[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

They would have lost all of the significant benefits that come from being part of the Union

I keep seeing this phrase but no one seems able to articulate what these benefits actually are.

Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we'll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay.

Indeed
There will be many hard negotiations to have during the divorce and no one knows how it will end up

Better to say nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in...its not a great message mind.

teamhurtmore - Member
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.

Bearing in mind the post above yours claims

Surely any Scot not of the 'FU' mentality can see that for both sides, independence is not the way to go?

Shows exactly the mindset of the NO campaign, so dream on.

Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we'll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay

If you read the Treasury analysis, you will see Osborne is merely acting on unequivocal independent Treasury advice. [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-analysis-assessment-of-a-sterling-currency-union ]See pdf to download here[/url]

mefty - Stop posting links to detailed analysis of the issues. You bully.

Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.

Let's hope so. And that's the resolution that the UK Parliamentary parties should be offering, and pushing for, rather than the patronising "we'll screw you if you leave" tone of talk of "ruling out a currency union".

Yes but until the elephant in the room that is 'Full Independence' has been ruled out then further devolution negotiations would never have been truly successful (as there would still have been too many trouble making people pushing for independence and too many unresolved independence issues getting in the way).

This is why the vote for full independence (as opposed to greater devolution) had to happen first, to rule out independence for the foreseeable future, so that then, the Scots can move forward towards proper, positive and focused talks around more self control, greater powers of devolution and increased Scottish self governance.

They are not ruling out currency union, they are ruling our currency union as outlined by AS and co. They are different things. There is a current theme here - you cannot * have one side of a currency union (the benefits) without the other side (the obligations). That is all that Carney and co are saying. And they are correct to use Europe as an example of why this is the case. The euro zone cannot survive without greater levels of monetary and fiscal integration and lower levels is national independence - that is as clear as saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

* this is nothing more than a kids argument.

Kelvin - I 100% agree with what should be being offered BTW. But again that is not what IS being offered. When I suggested that a year ago (ie saying what you are saying) the trolls flamed me for not respecting the wishes of the Scots!!! Funny where the strongest consensus has been all along!!!!

The analysis sets out that the UK is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history, and the current arrangements bring significant benefits to Scotland. Taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK to the benefit of all parts of the UK. Risks are pooled and the UK has a common insurance against uncertainty. Within a sterling currency union, an independent Scottish state would find it more difficult to adjust to the effects of economic challenges, such as a fall in the global price of oil, than Scotland is able to as part of the UK.

In turn, the continuing UK would become exposed to much greater fiscal and financial risk from a separate state, creating risks for continuing UK taxpayers. The subsequent experience of the euro area in the financial crisis highlights the challenges of creating a durable currency union. The analysis concludes that, in the event of a vote for independence, the Treasury would advise the UK government against entering into a currency union. The UK pound is one of the oldest and most successful currencies in the world. If people in Scotland vote to leave the UK they are also voting to leave the UK pound.

Quite a neat summary from that link.

Bllx, 78 pages and coffee time almost over. Hope the exec summary is good and better than the one in the BoD!

Thanks for the link Mefty

duckman - Member
teamhurtmore - Member
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.

All said by you while describing the SNP manifesto as the book of dreams and the vote itself as a vanity project.Do you take in ironing?

It is x2 QED. The truth is not always palatable is it?

No, but am a dab hand with starch and as steam iron as the boys know!!!

Just to reiterate the point on Scotland having to join the EU as a new state (and fulfil entry criteria) - lets defer to the President of the EU:

But [i] what would he know?[/i]

Is there an alternative nationnalist party that doesn't envisage joining the EU? After all, having just left one unrepresentative union you wouldn't want to get entangled in an even worse one...

teamhurtmore - Member
They are not ruling out currency union, they are ruling our currency union as outlined by AS and co. They are different things..

So in clarification (page 10) from the Treasury:

On the basis of the scale of the challenges, [b]and the Scottish Government’s proposals for addressing them, [/b]HM Treasury would advise the UK Government against entering into a currency union.

winston_dog - Member

The rules for "new" members are different from what went before.

I can't view the video as I say, but the treaties have not changed. It is an irony of the euro- you're required to commit to joining it, but actually prevented from joining til you meet the criteria of your accession treaty. All very practical.

But as Kaesae showed us, one youtube video is more important 😉

kelvin, the conclusion today from the BBC's Douglas Fraser (Scottish. Economics and Business editor)

[b]But this crunch point also demonstrates the rUK can (also*) choose to assert its interests. Its politicians will see it as their duty to fight for them[/b].

* my addition!

I have not had time to read all the pages so apologies if this has been said already but, if nothing else, does this not demonstrate that the SNP's plans are a bit 'wooly'. Their White Paper read as a bit of a wish list without any decent alternatives. Currency is a major element of independence and they seem to have not fully thought it through.

(for transparency, eligible voter here who, if the vote was today, would be voting No.)

Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it's done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option - greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.

In the event of a No vote, why on earth would Westminster even consider giving more devolution? Much more likely the contrary will happen - pulling back of powers, and the Barnett formula is dead anyway.

If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.

The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.

Or they are keeping this as the final trump card - they are [s]nasty bullies[/s] better bridge players after all!!

Or they are keeping this as the final trump card

I hope so. Devo Max always seemed a great option to me. I know that is off the table but more powers would seem a logical compromise.

Careful frank, you get flamed for saying things like that!!! 😉

Nope, I agree completely - more powers, and importantly more powers which can't be pulled back whenever Westminster feels like it. Really, the UK needs a more federal system, why Should Scotland have a better deal than Wales, NI, the North, the Southwest, etc.

But without that option on the table, independence is the best choice.

I think federalism within The EU is a better idea

We do need more local powers whilst also clubbing together

Franksinatra - thats where Salmond shot his own fox, isn't it?

Instead of calling for devo max (which there's little doubt the govt would have had to give) Salmond went in riding two horses, a vote on both independence AND devo max, but came out again riding one lame pony when Cameron called his bluff with a vote on all or nothing!

I think federalism within The EU is a better idea
We do need more local powers whilst also clubbing together

And so to sum up, I would advise you against entering into a currency union with an independent Scotland. There is no evidence that adequate proposals or policy changes to enable the formation of a currency union could be devised, agreed and implemented by both governments in the foreseeable future.

THM - McPherson's letter is far more damning than anything in the report. - not limited to "present proposals".

Didn't see this posted yet. Text of Osbourne's speech is available here:
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-on-the-prospect-of-a-currency-union-with-an-independent-scotland ]Linky[/url]

I am not convinced that federal systems with local powers are a contradiction in terms though your critique was amusingly done.

ninfan - Member
Franksinatra - thats where Salmond shot his own fox, isn't it?

Instead of calling for devo max (which there's little doubt the govt would have had to give) Salmond went in riding two horses, a vote on both independence AND devo max, but came out again riding one lame pony when Cameron called his bluff with a vote on all or nothing!

Hang on, ninfan, I thought he was the canniest and most able politician in the UK. Or perhaps, it really is true that Scotland (and the rUK) really did/do deserve better! 😉

The problem is that this whole mess is affecting us all. So CMD is not blameless either. Indeed that was the final conclusion of the Scotsman article that I posted last night. Seeing AS with his pants down is amusing for a split second but ultimately it is an ugly and unsatisfactory distraction for everyone. Perhaps we get the politicians we deserve though?!?!

THM moans at AS and has a friend in Zulu
ah all is well in the world of the right [eous]

As we see the floods rising in Toryland (Thames valley), do you think they've noticed yet that most of the high ground is in Scotland?

Excellent work by George today - this really isn't going to end well for the Bitter Together lot, if the immediate reactions from my chums in the 'undecided' camp are anything to go by 🙂

In the event of a No vote, why on earth would Westminster even consider giving more devolution? Much more likely the contrary will happen - pulling back of powers, and the Barnett formula is dead anyway.

If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.

The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.

the good old "Project Fear" line, vote no and they will shaft you

THM, did you come home from work early one day and find Alex Salmond's trousers on the stairs? It would explain a bit... 8)

No, funnily enough, he's shafting those north on the border first. We are just dealing with the unpleasant spillage so far. 😉

(It is becoming increasingly embarrassing for the alma mater though. Did the department not teach basic monetary economics/functioning of central banks etc well in those days? Pity to trash the reputation of such a fine establishment)

all or nothing

Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.

If they were going to offer more devolution, they'd say so now - it'd be a perfect way to swing all the undecideds. It would even swing me, if the offer was good. Offering more devolution now is a guaranteed way for the No side to win the referendum.

The fact that they're not offering more devolution (and prevented devo max as an option on the ballot) shows that more devolution is most definitely off the table.

Still plenty of time till the referendum so there's no need for the No campaign to play all its cards at once. At the moment we're seeing the SNP's bluff being called on currency, and the fact they have been so aggresive and insulting in their response shows how desperate they are, and how there is no plan B

I predict devo max will be put on the table sometime in the summer. Then it will be fresh in the minds of the voters when the big day comes, and hopefully we'll have see the last of Salmond and his ilk.

Yeah I'd agree with that-Salmond et al wanted a three way vote wih devo max in there- for some reason the Uk govt wanted devo max removed? So they could use it towards the end of their vote no campaign?
I doubt it very much..

Let's hope so Kenny!

@bencooper - I think Westminster took the devo max etc off the table and wanted a simple in/out question has it tied the SNPs hands, if they lose this vote it will be very difficult to come back again, it could even finish the party as a viable force. If they had allowed further devolution the SNP could have taken that claiming a big victory and then had a referendum anyway.

I think the SNP has most definitely not thought out the implications of independence, as posted above it means a new application to join the EU and a firm commitment to join the euro as soon as possible (that is a term for all new EU member state applicants) - an independent Scotland cannot inherit the UK's euro opt-out

Or you could look at it from another angle. Would an independent Alba want to have a currency union with the rest of the union? After all, the Alban Thistle would be backed by oil revenues.

Personally I think that the 'all or nothing' was forced to put an end to the issue once and for all

Had there been a referendum for devo max, then the SNP campaigning would immediately start for devo max plus, then devo max plus plus with a cherry on top, and the cycle of salami slicing neverendum goes on and on for ever with the SNP constantly blaming England for all their woes, and the knock on of constant uncertianty into the future meaning that the UK government can never commit to long term plans as they don't know whats happening with Scotland.

Sooner or later, you're just putting off the inevitable, so why not just get down to it - thats good leadership and good for the rest of the UK - stop messing about, shut up or put up, in or out!

Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.

Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post 😆

I think you're totally wrong. I think the reason that DEVO Max wasn't offered is that the UK Government wanted this independence thing cleared up once and for all before moving forward.

Otherwise we'd agree to DEVO Max, and Salmond/SNP would still keep causing trouble by relentlessly banging on about about full Scottish independence and as a result, despite DEVO Max being in place, we'd remain in the current land of limbo 'will they/won't they' for the next few decades.

That's not good for anyone, especially not for Scotland.

the fact they[SNP] have been so aggresive and insulting in their response shows how desperate they are, and how there is no plan B

Do you think the No campaign is being polite and not aggressive?
Do you think they have a plan B ?

It just seems a lot of folk using whatever happens to confirm their own bias.
the facts are largely immaterial

All i would say is I would treat the SNP claims as we hope that x will happen

I would treat the NO campaigns as threats that they may not do as some of them are biting off your nose to spite your face.

No one knows what will happen until after the vote as neither side will negotiate.

Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post [ straw man, ad hom 🙄 ]

I think you're totally wrong. I think the reason that DEVO Max wasn't offered is that the UK Government wanted this independence thing cleared up once and for all before moving forward.

SO you agree with them that the UK govt did it but despite that they are totally wrong 😕

Now... who deliberately removed the option to vote for WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY WANT, ie more devolution? The UK government. Depressing games.

Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post

I'm not Scottish, I'm English.
I want the Scots to vote NO to independence.

With that out of the way... the UK government only agreed to a referendum with the proviso that the option that most Scots want, more devolution, wasn't on the voting card. That's a fact. We can all offer our own ideas about why...