Forum menu
Oh, and for completeness, the other options are:
- Use Sterling without a currency union
- Use a Scottish currency pegged to Sterling
- Use a Scottish currency not pegged to Sterling
- Use the Euro
All options have pros and cons, none of them is a deal-breaker. This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.
.......... and public opinion in rUK
Since when was public opinion the best guide on financial policy?
Since when was public opinion the best guide on financial policy?
Well the Scots seem to be using as a basis to decide theirs, by way of a referendum for independence. Maybe it isn't the best way, perhaps a committee could decide for them?
This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.
Which makes it all the more bizarre that AS won't just come out and say so. Perhaps it's important after all?
Well the Scots seem to be using as a basis to decide theirs, by way of a referendum for independence. Maybe it isn't the best way, perhaps a committee could decide for them?
Oh do try to keep up. The referendum is about way more than financial policy. On the list of things that make me want Scotland to become independent financial policy is probably in around 50th place.
I can see it may be better for the UK as a whole but then I suppose it could be deduced that it would be better for Scotland to remain as part of the UK for the whole British Isles economy. From a political point of view and the climate of non-cooperation a currency union seems like a backward step for independence. When they go on about the Euro it is always no currency union without political union.
Makes independence seem a bit of a waste of time if:
[*]The economy/interest rates are decided as they are at the moment but with even less control for Scotland. (If there is a currency union.)[/*]
[*]Discounting the powers that devolved Scotland already has, or have been promised[/*]
[*]Discounting the powers/laws that are collectively decided at the European level[/*]
Seems to me that apart from getting rid of Nukes the status quo Scotland seems to get its cake and eat it.
Which makes it all the more bizarre that AS won't just come out and say so. Perhaps it's important after all?
He should come out and say "the experts want this option but we want a different one"?
Anyway, he effectively has. He's said we'll keep the pound, which means either in a currency union or not. The pound is an internationally traded currency, no-one can stop us using it, and if the rUK wants to cut off it's own nose by refusing a currency union then that's what we'll do.
Isn't it interesting the way Better Together have fixated on the currency argument? It's as if they don't have any other arguments to make.
Well, yes, but that would be silly. Do I really need to explain how polling works?
Northwest Dumfries pensioners are 61% no, if you exclude the undecided.
Yup, Dumfries, the Borders and Fife are where Yes needs to do the most work I think.
Anyway, he effectively has. He's said we'll keep the pound, which means either in a currency union or not. The pound is an internationally traded currency, no-one can stop us using it, and if the rUK wants to cut off it's own nose by refusing a currency union then that's what we'll do.
Of course anybody can use it but third parties do not have any control over money supply or interest rates. Look at Greece for what happens if things go pear shaped.
If you want independence then go for it. The whole way currency included otherwise you will just blame the UK for everything that doesn't work. The only convincing argument I've heard so far was that people don't care if it doesn't work out because at least it will be scotts screwing it up not English people.
If you want independence then go for it. The whole way currency included otherwise you will just blame the UK for everything that doesn't work. The only convincing argument I've heard so far was that people don't care if it doesn't work out because at least it will be scotts screwing it up not English people.
The Flying Ox - Member
Do try to keep up mate. It's me, not gobuchul, you're talking to ...
Aye, sorry about that. Spotted it too late to edit. Must have gone batshit mental or something... 🙂
...So back to the point at hand: is it OK for me to be a second class citizen based upon how I vote? ...
Sadly that's one of problems with democracy. There will always be someone who doesn't get what they want, but the majority do.
The only way to avoid that is to establish an oligarchy on top of a pseudo democracy and be a member of the oligarchic group.
The great thing about the UK is that you do have that opportunity.
Just make several million pound donations to a suitable political party, and you can join the House of Lords, no worries about those pesky elections, and you remain in a position of power for the rest of your life. You must admit Lord Flying Ox of Rotten Borough has a ring to it. 🙂
Just make several million pound donations to a suitable political party, and you can join the House of Lords,
If you look at the amount paid, it's actually been pretty small in many cases - a couple of hundred grand sometimes.
You must admit Lord Flying Ox of Rotten Borough has a ring to it
Oi! I may live in what amounts to not much more than a drafty lean-to, but it's MY lean-to and there's nothing rotten about it. Apart from the bathroom floor joists. And the garage door.
This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.
Not quite. I certainly wouldn't want my pension, savings, property value, wages, etc. transferred from £ into a new Scottish currency at a nominal conversion rate only for the new economy to take a battering on the international markets, the exchange rate to turn against the new currency and for me to be suddenly left with a fraction of my original worth. There's A LOT more to it than simply deciding to use groats at a 1:1 exchange rate.
Ben that's not a bad summary but their/your conclusion is highly subjective. The Nobel prize winners (to the extent that this is relevant) merely laid out the various options that any A level economics student would be able to lay out. They did add some context to it which may be a bit beyond a school child. There was then a major jump between the analysis and the front page of the report which jumps to his spurious conclusion about not only what is best for Scotland but then extended this to what is also best for the rUK supposedly. But this is where the schoolboy can step in as the only real benefit to the rUK would be lower transaction costs. Business and officials deem these to be less important than the obvious disadvantages and impractical nature of the solution. So we (all parties) have been clear in saying no thank you very much.
Now the DO keeps trying to tell us (bluff or bully us) into accepting that we are all wrong. But we are not having any to it indeed Ed M is not going to make a manifesto commitment ruling a CU out. How clear does this need to be? And then we get the lies about currencies being assets, walking away from debt etc. Again, that is when you know the DO is losing it. It's his, "oh shit, I'm screwed" default position.
Of course, to repeat myself, both the DO and the fiscal commission argue that the interrelated nature of two economies (rUK and iS) and other factors mean that the best solution is to have the same currency and the BOE having operational independence over monetary policy instruments with Westminster setting the parameters for monetary and fiscal policy. In other words, what we have now,
Brilliant!! Time and money saved, STFU salmond & co. Vote No and do what is everyone's best interests. It really is so simple.
I would suggest that Edinburgh is a small city with less than 500,000 people living in it. It makes very little difference what the people of Edinburgh think if the rest of Scotland choose to vote differently. It's a bit like the ratio of Scotland to rUK in that respect. The smaller place is so greatly outnumbered that it has effectively no say in the matter.
The cognitive dissonance here boggles my mind.
It's also a bit like the ratio of London to the UK as well, but when that argument is posed then the relationship is somehow skewed to London's favour. But then in the last election more Labour MPs were elected to London seats than those of any other party, so it seems a little unfair to blame the Londoners for all of Scotland's ills when they've voted for the very people that Scotland moans about not being elected? Unless you're talking about the issue with Parliament being centralised in London and therefore taking on a London-centric viewpoint when deciding upon and implementing policies, which is basically the same point gobuchul makes about the Scottish Parliament being centralised in Edinburgh. But you appear to be refuting that.
So what do you actually mean?
Given that you appear to have no idea what cognitive dissonance actually is I'm not surprised it boggles your mind.
To answer your question I'll ask two questions. Where is the money and power located in Scotland? Where is the money and power located in the UK. I suspect that you will not get the answer to the first question correct.
THM, Salmond isn't delusional. Regardless of his public pronoucements I have little doubt that he and the SNP cabinet know full well that they will struggle to join the EU, that they have no chance of a shared currency with the UK, and zero chance of retaining naval shipbuilding and so on.
Salmond's objective is independence and he will tell people whatever they want to hear to curry favour temporarily and get their vote - he is perfectly willing to mislead, fudge statements and tell everything up to and including downright lies in order to win the referendum. He will worry about clearing up the economic and political crisis he has created after the vote in the unlikely event he wins it.
Whats for sure is that if he does win, any and every problem encountered by the new state will continue to be blamed on the evil Westminster government , either due to intransigence in the post referendum negotiation of assets, or their behind the scenes bullying and political machinations which will be blamed for holding up EU membership, international investment etc.
put simply, The Scottish people are being sold a pup - what I personally really begrudge is the fact that [u]when[/u] it all goes tits up, it will be us, the rest of the UK, that end up bailing them out (again) against our own will, just like we had to with Ireland!
Salmond's objective is independence and he will tell people whatever they want to hear to curry favour temporarily and get their vote - he is perfectly willing to mislead, fudge statements and tell everything up to and including downright lies in order to win the referendum. He will worry about clearing up the economic and political crisis he has created after the vote in the unlikely event he wins it.
You are telling me this????
Actually, I don't agree. Your fourth word is incorrect. He doesn't want independence at all that is why he has been caught with his pants down over the currency. This is the elephant in the room that is now trammelling the yS case underfoot. Not that there has been a case ever.
Replace that with power/ego/vanity and it reads much better.
Given that you appear to have no idea what cognitive dissonance actually is I'm not surprised it boggles your mind.
I know perfectly well what it means. I was giving you the benefit of doubt that you would realise that the points you argue are seemingly at odds with each other, and therefore burden you with at least some mental discomfort when trying to reconcile that with your self.
To answer your question I'll ask two questions. Where is the money and power located in Scotland? Where is the money and power located in the UK. I suspect that you will not get the answer to the first question correct.
You're asking me questions purely about the current state of affairs. I'm asking you questions about your position regarding the current state of affairs vs how things might be in an independent Scotland. Two different things. I'm not sure how "London" and "London" strengthens your case.
Isn't it interesting the way Better Together have fixated on the currency argument? It's as if they don't have any other arguments to make.
Ben, it's simole again. Imagine discussing the correct bike to go and ride on and exclude the frame. It may be interesting to discuss the bell and the water bottle but if you miss out the centre bit, the whole thing becomes irrelevant and unridable.
Would you let someone out of the shop without the frame!
The other problem you have is that the main man actually wants the red, white and blue version not the blue and white frame.
You're asking me questions purely about the current state of affairs. I'm asking you questions about your position regarding the current state of affairs vs how things might be in an independent Scotland. Two different things. I'm not sure how "London" and "London" strengthens your case.
Have you been drinking?
No, I'm at work extracting lots of lovely *UK* oil. But thanks anyway for the lazy slurs regarding my personal habits. Can you say [i]ad hominem[/i]?
Glug, glug..
[i]
.. ad homonu.. ad homime.. ad himonim..
[/i]
No.
Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?
because he is trying to set up the very best position for an iS
like with a divorce - he wants the kids, the house, the car, the savings and the pension out of the settlement, then after a long negotiation, agree somewhere in-between
and then in 10 years time (or whenever the EU and economy dictates) ditch pound sterling for the euro
swopping 300 years of horrible evil english overlords for their new exciting federal german overlords instead.... 😆
epicyclo - MemberIt's not Gibson we admire, it's what William Wallace achieved.
Oh did I get that wrong ? Dammit !
Who was William Wallace then ?
ernie_lynch - Member
Oh did I get that wrong ? Dammit !Who was William Wallace then ?
A Mel Gibson wannabe? 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
😆
Frankenstein, the more appropriate costume for Darling is John Balliol. 🙂
Went out on the bikes with Scotroutes today.
Good day out it was.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cfzxk ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cfzxk[/url]
listen from 9mins37sec
C
Just saw a nice wee graphic on Twitter.[img] 
:large[/img]
The graphic isn't totally accurate in that the amounts should be in $ rather than £, but it's still a shed load of bailing out.
Dont recall hearing much about any of that at the time...
It was actually on BBC news (iirc) at the time regarding US Federal input. It's been mentioned on these forums quite a few times as well.
But I assumed as it wasn't UK taxpayer money nobody gave too much of a shit.
Dont recall hearing much about any of that at the time...
It's been in the public domain for years, certainly from well before when this referendum debate began. From 4 years ago :
[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed ]British banks account for $640 bn of Federal Reserve bailout money[/url]
UK contribution to the bailout of British banks was £124billion, what could Scotland have afforded ? And would the Federal Reserve have seen the same urgency as it did for the whole of the UK had Scotland simply existed as a small independent country ? You need to ask yourself that.
BTW I believe that when banks get into difficulties and need propping up it is sometimes useful not to reveal too much, for obvious reasons.
Wanmankylung it's worth getting your info from better sources than that. The UK banks were bailed out through direct equity investments from HMG, various forms of loan guarantees from same source, and liquidity schemes from BoE. All underwritten by the UK taxpayer including you.
Feel free to correct me but I think the US government ended up funding many UK and worldwide banks because it decided to stand behind positions taken by US banks in difficulty, and also I think derivative positions taken by AIG. Effectively the US paid out on debts owed by its own financial institutions, or I suppose continued financing arrangements in place.
The above graphic only proves one thing, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
That is a sad and rather desperate poster
The info in the poster appears to come from a good source - i.e. the one above.
Makes you wonder why there is so much austerity...
Might be a good idea to read the report and understand how it works.....
bainbrge, I think the point the Nats are trying to make is that an independent Scotland would not have been at a disadvantage during the bailout period since the banks received so much support from the US.
Oh I understand how it works. I also understand your motivation for keeping on posting in a thread about scottish independence when you will have very little input into the final outcome.
Apples and oranges isn't it?
UK government made a capital investment, ie. put money into the bank in return for shares in the ownership of the bank
As I understand it the US fed reserve was largely short term borrowing, so if I borrowed $100 million overnight, that I used to buy a load of Euro's, and then sold them the next day at a profit and repaid the loan then I have borrowed $100 million - if I keep hold of the shares for five days and then repaid then this would show in the records as me borrowing $500 million
THM, is that right?
The point the nats are trying to make is that if the federal reserve bailed out british banks to such a degree, what did westminster and the bank of england actually do?
for keeping on posting in a thread about scottish independence when you will have very little input into the final outcome.
How do you know that THM "will have very little input into the final outcome" ?
For all you know thousands of Scots who were formally Yes supporters have changed their minds due to THM's persuasive posts. Well maybe two have.
😀 Ernie!
We just have to deal with the consequences of a bafooon and his announcements.
Ask yourself what function the Fed was providing when it made those sums available and then have a little think about what was being proposed over the past few days. Then you quickly realise why the poster is BS that is typical of yS.
Sounds persuasive (like claiming a currency is an asset) but actually simple deceit. Desperate times....
The BOE actions are different correct - again all in the public domain.