[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

I am waiting for the reasoning that if you vote no you are not in support of a currency union.

whatnobeer - Member
crums, 42 pages. Can somebody summarise for me
Scotland should have a currency union/shouldnt have a currency union
Scotland can keep the pound/cant keep the pound
Scotland will be in the EU/Wont be in the EU
Scotland will have to use the Euro/wont have to use the Euro
Haggis, Darien scheme, Alex Salmond, Gideon, Cameron, via the BBC and the New York Times. Polical satire. Jocks.

Pretty much the only people that care about these issue are English singletrackers from what I can tell! 😀

This is true. Pretty much nobody I talk to about it in real life even mention the pound, EU etc. it's all about self determination.

Maybe we're only interested in the issues which are likely to affect us. By the sounds of things, the Scottish don't care about the actual issues, simply where the decisions are made.

Prediction: Scotland will be 'granted' a formal currency union in return for a (quietly pre-arranged) share of the debt.

Assumption: as the election draws closer, if the polls show further movement towards "yes", messengers will be dispatched from both camps to negotiate.

Osborne is many things but not daft. Its in the rump's best interest to maintain the current arrangements as closely as possible. This is the best option for doing so.

Its called politics 🙂

Maybe we're only interested in the issues which are likely to affect us. By the sounds of things, the Scottish don't care about the actual issues, simply where the decisions are made.

Perhaps because we understand that, without the ability to rule ourselves, we'll never be able to sort out the issues.

so one can only conclude that he is being deliberately deceitful.

Genuine question alert
If Scotland used the pound could this make the pound more unstable/have consequences for rUK? If so would some form of arrangement not be prudent?

the Scottish don't care about the actual issues, simply where the decisions are made.

The issues don't matter. The fundamental question is would Scotland survive and thrive as an independent country? Pretty much everyone on both sides agrees yes.

The issues are temporary - currency, EU, whatever - they'll be sorted out or changed beyond recognition in 20, 50, 100 years. So ignore the issues, the real point is whether Scotland should be governed by people elected by the people of a Scotland. Decide that fundamental issue, and we can then work on the rest.

So ignore the issues, the real point is whether Scotland should be governed by people elected by the people of a Scotland. Decide that fundamental issue, and we can then work on the rest.

I think you are right Scotland by it's self determination leaves the EU and the 75% of legislation that gets created there for local implementation. You Scots then get to decide which laws you want to enact rather than faceless eurocrats in another country 😉

Ben please stay we [s]want your oil and a Wimbledon champion [/s] like you, we can still be friends [ Dave told me to say this*]....just accept having tory governments and take one for the team {UK] wont you....****ing selfish scots eh**

* Bowie or cameron take your pick 😉

** I am not steve Bell 😛

You want to know what really scares me about independence?

Really, desperately worries me?

What keeps me up at night?

What if there's an import tax on Eccles cakes?

I don't know how I'd cope.

How exactly did the Scots wangle a vote?
"Dear Mr Cameron can we have a vote and **** off with all the oil?"
" Why yes ,Mr Salmond ,by all means"
Something doesn't add up to me. Who would want to be the prime minister that lost the union? What does CMD gain from this?
I can't see a Tory landslide forever as if anything ever goes wrong it will be easy for Labour to blame it on the Tories giving away Scotland.

Your worries are over BEN as I will smuggle them in for equal weight in Plain bread and or sugar rolls

So if Scotland don't get the currency union they won't take any debt. I guess that means they don't get any of the gold reserves in the bank of England then or we give them less of a share of something else.

Sturgeon v Lamont square go, live on STV right now! 😀

So if Scotland don't get the currency union they won't take any debt. I guess that means they don't get any of the gold reserves in the bank of England then or we give them less of a share of something else.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

In some areas the law applies - though of course politicians can fudge anything

For example the debt belongs to the UK and as rUK keeps the UK bit - EU, UN security council etc it is LEGALLY liable for this - A New Scotland is not. Similarly oil lies within the territorial waters of scotland so it is theirs.

Your right though broadly they will haggle over everything- if you do this we will do that and if you get this we want that etc.

No one can predict what the outcome will be hence this debate will go on [and on]

Apologies if this has been done as I couldn't be bothered to wade through all 43 pages, but regarding the military, this chap dissects the planned split quite nicely and dispassionately. As with so many things, the devil is in the detail, which is why I'm always suspicious when people say things like "we just take 9% of the assets and people, simple" (I'm paraphrasing there).

Navy:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/assessment-on-proposals-for-scottish.html

Air Force:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/assessment-on-proposals-for-scottish_30.html

When you consider that that's just the MOD, and think of all the other agencies of state that similar difficulties would apply to, don't you think it's a bit TFD? I realise that's a negative argument, but you will not achieve the dream if you bankrupt yourself in the process!

The best thing I've read on the issue today:

[url= http://www.stringerville.com/2014/02/23/scottish-independence-an-open-letter-to-england/ ]An Open Letter to England (And Wales and NI)[/url]

Regarding the military, I don't think it's as simple as "we'll take 9%" - as those analyses show, it's not that easy. The UK as a whole wastes huge amounts of money trying to keep those silly toys at sea and in the air, I don't think an independent Scotland should even bother. Problem is, we need to deal with the MOD equipment as it exists,

So probably better to let us take the 9%, we'll flog it to the Saudis, buy a couple of fishery patrol boats and some small cheap aircraft, and use the rest of the money to build some hospitals. At least that'd be my preference.

[quote=codybrennan]Prediction: Scotland will be 'granted' a formal currency union in return for a (quietly pre-arranged) share of the debt.

😆 - you forgot to call the currency an asset.

You are Alex Salmond and I claim my £5 (that's 5 of our English pounds, backed by a lender of last resort, not some Scottish currency linked to it, please)

[quote=Junkyard]

the Scottish don't care about the actual issues, simply where the decisions are made.

applies equally to the anti EU lot would you not say ?

😀 as far as most of those anti the EU, yes you're probably right - for those of us prepared to look at the real issues I'd argue there is no hypocrisy in being pro a union which works, and anti one which is massively corrupt and mired in bureaucracy (don't even suggest that Westminster compares).

[quote=bencooper ]The issues are temporary - currency, EU, whatever - they'll be sorted out or changed beyond recognition in 20, 50, 100 years.

Do remember to discount the oil revenues when looking that far into the future.

I'd argue there is no hypocrisy in being pro a union which works, and anti one which is massively corrupt and mired in bureaucracy (don't even suggest that Westminster compares).

What it shows is that folk dont like being ruled from afar and having other countries standards applied to them be it prisoners voting or bedroom taxes.

The english like the one they impose on and not the one they are a player in; I think you can work out which one they think works 😛

@whatnobeer - that's a really good article, thanks.

Do remember to discount the oil revenues when looking that far into the future.

I do, but hopefully the oil fund will still be going then. That's the clever thing about an oil fund, it lasts beyond the oil. But even if Scotland squanders the oil revenue just like the UK has, we've got other strong industries. We'll be fine.

we'll flog it to the Saudis.

TBH I did not even mean it like that or mean to bring that up

I understood what you meant, and agreed with you, but couldn't resist the supplementary 😉

by my reckoning if we don't get a fair share of the assets, we just simplly punt the existing trident to either north korea or iran for an over inflated price!

Yup, plus there's a bunch of slightly used nuclear hunter-killers at Rosyth, which any third-world dictator would be happy to have.

Oh, and most of a state-of-the-art aircraft carrier - some assembly required 😉

bencooper - Member
by my reckoning if we don't get a fair share of the assets, we just simplly punt the existing trident to either north korea or iran for an over inflated price!
Yup, plus there's a bunch of slightly used nuclear hunter-killers at Rosyth, which any third-world dictator would be happy to have.

Oh, and most of a state-of-the-art aircraft carrier - some assembly required

Fair auld earner to be had out of an independent scotland! 😀

I do, but hopefully the oil fund will still be going then. That's the clever thing about an oil fund, it lasts beyond the oil. But even if Scotland squanders the oil revenue just like the UK has, we've got other strong industries. We'll be fine.

Well at least you'd squander it on tuition fees and prescription charges (not meant as a dig BTW). The thing is, there's nothing particularly magical about oil as a source of revenue to build a wealth fund - currently the oil revenues cover the difference between what you pay in taxes and what you spend (well most of - clearly you still have a deficit). In order to build up a wealth fund you'd need to either increase taxes or cut what you spend. I got the impression the realistic chance for that had gone in the 80s, though I'm far from an expert and could be wrong - but the point about changing the way your finances works remains.

You have quite a strong financial industry though, you'll be fine...

Will all our **ck** up roads magically be repaired by our new voted for by "us" government?
How many new civil service jobs will be created(gravy train)to service New Scotland?
How will the new super duper Scottish gov fix al the stuff they have already **ck*** up like health, police! education , councils etc.
Will council tax stay frozen?
Will we still be able to afford free prescriptions, eye tests and bus passes?
Will something be done about the wind farm scandal currently making the news re payments for down time and the thousands of acres of carbon sucking trees that have been destroyed to satisfy another AS pet project?

Then there is the white elephant that is Holyrood which will probably become "not fit for purpose" ie grande enough for AS/NS and their hangers on!!

Too many people getting hung up on oil and the £ and ignoring all the other stuff that makes the country tick

your one of those undecided floating voters aren't you 🙂

Oh, and most of a state-of-the-art aircraft carrier - some assembly required

😀

😯
😆

No wonder that AS is considered a heavyweight when you listen to Lamont and Sturgeon in that STV debate. What happened to women bringing a better tone to the level of political debate? 😉

You have to love the graphic used by STV, with a bright light in the narrow central zone contrasting with the rest of Scotland in relative darkness. Is that foreshadowing what might be to come?!? A very appropriate background for the debate.

The best thing I've read on the issue today:

An Open Letter to England (And Wales and NI)

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

To the man on the street though, it doesn't matter. It captures how a lot of people feel about the whole situation and tactics being used to try and swing the vote to the No side.

So let's feed the "uneducated" or "ill-informed" lies and claptrap as it doesn't matter....hmmmm

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

Institutions hold assets - both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

The problem is that there's a narrow economist's definition of an "asset", and there's a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

The problem is that there's a narrow economist's definition of an "asset", and there's a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

This is what I was getting at. You can argue all day about what is/isnt an asset or a liability and what should happen to the institutions and what they hold, but that's best left to the lawyers. As there's no set international laws that cover exactly what should happen a lot will be left up to negotiation, which obviously isnt happening at the moment. What the population want to know is, not what narrow legal terms and laws define what might happen, but what the negotiating positions are. Arguing semantics doesnt help anyone.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters. Just because the concept may seem or may be difficult to understand (it isn't) doesn't meant that people should be allowed to deliberately mis-use them to lie and to deceive. That is what AS is doing. In the end, you cannot escape the truth as politicians and those who vote for them find out in the end.

You would not expect a doctor or a lawyer for example to misuse terms just to make a difficult story more palatable to swallow. Doctors don't say, that dark shadows on the x-Ray are just an optical illusion. They say what it is, so that you can make an informed decision. AS is deliberately misusing terms with the explicit intention to confuse and mislead. That is unbecoming of any politician at any time, let alone when you are debating major constitutional change.

It's a sad state of affairs it we are going to say it doesn't matter what our politicians say because folk either don't understand, are to lazy to read what they say or they simply ignore them. So it's ok if they just spout BS....kind of sums up a lot of the BoD though.

Deciding what currency option to use and how much autonomy you want on government spending, tax, interest rates, supply of money etc are hardly semantics. They are FUNDAMENTALS.

Institutions hold assets - both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

A new institution's reputation probably wouldn't be an asset as it hasn't had time to build up a track record of delivery. A new institution's reputation would probably be a liability and bear higher risk.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.

You seem to know better than all of the expert opinion I've read then. As far as I can see there are various precedents for division of assets, liabilities and institutions and how actually happens will likely be a mix of all of them based on the what can be negotiated and what makes sense to both parties.

To the man on the street though, it doesn't matter. It captures how a lot of people feel about the whole situation and tactics being used to try and swing the vote to the No side.

The author's main point is to go for independence to be independent. A fair enough point but that's not who the yes campaign is set up to reach i.e. the people who want to know the risks/rewards before deciding.

konabunny - Member
Institutions can also bear liabilities!

Not in la la land.

WNB, I simply bother to understand how a central banks balance sheet work and how the pros and cons of different currency regimes stack up. The FC and the HM Treasury do the same thing, that's why they are less prone to BS. The information is readily available for all rather than hiding behind an acceptance of false definitions, half truths and lies.

I have been consistent in my criticism of the BoD from the day it was published (when I read it) and the BOE, HM Treasury, the FC and even economists on different sides have agreed with the factual stuff on which I base my criticism*.The debate between the pros and cons will of course lead to different answers, but AS doesn't do that. He pretends that the cons don't exist and to point them out is bullying and bluster. On the contrary, it (telling the truth) is not patronising the population of Scotland by pretending that they will swallow untruths and deceit.

I do seem to be a bit isolated in suggesting that the proposed "don't ask, don't tell" approach to nuclear defence is deceit as well. But if not knowing that nukes are in Scottish waters is the same as them not being there, then so be it! La, la, la.........

THM, I was talking generally, not just about the currency situation. Your disdain for AS is clear and you're not the only one with problems with the white paper. Mixing party policy for post independence with their stated positions on independence negotiations was a mistake. As too was stating the position as facts rather than things to be negotiated.

I'd suggest that getting into the in depth nitty gritty of economics and fiscal policy when making press conferences isnt a sensible decision, so stuff is skirted around and presented in a fashion more easily understandable to most people, even if it misses the point in some areas.
Your criticism of AS being economical with the truth, or lying as you bluntly put it, is no different from any other politician generally or in a referendum build up. You only have to look at the way the voting reform referendum went to see that.

The referendum in about so much more than just AS, he's the face of it (for better or worse) and he probably should of done a better job on some fronts, but thats just the way it is. Politicians talking shite, whats new.