There is a growing number of people in england that are looking at the negative noises from scotland and saying whats the point in campaigning for the union as we are better off without them.
I personally don't have a view either way, but I don't like the scheming that was involved in creating this mess.
The unfairness of Scotland having its own parliament and then also having a say in the UK parliament was devise and more clever than people realise.
England would of course be more prosperous without scotland but there is an argument that from a political perspective we benefit from being seen as a larger country on the global stage.
Alex Salmon is not a statesman he is a nationalist that has simply not thought his argument through, for the English it wont affect us, but for Scotland it will be a disaster, no question.
Salmon wants independence because he has a kind of OCD that drives his rational. His desire is driven by fear and anger. Scotland is a country with a population of 6 million people. Its like Londoners saying lets call independence from the rest of the UK. There is a growing number of people in england that are looking at the negative noises from scotland and saying whats the point in campaigning for the union as we are better off without them.
I personally don't have a view either way, but I don't like the scheming that was involved in creating this mess.
Upvote
0
There are no claims it won't be detrimental to trade if we leave the EU, it's fact there won't be.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What does this mean?
"There are no claims it won't be detrimental to trade if we leave the EU"
Yes there are. They might not be right and they might not be what you believe but there are claims that leaving the EU will be detrimental to trade. Google 'Kenneth Clark EU trade" and see.
"it's fact there won't be"
There won't be claims? (See above). There won't be a detrimental change in UK/EU trade? I doubt anybody can be absolutely sure about that. What if we leave finally triggerering Grexit and a collapse in the Southern economies, leading to German demand shortage (for all goods including UK ones) because they are bailing out the EU corpse?
So, sorry, I don't know what you mean.
Upvote
0
Im saying the claims that if we leave the EU trade will suffer are completely false and just typical scaremongering from Europhiles, bureaucrats or anyone running a multi national company.
It's a nigh on guaranteed and IMO certain there won't be any detrimental effect on trade.
Upvote
0
It's a democratic outrage quite rightly challenged by Tam Dalyell with the 'West Lothian question'. But as was often the case in the Bliar years, it was spun under the carpet.
As you rightly observe, the whole bodge job was about maintaining Labour votes in Scotland, nothing else.
Upvote
0
Scotland's oil and gas resources represent a trillion pound asset base - worth more than ten times Scotland's share of a UK debt built up by successive Westminster governments.
And we also know that North Sea revenues are on a sharply rising curve - in 2010-11 they were £8.8bn, and this year the North Sea is forecast to generate an all-time record £13.4bn in tax revenue.
Indeed, over the next five years North Sea oil and gas is forecast to raise £61bn in tax revenue, 35% more than during the previous five years.
And we also know that North Sea revenues are on a sharply rising curve - in 2010-11 they were £8.8bn, and this year the North Sea is forecast to generate an all-time record £13.4bn in tax revenue.
Indeed, over the next five years North Sea oil and gas is forecast to raise £61bn in tax revenue, 35% more than during the previous five years.
Upvote
0
The cost of government is a relativly small country is massive and must have a large impact on its people's, maybe not in the first few years as it develops, but from then on it will grow quite fast
Negotiations with other countries need consulate services, to make agreements rangeing from trade and industry, Financial law's, United Nations and transfer of the guilty from one country to another, plus many more treaties, plus negotiating the breakup of the countries of the remaining UK.
This must have major effects on the larger companies, who look for stable countries to invest in, in new tax laws may effect them, be it different inport / export taxes with either the EU, or the rest of the world
Nobody can be sure of how the EU will look on a seperate Scotland; and with the EU present problems, who knows what the EU will look like next year, or how they will react.
With Fracking, Oil will not be such a heavyweight argument in the future, but could be a major problem for Scotland, if the Shetlands and Orkneys, not to vote for seperation which would, whilst not negate the vote, it would cause years of internal struggle, They have after all, always shown a very independant streak, much like cornwall in the UK
Present opinion is that they will vote to stay in the union, a vote that probably goes against the wishes of most of the rest of England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland
Negotiations with other countries need consulate services, to make agreements rangeing from trade and industry, Financial law's, United Nations and transfer of the guilty from one country to another, plus many more treaties, plus negotiating the breakup of the countries of the remaining UK.
This must have major effects on the larger companies, who look for stable countries to invest in, in new tax laws may effect them, be it different inport / export taxes with either the EU, or the rest of the world
Nobody can be sure of how the EU will look on a seperate Scotland; and with the EU present problems, who knows what the EU will look like next year, or how they will react.
With Fracking, Oil will not be such a heavyweight argument in the future, but could be a major problem for Scotland, if the Shetlands and Orkneys, not to vote for seperation which would, whilst not negate the vote, it would cause years of internal struggle, They have after all, always shown a very independant streak, much like cornwall in the UK
Present opinion is that they will vote to stay in the union, a vote that probably goes against the wishes of most of the rest of England and Wales and maybe Northern Ireland
Upvote
0
The current opinion seems to be that Scotland will have to negoitiate to join the EU.
There seems to be little interest in an independent Scotland here in Shetland. There is an old saying here that all Shetland got from Scotland was dear meal and greedy clergymen.
Much of what is called Scotland's oil lies in waters that would belong to Orkney and Shetland under international law if they were soveriegn states, and it comes ashore at Sullom Voe in Shetland and Flotta in Orkney. However a more likely proposal put forward is that Orkney and Shetland become Crown Dependencies, like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. This would mean that they would only have a few miles of territorial waters.
Upvote
0
As a ex Hydrographic Surveyor I would dispute the small area of water in fact there would be a international boundary between scotland and the islands at one end and Faeroes at the north so most major oiolfields would be under the islands control
The Chanel islands are limited by England & France leaving only a small piece of water as France has quite a northerly land mass on one side
The Chanel islands are limited by England & France leaving only a small piece of water as France has quite a northerly land mass on one side
Last edited:
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
- Original Poster
- #17
Once the oil goes what will they do? There's only so many scotch eggs you can sell. And if this oil is so lucrative why is there still a budget deficit in terms of what scotland contribute to the UK and what they take? (They take more).
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
EU membership isn't a given either. France and Germany (and of course Spain) are very worried that any independence movements will help the Catalonians declare independence, which they view as possibly the last straw for Spain's economy.
So Scottish independence is unofficially being discouraged by the main EU players, but who knows what will happen?
So Scottish independence is unofficially being discouraged by the main EU players, but who knows what will happen?
Upvote
0
This article which gives the case for the territorial limit being only a few miles is here. Written by a law lecturer from Glasgow Caledonian Uninversity.
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf
Upvote
0
You should take a Propaganda at the facts;
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public
Upvote
0
a law lecturer produces a plan than totaly negates normal international law, it does make you wonder who comissioned his report maybe a Alex S
Maybe England could adopt the same suggestion and give Scotland a 12 mile area and keep the rest
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #22
Before this becomes a claim v. counterclaim ping-pong battle - which will get us nowhere - here are some facts from the Office for National Statistics -
Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, accounts for 9.3% of Government spending and takes 9.9% of tax revenues.
According to the ONS, further figures are - In the final quarter of 2012, the Scottish economy recorded 0.5% growth, outperforming the United Kingdom, which recorded a contraction of 0.3%. The Scottish unemployment rate currently standing at 7.1% as of June 2013, (total UK 7.8%). Scotland's youth unemployment rate is 15.2% (total UK 19.5%). The employment rate is 72.2% (total UK 71.5%).
According to a government publication (Scotland's Balance Sheet) over the past thirty years, Scotland has also contributed a relative budget surplus of almost £20 billion to the UK economy.
But what will the effects be on business?
Will an independent Scotland that reduces corporation tax (declared SNP policy) attract international businesses?
Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population, accounts for 9.3% of Government spending and takes 9.9% of tax revenues.
According to the ONS, further figures are - In the final quarter of 2012, the Scottish economy recorded 0.5% growth, outperforming the United Kingdom, which recorded a contraction of 0.3%. The Scottish unemployment rate currently standing at 7.1% as of June 2013, (total UK 7.8%). Scotland's youth unemployment rate is 15.2% (total UK 19.5%). The employment rate is 72.2% (total UK 71.5%).
According to a government publication (Scotland's Balance Sheet) over the past thirty years, Scotland has also contributed a relative budget surplus of almost £20 billion to the UK economy.
But what will the effects be on business?
Will an independent Scotland that reduces corporation tax (declared SNP policy) attract international businesses?
Upvote
0
Isn't that impossible to say without knowing whether an independent Scotland was in or out of the EU?
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #24
As leaving the EU (for any country) is close to impossible, we must take Scotland's membership as a given.
I say 'impossible' because EU countries enjoy the four freedoms of movement for labour, goods, services and capital. Undoing those freedoms would be close to impossible, so in or out, any country would have to maintain all four, even if they negotiated to leave.
For the whole of the UK, it's either that, or repatriate about half a million EU citizens (by 2016) that would not have UK dependants and therefore no right of abode and about the same number of British subjects living in the rest of the EU. (But all that is somewhat beside the point here!)
I say 'impossible' because EU countries enjoy the four freedoms of movement for labour, goods, services and capital. Undoing those freedoms would be close to impossible, so in or out, any country would have to maintain all four, even if they negotiated to leave.
For the whole of the UK, it's either that, or repatriate about half a million EU citizens (by 2016) that would not have UK dependants and therefore no right of abode and about the same number of British subjects living in the rest of the EU. (But all that is somewhat beside the point here!)
Upvote
0
Afraid if true it would pale into insignificance compared to the idiot queens efforts.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/margaret-thatchers-time-power-destroyed-1819478
Upvote
0
Take your pick then.
Unlike most I lived through the period when greed and stupidity became the norm and anything for a quick buck was the motto hence the rise of the financial services.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=m...otland&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&spell=1
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #29
I was not living in the UK at the time of Thatcher, so I did not experience the riots and the closures of plants and mines, but for a great section of the UK population that did and lived either in the North or in Scotland, she became a figure of undiluted hatred that seems still to be a puzzle to many Tories living in the South.
I once offered a job to a man who told me that he had to turn it down, because the main customer for that project was a man who never ceased to tell the World how wonderful he thought Thatcher really was. He told me that it would make him feel physically sick to have to work with such a person, after living in Sheffield and working as a teacher there, seeing the suffering of families as the steel mills were summarily closed.
And this brings us to the other argument for independence, the democratic deficit -
The Conservative party has just one MP in Scotland, yet they decide economic and foreign policy for Scotland.
I once offered a job to a man who told me that he had to turn it down, because the main customer for that project was a man who never ceased to tell the World how wonderful he thought Thatcher really was. He told me that it would make him feel physically sick to have to work with such a person, after living in Sheffield and working as a teacher there, seeing the suffering of families as the steel mills were summarily closed.
And this brings us to the other argument for independence, the democratic deficit -
The Conservative party has just one MP in Scotland, yet they decide economic and foreign policy for Scotland.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #31
1. England voted for Gordon Brown (in the broader sense of the word!) Scotland did not vote Conservative at any recent election. This, say the Nationalists, means that the Westminster government does not have a democratic right to decide anything North of the boarder.
2. RBS has only 5% of its business in Scotland. (Personally, I would have either handed over ownership to its creditors, i.e. let it go bankrupt. But that is a different issue!)
2. RBS has only 5% of its business in Scotland. (Personally, I would have either handed over ownership to its creditors, i.e. let it go bankrupt. But that is a different issue!)
Upvote
0
England didn't vote for Brown, nor did the electorate of the UK, (he lost in 2010, remember?).
Scotland may not have voted Conservative but as part of the UK electorate that are bound by the elective system which sometimes chooses Labour and sometimes Conservative. The southeast doesn't vote Labour yet accepts Labour governments without wanting to leave the union.
The constituent parts of the UK did not join the EU as individual entities and there is no precedent for either assuming Scotland will get automatic membership, just as there is no precedent for them not getting it. It will be negotiated by all members of the EU with the key players being Germany, France and the UK and thereafter Spain (re Catalonia).
Membership is governed by the Maastricht Treaty which doesn't allow for leaving the EU. However the treaty is broken frequently.
Blaming Scotland for the RBS is just silly.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #33
I don't think Atmosbob was blaming Scotland for RBS, he was however blaming Scotland for Gordon Brown!
But England did vote for Labour and that lead to Mr. Brown.
But your other observations are interesting - there are no precedents for a part of a member country renegotiating further membership on becoming independent.
But England did vote for Labour and that lead to Mr. Brown.
But your other observations are interesting - there are no precedents for a part of a member country renegotiating further membership on becoming independent.
Upvote
0
Independence would just be a disaster for all parties.
Can you imagine the expense and time that would be taken to try and divide up multinational companies and Government departments?
Personally I would prefer that they used the money to fill in all the potholes.
We have our own Parliament, legal system and Police force.
Mr Salmond, like most nationalists, are using their hearts instead of their heads. He should stop watching Mel Gibson in Braveheart and think of the bigger picture.
Can you imagine the expense and time that would be taken to try and divide up multinational companies and Government departments?
Personally I would prefer that they used the money to fill in all the potholes.
We have our own Parliament, legal system and Police force.
Mr Salmond, like most nationalists, are using their hearts instead of their heads. He should stop watching Mel Gibson in Braveheart and think of the bigger picture.
Upvote
0
M
MASSEY
- Original Poster
- #36
Scotland is not in the EU, the UK is. If Scotland leave the UK, who are part of the EU, you would presume Scotland give up their membership and have to re-apply.
And my understanding from reading is that the EU will not be inclined to let the scots jump back onto the sinking ship quickly, should the scots decide to, due to how it will look to other countries who are currently waiting to board the sinking ship.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #37
I don't see how realistically, the EU could deny Scotland membership, as it would effectively be the same as throwing a country out.
The same applies to the UK trying to leave - I don't see how this would be realistically possible. It's a bit like virginity, once you are in, that's it!
The same applies to the UK trying to leave - I don't see how this would be realistically possible. It's a bit like virginity, once you are in, that's it!
Upvote
0
Treaty's are made and broken since time started
If you go by tradition then countries wanting to join the EU are expected to wait three years or more before being accepted (thats just historic fact)
Companies joining must join the Euro (fact)
With no track record to go by many suffering countries may object to Scotlkand joining especially regarding the Euro
Would Scotland be able to pay the joining fee and yearly amounts to feed the EU Budget( probably but at what cost)
Countries can exsist outside the EU as Norway does and probably in a simular position to Scotland
One question is that if the nationalists win then after a short time would they become far right with a dictator all under the name of free Scotland
If you go by tradition then countries wanting to join the EU are expected to wait three years or more before being accepted (thats just historic fact)
Companies joining must join the Euro (fact)
With no track record to go by many suffering countries may object to Scotlkand joining especially regarding the Euro
Would Scotland be able to pay the joining fee and yearly amounts to feed the EU Budget( probably but at what cost)
Countries can exsist outside the EU as Norway does and probably in a simular position to Scotland
One question is that if the nationalists win then after a short time would they become far right with a dictator all under the name of free Scotland
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
- Original Poster
- #39
Yes, but Scotland is a separate country and is in the EU as a part of the UK. This is a new(ish) situation.
I assume that you mean countries and not companies - no, there is ano such ruling. As you can see from this map, there are eight countries that have joined recently that are not in the Euro and have no plans to join any time soon (somewhat understandably!)
Norway and Switzerland have to accept the four basic freedoms (free movement of goods, labour, capital and services) and have to pay almost the same amount as full members.
As for the idea of Scotland becoming a right-wing dictatorship - now you are being silly!
Upvote
0
All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
All EU Member States are part of Economic and Monetary Union, which means they coordinate their economic policies for the benefit of the EU as a whole. However, not all EU Member States are in the euro area - only those having adopted the euro are members of the euro area.
Of the Member States outside the euro area, Denmark and the United Kingdom have 'opt-outs' from joining for reasons of economic sovereignty. These two countries can join in the future if they so wish.
Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro.
The remaining non-participating Member States acceded to the Union in 2004 and 2007, after the euro was launched. At the time of their accession, they did not meet the conditions for entry to the euro area, therefore their Treaties of Accession allow them time to make the necessary adjustments - they are Member States with a 'derogation', as is Sweden. These Member States have committed to joining the euro area as soon as they fulfil the entry conditions. When this is the case, the 'derogation' is 'abrogated' by a decision of the Council, and the Member State concerned adopts the euro.
National target dates for adoption of the euro
Latvia
01.01.2014
Lithuania
01.01.2015
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania do not currently have a target date for adoption of the euro.
Why are there conditions for entry to the euro area?
The process of building Europe is one of progressive integration. The single market for goods, services, capital and labour, launched in 1986, was a major step in this direction. Economic and Monetary Union and the euro take economic integration even further, and to join the euro area Member States must fulfil certain economic and legal conditions.
Adopting the single currency is a crucial step in a Member State's economy. Its exchange rate is irrevocably fixed and monetary policy is transferred to the hands of the European Central Bank, which conducts it independently for the entire euro area. The economic entry conditions are designed to ensure that a Member State's economy is sufficiently prepared for adoption of the single currency and can integrate smoothly into the monetary regime of the euro area without risk of disruption for the Member State or the euro area as a whole. In short, the economic entry criteria are intended to ensure economic convergence - they are known as the 'convergence criteria' (or 'Maastricht criteria') and were agreed by the EU Member States in 1991 as part of the preparations for introduction of the euro.
In addition to meeting the economic convergence criteria, a euro-area candidate country must make changes to national laws and rules, notably governing its national central bank and other monetary issues, in order to make them compatible with the Treaty. In particular, national central banks must be independent, such that the monetary policy decided by the European Central Bank is also independent.
The Member States which were the first to adopt the euro in 1999 had to meet all these conditions. The same entry criteria apply to all countries which have since adopted the euro and all those that will in the future.
What are the convergence criteria?
The convergence criteria are formally defined as a set of macroeconomic indicators which measure:
•Price stability, to show inflation is controlled;
•Soundness and sustainability of public finances, through limits on government borrowing and national debt to avoid excessive deficit;
•Exchange-rate stability, through participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) for at least two years without strong deviations from the ERM II central rate;
•Long-term interest rates, to assess the durability of the convergence achieved by fulfilling the other criteria.
The exchange-rate stability criterion is chosen to demonstrate that a Member State can manage its economy without recourse to excessive currency fluctuations, which mimics the conditions when the Member State joins the euro area and its control of monetary policy passes to the European Central Bank (ECB). It also provides an indication of the appropriate conversion rate that should be applied when the Member State qualifies and its currency is irrevocably fixed.
The five convergence criteria
What is measured:
Price stability
Sound public finances
Sustainable public finances
Durability of convergence
Exchange rate stability
How it is measured:
Consumer price inflation rate
Government deficit as % of GDP
Government debt as % of GDP
Long-term interest rate
Deviation from a central rate
Convergence criteria:
Not more than 1.5 percentage points above the rate of the three best performing Member States
Reference value: not more than 3%
Reference value: not more than 60%
Not more than 2 percentage points above the rate of the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability
Participation in ERM II for at least 2 years without severe tensions
Who decides if the convergence criteria are met?
According to the Treaty, at least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the Commission and the European Central Bank assess the progress made by the euro-area candidate countries and publish their conclusions in respective convergence reports.
On the basis of its assessment, the Commission submits a proposal to the ECOFIN Council which - having consulted the European Parliament, and after discussion among the Heads of State or Government - decides whether the country fulfills the necessary conditions and may adopt the euro. If the decision is favorable, the ECOFIN Council takes the necessary legal steps and - based on a Commission proposal, having consulted the ECB - adopts the conversion rate at which the national currency will be replaced by the euro, which thereby becomes irrevocably fixed.
Regarding Dictatorships
We have them in the UK in the Unions where a few strong minded leaders have taken over Unions to run as they wish and the majority just accept and do what their masters wish
Leaving the Uk could bring in many problems for Scotland which require hard decisions and big cutbacks just like in England at present, but unless there is very strong opposition in parliment say like Russia then total control goes to the strongest party, Your nationalist part is made up of very strong minded individuals desperate to get their way. Their is opersition to the breakaway but not much in your Government, Who attracts the youth maybecome even more powerfull. Myself I hope my thoughts are wrong
All EU Member States are part of Economic and Monetary Union, which means they coordinate their economic policies for the benefit of the EU as a whole. However, not all EU Member States are in the euro area - only those having adopted the euro are members of the euro area.
Of the Member States outside the euro area, Denmark and the United Kingdom have 'opt-outs' from joining for reasons of economic sovereignty. These two countries can join in the future if they so wish.
Sweden is not yet in the euro area, as it has not made the necessary changes to its central bank legislation and it does not meet the convergence criterion related to participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II). However, under the Treaty, Sweden is required to adopt the euro.
The remaining non-participating Member States acceded to the Union in 2004 and 2007, after the euro was launched. At the time of their accession, they did not meet the conditions for entry to the euro area, therefore their Treaties of Accession allow them time to make the necessary adjustments - they are Member States with a 'derogation', as is Sweden. These Member States have committed to joining the euro area as soon as they fulfil the entry conditions. When this is the case, the 'derogation' is 'abrogated' by a decision of the Council, and the Member State concerned adopts the euro.
National target dates for adoption of the euro
Latvia
01.01.2014
Lithuania
01.01.2015
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania do not currently have a target date for adoption of the euro.
Why are there conditions for entry to the euro area?
The process of building Europe is one of progressive integration. The single market for goods, services, capital and labour, launched in 1986, was a major step in this direction. Economic and Monetary Union and the euro take economic integration even further, and to join the euro area Member States must fulfil certain economic and legal conditions.
Adopting the single currency is a crucial step in a Member State's economy. Its exchange rate is irrevocably fixed and monetary policy is transferred to the hands of the European Central Bank, which conducts it independently for the entire euro area. The economic entry conditions are designed to ensure that a Member State's economy is sufficiently prepared for adoption of the single currency and can integrate smoothly into the monetary regime of the euro area without risk of disruption for the Member State or the euro area as a whole. In short, the economic entry criteria are intended to ensure economic convergence - they are known as the 'convergence criteria' (or 'Maastricht criteria') and were agreed by the EU Member States in 1991 as part of the preparations for introduction of the euro.
In addition to meeting the economic convergence criteria, a euro-area candidate country must make changes to national laws and rules, notably governing its national central bank and other monetary issues, in order to make them compatible with the Treaty. In particular, national central banks must be independent, such that the monetary policy decided by the European Central Bank is also independent.
The Member States which were the first to adopt the euro in 1999 had to meet all these conditions. The same entry criteria apply to all countries which have since adopted the euro and all those that will in the future.
What are the convergence criteria?
The convergence criteria are formally defined as a set of macroeconomic indicators which measure:
•Price stability, to show inflation is controlled;
•Soundness and sustainability of public finances, through limits on government borrowing and national debt to avoid excessive deficit;
•Exchange-rate stability, through participation in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) for at least two years without strong deviations from the ERM II central rate;
•Long-term interest rates, to assess the durability of the convergence achieved by fulfilling the other criteria.
The exchange-rate stability criterion is chosen to demonstrate that a Member State can manage its economy without recourse to excessive currency fluctuations, which mimics the conditions when the Member State joins the euro area and its control of monetary policy passes to the European Central Bank (ECB). It also provides an indication of the appropriate conversion rate that should be applied when the Member State qualifies and its currency is irrevocably fixed.
The five convergence criteria
What is measured:
Price stability
Sound public finances
Sustainable public finances
Durability of convergence
Exchange rate stability
How it is measured:
Consumer price inflation rate
Government deficit as % of GDP
Government debt as % of GDP
Long-term interest rate
Deviation from a central rate
Convergence criteria:
Not more than 1.5 percentage points above the rate of the three best performing Member States
Reference value: not more than 3%
Reference value: not more than 60%
Not more than 2 percentage points above the rate of the three best performing Member States in terms of price stability
Participation in ERM II for at least 2 years without severe tensions
Who decides if the convergence criteria are met?
According to the Treaty, at least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the Commission and the European Central Bank assess the progress made by the euro-area candidate countries and publish their conclusions in respective convergence reports.
On the basis of its assessment, the Commission submits a proposal to the ECOFIN Council which - having consulted the European Parliament, and after discussion among the Heads of State or Government - decides whether the country fulfills the necessary conditions and may adopt the euro. If the decision is favorable, the ECOFIN Council takes the necessary legal steps and - based on a Commission proposal, having consulted the ECB - adopts the conversion rate at which the national currency will be replaced by the euro, which thereby becomes irrevocably fixed.
Regarding Dictatorships
We have them in the UK in the Unions where a few strong minded leaders have taken over Unions to run as they wish and the majority just accept and do what their masters wish
Leaving the Uk could bring in many problems for Scotland which require hard decisions and big cutbacks just like in England at present, but unless there is very strong opposition in parliment say like Russia then total control goes to the strongest party, Your nationalist part is made up of very strong minded individuals desperate to get their way. Their is opersition to the breakaway but not much in your Government, Who attracts the youth maybecome even more powerfull. Myself I hope my thoughts are wrong
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
What I Wish I'd Known Before Using AI in My BusinessSomewhere between the headlines promising AI will transform everything...- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Is AI Making the Internet Worse?It started with a comment about music. @JEREMY HAWKE , a courier...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
The AI Divide: What UKBF Members Really Think in 2026Every few months on UK Business Forums, a thread appears that refuses...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
When the Algorithm Gets It Wrong: What eBay's AI Moderation Problem Tells Us About Platform RiskA thread appeared on UKBF this week that, on the surface, looks like a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
-
Should you crowdfund? A framework for UK founders in 2026Three articles into a series on what crowdfunding actually costs, the...
- Ozzy
- Updated: