Osbourne says no to currency union.

blurty – Member
Yes, I’d heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.

It’s classic divide and rule tactics that were used by the British Empire to acquire and retain colonies.

It also shares the characteristic of being BS.

Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them

Well that’s hardly their fault is it. It’s not BT who’ve been spreading the story that they’re bluffing.

Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here’s what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain.

Your suggestion would simply increase uncertainty, not decrease it. Particularly given you still don’t seem to understand the concept of CU – either they have a CU, in which case Westminster doesn’t get to retain any unilateral economic control over that, or they don’t, in which case Westminster gets to retain full economic control over the currency Scotland will use. You see this is the issue the yS supporters cheering AS when he says Scotland can just use the pound anyway don’t seem to get – most of the supposed downsides for the rUK not having a CU with Scotland don’t apply if Scotland is using the pound anyway, so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

In realpolitik the Scots would use the pound for the time being.

so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

Their financial institutions don’t all head South?

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

What a total pillock – is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

I was referring to the disadvantages for the rUK, sorry if that wasn’t clear – companies heading south could be seen as an advantage for them. Though I’m not sure CU has that large a bearing on corporate migration – more to do with regulatory frameworks.

Remember it’s not about Alex.

aracer – Member
… most of the supposed downsides for the rUK not having a CU with Scotland don’t apply if Scotland is using the pound anyway, so what on earth is the actual advantage to them of a CU where they have to give away some of the economic control?

Again I’ll repeat I think Salmond is using the £ as a red herring.

When BT announced there would be no Currency Union, it would have been obvious to Salmond what could happen to the £, and the pressure it could subsequently put on the BT side. This has come to pass. It could certainly explain why he has stuck to his guns about it when most Yes supporters would prefer our own currency.

From the sound of what’s in the press a Yes vote will trigger a drop of 10% in the value of the £. Certainly as THM points out there will be volatility.

I agree with aracer, I do not see any advantage in a CU, except maybe for the convenience of a transitional period.

The big question is if the £ drops, will the govt feel the necessity to try to prop it up, and how can they do this? Can we expect higher interest rates?

Or will the drop be seen as a temporary anomaly? Or perhaps even beneficial to our export trade?

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Absolutely right – in a campaign involving threats of a fence along the border, suggestions of invading Russians, arguments over the currency and oil, taunting a Telegraph reporter with a bag of sweeties really is the most serious issue.

http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/scotland-eu-comment-joseph-h-h-weiler/#.VA7EgGRdUpQ

Unequivocal and yet no one I know really believes them (then again, I don’t know many hedge fund managers). Regardless, how hard would it of been to have said, if you want a CU then here’s what we need back, then detail any terms of economic control that Westminster would want to retain. Less uncertainty all round and a more credible position.

I do, including a fellow poster in here! (As in know many HF managers)

This has been explained in detail in many times, but the DO rejects discussions on the basis of his 3Bs precisely because it is the elephant in the room. The conditions are very simple and very clear. You cede national sovereignty over monetary AND fiscal policy when you enter a CU. Failure to do so, commits all parties to failure as the € has shown. The goals of policy independence and a CU are mutually incompatible* There is no ambiguity here unless of course you are a European where politician expediency trumps logic and economic reality on a fairly regular basis.

Hence Mark Carney’s complete clarity on the issue of ceding national sovereignty.

Here is the ultimate contradiction. The cornerstone of yS is not to be independent at all. Oddly (IMO) they seem scared to debate genuine independence. Why? Because they know it’s not in Scotland’s best interests.

Google Martin Wolfe’s piece in the FT this week. He is a mate of your advisor Stiglitz but even he realises the incompatibility here.

bencooper – Member
In this campaign TV and media coverage has been verging mostly to pro yes, and the no camp is gaining ground at remarkable pace in spite of that.
Are you sure you’ve got that the right way round?

haha well spotted, 😳 switch that obviously!

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain ? I just read in a piece of research about Oil fields (Chevron:Rosebank and Total:Laggan-Tormore and 12 other oil companies) that they where likely to remain with the UK or perhaps even independent of both Scotland and the UK
Yes, I’d heard the same thing from friends in Aberdeen. Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires, A La Kuwait.

Tongue in cheek surely?!

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil – mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?

A Yes vote is unlikely lead to straightforward agreement on this – with the added complication of Shetland as a separate actor to Scotland and rUK.

Happy days 😯

Remember it’s not about Alex.

We’ll he’s the one making all the promises that everything will be rosy after a YES vote.

A grown up conversation COULD have happened around a potential Scottish Monetary Authority, but that requires grown ups…….

Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires

Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil – mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?

Well, between Scotland and the rUK it’s relatively simple – there’s a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can’t be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.

This puts the border where it already is – there’s a border for administrative purposes already.

When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they’d probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn’t very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

Shetland. Is their status really still uncertain

It was never uncertain. There is no independence for Shetland movement and never has been, no matter how desperate you get to try and make one up. As per my previous post – well, it is you after all so accuracy isn’t expected…

It took 20 years to get a Scottish parliament, and the parliament was set up in such a way that there wasn’t meant to be an overall majority

Jesus H. Christ, you lot bang on (incorrectly) about how Scotland never gets the government it votes for and then when a new layer of government is installed to make Scots the most represented people in the universe (most levels of elected officials) and a form of PR installed that makes the parliament painfully representative of voting trends, you make out that it’s some sort of London conspiracy to prevent majoritarian government! a voting system that was reasonably representative of Scottish votes would never have seen majoritarian Scottish government because the popular vote was so spilt – up to the last few years when labour (having seen off the Tories) flushed themselves down the toilet.

On a sporting note has there been any discussion about the 2016 Olympics,

it will be a blow for the curling but otherwise no big deal

But support for independent Shetland isn’t very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

Just blown that one out of the water!

Just blown that one out of the water!

Er, with a 2-year-old Torygraph article about a report written by a couple of MPs? No poll in Shetland, no campaign on the ground calling for Orcadian independence?

It’s Tavish Scott – he’s the only person in Shetland who ever mentions the idea, and as a Lib Dem MP I’m sure we can all guess why.

Just blown that one out of the water!

Ahahahahaha Tavish Scott trying to stir shit up, again. 😮

Mr Godden said the pre-vote stance of the anti-independence parties to reject sharing the pound after a Yes vote was also a ‘scaremongering tactic’.

He said: “The oil assets in the North Sea are coveted by Westminster and have been a major underpinning of the pound’s strength over the last 40 years – and will still be seen as crucial for the future.

“The pound needs the oil assets and would not wish to lose it. England is likely to be the loser, not Scotland. Furthermore, even if Westminster somehow refuses to cooperate with Scotland over the continued sharing of the pound, there are plenty of small countries that have successful independent currencies.

Top energy and defence figure: Why I’ve switched from No to Yes

A Tory who gets it:

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

What a total pillock – is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

My God what a MONSTER!

[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: “It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn’t it?”
First Minister: “That’s OK, I’m perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There’s no harm meant.”

Good point. Does anyone have any info on who has the strongest claim on the oil – mainland Scotland, rUK or Shetland?
Well, between Scotland and the rUK it’s relatively simple – there’s a lot of precedent for how the border is set, and if an agreement between the two countries can’t be reached then the decision is based on the principle of equidistance.

This puts the border where it already is – there’s a border for administrative purposes already.

When it comes to Shetland, if the islands do decide they want independence (unlikely) they’d probably be classed as an enclave, so only entitled to a 20-mile limit. But support for independent Shetland isn’t very high, and support for Shetland remaining in the UK when Scotland is independent is basically zero.

Not arguing with your main points, but once again, there’s a real lack of clarity about fundamental technical matters which will be the result of a Yes or a No.

There’s a couple of big ‘if’s and tbc’s’ in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Coupled with the motivator of significant oil wealth at a time when everyone’s suffering from globalisation and feeling rather skint…

It’s hardly a recipe for peace, harmony and stability is it? Oil does have a habit of leading to neighbourly disgruntlement…

It’s really not good for people to be asked to make such a major decision without any clear steer on what the impact of their vote will be

rebel12 – Member
Shetlanders declaring UDI, becoming a Crown Protectorate and all becoming instant millionaires
Well they do say that Shetlanders have much more in common with the Nordic countries than they do with Scotland. If I was them then this is what I would be thinking, either that or start a campaign to stay as part of the rest of the UK in exchange for a higher percentage of oil wealth. A win/win situation.

That pig isn’t going to fly, dream on. You a voter up there?

brooess – Member

There’s a couple of big ‘if’s and tbc’s’ in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Pure fantasy- there’s no desire for independence in Shetland despite what some seem to want to believe, and there’s no conceivable UK/Scotland border which will put a significant amount of north sea oil into UK waters, the conventions on sea borders are well established. Even the No campaign haven’t significantly monged that particular scare, it’s too thin even for them.

richmtb – Member

For all the accusations of Bullying and Bluster, it seems that Mr Salmond is by far the biggest culprit of all:

Alex Salmond: Meet the bully behind the mask

What a total pillock – is this who the Scots would seriously consider leading them into independence?

My God what a MONSTER!

[Got] a wee fancy for Jelly Babies, son?, to which Riley- Smith said: “It just seems a bit patronising First Minister, doesn’t it?”
First Minister: “That’s OK, I’m perfectly happy to patronise you, Ben. [Laughs.] There’s no harm meant.”

Meanwhile he still has not and cannot answer those questions.

There’s a couple of big ‘if’s and tbc’s’ in there: agreement on the border btw Scotland and rUK; and Shetland independence.

Well, of course. A border is agreed by negotiation between the two countries – we’re not two countries yet, and the Westminster government refuses to discuss such things, so how can we be certain about those things?

What we can do is look at where the administrative border already is, look at the precedents in international law, and make the perhaps rash assumption that both sides can negotiate sensibly after the referendum.

I don’t think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn’t Scotland’s.

Just because it’s funny, and for the sake of clarity, here’s Johann Lamont talking about these “new powers” earlier this year:

Rebel12’s mask has fairly slipped, he is across on the English thread comparing AS to a child molestor.

That’s funny because that’s also a comment that’s trending on the @BritNatAbuseBot.

bencooper – Member
I don’t think anyone on the No side has ever even hinted that the border would be different. Of course it would be suicide for them to claim that the oil isn’t Scotland’s.

It’s the United Kingdom’s oil at the moment, look at what happened when South Sudan split from Sudan. If my understanding is correct, South Sudan has the majority of oil reserves within its border, yet Sudan retained a 50% share.

The Sudan situation is pretty different – for one thing we’re hopefully not going to have a long and protracted civil war.

But more importantly South Sudan’s only way to get the oil out (and hence get the 98% of government income it needs) is the pipeline through Sudan. Sudan has South Sudan over an oil barrel, and so can demand a share of the revenues.

That’s not the situation with Scotland.

Particularly given you still don’t seem to understand the concept of CU

I understand it fine thanks, and THM comments on what would be required were exactly the point I was trying to make. If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom. The “our pounds too” line would fall over too as it would be clear than the UK would ‘share the pound’ but the cost of doing so would make the proposition unappealing.

If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom

You mean like this;

Currency Union

They should maybe publicise it a bit more. Is it available on the BT website?

Clegg, Cameron and milliband all not attending pmq tomorrow to come up to Scotland… Doesn’t look desperate in the slightest!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2014/sep/08/threats-sterlingisation-scotland-votes-yes-pound

– apologies for an on-topic link