Osbourne says no to currency union.

Ah, another one who has fanciful notions that the Labour Party can once again become the mass party of the working people.

Are the SNP not going to be in power during that period anyhow? Given that they have a couple of years to go still with this election cycle. By the time the next election is done all the negotiations will be finished.

Ah, another one who has fanciful notions that the Labour Party can once again become the mass party of the working people.

Stranger things have happened. It would never happen to the english labour party, but it would happen to the scottish one. A comment that I heard the other night was pretty interesting and probably bang on – When it comes to political ideology you couldnt fit a fag paper between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling….

I would be happy to pay a lot more tax and have less cash if it meant that we could have a fairer society. That’s what I believe a yes vote will achieve.

How will a yes vote achieve that?

it would pose a teeny tiny problem for the tourism industry though – it would turn an easy, impromptu, weekend jolly into a teeny, tiny, pain in ar53.

Oh, don’t talk pathetic bloody rubbish.

Europe is filled with people that go shopping in their neighbours’ countries with different currencies. I think if millions of English booze cruisers could successfully make it to the Auchan at Calais, buy a hatchback of fizzy lager and make it back to Dover all in a foreign language and with a different currency, then most people will be able to wrap their head around buying a cup of tea in Peebles with groats ffs.

Are the SNP not going to be in power during that period anyhow? Given that they have a couple of years to go still with this election cycle. By the time the next election is done all the negotiations will be finished.

There will be little over 18 months from referendum to Scottish General Election. I doubt everything will be sorted in that time. As to labour floundering, take the important currency issue. If Salmond gets a currency union he will be hailed a hero, if he does not then he can keep blaming the UK. Other parties can hardly step into the breech to put forward a case for sterling since they are now reasoning it is a bad idea to share currency.

konabunny – Member

How will a yes vote achieve that?

Scotland would be more likely to have the kind of government it actually votes for, which would probably mean a left-leaning/socialist government.

Oh, don’t talk pathetic bloody rubbish.

need a hug?

if you’re not convinced that a seperate currency would have a negative impact on tourism, then you deserve a medal for optimism.

oh – the government Scotland votes for – that old gag. Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP get re-elected and somehow this will make Scotland radically different from the last 20 years when the same parties were in the ascendant.

don’t need a hug – do need less stupid waffling about bureaux de change on this thread.

It would never happen to the english labour party, but it would happen to the scottish one.

Now there’s an example of a statement with no actual facts/evidence to back it up, it’s at best a hunch and at worse wishful thinking.

The problem with the Labour Party isn’t that it’s got all the wrong policies, ie, right-wing policies, if that was the problem then there might be a half reasonable chance of fixing it.

The problem with the Labour Party is that it no longer has democratic structures, it operates as a one man fiefdom, there is no input from its core supporters.

No party which is a one man show and whose higher cadres are expected to show unstinting loyalty to the leader can ever be a mass party of the people. It is divorced from the people. It can’t represent ordinary working people even if it wanted to.

For the Labour Party to once again become a democratic vibrant party connected to the people would require a complete restructuring of the party. But this is completely unobtainable because of the existing undemocratic structures.

After Tony Blair won the Clause 4 battle he made it very clear that having done so his next battle, the one which really mattered, was to “change the structures”, as he put it.

Not many people paid attention to what he was saying deeming unimportant relative to Clause 4. I was listening because like Tony Blair I realised just how important the structures are with regards to control of the party.

Tony Blair ripped the soul out of the Labour Party and disconnected it from its core supporters, that’s Tony Blair’s real lasting legacy.

It would be easier to build a new party, no mean feat, than to successfully rebuild the Labour Party.

I predict post Yes vote, if the electoral system remains as is then no party is likely to have a majority for quite some time.

Labour will split into several factions (this looks to be already starting) as Westminster based Scottish MP’s look towards Holyrood and the more left leaning factions who have been campaigning for Yes vote take them on for seats.

SNP will begin to break up over some of the decisions that will have to be taken during independence negotiations. What remains as the bulk of the party will regroup and probably form a minority government for first term or two. Alex Salmond will step down as leader and retire after first term. Not much longer after that I can’t see them continuing as the SNP, I think a new smaller political party will emerge.

The radical independence folks, and some of the other similar movements, who haven’t had much of the media attention may surprise a few people. They have been campaigning heavily out of the spotlight and picking up quite bit of support (mainly from the long term disengaged, those who don’t usually vote, can they keep this up?) – how will this group get on when up against the more known socialist groups? (will Tommy Sheridan and crew make a comeback post court case review?).

Lib Dems and Greens – don’t see much changing here, Lib Dems will bounce back after initially losing votes as punishment for coalition. Greens will plod along as they have done.

Tories will need a re-brand, slowly but surely they will come back into play, but not to the point where they will be able to form any sort of Government (not for a long time anyways).

I look forward to an interesting period post Yes watching all this unfold and seeing who emerges as the leading party.

My tax office is in East Kilbride. There is also a tax office at Haymarket in Edinburgh. There are DVLA offices all over Scotland. I do believe that there is a passport office in Glasgow. They’d be scottish assets.
They’d be UK institutions, just like they are now.

it’s not a big deal either way – there are tons of examples of big state-run projects being run well over the last couple of decades in Scotland. I’m sure doing a whole bunch of them at once will result in cheap and timely solutions.

What the **** is a fairer society?!

What the **** is a fairer society?!

It’s where a government uses it’s influence and power to support policies that benefit the whole population not just a few rich men.

Alex Salmond is pretty good at spotting these opportunities

“Yours for Scotland”

http://www.cityam.com/article/alex-salmond-backed-rbs-s-abn-disaster

One with lots of highlights?

What the **** is a fairer society?!

Well, if others are chipping in…

A fairer society is a sales pitch from politicians designed to get your vote. Delivery not guaranteed.

Feel free to swap “fairer” with “big” if your feeling cynical.

Theres one thing I hate and thats political soundbites. They are almost ignorable and often repeated to avoid this. When the populace repeats such a soundbite it gets my back up.

What the **** is a fairer society? Mental. wanmankylung go on use your vote. Hes promised you a brighter future. Politicians promises, gotta love em. I’d rather plumb with economics and worsecase than a politicians promises.

@ernie – the current Labour Party, lets call it New Labour if for no reason as to distinguish it from the older more union centric party, is the one which has the best chance of returning to Government. IMO the older style party is dead forever and rightly so as it would be un-electable. UK society has changed moving away from the mass employment manufacturing style industries which where the core of Labours support. Those people now work in smaller service lead companies and would not associate themselves with Old Labour, hence to survive Labour has changed into the body we see today. New Labour has a chance to win to the next election, old Labour would have none, zero.

I actually believe an independent Scotland would be much more likely to have a centerist government than one leaning towards the left. Centerist = New Labour if you like

Currency.

Plan B, C, D. I’ve posted this before but AS and the SNP dare not speak about a currency other than the pound as that guarantees the euro, sooner or later and they know that will be a big vote loser. Not least because of the disaster that that currency has become but because of the transfer from sovereignty from the “English” to Brussels/Strasbourg, who will feel that is an improvement ? I was surprised to see a senior Yes campaigner on the BBC news last night imploring AS to speak of a pegged Scottish Pound, he clearly doesn’t understand the transition to the euro that would imply.

@hora, perhaps a fairer society is one where all the rich people leave and therefore everyone else is more average.

We live in one of the fairest societies in the world as do all those in the core members of the EU. If people cannot see that they need to spend some time looking at the US, China, India etc.

I’d really like to see how the SNP are going to deliver this fairer Scotland, its not going to be via tax cuts to keep companies in Scotland or by paying large amounts to replicate existing UK government infrastructure. I don’t see too many wealthy Scots who chose to base themselves there, perhaps thats why Scotland is and will be fairer ?

What ‘worries’ me is those people who have shit, dull, average lives who think a independent Scotland will give them opportunities etc etc rather than what will really happen is they’ll still have a shit, dull and average life in any economy because of one common denominator’ themself. Not listening properly at school, not being self-motivated etc.

I’m worried these type will vote yes because they see no future for themself and think well nowt to lose. These are the dangerous type. Idiots.

jambalaya – Member

@ernie – the current Labour Party, lets call it New Labour if for no reason as to distinguish it from the older more union centric party, is the one which has the best chance of returning to Government. IMO the older style party is dead forever and rightly so as it would be un-electable.

Thank you for your valued opinion from a Tory/right-wing perspective of the best electoral prospect for a party to defeat the Tories.

I shall carefully put it in the same bin as your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If there was a genuine as opposed to a sepia-tinged view demand for Old Labour, it’s odd that no one has done anything about it – not even the unions or those betrayed by our “unequal” society.

But actually the Scottish vote does give “some” perspective on all of this in that it seems to be spilt pretty much along class/income (sorry that’s clumsy) lines. There was an article in the n N Statesman a while back arguing that working class Scots are more likely to support independence but less likely to vote than middle – class Scots. Is that the DO’s lifeline? He certainly needs one.

Jambalaya, was that Sillars? He certainly doesn’t understand how pegged exchange rates work but it was a better stab than the DO. Perhaps the latter is doing a Novak Djokavic and appearing (cough) injured and resigned to defeat while preparing for a late rebound. Otherwise it’s a sad (but justified) resignation of the inevitable.

konabunny,

someone (me?), possibly a bit dim (yup, me), pops up with their concern, which might just have an effect on an £11billion industry*, and your response is to simply dismiss it as “pathetic bloody rubbish”

you are Alex Salmond, and i claim my 5 pounds new Scottish Sceats.

(*it certainly does in other parts of the world)

Banking groups will also have to decide which side of the financial border to register. Where banks are registered (incorporated) matters for which government provides the deposit insurance, who regulates the banks, who is likely to receive emergency liquidity support and which taxpayers pay for any losses in the case of future failures.

From

http://niesr.ac.uk/publications/scotlands-lender-last-resort-options#.U-SVT3-9KSM

I wonder if there is any contingency planning going on!?!

Radical Independence Campaign[/url]
The Commonweal[/url]
Labour for Indy
All of the above links are to grassroots organisations which are politically to the left of UK Labour. The Common Weal in particular has made initial moves to form a political party.Labour for indy would prefer a that the current Scottish Labour Party move to the left.
So given that and the high level of support for the SNP devolved government it seems there is a demand for social change in Scotland at least.

We’ll let’s see if they prosper.

someone (me?), possibly a bit dim (yup, me), pops up with their concern, which might just have an effect on an £11billion industry*, and your response is to simply dismiss it as “pathetic bloody rubbish”

Well, unless you’re suggesting the English and Scots are significantly more stupid than Irish/Northern Irish, English/French, Americans/Canadians, Americans/Mexicans, Singaporeans/Malaysians/Indonesians, and Swiss/everyone around them, it’s not a significant problem. All of those people seem to be able to wrap their heads around cross border shopping and travel with different currencies.

In fact, people in Derry seem to have been smart enough to use three currencies simultaneously for a while: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1737671.stm There are probably a few outliers (you’ve identified one yourself) but you can’t go through life catering to them…

40 days left.

Better get those goodbye streamers sorted…

🙂

All of the above links are to grassroots organisations which are politically to the left of UK Labour. The Common Weal in particular has made initial moves to form a political party.Labour for indy would prefer a that the current Scottish Labour Party move to the left.
So given that and the high level of support for the SNP devolved government it seems there is a demand for social change in Scotland at least.

The British public are to the left of the Labour Party on many economic issues, eg, opinion polls show public support for renationalisation of the privatised utilities and railways, but there is zero chance of Labour Party adopting those policies.

The only possibility of a fully democratic political party which is responsive to the wishes of the people is through the establishment of a new party, or more likely imo, an electoral alliance representing various groups with social change agendas. The most likely scenario to spawn such a development is a successful protest movement.

But as long as people continue to place faith on “changing the Labour Party” no progress will be achieved imo. The Labour Party is the problem, not the solution.

No debt means less assets.

Bearing in mind I’m not an economist, can you explain this please?

Sorry for dragging this up from the past, but I’ve typed it all out now!

My understanding of the debt / asset / liabilities distribution post-independence is that it depends upon the definition of iScotland under international law (Vienna Convention on Succession of States). There seems to be two ‘categories’ that the creation of iScotland can fit into either a “newly independent State” or “Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State”

Both of these categories carry pros and cons for Scotland and the UK,

Newly independent state would seem to be a good option for Scotland in terms of debt;

Article 38
Newly independent State
1.When the successor State is a newly independent State, no State debt of the predecessor State
shall pass to the newly independent State, unless an agreement between them provides otherwise in view
of the link between the State debt of the predecessor State connected with its activity in the territory to
which the succession of States relates and the property, rights and interests which pass to the newly
independent State.

Although there is the get out of jail free card in there for the UK “unless an agreement between them provides otherwise…..” so as long as the UK could show that the debt was used in Scotland and for Scotland then presumably they can request some compensation. The newly formed state also has advantages in terms of the assets (referred to as ‘property’ in the Vienna Convention)

Article 15
Newly independent State
1.When the successor State is a newly independent State:
(a) immovable State property of the predecessor State situated in the territory to which the succession
of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(b) immovable property, having belonged to the territory to which the succession of States relates,
situated outside it and having become State property of the predecessor State during the period of
dependence, shall pass to the successor State;
(c) immovable State property of the predecessor State other than that mentioned in subparagraph (b)
and situated outside the territory to which the succession of States relates, to the creation of which the
dependent territory has contributed, shall pass to the successor State in proportion to the contribution of
the dependent territory;
(d) movable State property of the predecessor State connected with the activity of the predecessor
State in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State
(e) movable property, having belonged to the territory to which the succession of States relates and
having become State property of the predecessor State during the period of dependence, shall pass to the
successor State;
(f) movable State property of the predecessor State, other than the property mentioned in
subparagraphs (d) and (e), to the creation of which the dependent territory has contributed, shall pass to
the successor State in proportion to the contribution of the dependent territory.

So not only would Scotland get to keep the assets located on Scottish soil, but would be entitled to some of the properties located within other areas of the UK. This seems to be the premise behind the white paper claims of sharing embassies and the pound etc.

But it does put a spanner in the works in respect to treaties and as the SNP refer to it “continued membership” of organisations such as the EU and NATO. A newly independent Scotland would be considered a new state which didn’t exist before independence day, so continuation of anything would be implausible.

The second option puts more weight behind the UKs claim for debt compensation;

Article 40
Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State
1.When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a State, and
unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, the State debt of the predecessor
State shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion, taking into account, in particular, the
property, rights and interests which pass to the successor State in relation to that State debt.

So not really any wiggle room there for Scotland to be debt free.

Article 17
Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State
1.When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a successor
State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree:
(a) immovable State property of the predecessor State situated in the territory to which the succession
of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(b) movable State property of the predecessor State connected with the activity of the predecessor
State in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(c) movable State property of the predecessor State, other than that mentioned in subparagraph (b),
shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion.

Which isn’t quite as good a deal as a “Newly independent state” gets because Scotland would have no claim to properties outside its borders. The advantage here is that it would recognise the fact the Scotland existed as a territory of the UK before the date of succession so would add some weight to the ‘continued membership argument’

There are other pros and cons in terms of treaty obligations based on the two categories – it would appear that the “Newly independent state” option is pretty much a clean slate whereas the “Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State” option would allow Scotland to inherit some of the UKs treaties.

What the white paper seems to assume is an improbable mix and match of the two categories and of course it can be highlighted that the UK hasn’t signed up to the Vienna Convention (and obviously Scotland hasn’t) so it’s not relevant – but if during negotiation arbitration by the UN is required then it would be plausible to think that their first reference would be that document.

@ernie, if the British pubic where to the left of Labour then they or any other political party would move left to capture those votes. The fact is Labour won 10 years in prior by moving right to the center to reflect British public opinion. To move back left again would be fatal to their election chances as you are wrong about the British public being left of Labour. As I posted I suspect an independent Scotland will have a centerist government with Scottish Labour left out in the cold. Politicians are quite straightforward, they follow where they think the votes are. If Labour move back to the left I won’t vote for them again.

As for ignoring my views that is consistent of your approach of not giving any credence to people who disagree with you whether that’s on Ukraine, the Middle East or any other topic I’ve seen you post on.

40 days left.

Better get those goodbye streamers sorted…
40 days, phew thank goodness !

However I suspect a Yes vote will be like a divorce, the arguing before the divorce will be nothing like the bitter fighting once the decision has been made.

jambalaya – Member

@ernie, if the British pubic where to the left of Labour then they or any other political party would move left to capture those votes.

Nah… What Blair realised was that the best place for Labour to be, electorally speaking, is 0.00001mm left of the Tories. The people further left will mostly still vote for you (and most of those who don’t become nonvoters or vote for niche undamaging alternatives) and in return you pick up people from the right of where you would naturally be.

It’s like guessing numbers, if the first person guesses two you say three, even if you think the answer’s 10- because that way you still win if it’s 10, you also win if it’s 3. Sound tactics, in Westminster.

jambalaya – Member

@ernie…..To move back left again would be fatal to their election chances as you are wrong about the British public being left of Labour.

You seem to think my claim that the British public is to the left of the Labour Party on some basic economic polices is based purely on my personal opinion, it isn’t.

Numerous carefully conducted and highly credible polls of British public opinion has shown that there is strong support for the renationalisation of the the untilities and railways, policies well to the left of the today’s Labour Party.

If you are claiming that I am wrong then you are claiming that respected independent polls are wrong, despite their findings being well beyond their margin of error.

Here’s one :

Nationalise energy and rail companies, say public[/url]

The majority of the British public – including the majority of Conservative voters – support nationalising the energy and rail companies.

68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately.

As Northwind points out Labour doesn’t adopt more left-wing policies simply because it doesn’t need to. That’s why it’s so important not to vote Labour if you really want to see change.

Labour also lacks the guts to embrace more left-wing policies as it would create a hostile reaction from industrialists, the rich, the powerful, and the Tory dominated press.

Better for the self-serving New Labour politicians so epitomized by Tony Blair to repackage Tory policies and say “essentially we agree with Tory policies but would implement them in a slightly different way”, in other words that they are better Tories than the Tories themselves.

The difference between Labour and the Tories is presentation, not ideology.

EDIT : Another reason for Labour not adopting economic policies which would enjoy wide public support is because they would invariably fall foul of EU rules, something which the Nats in Scotland choose to ignore.

Labour will not attack or criticize the EU (despite in its more left-wing past having an official party policy of withdrawal from the EEC) it considers that to be the domain of the Tories and UKIP, despite conservatives dominating the EU and therefore EU policies.

jambalaya – Member
40 days, phew thank goodness !
However I suspect a Yes vote will be like a divorce, the arguing before the divorce will be nothing like the bitter fighting once the decision has been made.

Ooh, divorce? Does that mean we get maintenance too?

Irelanst, according to the vienna convention,

(f) “newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately
before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international
relations of which the predecessor State was responsible;

I don’t see how this could apply to Scotland, as it is an integral part of the United Kingdom (as per the act of union) – it would however refer accurately to the Channel islands, Isle of Man, Barbados etc which as dependent territories are unable to enter into international treaties, their international relations are handled by the United Kingdom, so as an example the hague convention on child abduction was signed by the UK, and separately extended to its dependencies like Bermuda – it was not extended to Scotland as its already part of the UK, rather than represented internationally by the UK.

So, if the Channel Islands as Crown Dependencies decided to go fully independent, then they could avail itself of those parts of the vienna convention, whereas Scotland would have to use the other one you pointed out, as a part of the existing state that was seeking separation.

Put simply

1. A currency is not and cannot be an asset in the sense that AS pretends
2. They cannot be a physical passage of debt – that would be a technical default
3. There is no link between the use of the pound and an iS compensating rUK even though AS likes to pretend that there is
4. The UK has provision to stand behind the existing debt
5. iS has now provision to deal with the non-compensation of the rUK (even they know that would be stupid)

It’s bluff and bluster by yS – nothing else.

Ooh, divorce? Does that mean we get maintenance too?

If yS are to be believed, that is the last thing you would need. Having doubts?

I don’t see how this could apply to Scotland

I don’t think there is much credibility to the ‘Newly independent state’ claim either but it’s the only definition which fits in with some of the claims (walking away from the debt etc.) – Scotland existed before the Union, and has continued to exist during the union – letting sport be the judge; they are a separate team at the commonwealth games and seven nations and I think they had a football team once.

It’s a bluff. They cannot walk away and their advisors have already highlighted the on-going obligation.

HM Treasury has also already clarified the position on the debt and ruled out any form of sharing as this would represent a technical default. What will happen in the unlikely event of a yes, is that iS will compensate rUK for being relieved of its share of outstanding UK debt (there is no debate here incl. Scotland’s advisors). There are then only questions about the amount and the method (clean break or IOU).

It would be helpful if the DO explained this to people instead of deceiving them into thinking that iS would/could be debt free. The reason he refuses to do so is simple – Scotland will have a high debt/GDP burden still but he likes to pretend that he can magic it away. He can’t under any scenario. It’s clear and simple unless you listen to the DO.

This may be of interest:

In a press release from the Adam Smith Institute, champion of liberal capitalism and no friend to the Social Democracy favoured by Scots, Kate Andrews, Research Director, demolishes Better Together’s suggestion that the SNp’s lack of a plan B matters so much. She writes:
“An independent Scotland could flourish either by using the pound sterling without the permission of the rUK (or by setting up a “ScotPound” pegged to sterling through a currency board, which would achieve a similar end). This ‘sterlingization’ would emulate a number of Latin American countries that use the US Dollar without an official agreement with the US government. Because Scottish banks would not have access to a currency-printing lender of last resort, they would have to make their own provisions for illiquidity, and would necessarily act more prudently.
“Scotland actually had this system of ‘free banking’ during the 18th and 19th centuries, during which time its economy boomed relative to England’s and its banks were remarkably secure. And Panama, which uses the US Dollar in this way, has the seventh most stable financial system in the world.
“Everyone says Mr Salmond needs a Plan B if the rUK does not agree to a currency union with Scotland. But unilateral adoption should be Plan A, making Scotland’s economy more stable and secure. The UK’s obstinacy would be Scotland’s opportunity.”

I linked to that earlier, and was told that it was rubbish as the Adam Smith Institute were a bunch of nationalists and of course couldn’t be trusted to be impartial because they’re Scottish 😉

(I might have paraphrased slightly)