Alex Salmond says if currency union is refused, Scotland is exempt from any debt

Yes, it's a lie. In the event of a yes vote, everything including currency and debt will negotiated and nobody, including Alex Salmond, is in a position to declare or demand what the results of that negotiation will be. He can suggest it as a negotiating position but I don't see it getting him anywhere with his colleagues (and domestic opponents), let alone the UK government.

Scotland won't be separate when this is being negotiated though. It will be a negotiation over the grounds on which Scotland is permitted to leave the Union (sounds harsh but still true). In practice neither side will be able to unconditionally demand anything.

A full equal currency union (like the Euro) isn't going to happen. Neither nation will be willing to sacrifice the control of its own economy that would require. Some kind of compromise position is likely to be established though I honestly can't see one that would be beneficial to either nation. Salmond could well be left with a difficult explanation to the voters who he is making big promises about economic independence too and the UK government of the day (whoever that is) will be in an equally difficult position selling the compromises that would have to be given to Scotland to their own voters.

 

He did not lie. He did not say we would be exempt. He said we wouldn't pay. rUK has already gone on record as being responsible for the payment regardless of what Scotland does. If we did pay we would pay Westminster.

Whoa there. It was the Westminster Government who broke the agreement by saying they would not go into a currency union - hoping to kill the yes vote in one stroke. Salmond had every right to respond to that by saying what his response would be. That is the negotiation - don't give us a currency Union and we will not take a share of the debt. While it is quite true that this should not have happened until a yes vote, Westminster by saying she would not have a currency union before negotiations clearly made him show his position also.

Bad news, they seem to be in agreement - that is those wanting Independence. Of course if Scotland did go for Independence the experienced Scottish MP's in Westminster would be out of a job and doubtless many would want to join the Scottish Parliament. Whenever any have been asking what Plan B is, either those currently in the Scottish Parliament or those we would expect from Westminster, they have always been asked what they would want as our currency. None of them has made another suggestion.

A few months ago I was watching the Parliamentary debates on Independence - intended to give voters better knowledge. At that time the question seemed to be largely over being the lender of last resort. One Banker made clear that rUK would be in no danger from this due to changes which have been made since 2008. I also read articles from people outside the UK who saw this as the most sensible course and there were some videos of discussion from business people I think, who also thought so. I am not an economist but I do not believe a way cannot be found for this to happen. In deed in the beginning the suggestion was that the problem Westminster had with this was that Scotland would probably only share currency for a short time. I think it is bluff or spite and given the massive extra expense taking on a different currency would cause at this time it seems fair to say we will not pay any of the debt if something acceptable is not forthcoming. It may well be that it is rUK citizens who will make up their minds. I understand they are to have a vote on whether to share currency or not. It will be well that they be aware of the consequences of saying no.

What do you think the response would be both within Scotland, rUK and for it's position in the world if she were to go back on her word now. Who do you believe could achieve this last act of imperialism, colonialism and withdrawal of democracy? Even suggesting such a thing would probably get another 500,000 yes voters.

 

A currency union (certainly a full and equal one) has never been a viable option though. It's totally against the interests of the UK (and Scotland for that matter). Scotland not accounting for any share of the UK national debt in some manner isn't viable either. Neither of those things are going to happen and never were.

I fully agree that the UK party leaders were quite blatantly playing politics in making a big thing about refusing a currency union but so was Salmond in his suggestion of refusing to pay any national debt. The whole campaign has been about playing politics from the beginning. The actual negotiations will be entirely different, though they'll be surrounded and probably drowned out by the politics. The outcome will be a compromise, one I predict nobody will recognise and nobody will really like. And it'd probably be finalised around 2017.

Riots on the streets, international condemnation and possibly civil war. It's never going to happen of course but the fact remains that what I described would be the legal situation. Remember, we're still a Monarchy. All these democratic elections and governments only happen because the Queen lets them. It's not pretty but it's true.

 

When the free state was granted dominion status article 6 passed a proportion of UK debt to the Irish Free State. As currency was fixed at that time their was no imput into monetary policy to be negotiated for and we ended up 6 years later with a hard peg to the pound. Even after 40 years we were still pegged to sterling.

Independent monetary policy is not easy for a small economy.

 

No it's not part of the government
It's a private institution.

I bet you the Scots will vote no.

 

There was never any such agreement.

 

You go too fast. The agreement was that Westminster would accept the results of the referendum and it would not stand in the way should the result be for an independent Scotland.

Nothing about handing over UK institutions.

 

Then it makes sense that the Scots don't like to be privatized. The whole country is actually a property of the monarch. London authorities and the English ones in general often exhibit remnants of those archaic traits of the people being property. Oh God I sure do love the rebelliousness of the Scottish people against the archaic order.

 

Technically. But if you're actually aware of our history and laws you'll find that there's very little that the crown can actually do when it comes to managing the nation.

Exactly how long did you spend in the UK?

 

No it's not.

Give three examples.

 

I know that. I'm just saying that in the British society the old tendencies happen to bubble here and there. Though I do not question the overall democratic fabric of this society. It's just that the Scottish have a different type of political consciousness and what you English may find normal, natural, acceptable, they may find offensive and ignorant.

10 months I believe.

 

The Poll tax issue (1988-1990) could be one example though if I were to recall personal experiences, they are more than I can remember.

 

Which old tendencies?

I don't consider myself English first. I am a Briton first.
And I do know Scotland fairly well so why don't you tell me what exactly you mean?

I spent a year in NZ and I worked up and down the entirety of the country but it doesn't mean I know more about it than the locals.

 

Not a good example, as there has always been a tax paid by every adult in most countries at some time or another until comparatively recently, including the US,

There is no poll tax in the UK now.

I don't want you to recall your personal experiences. I want you to present facts.

Nonsense. Apart from the rabid nationalists who don't care if they would starve in a ditch, most of those voting yes believe independence will mean they'll be £500 a year better off.

Mind, if they believed they'd be be £500 a year worse off, they'd vote no.

 

Thanks for that load of misinformation. I was completely unaware of the Kingdom of Wales and the Kingdom of Northern Ireland. Thanks for illuminating me to the fact that England's territories have been promoted to Kingdoms.When did this take place?
Do you even know what a Kingdom is? The Clue is in the name. At the time of the Act of union, a Kingdom was a country ruled by a King, hence the name Kingdom (Dominion of a King). Please let me know who the Kings of Northern Ireland and Wales were at that time (1707)

 

At that time the king of Ireland was also the king of England. English kings held the title of King of Ireland and Ireland remained a separate kingdom till 1800 when the crowns and parliaments were merged by the act of union. Now whose spreading misinformation?

 

You really are struggling with this.
Wales is a country. Do you know who Prince Charles is?
And it's not dominion. It's domain.

 

Back on topic for a minute, whether there is a currency union as demanded by Salmond, or he piggy-backs the ScotPound on the former-UK Pound, both cases leave the Bank of England setting currency policy in regard to the Pound. That's a strange kind of independence.

 

In Salmonds mind Scotland has input into the monetary policy of the Bank of England. As a small country a floating currency could be difficult, very susceptible to fluctuations an scotish pound whould probably end up being pegged to something else.

 

How are all the matchstalk men, cats, and dogs?
Looking on the bright side, if Scotland leaves, life expectancy in the rest of Britain goes up, and the average rainfall goes down!

 

Yes, and if Scotland leaves, England will have to start thinking about it's extra electricity and water supplies, both of which go through a national grid from Scotland. Still they could go to their next nearest neighbours, France is not so far away, and do a deal with them I guess.

As to Kingdoms again. Helloooo, Ireland was a territory of England as Wales had been for many hundreds of years. They were not separate Kingdoms from England. Do you even know the difference between a territory and a Kingdom?Scotland was a separate entity entirely
So prince Charles is the King of Wales is he. Hope the Welsh know that. Your arguements are becoming ridiculous and silly now. Too silly for me to bother responding to if that's the best you can come up with.

 

I'm sure an arrangement would be made, but it won't be a currency union.

Does anybody really care, Mairead? What about your job? Your pension? Your mortgage? Your income tax? Your welfare benefits?

 

I was just ready to post a reply to this when my computer shut down. Will try again but never so easy second time

Sweeny last night was saying he did not have a problem with the BoE that all that this would create for Scotland was that it would put a halt on her spending and make her live within her means. He has said that before - how you read things no doubt changes interpretation.

A currency union seems to be considered the best thing at this time. I do not understand why you see it such a problem. Scotland does over half it's trade with rUK and they are the 2nd highest country rUK trades with. Clearly for business in both places this is preferable and possibly especially for those at the border. One of the advantages of having our own currency is because the UK apparently keeps the pound high due to the demands of the city and this makes manufacturing exports less financially attractive. Scotland wants to be strong on manufacturing so it's own currency will certainly be better for that. I suspect that the shared currency is simply a stop gap to make transition less volatile and tbh concerning that Westminster has really (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up by declaring it will not share a currency.

In the Parliamentary interrogation even the Banker who did not want a currency union said 'Well if Scotland is not going to pay a share of the debt, then there will be a currency union' muffle muffle awful Salmond.

in the long term Scotland would do better with her own currency but even those who want that have decided to keep quiet at this time. Scotland starting off with her own currency would result in 2-5 years of austerity and that is not going to go down well as an offering for Independence. I think there would be a problem in staying in the EU if we created our own currency as well. If I remember correctly we would not be considered until we had had it going for two years.

On interrogation in a different debate the banking experts made it clear that they did think that Westminster was bluffing about no currency union and that people should become aware that Westminster as well as the Yes campaign were presenting from a political stance. If Westminster is lying about this and there is a no vote, obviously no one will know - and they certainly expected to win on this alone. If they are lying and there is a yes vote, no one is really going to care. However there is a much stronger need for Salmond to be honest because if there is a Yes vote and he has been lying there will be hell to pay. I have researched many of the things and so far what they say has been well researched. For instance on joining the EU I watched three EU experts being interrogated by the Scottish Parliament and all of them believed that Scotland would certainly be able to stay in the EU that regardless of what they are saying it would not be possible for, for instance Spain to keep them out. On the other side I am hearing that if Catalan votes for Independence Spain will not allow her into the EU believing that that with cause her long lasting extreme poverty - so of course how things go depend to some extent on whether the larger country wants to declare war on the one going for Independence and deliberately hurt them. Miliband's statement that if yes wins he will build a wall between Scotland and England put into practise would be an example of that. Most people though believe that it will be in England's interest as well as Scotland's to get the negotiations sorted out quickly and in a friendly way. The choice will be whether to make Scotland an enemy or a friend. Seems to me friend would be the best approach.


Many people believe that an Independent Scotland will be good for rUK and that it could be particularly good for the North of England. There is a lot of talk of the need for a complete rethinking of how politics is done in rUK or the UK if we stay.

They went against the agreement that they had made before that all things which required negotiation should wait for negotiation. Not good of course for people wanting to know all the facts but in reality it is not possible to get these until negotiations. Westminster expected this to end the yes chances in one swoop. If they stick to that and so put financial strain on a new Scotland I don't see a problem in not taking the debt. I was shocked at first but I have come round to it. Not having any debt would be quite nice!! You are probably right that it will not happen as, as the Banker said it looked like they meant it and if they did that would indeed make for a currency union. With a yes win Salmond will be taking a broad section of opinions with him to negotiations not just SNP and they all will be wanting a fair outcome for Scotland.

I've dealt with this already.

Most people tend to think that once a Yes vote wins the attitude of rUK will change and they will get the transition through as quickly as possible for both. The best conclusion would be that both feel they have done well and good relations are maintained.

 

Fair enough Ryanm. I haven't studied this just took someone else's word for it.

 

I'm sorry your argument is completely ahistorical.

Ireland was a separate kingdom.

That just was you can't change than fact.