Osbourne says no to currency union.

As I said previously – enlighten me. I want decent well constructed fact based articles – not stuff you’ve plucked out of your arse because the thought of an indy Scotland terrifies you.

I want decent well constructed fact based article

I suggest that in future you ask nicely, trying using the word “please”.

I don’t provide a free enlightening service.

just free sarcasm services 😉

Wan…., go back and read what happened when Scotland was trying to readjust to a decline in its traditional manufacturing base and then faced the imoact if NS Oli in the exchange rate. A double whammy from which it never fully recovered, of course, the easy answer was to blame Thatcher and Co, but the reality was very different.

How’s the reading in currency unions coming in?

As I said previously – enlighten me. I want decent well constructed fact based articles – not stuff you’ve plucked out of your arse because the thought of an indy Scotland terrifies you.

Scotland sells lots of stuff to the evil England. If the evil England suffers then Scotland sells less to the evil England. At which point Scotland suffers as it makes less money. This works the other way round too. The best result regardless of the referendum result is that both Scotland and the other nations of the Union/rUK is for both economies to prosper and grow.

You are proving a good reason for me to vote No.

I have no problem with the rUK’s economy suffering as a result of Scotland becoming independent.

I’d much rather that didn’t happen, far better for both countries for the rUK not to suffer economically – they’d be our largest trading partner.

Of course it’s possible that the policies of the Westminster government might impose economic suffering where it wasn’t necessary – paying billions to relocate Trident, refusing a currency union, or even building a land border.

Of course it’s possible that the policies of the Westminster government might impose economic suffering where it wasn’t necessary – paying billions to relocate Trident, refusing a currency union, or even building a land border.

And you will not have any say in the future policy decisions of UK. Btw, any further forward on what Osborne’s refusal of a CU will cost Scottish business.

Btw, any further forward on what Osborne’s refusal of a CU will cost Scottish business.

Ed Miliband estimated it’d cost rUK businesses £100M-£200M – so about 1/10th of that? Though I have no idea where he pulled that figure from.

I’d imagine from his arse tbh

I thought SNP figure for rUK business was £500m?

You make it sound like having massive oil reserves is a bad thing.

it depends on the level of development in the economy. but in any case it’s not really a dilemma Scotland needs to worry about (aboot). the oil and gas isn’t that significant one way or the other. Scotland isn’t Kuwait with haggis.

I thought SNP figure for rUK business was £500m?

I’m not sure how anyone got to their calculations. And what the comparison is with – if the comparison is with a separate Scottish currency then there will be transaction charges, but if Scotland uses the pound outside a currency union there won’t be. It also depends on how the economies vary over time.

So impossible to calculate with any certainty I’d reckon.

if the comparison is with a separate Scottish currency then there will be transaction charges, but if Scotland uses the pound outside a currency union there won’t be

As we’ve covered several times before, the Fiscal Commission dismissed the pound without CU approach.

For those defending AS, fortunately he seems to have recognised he’s been a bit short on detail:

Salmond to clarfiy his position on currency

@oldbloke; Unless I’ve missed something, the fiscal commission hasn’t discounted using the pound without union. It’s stated that it’s not likely to be a long term solution but that’s not the same thing.

Northwind, it dismissed it in one paragraph and spent the rest of its report discussing 4 other currency options. You’re right that it said it could only be a short term option, but in dismissing it so quickly it clearly discounted that approach as not being suitable.

I think if they wanted to dismiss it as not suitable, they’re capable of saying so tbh. They consider currency union to be the better option, of course, based on their analysis of the situation- but then that analysis doesn’t seem to be universally accepted 😉 The report says sterling-without-union has some of the advantages but additional disadvantages; but if sterling-with-union is a less good or less viable option than they believe, that naturally changes the desirability of other options.

Or to put it another way; if you don’t accept their argument that currency union is the best for all concerned, then you have to look again at their conclusions.

Though
an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution.

That’s the quote from the Fiscal Commission Northwind – pretty sure that means not suitable. Were they to consider it in any way suitable it is reasonable to expect they’d have suggested which of the other options were the preferred long term solution to follow it.

On the rest of what you say, this isn’t about what I think. It is about the difficulty yS would have in proposing sterling without union as Plan B when the Fiscal Commission discounted it. Because AS made such a big deal about the independence of their advice and how he’s just following it, he’s got real trouble in disagreeing with any of it now.

If he says sterling without union, then as Fiscal Commission limited its worth to a transitional approach he’s still got to say what follows transition. As the other options they considered were Euro and Scottish Currency, to mark either of those out as being the ultimate destination might make for a challenging proposal to the electorate this close to the vote.

oldbloke – Member

That’s the quote from the Fiscal Commission Northwind – pretty sure that means not suitable.

I think that it probably means “Though an option in the short-term, it is not likely to be a long-term solution.” tbh. If they thought it was unsuitable, they’d be more likely to say something like “it’s not suitable”. You’re having to put words in their mouth don’t you think?

A very good analysis of how a No vote threatens NHS Scotland.

And also why everyone in England should be very, very angry about it.

No. I’m taking their words at face value.

I don’t think you are tbh- I think you’re reading something into it which just isn’t there. They’ve not dismissed it, and they’ve also not limited it to a transitional option.

Now, clearly it’s not an approach they like as much as currency union. But they also predicted correctly right from the start that politics could play a part in that. So I don’t see that it undermines their viewpoint if an option is taken off the table for purely political reasons, as may be the case.

OTOH, if the reason for sidelining the option is because sterling-with-CU is similar but better, then taking that option away might make it a more desirable option. Now I’m not saying this is the case, but I think it’s plausible.

I reckon they mean it is not suitable i also think this is true though

if you don’t accept their argument that currency union is the best for all concerned, then you have to look again at their conclusions

if you reject their central conclusion then you have to reject the rest as well ;you are saying they reached the wrong MAJOR conclusion and are not competent IMHO.
Score draw so far

Ben no one can think the NHS is safe in Tory hands

remember they said they would not reform it and then reformed it massively with a top down reform…though of course we can trust the pledge braking lib dems and the deceitful cons on currency issues [ and labpur dossier holders] as only AS lies apparently 😉

Out of interest what percentage of the vote will be cast on considered benefit for the people of Scotland based on the outcome and what percentage on blind nationalism.

I would be sorry to see the union split but believe it is the choice of the Scottish people. But if it goes tits up would we have to prop up there economy. And also if that twit salmon starts changing too many laws say firearm laws for instance would that make border control a problem.

What happens if one countries health service surpasses the others, say with what cancer treatments it offers, would health tourism become an issue.
What if one has a softer benefit system would there be a migration of dole dossers.

And will STV being showing braveheart the night before the referendum.

Out of interest what percentage of the vote will be cast on considered benefit for the people of Scotland based on the outcome and what percentage on blind nationalism.

Bit of both on both sides – there are some blind nationalists on the Yes side, and quite a few on the No side – not just the Orange Order, but all those people who go on about “all the things we’ve achieved together”.

And also if that twit salmon starts changing too many laws say firearm laws for instance would that make border control a problem.

Why on earth would Salmond (note spelling) change firearms laws? And how would he force it through the Scottish parliament if he wanted to? We remember Dunblane. Border control? No-one is seriously proposing a physical border.

What happens if one countries health service surpasses the others, say with what cancer treatments it offers, would health tourism become an issue.

Same as any EU country, we might get health tourists from south of the border wanting to use our free NHS, but it’d be charged back to their home country. Just like the EHIC system works at the moment.

What if one has a softer benefit system would there be a migration of dole dossers.

Same answer – besides, we want more immigrants.

And will STV being showing braveheart the night before the referendum.

It’s funny, I’ve never heard a Yes person talk about Braveheart at all – obsessing about it is definitely a No thing. It’s as if they can’t comprehend the idea of a modern Scotland, they need to reduce it to stereotypes.

Border control? No-one is seriously proposing a physical border.

Not yet.

However, when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change.

Salmond wanted to ban airguns in Scotland as apparently scots can’t be trusted with them.

However, when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change.

Just like there’s a physical border between NI and Ireland? Would the Westminster government really want to spend many millions on building a new Hadrian’s Wall? Would the rUK really want to seal itself off?

Salmond wanted to ban airguns in Scotland as apparently scots can’t be trusted with them.

So how is that going to cause border control issues?

Just like there’s a physical border between NI and Ireland?

Ireland has an opt out of the Schengen Agreement. They have Border Controls at Airports and Ferry Terminals. iScotland wouldn’t.

Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.

Would the rUK really want to seal itself off?

😆

The ‘Little Scotlanders’ version of fog in the channel?

The ‘Little Scotlanders’ version of fog in the channel?

You’d be creating a land border with an EU country. You need to make up your mind, if the problem is that Scotland would be in Schengen then it’d be the rUK sealing itself off from the rest of Europe.

Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.

How do countries neighbouring Holland cope with that?

Ben, In case you hadn’t noticed, England can reach all its neighbouring countries without passing through Scotland – having taken the Rosyth ferry once, I reckon we’ve got the better side of this dilemma 🙂

You’d be creating a land border with an EU country.

Big deal, Brazil have got a land border with the EU, I don’t reckon its cut them off too much 😉

rUK sealing itself off from the rest of Europe.

No it isn’t. It will be exactly the same as what the UK has at the moment, Border Controls and an Opt Out from Schengen.

The UK isn’t “sealed off from the rest of Europe”. I frequently travel within the EU and I simply use a passport.

Airguns perhaps not the best example but if things are made illegal in one country and not in the other you will get a black market. If you did not have the same drugs laws for instance.

You mean like the Netherlands and it’s neighbours or Portugal and Spain?

I can’t work out why things that have been worked out in other European countries with very little drama keep being held up as insurmountable obstacles in relation to Scotland.

If Scotland vote to be Independent, I wish them well and hope they prosper, I really do.
And I think they have the right to vote in or out the same as we do with Europe.

I am just thinking off the top of my head about any problems that may arise.

when you join the EU and have to sign up to the Schengen Agreement this may change

The schengen agreement is to create borderless areas within the EU – it does not demand there are borders
I am not sure what you mean to cite but it is not this.

Ironically the UK and the Ireland are the only two non signers who have had a[ largely] borderless border for a rather long period of time.

They have Border Controls at Airports and Ferry Terminals. iScotland wouldn’t.

??? Still not sure what you mean – you mean for within the EU
You do not need a passport to go there from the UK though and it seems highly unlikely there would be one between iS and England

PS they could be obliged to join but not join just like the Euro
KEY
BLUE = EU member states participating
YELLOW = EU member states not participating but obliged to join
RED EU member states with an opt-out
GREEN non-EU member states participating
ORANGE non-EU member states de facto participating
PURPLE non-EU member states with an open border