Osbourne says no to currency union.

Listening to R4 this morning and I am now even more confused.

I’ve given up on the BBC news – they’ve gone beyond selective editing and bias, they’re now into the category of just making stuff up.

they’re now into the category of just making stuff up.

Any examples Ben?

Did they make up the bollocx about the secret oil reserves off the West Coast?

I think cressers thinks that making the speech in Scotland is provocative.

Or course if he made it in England then no doubt he’d be accused of being scared/remote/little Englander etc etc.

Can’t win really 🙄 (unless he towed the SNP line rather than shoot their fox)

Any examples Ben?

Did they make up the bollocx about the secret oil reserves off the West Coast?

They’ve made up the thing about Osborne ruling out a currency union – when it turns out he’s doing nothing of the sort, he’s ruling out a particular set of his own treasury’s conditions for a union.

There’s a really good website I’ve lots the link to, which tracks the BBC’s stealth edits of articles – it’s funny and worrying to see how they tweak articles, firming up statements (“may” becomes “will”, stuff like that), and removing quotes and opinions that go contrary to the line they’re pushing.

Yeah, the oil reserves thing – I read about that on various sources, I have no idea if there are significant reserves there or not, or indeed if anyone’s even looked. But hey, pay me a license fee and I’ll be fair and impartial and check my facts too 😉

I think cressers thinks that making the speech in Scotland is provocative.

Making the speech at all is provocative. Remember how Westminster alway said that it was a matter for Scots to decide and they wouldn’t get involved? That didn’t last, did it? So now we have the full resources of the Westminster government acting for the No side.

bencooper
Defaulting on a debt is very different to refusing to pay a share of an existing debt

No it isnt. It’s exactly the same thing – failure to pay.

One interesting point raised is that the UK will have a general election after the Scottish referendum. Therefore the UK parties can seek a clear mandate from the electorate as to how to handle a yes vote (assuming it goes that way). As an English voter if Scotland votes yes (and I hope they do not) I would support a UK a party with a mandate to exclude Scotland from the pound.

AS and the SNP are stuck here as an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU. The only possible swerve is to retain the pound and piggy back off the UK’s special status in the EU and that makes no sense to the rest of the UK.

The OP quoted a figure of £59 billion pounds in UK exports to Scotland, not sure where that inure comes from but it sounds very high. If Scotland could source those imports more cheaply elsewhere they’d already be doing so.

No it isnt. It’s exactly the same thing – failure to pay

Me refusing to pay my mortgage is very different to me refusing to help my neighbour pay his mortgage.

But anyway, these are just negotiating positions – what the SNP are really saying is if you can make dramatic statements then so can we.

an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU

No we don’t. And join the EU? I’m already an EU citizen.

Provocation is not just a Westminster thing then

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/independence-will-benefit-uk-says-sturgeon.23427925

And the Scottish Paper refers to ‘south of the border’ tsssk.

This currency thing is a sham.

So on Day 1 of newly independent Scotland rUK will just stop accepting pounds from over the border?

That’s totally unworkable. There would have to be a transition period and during that transition period GBP is the only sensible currency.

Is it rational to have a longer transition period so that both countries can negotiate various positions and examine the best way to deal with currencies and finances between the two nations. Or is it rational to throw the baby out with the bathwater instead?

jambalaya – Member

AS and the SNP are stuck here as an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU.

Well worded there! But deceptive. Yes Scotland has to commit to the Euro, but there’s no requirement to ever act on that commitment- you can even commit to not acting on the commitment. A silly system but that’s bureaucrats for you.

So by all means do carry on saying we’d be committed, just don’t pretend it means a thing.

bencooper – Member
Defaulting on a debt is very different to refusing to pay a share of an existing debt. Outside investors may well be very interested in a country with no debts and massive natural and human resources.

Indeed Ben! they call it Argentina.

But to be serious for a moment, let me come back to Gordi’s excellent argument last night. I fully accept the notion that centralised governments (be it Westminster, Brussels etc) are doing a poor job at representing the interests oft the populations they SERVE (not the other way round). In general I would favour greater localised power over centralised power with the obvious exceptions of and such as defence.

Where I respectfully disagree with Gordi is on whether the White Paper delivers this or not. It is widely accepted now that the white paper is little more than a political manifesto. As such is shares the common characteristics of most manifestos ie, it contains a list of wishes that will not and more importantly cannot be delivered upon. Under scrutiny it falls down and is exposed as simple deceit. There is nothing new there since the same can be said of nearly all manifestos. What is different, however, it that in this case, the issues are more serious and therefore the level of scrutiny and the requirements for precision are mush higher – indeed unusually, even uniquely, high. And so they should be.

As my post last night showed, the spotlight of scrutiny is now fully on the central issue of the proposed currency union. This is the one glaring Achilles heel in the argument as the writer in the Scotsman concluded. It also lays bare the elephant in the room – the fact that we are not actually debating full independence at all (apart form the some of the nationalist camp). The WP lays out the case for higher levels of devolution but fall short of calling for independence.

Mark Carney has started the process of bringing clarity and precision to the debate. He has stood up in a non political way and in effect said that a currency union is like a square ie, it is a construct with four equal sides. It cannot by definition have three nor can it have five. Nor can the sides be of unequal length. The three main political parties are now following suit and I would expect they will add flavour and colour to what those four equal sides look like, In contrast, AS and NS etc will continue to argue that a square has three/five (anything but 4) sides and will claim that to suggest otherwise is bullying. They will argue until they are red blue in the face that a currency union does not have the crucial fourth leg, the one that Carney describes simple as a currency union by definition involves a ceding of national sovereignty.

So you have a choice, does a square have four sides or does it have three. It’s pretty simple really. In my mind a three sided square does one thing – it topples over. What we are seeing now is the toppling of the triangle that is pretending to be a square.

This would be funny were it not for the seriousness of the consequences. This false debate is now creating high and unnecessary level of certainty not only for Scotland but also for the rUK. As such it is an extremely expensive vanity project. Greater levels of political power should and can be devolved throughout the UK, not just in Scotland. IMO this is not the best way to go about it. Instead of a win:win or even a win:lose we are likely to have a lose:lose result. Scotland and the rUK deserve better.

an independent Scotland has to commit to the euro if they want to join the EU
No we don’t. And join the EU? I’m already an EU citizen.

Yes you do and you won’t be in the EU. This was sorted yesterday.

Dr Jo Eric Khushal Murkens

Prof from the LSE

So he says:
No automatic EU membership.
If Scotland join then they must take the Euro.
They also must sign up to Schengen, which means there will need to be Border Controls between Scotland and England.

But what would he know?

POSTED 20 HOURS AGO #

There just seems to be so many HUGE unanswered questions, how can anyone vote without knowing facts?

Hmm.. now all three main UK parliamentary parties are saying no to currency union with Scotland.

Have they asked the people they represent?

I don’t want the Scots to vote for independence, but if they do, I want politicians that will try to keep the links between Scotland and what remains of the UK as strong as possible.

It’s nonsense to say “please stay with us”, and then in the next breath, “if you leave, then bugger off! completely”. It’s playground politics. We really need some grownups in parliament.

There just seems to be so many HUGE unanswered questions, how can anyone vote without knowing facts?

That’s exactly the picture the NO camp are trying to present, because they know fear makes people vote for the status-quo. Change is scary.

It worries me… why can’t they just make it clear why Scotland is better off staying in the UK, and back that up with a promise of more powers for the Scottish Parliament… surely that would be enough to win a NO vote. These unnecessary scare tactics, and general rubbishing of Scotland, could well back fire and make people vote YES, just to be rid of the kind of politicians leading the NO campaign.

Kelvin, the alternative interpretation is that they are representing the interest of the people they serve, They are bringing clarity to what is required for a currency union to succeed. At present, it looks like those criteria will not be met under the proposals set out by AS etc. The rUK cannot underwrite either Scottish banks or the Scottish government (the two are also linked) without certain safeguards in place. That is part of the fourth leg of the square.

It worries me… why can’t they just make it clear why Scotland is better off staying in the UK, and back that up with a promise of more powers for the Scottish Parliament… surely that would be enough to win a NO vote.

Indeed but that is not what is being debated despite being the massive elephant in the room. Politicians are playing one game when most people want to play a totally different and far simpler one. Let’s keep the UK in place but have better representation of local interests at the local level not just in Scotland but throughout the UK.

Kelvin, the alternative interpretation is that they are representing the interest of the people they serve

They’re doing it badly.

Also, increasingly, I’d question who they serve.

winston_dog – Member

Yes you do and you won’t be in the EU. This was sorted yesterday.

It really wasn’t, just reposting failed arguments doesn’t “sort” things.

If your man is saying that using the euro is mandatory for eu members, just whisper “Sweden” in his ear. The process is simple, well understood, proven, and enshrined in treaty. I can’t see the article referred to but the only thing you need to do with people who seem to claim we would have to use the euro, is find out if they’re misrepresented, ignorant, deceived or dishonest.

Schengen seems to have a similar practical opt-out- if a nation doesn’t want to be part of it, under the terms of the treaty it should be a simple matter of failing to qualify. As with the euro, there is no penalty for doing so (*) As far as I know there’s not a precedent for that yet though.

(*- well, there kind of is. The penalty for not meeting the terms of euro adoption is that you’re not allowed to adopt the euro. The penalty for failing to meet the schengen technical criteria is not being allowed into schengen! “I don’t want to eat my peas mummy!” “Well if you don’t eat your peas- you can’t have any peas!” “Er, OK”)

just pure sabotage from westminster

osbourne is a rubber faced ****

Northwind – I will repost the link for you.

Now it seems quite straight forward to me from what he is saying.

The rules for “new” members are different from what went before.

The Prof seems to know what he is talking about and doesn’t seem to be political but he seems to be talking from a legal and technical point of view.

How this guy has a failed argument I am not exactly sure.

It’s nonsense to say “please stay with us”, and then in the next breath, “if you leave, then bugger off! completely”. It’s playground politics. We really need some grownups in parliament.

Problem is no one really knows what will happen if there is an independence vote as is the only point at which serious negotiations will occur. Scotland is unlikely to want to take debts in a foreign currency as exchange rates have a huge impact on this debt and rYK wont let them leave with none

It would be better if there was a mature debate about what will clearly be very difficult issues to resolve and will involve compromise

Expect the same over the EU when folk will argue we can leave the EU but keep all the free trade yet stop immigration and not have to harmonise on rules and others will say we will be free and great once more

the reality being somewhere between the two extremes, as it will be here.

I do think the UK govt needs to be careful as they do look like they are trying to bully tbh

teamhurtmore – Member

Aye, because just like last time,Westminster was of the forgiving nature after the devolution vote in the 70’s. Describing the majority party proceeding with a policy that everybody who voted for them knew was THE central pillar of their existence as a “vanity project” is exactly the same patronising attitude shown by so many of your countrymen who have so much advice to give us simple teuchters.

Surprised the half track panzer bread maker hasn’t shown up yet

Here’s how I see it:

So Scotland want more self control – great most people would say, sure, fantastic, go for it, we’ll support you.

Instead what seems to be happening is that AS and the SNP (seemingly by his demeanor on a massive personal power trip) are stirring up nothing more than trouble and bad feeling.

The UK Government (rightly and at the current will of the people as they have not yet voted for independence or any sort of pre-independence negotiations) won’t waste massive amounts of money and time negotiating before the result of any referendum is known, yet, are being goaded all the time by AS who makes increasingly louder noises like a spoilt child stuck in a trolley in the Tesco sweets aisle.

Eventually when AS’s claims become potentially unsettling for the UK as a whole the UK Government are forced to react. When that reaction is expressed as an opinion which AS does not agree with then the ‘English’ are accused of bullying, repression and scare tactics.

If independence goes ahead then the end result could be that an independent Scotland would not really be independent in the true sense of the word at all. They would have lost all of the significant benefits that come from being part of the Union whilst still being controlled by the UK (if they keep the pound), or by Germany, Brussels and the EU if they go the Euro route.

Surely any Scot not of the ‘FU’ mentality can see that for both sides, independence is not the way to go?

Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it’s put to bed will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option – greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.

Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.

Problem is no one really knows what will happen if there is an independence vote as is the only point at which serious negotiations will occur

Agree entirely, which is why Tory/Labour/LibDems ruling out currency union at this stage, without any consultation with the people they claim to represent (as opposed to just the oil and finance companies,) is just nonsense.

Getting serious now

Independent Scotland will not be allowed to use British oxygen

Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it’s done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option – greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.

Let’s hope so. And that’s the resolution that the UK Parliamentary parties should be offering, and pushing for, rather than the patronising “we’ll screw you if you leave” tone of talk of “ruling out a currency union”.

An independent Scotland would be at the whims of larger countries in Europe, just as Ireland is. They’re much stronger within the UK. As are we. Our politicians should not be threatening to make that even worse, for all countries concerned, by ruling out currency union.

half track panzer bread maker

😀

They would have lost all of the significant benefits that come from being part of the Union

I keep seeing this phrase but no one seems able to articulate what these benefits actually are.

Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we’ll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay.

Indeed
There will be many hard negotiations to have during the divorce and no one knows how it will end up

Better to say nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in…its not a great message mind.

teamhurtmore – Member
Whatever the history Duckman, the key NOW is to have correct and HONEST advice.

All said by you while describing the SNP manifesto as the book of dreams and the vote itself as a vanity project.Do you take in ironing?

Bearing in mind the post above yours claims

Surely any Scot not of the ‘FU’ mentality can see that for both sides, independence is not the way to go?

Shows exactly the mindset of the NO campaign, so dream on.

Perhaps if instead of telling Scots how poor we’ll all be if we become independent they could highlight all the good things we will continue to benefit from if we stay

Andy Murray will forfeit his right to be British.

If you read the Treasury analysis, you will see Osborne is merely acting on unequivocal independent Treasury advice. See pdf to download here

mefty – Stop posting links to detailed analysis of the issues. You bully.

Hopefully the people of Scotland will vote NO for this badly through through scheme, which, once it’s done and dusted will open the doors for further discussion of the more sensible option – greater self control and further devolution, which the rest of the UK would be no doubt be happy to support you achieving.

Let’s hope so. And that’s the resolution that the UK Parliamentary parties should be offering, and pushing for, rather than the patronising “we’ll screw you if you leave” tone of talk of “ruling out a currency union”.

Yes but until the elephant in the room that is ‘Full Independence’ has been ruled out then further devolution negotiations would never have been truly successful (as there would still have been too many trouble making people pushing for independence and too many unresolved independence issues getting in the way).

This is why the vote for full independence (as opposed to greater devolution) had to happen first, to rule out independence for the foreseeable future, so that then, the Scots can move forward towards proper, positive and focused talks around more self control, greater powers of devolution and increased Scottish self governance.

They are not ruling out currency union, they are ruling our currency union as outlined by AS and co. They are different things. There is a current theme here – you cannot * have one side of a currency union (the benefits) without the other side (the obligations). That is all that Carney and co are saying. And they are correct to use Europe as an example of why this is the case. The euro zone cannot survive without greater levels of monetary and fiscal integration and lower levels is national independence – that is as clear as saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

* this is nothing more than a kids argument.

Kelvin – I 100% agree with what should be being offered BTW. But again that is not what IS being offered. When I suggested that a year ago (ie saying what you are saying) the trolls flamed me for not respecting the wishes of the Scots!!! Funny where the strongest consensus has been all along!!!!

The analysis sets out that the UK is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history, and the current arrangements bring significant benefits to Scotland. Taxation, spending, monetary policy and financial stability policy are co-ordinated across the whole UK to the benefit of all parts of the UK. Risks are pooled and the UK has a common insurance against uncertainty. Within a sterling currency union, an independent Scottish state would find it more difficult to adjust to the effects of economic challenges, such as a fall in the global price of oil, than Scotland is able to as part of the UK.

In turn, the continuing UK would become exposed to much greater fiscal and financial risk from a separate state, creating risks for continuing UK taxpayers. The subsequent experience of the euro area in the financial crisis highlights the challenges of creating a durable currency union. The analysis concludes that, in the event of a vote for independence, the Treasury would advise the UK government against entering into a currency union. The UK pound is one of the oldest and most successful currencies in the world. If people in Scotland vote to leave the UK they are also voting to leave the UK pound.

Quite a neat summary from that link.

Bllx, 78 pages and coffee time almost over. Hope the exec summary is good and better than the one in the BoD!

Thanks for the link Mefty