@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
"I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland"
"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 presume those quotes are from the HMT document? They have skin in the game, their Perm Sec's targets include bolstering the case against independence, we simply cant take what they have to say on the issue at face value.
Whereas of course the SNP's 'legal advice' is always independent and bias free?
Yeah, I don't particularly disagree with Hodges' position but it just seems a bit of a non-story, and a strangely partisan rush to defend Mitchell. It doesn't seem something you'd write about just because it's particularly interesting or topical - and as a "niche" columnist you'd expect him to write about his specialism or super-topical issues, such as flooding, So I guess I assume it has to fit into his agenda somewhere.
Influencing the EU Commissioner appointment perhaps but I can't see Hodge's interest here unless he is hoping that Dave offers Ed the job!
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
"I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland"
"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 presume those quotes are from the HMT document? They have skin in the game, their Perm Sec's targets include bolstering the case against independence, we simply cant take what they have to say on the issue at face value.
Whereas of course the SNP's 'legal advice' is always independent and bias free?
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,
In the version I heard, the punchline was "Well, I only need one kidney, don't I"
then I also think the "we wont pay our debts line" is counterproductive for 'yes'.
Maybe it would be if that was how it was presented but every single time an SNP spokesman has been asked about the debt it was then pointed out to be the inevitable conclusion of Osbrowne's own posturing while stressing that scotland had every intention of paying it's debts. Don't worry if you take all your information from a Sparrow tweet. We wouldn't expect anything less on PB. Rest assured on the scottish media the interviews have been crystal clear already.
I don't understand why saying a (potential) foreign country can't use the UK currency is being described as threats.
Surely it is just stating your position on the matter?
It's a bit of a strange thing to say. Anyone can use your currency - many of the east Caribbean islands use EC$ and US$ alongside one another at a semi-pegged rate, without, as far as I know, explicit permission from the US.
Countries frequently issue sovereign debt denominated in a currency other than their own - typically USD, GBP or EUR but there are a fair few more esoteric examples dotted around.
It seems that their are three options here. 1) Scotland launches the Schottisch Schilling and does its own thing; 2) Scotland uses the pound, but has no say in sterling monetary policy (there is no meaningful way that rUK could stop this happening, is there?) or 3) there is some form of currency union, meaning that Scotland uses the pound and has some control over monetary policy. Presumably Scotland's level of influence would be roughly proportionate to its share of population and GDP (i.e. bugger all, give or take).
In option 3) I guess there would be some concept of sterling bonds for which the sterlingzone central bank would be liable. Possibly in the interest of both parties, possibly not. But let's be honest here, the current management of sterling is not primarily driven by Scottish interests. It's primarily driven by maintaining English house prices. Scotland can be a formal part of a currency union and have its needs ignored, or peg to the pound and have its needs ignored. It's a non-issue.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a grown up to this newly born infant. He will not be able to let it stand on its own because, simply, it could not stand alone (not in the capital markets anyway).
So there would highly likely be a currency union but, as has been demonstrated by today's speech and supporting documents, the outcome would look pretty much like the situation today, ie monetary, fiscal policy set in London, a banking union of some type, and fiscal transfers subject to close scrutiny.
It is now clear beyond any doubt – the only way to keep the Pound is for Scotland to remain in the UK.
People need to know that when they go into a polling station in September they will be voting either to keep the Pound or ditch the Pound. A vote to leave the UK is a vote to lose the Pound.
Alex Salmond has no plan for currency in an independent Scotland. The SNP wanted to turn the pound into the Eurozone but understandably the rest of the UK have said they don’t think this is a good idea. The SNP Government had already ruled out using the pound without agreement in the way Panama uses the Dollar. So what money will Scotland use?
What we need now from the SNP isn’t so much a Plan B but a Plan A. Now that using the Pound is off the table, would we be rushing to join the Euro or set up an unproven separate currency?
Alex Salmond should stop making reckless threats about defaulting on debt that would put jobs and businesses in Scotland at risk. People know that if you don’t pay your debts your credit rating is shot and that means everything is more expensive.
Scotland can be a formal part of a currency union and have its needs ignored, or peg to the pound and have its needs ignored. It's a non-issue.
I agree - but the 'yes' campaign themselves are appearing to make it an issue by responding with the line that if a currency union is refused then they wont pay HMT for whatever share of the rUK's national debt is judged to have been incurred by Scotland. It's not such a big deal that it should invite such an over-the-top response. It's not as if you can force other countries into a currency union.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Cheaper transactional costs and a good relationship with our closest neighbour. If we can achieve all things on the terms that we stipulate I really can't see a downside. Obviously, if our terms are not acceptable to the Scots then it would be impossible and there could be no union.
The transactional costs I'd say are less important than currency predictability since these days banking is fairly straightforward and we trade with nearly all our neighbours in a different currency.
The currency is only part of the good neighbour argument since it encompasses a raft of other factors - defence, borders, free movement etc. that I'd say that currency is only one contributory factor.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a grown up to this newly born infant. He will not be able to let it stand on its own because, simply, it could not stand alone (not in the capital markets anyway).
So there would highly likely be a currency union but, as has been demonstrated by today's speech and supporting documents, the outcome would look pretty much like the situation today, ie monetary, fiscal policy set in London, a banking union of some type, and fiscal transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Scotland could stand perfectly well by itself. Many countries in far poorer positions have made a go of it (and some in better positions - such as Argentina - have messed it up spectacularly).
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a grown up to this newly born infant. He will not be able to let it stand on its own because, simply, it could not stand alone (not in the capital markets anyway).
So there would highly likely be a currency union but, as has been demonstrated by today's speech and supporting documents, the outcome would look pretty much like the situation today, ie monetary, fiscal policy set in London, a banking union of some type, and fiscal transfers subject to close scrutiny.
While I am a supporter of scottish independence (not for negative reasons either) I cannot for the life of me see why I as a voter in rUK would want any sort of lender of last resort being financed by us nor any form of fiscal transfer mechanism. We could by all means lend them money if they need it by way of buying their bonds but I would certainly not be voting for any party in 2015 that is proposing any currency union with scotland.
Quite happy if they want to use the pound dollarisation style
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.
The Irish example wasn't a currency union - it was a currency peg. Scotland can do that if they want. A currency union gives them a say over the rUK's monetary policy.
As an aside, malcolmg (I think) continually refers to sterling as an "asset". It's not - it's a liability; a promise to pay the value on presentation to the Chief Cashier.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a grown up to this newly born infant. He will not be able to let it stand on its own because, simply, it could not stand alone (not in the capital markets anyway).
So there would highly likely be a currency union but, as has been demonstrated by today's speech and supporting documents, the outcome would look pretty much like the situation today, ie monetary, fiscal policy set in London, a banking union of some type, and fiscal transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Scotland could stand perfectly well by itself. Many countries in far poorer positions have made a go of it (and some in better positions - such as Argentina - have messed it up spectacularly).
True. I was letting my exasperation run away with me.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
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.
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Cheaper transactional costs
Careful. The fact that Osborne refused to provide any information to journalists on the impact on the rUK economy or business if a monetary union was rejected has been noticed in scotland if not on PB. Don't make things too easy for PBtories. They'll work it out eventually. Okay they won't but still, too much of this might confuse them.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
Could not disagree more. The point of the Yes campaign is to get a Yes. Should that happen
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Scotland could stand perfectly well by itself. Many countries in far poorer positions have made a go of it (and some in better positions - such as Argentina - have messed it up spectacularly).
True. I was letting my exasperation run away with me.
But then....why don't they want to??!!
But then....why don't they want to??!!
because Salmond doesn't want to frighten the horses and thinks he'll get closer to Yes by keeping the pound.
Yeah, I don't particularly disagree with Hodges' position but it just seems a bit of a non-story, and a strangely partisan rush to defend Mitchell. It doesn't seem something you'd write about just because it's particularly interesting or topical - and as a "niche" columnist you'd expect him to write about his specialism or super-topical issues, such as flooding, So I guess I assume it has to fit into his agenda somewhere.
Influencing the EU Commissioner appointment perhaps but I can't see Hodge's interest here unless he is hoping that Dave offers Ed the job!
Are there odds available on Dave taking the job himself?
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
Could not disagree more. The point of the Yes campaign is to get a Yes. Should that happen
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Scotland could stand perfectly well by itself. Many countries in far poorer positions have made a go of it (and some in better positions - such as Argentina - have messed it up spectacularly).
True. I was letting my exasperation run away with me.
But then....why don't they want to??!!
But then....why don't they want to??!!
because Salmond doesn't want to frighten the horses and thinks he'll get closer to Yes by keeping the pound.
Indeed.
But it was untypically clumsy of him. That or he really is shameless.
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Oh, have the locks on the Caledonian Canal been enlarged?! [irony indicator on]
I think people are missing the point when they go for these technical/legalistic arguments about whether Scotland would be able to stay in the pound. The SNP don't need it to be actually true that they will be able to stay in the pound, they just need Scottish people to believe it's true until they vote "Yes". I think they probably have no qualms about creating a new Scottish currency, in fact I think they secretly probably would prefer it (and I personally think there's no reason to think a Scottish currency wouldn't be reasonably successful, outside of discredited economists and their usual doom-mongering), but they're just trying to gradually convert people who are sceptical about independence.
Back to the thread topic, I agree that this move by the Westminster parties will probably backfire. To pick up on my greedy/spiteful southeasterners riff from yesterday, I doubt if I was Scottish that I would take well to being bullied and blackmailed by them. Plus, let's face it, even an announcement of free £10,000 cheques for everyone would become unpopular if George Osborne was the one who announced it. And Balls and Alexander are not much further ahead of him.
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
I see that the monster has been driven away. Must be all the high frequency whining emanating from Nat HQ in Edinburgh.
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Oh, have the locks on the Caledonian Canal been enlarged?! [irony indicator on]
As last Saturday at Murrayfield showed, Scottish locks are no obstacle to anything.
@Ishmael_X - "You need to think beyond 18 September"
Could not disagree more. The point of the Yes campaign is to get a Yes. Should that happen
You've lost me there. In what sense does rUK envisage a currency union?
The rUK will agree to a currency union if Scotland agrees to its terms for one. There are benefits for both sides. For the rUK, the union as currently conceived by the SNP would not work - as the Treasury document published today makes clear; however, the current SNP position is designed to maximise the Yes vote. It is not a negotiating stance.
What do you see as the advantages to the UK in a CU ?
Because if the Scots do vote YES then rUK and its chancellor will have to step in to act as a transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Scotland could stand perfectly well by itself. Many countries in far poorer positions have made a go of it (and some in better positions - such as Argentina - have messed it up spectacularly).
True. I was letting my exasperation run away with me.
But then....why don't they want to??!!
But then....why don't they want to??!!
because Salmond doesn't want to frighten the horses and thinks he'll get closer to Yes by keeping the pound.
Indeed.
But it was untypically clumsy of him. That or he really is shameless.
He's a chancer, he'll basically say anything in the hope he doesn't get found out. Apparently that's being canny in certain circles.
Go on then, explain the link between sterling and house price levels. I can't think of one
Main monetary policy instrument is interest rates... maintaining interest rates at a historic low has prevented the recorrection of house prices that would have been the natural corollary of the recession and the fall in real incomes, whereas more realistic rates would have led to a cycle of default, repossession and falling values... low interest rates are naturally expected to devalue sterling vs other currencies, making the UK a more interesting inbound investment for overseas property buyers further inflating prices (the influx of French to London isn't just driven by Hollande, and the 12-page South China Morning Post supplements dedicated to UK, not just London, new builds also gives you an idea of the scale)... that kind of link.
Obviously I'm being a touch sarcastic in suggesting this is the only consideration, but I'm fairly sure that sterling FX rates, interest rates and UK house values have a non-negligible link.
Go on then, explain the link between sterling and house price levels. I can't think of one
Sterling devaluation in 2008/9 reduced the effective price of London houses for foreign buyers who were seeking a safe haven for their assets. This effectively supported the price level while much of the rest of the UK prices slipped (because, for other reasons, they were perceived as a less attractive investment).
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Oh, have the locks on the Caledonian Canal been enlarged?! [irony indicator on]
As last Saturday at Murrayfield showed, Scottish locks are no obstacle to anything.
I understand it is Salmond's intention to change the locks after securing indepretendence.
Please god, just make the whining stop. Either go or stay, but stop whining.
Taking on all the debt ensures that.
Cheap at twice the price.
How would Scotland raise money post independence then?
I am sure Russia would be happy with a base at Faslane, China would gladly take oil, etc , etc.
The Hunt for Red October 2014:
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
No secret there, Comrade Sunil.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Oh, have the locks on the Caledonian Canal been enlarged?! [irony indicator on]
As last Saturday at Murrayfield showed, Scottish locks are no obstacle to anything.
I was thinking more the size of the lock basin actually! But it wasn't much drier at Murrayfield ...
Go on then, explain the link between sterling and house price levels. I can't think of one
Sterling devaluation in 2008/9 reduced the effective price of London houses for foreign buyers who were seeking a safe haven for their assets. This effectively supported the price level while much of the rest of the UK prices slipped (because, for other reasons, they were perceived as a less attractive investment).
Do I get a gold star?
A gold saltire (special offer for one news cycle only).
I faintly remember someone on here had bought into RR just his morning. Hopefully the drop had already taken place.
It was Richard Nabavi and I think he bought in when the drop was 12%.
Hopefully it won't turn out as bad as Roger's purchase of Barclay's shares back in 2007 or so when they were trading for about 600p. They're now trading at around 250p - and that's a relatively good price compared to where they've been for some of the last few years.
The currency debate is going to be central to the independence debate for a number of reasons.
Firstly, people are concerned about their money, pensions etc.
Secondly, it is a major credibility issue for the SNP now. The white paper was clear: there will be a currency union. It was equally clear that Scotland would remain a part of the EU, that the BoE would be our lender of last resort, that we would have some form of unidentified defence forces, and a range of other things. If one of these major assertions is untrue what about the others?
Thirdly, it goes to competence. The people who got this wrong would be in charge of our economy. Despite the fact that Swinney has done a fairly reasonable job that is a concern.
Fourthly, as Osborne points out, the whole campaign is based on the idea that independence will change very little. If that starts to fall apart some will have second thoughts.
So there is a lot to play for here. And the cards are not in the Nats favour on this one. And it was so unnecessary. Scotland could easily have had a perfectly viable currency of its own. Is it too late for a rethink? There is not much time if the damage contemplated above is to be avoided. It might already be too late.
Oh well, the next round of Indy polling will be fun...but I wonder who will be smiling.
Can't believe there won't be an impact, at least in the short term.
It's definitely been interesting to see the whip in Osborne's hand for a change.
LOL
Naughty, naughty.
Nonetheless, he's done this all before starting way back in 2012 and all the way through 2013 with the result that currency is 8th on the list of the scottish public's priorities while only 2% rate it as most important.
Despite the shrieking from the PB tories if Osbrowne's bluster really is all 'better together' have to offer the scottish public instead of a positive vision for scotland, then they had better find themselves tens of thousands of volunteers for the ground campaign. Sharpish.
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
That is going to happen anyway. It must, they are too big for Scotland. Hell, the RBS was nearly too big for all of the UK to cope with. It is a financial blow but in the overall scheme of things having a currency being run for other peoples' benefit would be far, far worse.
I think people are missing the point when they go for these technical/legalistic arguments about whether Scotland would be able to stay in the pound. The SNP don't need it to be actually true that they will be able to stay in the pound, they just need Scottish people to believe it's true until they vote "Yes". I think they probably have no qualms about creating a new Scottish currency, in fact I think they secretly probably would prefer it (and I personally think there's no reason to think a Scottish currency wouldn't be reasonably successful, outside of discredited economists and their usual doom-mongering), but they're just trying to gradually convert people who are sceptical about independence.
Back to the thread topic, I agree that this move by the Westminster parties will probably backfire. To pick up on my greedy/spiteful southeasterners riff from yesterday, I doubt if I was Scottish that I would take well to being bullied and blackmailed by them. Plus, let's face it, even an announcement of free £10,000 cheques for everyone would become unpopular if George Osborne was the one who announced it. And Balls and Alexander are not much further ahead of him.
I have a feeling there is excellent sense in what you say, not least because it also depends on Mr O's personal credibility and popularity up here (i.e. if he said that pink was pale red, some people would automatically assume the opposite, at least till they had checked it out). I don't know about Mr Balls, but I will wait and see exactly what he says. I will also be interested to see the additional effect of his public Tory-hugging - and how credible this also is in view of the regular performance at PM QT.
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
They will anyway - unless there is a currency union - I haven't seen Ukip rule it out - perhaps that's the SNPs only hope - PM Farage opting out of the EU but into a currency union with the Republic of Scotland.
Business for Scotland writing in the Financial Times last November made clear Westminster politicians would continue to play games with Scotland’s economy during the referendum campaign. We also highlighted our knowledge of work-streams in the Treasury to try to make the case against a currency union with a view to future interventions by the politicians.
What Westminster says before the referendum result is different from what they will say after a Yes vote. We know this because it was the view of expert members on the independent Fiscal Commission Working Group in 2013 and by Bank of England Governor Mervyn King in 2012.
It’s entirely predictable that Westminster politicians will try to obscure this evidence from voters in Scotland. Mervyn King, has said the Treasury’s position will be “entirely different” following a Yes vote with economic interest trumping electioneering (which includes Treasury reports commissioned for political purposes). Leading economics Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet recently dismissed Westminster’s “political posturing”.
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
Banks don't exactly seem to be much of a national asset the last few years.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
Salmond has an emotional attachment to RBS. He was once employed as a junior economist there and later became a close friend and advisor to Fred Goodwin.
It is now clear beyond any doubt – the only way to keep the Pound is for Scotland to remain in the UK.
People need to know that when they go into a polling station in September they will be voting either to keep the Pound or ditch the Pound. A vote to leave the UK is a vote to lose the Pound.
Alex Salmond has no plan for currency in an independent Scotland. The SNP wanted to turn the pound into the Eurozone but understandably the rest of the UK have said they don’t think this is a good idea. The SNP Government had already ruled out using the pound without agreement in the way Panama uses the Dollar. So what money will Scotland use?
What we need now from the SNP isn’t so much a Plan B but a Plan A. Now that using the Pound is off the table, would we be rushing to join the Euro or set up an unproven separate currency?
Alex Salmond should stop making reckless threats about defaulting on debt that would put jobs and businesses in Scotland at risk. People know that if you don’t pay your debts your credit rating is shot and that means everything is more expensive.
You mean this Alistair Darling?
'Echoing remarks made last month by fellow Unionist and Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, Mr Darling said:
"Of course it would be desirable to have a currency union, but you also have to understand there are consequences. Because a currency union means you have both got to agree your budgets. You've both got to agree how much you can tax, spend and borrow."
However, the ex-chancellor immediately seemed to contradict himself by suggesting the this would only apply to Scotland's budget, saying: "This is something we all agree on, you've got two partners who have to agree Scotland's budget."
When pressed by Brewer on whether a monetary union with Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK, Darling replied: "Of course! If you have independence, or separation, of course a currency union is logical."'
Oh well, the next round of Indy polling will be fun...but I wonder who will be smiling.
Can't believe there won't be an impact, at least in the short term.
It's definitely been interesting to see the whip in Osborne's hand for a change.
LOL
Naughty, naughty.
Nonetheless, he's done this all before starting way back in 2012 and all the way through 2013 with the result that currency is 8th on the list of the scottish public's priorities while only 2% rate it as most important.
Despite the shrieking from the PB tories if Osbrowne's bluster really is all 'better together' have to offer the scottish public instead of a positive vision for scotland, then they had better find themselves tens of thousands of volunteers for the ground campaign. Sharpish.
Just because only 2% see it as the most important issue, it doesn't mean that 98% see it as an irrelevance. IIRC, about a quarter put it in the top three issues.
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
Banks don't exactly seem to be much of a national asset the last few years.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
Salmond has an emotional attachment to RBS. He was once employed as a junior economist there and later became a close friend and advisor to Fred Goodwin.
Is that where he met his wife or had she retired by then ?
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
Banks don't exactly seem to be much of a national asset the last few years.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
Salmond has an emotional attachment to RBS. He was once employed as a junior economist there and later became a close friend and advisor to Fred Goodwin.
Is that where he met his wife or had she retired by then ?
No need to drag his wife into this. He is the pompous ass that has a need to preen in public, not her.
Thank you for taking the trouble to post it - I was wondering when we'd see it (or is he going to make a speech?). I see he's signing up to a Coalition political document, which is interesting, and assuming that a Labour GE 2015 victory is going to be the case even after a Yes vote in the referendum, which is even more interesting given the likely polarisation of voting patterns in a UK GE in that situation ...
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
Banks don't exactly seem to be much of a national asset the last few years.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
Salmond has an emotional attachment to RBS. He was once employed as a junior economist there and later became a close friend and advisor to Fred Goodwin.
That can't be the reason surely?
Someone please enlighten me why the Nationalists don't want Scotland to have it's own currency. There must be a logical explanation.
This announcement will polarise the debate like never before. It will lead to a reaction from some Scots who believe, as Salmond wants them to, that the Chancellor is bullying the Scots. It will also push some ‘don’t knows’ back to the cause of the Union. But the real message – and it is one the Nats don’t seem to want to believe – is that the Chancellor is very serious about this. If Osborne has anything to do with it, Scotland will not be allowed to share the pound after independence. This really is not a bluff, not matter what Salmond nor his allies may believe.
Oh well, the next round of Indy polling will be fun...but I wonder who will be smiling.
Can't believe there won't be an impact, at least in the short term.
It's definitely been interesting to see the whip in Osborne's hand for a change.
LOL
Naughty, naughty.
Nonetheless, he's done this all before starting way back in 2012 and all the way through 2013 with the result that currency is 8th on the list of the scottish public's priorities while only 2% rate it as most important.
Despite the shrieking from the PB tories if Osbrowne's bluster really is all 'better together' have to offer the scottish public instead of a positive vision for scotland, then they had better find themselves tens of thousands of volunteers for the ground campaign. Sharpish.
Just because only 2% see it as the most important issue, it doesn't mean that 98% see it as an irrelevance. IIRC, about a quarter put it in the top three issues.
It was also ranked 8th in a poll in November and all this despite the No campaign banging away on this again and again and again since 2012. If Osborne's posturing really is the best the No campaign have to offer the scottish public then that speaks volumes.
I faintly remember someone on here had bought into RR just his morning. Hopefully the drop had already taken place.
It was Richard Nabavi and I think he bought in when the drop was 12%. .
Yes, I bought when the price had dropped just over 13%. It wobbled around quite a bit after that and closed at about the same level as I bought at.
We shall see if I've got this one right, but Rolls Royce is a very sound business with very good forward earnings visibility. I understand there are some strategic question marks about their long-term weak position in the mid-sized jet market, but against that they are well placed in the big Boeing and Airbus sectors.
Remind me, why doesn't the yes side want Scotland to have their own currency?
Because that banks etc will decamp to London.
Banks don't exactly seem to be much of a national asset the last few years.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
Salmond has an emotional attachment to RBS. He was once employed as a junior economist there and later became a close friend and advisor to Fred Goodwin.
That can't be the reason surely?
Someone please enlighten me why the Nationalists don't want Scotland to have it's own currency. There must be a logical explanation.
I think, as SO has been suggesting, they're probably quite happy for it to have its own currency, but recognise that that might be a bit scary for potential yes voters, even though those voters actually want all the things entailed by having their own currency. So you get through winning the referendum, then work it out from there. The Nats would probably rationalise it as protecting voters from their own inconsistent fears.
No, UKIP are against a currency union as well (and Farage still got the LibLabCon line in):
Nigel Farage today backed the view that an independent Scotland could not expect to keep the pound sterling as its national currency.
The UKIP leader said: “I think it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth that the frontbenches of the entire LibLabCon have clearly colluded in making this announcement but I am afraid the logic is inescapable. You cannot have currency union without political union.
“To pretend otherwise is fantasy politics, as we are seeing in regard to the travails of the Eurozone. So the Scottish people really are going to have to choose. Being an independent country means having your own currency and voters must factor that into their deliberations about how to vote in the referendum in September.”
Oh well, the next round of Indy polling will be fun...but I wonder who will be smiling.
Can't believe there won't be an impact, at least in the short term.
It's definitely been interesting to see the whip in Osborne's hand for a change.
LOL
Naughty, naughty.
Nonetheless, he's done this all before starting way back in 2012 and all the way through 2013 with the result that currency is 8th on the list of the scottish public's priorities while only 2% rate it as most important.
Despite the shrieking from the PB tories if Osbrowne's bluster really is all 'better together' have to offer the scottish public instead of a positive vision for scotland, then they had better find themselves tens of thousands of volunteers for the ground campaign. Sharpish.
Just because only 2% see it as the most important issue, it doesn't mean that 98% see it as an irrelevance. IIRC, about a quarter put it in the top three issues.
It was also ranked 8th in a poll in November and all this despite the No campaign banging away on this again and again and again since 2012. If Osborne's posturing really is the best the No campaign have to offer the scottish public then that speaks volumes.
Well even if it doesn't seem like it will change votes one way or another you must agree sorting out which currency you are going to use is still an important issue.
It seems churlish to leave out those newly converted kippers as everyone ignores them (good practice for after May and for the general election though) so, here goes..
It is quite probable that the position on the issue of the pound adopted by the 3 main unionist parties will lead many, possibly even thousands of Scots to decide to vote yes. It might even prove to be the tipping point. It will be nothing to do with the SNP or the YES campaign. It will simply be down to the thrawn nature of the Scots. We can't stand anyone telling us what to do or not to do.
The SNP is however kidding itself on if it believes after a YES vote the unionist parties will roll over on the shared use of the pound or anything else. The English electorate will expect its politicians to adopt a very robust stance in pre-independence negotiations including the pound and the governing parties will not disappoint their voters in this regard. The SNP and its pals aint seen nothing yet. It will get very bloody and it will split the SNP wide open, with the rabid lefties shouting and balling and the pragmatic, centrist Tartan Tories seeking a way ahead which will not frighten the international money markets. The SNP should just admit we are heading back to the Groat.
No, UKIP are against a currency union as well (and Farage still got the LibLabCon line in):
Nigel Farage today backed the view that an independent Scotland could not expect to keep the pound sterling as its national currency.
The UKIP leader said: “I think it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth that the frontbenches of the entire LibLabCon have clearly colluded in making this announcement but I am afraid the logic is inescapable. You cannot have currency union without political union.
“To pretend otherwise is fantasy politics, as we are seeing in regard to the travails of the Eurozone. So the Scottish people really are going to have to choose. Being an independent country means having your own currency and voters must factor that into their deliberations about how to vote in the referendum in September.”
Perhaps UKIP should embrace a policy of reinvading scotland in the event they form a government it would both enable them to live up to the united kingdom in their name and allow them to differentiate themselves from the liblabcon line
'Echoing remarks made last month by fellow Unionist and Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, Mr Darling said:
"Of course it would be desirable to have a currency union, but you also have to understand there are consequences. Because a currency union means you have both got to agree your budgets. You've both got to agree how much you can tax, spend and borrow."
However, the ex-chancellor immediately seemed to contradict himself by suggesting the this would only apply to Scotland's budget, saying: "This is something we all agree on, you've got two partners who have to agree Scotland's budget."
When pressed by Brewer on whether a monetary union with Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK, Darling replied: "Of course! If you have independence, or separation, of course a currency union is logical."'
Stop mocking Cammie's human shield. That's the great hope for the PB tories you're talking about. Now they have their new economic guru Ed Balls to be Osbornes human shield it's small wonder they're so hysterical and shrill.
Yesterday morning when news broke about the planned Osborne speech, Radio Scotland (an organ of the Scottish Labour Party) had an hour long phone in to gauge reaction to the "no to the pound speech theme" Bar 2, every caller indicated that an English politician telling them what they could or could not do would make them vote YES or confirm their intention to vote YES. The callers came from all parts of Scotland and by the sound of their voices and accents, all sections of Scottish society. An interesting straw poll. I wonder if we will get any polls on this topic in the coming days.
Perhaps the assessment is that people won't vote so much on the basis of whether they like British politicians as on whether they feel uneasy or relaxed about independence. The announcements may make the Westminster politicians look less likeable, but they also make independence look more of a gamble. The upside for the SNP is that it at least shows that the idea of independence is being seriously discussed, rather than just shrugged off as a highland fantasy.
It's of course possible that the statements are simply to be taken at face value, though. Perhaps Osborne and Balls genuinely feel it needs to be made clear that currency union is not available, so they aren't later accused of sour grapes.
By the way, could we lay off the "wee Eck" stuff? It's not that hard to write "Salmond". I support union too, but don't remember kindergarten and its nicknaming with any degree of nostalgia.
Why don't the SNP just say "Feck you and yer pound ..we're off"..it might just get a few more yes votes.. at the moment they seem a little bit confused and...erm..creepy
Yesterday morning when news broke about the planned Osborne speech, Radio Scotland (an organ of the Scottish Labour Party) had an hour long phone in to gauge reaction to the "no to the pound speech theme" Bar 2, every caller indicated that an English politician telling them what they could or could not do would make them vote YES or confirm their intention to vote YES. The callers came from all parts of Scotland and by the sound of their voices and accents, all sections of Scottish society. An interesting straw poll. I wonder if we will get any polls on this topic in the coming days.
It does look as if rUK has finally had enough of the Scots doesn't it?
Nick the First Minister is generally referred to by Scots who are interested in politics as Eck. He does not see it as an insult to be referred to by this name. He is often called much worse including by those on his own side!
It is quite probable that the position on the issue of the pound adopted by the 3 main unionist parties will lead many, possibly even thousands of Scots to decide to vote yes. It might even prove to be the tipping point. It will be nothing to do with the SNP or the YES campaign. It will simply be down to the thrawn nature of the Scots. We can't stand anyone telling us what to do or not to do.
The SNP is however kidding itself on if it believes after a YES vote the unionist parties will roll over on the shared use of the pound or anything else. The English electorate will expect its politicians to adopt a very robust stance in pre-independence negotiations including the pound and the governing parties will not disappoint their voters in this regard. The SNP and its pals aint seen nothing yet. It will get very bloody and it will split the SNP wide open, with the rabid lefties shouting and balling and the pragmatic, centrist Tartan Tories seeking a way ahead which will not frighten the international money markets. The SNP should just admit we are heading back to the Groat.
I think it is very hard to predict what the electoral consequences of this and you may be right that some would be persuaded that Scotland is being "bullied" in some way but my guess is that the older generation (who are generally more agin anyway) will be worried about their pensions and their savings more than the young. Of course, as we all know in the UK context parties grossly favour the old because they vote.
Mr. Easterross, whilst interesting (and depressing) I do wonder at the mindset. Do the Yes Scots think negotiation involves Scottish demands, British agreement and nothing else?
No, UKIP are against a currency union as well (and Farage still got the LibLabCon line in):
Nigel Farage today backed the view that an independent Scotland could not expect to keep the pound sterling as its national currency.
The UKIP leader said: “I think it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth that the frontbenches of the entire LibLabCon have clearly colluded in making this announcement but I am afraid the logic is inescapable. You cannot have currency union without political union.
“To pretend otherwise is fantasy politics, as we are seeing in regard to the travails of the Eurozone. So the Scottish people really are going to have to choose. Being an independent country means having your own currency and voters must factor that into their deliberations about how to vote in the referendum in September.”
Perhaps UKIP should embrace a policy of reinvading scotland in the event they form a government it would both enable them to live up to the united kingdom in their name and allow them to differentiate themselves from the liblabcon line
It's totally disgusting that many PBers think the new Scottish currency is something to joke about. The Scottie: 1 Scottie=100 drams, should be welcome in any rUK bank after independence.
This either goes to some form of mediation in the next few hours or the lib dems will have a very serious problem. If the by-election is particulary dire for the lib dems too then Clegg may well have a nightmare of a Friday.
Comments
Yeah, I don't particularly disagree with Hodges' position but it just seems a bit of a non-story, and a strangely partisan rush to defend Mitchell. It doesn't seem something you'd write about just because it's particularly interesting or topical - and as a "niche" columnist you'd expect him to write about his specialism or super-topical issues, such as flooding, So I guess I assume it has to fit into his agenda somewhere.
Influencing the EU Commissioner appointment perhaps but I can't see Hodge's interest here unless he is hoping that Dave offers Ed the job!
Countries frequently issue sovereign debt denominated in a currency other than their own - typically USD, GBP or EUR but there are a fair few more esoteric examples dotted around.
It seems that their are three options here. 1) Scotland launches the Schottisch Schilling and does its own thing; 2) Scotland uses the pound, but has no say in sterling monetary policy (there is no meaningful way that rUK could stop this happening, is there?) or 3) there is some form of currency union, meaning that Scotland uses the pound and has some control over monetary policy. Presumably Scotland's level of influence would be roughly proportionate to its share of population and GDP (i.e. bugger all, give or take).
In option 3) I guess there would be some concept of sterling bonds for which the sterlingzone central bank would be liable. Possibly in the interest of both parties, possibly not. But let's be honest here, the current management of sterling is not primarily driven by Scottish interests. It's primarily driven by maintaining English house prices. Scotland can be a formal part of a currency union and have its needs ignored, or peg to the pound and have its needs ignored. It's a non-issue.
So there would highly likely be a currency union but, as has been demonstrated by today's speech and supporting documents, the outcome would look pretty much like the situation today, ie monetary, fiscal policy set in London, a banking union of some type, and fiscal transfers subject to close scrutiny.
Fatuous nonsense.
The currency is only part of the good neighbour argument since it encompasses a raft of other factors - defence, borders, free movement etc. that I'd say that currency is only one contributory factor.
Sean Connery commandeers a submarine from Faslane, with the intention to defect to England. The Scottish govt., desperate not to let the submarine fall into enemy hands, then convince the English govt. that Connery is "about to nuke London". The Royal Navy then pursues Red October 2014 relentlessly until Alec Baldwin, liaison officer for the CIA, finally convinces them to let him make contact with Connery. After convincing his crew to abandon ship after a freak 'Irn Bru accident' in the boat's galley, Connery promptly surrenders to the RN via Baldwin and then the sub is parked in a secret location, away from prying Scottish eyes.
Quite happy if they want to use the pound dollarisation style
As an aside, malcolmg (I think) continually refers to sterling as an "asset". It's not - it's a liability; a promise to pay the value on presentation to the Chief Cashier.
But then....why don't they want to??!!
Okay they won't but still, too much of this might confuse them.
because Salmond doesn't want to frighten the horses and thinks he'll get closer to Yes by keeping the pound.
ROFL
But it was untypically clumsy of him. That or he really is shameless.
Everyone knows the sub has been parked in Loch Ness.
Back to the thread topic, I agree that this move by the Westminster parties will probably backfire. To pick up on my greedy/spiteful southeasterners riff from yesterday, I doubt if I was Scottish that I would take well to being bullied and blackmailed by them. Plus, let's face it, even an announcement of free £10,000 cheques for everyone would become unpopular if George Osborne was the one who announced it. And Balls and Alexander are not much further ahead of him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26081992
Go on then, explain the link between sterling and house price levels. I can't think of one
Can't believe there won't be an impact, at least in the short term.
I thought of that 'riff' when I read in the Standard about the plight of two Sikh Heathrow workers flooded out of their home in Egham.
Spiteful greedy southerners indeed.
Obviously I'm being a touch sarcastic in suggesting this is the only consideration, but I'm fairly sure that sterling FX rates, interest rates and UK house values have a non-negligible link.
Do I get a gold star?
Yes, We Can't!
Hopefully it won't turn out as bad as Roger's purchase of Barclay's shares back in 2007 or so when they were trading for about 600p. They're now trading at around 250p - and that's a relatively good price compared to where they've been for some of the last few years.
Firstly, people are concerned about their money, pensions etc.
Secondly, it is a major credibility issue for the SNP now. The white paper was clear: there will be a currency union. It was equally clear that Scotland would remain a part of the EU, that the BoE would be our lender of last resort, that we would have some form of unidentified defence forces, and a range of other things. If one of these major assertions is untrue what about the others?
Thirdly, it goes to competence. The people who got this wrong would be in charge of our economy. Despite the fact that Swinney has done a fairly reasonable job that is a concern.
Fourthly, as Osborne points out, the whole campaign is based on the idea that independence will change very little. If that starts to fall apart some will have second thoughts.
So there is a lot to play for here. And the cards are not in the Nats favour on this one. And it was so unnecessary. Scotland could easily have had a perfectly viable currency of its own. Is it too late for a rethink? There is not much time if the damage contemplated above is to be avoided. It might already be too late.
A bargain compared to bailing out RBS again
Naughty, naughty.
Nonetheless, he's done this all before starting way back in 2012 and all the way through 2013 with the result that currency is 8th on the list of the scottish public's priorities while only 2% rate it as most important.
Despite the shrieking from the PB tories if Osbrowne's bluster really is all 'better together' have to offer the scottish public instead of a positive vision for scotland, then they had better find themselves tens of thousands of volunteers for the ground campaign. Sharpish.
I think having their own currency that initially pegs to the pound seems like a reasonable idea if you're going for independence.
£ 500 million ? At a time when RBS is writing off £5billion a year we'll look for it in the rounding.
What Westminster says before the referendum result is different from what they will say after a Yes vote. We know this because it was the view of expert members on the independent Fiscal Commission Working Group in 2013 and by Bank of England Governor Mervyn King in 2012.
It’s entirely predictable that Westminster politicians will try to obscure this evidence from voters in Scotland. Mervyn King, has said the Treasury’s position will be “entirely different” following a Yes vote with economic interest trumping electioneering (which includes Treasury reports commissioned for political purposes). Leading economics Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet recently dismissed Westminster’s “political posturing”.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/no-campaigns-political-posturing-on-currency-lacks-business-sense-and-economic-credibility/
ROFLMAO
'Echoing remarks made last month by fellow Unionist and Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, Mr Darling said:
"Of course it would be desirable to have a currency union, but you also have to understand there are consequences. Because a currency union means you have both got to agree your budgets. You've both got to agree how much you can tax, spend and borrow."
However, the ex-chancellor immediately seemed to contradict himself by suggesting the this would only apply to Scotland's budget, saying: "This is something we all agree on, you've got two partners who have to agree Scotland's budget."
When pressed by Brewer on whether a monetary union with Scotland would be in the interests of the rest of the UK, Darling replied: "Of course! If you have independence, or separation, of course a currency union is logical."'
http://tinyurl.com/oygbos4
There's still Ukip....
It's all a PB Tory misunderstanding.
Here goes...
"A country without its own currency is a country not only without a steering wheel, but also without brakes and an accelerator" -Mike Russell SNP
Thank you for taking the trouble to post it - I was wondering when we'd see it (or is he going to make a speech?). I see he's signing up to a Coalition political document, which is interesting, and assuming that a Labour GE 2015 victory is going to be the case even after a Yes vote in the referendum, which is even more interesting given the likely polarisation of voting patterns in a UK GE in that situation ...
Someone please enlighten me why the Nationalists don't want Scotland to have it's own currency. There must be a logical explanation.
We shall see if I've got this one right, but Rolls Royce is a very sound business with very good forward earnings visibility. I understand there are some strategic question marks about their long-term weak position in the mid-sized jet market, but against that they are well placed in the big Boeing and Airbus sectors.
No, UKIP are against a currency union as well (and Farage still got the LibLabCon line in):
Nigel Farage today backed the view that an independent Scotland could not expect to keep the pound sterling as its national currency.
The UKIP leader said: “I think it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth that the frontbenches of the entire LibLabCon have clearly colluded in making this announcement but I am afraid the logic is inescapable. You cannot have currency union without political union.
“To pretend otherwise is fantasy politics, as we are seeing in regard to the travails of the Eurozone. So the Scottish people really are going to have to choose. Being an independent country means having your own currency and voters must factor that into their deliberations about how to vote in the referendum in September.”
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1159-nigel-farage-warns-alex-salmond-that-being-an-independent-nation-really-does-mean-having-your-own-currency
Saint Eck told the Scots they would use the Euro.
When that went tits up he said Sterling.
If he switches again the voters will see him as a triple flopper.
The "optics" of that would not be good, as some would say
The SNP is however kidding itself on if it believes after a YES vote the unionist parties will roll over on the shared use of the pound or anything else. The English electorate will expect its politicians to adopt a very robust stance in pre-independence negotiations including the pound and the governing parties will not disappoint their voters in this regard. The SNP and its pals aint seen nothing yet. It will get very bloody and it will split the SNP wide open, with the rabid lefties shouting and balling and the pragmatic, centrist Tartan Tories seeking a way ahead which will not frighten the international money markets. The SNP should just admit we are heading back to the Groat.
Nigel Farage today backed the view that an independent Scotland could not expect to keep the pound sterling as its national currency.
The UKIP leader said: “I think it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth that the frontbenches of the entire LibLabCon have clearly colluded in making this announcement but I am afraid the logic is inescapable. You cannot have currency union without political union.
“To pretend otherwise is fantasy politics, as we are seeing in regard to the travails of the Eurozone. So the Scottish people really are going to have to choose. Being an independent country means having your own currency and voters must factor that into their deliberations about how to vote in the referendum in September.”
http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1159-nigel-farage-warns-alex-salmond-that-being-an-independent-nation-really-does-mean-having-your-own-currency
Perhaps UKIP should embrace a policy of reinvading scotland in the event they form a government it would both enable them to live up to the united kingdom in their name and allow them to differentiate themselves from the liblabcon line
SLAB will be delighted of course.
*chuckle*
It's of course possible that the statements are simply to be taken at face value, though. Perhaps Osborne and Balls genuinely feel it needs to be made clear that currency union is not available, so they aren't later accused of sour grapes.
By the way, could we lay off the "wee Eck" stuff? It's not that hard to write "Salmond". I support union too, but don't remember kindergarten and its nicknaming with any degree of nostalgia.
It's totally disgusting that many PBers think the new Scottish currency is something to joke about.
The Scottie: 1 Scottie=100 drams, should be welcome in any rUK bank after independence.
Clegg refuses to back down over Rennard legal threat http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26170772 …
This either goes to some form of mediation in the next few hours or the lib dems will have a very serious problem. If the by-election is particulary dire for the lib dems too then Clegg may well have a nightmare of a Friday.
Ivan White @ivanwhite48 6h
Farage wants handguns legalised! Why? So UKIP members can shoot gay people who cause flooding, or women who don't clean behind fridges?