Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
If I were a Tory I would wait to see how Sunak deals with the next bit of the crisis before making any final calls. A lot of that Red Wall vote is tied up in Johnson personally and is not Tory per se.
I'm not convinced of that. The Tory recovery in the North has been a very long time coming and is about more than just Johnson/Corbyn/Brexit.
yeah, it was certainly set up in 2017 - a lot of seats got a lot closer without being won.
Exactly. The tectonic plates were moving already. The fundamentals up here are very different now to how it used to be.
Corbyn/Johnson/Brexit helped push over the line what was already happening. There is no reason to assume it will automatically switch back.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
Of course it didn't focus minds in the 1990s.
John Major faced leadership challenges from the Right, rather than the Left.
But, back then, they were a small minority and it didn't look like there was anyone better to take on Blair.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
It's the whole sector, banking, investing and insurance as well as all of the surrounding industries such as financial and corporate law etc... I see we have some sneering attitudes about it from our Indy supporters, but finance contributes an absolutely gigantic amount of tax to the treasury and it does so with a pretty small footprint.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You can become one like Switzerland, but again that needs a lot of discipline and years if keeping the markets happy with balanced budgets.
And huge reserves.
And triangular chocolate that tastes bloody awful but every tourist buys anyway.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
They can't "join Sterling". Sterling isn't a currency union. Sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom and if they leave the United Kingdom it will no longer be their currency.
The Euro is a currency union. If they join they'll get a seat on the ECB, they'll get a say in how its ran, the ECB will act as Lender of Last Resort. None of that applies to Sterling.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
If I were a Tory I would wait to see how Sunak deals with the next bit of the crisis before making any final calls. A lot of that Red Wall vote is tied up in Johnson personally and is not Tory per se.
Yes, this is why I think it's predicated on the polling and how things play out over the next few months.
I'm not so sure about the Red Wall; I think it's a values shift rather than to Johnson personally. He was just best able to channel it. The key is determining if there are other Tories who reflect that and can resonate just as well, but also deliver.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What is the cost of keeping sterling though? It's as though Westminster will just give then a monetary union and then say "now go and fuck up our currency by using our credit rating". We saw how that ends in Europe. Westminster would insist on a veto of the Scottish budget and a perpetually balanced budget.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
It is the only option, not a chance they will stay with GB pound, apart from maybe a very short changeover spell t get central bank etc setup and running but as the currency is already in circulation it should not be a big issue.
The currency isn't in circulation.
If you mean the Scottish paper notes those are Pound Sterling. They literally have Sterling printed on them. If created a new Scottish currency would need to not say Sterling but instead name the new Scottish currency's name instead.
Its not the biggest challenge to overcome though.
Honestly the hard part of all this is making an actual decision. Once a decision is made, implementing it isn't that tough.
I don't believe it will be copyright. They are printed as Scottish notes and so if they decide on the pound Scottish then there would be no reason not to use them. Either way a Scottish pound is what it is likely to be.
I think printing notes in someone else’s currency might actually count as an act of war...
I would have thought it more likely to be just an irrelevance.
I mean, I can print five pound notes off, but unless the Bank of England will back them they’re not worth anything.
If you print five pound notes off you're the Police might be very interested rather than finding it an irrelevance.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
Rishi Sunak is not going to suddenly convert Yes voters to No and in any case many No voters vote Labour or LD not Scottish Conservative.
Polling also shows only LD voters prefer Sunak to Starmer by more than they prefer Boris to Starmer, Boris does better with Tory and Labour voters against Starmer than Sunak does
Rishi might firm up soft unionist purely by virtue of being harder working and more competent than Boris - how the UK Government is seen is crucial.
You're basing your argument off polling. I agree. Whenever that changes, and it will, Boris goes.
A WTO terms Brexit which goes badly and which Sunak promises to reverse by agreeing regulatory alignment for a FTA with the EU or to rejoin the single market is the only circumstance I can see Sunak doing significantly better with soft Unionists in Scotland and swing voters in England than Boris
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
Well it would because the lender of last resort issue hasn't been sorted.
If the SNP said that an independent Scotland would join the Euro, or have its own Central Bank that would back Scottish banks then it would be.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
But plenty of your fellow Leavers don't give a flying feck about the Union.
I mean can you imagine a Conservative and Unionist Government putting a border down the Irish Sea?
*Raises hand*
Why should we? If the rest of the Union doesn't give a feck about us?
Erm, the situation vis-a-vis support for the union within Northern Ireland is rather more nuanced than "doesn't give a feck". In fact it was the DUP that most objected to the border down the Irish Sea that Boris ruled out then adopted, not, I think, because he is a pathological liar but because he simply does not understand what he is talking about.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
Of course it didn't focus minds in the 1990s.
John Major faced leadership challenges from the Right, rather than the Left.
But, back then, they were a small minority and it didn't look like there was anyone better to take on Blair.
Indeed in 1995 the alternative to Major was John Redwood, who was really just a stalking horse for Portillo who would have entered a second round of that leadership contest had Major not won a sufficient majority of Tory MPs on the first ballot
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
It is the only option, not a chance they will stay with GB pound, apart from maybe a very short changeover spell t get central bank etc setup and running but as the currency is already in circulation it should not be a big issue.
The currency isn't in circulation.
If you mean the Scottish paper notes those are Pound Sterling. They literally have Sterling printed on them. If created a new Scottish currency would need to not say Sterling but instead name the new Scottish currency's name instead.
Its not the biggest challenge to overcome though.
Honestly the hard part of all this is making an actual decision. Once a decision is made, implementing it isn't that tough.
I don't believe it will be copyright. They are printed as Scottish notes and so if they decide on the pound Scottish then there would be no reason not to use them. Either way a Scottish pound is what it is likely to be.
I think printing notes in someone else’s currency might actually count as an act of war...
I would have thought it more likely to be just an irrelevance.
I mean, I can print five pound notes off, but unless the Bank of England will back them they’re not worth anything.
If you print five pound notes off you're the Police might be very interested rather than finding it an irrelevance.
Depends on what I print off.
If I print off five pound notes to look like five pound notes, on polymer materials, I agree the police might have Views on this.
If I print them off on newspaper, write '£5 sterling' in curly writing and sign it with a smiley face, then my problem will be nobody will think they are worth £5.
I am thinking option B is be the problem Scotland would have.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
Ok, read what you wrote very slowly this time. RBS crashing in an independent Scotland, RBS leaving because Scotland becomes independent. It might just be that one is related to the other.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
It's the whole sector, banking, investing and insurance as well as all of the surrounding industries such as financial and corporate law etc... I see we have some sneering attitudes about it from our Indy supporters, but finance contributes an absolutely gigantic amount of tax to the treasury and it does so with a pretty small footprint.
Legally a lot of this has already gone. A good friend of mine spent his last few years in practice facilitating the transfer of these assets to rUK (or occasionally EU, especially Dublin) bases.
The results are, speaking as a Scots lawyer, increasingly painful. All large corporate transactions are now run from London based law firms and accountants. Scottish firms get some of the basic work like checking Scottish titles but the fees and the profits end up elsewhere. We end up with a Court that has increasingly little experience of modern commercial practice and which becomes a less and less attractive jurisdiction in which to resolve disputes. We see several well established Scottish law firms bought up and turned into branch offices. There is no question that this would get far, far worse in the case of independence.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You can become one like Switzerland, but again that needs a lot of discipline and years if keeping the markets happy with balanced budgets.
And huge reserves.
And triangular chocolate that tastes bloody awful but every tourist buys anyway.
Chocolat Frey. They keep the best stuff to themselves.
An independent Scotland should probably join the Euro, the monetary base is so large there their individual actions couldn't really affect it too much. If iScotland continues running a deficit whilst being de facto but not de jure backed up by the rUK's central bank it's an issue. Of course joining the Euro means no wildcat referendum as Madrid won't abide that - so they'll have to wait for Starmer to need them.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Not true. See Liechtenstein, which uses the Swiss franc but has a gigantic financial services industry. Also Bermuda, whose currency is basically the US dollar, and various other small tax havens around the world.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Not true. See Liechtenstein, which uses the Swiss franc but has a gigantic financial services industry. Also Bermuda, whose currency is basically the US dollar, and various other small tax havens around the world.
Those are all micronation tax havens. Scotland doesn't qualify for that status, unless they are looking to eliminate around 60-80% of government spending and run a completely minimal state with very low personal and corporate taxes as well as being a tax haven. I'm not sure that the SNP could sell that.
Boris was voted in because he was seen to be an electoral asset.
As soon as he's an electoral liability.. gone. My view is next year.
The Tory party doesn't muck about when it comes to millstone leaders.
We all remember the speed with which Mrs M was despatched after her election debacle.
She lasted two years. Next year, Boris will have been in office two years. And Brexit will be "done", which is why he was selected as well as to win an election.
The Union is under threat, as is the Conservative Party's position in Government by a new competent Labour opposition.
Don't underestimate the ability of that to focus minds.
But plenty of your fellow Leavers don't give a flying feck about the Union.
I mean can you imagine a Conservative and Unionist Government putting a border down the Irish Sea?
*Raises hand*
Why should we? If the rest of the Union doesn't give a feck about us?
Erm, the situation vis-a-vis support for the union within Northern Ireland is rather more nuanced than "doesn't give a feck". In fact it was the DUP that most objected to the border down the Irish Sea that Boris ruled out then adopted, not, I think, because he is a pathological liar but because he simply does not understand what he is talking about.
The DUP are c**ts who opposed the Good Friday Agreement. They didn't agree to anything at all that was proposed so who cares?
"No. No. No." in a loud angry voice doesn't work when you need to actually agree something.
The results are, speaking as a Scots lawyer, increasingly painful. All large corporate transactions are now run from London based law firms and accountants.
With what I've heard about London recently those corporate "London" lawyers may well be doing their job from country piles near Edinburgh :.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
Ok, read what you wrote very slowly this time. RBS crashing in an independent Scotland, RBS leaving because Scotland becomes independent. It might just be that one is related to the other.
'If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it.'
Talk me through your Project Fear Greatest Hits scenario. Does RBS go bust in an indy Scotland then move to a grateful and welcoming England, willing to bail it out?
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A lot of it depends on how honourably the newly independent Scotland us wrt debt, if they take the "walk away" method espoused by Malc and other extremist independence supporters then there is little to no chance they would be able to float a currency and not see it rapidly depreciate. It would also destroy any chance of them being able to sell paper denominated in McPounds under Scottish law, they would need to raise sterling in London, investors wouldn't trust anything less.
Currency, imo, is still the unanswerable question for the SNP and I actually think it may cause a post yes vote unionist majority. Tell people their savings are going to be converted to McPounds but their debt repayments will be in Sterling and that very real cost of independence starts to be realised.
I also think that the option of the currency peg is completely unrealistic, it would require Scotland to run a perpetually balanced budget and to hold £50-60bn in reserve capital to ensure the over/under isn't breached. The Swiss National Bank €23bn defending the Swiss Franc over a 4 year period (of real money) that's money the Swiss government could have spent on schools, hospitals, policing etc... but was eaten up to keep the Franc pegged to €1.20. Does anyone in Scotland have the stomach to spend taxpayer money on defending the currency? Or more realistically, do 50% +1 think it's a worthy area of expenditure and what spending would they cut to allow it? Scotland isn't Switzerland, they don't have the capability to just go and borrow the money at -0.4% from the markets.
As I've said many times, the independence referendum will be won or lost on emotional reasons. It seems to me that not enough people value the Union to a degree that they will vote to stay in. However, the business of independence is very, very difficult and complicated. Unwinding a 300 year union of shared language, culture, identity and economy is, IMO, going to be close to impossible. The easy way out for Scotland would be to become a vassal state, use the same currency and beg for a monetary union with Westminster, but that would ultimately give Westminster a veto over the Scottish budget and even more power than it holds now.
All true, but none of this matters.
It's about identity. Once the British sense of identity is gone, it's gone.
Yep, I think that is spot on. I also think it is happening as much in England as in Scotland. The last true Brits are to be found in the royal family and in the Scottish and Northern Irish Unionist communities.
If anyone asks me where I am from I say England. English is what I feel, though I feel a strong sense of shared identity with all the other home nations, as well as the Republic of Ireland.
I remain in favour of the Union, but only because I dislike nationalism, which in all its forms seems to me to do a whole lot more harm than good. Thus, I instinctively do not want it to win. But maybe the real task is to redefine these Isles of ours so that nationalism melts away and we end up like the Nordics - independent of each other, but forever aligned socially, culturally and politically.
I'm an immigrant in Yorkshire. England is a foreign land.
If we are going to break up the UK let's do it properly.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
Partly as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and also of course as that would mean Scotland was not really becoming independent but just swapping Brussels and Frankfurt for London
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
RBS would definitely leave Scotland (along with HBOS, Standard Life and the pension providers) because Scotland could not bail them out in the event of a systemic problem. Is this really hard to understand? Where does our taxes come from without them?
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
Ok, read what you wrote very slowly this time. RBS crashing in an independent Scotland, RBS leaving because Scotland becomes independent. It might just be that one is related to the other.
'If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it.'
Talk me through your Project Fear Greatest Hits scenario. Does RBS go bust in an indy Scotland then move to a grateful and welcoming England, willing to bail it out?
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
But SNP policy is to put Scotland on the path to EU membership?
Saying we want to be EU members but can't consider having the EU's currency is like saying we want to be pregnant but can't consider becoming a parent.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
...
I think that is a fairly likely option, if independence is to happen. And the Eurozone would be quite pleased to acquire a major financial centre, so I think a deal might be done fairly rapidly.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
Yep. It suits the SNP to be ambiguous to maximise their coalition.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
I have 2 friends whose daughters moved into UNG accommodation over the weekend. I'm sure they are just thrilled. How dumb can you get? You can't fix stupid.
I don't see that happening in sensible places here - hasn't happened amongst students who have already gone back. They seem to be bubbling with people in their houses from what I hear.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
The SNP has historically been quite split on the EU. Indeed, as many as 30% of its voters appear to have voted Leave in 2016:
There is a certain logic to that position - that leaving a union with Westminster and joining an even more remote one with Brussels rather defeats the object of the exercise.
So I'm not quite sure that joining the EU and Euro with a de facto commitment to federalism would be the solution.
The problem is that in Scotland's particular situation - unlike, say, Slovakia or the Ukraine - there isn't a resolution to the currency question that's not self-evidently painful or destructive, other than to stay in the UK and keep the pound. Which at the same time, is an option that at the very least a large minority of Scots see as unacceptable.
The bigger problem is nobody seems to want to have a grown-up conversation about it.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
The challenges of i-Scotland and its currency exemplifies perfectly why none of the Euro states has dared veer towards the exit. Even Greece stepped back from the brink. It’s a very hard road to leave an integrated currency union without experiencing a major level of hardship one way or the other. That’s exactly why the architects of Unions love a currency union, it cements them. Transaction cost savings are incidental in comparison.
So the push factor needs to be very high to do it. But who am I to tell those seeking independence for emotional / identity reasons that the push factor isn’t big enough?
So how do you do it? If I were the PM of i-Scotland I would revise all contracts 1-1 into Scottish Pounds and let the currency float freely. Including Scotland’s share of sovereign debt liabilities.
No point trying to hold back the tide with a fixed exchange rate. And suck up any loss of purchasing power from the likely substantial devaluation as coming out in the wash, by boosting competitiveness in export industries.
With a sovereign central bank, until the economy stabilises Scotland would be free to monetise its deficit happily enough the same way as Westminster/Threadneedle. All talk of a gilt buyers strike becomes moot in the face of an unprecedented money printing spree (aka QE).
Knowing this, depositors (both corporate and retail) would move their deposits from RBS to Barclays ahead of time and certainly before the split is finalised. Even this gives the sting to the English, who would still be on the hook for the bail-out. Sure, Scotland might lose the jobs. But surely half the point of independence is a burst of creative economic destruction to re-set the clock and set the country on a different course to before?
I suspect all this will be little understood before a Yes vote and will fit into the “figure it out as we go” box for voters. Much the same as Brexit and Northern Ireland. And it will be.
Why move from RBS which is the English Natwest Bank , seems pointless. As all the banks are English nowadays you just move your money to GBP and then buy Scottish pounds with your supposedly great English pounds. As we start afresh with no debt I am sure many will be desperate to lend to us, and cannot be any worse than our current system.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
Yep. It suits the SNP to be ambiguous to maximise their coalition.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
First they insist they want to leave because they were taken out against their will.
But then they insist on being ambiguous. 🤦🏻♂️
If they want to join the EU then why be ambiguous about why do so. They should make the case for it - argue why they think its a good idea and seek to win the argument. If they do, then they have a path to go forwards and they have the answers to the questions.
If the SNP decide to adopt the Euro and say that independent Scotland would be like independent Ireland then the currency issue vanishes. That seems worth resolving ambiguity on something they're already claiming to be in favour of to me.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
RBS crashing in an independent Scotland is your hypothetical, yet from 2012-2020 the constant refrain was that RBS would leave an indy Scotland. I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
Ok, read what you wrote very slowly this time. RBS crashing in an independent Scotland, RBS leaving because Scotland becomes independent. It might just be that one is related to the other.
'If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it.'
Talk me through your Project Fear Greatest Hits scenario. Does RBS go bust in an indy Scotland then move to a grateful and welcoming England, willing to bail it out?
No, it just moves you completely cretin.
Bit early in the day to lose control over the English language, heavy night or are you 'completely cretin'?
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
The results are, speaking as a Scots lawyer, increasingly painful. All large corporate transactions are now run from London based law firms and accountants.
With what I've heard about London recently those corporate "London" lawyers may well be doing their job from country piles near Edinburgh :.
30 odd years ago, when I was starting out, the firm I did my traineeship with in Dundee acted for Wm Lows, Don Brothers, Watson and Philip and other stock market listed companies. They did a lot of work for the likes of DC Thomson and Alliance Trust. Very few Scots firms get a sniff at anything similar these days. Transactions involving larger firms are almost always dealt with under English law with someone checking the kilt aspects. There is not only the loss of income there is the loss of skills and experience. Its a serious problem.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Well, we've had plenty of shit cake in the six years since not voting for indy, so let's try the other thing.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
...
I think that is a fairly likely option, if independence is to happen. And the Eurozone would be quite pleased to acquire a major financial centre, so I think a deal might be done fairly rapidly.
Any initial Scottish deficit is an absolubte gnat's fart compared to the size of the Eurozone overall, of course they'll be told to sort it within 5 years or whatever. The one thing the Eurozone simply won't tolerate and will cause a Spanish veto is independence achieved without a legal referendum. That puts Johnson in quite a strong position if he wishes to truly hold out against an indy-ref post SNP Scottish parliament majority. The SNP does have the card of Scottish law to play (Via the Cherry? case) as it's still separate to English law, perhaps that could obviate the need for a section 30. I think if a referendum is obtained via that method Spain might not veto as there is no separate Catalan law equivalence in Spain I believe.
Of course Clegg didn't u-turn. The government has.
If the government hadn't u-turned then everyone screwed over would have remembered this for life. It could have clouded their voting for life. Now that its been reversed though, its today's chip paper.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Well, we've had plenty of shit cake in the six years since not voting for indy, so let's try the other thing.
So you're going to vote for Ruth Davidson's party as the other thing in Holyrood? 😜
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Well, we've had plenty of shit cake in the six years since not voting for indy, so let's try the other thing.
That's indeed the argument but the other thing on offer is a whole street party of shit cakes.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Well, we've had plenty of shit cake in the six years since not voting for indy, so let's try the other thing.
So you're going to vote for Ruth Davidson's party as the other thing in Holyrood? 😜
I'm used to being in the minority over lots of things, but I don't think I could cope with that level of irrelevance.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
It’s the only option. But the SNP don’t want to explain how much it will cost or the risks - for exporters to their largest market, or people with debts in GBP.
Plainly an independent Scottish currency is not the only option, and given the importance of cross-border trade (no snp fantasists wibbling about trade deals with Japan, Australia or other countries thousands of miles away!) it is most likely they will stick with the pound sterling at least in the short term pending possible reentry to the EU which would put the Euro back on the table.
They can’t join the Euro without their own currency and Central Bank. If they stick with the GBP they will lose their entire finance industry.
FFS the Oracle has spoken , Lady Haw Haw opines Yes we are so dumb we don't understand that clever stuff, we should just stick with it and let English think for us , we are too wee and too stupid to be a country.
No, you've just got to take what you want and pay for it.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
Yep. It suits the SNP to be ambiguous to maximise their coalition.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
First they insist they want to leave because they were taken out against their will.
But then they insist on being ambiguous. 🤦🏻♂️
If they want to join the EU then why be ambiguous about why do so. They should make the case for it - argue why they think its a good idea and seek to win the argument. If they do, then they have a path to go forwards and they have the answers to the questions.
If the SNP decide to adopt the Euro and say that independent Scotland would be like independent Ireland then the currency issue vanishes. That seems worth resolving ambiguity on something they're already claiming to be in favour of to me.
I would just make one point on the SNP and this independence issue
It is only using Brexit to add to their support.
They have been seeking Independence since I was a child nearly 70 years ago living in Berwick on Tweed and that was before we joined the EU
The clue is in the name they want independence, full stop.
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
Just like an independent Britain would be the EU's largest export market so we hold all the cards
Thankfully Scotland-England doesn't have bottleneck ferry ports for the likes of Grayling to fuck up. Dominic Raab may not be aware of this of course.
Serious question. What percentage of Eng/Scot exports go along a route other than the M6/A74 or the WCML?
I can't imagine it's a high one.
Indeed and if it became necessary then export checks on the WCML would face the same dilemma that export checks through the Chunnel faces.
But that's one reason why its smart for Sturgeon to delay calling the Referendum as the Tories may deal with this problem for her. If the Tories get a deal with the EU that solves the issues in the border at Kent it will also solve the issues with the border with Scotland.
The SNP can currently sit back and let the Tories fix this problem for them. Once its gone, they can say they'll join the EU and have an open border because the Tories will already be promoting their open border they've achieved.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
If the SNP were honest about their prospectus it means 4-8 years of economic disruption, including less money for public services, followed by EU membership, euro membership and free movement coupled with a hard-ish border (in the long-term) with England & Wales, plus becoming a republic a decade or so down the line.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
They could remain in the Commonwealth as an independent nation in the Commonwealth like Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Of course, although I expect some would take a different view on that too like Ireland did.
Of course.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
The principles are very similar. However, my identity is British and I supported British independence from the EU but not home-islands separation and independence on top too. It's all about identity and how you feel.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
Yes. We were on the same side of the Brexit debate because the principles were similar but nuanced different.
You are British and wanted British independence from the EU. I am English and wanted English independence from the EU.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
And I have a Scottish wife who is similarly ambivalent.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
Swinson was fiercely anti independence as indeed Ed Davey is.
The LDs are strongly anti hard Brexit and strongly anti Scottish independence and pro Union, indeed arguably the Liberal Democrats or even Starmer Labour are now more Unionist than the Tories, certainly beyond the Scottish Tories
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
A Scottish Pound is the sensible option. Simply continuing with the Pound is not. They need to create their own Central Bank and have their own Pound. The idea that already exists is nonsense, it doesn't they're using Pound Sterling - but the idea it can't be created is also a nonsense.
They should create plans on how they will set up their own Central Bank, how they will float the currency and get on with it. Its far from unprecedented through history.
I can see there are disadvantages in using another's currency you don't have control over, but isn't it an easy solution? The obvious ones are to use the £ or Euro. Admittedly those that have done so are usually doing so because they became basket cases with their own currency, but there are other decent economies who although using their own currency are linked to another, effectively making them the same (although admittedly easy to delink if they wish).
I don't know enough about this subject but isn't it a case of pros and cons for each situation.
You can't have a financial industry and not have your own currency. Which is fine for thevlikes of Cambodia (USD), North Macedonia (EUR) but not Scotland which has a huge Financial services industry that provides 7-8% of annual tax revenue.
Max, so this is where I am showing my ignorance on the subject. Why?
Who will lend the banks money if the economy goes kaput? At the moment the answer is the BoE. In the Euro area the ECB. If you're unilaterally using a currency without a monetary union then the answer is no one which means all banks will have to leave, they would have a duty to shareholders as it makes a material difference to their ability to survive a crash.
I think I need a scenario painted out for me. I appreciate you may not want give an Economics lesson here?
Just think RBS. If RBS had been operating in an independent Scotland it would have gone insolvent and brought the financial system down with it. It survived because it got bailed out by the UK who have almost infinite resources due to QE. No bank of any size could rely upon the central bank of a nation of 5.3m. They could only operate at a local level doing the most basic of functions. For many small countries that doesn't matter because they are not in that game. Scotland is.
You mean the RBS that would have definitely, definitely left an independent Scotland?
Yes and prior to 2008 it was the largest single tax payer in the whole of the UK. Or take Standard Life. It has huge Sterling assets and liabilities. Do you think it could operate in an independent Scotland with a separate currency?
I know you project fear lads wish it were so, but you can't have your cake made of shit and expect us to eat it.
No, you'll do that all yourselves when you vote for independence.
Well, we've had plenty of shit cake in the six years since not voting for indy, so let's try the other thing.
That's indeed the argument but the other thing on offer is a whole street party of shit cakes.
Consumed on a high wire, without a safety net.
Good luck to the Scots I say. The Union flag is a great emblem, but not enough of a reason to stay in a loveless marriage.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
And I have a Scottish wife who is similarly ambivalent.
I think a lot of the debate - like a lot of the Brexit debate - is much ado about nothing.
Once a decision is made the differences won't be anywhere near as big as its ardent supporters or opponents tend to claim.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
Just like an independent Britain would be the EU's largest export market so we hold all the cards
Thankfully Scotland-England doesn't have bottleneck ferry ports for the likes of Grayling to fuck up. Dominic Raab may not be aware of this of course.
Serious question. What percentage of Eng/Scot exports go along a route other than the M6/A74 or the WCML?
I can't imagine it's a high one.
A fair bit on the A1 I would have thought and also by air but the biggest source of import/export transfers may well be the internet in a services based economy.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
Yep. It suits the SNP to be ambiguous to maximise their coalition.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
First they insist they want to leave because they were taken out against their will.
But then they insist on being ambiguous. 🤦🏻♂️
If they want to join the EU then why be ambiguous about why do so. They should make the case for it - argue why they think its a good idea and seek to win the argument. If they do, then they have a path to go forwards and they have the answers to the questions.
If the SNP decide to adopt the Euro and say that independent Scotland would be like independent Ireland then the currency issue vanishes. That seems worth resolving ambiguity on something they're already claiming to be in favour of to me.
I would just make one point on the SNP and this independence issue
It is only using Brexit to add to their support.
They have been seeking Independence since I was a child nearly 70 years ago living in Berwick on Tweed and that was before we joined the EU
The clue is in the name they want independence, full stop.
Well, yes - of course.
They were the most eurosceptic part of the UK in 1975, and used entry into the common market to advance the independence argument then as well.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
Swinson was fiercely anti independence as indeed Ed Davey is.
The LDs are strongly anti hard Brexit and strongly anti Scottish independence and pro Union, indeed arguably the Liberal Democrats or even Starmer Labour are now more Unionist than the Tories, certainly beyond the Scottish Tories
Certainly LDs against hard Brexit, but I think you are wrong about Scottish Independence. You have to distinguish between policy and what people feel strongly about. You also have to distinguish between Scottish LDs and the rest of us. There seems to be a real hatred between Scottish LDs and the SNP, that does not exist south of the border.
I suspect if you got in a private conversation with Ed Davey about Brexit and about Scottish Independence the vigour of the conversations might be somewhat different.
As far as I am concerned it is up to the Scottish people. With the exception of one LD I know from Fife, I have never met a LD who feels strongly about it and obviously I know lots.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
One thing you can say about HYUFD is that they know which way the wind is blowing...
Given how Europhile Scotland has become I don't understand why the SNP don't just neuter the currency issue by saying they would join the Euro?
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
There are a lot of people who voted Yes/Leave. If the SNP put Scotland on the path to EU membership they lose those voters and with it the independence referendum.
Yep. It suits the SNP to be ambiguous to maximise their coalition.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
First they insist they want to leave because they were taken out against their will.
But then they insist on being ambiguous. 🤦🏻♂️
If they want to join the EU then why be ambiguous about why do so. They should make the case for it - argue why they think its a good idea and seek to win the argument. If they do, then they have a path to go forwards and they have the answers to the questions.
If the SNP decide to adopt the Euro and say that independent Scotland would be like independent Ireland then the currency issue vanishes. That seems worth resolving ambiguity on something they're already claiming to be in favour of to me.
I would just make one point on the SNP and this independence issue
It is only using Brexit to add to their support.
They have been seeking Independence since I was a child nearly 70 years ago living in Berwick on Tweed and that was before we joined the EU
The clue is in the name they want independence, full stop.
Well, yes - of course.
They were the most eurosceptic part of the UK in 1975, and used entry into the common market to advance the independence argument then as well.
News just in, people change, other people die and new people come along with different views.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites
I can't think of a LD I know in Surrey who has strong feelings over whether Scotland goes independent or not.
Swinson was fiercely anti independence as indeed Ed Davey is.
The LDs are strongly anti hard Brexit and strongly anti Scottish independence and pro Union, indeed arguably the Liberal Democrats or even Starmer Labour are now more Unionist than the Tories, certainly beyond the Scottish Tories
Certainly LDs against hard Brexit, but I think you are wrong about Scottish Independence. You have to distinguish between policy and what people feel strongly about. You also have to distinguish between Scottish LDs and the rest of us. There seems to be a real hatred between Scottish LDs and the SNP, that does not exist south of the border.
I suspect if you got in a private conversation with Ed Davey about Brexit and about Scottish Independence the vigour of the conversations might be somewhat different.
As far as I am concerned it is up to the Scottish people. With the exception of one LD I know from Fife, I have never met a LD who feels strongly about it and obviously I know lots.
Scottish LDs despise the SNP as much as Scottish Tories do.
English LDs may not be as bothered but in terms of the UK leadership while May was a staunch Unionist Boris is not, he may still block indyref2 while he is PM and give a bit more focus on UK money to Scotland but he will not focus Brexit policy for example in a way that applies to the whole UK and keeps the UK together in the way Ed Davey or Keir Starmer would by keeping the UK in the single market or agreeing regulatory alignment to appease the Scots and avoiding a border in the Irish Sea
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
Walked past an outdoor rave/party in a square in Palermo, we decided to join for a bit. Really hoping we can get the clubs open ASAP as there is definitely something lacking from life at the moment and I think dancing in bars and clubs is part of it. It was the first time either myself of my wife have really just cut loose and had a proper dance since probably Xmas last year, we'd normally go to bars at least once every couple of weeks with friends and go to a nostalgia 90s night every couple of months as well. I've just realised how much I miss it and meeting friends there.
Hmm, clubs look to be globally an absolute hotspot for transmission; definitely one to keep closed if you want the total risk budget low enough for schools. Enjoy the holiday !
There's only so long that we can reasonably expect people not to do things like going to clubs and bars. Humanity has got through much worse things than Covid-19 in the past without ruining everything worthwhile about life. What disturbs me is the number of otherwise reasonable people who seem to honestly expect people to live like hermits for 18 months or 2 years.
FPT: Vaccine is heading out in rapid time, "There's only so long" takes us past the point one is likely out in my opinion.
Indeed.
We need to get life pretty much back to normal until a vaccine is out, we're probably well past the halfway point of until then If we can get pretty much back to normal but without nightclubs, with quarantining of foreign travel and with face masks . . . then I can live with that until there's a vaccine.
Its better than another damn lockdown. That needs to be avoided.
To nightclubs, I would also add gigs and loud music in pubs. Vocalisation and people getting physically close so they can hear each other are a recipe for spread. Sadly football crowds too. Quiet crowds in theatres or lectures etc may well be safe. Unfortunate, and I am a fan of live music, but not safe at present.
I suppose one counterpoint to that is that people who frequent nightclubs and gigs are unlikely to be adversely affected by Covid, so as long as they are careful not to meet vulnerable groups it would improve immunity with very little if any detriment to health.
Still, I agree with Philip and Pulpstar that we are probably best to carry on as we are in lieu of a vaccine, at least for the next few months.
Of course Clegg didn't u-turn. The government has.
If the government hadn't u-turned then everyone screwed over would have remembered this for life. It could have clouded their voting for life. Now that its been reversed though, its today's chip paper.
Also, the government never had a manifesto promise to not screw up exam grading and its MPs certainly didn't sign pledge cards not to do the same.
The equivalent would be Johnson getting elected on 'Get Brexit Done' and then, finding that the realities of that are quite hard, remaining instead and then joining the Euro and Schengen. With similar electoral results.
I'd love this government to fall and Johnson to be out, but I don't think this fiasco will do that much long term harm to the Conservatives if everyone's kids get to more or less the university they wanted to get to.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
I am a Remain voting Tory
But aren't you a born-again Leaver?
I don't see Ken Clarke raising a people's militia to support the Union.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
I would be interested to see the underlying data behind that Business for Scotland chart. I suspect a lot has to do with the trade in financial services, especially for investment houses HQ'd in Edinburgh.
It's interesting that debate about Scottish independence has moved on from whether or not they should to how they could. It's starting to have a feeling of inevitability about it.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
Gammony English Tories are not much bothered either way about the Union as long as we cut all ties with Brussels, the most diehard Unionists now are One Nation Remain voting Tories and Liberal Democrats and Blairites and Brownites
Hold on a minute - you are the one itching to send the troops in!
I am a Remain voting Tory
But aren't you a born-again Leaver?
I don't see Ken Clarke raising a people's militia to support the Union.
I respected the Brexit vote but still would prefer a trade deal with the EU post Brexit.
The equivalent would be Johnson getting elected on 'Get Brexit Done' and then, finding that the realities of that are quite hard, remaining instead and then joining the Euro and Schengen. With similar electoral results.
If they want to use the currency of foreign countries the smart option is the Euro. It is designed as a currency union so has safeguards in it that simply don't exist within Sterling.
Rubbish. Simple optimal currency area theory is that if you can't have your own currency you want to join the currency with which your economy is most integrated, and your economic cycles are most synced. And for Scotland, that's undoubtedly England.
In addition, there are significant transactions costs to changing to the Euro, which there wouldn't be if they kept the pound.
And finally the euro is a currency rigged in favour of surplus countries in a number of ways, as Greece, Italy and others have found to their cost, and Scotland would be a deficit country, as the UK is.
So either they should have their own currency, with all the associated changeover costs, or they should keep sterling, no matter how much annoys nationalists.
What does the corresponding chart for Scotland look like ?
Scotland accounts for 7.5% of rUK's trade rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
Whenever I have someone Irish berate me for the UK leaving the EU on economic grounds, I always ask "so I guess you would have been against Irish independence in 1922?". Usually that shuts them up.
Comments
Corbyn/Johnson/Brexit helped push over the line what was already happening. There is no reason to assume it will automatically switch back.
But, back then, they were a small minority and it didn't look like there was anyone better to take on Blair.
The Euro is a currency union. If they join they'll get a seat on the ECB, they'll get a say in how its ran, the ECB will act as Lender of Last Resort. None of that applies to Sterling.
I'm not so sure about the Red Wall; I think it's a values shift rather than to Johnson personally. He was just best able to channel it. The key is determining if there are other Tories who reflect that and can resonate just as well, but also deliver.
That's not Hunt. It may be Sunak.
https://twitter.com/ByRobDavies/status/1295453097574244354?s=20
If the SNP said that an independent Scotland would join the Euro, or have its own Central Bank that would back Scottish banks then it would be.
Below average deaths for the 8th consecutive week
Just 152 deaths where Covid was mentioned on death certificate which equates to 1.7% of all deaths
If I print off five pound notes to look like five pound notes, on polymer materials, I agree the police might have Views on this.
If I print them off on newspaper, write '£5 sterling' in curly writing and sign it with a smiley face, then my problem will be nobody will think they are worth £5.
I am thinking option B is be the problem Scotland would have.
The results are, speaking as a Scots lawyer, increasingly painful. All large corporate transactions are now run from London based law firms and accountants. Scottish firms get some of the basic work like checking Scottish titles but the fees and the profits end up elsewhere. We end up with a Court that has increasingly little experience of modern commercial practice and which becomes a less and less attractive jurisdiction in which to resolve disputes. We see several well established Scottish law firms bought up and turned into branch offices. There is no question that this would get far, far worse in the case of independence.
If iScotland continues running a deficit whilst being de facto but not de jure backed up by the rUK's central bank it's an issue. Of course joining the Euro means no wildcat referendum as Madrid won't abide that - so they'll have to wait for Starmer to need them.
I understand the Euro became unpopular when Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain were really struggling with it but that's moved on now and Ireland isn't exactly looking back to the Irish Pound now is it?
Given the SNP are saying they want to be Europeans, why not just go the whole full throttled, full fat, full sugar EU approach and say we will join the Euro and use the Pound only until the Euro is adopted, with an aim to become EU members and Euro users on the day Scotland becomes independent.
Doing that would neutralise the currency issue. It answers the questions. "Who will be the lender of last resort" - answer: the ECB.
If you're Eurosceptic then the Euro is a bad idea, but then the SNP are looking to take Scotland back into the EU as full members. So why go in intending to be half-divorced members like the UK was pre-Brexit? Go in properly or don't bother.
"No. No. No." in a loud angry voice doesn't work when you need to actually agree something.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-80776468.html
These ONS stats will not be reported today.
If deaths had gone up the press would be all over it
Talk me through your Project Fear Greatest Hits scenario. Does RBS go bust in an indy Scotland then move to a grateful and welcoming England, willing to bail it out?
If we are going to break up the UK let's do it properly.
Saying we want to be EU members but can't consider having the EU's currency is like saying we want to be pregnant but can't consider becoming a parent.
And the Eurozone would be quite pleased to acquire a major financial centre, so I think a deal might be done fairly rapidly.
EU membership also means free movement, and less control over immigration, as well too.
May be in London or Brighton.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-general-election-and-indyref2/
There is a certain logic to that position - that leaving a union with Westminster and joining an even more remote one with Brussels rather defeats the object of the exercise.
So I'm not quite sure that joining the EU and Euro with a de facto commitment to federalism would be the solution.
The problem is that in Scotland's particular situation - unlike, say, Slovakia or the Ukraine - there isn't a resolution to the currency question that's not self-evidently painful or destructive, other than to stay in the UK and keep the pound. Which at the same time, is an option that at the very least a large minority of Scots see as unacceptable.
The bigger problem is nobody seems to want to have a grown-up conversation about it.
https://twitter.com/DavidJFHalliday/status/1288132576985714688?s=20
But then they insist on being ambiguous. 🤦🏻♂️
If they want to join the EU then why be ambiguous about why do so. They should make the case for it - argue why they think its a good idea and seek to win the argument. If they do, then they have a path to go forwards and they have the answers to the questions.
If the SNP decide to adopt the Euro and say that independent Scotland would be like independent Ireland then the currency issue vanishes. That seems worth resolving ambiguity on something they're already claiming to be in favour of to me.
The SNP does have the card of Scottish law to play (Via the Cherry? case) as it's still separate to English law, perhaps that could obviate the need for a section 30. I think if a referendum is obtained via that method Spain might not veto as there is no separate Catalan law equivalence in Spain I believe.
If the government hadn't u-turned then everyone screwed over would have remembered this for life. It could have clouded their voting for life. Now that its been reversed though, its today's chip paper.
If people want to vote for that - due to identity - then that's fair enough. Ireland did. But it takes quite a long time to get back up to par and, at the moment, they're not very clean about it.
Besides it's D.Ross's party now.
I'm not particularly vested in it but if it annoys gammony tories then it is axiomatically a worthy endeavour.
And regarding the economic disruption its not just what Ireland voted for - we did too. Its what we voted for with Brexit.
I see the principles in both the same, that's why I support both.
I can't imagine it's a high one.
It is only using Brexit to add to their support.
They have been seeking Independence since I was a child nearly 70 years ago living in Berwick on Tweed and that was before we joined the EU
The clue is in the name they want independence, full stop.
The venn diagram overlap which I'm in seems to be somewhat smaller than I'd hoped.
But that's one reason why its smart for Sturgeon to delay calling the Referendum as the Tories may deal with this problem for her. If the Tories get a deal with the EU that solves the issues in the border at Kent it will also solve the issues with the border with Scotland.
The SNP can currently sit back and let the Tories fix this problem for them. Once its gone, they can say they'll join the EU and have an open border because the Tories will already be promoting their open border they've achieved.
You are British and wanted British independence from the EU.
I am English and wanted English independence from the EU.
Same principles, slight difference.
The LDs are strongly anti hard Brexit and strongly anti Scottish independence and pro Union, indeed arguably the Liberal Democrats or even Starmer Labour are now more Unionist than the Tories, certainly beyond the Scottish Tories
Good luck to the Scots I say. The Union flag is a great emblem, but not enough of a reason to stay in a loveless marriage.
Once a decision is made the differences won't be anywhere near as big as its ardent supporters or opponents tend to claim.
https://tinyurl.com/y5r3z2l4
Scotland's exports to EU in 2019 have risen to £17b, ROW £17b, dunno what rUK figs are.
https://tinyurl.com/y6fv59jr
rUK accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade
So significantly more asymmetric than UK-EU
"Business (sic) for Scotland" makes WINGS look rational.
They were the most eurosceptic part of the UK in 1975, and used entry into the common market to advance the independence argument then as well.
I suspect if you got in a private conversation with Ed Davey about Brexit and about Scottish Independence the vigour of the conversations might be somewhat different.
As far as I am concerned it is up to the Scottish people. With the exception of one LD I know from Fife, I have never met a LD who feels strongly about it and obviously I know lots.
Indeed they do, but the claim is disingenuous.
The SNP look for dividing lines with England, and then align themselves accordingly. Not the other way round.
English LDs may not be as bothered but in terms of the UK leadership while May was a staunch Unionist Boris is not, he may still block indyref2 while he is PM and give a bit more focus on UK money to Scotland but he will not focus Brexit policy for example in a way that applies to the whole UK and keeps the UK together in the way Ed Davey or Keir Starmer would by keeping the UK in the single market or agreeing regulatory alignment to appease the Scots and avoiding a border in the Irish Sea
Still, I agree with Philip and Pulpstar that we are probably best to carry on as we are in lieu of a vaccine, at least for the next few months.
The equivalent would be Johnson getting elected on 'Get Brexit Done' and then, finding that the realities of that are quite hard, remaining instead and then joining the Euro and Schengen. With similar electoral results.
I'd love this government to fall and Johnson to be out, but I don't think this fiasco will do that much long term harm to the Conservatives if everyone's kids get to more or less the university they wanted to get to.
I don't see Ken Clarke raising a people's militia to support the Union.
Clarke is no longer even a Tory MP
That's next week's cock up.