[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Do you need a white paper for the status quo?

Why on earth do you think it'll be left as the status quo? It's already been said that Barnett will not last more than another couple of years, funding will change to a system "based on need" - which, as we all know, can be skewed massively. Westminster has already pulled some powers back from the Scottish parliament, and there's nothing stopping them pulling back more. Then there's the EU referendum.

So I'd say after a No vote, the status quo would be the best we could hope for.

So I'd say after a No vote, the status quo would be the best we could hope for.

Bit of a shame you have AS fronting the yes campaign then......

Even Barnett has said the the Barnett formula was never designed to be a long term plan and it needs to be revised. It was designed to address issues specific at the time.

Post independence can you imagine how much electricity will be saved just by london turning their lights on 1 hour later.
We can rebrand ourselves as The Land Of The 10.30 Sun.

On a more general point, this kind of "well, we're taking our ball and going home" attitude from the financial services industry whenever they don't get their own way is exactly why lots of people want independence.

Why do we always have to bow to what the "market" and the "City" want? Sod 'em. Indian takeaways provide more employment than the banks, and they don't demand billions in bail-outs when they screw up.

As the head of Rolls Royce famously said, there's only two ways of making money - you dig it out of the ground, or you add value by making something. Everything else is just moving it around. We need to stop thinking that financial and housing bubbles are a proper way to grow an economy.

Going home - we are talking about Scottish firms deciding on whether to re-locate in another country!!!! That's an interesting way of putting it though.

It's an expression. I didn't mean you to take it literally, I doubt Standard Life have a football.

Why do we always have to bow to what the "market" and the "City" want? Sod 'em. Indian takeaways provide more employment than the banks, and they don't demand billions in bail-outs when they screw up.

That all depends how you intend to develop your economy. If you want to use manufacturing then you need to compete with China etc on costs, which means low wages.

If you want a high standard of living then you need to develop high value add industries, where the 3rd world can't just undercut you on price, or exploit natural resources (again hard to undercut geothermal etc).

I doubt basing an economy on Indian Takeaways will do much for your balance of payments.....

If you want to use manufacturing then you need to compete with China etc on costs, which means low wages.

Depends on the kind of manufacturing, and China won't be a low-wage economy for long - look at the companies who are moving production back to the UK. Cotic, for instance.

or exploit natural resources (again hard to undercut geothermal etc)

Geothermal energy is a big thing in the UK? We've got fantastic prospects for wind, wave and tidal energy once the oil runs out.

On a more general point, this kind of "well, we're taking our ball and going home" attitude from the financial services industry whenever they don't get their own way is exactly why lots of people want independence.

sadmadalan - Member
Even Barnett has said the the Barnett formula was never designed to be a long term plan and it needs to be revised. It was designed to address issues specific at the time.

Many of those issues are still around. Low pay, poor health, etc. We even have foodbanks running out of food.

This is the point when Scotland steps outside global capitalism is it?

Why does shifting the economy - and by implication the whole country - away from a slavish devotion to the banks mean turning our backs on capitalism?

Most countries manage fine with a much smaller financial services industry - where financial services means what it says, providing financial services to businesses and individuals. Instead of what we've got, banks who take silly risks and lose bollions in bubbles and speculation, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer will bail them out because they're too big to fail.

The banks are parasitic on the rest of the economy, providing no added value to society.

We've got fantastic prospects for wind, wave and tidal energy once the oil runs out.

True, but where will the colossal levels of funding come from to develop those resources and infrastructure?

With Standard Life being the first of I suspect many large companies that will up sticks for the UK if a YES vote happens, then there will be even less money in an independent Scotland than we thought before.

These companies will have to move and I don't blame them - the directors of these companies are obliged to act in the best interests of the business and it's shareholders. To protect the business they need to operate in a proven country with a safe and stable currency, and in a country that's part of the EU (all of which Scotland cannot give them).

Thinking about it, Scottish independence could be a perfect way to regenerate the less affluent parts of the NE of England. Large firms relocating there from Edinburgh and Glasgow would still be close enough to the border to retain some of their Scottish workforce whilst retaining all of the benefits of remaining in the UK.

I wonder what Alex Salmond will make of the Standard Life announcement? Will he try to pull the rug over the Scottish electorates eyes again and dismiss it as simply more bluff, bullying and threats? Or will he actually wake up and smell the coffee, and deal with the increasing unfavorable home truths that are now staring him square in the face?

Ben, may I respectfully point out that we have just endured a global financial crisis during which governments, companies and individuals around the world took on excessive levels of debt and leverage. None of this was/is unique to the UK although we do have considerable expertise here. 😉

Finance is a critical aspect of any economy and a particularly important part of Scotlands with a long and honourable history, sadly spoilt by the hubris of AS's buddy Fred and others. Yes, it needs to shrink as does leverage, but taking away the foundations on which a healthy financial system works and proposing the absurd idea of a system without regulation (the current plan c) is extreme folly. Highly appropriate for the brothers Grimm and the BoD, but not for sensible debate.

Ben, are you suggesting a reduction in the total size on the financial industry in Scotland.

Or a reduction in its size relative to the overall economy?

He is making a very valid point that major uncertainties remain over key factors that affect his business including currency how a monetary system would work and regulation. He also makes a more tactical and direct point about how AS proposes to tax savings and pensions.

Your bias/hatred/dislike leads you to make false conclusions
You can criticise AS for his spin and BS but the fact we do not know cannot and should not be levelled at him. It is the NO votes refusal to negotiate that causes this. Oddly they are prepared to say, when it harms the yes campaign, what they wont to. Do you admire their political ethics? Far better than AS?

So if you run SL or Aberdeeen or Bailiie Gifford etc you face the prospect of an untested regulatory regime, uncertainty over currency systems and the prospect of new taxes on your core products, what would you do?

Its just folk repeating themself I go for over 100 pages maybee 200 before the vote
Ben will stay be Yes and THM will still hate AS

It is the NO votes refusal to negotiate that causes this

The whole point of negotiation is that you can say no.

Bit like me saying 'sell me you house for a £1' and when you say 'no' I reply 'that's not fair, you're refusing to negotiate'....

be cross at those who caused the uncertainty and make plans for lots of eventualities?

Would that not be AS and the Yes campaign who want to change the status quo?

You can criticise AS for his spin and BS but the fact we do not know cannot and should not be levelled at him.

yes it can, how much negotiation has he entered into to substantiate his book of dreams (not saying Westminster would engage though). Whether AS and the Yes campaign like it or not they aren't really in control of much other than promoting a Yes vote, they are blithely saying Scotland will be better of independent but it's clear they can't be independent without agreement from other interests, who he hasn't gotten onboard with his vision for Scotland. In fact he seems to be pretty good at ignoring what the EU & BoE are saying, not an ideal way to get the institutions holding the whip hand to come around.

look at the companies who are moving production back to the UK. Cotic, for instance

Ben - You make some good arguments at time then sometimes you really seem to miss the point.

How many people are employed by Cotic? 10? 20? It's a small scale high specialist manufacturer that sells £2000+ mtbs! It's not exactly Trek is it?

[i]I think a lot would, the company I work for said they would probably have to leave scotland too.

[/i]

Unless it was cheaper to operate in Scotland and/or taxation was lower - then they'd be saying something different.

Or are they saying this to make sure 'sweeteners' are offered?

[i]Thinking about it, Scottish independence could be a perfect way to regenerate the less affluent parts of the NE of England. Large firms relocating there from Edinburgh and Glasgow would still be close enough to the border to retain some of their Scottish workforce whilst retaining all of the benefits of remaining in the UK.

[/i]

You may wish to look at the map first..., its further than you think.

yes it can, how much negotiation has he entered into to substantiate his book of dreams (not saying Westminster would engage though).

They've stated many times that they won't pre-negotiate. Despite this they are very happy to make announcements on their position when it will harm the Yes campaign.

In fact he seems to be pretty good at ignoring what the EU & BoE are saying, not an ideal way to get the institutions holding the whip hand to come around.

The EU hasn't said anything on the matter at all, only people within the EU whose opinions have been shown to be misguided and/or wrong (Barosso). The BoE didn't rule anything out either, only that there would need to be tight controls on any union and this would result in a loss of sovereignty in iScotland. AS seemed pretty happy with this but that's not what was reported in the media.

Bit like me saying 'sell me you house for a £1' and when you say 'no' I reply 'that's not fair, you're refusing to negotiate'....

Footflaps, I think we have to cut yS some slack. Hiding behind "they're not negotiating, misrepresenting assets and liabilities, the three BS, I want, i want, I want" is about all that's left.

Stiller tries in on again today in response to the SL news with the currency. So let's gets this straight

1. BoD presents fairy tale currency proposal that is unworkable in practice and in theory
2. independent (by design) technocrats clearly present the reasons why the fairy tales are "just so", laying out clear reasons (theory and practice) supported by the lessons from past and recent history - all available on the web
3. The major parties in the UK accept this conclusion and make it clear what the terms of future negation will be...(no point pretending that you are going to negotiate an unworkable idea)
4. Complete clarity is given as to the reasons for (3) including HMT documentation providing details behind the decision
5. The brothers and sister Grimm have a wee toy-throwing fit
6. Stiglitz and MIrrlees face a few all-nighters to collect and mend the toys.

Meanwhile, in other news....

THM, if all that is true then why did the independent Scottish fiscal commission recommend a currency union if it's so totally unworkable? Seems to me the idea works so long as you accept the compromises that would have to be made to the deal with the risk.

so long as you accept the compromises

I think the basic problem is THM doesn't know the meaning of "compromise" 😉

Because,in their opinion, the disadvantages of a separate currency outweigh the advantages. Unlike other "independent" analysis they do not present the details of their analysis of the pros and cons of the various options * which is why AS is in a bit of a pickle at the moment. He has not prepared answer to this.

Like yS, the FC is laying out a clear argument against independence. Stiglitz and Mirrlees are both leading academics and practioneers in their fields including tax policy (Mirrlees). So they know that their proposal means that in effect Scotland continues to cede control over interest rates, money supply, levels of tax and spending to those nasty folk in Westminster. However, this time, they will have lost much of their representation (if not all) in the decision making process.

Unlike the FC, The Brothers continue to lie saying that you can have the benefits of both your own currency (see lists a few pages back) AND a currency union. Complete deceit.

* I find this very odd and unhelpful (until you remember who is paying for the work!!!)

Ben, you are kidding, I have been married 22 years!! 😉 and remember the words of the Scottish government

The Scottish Government is clear that post-independence it will always be up to the people of Scotland, and their elected government, to decide what our currency should be.

We say what we want, stuff what the rest of you think. Comments echoed by wee eck in the past 24 hours. Very compromising.

whatnobeer - Member

THM, if all that is true then why did the independent Scottish fiscal commission recommend a currency union if it's so totally unworkable? Seems to me the idea works so long as you accept the compromises that would have to be made to the deal with the risk.

For rUK it's technically workable, but the risks associated with it, make it completely unacceptable.

For iS it's perectly workable, if you don't want independance.....

I thought this was interesting from Standard and Poor's (from the BBC)

Standard and Poor's, in its assessment on independence, said there were benefits for Scotland going it alone, but raised concern it may begin life having to cope with issues like comparatively high levels of public debt, sensitivity to oil prices and "potentially limited" monetary flexibility.

The agency added: "On the other hand, if this were to happen, it could bring benefits in terms of reducing the size of the Scottish economy's external balance sheet, normalizing the size of its financial sector, and reducing contingent liabilities for the state.

"In short, the challenge for Scotland to go it alone would be significant, but not unsurpassable."

Someone else who seems to agree that iS is workable BUT that the ballance sheet might not be as rosey (certainly in the short term) as being portrayed by AS.

Someone else who seems to agree that iS is workable BUT that the ballance sheet might not be as rosey (certainly in the short term) as being portrayed by AS.

And that's the whole point - no one doubts that Scotland could make it (eventually) but AS and mob are being hugely deceitful by painting independence as some sort of rosy utopia, when in reality it will be a hard fought battle that will destroy the stability and current financial credibility of Scotland for a good few years, and throw up just as many new problems as those solved by going independent in the first place.

The point really is that Standard Life back plans for a currency union.

Should someone tell Osborne?

And what would you rather he said? He's playing up the positives like anyone who is trying to sell an idea. Complaining that a political campaign isnt the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is only going to get you laughed at. I think most people, including the nationalists accept that everything isnt going to mega straight forward and there will be compromises and somethings will need to be reworked, but that's the price of such a massive upheaval.

For rUK it's technically workable, but the risks associated with it, make it completely unacceptable.

For iS it's perectly workable, if you don't want independance.....

I don't but the argument that its unworkable for rUK at all. Scotland would need to agree to a very strict set of controls and I reckon most of the risk would be dealt with. It could be that they would be so tight that iScotland would never agree to them (probably less control than they have now), but saying that any all options aren't workable surely cant be true.

bencooper - Member

The point really is that Standard Life back plans for a currency union.

Should someone tell Osborne?

Yes, and so does Osborne - as long as Scotland remains part of the UK. Because that's the only way the moneytary union works for [u]ALL parties not just iS[/u]

It could be that they would be so tight that iScotland would never agree to them (probably less control than they have now), but saying that any all options aren't workable surely cant be true.

Exactly, so therefore, for the parties involved the option isn't workable.

And just as importantly that isn't the INDEPENDANCE AS is trying to sell.

And just as importantly that isn't the INDEPENDANCE AS is trying to sell.

Independence*

He's stated quite a few times that he's willing to negotiate, you never know something could be worked out.

Please excuse the typo ! 😳

The whole point of negotiation is that you can say no.

Bit like me saying 'sell me you house for a £1' and when you say 'no' I reply 'that's not fair, you're refusing to negotiate'

Would that [ who to blame]not be AS and the Yes campaign who want to change the status quo?

Interesting angle and you have a point however this is about the uncertainty of what will happen if they vote yes. The fact this is unknown is not his fault as one side wont talk

As noted its hardly news [ I cannot fathom why a number of you loathe him for this tbh*] to say Politician presents plan in best light to persuade electorate to vote for plan.

* no one doubts that Scotland could make it (eventually) but AS and mob
It does not move the debate ion to just keep using language that shows your contempt for AS we have all realise dwho these people are and how impartial they are on anythign he does

Yes campaign > SNP > Alex Salmond

It's a common tactic to make out that independence is Salmond's pet project, but it really isn't. For example Tommy Sheridan is far from being a SNP fan:

There's the Greens, the SSP, non-political independence groups like National Collective and Radical Independence, independence groups within the main political parties, unions etc.

Well one could equally blame CMD for agreeing to a vote

Have no fear, I do, the man's a complete muppet, bit like Blair before who I also have a major problem with for setting the whole devolution train in motion and selling the idea to voters that the answer to a better society is a reorganisation of the deck chairs, more politicians and more money spent on the political institutions as a way of avoiding the pressing need to deal with real social and economic issues.

My biggest concern with this whole ridiculous situation is how much it's all going to cost and the reality that even if Scotland does become independent the cost in monetary and parliamentary time it is going to swallowing up could have been spent much more productively on services and infrastructure on both sides of the border. The whole thing is a bit like a divorce, the only real winners will be the lawyers and everyone else will come out of it feeling fleeced and let down.

Again not getting your point as it is nothing like that it is like me saying I have agreed to sell my house, if enough folk vote for this, but i wont negotiate a price till after they vote

You seem to be forgetting that rUK hasn't agreed to a currency union. So it's exactly like my analogy.

All that's been agreed is a vote on Scotland becoming a separate country (in principle). Independent countries normally either sort out their own affairs eg currency, fiscal policy, or join a union such as the EU which would require both currency AND fiscal union.

The responsibility rests with iS to come up a viable plan which all parties can accept and rUK has every right to say 'sorry you can't have a currency union without full fiscal union'. It's not like they're aren't plenty of other alternatives.

It appears Standard Life are being misreported - who'da thunk it?

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/standard-life-deserve-common-sense-discussions/

It appears Standard Life are being misreported - who'da thunk it?

I think the bit you need to appreciate is that the financial sector is Scotland will shrink, unless there is fiscal union, as one of the other contrubutors posted[b]

Standard and Poor's, in its assessment on independence, said there were benefits for Scotland going it alone, but raised concern it may begin life having to cope with issues like comparatively high levels of public debt, sensitivity to oil prices and "potentially limited" monetary flexibility.

The agency added: "On the other hand, if this were to happen, it could bring benefits in terms of reducing the size of the Scottish economy's external balance sheet, [/b]normalizing the size of its financial sector[b], and reducing contingent liabilities for the state.

The website you quoted from has a Nationalist agenda

Tommy Sheridan! Ben I think you've just blown your argument good and proper there...

Tommy Sheridan! Ben I think you've just blown your argument good and proper there...

I thought it was a good example of how its a very varied cross section of political views in favour, from ****s like Sheridan, to the Labour for Yes movement its not just one person or party.

The website you quoted from has a Nationalist agenda

I take everything from BFS with a pinch of salt as it's a pro Yes business group, but it does show how you can spin everything. A headline shouting "Standard Life Plans for the Future" isn't going to work is it.

For example Tommy Sheridan is far from being a SNP fan:

Ben - Are you taking the piss? He's a convicted criminal!FFS!

Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?

Tommy Sheridan - haha, hasn't he been in and out of prison a couple of times, and didn't he appear on Celebrity Big Brother (kind of like prison and a surefire way of loosing all self respect in my book)?

Again not getting your point as it is nothing like that it is like me saying I have agreed to sell my house, if enough folk vote for this, but i wont negotiate a price till after they vote

Isn't that how houses normally sell, i.e. you decide to move - then once you've made the decision to move, you put your house up for sale and negotiate a price and terms with the vendor?

The vote for independence is simple - the question is: Should Scotland be an independent country?

It is not Should Scotland keep the pound, should Scotland keep the oil, or should Scotland remain in the EU etc.

To compare with the housing analogy, what Alex Salmond seems to be doing, and people on here is arguing about who should keep the carpets, do fixtures and fittings come with the sale, can the previous owner still park on the new owners driveway, will the new owners be invited round for coffee mornings with the neighbours etc. before the decision whether to move house or not has been taken in the first place by the vendors.

Crazy!

The website you quoted from has a Nationalist agenda

As compared to the BBC, Guardian and other mainstream media who have a Unionist agenda. It's called balance 😉

Ben - Are you taking the piss? He's a convicted criminal!FFS!

So what? He's also a very good public speaker, and his conviction doesn't alter the facts of what he's saying.