Haven't read entire thread so apologies if I repeat anything already said:
1) Nothing to stop an independent Scotland using GBP. Banks issue currency, not Governments. They could use USD or Zimbabwaen dollar if they wanted.
2) The major benefit of a currency union is reducing admin and transaction costs between two entities. However modern banking systems reduce these costs - see Eire and UK trade balance, no noticeable effect of Eire adopting a different currency.
3) I suspect Salmond wants an ind. Scotland not only to keep the pound but to also have say in administration of pound. The pound is currently controlled by BoE which is independent of the UK Govt, although they are to a degree accountable to the Treasury and need to be in regular liaison regarding their decisions and any measures they take re: inflation and interest. Therefore I imagine Salmond would want the BoE to also answer to Holyrood post independence - this seems unlikely, and having two different countries that can have opposing views on fiscal policy (e.g. Salmond wants to borrow and spend, whereas at the moment UK Govt is, at face value, attempting to encourage financial prudence) putting pressure on the BoE would not be a good outcome.
4) If Salmond wants to keep the pound in a independent Scotland, he would have to surrender control of monetary policy to the BoE, as he would have to surrender monetary policy to the EU if they adopted the Euro. The criteria for joining the EU, as he wants Scotland to do, also mean that he would have to adhere to certain fiscal parameters. Effectively, Salmond wants an independent Scotland to have no meaningful control over interest rates or monetary measures such as quantitative easing, as well as losing control of important fiscal policy measures to comply with EU Membership criteria. I fail to see how an independent Scotland that has little meaningful control over its only economy is a desirable outcome, or could really be considered independent.
5) Salmond has threatened to not absorb any of the UK's national debt if his demands on the currency are not met. This is ludicrous for two reasons: - Scotland would effectively default on its debt to its largest trading partner and more important ally at the outset of independence. This would be economic suicide - All publicly owned and part-publicy owned assets in Scotland (including RBS) were paid for from the UK's purse. If they don't want the debt, they can't have the assets that were purchased or financed by that debt. Scotland would effectively have to pay the UK rent for all its hospitals, schools, social housing etc. as well as lose all the pension money that is owed to Scottish public sector workers, amongst many other assets. This is not feasible nor desirable.
If Scotland wants independence, I have no truck with that. This is their decision and whatever they choose deserves the respect of the rest of the world. Without even mentioning the continuing debacle over Scotland's EU membership, Alex Salmond is currently selling Scotland a land of milk and honey image of post independence, where Scotland would, in 2016, be a fully paid up member of the EU, in full control of its economy and public assets, bilateral control of the pound with the UK and prosperous without Westminster's damaging policies, and with none of the debt inherited from the UK. This image is so false it shouldn't even need to be stated, and I hope that Scots do not walk headfirst into economic oblivion because of the honeyed words of a snake oil salesman.
I think everybody is missing a serious issue here with a YES vote by the Jocks..... How would we get a Curling team together for the 2018 Winter Olympics?
More to the point who would fund the Scottish Team to able to become full time athletes,
The Bank of Ireland (a bank from the Republic); First Trust Bank (Owned by AIB another Republic bank); Ulster Bank (owned by RBS) and Danske Bank (A Danish Bank) all issue bank notes for Ulster. As I explained for the Scottish notes, they are not legal tender merely generally accepted and each issuing bank has to hold an equivalent amount in Sterling with the Bank Of England to back the issue. Why they bother is completely beyond me.
Seems like a reasonable advertising tool, although I don't know the costs. I wouldn't know anything about the Clydesdale Bank if they didn't issue banknotes.
Can't believe the number of people who think the statements by Osbourne, Balls, & Barroso are anything more than political statements to convince the Scots to vote no (which they will). In the unlikely event of a Yes vote, negotiations would start immediately, especially on the the EU question.
Barroso's being the most political of all: the last thing the Spanish need is the Catalans thinking that setting up an independent state is easy peasy.
I don't think Barroso is even relevant to that debate, as it comes down to interpretations of treaties and European law. If the UK voted to leave the EU in Cameron's promised-but-will-never-happen referendum, the following negotiations and breakaway process would be very complicated and take years. I think it's unlikely that Scotland would immediately leave the EU if they voted yes on a referendum about their place in the UK. If it was taken to the ECJ, I would expect that Scottish citizens would remain citizens of the EU. Then, I think their government would have to remain at the table (following some negotiation).
As for the idea of a Chancellor Balls refusing a Scottish Labour government (both are possible after the next round of elections) access to the pound... I don't think that's likely.
Spain is a strange one. They recognised Montenegro's independence before Montenegro joined any international organisation, but they don't recognise Kosovo. Not very consistent. I think Scotland leaving the UK would be closer to the Montenegro situation, but of course they could play politics with it.
I still think Salmond is a cretin. I just think the unionist side are overplaying this line. Very negative, very close to bullying, and very helpful to the SNP (the political party if not the Yes vote). Scotland will still vote no.
Anyone else on here lucky enough to visit Inverliever Lodge in Argyllshire when they were at school? The ILEA leased it and lots of London Comps like my school Crown Woods regularly went there. I had two visits there in 1978 and 1980. A most wonderful place, it was on a hill that looked over Loch Awe. I have not travelled the whole world but I find it hard to believe there are more beautiful places than the West Highlands of Scotland.
Yes, I went to Inverliever with Eaglesfield School on an art trip around 1983-4 I think. We joined up with a load of girls from Kidbrooke School. Inverliever was a most beautiful place I ever visited and remember there was a little island you could get to out on the Loch. I remember my first oil painting of that scene from up in the hills. I also remember nearly losing the tip of index finger when using a potato slicer in the kitchen. That was also my first experience of my body going into shock.
@Fish, the head of the Bank of England said that there couldn't be currency union if there was no policy union, which is what the Scots want to end. If they want to share the power of the BoE then the UK governement would have to agree to share policy decisions which they have decided they will not do. Surely the BoE can not decide to administer the currency of another country without the agreement of the governement / country it already serves.
"As for the idea of a Chancellor Balls refusing a Scottish Labour government (both are possible after the next round of elections) access to the pound... I don't think that's likely."
If the Scots vote for independance, that means Independance. How can they be independant when using Sterling controlled by the Bank of England? They will only be independant until they are re-admitted to the EU. There is NO doubt the EU will have them, it fits with the masterplan of a federal EU. Those of you lamenting the beautiful Scottish land and lochs. Independance would no more stop you returning there than stop you going to France (for example)
@Fish, the head of the Bank of England said that there couldn't be currency union if there was no policy union, which is what the Scots want to end. If they want to share the power of the BoE then the UK governement would have to agree to share policy decisions which they have decided they will not do. Surely the BoE can not decide to administer the currency of another country without the agreement of the governement / country it already serves.
Precisely. Fiiish correctly points out that any country can just decide to use another's currency. (It happens at the moment but in the main with very small Latin American and Caribbean countries with tiny economies who use the US$.) But the trouble is that they then have no say at all on their own economic policy. They have no method for issuing debt in their own currency, no "lender of last resort" in the event of a banking crisis and no ability to do stuff like quantitative easing or setting interest rates. If, post-independence, the Scottish economy should suffer a divergence from the economy of the rest of the UK in either a positive or negative way, they would have no method of stimulating the economy or putting the brakes on excessive growth. In a way that's what happened in the Euro zone with the PIGS being out of kilter with the European industrial powerhouses. In that case they got bailed out by the European Central Bank but with an informal arrangement, there would be no such obligation upon the Bank of England to bail out the Scots.
Anyone else on here lucky enough to visit Inverliever Lodge in Argyllshire when they were at school? The ILEA leased it and lots of London Comps like my school Crown Woods regularly went there. I had two visits there in 1978 and 1980. A most wonderful place, it was on a hill that looked over Loch Awe. I have not travelled the whole world but I find it hard to believe there are more beautiful places than the West Highlands of Scotland.
Yes, I went to Inverliever with Eaglesfield School on an art trip around 1983-4 I think. We joined up with a load of girls from Kidbrooke School. Inverliever was a most beautiful place I ever visited and remember there was a little island you could get to out on the Loch. I remember my first oil painting of that scene from up in the hills. I also remember nearly losing the tip of index finger when using a potato slicer in the kitchen. That was also my first experience of my body going into shock.
Went to Inverliever with my school, Thomas Tallis in 1997 and 1999 - incredible place, wonder if schools still use it.
"As for the idea of a Chancellor Balls refusing a Scottish Labour government (both are possible after the next round of elections) access to the pound... I don't think that's likely."
It had cross party agreement.
If a Labour UK government holds the Scottish economy to ransom, they can kiss goodbye to most/all their seats in Scotland and any related funding/membership. Same goes for the Lib Dems. Tories won't care much about seats, which is why Salmond mentions transaction costs for rUK businesses.
Empty political threat. If the situation presented itself, they would all change their tune.
It reminds me when I was a kid playing football. The owner of the ball got angry/upset over something and took it home. But he missed out because he couldn't play - so what - he probably got more joy p*ssing us off. If the jocks want to change the game- we'll take our ball away - stuff 'em.
Except Mr Salmand neither owns the ball nor has the ability to borrow next doors and start another game! Like Nigel Farage he is a busted flush with no real solutions for either his people or for those others in the British Isles.
i do not liek politics i think its so f****** boring. have you ever thought of this, why should someone who is from a class that is way above the average of everyone else bar a few people, allowed to rule over everyone. shouldn't someone who just knows what it is like to experience probles that relate to teh majority of peoples problems. i am not asking for a herion dealer, jsut saying that how can they judge if they cant even relate. and for that i see no point in voting since it is a waste of time.
i do not liek politics i think its so f****** boring. have you ever thought of this, why should someone who is from a class that is way above the average of everyone else bar a few people, allowed to rule over everyone. shouldn't someone who just knows what it is like to experience probles that relate to teh majority of peoples problems. i am not asking for a herion dealer, jsut saying that how can they judge if they cant even relate. and for that i see no point in voting since it is a waste of time.
I'm guessing that politics isn't taught in schools any more...
i do not liek politics i think its so f****** boring. have you ever thought of this, why should someone who is from a class that is way above the average of everyone else bar a few people, allowed to rule over everyone. shouldn't someone who just knows what it is like to experience probles that relate to teh majority of peoples problems. i am not asking for a herion dealer, jsut saying that how can they judge if they cant even relate. and for that i see no point in voting since it is a waste of time.
This is why people, without at least an o'level in English, should not be allowed to vote. ;-)
Are you Scottish? I would like someone to explain why the rest of the UK will go to the negotiating table in support of a single currency/dual economy model. What is there on the table (apart from veiled threats and defaults) to attract the rest of the UK? There is only one prognosis I can see - known risk, unknown risk, uncontrollable risk, habitual uncertainty, regular friction and monumental division. The Scots are the most argumentative tribe on the planet! I can see nothing of value in "sharing" the £ that balances such equation.
I was beginning to think everyone was feeling really relaxed about the proposed break up of the UK and to feel that the trust in the political classes to get any aspect of this correct was almost touching. In fact based on the quality of debate to this point it has the potential to be the most monumental "cock up" the British Isles has ever seen.
Those proposing separation have to do better than "Don't worry it will be alright on the night", "How?", "Don't know its a mystery". Their Shakespeare In Love" lines cover;
"Of course we can negotiate with the English government on a single currency after the separation vote". What terms do you propose to secure with little viable alternative?
"England will need us part of their economic plans". You do not think there will be huge conflicts of interest in terms of employment & tax revenues?
"We can negotiate EU membership on the back of UK membership" Of course eastern Europeans (who jumped through hoops to align with the EU) will nod it through. You think the EU wants another British voice at the table?
Where is there any evidence any of these issues have been broached in any detail with any of the parties concerned? I cannot think of any parallel event against which you can even apply a set of realistic legal, monetary & economic principles.
Fundamental to control of a currency is a stable banking system and viable supporting economies. The ASI offering while informative is the sort of nonsense SNP will hang its hat on. Centuries old & obscure South American banking models are all well & good but Iceland (once the model for the SNP) and the global banking crisis are rather fresher in people minds.
With no lender of last resort (Central Bank) funded by government, you change the bank dynamic - DEPOSITORS can (and do) lose money (ask the many local authorities who tried to get money back from the Icelandic banks). It is one reason central banks were introduced and why bank deposits up to certain variable limits across Europe are backed by sovereign government guarantees.
Until this week you could argue it has little to do with the English, Welsh & N Irish but the clash over the "£" now involves every UK tax payer. In that regard the response of the SNP borders breath taking conceit. A party devoted to promoting the voice of the Scottish people now insists it can impose its wishes to deprive the citizenry of England, Wales & NI of the same right.
The UK government serves by the mandate of the people.
If English, Welsh & NI electorates choose not to have THEIR TAXES used as lender of last resort to support a single currency/dual/multiple economy model it will not happen. The UK electorate has until now studiously avoided such a measure by precluding and then refusing participation in the Euro, by what stretch of fantasy and bare faced arrogance do you suppose you can force them to support such a model.
I do have some words of caution however. The most profound mistake people are going to make here is thinking the impact of this is going to be purely an internal division of "assets/ liabilities" within the UK. It is not. We live in a time of global economies and global markets.
Every country is scouring global markets for the inward investment needed to compete in the global economy and create jobs - be assured every global competitor will miss no opportunity to exploit every mixed message coming from the UK.
Single currency/ dual economy proposals could hardly be made at a worse time. The Euro is still recovering from the brink of collapse. It now demands a convergence of economic disciplines requiring each sovereign state to submit its budgets for central approval BEFORE submission to their parliament.
I recognise the angst of the nationalists but the English are simply not going to underwrite a debt ridden socialist agenda, however appropriate that may or may not be, potentially damaging its English currency.
Beyond investor disquiet we can be absolutely sure any prolonged uncertainty in a very uncertain economic world will ultimately reek havoc in the global markets for the UK and its currency. Global financial market traders at the appropriate time will have a field day. Fear of such volatility would drive business investment away.
The SNP need to stop "pissing into the wind" and tell the truth. Which ever "currency" model they choose any "political autonomy" will in economic terms be meaningless
1. If the UK did agree nominally to consider a single currency/ dual economy model the restrictions & controls they will impose will be more stringent than they are today.
2. Join the Euro (not really an option) and cede budgetary control to Brussels.
3. "A Scottish £" needs global investors. What price are they going to charge?
The Adam Smith Institute suggestion of unilateral independence is today unworkable. Their assertion re US linked currencies is incorrect. The Federal Reserve monitor any issuance of US linked currencies.
The UK can block access to its bank clearing house and reject all transfers of the Scottish (English) Pound by virtue of the currency and country codes involved. After the prevention of terrorism act banks are required to monitor and validate the ultimate source of all major transactions. They need only suspend a few hundred "suspicious" transactions on a regular basis to severely impair the acceptability of the currency. What are they going to do smuggle it across the border in suitcases?
None of this means the Scottish people will not vote to go it alone but I am sure such outcome will not actually produce any greater independence than they have today.
Which of course makes the entire process merely a very costly exercise in vanity. Sounds par the course for the political classes!
You make seem good points grapevine. I am not sure that anyone is sure how this could pan out and think both Scotland and the rest of the uk could lose out. Lots of non scots saying get on with it we dont care, but it it was that simple the government would not be pulling out all the stops to keep the union together.
Having rad all this pish I'm actually coming round to the idea that independence might be a decent idea. The average IQ goes up by about 10, we'd have the army, we'd have the oil and guaranteed domination of the tennis home internationals for the foreseeable. Not sure that an entirely separate currency would be a bad thing, although doubt that wee George's threats have much weight. The reaction of large global businesses will determine whether the wee man "allows" currency union, not a little england ear trying to swing his winkie about.
Comments
1) Nothing to stop an independent Scotland using GBP. Banks issue currency, not Governments. They could use USD or Zimbabwaen dollar if they wanted.
2) The major benefit of a currency union is reducing admin and transaction costs between two entities. However modern banking systems reduce these costs - see Eire and UK trade balance, no noticeable effect of Eire adopting a different currency.
3) I suspect Salmond wants an ind. Scotland not only to keep the pound but to also have say in administration of pound. The pound is currently controlled by BoE which is independent of the UK Govt, although they are to a degree accountable to the Treasury and need to be in regular liaison regarding their decisions and any measures they take re: inflation and interest. Therefore I imagine Salmond would want the BoE to also answer to Holyrood post independence - this seems unlikely, and having two different countries that can have opposing views on fiscal policy (e.g. Salmond wants to borrow and spend, whereas at the moment UK Govt is, at face value, attempting to encourage financial prudence) putting pressure on the BoE would not be a good outcome.
4) If Salmond wants to keep the pound in a independent Scotland, he would have to surrender control of monetary policy to the BoE, as he would have to surrender monetary policy to the EU if they adopted the Euro. The criteria for joining the EU, as he wants Scotland to do, also mean that he would have to adhere to certain fiscal parameters. Effectively, Salmond wants an independent Scotland to have no meaningful control over interest rates or monetary measures such as quantitative easing, as well as losing control of important fiscal policy measures to comply with EU Membership criteria. I fail to see how an independent Scotland that has little meaningful control over its only economy is a desirable outcome, or could really be considered independent.
5) Salmond has threatened to not absorb any of the UK's national debt if his demands on the currency are not met. This is ludicrous for two reasons:
- Scotland would effectively default on its debt to its largest trading partner and more important ally at the outset of independence. This would be economic suicide
- All publicly owned and part-publicy owned assets in Scotland (including RBS) were paid for from the UK's purse. If they don't want the debt, they can't have the assets that were purchased or financed by that debt. Scotland would effectively have to pay the UK rent for all its hospitals, schools, social housing etc. as well as lose all the pension money that is owed to Scottish public sector workers, amongst many other assets. This is not feasible nor desirable.
If Scotland wants independence, I have no truck with that. This is their decision and whatever they choose deserves the respect of the rest of the world. Without even mentioning the continuing debacle over Scotland's EU membership, Alex Salmond is currently selling Scotland a land of milk and honey image of post independence, where Scotland would, in 2016, be a fully paid up member of the EU, in full control of its economy and public assets, bilateral control of the pound with the UK and prosperous without Westminster's damaging policies, and with none of the debt inherited from the UK. This image is so false it shouldn't even need to be stated, and I hope that Scots do not walk headfirst into economic oblivion because of the honeyed words of a snake oil salesman.
He's our Davis Cup Team!
As for the idea of a Chancellor Balls refusing a Scottish Labour government (both are possible after the next round of elections) access to the pound... I don't think that's likely.
Spain is a strange one. They recognised Montenegro's independence before Montenegro joined any international organisation, but they don't recognise Kosovo. Not very consistent. I think Scotland leaving the UK would be closer to the Montenegro situation, but of course they could play politics with it.
I still think Salmond is a cretin. I just think the unionist side are overplaying this line. Very negative, very close to bullying, and very helpful to the SNP (the political party if not the Yes vote). Scotland will still vote no.
Surely the BoE can not decide to administer the currency of another country without the agreement of the governement / country it already serves.
It had cross party agreement.
They will only be independant until they are re-admitted to the EU. There is NO doubt the EU will have them, it fits with the masterplan of a federal EU.
Those of you lamenting the beautiful Scottish land and lochs. Independance would no more stop you returning there than stop you going to France (for example)
Fiiish correctly points out that any country can just decide to use another's currency. (It happens at the moment but in the main with very small Latin American and Caribbean countries with tiny economies who use the US$.)
But the trouble is that they then have no say at all on their own economic policy.
They have no method for issuing debt in their own currency, no "lender of last resort" in the event of a banking crisis and no ability to do stuff like quantitative easing or setting interest rates. If, post-independence, the Scottish economy should suffer a divergence from the economy of the rest of the UK in either a positive or negative way, they would have no method of stimulating the economy or putting the brakes on excessive growth. In a way that's what happened in the Euro zone with the PIGS being out of kilter with the European industrial powerhouses. In that case they got bailed out by the European Central Bank but with an informal arrangement, there would be no such obligation upon the Bank of England to bail out the Scots.
He is a link and it looks pretty similar. I'm glad it is being used. http://www.ecoyoga.org/contact.php
Empty political threat. If the situation presented itself, they would all change their tune.
The Scots will vote no.
Like Nigel Farage he is a busted flush with no real solutions for either his people or for those others in the British Isles.
http://newsthump.com/2014/02/17/alex-salmond-claims-he-has-every-right-to-use-gym-hes-no-longer-member-of/
Are you Scottish? I would like someone to explain why the rest of the UK will go to the negotiating table in support of a single currency/dual economy model. What is there on the table (apart from veiled threats and defaults) to attract the rest of the UK? There is only one prognosis I can see - known risk, unknown risk, uncontrollable risk, habitual uncertainty, regular friction and monumental division. The Scots are the most argumentative tribe on the planet! I can see nothing of value in "sharing" the £ that balances such equation.
I was beginning to think everyone was feeling really relaxed about the proposed break up of the UK and to feel that the trust in the political classes to get any aspect of this correct was almost touching. In fact based on the quality of debate to this point it has the potential to be the most monumental "cock up" the British Isles has ever seen.
Those proposing separation have to do better than "Don't worry it will be alright on the night", "How?", "Don't know its a mystery". Their Shakespeare In Love" lines cover;
"Of course we can negotiate with the English government on a single currency after the separation vote". What terms do you propose to secure with little viable alternative?
"England will need us part of their economic plans". You do not think there will be huge conflicts of interest in terms of employment & tax revenues?
"We can negotiate EU membership on the back of UK membership" Of course eastern Europeans (who jumped through hoops to align with the EU) will nod it through. You think the EU wants another British voice at the table?
Where is there any evidence any of these issues have been broached in any detail with any of the parties concerned? I cannot think of any parallel event against which you can even apply a set of realistic legal, monetary & economic principles.
Fundamental to control of a currency is a stable banking system and viable supporting economies. The ASI offering while informative is the sort of nonsense SNP will hang its hat on. Centuries old & obscure South American banking models are all well & good but Iceland (once the model for the SNP) and the global banking crisis are rather fresher in people minds.
With no lender of last resort (Central Bank) funded by government, you change the bank dynamic - DEPOSITORS can (and do) lose money (ask the many local authorities who tried to get money back from the Icelandic banks). It is one reason central banks were introduced and why bank deposits up to certain variable limits across Europe are backed by sovereign government guarantees.
Until this week you could argue it has little to do with the English, Welsh & N Irish but the clash over the "£" now involves every UK tax payer. In that regard the response of the SNP borders breath taking conceit. A party devoted to promoting the voice of the Scottish people now insists it can impose its wishes to deprive the citizenry of England, Wales & NI of the same right.
The UK government serves by the mandate of the people.
If English, Welsh & NI electorates choose not to have THEIR TAXES used as lender of last resort to support a single currency/dual/multiple economy model it will not happen. The UK electorate has until now studiously avoided such a measure by precluding and then refusing participation in the Euro, by what stretch of fantasy and bare faced arrogance do you suppose you can force them to support such a model.
I do have some words of caution however. The most profound mistake people are going to make here is thinking the impact of this is going to be purely an internal division of "assets/ liabilities" within the UK. It is not. We live in a time of global economies and global markets.
Every country is scouring global markets for the inward investment needed to compete in the global economy and create jobs - be assured every global competitor will miss no opportunity to exploit every mixed message coming from the UK.
Single currency/ dual economy proposals could hardly be made at a worse time. The Euro is still recovering from the brink of collapse. It now demands a convergence of economic disciplines requiring each sovereign state to submit its budgets for central approval BEFORE submission to their parliament.
I recognise the angst of the nationalists but the English are simply not going to underwrite a debt ridden socialist agenda, however appropriate that may or may not be, potentially damaging its English currency.
Beyond investor disquiet we can be absolutely sure any prolonged uncertainty in a very uncertain economic world will ultimately reek havoc in the global markets for the UK and its currency. Global financial market traders at the appropriate time will have a field day. Fear of such volatility would drive business investment away.
The SNP need to stop "pissing into the wind" and tell the truth. Which ever "currency" model they choose any "political autonomy" will in economic terms be meaningless
1. If the UK did agree nominally to consider a single currency/ dual economy model the restrictions & controls they will impose will be more stringent than they are today.
2. Join the Euro (not really an option) and cede budgetary control to Brussels.
3. "A Scottish £" needs global investors. What price are they going to charge?
The Adam Smith Institute suggestion of unilateral independence is today unworkable. Their assertion re US linked currencies is incorrect. The Federal Reserve monitor any issuance of US linked currencies.
The UK can block access to its bank clearing house and reject all transfers of the Scottish (English) Pound by virtue of the currency and country codes involved. After the prevention of terrorism act banks are required to monitor and validate the ultimate source of all major transactions. They need only suspend a few hundred "suspicious" transactions on a regular basis to severely impair the acceptability of the currency. What are they going to do smuggle it across the border in suitcases?
None of this means the Scottish people will not vote to go it alone but I am sure such outcome will not actually produce any greater independence than they have today.
Which of course makes the entire process merely a very costly exercise in vanity. Sounds par the course for the political classes!