Osbourne says no to currency union.

Went out on the bikes with Scotroutes today.

Good day out it was.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cfzxk

listen from 9mins37sec

C

Just saw a nice wee graphic on Twitter.

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 :

British banks account for $640 bn of Federal Reserve bailout money

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

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf

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.

wanmankylung – Member
Oh I understand how it works.

Excellent, so I look forward to your explanation of why the poster is at best misleading ( the polite response )

…and please also explain why whoever made it couldn’t be arsed to phrase it properly in English and use the correct currency.

A question.

Let’s assume independence happens and the rUK decides not to “share” the £.

It looks like then Scotland won’t accept responsibility for the debt.

From what I have seen in the financial press a lot of the faith in the £ is because of oil reserves which will then be predominantly in Scotland.

Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)

Or will it rise because the rUK has got rid of its subsidy junkies?

There would (hypothetically) be volatility due to the uncertainty and time it would take to sort the inevitable mess out. But it is largely irrelevant because there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default. It would have to raise substantial amounts from international markets and you don’t start that programme by showing that your do not behave responsibly. Outside the deceitful one, there are few people (in the know) even mumbling the idea of not compensating rUK. Why should they, it’s shooting yourself in the foot.

Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction – get the options handbooks out!

teamhurtmore – Member
…there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default…

Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction – get the options handbooks out!

Something I am not clear on. Who owes the debt? The Bank of England owned by the govt, or the actual govt?

If it is the BoE and we don’t get our share, I can understand not taking its debts.

If it’s the govt I don’t understand the complexities involved, but feel we should take a share.

Volatility tends to be too exciting for me 🙂 I usually take long positions.

The government owes it. The actually debt is issued by the Debt Management Office (part of HM Treasury) on behalf of the government not the BOE. . The BOE no longer plays any part in this process (since the last 1990s). The debt is a liability for the government – it ultimately has to pay the money back (or at least be able to) plus interest to the investors who lend the money.

The debt cannot actually be split between countries in the event of a separation – that would constitute a technical default and HM Treasury has been clear about this. The issue is quite simple. All parts of the UK have benefited from the services provided by the UK and paid for by the debt (the Fiscal Commission is also clear on this). An iS would compensate the rUK for this benefit, that is what would be negotiated in terms of how much and how ie a one off payment or staged payments. The rest is just noise designed to deceive.

You do have to wonder who is writing the DOs speeches and advising him at the moment. The latest BS today about wanting its share of the BOE is patent nonsense. The only good thing would be if, as part of the required due diligence, the DO looked at the balance sheet of the BOE to see which side the current sits on. So his argument becomes we won’t take on your liabilities unless you agree to give us a share of your liabilities. You couldn’t make it up…..

Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)

Soros (or his successors) would be very interested in the proposal for a Scottish currency pegged to the pound.

Indeed especially the way Jim Sillars described in the week. Kerching for the speculators!!!!

Boris Johnson, who may well end up being the next PM, says there is no reason to give the Scottish parliament any more powers after a No vote.

In relation to other parts of the UK, he is probably right. As I said earlier, Pandora’s box has been opened by all three parties promising more devolution. It will create an unbalanced democratic process across the UK.

Scotland could start by fully using the powers it already has….

Johnson is the same person who said that a pound spent in Croydon was worth a lot more than a pound spent in Strathclyde.

But more importantly it shows up the “more powers” thing for the lie it is – if there really were going to be more powers after a No vote, they would have been mentioned in the Queen’s speech, there would be pending legislation in the works, there would be detail of exactly what powers are coming.

Since there’s none of that, we can safely assume that if there’s a No vote then Scotland goes back to being ignored again.

Ben that is clearly not the case. Remind us what role has at the moment? Then remind us what the current leaders of political parties have already promised? Then reconcile with the above.

Scotland ignored…c’mon…

You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today…

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’

Ie, vote No. Brilliant.

No hint of independence at all….now there’s a surprise

You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today…

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’
Ie, vote No. Brilliant.

The Scotsman? You mean this Scotsman article?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/yes-and-no-campaigns-reveal-september-battle-plans-1-3504618

Where that exact quote is used – except it was said by Danny Alexander of Better Together 😀

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’

Douglas Alexander MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

Breaking News!!!!! Douglas Alexander has defected to the Yes side!!!

Either that or a fail by THM. Perhaps it’s time to take a break THM?

Ahem It was Douglas Alexander of Better Together not Danny but an easy mistake to make .

Ha, yes, wrong clone 😉

I sometimes get the two Blairs mixed up too, that’s worse as they’re on opposite sides…

Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control. For example those controlled by international treaties, (eu, world trade, tafta), other countries and global corporations.

As a smaller country is there more or less chance of getting pushed around by these actors outside of the countries control?

Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control.

We’ll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.

Of course, like almost all countries, we’ll give up some of that control via treaties and the like, but as an independent country we will have the ability to negotiate those treaties ourselves, instead of hoping that the UK government will act in our interests.

Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394565144/big-independence-lie-scotland-could-keep-pound

I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn’t have a currency union.

Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.

Nah, September 19th will be a tartan apocalypse. All will collapse into chaos and despair.

I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn’t have a currency union.

That is what they’ve said, but that doesn’t fit the “Project Fear” rhetoric quite so well.

This whole “you can’t stop us using the £” nonsense is the greatest demonstration of a textbook strawman argument we’re ever likely to see on a stage this big.

There is a problem in that it’s always reported as “you can’t use the pound” “you can’t stop us using the pound” when in fact we all know that there’s no way the rUK could stop iScotland using the pound – the discussion is all really about whether we have a currency union or not.

An independent Scotland will use the pound – whether that’s with a currency union or not is up for negotiation after the referendum.

I’d prefer either of plans b,c or d to plan a.