Osbourne says no to currency union.
We don’t have one with the Republic of Ireland so why would we want one with an independent Scotland
Did have for about 50 years.
You see this kind of bollocks really winds me up. ‘I’ am ‘eating ‘your’ share’? Really?
Refusing to share the pound, which we contributed to as well.Posted 4 years agogrumMember
Refusing to share the pound
I am doing that am I?
Nobody is ‘refusing to share the pound’ just saying it has to be done on terms which won’t be detrimental to the rUK.
Is there a Yes campaign version of the Daily Mail? Because some of you would make great writers for it if their was – grossly distorted emotive arguments aren’t helpful to anyone.Posted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.
I think they want to choose the cake and decide whether to eat it rather than be fed the cake of your choice that they dont want and then told to like it or lump it as it is better for them 😛
MMMMMMM cakes could be the simple way to explain this to the masses…we could be on to something
Now does this cake have value or not?Posted 4 years agosteffy-boyMember
Forget the eu;
Forget the £;
Forget the oil;
Forget the whiskey;
I want the people of Scotland to be governed by the party they voted for.
If this means being shafted by holyrood instead of being shafted by westminster, then yes yes yes.Posted 4 years ago
whatnobeer – Member
What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.
Respectfully, I would suggest that if you put that to anyone they would say they would love that outcome – all upside, no downside.. Sadly, the two are incompatible as the last decade has shown. It’s like marriage, to enjoy the benefits of the union you cede some of your independence. The relevant case study is live and (just about) kicking just across the Channel. Europe will be moving towards greater levels of interdependence in the future – it has to if it is the survive. Why is Scotland unique and able to counter the weight of history, politics and economics alone? (Clue: it can’t)
It’s very difficult for currency unions to work in the first place. History is littered with broken examples. If you attempt to create and run them without full fiscal and monetary union, then you are stacking the odds firmly against you.
It should be very clear why the rUK is likely/definitely against a currency union with another state that wishes to run independent policies. The risks are (1) unbalanced since only one party could bail out the other due to size differentials and (2) unmanageable since rUK would be taking on the risk without any control. Only a fool would propose that to their electorate. Even the Europeans finally get this. None of this is bullying, it’s not even economics or politics, it’s basic common sense. Fortunately, our civil servants seem to have sufficient amounts.
If the tables were turned and rUK said we want a system where we take all the upside and none of the downside, you would reject that out of hand. And you would be correct to do so. It’s a truly absurd notion.Posted 4 years ago
It’s a matter of national identity for me. Though the huge difficulty of changing the political system within the UK is an added motivation. In the UK/rUK I would support a new voting system,a genuine left of centre political party, promote much wider participation in politics at all levels,particularly from poor or working class people bring in tighter regulation of utilities and banks,a ceiling of some kind on bonuses and scrap the house of lords.Posted 4 years ago
Then after lunch…. 🙂fasternotfatterMember
Did have for about 50 years
No we didn’t the Irish pound was pegged to the UK pound. This is not a currency union, we were not lender of last resort.
The pound belonged to England before the union with Scotland, hence why we get to keep it. Scotland contributed taxes and they were spent, there is no piggy bank in the Bank of England full of Scottish money, Scotland did not buy shares in the Bank of England.Posted 4 years agogrumMember
It’s a matter of national identity for me. Though the huge difficulty of changing the political system within the UK is an added motivation. In the UK/rUK I would support a new voting system,a genuine left of centre political party, promote much wider participation in politics at all levels,particularly from poor or working class people bring in tighter regulation of utilities and banks,a ceiling of some kind on bonuses and scrap the house of lords.
Thank you for one of the most sensible and honest arguments I’ve seen on the issue.
I’m not sure how well you’ll get on with achieving some of it if you do go independent but I hope you succeed.
Please can you ‘learn’ some proper language.
Then your opinion might count for something.
Is that the best you can come up with? 🙄Posted 4 years agofasternotfatterMember
The Bank of England was nationalised by the UK government in 1946
It has been around for 319 years. Longer than the union and it has been an English bank a lot longer than it has been nationalised. The pound is still English no matter how you look at it. No to a currency union and you buy your bank notes off the UK if you decide to use it without a currency union. You don’t take your share of debt we stop sending bank notes north of the border.Posted 4 years agoathgrayMember
On national identity, I know everyone feels differently, however my wife has lived in Scotland for 10+ years and still feels like a guest, a welcome guest, but a guest none the less. She feels a sense of guilt that she should be voting on Scotlands future when many other ‘Scots’ are not eligible. My own feelings of national identity have become watered down, and if I don’t hear Flower of Scotland’ again I would not miss it, however, it feels like a pride in many aspects of Scotland is being highjacked for a cause of independence.
I just feel that the day I have to apply for dual nationality for my children at the behest of those that don’t like the Tories much, will be a sad day indeed.Posted 4 years agomuddydwarfSubscriber
On a side note Athgray, you mentioned Bannockburn 700 earlier.Posted 4 years ago
As a (former) medieval reenactor i have been hearing stuff about this event.
Basically the event organizers aren’t willing to pay the going rates for groups to do a 3-day event & many/some (depending on who you speak to) groups from down South are extremely wary of going as they fear a marked rise in Nationalistic silliness. I’ve remarked before about how there is a definite undercurrent of anti-English hostility in the public & combining the anniversary with the indy referendum seems like it will increase it.
Its a long way to travel to be paid less than the going rate & to run the risk of potential abuse/threats etc. (this has happened before) so i can see how they are having to shorten the event.
teamhurtmore – Member
There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.
POSTED 10 HOURS AGO #
And right in cue, the Scotsman reports now that
CLAIMS by the SNP Scottish Government that an independent Scotland would be entitled to keep the pound and Bank of England are “fundamentally flawed” on legal grounds, Advocate general Lord Wallace will say in a lecture tomorrow.
The Lib Dem peer will tell an audience at 80 Club in London that Chancellor George Osborne’s statement that there will be no sterling zone with an independent was based on legal advice as well as economic interests for the rest of the UK in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum….Lord Wallace, the United Kingdom Government’s Law Officer for Scotland, will explain that international law is clear that if Scotland decides to leave the UK then we would also leave behind UK institutions like the Bank of England….
…..“When UK ministers say that the Bank of England would not belong, in part, to an independent Scotland, that is an expression of the legal position, not a calculated asset-grab.” He will claim that the arguments made by SNP ministers is fundamentally flawed in two ways. He will say: “In their White Paper, Scottish Ministers claim that ‘the pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK’s’ and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government, John Swinney MSP, has argued that the Bank of England is ‘as much our bank as it is anybody else’s’. With respect, they are wrong on both counts.”
He will explain that the legal analysis set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper makes it clear that in the event of Scottish independence, the institutions which currently serve the United Kingdom will serve the continuing United Kingdom. He will say: “For obvious reasons, the Scottish Government doesn’t assert that it should continue to have a share of the UK Parliament. By a similar token, the UK central bank, the Bank of England would continue to serve the continuing UK as its central bank, but would not do so for the newly independent Scotland.
“The flaw in the Scottish Government’s position is to equate currency with assets
So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth. And then we await Standard Life’s comments in the morning. Retailers, financial services all singing from the same hymn sheet. I wonder why?Posted 4 years agoGowrieMember
Did anybody see the poll in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on Monday? Conducted post George’s currency comments.
From the paper –
A Press and Journal-commissioned poll has revealed support for Scottish independence has dipped across the north and north-east over the last year.
The survey conducted after last week’s intervention from Chancellor George Osborne on currency found that 65% of respondents intend to vote “no” in September’s referendum.
Just 17% of 500 people questioned said they will be voting “yes”, while 18% said they were still undecided.
Something else not moving yS’s way. Salmond is my mother’s MP. Plenty of tales locally of him behaving like a spoilt childPosted 4 years agobig_n_daftMember
the Scotsman article is revealing
Mr Salmond, speaking at a press lunch with Scottish media, said the proposal is in the best interests of everyone.
“Our position is share and share alike,” he said.
“We think it’s right and proper that we have a sterling union that is in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.”
The alternative is for Scotland to refuse a fair share of UK debt, he said.
and in the comments
Salmond must be a sleeper, it’s the only logical explanation.
😉Posted 4 years agomrmoMember
Standard life have no real option, they and most other listed companies will have to declare their plan B’s, they are owned by shareholders, they have to ensure good governance.
As I see it they are not saying they are moving to London, they are basically saying that if there is too much uncertainty then they will have to move to London.Posted 4 years agoernie_lynchMember
This would be the same Standard Life that threatened to up sticks and leave if there was a “yes” vote in the 1997 devolution referendum?
“Labour was celebrating the success of attempts to woo big business following reports that two of Scotland’s largest insurance companies had given their tacit support to home rule.
Mr Robertson welcomed the news that Standard Life and Scottish Widows had said they were relaxed about the prospect of Labour’s plans for a Scottish Assembly.”
Which Standard Life are you thinking of ?Posted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
Standard Life already does business all over the world in multiple currencies. Whatever happens in Scotland their English book and trading in pounds would be unaffected. http://www.standardlife.com/about/locations.html
This is just them saying “don’t increase tax or bugger about with regulation”. It’s not about independence.Posted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth
they have been equally clear about the fact the debt remains with rUK – you will praise AS for saying this I assume? Its irrelevant largely as what each part can do legally is NOT what they will definitely do at separation. The outcome will be a political fudge** where debts and assets* are split pro rata or via hard haggling.
* if they are not assets give them to Scotland then as they have no value.
** we can debate this, I suspect we will, as frankly none of us know the outcome including GO, the lawyers and ASPosted 4 years agofootflapsSubscriber
Why are they announcing it, though?
They are sending a message to AS, basically “Either have a sensible economic plan or we’ll sink you”
Talking BS with a nice smile, which AS is very good at, might be good enough for the general population, but businesses won’t stand for it.Posted 4 years ago
Full text of the Standard Life statement
On 18 September 2014 a referendum will be held to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. In recent months some of our customers have been in touch with us to ask what impact this would have on their savings and investments with Standard Life.
Our key priority is to continue serving the needs of our 4 million UK customers, wherever they reside and regardless of any constitutional change. The same applies to our customers in other parts of the world.
As a business we have a long-standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote, but we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our customers and other stakeholders and to take whatever action may be necessary to protect their interests.
In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK.
Customers can find further details in our 2013 Annual Report and Accounts from our Chief Executive David Nish and Chairman Gerry GrimstonPosted 4 years ago
Standard Life pride themselves among other things on (1) their political neutrality and (2) their long term strategic thinking.* David Nish’s responsibilities are to SL’s shareholders, clients and employees. He is making a very valid point that major uncertainties remain over key factors that affect his business including currency how a monetary system would work and regulation. He also makes a more tactical and direct point about how AS proposes to tax savings and pensions.
Of course this common sense statement is greeted with the usual diatribe:
“Standard Life’s threats are more blackmail & bullying by privileged monied elites trying to undermine Scottish democracy & social justice,” tweeted writer Kevin Williamson.
More sensibly and coincidently, the Head of the PRA which regulates the industry (with the FCA) called into question the idea that the rUK would maintain responsibility for regulating financial institutions in an independent country.
Asked if the plans were a “pig that would fly”, Mr Bailey told members of the Scottish Affairs Committee: “It is a pig that I can’t observe flying in any other part of the world.”
So if you run SL or Aberdeeen or Bailiie Gifford etc you face the prospect of an untested regulatory regime, uncertainty over currency systems and the prospect of new taxes on your core products, what would you do?
So RBS shifts, TSB has already changed its registration and legal status ahead of its IPO, and the asset management companies are saying the same things. Makes you wonder……
So CU is ruled out, only a fool would adopt the panama solution, so time for Messers Mirrlees and Stiglitz to earn their fees. Their paymaster is floundering and sinking in his own hubris and needs a lifebelt fast. Trouble is the FC has already nailed its flag to the mast. Ooops….
Cue more diversionary BS over the next few days.
[* long time clients of mine in my past career]Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Osbourne says no to currency union.’ is closed to new replies.