Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Westminster – Edinburgh confrontation over the currency
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Westminster – Edinburgh confrontation over the currency might be just what the YES campaign wants
Sturgeon accuses Osborne of "campaign rhetoric" – http://t.co/tLPi7yYnNs – but also reiterates SNP's "not pay debt" threat #indyref
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"PB Tories", "Unionists"; "Wee Eck"; "Delusional"; "Nats"; "Pound"; "YES"; "NO"; "Westminster"; "Clueless"; "Flailing"; "UK Debt"; "Oil"; "Tears of laughter, etc."
Next
EVEN IF Osborne is a committed unionist and his motivation today was 100% to secure a No vote, NEVERTHELESS it still makes sense for him to stick to his position on 19 September and ever afterwards a. in order to maintain his credibility and b. for all the supremely cogent reasons advanced by him, the Treasury and all the other unpopular fops in Whitehall that a currency union is bad for rUK. What do you think is going to scare him into a currency union? additional transaction costs in our exports to the non-vast Scottish market, or what?
Eck 'n' Nick's "don't believe them" routine is the biggest hostage to fortune I have ever seen. They must have a cast-iron expectation of defeat in the ref.
Faced with that, I see no reason for Westminster to be overly reasonable.
You can't say you weren't warned.
The logic only matched by the spelling - only one u in unreasonable.
Its not about being reasonable. Its about denying what will be a foreign government leverage in your affairs.
If we take on all the debt we can run our economy/interest rates/debt/currency exactly how we like with no interference or input from Scotland. That makes sturgeon's default threat completely empty.
And they could do what they wish.
Cammie's own MPs don't trust him and keep humiliating him in the commons yet you somehow expect the scottish public to trust his toxic chum Osborne?
Good luck with that.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/11/30/salmonds-blueprint-launch-a-very-good-week-for-no/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/30/shetland-independence-vote-scotland
You can't seriously believe the SNP popped up overnight just because the Westminster media pays them far more attention now. We expect all the No spin that the SNP are unprepared etc. That's why the No campaign calls itself Project Fear. Their problem is the SNP didn't just win power in Holyrood in 2011. They turned a minority administration into a majority one because contrary to what SLAB were spinning for decades the sky did not fall in. The scottish public actually liked what they saw and voted for more of it. So if SLAB and 'better together' want to make this about competence then boy did they pick the wrong frontman for that message in scotland in Osborne.
You are right. A newly independent Scotland would indeed need a Governor General. Cool! How about Norman Tebbit?
Instead... Hodgeswatch: what in the name of all that's socialist is going on here?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100259497/the-times-is-helping-the-police-stitch-up-andrew-mitchell-again/
Now, I found the Mitchell story an amusing bit of Westminster froth, there was a general feeling it couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy, and it was mildly positive for Labour, so I'm broadly (and unjustifiably) pleased about it. But fundamentally, it's not very interesting unless you're a Tory party insider.
In Hodges world (not AFAIK within the Tory party. Yet), it's well known that everything is bad news for Ed. Fair enough, that's his tribal line within the Labour party, and he presumably gets paid nicely by the Torygraph for confirming their readers' views of Ed at every opportunity. But here he seems to be going out of his way to criticise the Times for using a pretty dull story to undermine Mitchell because (presumably) anything that weakens Mitchell's position implicitly supports the position adopted by Ed. And Ed cannot be allowed to be right about anything, ever, even things he might have been right about.
I'm sure I must be missing something. Can anyone enlighten me?
Mr. L (FPT), cheers for the link. As you say, Sturgeon is left in much the same state by Neil as Varro and Paullus were by Hannibal, but (to be fair) Neil is probably the best journalist in politics and does that to most politicians. Not sure if this is the case, but I've heard he's on Question Time tonight.
Completely untrue. He will have saved it.
It's a false economy to make Scotland wear some debt.
Investors would not like a split in sovereign debt between governments that may well not like each other and pursue completely different economic policies.
The extra we spend to refinance our debt in the future might outweigh the extra debt we take on to release Scotland.
It's well worth taking the hit short term to avoid having to deal with Mick Pork & Co. for 30 years.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
This most fundamental point about the mechanism seems to escape our Nat friends.
Edit: I see Southam beat me to it
Yup, the SNPers reaction to the realities of separation has been, and I do mean this, Priceless
Good luck with that.
Your scenario is that Osborne wants to say Nyet to stymie the referendum, and when that fails he will cave and agree to a union because it's such a sensible idea. The trouble is it is not a sensible idea for rUK, for hundreds of good reasons to which we have yet to see a reasoned rebuttal. Plus he has only promised to say no, and that's an easier promise to keep than a promise to hold a referendum. You need to think beyond 18 September.
290 Bath Street
Glasgow
G2 4RE
SLAB Headquarters !
I faintly remember someone on here had bought into RR just his morning. Hopefully the drop had already taken place.
They've been doing so over this since Osborne started posturing on it in 2012 and throughout 2013. Just let them get it out of their system.
Scotland would borrow in the markets in whatever currency they chose to use, just like any other sovereign borrower.
The ratings agencies would give them a rating, the market would charge what it thought was correct, and things would go on from there.
If they chose to use sterling, a currency they couldn't print, then they would probably be charged a premium to gilts. What that premium might be is anybody's guess.
Reading Osborne's speech it is obvious what his game is , if you look past the bluster and lies. Just trying to threaten us as ever. However it is rump UK really starting negotiations albeit by threats but they are obviously worried to have broken their " no pre-negotiations before a YES".
Now that reality is biting they are starting to show their hand and lo and behold it is threats only.
Could not disagree more. The point of the Yes campaign is to get a Yes. Should that happen on 18th September, that's it, job done, Scotland will become an independent country. What kind of independent country it is does not matter, it will be independent. On 19th September everything that the SNP has promised during the campaign could be revealed to be completely and totally untrue. It would not matter. The Yes could not be undone. That's why I expect a currency union. Scotland will agree to one as envisaged by the rUK. Nothing said today by anyone precludes that; least of all the Treasury paper Osborne released.
Someone should point out to the moronic Kevan Jones that any monies from the EU solidarity fund are deducted from our rebate. So there is very little benefit in us calling on them. We might as well just pay the monies from the UK treasury and save on the paperwork.
Plus of course as with everything involving the EU the flood relief money comes with strings attached concerning how and where it can be spent.
"The Fund is limited in principle to non-insurable damage and does not compensate for private losses. Long-term action – such as lasting reconstruction, economic redevelopment and prevention – are not eligible for EUSF aid. "
Priceless.
Priceless.
I said at the time the lecturing from London approach was bloody stupid. It just confirms all the adverse impressions Scots have of Cameron.
A powerful argument for letting Scotland off gilt debt, in order to freeze Scotland out of sterling economic policy completely.
It's becoming more attractive by the second.
Surely it is just stating your position on the matter?
The nat economic policy with a big hole in it and it's the other side have the work to do.
You are not so much missing something as adding something you shouldn't.
Hodges must be allowed an occasional day off in his drive to unseat Ed. It is not necessary to connect his position on Ed to his interest in the Plebgate story.
Hodges is sound on his main point:
we will never know the truth about Plebgate. It’s one man’s word against another. But there are certain facts about the case that it is possible to verify independently. And every time another independent fact emerges, it directly contradicts or undermines the police account.
We may never "know the truth" but circumstantial evidence is mounting to the extent that it is now probable that a court of law (or the public) will reach a 'balance of probabilities' decision in favour of Mitchell.
Where I do take issue with Hodges is in him criticising The Times for trying to undermine Mitchell. The article has the usual veneer of Times independence but the reported facts are brpadly supportive of Mitchell. This may not apply to the headline but no doubt this was spun by a sub-editor in the legitimate cause of attracting readers.
It is time for the police both as an institution and individually to drop the Plebgate story and 'move on'. There is little for them to gain by keeping it alive and the risks are heavily weighted to the downside.
It was mentioned here earlier today (unsure if this has been properly confirmed) that Darling was behind the cross-party consensus on currency.
Mr. Sulphate, I agree entirely. The SNP need to get a better line.
But then you have to ask whether consolidating the 'no currency union' position was worth exposing the Scottish electorate to Osborne.
Surely not.
Jeez Malcolm, you honestly expect RUK to want you as a partner of any kind, let alone in a currency union, with an attitude like that??'
Blimey.
That's one way to get around the sky high expense of joining NATO.
and people think the nats don't think things through...
"There is no evidence that adequate proposals or policy changes ...could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments in the foreseeable future".
Looks pretty clear to me.
I have to confess I'm still bemused by the Osborne/Darling/Alexander rhetoric on the currency issue. The UK was quite happy to allow the Irish Free State to use sterling until the Irish printed their own coins and equally happy to have the punt at parity with the pound until the Irish joined the ERM.
The problem for the Irish was this meant their monetary policy was tied to that of Britain and Irish interest rates and effectively Irish economic policy decided in London. That didn't stop the Irish being independent and being neutral in WW2 (though many Irish fought against the Nazis).
I can't see why an independent Scotland couldn't have a similar relationship with a Scottish pound tied to sterling. If, as Nicola Sturgeon suggests, there is no desire to join the Euro, the alternative to some form of currency relationship with London would be for an independent Scotland to have its own currency. Now, there are countries inside the EU which are outside the Euro (the UK and Denmark) and I suppose if they could negotiate an opt-out, an independent Scotland could as well.
At the moment, we're in campaign mode with all sort of threats and worse-case scenarios being banded about. If YES prevails, I suspect we would rapidly see a cooling of some of the rhetoric on both sides and indeed quite an acceptable and mutually relaxed separation in the spring of 2016. Even if NO prevails, the issue doesn't go away inasmuch as the pressure for further devolution (Devomax) will remain.
No danger of that with Osborne of course. The PB tories and scottish tory surgers seem blithely unconcerned and when are they ever wrong?
Probably not, but I have noticed that one of the main motivations for the yes side seem to be to try and annoy England as best they can. So it wouldn't surprise me if they'd happily sell themselves out to the Russians or Chinese just to try and put England in danger.
Same deal with the trident, since while a nuclear deterrent is clearly a good thing for Scotland as well as the rUK they'd happily get rid of it just out of spite.
Reminds me of that joke where someone gets offered the chance to have whatever wish he wants granted, but on the understanding that his enemy gets double what he gets. So he chooses to have his arm cut off,
A new country entering the EU would not, under the current treaties defining the EU, have that option. Of course it would all come down then to that debate about whether or not Scotland was a new entrant and I have no idea which way that one would fall. Personally I would hope Scotland would see sense and chose not to even join the EU, opting for EFTA membership instead. But I suspect the EU would be very keen to see Scotland inside and would (with a few exceptions like Spain) be willing to interpret Scotland's status as a successor state so that they would be considered to still be members.