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

Come to think of it Spain is probably no more meaning to do this than Westminster is being honest about no currency union.

They are all following Canada and one of the key things which won her the referendum was making out that great poverty would ensue. If there is a vote for Independence doubtless Spain will change her mind.

 

A full and equal currency union would involve the UK government giving up a massive amount of freedom and independence over its own economy. That would be political suicide if nothing else and simply isn't going to happen.

In the event of a yes vote, there will obviously be some kind of compromise agreement on the subject, some kind of "currency union lite" (which they may try to sell to the public as currency union) or special agreement incorporating the key elements of backing from the Band of England to the independent economy. Either way, it's not going to be viable in the long term though and would have to be on the basis of Scotland moving towards an alternative - a Scottish currency tied to the pound, a truly independent currency or the Euro (or all three, in that order).

As I've said, none of the politicians have been honest about this point because there is no solution, in the short term at least, that will be especially appealing to voters on either side of the border.

That's been true for a long time but this has dragged that talk in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. It's not about what is best for the nation but what is best for us. Done well, regionalisation of political power can pull a nation together. Done poorly it can rip it apart.

True, though that agreement was because the SNP wanted to try to win on the back of emotion rather than getting bogged down in practical arguments. It would have been possible to have based the campaign on practical arguments and a more detailed blueprint of the structure for an independent Scotland but it would have been much more difficult to win. The No campaign was obviously naively over confident and got more and more in to the petty details as this because more and more apparent.

I don't think the attitudes are actually all that bad at all anyway and I expect more disappointment rather than anger in the event of a yes vote. Obviously everyone will want to get through the process efficiently but you know how it is with good intentions. There is a massive range of things to work out and agree and it would be unbelievable if there weren't any major arguments and sticking points, especially considering some of the people likely to be involved, let alone people on the outside sticking their oars in.

 

How would decisions be made? How much weight would be given to either country needs? Because rUK would be 10 times the size of Scotland, if proportional to population or economy rUK needs would always come first. And it isn't in rUKs interests to have its needs put on par with the needs of a separate country.

 

It's definitely not better for an independent Scotland or the rest of the UK.

There's no excuse for you not knowing why, because you've been told the reasons so many times and by so many different people.

Here you go:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/c.../news/report-currency-and-financial-services/

A single currency works today because of the integrated nature of the UK economy and, more importantly, because the nations of the United Kingdom have fiscal, banking and political union.


A separate Scotland entering into a currency union with the continuing UK would mean the Scottish Government handing over control of its monetary policy, including interest rates, and much of its economic policy to a country in which it had no representation. This is politically infeasible


It goes on:

Similarly, it is difficult to see any benefit to the United Kingdom of accepting the burden of risk of any default by Scottish banks and neither side is likely to accept sharing control of their tax and spending policies with what would, by then, be a foreign government.


That report has been in the public domain since JULY!

So what has Salmond done about it?

 

You are going to have to explain all this because in the debate with the bankers the only concern they had was about the lender of last resort - eventually argued successfully by one that that could not be considered a genuine concern. So explain all about how rUK will lose it's freedom and independence.

which sounds like what would be wanted. You did not think Scotland would want to have rUK declaring her taxes and benefits I trust. Even if Scotland stays in the UK either the Conservatives or the Liberals have said she can have full control of her taxes.

As I see it the need here is to create stability. It would not be up to the rUK hence to be saying this is only for the short term - that would ruin stability. However all other things being OK as I have already said it is likely that Scotland will choose to have her own currency once she is settled and recognised in the world as an Independent and reliable country.

People will be quite happy in the short term with what you are talking of as lite. No one expected anything else. Banker of last resort and we keep our pound on level as you - not being a banker but interest rates and so on I think is all it is about. What on earth did you think Scotland wanted?

It went nowhere before and arguably that is why it is where it is now. The original hope from John Smith was that England would have regional assemblies. A written constitution was supposed to go along with this and freedom of Information. We have more freedom of Information. A written Constitution would create the environment. All regions could have had an input to important considerations for instance foreign policy. Foreign Policy is what is a strong factor in a lot of people's interest in Independence. Where I have before heard English concerns is over the SE having most of the loot. If they for instance choose to go independent then there would be problems for everyone.
A written Constitution can cover needs and fears.

What you don't realise being in England is that Independence up here has little to do with the SNP. It has been embraced by many different interests, I gave links to some on one thread. Some people may base their opinion on emotions - indeed at the end if it is half and half emotion will win. However most people are intelligent enough to understand what is at stake. I notice a great deal of misinformation coming from 'better together' at the moment. The White Paper was the greater blue print though it cannot be more than intent. As I said because it is not possible to do negotiations until after a yes vote, it is unfortunate that people will need to base their judgement on their research. People have been researching since day 1. Scotland wants to be a different kind of society to what rUK offers. For instance when Miliband came here and said 'work for change with us' I thought, 'bloomin hell, there has been no one to work with all this time. We have seen Labour in Government and it is no different.' Scotland creating change though can be. Had the Westminster Parties got interested in this earlier and offered something like I suggest rUK could have above, I might well have a different intention on my vote. England though has moved in the direction of UKIP and although to our shame they got a few votes in the European election, this country is not right wing. England is and becoming more and more so. However within England are plenty of people who feel as badly about that as most in Scotland do. As an Independent country we can work together.... Prescott and Glegg believe it is devolution which people are already needing. Doing that through a written constitution ought to offer protections and allow for far more voices to be heard in England, far more options to be available and hence a far better democracy.

Well you have a fair enough attitude here. We shall see.

PS I am off out now.

 

He doesn't need to do it, Alexa, because I just did!

Hello?

 

The lender of last resort question isn't directly related to the currency union one (though establishing the lender would be more difficult without it). A full currency union (like the Euro) requires common policy on things like interest rates, taxation, lending and borrowing. These are key things the UK currently has complete independence over and clearly has no practical or political motivation to sacrifice.

Exactly, hence a full currency union is impossible, which was the point I was highlighting (in response to the thread topic suggesting it's a case of currency union or no debt payments).

I'm not sure Scotland knows what Scotland wants (the polls are 50/50 for a reason).

This question came up because Alex Salmond made a full currency union his "plan A", the UK politicians stated that wouldn't happen and he responded that if there wasn't a currency union, an independent Scotland wouldn't pay any share of the UK debt. So, it seems to have been what he wanted (unless he was playing politics, which can't be discounted).

We already have regional government structures in place, they just have limited powers and responsibilities. Adding yet another level was never a real answer. This is really its own topic though.

Oh I know and it wasn't my intention to suggest otherwise. They (and Salmond specifically) have been a major driving force though and the main players in relevant aspects such as agreements with Westminster politicians, which is on this point I referred to them specifically. I wouldn't dream of tarring other yes campaigners with the same brush.

Again, it's all part of the politics and frankly I see just as much in the other direction. The uncertainty that's helping create plus the fact it's not just going to disappear on the 19th is a key reason why the prospect of independence concerns me.

 

Are you saying that all Euro countries have the same rates of income tax and pensions? Taxation is the one I don't think we are intending going with but as I said either the Conservatives or the LibDem's offered this in their version of devo max.

Well I have checked and it is 100% control of income tax by the conservatives if we stay in so I do not see how there is a problem.

My interest is simply to keep things as stable as possible till we settle and I think that Better together has already created unnecessary concern with it's no currency union propaganda.

Fair point. Roughly 40% are decided yes and 40% no with around 20 percent needing to make up their minds. We also are expecting around 20-30% who never normally vote to vote this time. The Guardian says 87% say they will vote. There is obviously a hard core who do not want this on any level. There are a lot more in the no camp who would like it but are frightened. People have been speaking though about the need to come together after. Really it is something which we won't know the answer to till Friday morning. However a majority vote is what is required. If it is no and the Government does not produce what the leaders have offered then I think there will be a demand for another vote very soon and I suspect it will win. Mind you they have actually kept very quiet about what is actually on offer!!

(Guardians Poll today 51%No 49% yes after undecided 17% taken out)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/12/scottish-referendum-too-close-to-call-says-icm-poll

Nope that is not it at all. You are the first person I have heard mention full. Currency union was the intention of the SNP and I think that was in the white paper. The white paper is intent and possibilities not what will be. Better Together are the people who started saying there would not be one and as the Conservatives would allow a Devolved Scottish Parliament full control of income tax why is there a problem with an Independent one. It was Darling who brought in all this crap about Plan A and it has not been helpful. All it has managed to produce is concern with business and banking liable to lose both the rUK and Scotland money. They should have kept by what they said and not tried to negotiate until there was a vote.

No, it is part of how the UK has developed since Thatcherism when the lack of democracy in this country became apparent. People often forget how short a time we have had democracy. Late 60's the neo con's in the US decided democracy was not a good idea. Thatcher agreed with them.

see here and here

It's just that people decided very early on that they were not going to leave this to the SNP, it was to be about Independence. It has led to Scotland becoming far more politically alive.

Yes, well I think probably I have little idea of what it is like in England either. I sure want away from Westminster politics though. My feeling is that if the ideas of Charter 88 and John Smith had been put in properly - and it was Tony Blair who stopped this, we would have a very different and much better country now. I hear that there is a lot of resentment to Scotland from England and that that will remain whatever we choose. I also know some in England have understood the political nature of what is going on and are interested. You know when I first heard there was going to be a Referendum on Independence I though wtf. It seemed incredulous but now I know I have psychologically moved and whereas then I felt part of the UK, I don't really now. Mind you the change may be that news of the referendum happened when I had only been back from England for a year and now I am settled but I think it is more to do with the reality that Scotland has become alive again politically. Politics has been dead since the 1980's and it feels so good to feel you can get interested in something and work for change. People obviously are hoping this will continue after the 18th. Those in power after all are our servants so we ought to be bringing them to task and telling them what we want. If Scotland stays in, it is to be hoped that it is a wake up call to politics in the whole UK.

 

No, I'm saying they have common policy. It affects what the nations can do with their financial policy because they have to remain within certain limits and principles. It's one of the reasons the likes of Greece are having such difficulties.

You should check again. The current UK government is a coalition and parliament as a whole votes on tax policy anyway. The largest parties have more power of course but that's democracy.

The problem remains the same and I can only keep repeating myself. Neither an independent Scotland nor the rUK could, practically or politically, accept the limitations full currency union would impose upon them.

If Alex Salmond hadn't brought it up in the first place, they wouldn't have been able to use it as propaganda.

It's the correct term for what was proposed. The yes campaign couldn't sell anything less to the Scottish people.

It was poorly presented (like much of their campaign) but it was a valid question. It still is a valid question really.

It already has been. My concern remains that the knee-jerk reaction will be in entirely the wrong direction.

 

Ask the Scots, they know best. Once you see how things develop in their brand new independent society you'll understand their differences.

 

'rabid nationalists'... 'starving in a ditch...'

£500 sounds like a realistic number. They are just 5 million people... Remember that. The smaller the population, the better it self-administers. This rule applies with no exception to the small Northern European nations (Denmark, Luxemburg, Norway, the Netherlands). Where do you add the fact that Scotland has some of the most prominent natural resources in Europe.

 

I'm sorry but you were being vague.
If you can't be bothered to answer the question then don't bother answering at all

And I do know the differences between Scotland and England. And I also know the differences between counties in Britain.

 

I had imagined we would just follow the UK value of the pound and any other necessities while also having the BoE as lender of last resort. Obviously that would create some limitations but also would fit in with what Sweeny said that it would mean we did not overspend

There are lots of people who would prefer us to begin with our own currency. I think the reason this has been decided against is because it would create great uncertainty at the beginning possibly leading to austerity. That would put people off voting yes so the decision was made to go for a currency Union. That is how I see it and it simply being to give us time to get working on what we want.

Another possible way of looking at it is that Salmond although wanting a fairer society does not have the appetite for change which a lot of people are wanting. When I read it the people wanting our own currency were wanting it because of the potential it offers - for instance we could allow it to go at a lower level and that would make the manufacturing we hope to produce more competitive. That apparently would also get over the problem of things being taxed going to England keeping them still at a good price.

Here is what yes Scotland say

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what-currency-will-independent-scotland-have

(click on the link and you will find the link to the Financial Times. I can't link as I have used up my free links)

This page gives the reasons why it would be an advantage to rUK as well as Scotland and also points out

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/answering-your-questions-currency

 

I think the financial policy only has to be the ability to limit within the same level - for instance to keep our level of the pound at the same level as rUK. At least since 2000 our GDP has been around the same level as rUK sometimes higher. We are the second or third richest area in the UK. Greece had lied about it's economic situation when going into the EU that is why it had it's problems. Scotland does not have this problem. I think that is all a common policy needs to be. We need to fit in with things in much the same way as we would if we pegged our pound to rUK but in that case we would not have the BoE as lender of last resort.

The UK would have no power over Scotland as it would be an independent country. I see no point in needlessly creating neurosis in the markets except for spite.

Lots of experts disagree with you. Check out my links to Ryanm. Do you expect me to put you above financial experts? What is your expertise for making this claim?

You are suggesting it is a good idea for England through bitter together to harm Scotland because the SNP created a white paper on how things could be and Bitter Together used that to go against the agreement not to discuss things which would be part of negotiations? Seems a bit below the belt to me.

Have no idea what you are talking about here. You have in any case already said it would be impossible if we did not have the same level of income tax and pensions as rUK and I have shown that this is not so due to all parties offering us some empowerment over taxes and the Conservatives 100% if we do not go for Independence.

and it is one which people know the answer to including interviewed bankers. No currency Union, no debt. Sterling is one of the assets of the UK and Scotland has been deeply involved in it's progress. Stop us having access to it and we will not take the liabilities either - but I am sure when the talks get going this will be sorted out and this is just a political ploy.

How do you see that going? I am genuinely interested as I have little clue. I know it has energised some people who see the possibility for political change in England. I know both Wales and NI want improvement in their devolution. Apart from that I did not know there was much going on in England apart from the rise of UKIP and a disdain for Scotland amongst some. I believe that UKIP gets success from the frustrated at having no political voice due to being a populist party but I don't believe it really changes the political impotence people have - how they feel maybe, how the are, that is another matter.....and I would hate to see them led where that could go. Indeed the Conservatives have also moved to the right. Together they are concerning enough for my daughter to suggest we might need a wall for safety!!

 

No it doesn't.

I don't know if you want a serious discussion, or whether you'r just trolling but read this. This is reality:

http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002045.html#more

I have no idea from Alexa is getting her information, but it's fair and far out.


Surely, however, any oil revenues are better than no oil revenues? Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister repeatedly says that no country ever got poor by having oil.

The trouble for Scotland, however, is that its public finances can only be made to add up if it is has significant oil revenues. This is where Scotland falls foul of the second fundamental force; high and rising public spending.

Scotland spends much more than the rest of the UK. Spending per head in Scotland is between 12% and 16% higher than the UK average. Part of the reason Scotland is relatively well off (income per head excluding oil is around 94% of the UK average) is that it is boosted by this higher level of public spending. The pressures for higher spending, not least from the country’s ageing population, will intensify.

In 2012-13, the latest Scottish government figures, public spending in Scotland was £65.2bn. Taxation, excluding North Sea revenues, was £47.6bn. The gap was equivalent to 14% of GDP; bigger than the UK deficit at the height of the crisis. Only by including North Sea revenues was Scotland’s budget deficit brought down to 8.3% of GDP; bigger than the 7.3% for the rest of the UK.

This, in fact, has been the position for the past 25 years. Even with a geographic share of oil revenues, and even in a period when North Sea production was at a peak, Scotland has run a bigger deficit than the whole of the UK.


And it goes on

Scotland’s currency arrangements threaten to be its biggest problem of all. Westminster’s insistence that it would not allow Scotland to be part of a formal currency union is taken seriously by all but the nationalists, mainly because it would not be the rest of the UK’s interest.

Salmond’s insistence that the rest of the UK would want to be in a currency zone with Scotland because the two form an “optimal currency area” is either extreme ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Once Scotland left the UK and established its own fiscal policy with its own Treasury, the optimal currency area would have ceased to exist.

As it is, Scotland’s lack of currency preparation is shocking. It took Europe decades to prepare the ground for a single currency that nevertheless had significant launch problems. The Scottish first minister’s throwaway insistence that all options are open for an independent Scotland does not deserve to be taken seriously.

 

My thoughts - Salmond should be locked up for treason

 

Yeah yeah. any reactionary elements shall be crushed without mercy. Long live totalitarianism!

 

Why should one person be given free reign to encourage enfeeblement and weakness of a once great nation(UK)?

 

One person has had such power since 1707.

 

I suppose you think that the monarch runs the country. Seriously?
The crowns power has been limited every since the 1640's and it's only shrunk since then.

Absolute ignorance

 

You have been asleep. Do a Search for Scotland 1979 and 1997.

 

Why are you so keen to be bossed by Brussels - not been watching too much Braveheart have you ??

 

Just politically different Darling. Been alive from the time the UK had democracy. Poor England has so little democracy now it is actually buying authoritarianism with the racism which goes along. How are you guys getting on with Putin? Him helping you to understand how to remove liberal values?

 

Putin is a hero - he's saved Russia from the liberal spinelessness of Gorbachev, and the corrupt capitalist dysfunction of alcoholic Yeltsin - so, yes, the UK needs a strong leader like Putin or Brezhnev - not this liberal democracy which is nothing other than weakness........keep the UK strong in a dangerous world, that would be the right move

 

You have said it then. You are with Putin working with the rest of the European far right. You hope to destroy the EU and replace it with the Eurasian Union and a society with is homophobic, anti US, anti liberal values and those with them and keeps minorities as second class citizens though I expect with you and Le Penn and the others it will be about ethnic cleansing.