If an independent country wants to use the currency of another state how does that impose any obligation on the "owner" of that currency?
It doesnt. The idea would be that both countries would agree to a currency union as it would be in both their interests. If either country thinks it wouldnt be in its interests it wont happen (and a scenario like the one you describe would be one of the alternatives open to an independent Scotland).
The rest of the UK would have a right to a say in this. The fact you seem unable to see this speaks volumes.
I think the fact that you dont seem to realise that everyone acknowledges that the rUK would get a say on a currency union is what really speaks volumes.
Actually there was no indication in the independence White Paper that the SNP think the rest of the UK would have a say:
Ah yes as the arguments for and against have been discussed at large amongst the good people of the rUk ...
Naive to think that the press would not pick up on these potential downside risks for the rUK.
Inhich is not what the Scottish Gmt are offering, which is the fair shares option.
Bizarre. If Scotland chooses to leave the UK it needs to sort out its own currency arrangements. End of.
Golly, you're usual Scottish pronouncements are repeatedly stating your total indifference to the matter. Now your making peremptory statements about what Scotland 'needs' to do, and you don't even have a vote. Bizarre.
As we all know by now nobody is more certain of persuading scottish public opinion or indeed scottish labour voters than the PB tories. They're famous for their 'unique' insight. Hence the sheer deluge of scottish labour voters to be found on PB clearly desperate and eager to hear so many obsequious Cameroons gushing praise onto Cammie and foaming at the mouth about whatever CCHQ has told them to get upset about.
At least Carynx tried to play the ballbile.
Did he rule out a currency union? Yes or No.
Why would he? He made clear the BoE's job was to implement what ever the Westminster and Holyrood governments agreed. Then set out in detail the challenges they would face doing so.....
Has Cameron ruled out a currency union? Yes or No.
Only a fool sets out his negotiating position before a negotiation.
The rest of the UK would have a right to a say in this. The fact you seem unable to see this speaks volumes.
I think the fact that you dont seem to realise that everyone acknowledges that the rUK would get a say on a currency union is what really speaks volumes.
Actually there was no indication in the independence White Paper that the SNP think the rest of the UK would have a say:
I have obviously missed something with the independent Scotland using Sterling discussion, perhaps someone can help me out.
If an independent Scotland chooses to use Sterling as its currency then surely they are quite entitled to do so. The Turks and Caisos Islands, amongst others, use the US dollar, no problem. Where does this business of a currency union come from? If an independent country wants to use the currency of another state how does that impose any obligation on the "owner" of that currency?
There is nothing to stop a country using another country's currency, history is littered with examples. The question is really what do you want a currency for ? If it is a means to exchange value Scotland can use the pound, the dollar or anything else it fancies. If a currency is to be used in its wider sense to influence the economy through setting interest rates for example then having no say in the currency isn't that clever. Scotland would be better having its own currency to adapt to a changing world. Medland has already shown up the weakness of a poorly constructed currency in the Euro. A Scotland wedded to house prices in London would be a similar problem waiting to happen.
Seems to me that Carney is saying that the best way for the currency union to work would be for the UK to remain a United Kingdom.
He said: ""The euro area is now beginning to rectify its institutional shortcomings, but further, very significant steps must be taken to expand the sharing of risks and pooling of fiscal resources.
"In short, a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty."
On balance the present arrangements work pretty well. I do not think we should change it myself.
The idea of a referendum in rUK on this point seems to me to be a torpedo. Salmond will not be able to predict the outcome of such a referendum after Scotland has voted to leave. It would be silly to pretend that there might not be a reaction to that. So Scots can take a chance on their currency or they can play safe. Like so many assertions in the White Paper it really depends on how lucky you feel.
Just because it isnt spelt out in black and white doesnt mean it isnt obvious!
"Colin McKay, head of the Scottish Government’s strategy unit, confirmed that it is not within the SNP’s gift to promise that the remainder of the UK would agree to a eurozone-style currency union."
If it were the truth game, then the answer should be; "the top rate will be set at a level which yields the highest amount of tax paid by this income group".
Where does the concept of fairness fit in with that statement? The government should not be maximising tax from any group - in my opinion. I'm fully on-board with a progressive taxation regime, but that should include consideration of what is, and what is not, fair.
Anorak
1. In so far as the payment of tax for this income group is 'discretionary', the amount of tax paid will correlate with implied consent.
2. An optimal tax yield is the fairest outcome for those not in the top 1%.
3. The yield is only optimal because it is perceived to be at its fairest level by the top earners.
4. Have I missed something?
Hmm. I've numbered your comments.
1. For some in this category, it will be discretionary. For many, many others it will not be (the manager of a large supermarket would be an additional-rate payer in a good year). Furthermore, discretionary payment will be time-limited, by pushing income from one year to another, temporarily boosting pension payments (now restricted!), etc. I'd say that was a thin argument.
2. Simply untrue, or a perverse definition of 'fair'. One could assert that the confiscation of all assets belonging to the top 10% would be the fairest outcome for the remaining 90%. Again, it holds as much water as a rusty sieve.
3. Not buying that either. Its perceived to be the "least intolerable", or the "best expected", or perhaps, "reasonable". It may even be perceived as fair, but "fairest level"? I'm starting to assume you're teasing me, Mr Pole.
4. It would appear so.
Anorak
Should not anyone who admits to pursuing a "fairness" agenda be teased?
But I concede that tax yield optimisation is a tactic rather than a strategy.
And a strategic decision to pursue a fair tax policy needs agreeing first.
But then we hit the old problem of how to define "fair". Not easy.
Indeed. My definition will differ from yours, or Owen Jones', or Nigel Farage's.
BTW, I don't see myself as pursuing a "fairness agenda" as you so provocatively put it, but I do think that consideration of fairness to *all* should be an element of all policy making (rich and poor alike). We clearly need to define "agenda" as well...
Of course there will be a currency union. It's just that the terms under which it operates will have to be agreed. That's where it will become tricky. But I suspect that once independent the Scottish line will be pretty pragmatic.
Well, naturally I had those words burning at the forefront of my mind as I wrote. But - and I'm clearly missing something here - how does the fabled yellow box interact with my suggestion that "plenty" of people will travel between the two countries daily?
If my arithmetic and understanding of the table is right, Carney is claiming some 379,000 migrate across the border annually, so a rate of just over a 1,000 a day.
A Cornishman measuring crossings of the Tamar would undoubtedly consider that to be "plenty".
But what of a Daily Mail reporter in Bucharest calculating Romanian emigration to the UK?
Of course there will be a currency union. It's just that the terms under which it operates will have to be agreed. That's where it will become tricky. But I suspect that once independent the Scottish line will be pretty pragmatic.
Telegraph
14.00 Following Mark Carney's speech, a Treasury spokesman has said currency union is unlikely and Scotland needs a "Plan B".
" As the Chancellor has previously said, the current arrangements of a full, monetary, fiscal and political union bring economic benefits to all parts of the UK. Governor Carney today highlights the principled difficulties of entering a currency union: losing national sovereignty, practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out another country.
This is why the UK Government have consistently said that in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed. The Scottish Government needs a Plan B."
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
I would say that's far from obvious. An independent Scotland would want one and it would make the process easier but there are arguments against it (as well as for) from the rUK point of view so it's difficult to say either way with total certainty. I would have thought it's more likely than not but not inevitable.
Anybody put their money where their mouth was and take you up on your bet then TUD?
I would guess not.
Alex's assertions that they could stay with the pound and have a say on policy does, however, play into the hands of those accusing the SNP of being unprepared for independence.
So you assert yet somehow don't appear to have noticed.
If Scotland does become independent, I doubt Cameron (if he was PM) would set out a particularly tough negotiating stall. It doesn't seem to be his forte or his style. He was very generous to the Lib Dems in 2010. He'd want to get rid of the problem asap with the minimum of fuss without p*ssing off his own side. I expect he'd let them use sterling with a few conditions and Salmond would come out slightly better off, but nowhere near as well-off as Salmond is currently making out.
I don't think there's much more support for the euro in Scotland over England - another area where the differences between the two home nations are exaggerated - and Salmond wouldn't want to launch a campaign for anything so divisive, for now, anyway.
I don't think an independent Scotland would talk about joining the euro for at least 5 years and the EU wouldn't throw them out for not immediately joining it either. I expect it'd be independence within the EU.
I grant that it suits the unionist case well to underline the uncertainty on this - and there is much uncertainty with no guarantees - and, in reality, if there was independence (which I do think would be a bad move for Scotland) all parties (EU/UK etc) would sit down and negotiate from the basis of real-politik. It would not be based on archane arguments from old treaties and precedents would be put aside, if needed, to facilitate this.
Just because it isnt spelt out in black and white doesnt mean it isnt obvious!
"Colin McKay, head of the Scottish Government’s strategy unit, confirmed that it is not within the SNP’s gift to promise that the remainder of the UK would agree to a eurozone-style currency union."
But that is absolutely the pattern. Again and again the SNP make some ridiculous claim that Scotland and Scotland alone can decide something, be it creating a currency union or joining the EU, and then they have to back track when people point out that it takes two to tango.
I completely fail to understand why the SNP keep doing this. They have some perfectly reasonable options, but inasmuch as those options depend on cooperation with others, they'll be subject to negotiation. They'd be far better advised to accept this from the start, rather than blustering as they always seem to do.
On the particular point of currency union, I can't see them getting anything other than a vague assurance that the position of Scotland will be taken into account when the UK decides policy. No responsible UK government is going to commit to anything more than that.
I have obviously missed something with the independent Scotland using Sterling discussion, perhaps someone can help me out.
If an independent Scotland chooses to use Sterling as its currency then surely they are quite entitled to do so. The Turks and Caisos Islands, amongst others, use the US dollar, no problem. Where does this business of a currency union come from? If an independent country wants to use the currency of another state how does that impose any obligation on the "owner" of that currency?
The SNP are not talking about "dollarization" as you describe it - they are talking about a full Euro-style currency union between Indy Scotland and rUk.
But using the term "Euro-style" as a stigmatising adjective at every turn doesn't really say anything. If you're talking about giving up "power" (a difficult concept at the best of times) you probably would have to agree with the idea of power being a zero-sum game. So in principle, by entering into a currency union, you accept that you lose some power over currency policy as it affects your own country. But you also gain some power over currency policy as it affects all the other currencies in the union. It doesn't just float off into the ether, giving unwarranted power to some third party with no benefit to you.
Surely where it went wrong for the Euro (as you seem very confident it did) was that the management of the currency was optimised for a minority of the participants in the currency - basically the Germans - thus screwing everyone else. Personally, I think that if rUK and Scotland entered into a currency union, it's more likely that the Scots would be the screwees than the screwers whereas you seem to think the opposite is more likely. Any particular reason why?
14.00 Following Mark Carney's speech, a Treasury spokesman has said currency union is unlikely and Scotland needs a "Plan B".
I read today that one of HMT's Permanent Secretary's targets for the year is to support the 'no' case in the referendum. I found that quite shocking really, isnt our civil service meant to be politically neutral? Isnt this the kind of thing you'd expect them to be neutral about? It also means that you got to take what they say on this with a pinch of salt, they are not neutral on this, they have skin in the game.
Well, naturally I had those words burning at the forefront of my mind as I wrote. But - and I'm clearly missing something here - how does the fabled yellow box interact with my suggestion that "plenty" of people will travel between the two countries daily?
If my arithmetic and understanding of the table is right, Carney is claiming some 379,000 migrate across the border annually, so a rate of just over a 1,000 a day.
A Cornishman measuring crossings of the Tamar would undoubtedly consider that to be "plenty".
But what of a Daily Mail reporter in Bucharest calculating Romanian emigration to the UK?
I think the DM reporter would consider anything >=0 as "plenty".
The rest of the UK would have a right to a say in this. The fact you seem unable to see this speaks volumes.
I think the fact that you dont seem to realise that everyone acknowledges that the rUK would get a say on a currency union is what really speaks volumes.
Actually there was no indication in the independence White Paper that the SNP think the rest of the UK would have a say:
Not so, please. I checked too. P. 111. "we believe that this proposal is the right etc etc reflects the modern partnership that we seek between the nations of those isles ..." In any case the omission of any more explicit mention of negotiation is simply because this is the bit about sterling - not the bit about negotiation which covers the whole content of the book so to speak (so no point in saying it all over again every time). This negotiation bit can be found on e.g. pp. 51-53 (chapter 1 - the titles Becoming independent - the transition and Agreement with the rest of the UK are pretty obvious).
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
Why would it de-facto 'split'? Why not become just a rUK bank, with a Scottish subsidiary?
I have obviously missed something with the independent Scotland using Sterling discussion, perhaps someone can help me out.
If an independent Scotland chooses to use Sterling as its currency then surely they are quite entitled to do so. The Turks and Caisos Islands, amongst others, use the US dollar, no problem. Where does this business of a currency union come from? If an independent country wants to use the currency of another state how does that impose any obligation on the "owner" of that currency?
The SNP are not talking about "dollarization" as you describe it - they are talking about a full Euro-style currency union between Indy Scotland and rUk.
But using the term "Euro-style" as a stigmatising adjective at every turn doesn't really say anything. If you're talking about giving up "power" (a difficult concept at the best of times) you probably would have to agree with the idea of power being a zero-sum game. So in principle, by entering into a currency union, you accept that you lose some power over currency policy as it affects your own country. But you also gain some power over currency policy as it affects all the other currencies in the union. It doesn't just float off into the ether, giving unwarranted power to some third party with no benefit to you.
Surely where it went wrong for the Euro (as you seem very confident it did) was that the management of the currency was optimised for a minority of the participants in the currency - basically the Germans - thus screwing everyone else. Personally, I think that if rUK and Scotland entered into a currency union, it's more likely that the Scots would be the screwees than the screwers whereas you seem to think the opposite is more likely. Any particular reason why?
You think there has been no costs to the Germans over the PIIGS bailouts ?
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
Sorry, I meant split in terms of regulation and compensation arrangements (just as US operations of UK banks were covered by US federal guarantees).
I have obviously missed something with the independent Scotland using Sterling discussion, perhaps someone can help me out.
If an independent Scotland chooses to use Sterling as its currency then surely they are quite entitled to do so. The Turks and Caisos Islands, amongst others, use the US dollar, no problem. Where does this business of a currency union come from? If an independent country wants to use the currency of another state how does that impose any obligation on the "owner" of that currency?
The SNP are not talking about "dollarization" as you describe it - they are talking about a full Euro-style currency union between Indy Scotland and rUk.
But using the term "Euro-style" as a stigmatising adjective at every turn doesn't really say anything. If you're talking about giving up "power" (a difficult concept at the best of times) you probably would have to agree with the idea of power being a zero-sum game. So in principle, by entering into a currency union, you accept that you lose some power over currency policy as it affects your own country. But you also gain some power over currency policy as it affects all the other currencies in the union. It doesn't just float off into the ether, giving unwarranted power to some third party with no benefit to you.
Surely where it went wrong for the Euro (as you seem very confident it did) was that the management of the currency was optimised for a minority of the participants in the currency - basically the Germans - thus screwing everyone else. Personally, I think that if rUK and Scotland entered into a currency union, it's more likely that the Scots would be the screwees than the screwers whereas you seem to think the opposite is more likely. Any particular reason why?
You think there has been no costs to the Germans over the PIIGS bailouts ?
No. But who do you think's up on the deal overall?
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
On PB it depends on the phase of the moon; sometimes they suggest Scotland's finance sector will be gutted by a headlong rush down south, other times RBS & BOS are giant, lead weights of liability that'll drag an indy Scotland into the abyss. Either way, it's always really, really bad for the EssEnPee.
My grateful thanks to Mr. Flashman (deceased) , Neil, and Mr. Brooke for trying to answer my questions. Gents, despite your best endeavours, I am still benighted.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
Why should the Scots achieve independence only to leave control of their currency, along with interest rates etc., with the nation from which they wanted to break free?
The independence debate seems to be getting more bizarre by the week. Go for it, guys, become an independent country or just stop dripping.
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
On PB it depends on the phase of the moon; sometimes they suggest Scotland's finance sector will be gutted by a headlong rush down south, other times RBS & BOS are giant, lead weights of liability that'll drag an indy Scotland into the abyss. Either way, it's always really, really bad for the EssEnPee.
But either way arent they right that it presents a challenge to an independent Scotland? Either the industry in Scotland has to shrink to fit the scale of the country or the regulatory regime has to recognise the size of the risk in relation to Scotland's fiscal capacity? Either approach (or a combination) presents difficulties. The ability of Scotland to maintain a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens is surely an example of a benefit of the union (just as there are benefits to independence).
I really don't see much upside for rUK in a long term currency union after independence. The responsibility for for RBS and Lloyds as a lender of last resort is far from trivial as we found out in 2008. As part of the UK this made sense but why would rUK want to take on such a burden after independence?
Of course it is possible that these banks might be broken up with the larger parts registering south of the Border. This should have been done by now in my opinion for a whole heap of reasons and it is very likely that independence would trigger it.
As someone writing in Edinburgh I don't think there is nearly a wide enough appreciation of the implications of such a move for Scotland. Not only would what historically has been a very significant part of the tax base disappear but so would thousands of well paid jobs in the Banks' HQs in the Gyle.
I think there would be knock on implications for the likes of Standard Life and Scottish Widows as well as well as groups like Alliance Trust in Dundee and Aberdeen Asset Management.
The Scottish economy is reasonably diverse and would eventually recover from such departures but boy it would hurt. During the hurting period the Scottish economy would need lower interest rates but it would have no control of that and probably little say.
A Scottish economy bereft of its financial services would be even more dependent on declining oil revenue, something that ought to make its currency volatile as the oil price goes up and down. Why would the rUK want to accept that?
A transitional arrangement seems to me the most likely outcome with Scotland either adopting the Euro (most likely given their position with the EU) or a new currency of their own. I personally think that the SNP made a mistake in not having a worked out solution for this before the referendum was fixed.
14.00 Following Mark Carney's speech, a Treasury spokesman has said currency union is unlikely and Scotland needs a "Plan B".
I read today that one of HMT's Permanent Secretary's targets for the year is to support the 'no' case in the referendum. I found that quite shocking really, isnt our civil service meant to be politically neutral? Isnt this the kind of thing you'd expect them to be neutral about? It also means that you got to take what they say on this with a pinch of salt, they are not neutral on this, they have skin in the game.
Not a surprise I'm afraid.
However, wait till Eurosceptic tories find out the extent Cammie's been ordering the precise same thing to find spin to stay IN the EU. Then you'll hear all but the most ardent Cameroons get very upset indeed.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
Of course there will be a currency union. It's just that the terms under which it operates will have to be agreed. That's where it will become tricky. But I suspect that once independent the Scottish line will be pretty pragmatic.
Telegraph
14.00 Following Mark Carney's speech, a Treasury spokesman has said currency union is unlikely and Scotland needs a "Plan B".
" As the Chancellor has previously said, the current arrangements of a full, monetary, fiscal and political union bring economic benefits to all parts of the UK. Governor Carney today highlights the principled difficulties of entering a currency union: losing national sovereignty, practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out another country.
This is why the UK Government have consistently said that in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed. The Scottish Government needs a Plan B."
I understand all that. My point is that once they have independence the Scots will essentially agree to the terms the rUK lays out, as they'll not really have a serious choice - being in a sterling zone is by far their best option. I don't think we should confuse pre-referendum posturing designed to maximise a Yes vote, with post-independence reality. Salmond knows exactly what he is doing. Once independence is achieved it really does not matter what happens - there is no going back.
Hmm. Looks like the Mercedes engine is as reliable as a man from Yorkshire called Bob, whereas the Renault is as prone to collapse and failure as a Frenchman in a war.
If the Mercedes has a 100bhp advantage *and* is far more reliable that would suit me. Backed Rosberg at 17 for the title.
My grateful thanks to Mr. Flashman (deceased) , Neil, and Mr. Brooke for trying to answer my questions. Gents, despite your best endeavours, I am still benighted.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
Why should the Scots achieve independence only to leave control of their currency, along with interest rates etc., with the nation from which they wanted to break free?
The independence debate seems to be getting more bizarre by the week. Go for it, guys, become an independent country or just stop dripping.
It's a fair point. I suppose there are two obvious possibilities: that it would make life much, much easier for a transitional period for both parties to maintain a temporary currency union, probably while Scotland gets organised to join the Euro. Alternatively, one follows the logic of your post and concludes that Scotland would be best off creating a new currency and immediately opting to peg it to the Euro, running on that currency until they formally join.
My grateful thanks to Mr. Flashman (deceased) , Neil, and Mr. Brooke for trying to answer my questions. Gents, despite your best endeavours, I am still benighted.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
Why should the Scots achieve independence only to leave control of their currency, along with interest rates etc., with the nation from which they wanted to break free?
The independence debate seems to be getting more bizarre by the week. Go for it, guys, become an independent country or just stop dripping.
I think that question is one for the Nats on the board. Personally I think if Scots go they should set up their own currency. A currency union is only a cause for endless moaning and ill will since at some point Scotland's needs will diverge from the rest of the UK and there will be no social transfer mechanism to soften the blow.
But either way arent they right that it presents a challenge to an independent Scotland? Either the industry in Scotland has to shrink to fit the scale of the country or the regulatory regime has to recognise the size of the risk in relation to Scotland's fiscal capacity? Either approach (or a combination) presents difficulties. The ability of Scotland to maintain a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens is surely an example of a benefit of the union (just as there are benefits to independence).
Perhaps encouraging 'a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens' isn't exactly an example of an unalloyed long term benefit? I'm all for gradual rebalancing/shrinkage in that area, perhaps the main area I'd depart from the SNP 'vision'.
Just because it isnt spelt out in black and white doesnt mean it isnt obvious!
"Colin McKay, head of the Scottish Government’s strategy unit, confirmed that it is not within the SNP’s gift to promise that the remainder of the UK would agree to a eurozone-style currency union."
But that is absolutely the pattern. Again and again the SNP make some ridiculous claim that Scotland and Scotland alone can decide something, be it creating a currency union or joining the EU, and then they have to back track when people point out that it takes two to tango.
I completely fail to understand why the SNP keep doing this. They have some perfectly reasonable options, but inasmuch as those options depend on cooperation with others, they'll be subject to negotiation. They'd be far better advised to accept this from the start, rather than blustering as they always seem to do.
On the particular point of currency union, I can't see them getting anything other than a vague assurance that the position of Scotland will be taken into account when the UK decides policy. No responsible UK government is going to commit to anything more than that.
On your last paragraph, I don't think that a responsible UK government should commit even to that, let alone anything more than that.
The UK government might reasonably agree to an arrangement whereby a Scottish pound could be treated as legal tender in the remaining UK and convertible with our £, much as was the case with the Irish currency for many decades. That agreement would require the Scottish government to hold reserves of Sterling. But the idea that Scottish interests should in any way be taken into account when the Bank of England sets monetary policy should be a non starter. The Bank of England should continue to act in the interests of the UK alone, as now.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
I'd happily take on all current outstanding debt obligations if it meant avoiding a currency union with Scotland. The last thing we want is overseas investors thinking that the gilts they own are 10% Scottish gilts and they might not be redeemed.
Let Scotland start again with whatever currency they choose and no debt, and make it clear we are not lender of last resort to their banks, and will make no fiscal transfers to them.
In a “technocratic assessment” to Scottish business leaders Mark Carney was careful to be diplomatic, making no judgement on whether Scotland would be better or worse off if independent. But the speech pointedly contained a table comparing the size of Scotland’s banking sector unfavourably with Ireland, Iceland, Cyprus, and Spain.
In all these places, a bankrupt banking system too big for the host country led to the need for a national bailout. These countries had a banking system of between three and seven times the size of their GDP. Scotland’s banking system is 12 times the size of its GDP.
Can someone authoritatively say if Mr Islam is right? As I understand it, about 80-90% of RBS and BOS (Halifax and all that) is south of the border anyway and would de facto split on independence - as Mr Avery pointed out to me some weeks back.
On PB it depends on the phase of the moon; sometimes they suggest Scotland's finance sector will be gutted by a headlong rush down south, other times RBS & BOS are giant, lead weights of liability that'll drag an indy Scotland into the abyss. Either way, it's always really, really bad for the EssEnPee.
But either way arent they right that it presents a challenge to an independent Scotland? Either the industry in Scotland has to shrink to fit the scale of the country or the regulatory regime has to recognise the size of the risk in relation to Scotland's fiscal capacity? Either approach (or a combination) presents difficulties. The ability of Scotland to maintain a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens is surely an example of a benefit of the union (just as there are benefits to independence).
This also depends if that 12 x GDP is correct - if most of the activity is in EWNI (and most of the shareholders) then most of that 12x is to do with London as the regulatory centre (as all of it now is), and a more accurate figure for Scotland mght be 2-3X. What RBS do after indy is a matter for their commercial decision but either way I cannot see that an independent Scotland would have to regulate banks of 12 x GDP. Anyone care to resolve this please?
The idea of a referendum in rUK on this point seems to me to be a torpedo.
Has any serious politician floated such an idea?
Osborne (assuming you count him).
Has he?
I do consider him serious. A serious nuisance (I loved the Daily Mash - "People prefer recession to a smug Osborne".)
From the Herald in April:
"He (Osborne) added: "The fundamental political question this analysis provokes is this – why would 58 million citizens give away some of their sovereignty over monetary and potentially other economic policy to five million people in another state?"
Mr Osborne refused to rule out the need for a referendum south of the Border to answer that question."
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane. What is the problem in having a common sterling zone on the terms set out by the rUK? It would certainly benefit many people in the rUK. If Scotland didn't agree, then it could make its own arrangements. Either way the rUK doesn't really lose.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Just because it isnt spelt out in black and white doesnt mean it isnt obvious!
"Colin McKay, head of the Scottish Government’s strategy unit, confirmed that it is not within the SNP’s gift to promise that the remainder of the UK would agree to a eurozone-style currency union."
But that is absolutely the pattern. Again and again the SNP make some ridiculous claim that Scotland and Scotland alone can decide something, be it creating a currency union or joining the EU, and then they have to back track when people point out that it takes two to tango.
I completely fail to understand why the SNP keep doing this. They have some perfectly reasonable options, but inasmuch as those options depend on cooperation with others, they'll be subject to negotiation. They'd be far better advised to accept this from the start, rather than blustering as they always seem to do.
On the particular point of currency union, I can't see them getting anything other than a vague assurance that the position of Scotland will be taken into account when the UK decides policy. No responsible UK government is going to commit to anything more than that.
On your last paragraph, I don't think that a responsible UK government should commit even to that, let alone anything more than that.
The UK government might reasonably agree to an arrangement whereby a Scottish pound could be treated as legal tender in the remaining UK and convertible with our £, much as was the case with the Irish currency for many decades. That agreement would require the Scottish government to hold reserves of Sterling. But the idea that Scottish interests should in any way be taken into account when the Bank of England sets monetary policy should be a non starter. The Bank of England should continue to act in the interests of the UK alone, as now.
To be more precise, that would be an unilateral withdrawal of assets from Scotland - there being no UK (1707) after independence, whatever EWNI calls itself. So the Bank of England acting in the interests of EWNI alone would not be the same as happens now. So that argument doesn't work.
Oh, I agree, it's down to negotiation and realpolitik - but grabbing sterling alone will have a cost.
A currency union would of course give the massive benefit to the SNP in that they could continue to blame London for all their ills even after "independence".
But either way arent they right that it presents a challenge to an independent Scotland? Either the industry in Scotland has to shrink to fit the scale of the country or the regulatory regime has to recognise the size of the risk in relation to Scotland's fiscal capacity? Either approach (or a combination) presents difficulties. The ability of Scotland to maintain a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens is surely an example of a benefit of the union (just as there are benefits to independence).
Perhaps encouraging 'a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens' isn't exactly an example of an unalloyed long term benefit? I'm all for gradual rebalancing/shrinkage in that area, perhaps the main area I'd depart from the SNP 'vision'.
A perfectly sensible position - but perhaps not one the 'yes' campaign would want to endorse.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
I'd happily take on all current outstanding debt obligations if it meant avoiding a currency union with Scotland. The last thing we want is overseas investors thinking that the gilts they own are 10% Scottish gilts and they might not be redeemed.
Let Scotland start again with whatever currency they choose and no debt, and make it clear we are not lender of last resort to their banks, and will make no fiscal transfers to them.
I thought indeed the EWNI plan was to assume 100% of the UK's debt but to charge Scotland for their share (precisely to avoid gilt prices collapsing upon a Yes vote). London will become Edinburgh's largest creditor overnight - and therefore pretty much control its credit risk/rating.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
No. Why on earth would the Conservatives do that? It could play havoc with the market value of sterling only 6 months out from a GE and create all sorts of economic uncertainty for businesses spanning the border. Besides which, Sterling isn't exclusively for the UK as it is. It's used in the channel islands, crown dependencies, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, St. Helena.
The Conservatives would do everything to reassure business and the markets it'd be 'business-as-usual' say that Scotland had decided, and they'd manage a smooth transition. However, now that Scotland had left, a fair arrangement on currency would need to be agreed that was acceptable to both parties.
UKIP are the withdrawing from the EU and the anti-establishment party. They are not the English or the piss-off-Scotland party.
Anybody put their money where their mouth was and take you up on your bet then TUD?
I would guess not.
Alex's assertions that they could stay with the pound and have a say on policy does, however, play into the hands of those accusing the SNP of being unprepared for independence.
So you assert yet somehow don't appear to have noticed.
I'm clearly thick. To me, you comment makes no sense whatsoever.
What haven't I noticed? Or is that the point? I don't know what I haven't noticed, thus proving your enigmatic point. All a bit zen.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
Well they did make Osbrowne Chancellor and some are still wailing about detail on the Independence referendum despite their own party leader not even being able to say whether he supports staying IN or OUT for his own Cast Iron EU Referendum.
As big a joke as Clegg is can you imagine how long he would have lasted as leader if he had demanded and called for an AV referendum then told the whole world he didn't know if he was in favour of it or against it?? Yet we're somehow supposed to take Cameron and his spinners seriously? If only because tories are always so well respected in scotland we must presume.
But either way arent they right that it presents a challenge to an independent Scotland? Either the industry in Scotland has to shrink to fit the scale of the country or the regulatory regime has to recognise the size of the risk in relation to Scotland's fiscal capacity? Either approach (or a combination) presents difficulties. The ability of Scotland to maintain a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens is surely an example of a benefit of the union (just as there are benefits to independence).
Perhaps encouraging 'a very large banking sector without disproportionate burdens' isn't exactly an example of an unalloyed long term benefit? I'm all for gradual rebalancing/shrinkage in that area, perhaps the main area I'd depart from the SNP 'vision'.
A perfectly sensible position - but perhaps not one the 'yes' campaign would want to endorse.
I agree. An independent Scotland simply could not sustain a banking system like it has at present as Carney was pointing out today by comparing Scotland with countries like Cyprus. But breaking up 2 of the largest private sector employers in the country is not cost free.
Hmm. Looks like the Mercedes engine is as reliable as a man from Yorkshire called Bob, whereas the Renault is as prone to collapse and failure as a Frenchman in a war.
If the Mercedes has a 100bhp advantage *and* is far more reliable that would suit me. Backed Rosberg at 17 for the title.
If it's reliable, is it worth backing Mercedes for Constructors title?
It seems to me quite likely that if Scotland votes for independence, you could thereafter have a rUK Govt. with the Tories having a majority or close to it, and a Scottish Govt. with Labour having the most seats. What if the rUK wanted to continue with the successful policies that the markets like, but that Scottish Govt. decided it wanted to follow Brownomics and borrow like buggery. If so, why should rUK have their currency dragged down by a currency union?
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
I'd happily take on all current outstanding debt obligations if it meant avoiding a currency union with Scotland. The last thing we want is overseas investors thinking that the gilts they own are 10% Scottish gilts and they might not be redeemed.
Let Scotland start again with whatever currency they choose and no debt, and make it clear we are not lender of last resort to their banks, and will make no fiscal transfers to them.
I thought indeed the EWNI plan was to assume 100% of the UK's debt but to charge Scotland for their share (precisely to avoid gilt prices collapsing upon a Yes vote). London will become Edinburgh's largest creditor overnight - and therefore pretty much control its credit risk/rating.
The current UK plan does however keep their options open also for a no assets, no debts, Scotland as new country option, of the kind Mr Taffys mentions. And if there is much more talk of refusing the sterling zone, etc., then we need to start wondering if that is what Mr Cameron al have in mind. (But he has not ruled out the sharing of the sterling zone - just sent Mr Carney to suck his teeth and say the Canadian equivalent of 'Ooh, squire, the shock's gone, going to be tricky to replace it ...'.)
Bearing in mind that the SNP are emphatically offering the fair split, how do you think that an EWNI PM/Chancellor who refused repayment of ca. 8% (or whatever) of the National Debt would be regarded by their electorates (Tory MPs, City, money markets, voters ...?) I'd be interested to know what you think, always bearing in mind that Mr Salmond and his party are offering to pay it in return for 8% of the assets.
It seems to me quite likely that if Scotland votes for independence, you could thereafter have a rUK Govt. with the Tories having a majority or close to it, and a Scottish Govt. with Labour having the most seats. What if the rUK wanted to continue with the successful policies that the markets like, but that Scottish Govt. decided it wanted to follow Brownomics and borrow like buggery. If so, why should rUK have their currency dragged down by a currency union?
That's for the future. You need an axe conveniently close to the hawser in each boat, however - it could just as well be the other way round, Swinneyan prudence in Scotland vs a different regime in EWNI [fill in your favoured option]. We have to work a few years at a time.
"Carney also cited fiscal transfers. Successful unions – such as the US – allow for such transfers from richer parts to poorer parts of the Union.
It is inconceivable that any such arrangement would meet with the approval of English voters if Scotland ever got into economic trouble. So the currency union would lack from the start a key feature needed for future success."
IF the Scotch vote YES, then the GE 2015 in England will be won by the party that is prepared to secure the hardest, toughest, most profitable settlement for England in the ensuing divorce. That is almost certainly going to be the Tories, as they already have very little political attachment to Scotland.
For Labour, the Anglo-Scots seperation would be agony: the party was born in Scotland, and many of its leading lights come from Scotland, they could not honestly fight for England alone.
When you face a divorce, you need a good lawyer. For England, in 2015, that lawyer would be the Tory party.
What if the rUK wanted to continue with the successful policies that the markets like, but that Scottish Govt. decided it wanted to follow Brownomics and borrow like buggery.
That's where the loss of sovereignty comes in. The treaty founding the currency union would prohibit either government from engaging in reckless fiscal practices.
Mr. Lennon, if is a big word (and F1 backwards). Yes (for the right odds. Which are unavailable).
Vettel's great, Ricciardo's unproven. Hamilton and Rosberg are both very strong. I think Mercedes must be favourites, *if* you believe the engines are as it seems and will remain that way.
But 2.5 for Mercedes just isn't long enough. I doubt Force India will be contenders for the title, but McLaren might be.
Osborne has gone to China and the middle east to seek additional business for the City of London with considerable success. Does anyone seriously believe that an rUK Chancellor of any stripe is not going to cast greedy eyes at the business, jobs and taxes that would be up for grabs in Edinburgh after independence?
Mr. Lennon, if is a big word (and F1 backwards). Yes (for the right odds. Which are unavailable).
Vettel's great, Ricciardo's unproven. Hamilton and Rosberg are both very strong. I think Mercedes must be favourites, *if* you believe the engines are as it seems and will remain that way.
But 2.5 for Mercedes just isn't long enough. I doubt Force India will be contenders for the title, but McLaren might be.
Ahh... hadn't looked at the odds yet - kinda assumed that they'd be longer than 2.5 in what is potentially a 6 horse lottery given all the rule changes.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
''IF the Scotch vote YES, then the GE 2015 in England will be won by the party that is prepared to secure the hardest, toughest, most profitable settlement for England in the ensuing divorce. ''
Agree to some extent. It'll be the party that advocates the most complete and final separation. Sometimes your lawyer will advise you to take a short term monetary hit to shut your ex out of your life for good. Which is what England will want.
Mr. Lennon, the odds generally for the Constructors have been atrocious, right from the off.
If you think they'll win you're better off looking at the drivers. Rosberg's price has fallen from 17 (I backed him then) to 9 now. Hamilton's has, I think, shortened slightly too.
Mr. Lennon, if is a big word (and F1 backwards). Yes (for the right odds. Which are unavailable).
Vettel's great, Ricciardo's unproven. Hamilton and Rosberg are both very strong. I think Mercedes must be favourites, *if* you believe the engines are as it seems and will remain that way.
But 2.5 for Mercedes just isn't long enough. I doubt Force India will be contenders for the title, but McLaren might be.
Can I say Williams? I'd love them to get another title or three. Although I think that's called letting your heart rule your head ...
I wouldn't pay too much notice to the Renault powerplant's problems atm. If they persist into the fourth day, or worse, into the next test, then it will be worrying. Even with all the rule changes, there's time to get things sorted.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
In the heat of an election campaign at a time when the public despise all politicians, a simple message of "no sharing of currency" is going to cut through. I can't see UKIP taking any other line. The public are unlikely to give any politician a doctor's mandate for negotiating the terms of independence. All parties are going to have to disclose their negotiating approach in some detail to the public.
Mr. Jessop, yeah, it is the start of testing and, as you say, there's time to resolve issues. But there may still be underlying unreliability (in the same way Red Bull never quite got on top of the alternator issues previously). Anyway, we shall see.
I hope Williams can do well... I wouldn't put money on it, though.
''IF the Scotch vote YES, then the GE 2015 in England will be won by the party that is prepared to secure the hardest, toughest, most profitable settlement for England in the ensuing divorce. ''
Agree to some extent. It'll be the party that advocates the most complete and final separation. Sometimes your lawyer will advise you to take a short term monetary hit to shut your ex out of your life for good. Which is what England will want.
Not if my ex owes me £160bn (actual amount may vary)
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
A currency union with an independent Scotland would require a degree of trust that would no longer exist in the aftermath of a Yes vote. It should be rejected out of hand.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
In the heat of an election campaign at a time when the public despise all politicians, a simple message of "no sharing of currency" is going to cut through. I can't see UKIP taking any other line. The public are unlikely to give any politician a doctor's mandate for negotiating the terms of independence. All parties are going to have to disclose their negotiating approach in some detail to the public.
I suspect that negotiations will start before the GE. A currency union on the rUK's terms - which is the only way it will happen - has to be the optimal solution as far as the rUK is concerned. I don't think it's too hard a message to get across. If UKIP want to peddle another line, then that is up to them; it will just show that they are totally unfit for office.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
An excellent post (as I should have said your earlier ones were). Someone said that showing your negotiating terms in advance a la SNP is silly. But I'm not sure it is like carpet buying in a souk. If a proposal is set out early which is close to what is rationally acceptable for both, certainly as an interim agreement, then (assuming the reality of independence)
(a) if all goes well having an approximation to begin with speeds up agreement, and
(b) if things go wrong one side is seen to have been reasonable and the other side is intransigent, the latter is seen - or at least potentially so - to have behaved unreasonably, and ultimately, in extremis, losing the repayment of 8% or so of the national debt. That's a lot of bawbees or tanners, however you want to call it.
"... the SNP made a mistake in not having a worked out solution for this before the referendum was fixed."
I'd say that was about right and not just in terms of currency either. There seem to be so many issues that the SNP haven't actually thought through that one wonders what they have been thinking about all these years.
If Scotland hypothetically voted to go independent, can anyone imagine that the Conservatives would not commit at the 2015 election to keeping sterling exclusively for the rest of the UK? If they didn't, Nigel Farage would get a dream of a campaign theme.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
If the Tories did that it would be insane.
I'm not sure why you think that's an argument against my line of thought.
Even the Tories would be able to spot a no lose situation. Either the rUK gets a currency union that suits it, or it does not have a currency union. What is not to like? After all, intra-UK trade is not all one way, neither is the movement of people. If the rUK can have a currency union that suits us, I cannot for the life of me see why we would not take it. We are talking about very uneven negotiations here. Petty vengeance is no way to develop a relationship with a country that will always be our closest neighbour. The really big decisions would be for the Scots; though as I say below, I am sure that the SNP already realises this. We should not confuse pre-referendum rhetoric with post-independence reality. Salmond and co won't.
In the heat of an election campaign at a time when the public despise all politicians, a simple message of "no sharing of currency" is going to cut through. I can't see UKIP taking any other line. The public are unlikely to give any politician a doctor's mandate for negotiating the terms of independence. All parties are going to have to disclose their negotiating approach in some detail to the public.
But - unless Mr C and the Tories fall on a Yes vote, which has been canvassed here - the UK GE is not for about 8-9 months after the independence referendum - and it is not given that UKIP will win (indeed, they might let Labour in, which would make life interesting to put it very politely, and certainly be a change from the Tories). I must say I'd be surprised if Labout did win in that context, though one never knows with FPTP and other factors.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
"... the SNP made a mistake in not having a worked out solution for this before the referendum was fixed."
I'd say that was about right and not just in terms of currency either. There seem to be so many issues that the SNP haven't actually thought through that one wonders what they have been thinking about all these years.
It's designed to maximise the Yes vote. If Scotland votes for independence it does not matter if not a single thing outlined in the document comes to pass. It will have served its purpose.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
Dollarization a better option for rUK - all the benefits, none of the costs or risks or giving up control.
Mr. Observer, I fail to see why we'd want a currency union.
Because there is significant two way traffic between Scotland and the rUK in terms of goods, services, finance and people. Why impose costs on this when you do not have to? If we can get a union on the rUK's terms, I really don't see why we wouldn't - petty vengeance aside.
Dollarization a better option for rUK - all the benefits, none of the costs or risks or giving up control.
The rUK can negotiate a currency union, it cant impose the use of sterling without one.
Comments
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348/7
[Search for 'Choice of currency arrangements']
He said:
""The euro area is now beginning to rectify its institutional shortcomings, but further, very significant steps must be taken to expand the sharing of risks and pooling of fiscal resources.
"In short, a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty."
On balance the present arrangements work pretty well. I do not think we should change it myself.
The idea of a referendum in rUK on this point seems to me to be a torpedo. Salmond will not be able to predict the outcome of such a referendum after Scotland has voted to leave. It would be silly to pretend that there might not be a reaction to that. So Scots can take a chance on their currency or they can play safe. Like so many assertions in the White Paper it really depends on how lucky you feel.
"Colin McKay, head of the Scottish Government’s strategy unit, confirmed that it is not within the SNP’s gift to promise that the remainder of the UK would agree to a eurozone-style currency union."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10450233/Alex-Salmond-under-pressure-to-name-Plan-B-currency.html
BTW, I don't see myself as pursuing a "fairness agenda" as you so provocatively put it, but I do think that consideration of fairness to *all* should be an element of all policy making (rich and poor alike). We clearly need to define "agenda" as well...
A totally unrelated dietary question, does blancmange contain any fibre?
Socialism in Action: Hollibandism Sees Foreign Direct Investment Fall 77% http://guyfawk.es/1d7T1YQ
Well, naturally I had those words burning at the forefront of my mind as I wrote. But - and I'm clearly missing something here - how does the fabled yellow box interact with my suggestion that "plenty" of people will travel between the two countries daily?
If my arithmetic and understanding of the table is right, Carney is claiming some 379,000 migrate across the border annually, so a rate of just over a 1,000 a day.
A Cornishman measuring crossings of the Tamar would undoubtedly consider that to be "plenty".
But what of a Daily Mail reporter in Bucharest calculating Romanian emigration to the UK?
14.00 Following Mark Carney's speech, a Treasury spokesman has said currency union is unlikely and Scotland needs a "Plan B".
" As the Chancellor has previously said, the current arrangements of a full, monetary, fiscal and political union bring economic benefits to all parts of the UK. Governor Carney today highlights the principled difficulties of entering a currency union: losing national sovereignty, practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out another country.
This is why the UK Government have consistently said that in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed. The Scottish Government needs a Plan B."
I do consider him serious. A serious nuisance
I don't think there's much more support for the euro in Scotland over England - another area where the differences between the two home nations are exaggerated - and Salmond wouldn't want to launch a campaign for anything so divisive, for now, anyway.
I don't think an independent Scotland would talk about joining the euro for at least 5 years and the EU wouldn't throw them out for not immediately joining it either. I expect it'd be independence within the EU.
I grant that it suits the unionist case well to underline the uncertainty on this - and there is much uncertainty with no guarantees - and, in reality, if there was independence (which I do think would be a bad move for Scotland) all parties (EU/UK etc) would sit down and negotiate from the basis of real-politik. It would not be based on archane arguments from old treaties and precedents would be put aside, if needed, to facilitate this.
I completely fail to understand why the SNP keep doing this. They have some perfectly reasonable options, but inasmuch as those options depend on cooperation with others, they'll be subject to negotiation. They'd be far better advised to accept this from the start, rather than blustering as they always seem to do.
On the particular point of currency union, I can't see them getting anything other than a vague assurance that the position of Scotland will be taken into account when the UK decides policy. No responsible UK government is going to commit to anything more than that.
Surely where it went wrong for the Euro (as you seem very confident it did) was that the management of the currency was optimised for a minority of the participants in the currency - basically the Germans - thus screwing everyone else. Personally, I think that if rUK and Scotland entered into a currency union, it's more likely that the Scots would be the screwees than the screwers whereas you seem to think the opposite is more likely. Any particular reason why?
Europhile political and media class vs the indigenous population.
Why should EWNI, England for shorthand, take on any obligations to a country that wants independence from it?
Why should the Scots achieve independence only to leave control of their currency, along with interest rates etc., with the nation from which they wanted to break free?
The independence debate seems to be getting more bizarre by the week. Go for it, guys, become an independent country or just stop dripping.
Of course it is possible that these banks might be broken up with the larger parts registering south of the Border. This should have been done by now in my opinion for a whole heap of reasons and it is very likely that independence would trigger it.
As someone writing in Edinburgh I don't think there is nearly a wide enough appreciation of the implications of such a move for Scotland. Not only would what historically has been a very significant part of the tax base disappear but so would thousands of well paid jobs in the Banks' HQs in the Gyle.
I think there would be knock on implications for the likes of Standard Life and Scottish Widows as well as well as groups like Alliance Trust in Dundee and Aberdeen Asset Management.
The Scottish economy is reasonably diverse and would eventually recover from such departures but boy it would hurt. During the hurting period the Scottish economy would need lower interest rates but it would have no control of that and probably little say.
A Scottish economy bereft of its financial services would be even more dependent on declining oil revenue, something that ought to make its currency volatile as the oil price goes up and down. Why would the rUK want to accept that?
A transitional arrangement seems to me the most likely outcome with Scotland either adopting the Euro (most likely given their position with the EU) or a new currency of their own. I personally think that the SNP made a mistake in not having a worked out solution for this before the referendum was fixed.
However, wait till Eurosceptic tories find out the extent Cammie's been ordering the precise same thing to find spin to stay IN the EU. Then you'll hear all but the most ardent Cameroons get very upset indeed.
And if the Conservatives made that commitment, what would Labour and the Lib Dems do?
Hmm. Looks like the Mercedes engine is as reliable as a man from Yorkshire called Bob, whereas the Renault is as prone to collapse and failure as a Frenchman in a war.
If the Mercedes has a 100bhp advantage *and* is far more reliable that would suit me. Backed Rosberg at 17 for the title.
The UK government might reasonably agree to an arrangement whereby a Scottish pound could be treated as legal tender in the remaining UK and convertible with our £, much as was the case with the Irish currency for many decades. That agreement would require the Scottish government to hold reserves of Sterling. But the idea that Scottish interests should in any way be taken into account when the Bank of England sets monetary policy should be a non starter. The Bank of England should continue to act in the interests of the UK alone, as now.
I'd happily take on all current outstanding debt obligations if it meant avoiding a currency union with Scotland. The last thing we want is overseas investors thinking that the gilts they own are 10% Scottish gilts and they might not be redeemed.
Let Scotland start again with whatever currency they choose and no debt, and make it clear we are not lender of last resort to their banks, and will make no fiscal transfers to them.
"He (Osborne) added: "The fundamental political question this analysis provokes is this – why would 58 million citizens give away some of their sovereignty over monetary and potentially other economic policy to five million people in another state?"
Mr Osborne refused to rule out the need for a referendum south of the Border to answer that question."
Oh, I agree, it's down to negotiation and realpolitik - but grabbing sterling alone will have a cost.
The Conservatives would do everything to reassure business and the markets it'd be 'business-as-usual' say that Scotland had decided, and they'd manage a smooth transition. However, now that Scotland had left, a fair arrangement on currency would need to be agreed that was acceptable to both parties.
UKIP are the withdrawing from the EU and the anti-establishment party. They are not the English or the piss-off-Scotland party.
What haven't I noticed? Or is that the point? I don't know what I haven't noticed, thus proving your enigmatic point. All a bit zen.
As big a joke as Clegg is can you imagine how long he would have lasted as leader if he had demanded and called for an AV referendum then told the whole world he didn't know if he was in favour of it or against it?? Yet we're somehow supposed to take Cameron and his spinners seriously? If only because tories are always so well respected in scotland we must presume.
I'd write Scottish debt off to be honest. If there's to be separation, let it be a clean break. If you're gonna go, go.
Much better in the long run.
Bearing in mind that the SNP are emphatically offering the fair split, how do you think that an EWNI PM/Chancellor who refused repayment of ca. 8% (or whatever) of the National Debt would be regarded by their electorates (Tory MPs, City, money markets, voters ...?) I'd be interested to know what you think, always bearing in mind that Mr Salmond and his party are offering to pay it in return for 8% of the assets.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100257316/after-independence-the-scots-risk-being-like-guests-at-a-party-hanging-around-and-refusing-to-leave/
"Carney also cited fiscal transfers. Successful unions – such as the US – allow for such transfers from richer parts to poorer parts of the Union.
It is inconceivable that any such arrangement would meet with the approval of English voters if Scotland ever got into economic trouble. So the currency union would lack from the start a key feature needed for future success."
IF the Scotch vote YES, then the GE 2015 in England will be won by the party that is prepared to secure the hardest, toughest, most profitable settlement for England in the ensuing divorce. That is almost certainly going to be the Tories, as they already have very little political attachment to Scotland.
For Labour, the Anglo-Scots seperation would be agony: the party was born in Scotland, and many of its leading lights come from Scotland, they could not honestly fight for England alone.
When you face a divorce, you need a good lawyer. For England, in 2015, that lawyer would be the Tory party.
Vettel's great, Ricciardo's unproven. Hamilton and Rosberg are both very strong. I think Mercedes must be favourites, *if* you believe the engines are as it seems and will remain that way.
But 2.5 for Mercedes just isn't long enough. I doubt Force India will be contenders for the title, but McLaren might be.
It really is a no brainer.
What could possibly go wrong? LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/25949923
Agree to some extent. It'll be the party that advocates the most complete and final separation. Sometimes your lawyer will advise you to take a short term monetary hit to shut your ex out of your life for good. Which is what England will want.
If you think they'll win you're better off looking at the drivers. Rosberg's price has fallen from 17 (I backed him then) to 9 now. Hamilton's has, I think, shortened slightly too.
I wouldn't pay too much notice to the Renault powerplant's problems atm. If they persist into the fourth day, or worse, into the next test, then it will be worrying. Even with all the rule changes, there's time to get things sorted.
I hope Williams can do well... I wouldn't put money on it, though.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/which-newspaper-are-you
(a) if all goes well having an approximation to begin with speeds up agreement, and
(b) if things go wrong one side is seen to have been reasonable and the other side is intransigent, the latter is seen - or at least potentially so - to have behaved unreasonably, and ultimately, in extremis, losing the repayment of 8% or so of the national debt. That's a lot of bawbees or tanners, however you want to call it.
I'd say that was about right and not just in terms of currency either. There seem to be so many issues that the SNP haven't actually thought through that one wonders what they have been thinking about all these years.
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/5715/statement_of_persons_nominated-wythenshawe_and_sale_east_constituency
Only 7 candidates: Tory, Lib Dem, Lab, UKIP, Green, Loony and the BNP found the cash from somewhere.