Osbourne says no to currency union.

I love AS’s we’ll seek a “mandate from the Scottish people for a currency union”, as usual he’s got that back to front he needs to get agreement from the UK

Well, no. What he said was that he wanted a mandate from the Scottish people for a currency union, which would then become part of the post-referendum negotiations.

…he won applause from the audience after telling them he said he was seeking a “sovereign mandate” from voters for his plan to share the pound.

Referring to the negotiations which would follow a Yes vote, he said: “I go as First Minister to argue what’s best for Scotland. If I were to go and argue for second best that’s what I’d get.”

Quotes So expect the rUK to capitalise on iScotlands financial troubles rather than bail them out for free. Are nats still not acepting that a currency union will not happen? Threats of no debts are not going to force one either.
Quotes

But Salmond will have a MANDATE, he said it so many times last night, it must be really important. Let’s try it, mandate, mandate, a bit more mandate, nope still doesn’t make much sense, the good people in the audience were cheering though, so it must be good !!! But the thing is, as mandates go, it’s a pretty puny one isn’t it. Salmond atriumphantly slaps his mandate down on the negotiating table, 5million, rUK raises an eyebrow, we’ll, raise you 58million.

Apart from the mandate thing and refusing to pay for the debt, the other message that I got from the debate was that ‘no one can stop us from using the pound'( this also got a big cheer for some reason). This seems to be plan B.

Can someone explain why a new, totally separate Scottish Currency is such a bad idea?

konabunny – Member
the question running through this thread for god knows how long that Scotland won’t have a lender of a last resort is nonsense, there will be plenty of charlatans lining up to chuck money at Scotland

You’ve misunderstood what a lender of last resort is. It’s someone who will lend you money when charlatans the capital markets won’t lend you money.I must be imagining all those countries that are in debt up to their eyeballs to the likes of the IMF. There will always be finance available.

Regardless talk of lender of last resort is piss poor politics. It’s for countries that make an arse of things, I don’t expect Scotland to be run on that basis. So this is all hypothetical nonsense.

Maybe the next rUK government will be elected on a mandate of refusing a currency union?

To be fair, a prospectus promise to tell Scotland to get **** could be a sizeable vote winner 😀

Can someone explain why a new, totally separate Scottish Currency is such a bad idea?

I don’t think it is – in fact in the long run it’s probably sensible. But in the transition period it’s easier for everyone on both sides of the border if the currency stays the same. That’s what happened when Ireland left the Empire, when Australia did, when Canada did.

Can someone explain why a new, totally separate Scottish Currency is such a bad idea?

It’s not really such a bad idea… It’s simply more difficult to get up and running as quickly as using a tradable currency such as the GBP..

Lots of misguided people also shoot down the idea of a currency union… If they take the time to investigate the economic situation in contries like Panama… they will find that the financial system there is much better than it is in the UK.. Banks have nowhere to turn if they are badly managed… so they make sure they are working within thier means….. Unlike UK banks

To be fair, a prospectus promise to tell Scotland to get **** could be a sizeable vote winner

I’d hope the people of the rUK aren’t that vindictive or self-destructive.

All you economic experts who know how to type ‘Google’ into your computer.

Whether you agree with a currency union is not the point.

The point is whether or not people prefer a new system of governance.

The rest will follow. If UK politics offered a positive alternative to the current right-moving trend then Scottish Independence would be dead in the water.

It’s the failure of the current political system which has awakened something in a lot of people who think there is a real prospect of an alternative way.

It might fail and it might succeed. Only time will tell. However, is the current situation in the UK really so successful? I think it has already failed.

I accept I am biased as I am 100% Yes voter but we need to be honest with ourselves.

I hope the English Democrats can capitalize on the disillusionment in England and shake things up a bit.

Well said.

What currency we’ll use is something to sort out after we decide we want independence, not before.

It’s for countries that make an arse of things, I don’t expect Scotland to be run on that basis. So this is all hypothetical nonsense.

So separated from the rest of the UK Scotland will finally have the Holy Grail of guaranteed permanent economic stability ?

That would be quite an achievement since it has eluded all the leading economies such as Japan, the UK, the US, France, Italy, etc.

There’s no chance of Scotland under the stewardship of Alex Salmond making “an arse of things”, as you call it.

And you know for a fact that whatever the election results all future Scottish governments will follow sound economic policies which insulate Scotland from all potential economic crises, national and international.

Well that’s really quite impressive, no wonder you’re voting Yes. And all the best for the future in la-la land.

Sarcasm is so unattractive – you’ll never get girls that way 😉

I can’t see any example of sarcasm there. I don’t do sarcasm I take the piss, a subtle difference 🙂

Too much of how an independent Scotland will look is subject to negotiation, not least currency. It feels like we are being asked to vote two years too early.

If we voted yes, but the negotiations did not go well, would the SNP be big enough to, or even allowed to, say that they do not have a good enough deal for Scotland and independence should be parked until a better deal can be negotiated? Or is it that they will push on irrespective of what they can negotiate, whatever the cost? Either way, it does seem a pretty poor start point for negotiations.

Don’t worry Salmond has a MANDATE, see.

From my perspective – as an assured Yes voter – the failure here is that UK parties do not want to enter into negotiations at all.

Why would they? They don’t want to make independence look attractive if they can avoid doing so.

They are playing poker.

I’m a Green voter but am gaining a lot of respect for Salmond and the SNP leadership for their resolution in the face of a relentless and co-ordinated attack by the other UK political parties.

ernie_lynch – Member
It’s for countries that make an arse of things, I don’t expect Scotland to be run on that basis. So this is all hypothetical nonsense.
So separated from the rest of the UK Scotland will finally have the Holy Grail of guaranteed permanent economic stability ?

That would be quite an achievement since it has eluded all the leading economies such as Japan, the UK, the US, France, Italy, etc.

There’s no chance of Scotland under the stewardship of Alex Salmond making “an arse of things”, as you call it.

And you know for a fact that whatever the election results all future Scottish governments will follow sound economic policies which insulate Scotland from all potential economic crises, national and international.

Well that’s really quite impressive, no wonder you’re voting Yes. And all the best for the future in la-la land.I can understand why people committed to the UK are worried about ideas of failing economies, what with the last property bubble blowing up in our faces, getting fixed by another property bubble…

Personally, I’d rather not be part of that when it all comes tumbling down, again.

It feels like we are being asked to vote two years too early.

There will always be questions because the UK government refuses to discuss options or even to make any plans in case of independence. If one side refuses to discuss, then it’s just not possible to answer the questions.

There is also the narrative put out that the No side has certainty, the Yes side has uncertainty, but in reality both sides have uncertainty.

If there’s a No vote, will the Barnett formula stay? Will there be more cuts as the austerity policies cut deeper? Will TTIP mean we have to privatise the NHS whether we want to or not? Will we commit to another £100bn to upgrade Trident?

If we voted yes, but the negotiations did not go well, would the SNP be big enough to, or even allowed to, say that they do not have a good enough deal for Scotland and independence should be parked until a better deal can be negotiated? Or is it that they will push on irrespective of what they can negotiate, whatever the cost? Either way, it does seem a pretty poor start point for negotiations.

Do you live in cloud cuckoo land?

Anyway Salmond has his invincible MANDATE – he said so many times last night!

But I do think Scottish Labour are playing a dangerous game. You very rarely see a Scottish Conservative or Liberal Democrat on TV up here following one of these debates trying to debunk the Yes message.

It is almost always a Scottish Labour party member or activist. Cons and Lib Dems are playing this clever and keeping out the way and letting Labour do the ‘dirty work’, so to speak.

I can understand why people committed to the UK are worried about the ideas of failing economies

Yes it’s easy to understand because capitalism is inherently unstable and requires constant crises management. Which is why the leaders of the G7 economies have their work cut out and why all have experienced “failing economies”.

And why all countries which at various times have been described as “economic miracles” have ended up in Shit Creek without a paddle.

Obviously the one exception according to you will be the Scottish economic miracle.

Feels like going round in circles.

The bill that set up the Independence vote, came with the statement that NEITHER side would enter into any pre-negations discussions. And the UK Government has done that. You could argue that the statement that the UK won’t enter into a CU with an independent Scotland breaks that, but equally Salmon should not promise stuff that he knows he can’t deliver.

Independence is NOT about the boring stuff like currency, membership of international groupings, debt, oil, etc. It is about whether Scotland wants to be independent regardless of the consequences. Life in an independent Scotland may be better or worse now, 5 years, 10 years, 30 years, 100 years … Who can predict that far, I know that I can’t.

In the same way what will happen to the UK in 5 years, 10 years, … We all know that that Barnett formula will be revised. It was only a short term measure anyway that should have been scrapped many years ago. Will the NHS survive in its current form – we don’t know? We know that austerity cuts will continue as we try to rein in Government spending – but for how long – 5 years, 10 years, ….

As such any pre-negations are actually meaningless, since they only look at the very short term – the next few years. Scotland is deciding whether it wants to leave the UK after 300 years – so focusing on the next 5 years is very short sighted.

If you do know what is going to happen the Scottish, UK, World economy in the next 30 years, then there are many organisations that would greatly value your services. Until then we can take an educated guess and hope that we don’t get it to wrong. Independence for Scotland may be the defining moment for it, it may be the worst decision ever take or somewhere in between. But most of us won’t be around to make that judgement in 100 years time. And that is the sort of time scale you should be thinking about.

ernie_lynch – Member
I can understand why people committed to the UK are worried about the ideas of failing economies
Yes it’s easy to understand because capitalism is inherently unstable and requires constant crises management. Which is why the leaders of the G7 economies have their work cut out and why all have experienced “failing economies”.

And why all countries which at various times have been described as “economic miracles” have ended up in Shit Creek without a paddle.

Obviously the one exception according to you will be the Scottish economic miracle.

Could well be. I’m willing to give it a try and I’d like move away from boom and bust.

Will we get that? Who knows, but it’s worth a try. Other option is the certainty of the UK going tits up, again.

Could well be.

Who knows, but it’s worth a try.

At last, a more realistic assessment 🙂

ernie_lynch – Member
Could well be.
Who knows, but it’s worth a try.

At last, a more realistic assessment

😀 That has been my assessment since day 1!

Me too.

I want independence. All the discussion is to prove we can do it, not whether we should do it.

I have to say that I’m surprised at the apparent brazen dishonesty of Salmond – since losing the argument on currency he’s been busy stoking the fire of “NHS privatisation” instead in order to score votes. That’s despite the rather inconvenient fact that the management of the NHS in Scotland is already devolved and under the SNP, the volume of activity outsourced to the private sector has risen 37% in the last year – faster than in England.

If he can convince the voters to “safeguard the NHS against privatisation” whilst actually privatising it at exactly the same time it will speak volumes for the ability of voters to separate hard facts from rhetoric.

It was interesting yesterday that voters I saw interviewed on TV expressed that they where bored of the currency issue and that anyway they didn’t understand it. I think that’s probably true which makes the fact they are voting on such a major issue as independence startling.

I want independence

Ben, we know you want independence. I think most of us on this thread are probably in agreement that Scotland could manage on itself.

However there are insufficient people in Scotland who think that way. If enough did then the polls would show that and we would not be listening to Salmon et al promising by how many £’s per year everyone in Scotland would be, babbling on about CU, threats caused the UK Government, …

And that is the point. The vote is not about now, it is about something that has worked for 300 years. To change something the ‘new’ has to be significantly better, not just more of the same. People don’t like change, especially if they can’t understand what the change is.

jambalaya – Member
It was interesting yesterday that voters I saw interviewed on TV expressed that they where bored of the currency issue and that anyway they didn’t understand it. I think that’s probably true which makes the fact they are voting on such a major issue as independence startling.

yes, only the educated classes should vote, while we’re at it those women eh… 🙄

Really? Do you understand it? Does anyone?

When you have people who have devoted their lives to the study of economies and currency disagreeing on how things should work how do you expect the average layperson to understand it?

Should people not vote on the in/out EU referendum because they don’t understand the details of how it all works?

NHS Scotland only spends about 1% of it’s budget on outsourced services, NHS England about 6%. Big difference. It’s also not spent on outsourcing core services in Scotland.

So this:

If he can convince the voters to “safeguard the NHS against privatisation” whilst actually privatising it at exactly the same time it will speak volumes for the ability of voters to separate hard facts from rhetoric.

is pure bollocks.

The vote is not about now, it is about something that has worked for 300 years

Just because something ‘has worked’ for 300 years doesn’t mean that it should stay around for ever, or that in those 300 years Scotland couldn’t of done better on it’s own. History is exactly that, it can’t be changed and this is about the future.

ernie_lynch – Member
I literally LOL at the suggestion that the UK is not a democracy but in fact an oligarchy. There’s something wonderfully entertaining about people who make hysterical comments

It’s ok, I expect that sort of response from folk possessing the delusional belief that an appointed upper house with life members is democratic.

just5minutes – Member
I have to say that I’m surprised at the apparent brazen dishonesty of Salmond

The least surprising part of the whole thing. History and form combine with a shocking contempt for the people of the UK. Re-writing history, economic truisms and facts into a deceitful package. A remarkable legacy.

The latest trials and tribulations of the left wing government of M Hollande completely falsify the idea a yes vote will create a shift away from centre right policies.

What’s so bad about a Scottish pound? Easy. That would involve actual independence and that’s the last thing yS want.

But most of us won’t be around to make that judgement in 100 years time. And that is the sort of time scale you should be thinking about.

Nice sentiment but responsibility is to my kids immediate future and these are issues that will impact on them from day 1.

Some people I know have made their choice based on the football team they support.

I like to think I’m a bit more thoughtful than that.

So part of my decision is based on the fact that anything which unites the Conservative Party, UKIP, BNP, Scottish Defence League and The Orange Order can’t be good.

grantus – Member
…So part of my decision is based on the fact that anything which unites the Conservative Party, UKIP, BNP, Scottish Defence League and The Orange Order can’t be good.

I think a few have come to that conclusion. 🙂

History and form combine with a shocking contempt for the people of the UK. Re-writing history, economic truisms and facts into a deceitful package. A remarkable legacy.

It’s these fair, balanced, reasonable opinions I always like from you 😀

There’s a much longer list than that grantus. The DO has managed to unite so many unlikely bed-fellows. Another remarkable legacy.

LOL at the other falsehood about it’s not about Salmond. Note all the headlines Salmond beats Darling. not the case for an iS trumps the case for a union. I guess the latter would be difficult as an empty case is hard to comment on.

There’s a much longer list than that grantus. The DO has managed to unite so many unlikely bed-fellows.

Yup, there’s the Britannica Party, the Scottish Jacobite Party, the No Borders campaign which is backed by a tax-avoiding oil baron who bribes dictators, loads of lovely people.

Really, with such wide-ranging support, it’s amazing that Better Together have to pay their “volunteers” £25 per day.