The raging wrangling around the benefits or otherwise of Scotland becoming independent continues apace, though possibly largely on Twitter and blogs rather than in pubs and coffee shops across the nation. The SNP seemingly has the upper hand with the unionist camp reportedly reduced to trying to set its own referendum that fits with their timescales, a risky ploy that, despite clear merit, may result in a Scottish backlash from the masses.
I do wonder however if David Cameron has an ace up his sleeve that would send the SNP spiralling into disarray, a simple, single line that he just needs to publicly utter that would be game, set and match for the unionists. That line would be as follows: “A United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not recognise the currency of Scotland if it sought to use Sterling against our express wishes”
What could FM Salmond and the SNP realistically do then? Proceed with saying Scotland will use Sterling even though the political leaders of the Bank of England have said No? Do we really aspire to being the “naughty neighbours” leeching off down south’s pounds and pence? Is it not a bit like divorcing your partner and asking to still borrow their purse or wallet?
We are seeing right now what a basketcase country can do to a shared currency, with Germany and France amongst others looking on aghast as small Greece pulls the Euro down into the mire. It is unlikely to ever happen of course, but why should rUK run the risk of Scotland doing the same to Sterling? Why shouldn’t England, Wales and Northern Ireland want to protect its currency within its own borders during these troubled times? Look at the mess that Ireland got into with banks that were too big to fail but also too big to support; rUK shouldn’t be expected to take a punt on its currency in similar circumstances closer to home.
The problem with the Euro is that the Continent has seen a union of currencies but no fiscal union. So if Scotland wants to loosen its fiscal union with the UK, then so it follows that a loosening of the currency could follow, and David Cameron is well within his rights to argue that it should follow. It’s not petty and it’s not foolhardy of unionists to argue so, despite what some in the SNP would believe, but it does happen to be a good strategy for completely undermining the Nats.
It has been suggested that it is not David Cameron’s decision to make, that Scotland can use the Sterling regardless of what England or Mervyn King or George Osborne says. Well, I don’t think it’ll work that well in reality and I certainly don’t think that the proud people of Scotland would like the idea of being a Western version of Cambodia, a country that uses the US dollar as its de facto currency like some sort of sovereign scoundrel.
The SNP has pegged too much of its credibility on Sterling and changing tack now to suggesting that a Scottish currency is Plan A would see its independence chances done for (assuming that championing the Euro remains political suicide for the next few years).
I personally believe that a Scottish pound would be a great idea, it gives us the opportunity to be nimble enough to have export-led recovery during tough times and import-led booms during the good times, not to mention plenty of cheap holidays.
Why does the world need a new currency one could reasonably ask. Why does the world need a new country one could reasonably counter.
Perhaps there is a way for Salmond to raise the bar, to raise his party’s vision beyond clinging to the currency that we know. Perhaps the FM could deliver a speech searing with soaring rhetoric that pleads for activists and the public alike to dare to be the equals of the Swedens and the Norways, to embrace the idea of a small country with a big currency, powered by a roaring economy. That standing up for ourselves means going the whole way, a truly clean slate upon which to build a better nation in the mould that Scots want. I’d cheer, I’d clap, but I don’t see Salmond gambling that enough Scots would follow his words with their votes. We just don’t like change enough to do it.
So until then, Alex Salmond seems to want the Bank of England and Westminster to dance to his tune for his own party’s convenience, despite wanting to pull Scotland out of the union. It won’t work. It can’t work, and it’s only a matter of time before Cameron, Osborne, Clegg or someone else publicly and decisively calls him on it. It would be a challenge that even the First Minister’s trademark chuckle couldn’t shake off and could quite possibly ruining irrevocably the SNP’s chances of a Yes result.
Don’t believe me? I’ll bet you any number of your British pounds. (I don’t take Euros)
#1 by Don McC on November 10, 2011 - 6:56 am
David Cameron doesn’t have the power to veto Scotland’s use of the stering, that’s not how it works.
And rather than Salmond and co acting like naughty children, it would be Westminster that would be criticised on the international stage, for acting like a spiteful wean and trying to poke their nose into where it doesn’t belong.
#2 by Jeff on November 10, 2011 - 7:08 am
I didn’t say it was a veto, barely even suggested it. Did you read the article or the headline?
And how do you square your last sentence with Merkel and Sarkozy ordering ‘non-core’ countries out of the EuroZone? An overdue move in my opinion.
Cameron would be perfectly entitled to hold the view and make the case that if Scotland is leaving Britain, then it should also leave the British pound.
#3 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 8:55 am
There’s a difference between recognising that the economies of the Eurozone countries are too diverse for the current situation to continue, and thus deciding that some of them should leave the Euro, and just going “no, you’re not getting to use the Sterling, because I say so.”
It would be the political equivalent of taking the ball home because no one is passing to you.
#4 by Jeff on November 10, 2011 - 9:02 am
Either way, it would still leave the SNP with a significant headache.
Do they:
1 – Press on with a currency that the political leaders of the Bank of England have expressly stated is preferably not open for other countries to use.
2 – Decide to join the Euro straight after independence
3 – Suddenly campaign in favour of a Scottish pound
I’d imagine it’d be option 1 but it’s difficult to argue to be a part of something when you’re clearly not wanted.
#5 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 9:43 am
==> 3 – Suddenly campaign in favour of a Scottish pound
Out of interest, if this came to pass, what would prevent people transferring their savings from Scottish banks to a more reliable currency? (as Greeks would be liable to do on a return to the drachma)
~alec
#6 by Phil Hunt on November 11, 2011 - 7:37 pm
And how do you square your last sentence with Merkel and Sarkozy ordering ‘non-core’ countries out of the EuroZone?
It’s perfectly possible for a country to use the Euro without permission from the ECB/Eurozone/EU. Montenegro does, for example. Ditto for any other currency.
#7 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 9:04 am
>> And rather than Salmond and co acting like naughty children, it would be Westminster that would be criticised on the international stage, for acting like a spiteful wean and trying to poke their nose into where it doesn’t belong.
.
In the same way that Merkozy is being roudly condemned for doing so with Greece? Larger countries/economies stipulating restrictions for smaller ones gaining access to their finances/currency is so standard practice, you’ll find.
#8 by JohnMcdonaldish on November 10, 2011 - 7:44 am
What if space aliens arrive and they don’t want to see Scotland take her independence? Heck, Salmond would be really stuffed then, eh??
#9 by Jeff on November 10, 2011 - 8:09 am
Jings. I suspected some wouldn’t be happy with this post but I didn’t expect things to go extra-terrestrial.
I think my suggestion is light years more likely than your own, and there’s nothing wrong with speculation.
#10 by JohnMcDonaldish on November 10, 2011 - 8:39 am
Perhap some of your articles are so out of this world that they deserve a little earthy sarcasm…?
#11 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 9:08 am
John, there’s nowt in Jeff’s post which says an indepencent Scotland could not go it alone currencywise. If she wanted to, that’d one thing. Expecting all the benefits of independences whilst another country’s currency propped it up -with the attendant problem that governance of this currency would be beyond Scotland’s control – is , well, suggestive of the matter not being taken seriously.
#12 by JohnMcDonaldish on November 10, 2011 - 12:26 pm
Crickey! If I have to spell it out…
The criticism implicit in my first, albeit cheeky and sarcastic, comment was that this blog seems to relish in finding arguments, subtle, not-so-subtle, and downright juvenile against independence.
The schoolboy logic displayed in the piece would as well be turned to the implications of a Union-supporting alien dropping by.
#13 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 1:01 pm
==> The criticism implicit in my first, albeit cheeky and sarcastic, comment was that this blog seems to relish in finding arguments, subtle, not-so-subtle, and downright juvenile against independence.
Has Jeff had a Damascene coversion?
==> The schoolboy logic displayed in the piece […]
Salmond has said that an independent Scotland would continue – for an as-yet undetermined period of time – using Sterling. Fact.
This would be entirely in the gift of the Westminster Government. Maybe it would agree to offer it, maybe it won’t. But you cannot deny that it’s in its gift.
As much of a non-starter as Indy’s attempt to compare the UK and Irish Free State in 1921 to the UK in 2011 is, it is at least based on historical fact. Your one is not.
==> […] would as well be turned to the implications of a Union-supporting alien dropping by.
And I could put an end to this by asking if an indendent Scotland’s currency would be based on deep-frying live kittens. Irrelevant and preposterious? No more than your attempts to derail this discussion.
~alec
#14 by JohnMcDonaldish on November 10, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Gee! My point wasn’t about Sterling, or the Euro, or the Irish Free State! Or in whose gift membership of … whatever.
The premise of the article is simply tosh. It might as well have suggested that Cameron’s ace was the building of a wall along the border. Neither scenario is going to happen, never, never, never.
We might as well discuss the possibility of an alien visitation.
#15 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 1:06 pm
I’m pretty sure everyone understood your point. It’s just that it was rubbish.
#16 by JohnMcDonaldish on November 10, 2011 - 3:58 pm
Clearly Alex didn’t get my point – or at least the point I was making. Hence my reply.
But, Dougie, I recognise a master of the cutting rejoinder when I see one. “Rubbish”, well done, son!
#17 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 5:51 pm
I can go only on what you say here. Your “point” was manufactured, petulant and unrelated to anything Jeff said. Calling him a naysayer against independence, ffs!
~alec
#18 by Geraint on November 10, 2011 - 7:57 am
There is ample precedence of smaller countries pegging their currencies to larger ones. The promise of a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling should defeat any such threat from Westminster, while also providing a route to later membership of the Euro if desired. I doubt the FM is overly concerned about the threat. I don’t think it is much of an ace.
#19 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 8:46 am
I appreciate the efforts to foresee problems for the way ahead, but Im afraid I dont see this being one of them.
First of all, rUK would be well within it’s rights to reject any official monetary union where Scotland would like representation at the BoE. I have no problem with that.
However, it would surely be for sound, justifiable reason where the Scottish economy destabilises Sterling – that is, that Scotland would be a basketcase economy that rUK want nothing to do with. Fortunately, that’s not really very likely. The very reason rUK do not want to lose Scotland is that it is a solid economy with great potential and it’s unlikely (although possible I guess through poor governance) we’d regress to the point where the Scottish economy was unstable and harmful to Sterling. I doubt this to be the case in the short term though. If the Scottish economy was strong and stable, why wouldnt rUK want Scotland to contribute to Sterling’s strength?
And crucially, this decision would be taken based on raw, economic data. David Cameron is not about to throw his toys out the pram on the international stage and say he’s just not going to allow it in order to prevent independence, and it wont reflect well on rUK at all if he tries to argue the Scottish economy is in such a dire mess while in the UK, it would be toxic as soon as it left.
We’ll have far bigger hurdles to clear than this IMO.
#20 by Jeff on November 10, 2011 - 9:06 am
I disagree, but I respect your very well laid out arguments the other way.
David Cameron is a politician long before he is an economist or accountant. If the Daily Mail- reading Middle Englanders don’t want Scotland ‘leeching’ off ‘our’ pound, then what’s he going to do then. And with RBS to prop up, and potentially a bit of HBOS too, after independence, who is to say that Scotland won’t be closer to that dreaded basketcase tag than we’d all like to think?
I really don’t think it’s unreasonable or unlikely for Cameron to meekly accept Salmond’s proposal, for political or economic reasons.
#21 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 9:50 am
Fair enough. But as with taking control of the referendum, Im not sure his assertive (some would say “bullying”) behaviour would go down in a way that saves the Union. I guess it could, in the short term, go a long way to defeating the SNP in the referendum, but longer term, I feel he’d just be crystallising attitudes in Scotland about the need for Independence and the lengths rUK will go to in order to retain control – and that’s increasing what it would be… control.
#22 by Manny on November 10, 2011 - 12:48 pm
“And with RBS to prop up, and potentially a bit of HBOS too, after independence, who is to say that Scotland won’t be closer to that dreaded basketcase tag than we’d all like to ”
That’s another whole topic in itself. The majority of RBS’s operations were based in England, there is precedent for this type of situation with Dexia and Fortis who were bailed out not by a single country but instead France and the Benelux countries each bailed out the operations in their own country (Luxembourg even took that opportunity to change Fortis back to being called Banque General du Luxembourg).
So you can’t really assume that Scotland would have to prop up RBS on it’s own, or even the majority of it.
HBoS, they had two headquarters, one in Scotland, the other in England, however, Lloyds bought them over so they are in fact an English bank now. That said, the same rule should apply as with RBS and the Scottish government would still be responsible for propping up their operations in Scotland.
#23 by Phil Hunt on November 11, 2011 - 7:46 pm
And with RBS to prop up, and potentially a bit of HBOS too, after independence, who is to say that Scotland won’t be closer to that dreaded basketcase tag than we’d all like to think?
I would very much hope that an independent Scotland has a clause in its constitution forbidding the government from bailing out banks with the people’s money, unless the people specifically approve the bailout in a referendum. It’s about time Scotland — and the rest of the world — was run for the benefit of its people, not the greedy and incompetent bankers.
#24 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 9:06 am
In important point made, Jeff.
It serves to highlight once more the fact that, while the SNP are desperate to slot a third “Devo Max” option into their referendum believing it to be a deeply cunning way of splitting the unionist vote, the main “Independence” option which they champion is still woefully undefined.
People will make their choice based on the detail of each proposal. That’s why, even if they aren’t prepared to define devo max, the SNP must start defining independence. And part of that definition is how currency, central bank and monetary policy are to be governed.
I remain of the view that keeping sterling and the Bank of England (alongside the head of state) means that what the SNP are calling independence would be better described as devo max. I think quite a few SNP folk do too. If the plan is a Scottish currency pegged to sterling then say so. The last thing we need in a crashing global economy is a reputation for uncertainty.
#25 by James on November 10, 2011 - 9:30 am
“I remain of the view that keeping sterling and the Bank of England (alongside the head of state) means that what the SNP are calling independence would be better described as devo max.”
Quite. Which is why I prefer our own currency and an elected head of state. Like, y’know, grownup nations everywhere.
#26 by Iain Menzies on November 10, 2011 - 9:52 am
does that mean that the neatherlands isnt a grown up state?
#27 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 10:46 am
I don’t particularly care about the epithets. But if the SNP means “independent like the Netherlands” as opposed to “independent like the UK” (which is most Scots’ key example of an independent state), then they should say so.
In this country we are used to our elected politicians being in ultimate control of our monetary policy, and that is therefore what most Scots would expect from an independent Scotland.
#28 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 11:23 am
“In this country we are used to our elected politicians being in ultimate control of our monetary policy, and that is therefore what most Scots would expect from an independent Scotland.”
Really? I thought all that ordinary Scots cared about were jobs, family, education, etc? 😉
For a party that claimed Scotland was not interested in the constitution, surely you cant be suggesting Scots suddenly have strong feelings on a monetary union or macroeconomics?
For what its worth, I think you guys were right. People werent occupied by the constitution as much as they were worried about the day to day stuff like jobs, family, education. But they are now realising the importance that the constitution can have in delivering the things they want, and a massive transfer of power north could help bring that about. However, while important, monetary policy, whether Euro, Sterling or Scottish pound, will not make or break Scottish success… each present their own challenges but are not insurmountable.
Even David Cameron throwing his toys out the pram.
#29 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 11:47 am
Ludicrous argument. We are discussing a referendum on the constitution. You cannot argue that detail is not required because people aren’t interested in the constitution. They are to be explicitly asked about it!
And one of the key economic arguments used time and again by SNP folk is that the Bank of England fails to take into account Scotland’s economy when setting policy to hold down inflation. Is this suddenly no longer a concern?
All I’m asking is that this becomes an honest debate, rather than one characterised by emotional arguments about nationhood. People are concerned about jobs and education. Monetary policy affects them.
#30 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 1:19 pm
“All I’m asking is that this becomes an honest debate”
You ask for that a lot, Dunc. Yet you repeatedly dodge any difficult questions behind a curtain of ludicrous supposition.
Why do you think it’s better for Scotland to have regular Tory governments rather than be governed by left-of-centre social democrats in perpetuity?
[stands by for ludicrous supposition about spectacular Tory resurgence in Scotland, to which I refer you back to post #7]
#31 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Your argument for independence is that it will enforce a left of centre hegemony for the foreseeable future?
Not only is that offensive to democracy, it’s also gormless.
Now how about you answer the question I posed. Is the alleged failure of the Bank of England to take into account Scotland’s economy no longer a concern?
#32 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 4:16 pm
“Your argument for independence is that it will enforce a left of centre hegemony for the foreseeable future?”
Enforce it? No. Enable it to happen of the free will of the Scottish electorate? Yes.
“Not only is that offensive to democracy, it’s also gormless.”
That’s really more of a gratuitous insult than an answer. Still waiting for the latter.
“Is the alleged failure of the Bank of England to take into account Scotland’s economy no longer a concern?”
You first, dear. (Also, you’re going to need to rephrase that one so that I have the faintest idea what it means.)
#33 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm
Now, now Duncan. Play nice… I guess I was asking for it though. 😛
I didnt say monetary policy was unimportant, nor did I say it had no effect on jobs and education. But in the grand scheme of things, and compared with full fiscal responsibility and accountability, is monetary independence a major priority for sorting out the problems we have in Scotland? I very much doubt it. Relevant I give ye, but not a major cog in the Scottish political wheel…
People are concerned about jobs and education. I agree. However, monetary independence will have minimal or modest effect in attracting jobs and improving our investment in education. On the other hand, fiscal independence, is a completely different matter and could transform Scotland. The former is supplementary, the latter is fundamental to a healthy, attractive balance sheet.
I dont see what is dishonest about what Im saying. This is much bigger and more important than the sheets of paper in my wallet.
#34 by BM on November 10, 2011 - 11:24 am
I thought the Bank of England (not politicians) had ultimate control over monetary policy?
#35 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 11:43 am
The Bank of England is ultimately under the control of the UK parliament. And the Bank’s monetary policy function is to meet UK government-set inflation and other targets.
#36 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 1:20 pm
“The Bank of England is ultimately under the control of the UK parliament.”
You really ought to know better than that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/6/newsid_3806000/3806313.stm
#37 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 1:58 pm
My statement was clear and accurate.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/governance/index.htm
The Governors, Court and Directors of the Bank of England are appointed by HM Government.
#38 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 4:23 pm
That’s not the same thing as being “under the control of the UK parliament”, much like the way I don’t get to control how my MP votes once I’ve elected him.
#39 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 11:24 am
We have said so. We have said so over and over again. Large numbers of trees have died so that documents could be published setting out what independence means in the modern world. If you want to save trees you can read the documents online at the Scottish Government website where they have been accessible for a number of years now.
Could I suggest you actually read up on some of this stuff and then come back with whatever points you have, rather than just saying the SNP needs to say what they mean by independence? It is not a sustainable argument to keep saying the SNP must address this, that and the next point when they have already been addressed.
#40 by Iain Menzies on November 10, 2011 - 11:36 am
or not…..generally i take the view that its for politicians to come to me and tell me what it is they are proposing. so lets see a series of speeches from wee eck et al telling us exactly what they mean by independence.
i have (as does almost everyone else) better things to do with my time than wonder onto the scot gov website to find out who whoever has written.
for a party that i keep reading has made these things clear i find it very odd that i, as someone that pays mroe attention to polictics than the average joe, has never heard anyone from the sno stand up and SAY what it is they mean.
#41 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Iain the chances are that, wherever you live, there has been a National Conversation roadshow where you not only had the opportunity to listen to politicians talking about the options for independence but you had the chance to ask questions as well.
But there’s a limit to how much people can be spoon-fed on these matters. This is your country, it’s going to be your choice what happens, if you can’t be bothered taking so much as an hour out of your life to read the SNP’s proposals for independence it suggests either that you don’t care or that you have already made up your mind.
#42 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 12:26 pm
This patronising pretence that the questions being posed have already been answered is offensive. They haven’t, and the utter waste of time and money that was the “national conversation” did nothing to clarify or shed light on any of these issues.
Will it be a yes/no question? What in detail will we be asked to say yes to?
These things are not established, and it is the SNP which must establish them.
#43 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 1:23 pm
“Will it be a yes/no question?”
As opposed to what? A yes/no/mibbes aye/mibbes naw/ah dinnae really ken/ah’m no’ that bothered question?
“What in detail will we be asked to say yes to?”
Independence. The detail has, as Indy notes, been published in some considerable depth already, and will doubtless be discussed at length for those too lazy to go and read it once the campaign begins in earnest.
#44 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Neither is Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Spain or Sweden. Same goes for pretty much every nation in the Middle East, South-East Asia and the Caribbean.
#45 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Step forward the most mature, grown-up nations… North Korea and Zimbabwe!
~alec
#46 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 10:42 am
James, you’re a Green Party member and supportive of the EU. To start implicitly calling for autarky is quite a change.
~alec
#47 by Aidan on November 10, 2011 - 11:18 am
lots of grownup nations aren’t even nation states!
#48 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 1:14 pm
“the SNP are desperate to slot a third “Devo Max†option into their referendum believing it to be a deeply cunning way of splitting the unionist vote”
Seriously? You honestly believe it’s more likely to split the Unionist vote than the independence one? That’s… novel.
I also can’t quite believe anyone thinks the SNP are desperate to have a devo max option. What they’re desperate to do is be seen to offer one, and to have the Unionists commit the insane political suicide of rejecting it. So far, all going smoothly.
#49 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 1:30 pm
Oh right, so Ireland was never truly independent until the Irish pound broke its 1 to 1 link with the British pound in 1979?
That’s an interesting view.
#50 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Indeed – one of the most amusing facets of this debate is when a unionist tells you that what the SNP proposes is not REALLY independence.
The currency issue to me is pretty straightforward. After independence we’ll continue to use sterling until the Scottish Parliament decides otherwise, having looked at all the options.
Whereupon unionists cry but that’s not independence because Scotland has no control of monetary policy. Well Scotland has no control of monetary policy now so what difference will it make? Absolutely none.
The most bizarre thing about it is hearing echoes of Jim Fairlie et al coming out of unionist mouths. That adds a touch of surrealism to the debate if nothing else.
#51 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 3:44 pm
On the basis of that argument you could define independence on any basis you like, and if anyone challenges it you can say “Well Scotland has no control of XXX now so what difference will it make?”
The point is simple but important. You have launched a campaign for a “yes” vote. It has a leader, and probably slogans, and a huge team of activists. But no-one knows what we’re being asked to say yes to.
If the answer is that all will be set out in good time, then explain why the campaign has already been launched.
If the answer is that all has been set out, then explain why the question hasn’t been announced.
The longer the SNP play games with this the more people will think they are merely waiting to see what they can get away with. Which is, of course, the truth.
#52 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 4:10 pm
Once again, yes, Duncan you do know what is on offer.
You did actually know, for example, that the SNP proposes to keep sterling in the post-independence period.
So when you said the SNP must START defining what they mean by independence in terms of the currency, monetary policy etc you already knew the answer, didn’t you?
#53 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Then explain why the question hasn’t been announced.
You cannot have it both ways. If the SNP’s proposals are defined then the question should be published right now.
If it would be folly to define so early when we don’t know the state the world will be in in 2015 then stop telling me the position has been defined.
You cannot be simultaneously campaigning for a yes vote and refusing to define what it’s a yes to.
#54 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 6:15 pm
I already have explained that Duncan. You can look at the draft referendum bill any time you like. The possible questions are on that.
But we are doing you the courtesy of waiting until you have elected your new leader and decided on your position before asking you to take a final position on whether you want Devo Max on the ballot paper.
#55 by @dhothersall on November 11, 2011 - 12:58 pm
It has literally nothing to do with the Labour Party. That is the least convincing excuse you have trotted out yet.
#56 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 3:08 pm
“You cannot be simultaneously campaigning for a yes vote and refusing to define what it’s a yes to.”
It’s a yes to independence. What don’t you understand about the concept of independence? It means “Scotland’s political direction being chosen by Scots”. It doesn’t mean “Scotland’s entire political and social direction determined in advance and laid down by a single party”. That’s an elective dictatorship.
You seem to think we can’t have a referendum if we haven’t decided in advance what colour we’re going to paint bus lanes. But that’s not how democracy works. You don’t decide everything at once and then put it to one giant take-it-or-leave-it vote, set in stone forever.
If we left it to you, you’d still be arguing in 2036 – “Ah, but what point size will we make the text on motorway signs? You can’t expect us to vote if we don’t know what we’re voting for!” The referendum is about who makes Scotland’s decisions in the future – the Scots, or other people. No more and no less.
#57 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 4:22 pm
“If the answer is that all will be set out in good time, then explain why the campaign has already been launched.”
Has it? Please define “launched”.
“If the answer is that all has been set out, then explain why the question hasn’t been announced.”
The proposed question/s were announced years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_referendum_on_Scottish_independence#Draft_Bill_details
The final ones will of course be subject to the approval of Parliament, as the bill creating the referendum is yet to be passed.
If you want “honest debate”, Duncan, you’re going to have to stop pretending that the SNP are keeping secret things which they’ve made fully available in black and white for all to see.
#58 by @dhothersall on November 11, 2011 - 1:00 pm
“Launched” as in “launched”.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15419108 and several hundred other news stories covering the launch of the campaign at the SNP party conference.
#59 by Thomas Widmann on November 10, 2011 - 9:48 am
I agree with BaffieBox that the United Kingdom of England (incl. Wales) and Northern Ireland would be entirely entitled to exclude Scotland and Scottish views from the BoE (and indeed I would expect them to).
However, the pound is used all over the world, so there’s no way they would try to keep their currency out of Scotland.
What I would suggest as the most likely scenario is to make a ,currency board, in which the Central Bank of Scotland pegs the Scottish Pound to the British Pound at a rate of 1-to-1. Not only would England be unable to do block this arrangement, but it would also make it easy for Scotland at some point to move the peg from the pound to the euro (or to the dollar or to gold for that matter).
#60 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 10:00 am
I think the idea of launcing a brand new free floating currency the day after independence in the present global financial circumstances would be bonkers. Equally clearly immediately joining the euro would be bonkers even if it were possible which it wouldn’t be, not least because it is SNP policy to put the question of joining the euro to a referendum. What chance of getting a yes vote within the foreseeable future. At the risk of incurring Jeff’s ire I would have to do a wee lol at that.
I suppose technically David Cameron could say I absolutely forbid Scotland to use sterling but that is so unlikely as to be impossible. After all the Republic of Ireland initially maintained a currency union with sterling even after a long and bloody war with Britain. If Britain did not say no to the Irish why would they say no to the Scots?
#61 by Ken on November 10, 2011 - 10:38 am
” After all the Republic of Ireland initially maintained a currency union with sterling even after a long and bloody war with Britain. If Britain did not say no to the Irish why would they say no to the Scots?”
Exactly. I don’t see Westminster being that petty on this issue (others, yes). Trade is going to remain extremely important between the two, and as with Ireland (who take in 1/4 of UK exports) it’s in Westminster’s own interest to not be petulant about currency issues.
#62 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 11:03 am
==> After all the Republic of Ireland initially maintained a currency union with sterling even after a long and bloody war with Britain.
They just had fought a long and bloody war, after which any concessions would have seemed preferable to a return to long and bloody war.
==> If Britain did not say no to the Irish why would they say no to the Scots?
The people who made these decisions are dead and never coming back. It was at a time when Britain was the premier industrial and economic nation on the planet, with a large captive market, so could absorb any costs much more easily.
Times change.
~alec
#63 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 11:17 am
Yes times do change – that’s my point. If Britain – at a time when the British Empire was still a reality and Britain’s economic power was at its height – was not petty enough to say to the Irish boo how dare you break way from us, we’re not going to let you play with our money yah boo sucks why on earth would they do it now?
Let’s all be grown-up about this. The UK Government will oppose independence up to the point that it happens. Then they will adjust and adapt accordingly because that is what grown up people do.
#64 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 12:14 pm
==> If Britain – at a time when the British Empire was still a reality and Britain’s economic power was at its height – was not petty […]
Because it easily could absorb any negative costs from a basket-case, rural economy which was the Irish Free State. And then there was the matter of that long and bloody war which [almost] no-one wanted to resume.
You might as well start promising to “re-industralize” Scotland at a time when we’ve lost the captive market which underpined the previous industrial output and when there is the emerging BRIC economies amongst others to compete with.
==> […] enough to say to the Irish boo how dare you break way from us, we’re not going to let you play with our money yah boo sucks why on earth would they do it now?
Question begging. This is 2011, not 1921. That’s such a spectucularly unremarkable observation that I would have thought it need not be mentioned, but it appears it must be in the face of fantasies that the past is not a different country.
==> Then they will adjust and adapt accordingly because that is what grown up people do.
Always be wary of someone who states that their position is the only “grown-up” one in town. Grown-up people don’t generally think they can continue on major political/economic change without potential restrictions.
Papandraeu III has found that out, Signore Bunga-Bunga is in the process of finding that out.
To paraphrase Baldwin, wishing for power without responsibility is the position of courtesan takes.
~alec
#65 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 5:47 pm
Ok so your argument is that the UK Government will – somehow – find a way to stop Scotland continuing to use the pound because .. well, you don’t actually say so presumably you think they would really do it out of sheer spite. Because there is no other explanation is there? It would not benefit them in any way so the only reason would be to punish us.
Luckily I have a somewhat higher opinion of the British Establishment than you do.
I think Jeff just wrote this post because he is amusing himself probing all the various spots he might think are weak in the independence case. I doubt he expected anyone to take the proposition seriously.
But keep it coming. I was reading Iain MacWhirter’s latest piece, he’s always been something of a weathervane for me. He’s been highly critical of the SNP and independence at times but he seems to be becoming more and more inclined to vote yes solely because of the silliness of the anti-independence arguments.
Another few years of this you guys will gave it in the bag for us.
#66 by itsyourself on November 10, 2011 - 10:08 am
So Russia which uses the USD for all “real” trade is leeching off the United States? I get paid in USD when I work there if I was paid in £s would Russia be guilty too?. When in China I can spend USD there. If you have convertible and openly traded currencies just how do you stop it being “used” elsewhere? Will Dave stop £ trading in New York Hong Kong and Tokyo? After all they are using the £ to make money. Outrageous innit?
#67 by Alec on November 10, 2011 - 10:32 am
IY, none of those countries have recently cleaved from the parent country of said currency and/or don’t have a currency of their own. That some feel the need to rely on a currency outwith their political control suggests they aint an entirely grown-up nation.
Jeff raised a perfectly plausible question. Some of those in disagreement have responded with equally plausible questions. Others have begged questions.
~alec
#68 by Richard on November 10, 2011 - 10:35 am
The one thing that no-one is mentioning here – AS is not proposing that Scotland continue to use Sterling forever and ever, amen!
It is intended as a short term measure, to provide stability and to allow people to focus on more immediate concerns. The decision on whether to have a Scottish Pound or join the Euro is merely being delayed. It will also allow investors to build up confidence in a fledgling nation.
The very last thing that we would need immediately after independence would be a run on the new currency by flighty financiers (and goodness knows they have been flighty enough of late!).
#69 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 11:16 am
I understand your point but it misses the bigger picture. If an “independent” Scotland adopts Sterling then the decision on whether to join the Euro is not Scotland’s to take, but the UK’s.
Scotland could not join the Euro independently without its own currency to begin with.
That’s what ceding monetary policy means. That’s why it isn’t independence.
#70 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 12:19 pm
OK so it’s not really independence.
Maybe you’ll vote for it then?
#71 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 12:24 pm
Maybe I will. Maybe others won’t. None of us can decide until we KNOW WHAT IT IS.
#72 by Angus McLellan on November 10, 2011 - 2:14 pm
Alex Salmond can predict the future no better than Gordon “No More Boom And Bust” Brown or John “Without A Single Shot Being Fired” Reid could. That’s not a personal failing though as nobody else is any better at it.
It’s appropriate to ask what the SNP’s vision for an independent Scotland is. But there will always be questions, like this one, to which no precise answer can be given. Are there alternatives to Sterling? Undoubtedly there are and if necessary one of those alternatives would have to be selected. And that’s about as far as we can go without getting into aliens territory.
For myself, I don’t think David Cameron is irrational so I find it hard to take this much more seriously than the aliens. Scotland just doesn’t matter all that much viewed from Westminster. No reason why it should do either. “More important than Northern Ireland” is a long way short of “important”.
We only need to compare the way Thatcher’s government treated Scotland – forget the myth and read Torrance’s books – with the apathy and disinterest shown by Cameron’s government. Thatcher’s men would almost certainly have gone ahead with the Longannet carbon capture scheme to keep the natives from getting restless. Cameron and Osborne don’t seem to be much bothered. Brown was willing to fund two giant white elephant aircraft carriers to keep Scots happy. There’s no evidence to suggest that Dave and George will do anything comparable. It is, however, quite hard to reconcile with the sort of scenario imagined here.
#73 by Richard on November 10, 2011 - 10:38 am
One of the things that is keeping the Dollar afloat at the moment is the international trade, especially the regulation that every USD bank transaction anywhere in the world has to go through New York. I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the BoE to catch onto the upside of the situation!
#74 by CassiusClaymore on November 10, 2011 - 12:57 pm
Worth noting that the Bank of England has, for my entire business career at least, set monetary policy primarily for the benefit of the South East of England (quite understandably, as this is where the bulk of the populace is). When the SE economy resumes rapid growth and inflation needs controlled, the Bank will raise interest rates. This, in turn, will retard economic recovery in Scotland and the rest of the UK periphery.
This is what happened through successive economic cycles and I fully expect to see it happen again soon (at which point Scottish unionist politicians can be relied upon to cry crocodile tears over our slow growth relative to SE England and generally talk down the Scottish economy).
The point is this – Scotland currently uses Sterling without any practical oversight/control over the Bank. If we used Sterling post-independence, there would be no practical difference from the present position.
The correct eventual position, in my opinion, is a Scottish pound pegged to the English pound. This is the natural position for most small countries next to big countries (pre-Euro Ireland, Canada etc.) As a transitional measure, however, I think Salmond is spot on and he’s correct to move away from the Euro. It will not exist in its present form in 2014/15 (and may not exist at all).
Final point – the Treasury can’t prevent us using Sterling if we want to. Loads of countries use USD and I think Montenegro uses Euro despite not being in the Eurozone.
CC
#75 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 1:53 pm
“I think Montenegro uses Euro despite not being in the Eurozone.”
Correct!
#76 by cynicalHighlander on November 10, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Type your comment here
Not true as it is private company owned by a few private individuals and its relationship with Westminster is symbiotic.
Money is a privatised commodity that is why the world is in such a financial mess.
#77 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 2:00 pm
The Governors, Court and Directors of the Bank of England are appointed by HM Government, and its objectives are set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/governance/index.htm
#78 by Iain Menzies on November 10, 2011 - 2:31 pm
not true…the bank of england, according to its own website, is wholly owned by the government.
#79 by cynicalHighlander on November 10, 2011 - 4:43 pm
Type your comment here
Can you maybe explain why the government doesn’t borrow at 0.5% from the BoE rather than go to the bond markets and pay 3.5+% from other banks. Poor deal for taxpayers don’t you think?
@dhothersall that doesn’t say who the owners are as the directors are just paid employees and nominal ownership of shares is not the same thing as equitable ownership. It is ownership on behalf of someone else.
#80 by Shuggy on November 10, 2011 - 9:28 pm
The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1946act.pdf
#81 by cynicalHighlander on November 10, 2011 - 11:02 pm
Who controls the Bank of England
If the bank charter act 1844 is still legal then the banks ownership has not changed. The main observable proof of the banks ownership is the national Debt. If the bank was nationalized there would be no national debt as there would be no loan requirements due the the government/state issuing the currency
We won’t resolve it here as it is far more complex than people think.
#82 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 1:40 pm
It’s not patrionising at all. You know exactly what the SNP position is – to maintain sterling post-independence. It couldn’t be any clearer. You may disagree with that, indeed you have already said you don’t think that would “really” be independence. So clearly you DO actually know what the SNP proposes but you don’t approve because, rather amusingly, it isn’t nationalist enough for you.
You also know that it can be a yes no referendum on the question of independence – or that it can include a question on Devo Max if there is support for that.
It is not up to the SNP either to define Devo Max or to argue for its inclusion on the ballot paper. It is up to the supporters of Devo Max to do that. If no-one does it won’t be included and people will be given a straight choice between yes/no to independence with the information that the unionist parties have ruled out an option of Devo Max.
So the SNP has no questions to answer on that. Rather, as someone who talks a good game on how flexible devolution is and how Labour shouldn’t get trapped into the position of being arch-unionists, I think it is you that has a bit of explaining to do, no?
Are media reports that a group of Labour/Tory/Lib Dem MPs have been planning to take control of the referendum debate away from Scottish members true? How do you feel about that?
#83 by Doug Daniel on November 10, 2011 - 1:44 pm
For what it’s worth, Salmond has talked of how normal it is for newly independent nations to stick with the currency of the state they’ve become independent from initially, using Australia and Ireland as examples. Of course, when you look at the history of these currencies, you see that they began with an Australian pound and an Irish pound, both of which were pegged at 1-to-1 with the British pound. Australia ended up creating the Australian dollar, while Ireland just broke that link by joining the ERM.
So it seems to me the idea is we’d have a Scottish pound pegged to Sterling. I imagine the only reason Salmond isn’t specifically calling it a Scottish pound is to avoid scaring the children and horses, as the media will pick up the story and run with it as meaning that the SNP want Scotland to have a brand new currency starting from scratch called the Scottish Pound, rather than the reality of what Australia and Ireland (and EVERY SINGLE OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD THAT DECLARED INDEPENDENCE IN THE 20TH CENTURY) did, which was essentially to keep the same currency, but just have their own banknotes. Which, erm, we already have…
Go on folks, have a look at the histories of the currencies of nations that declared independence in the 20th century, especially the former Yugoslav countries, where they all introduced their own “version” of the dinar, but which were all equivalent to 1 Yugoslav dinar.
The most annoying thing about unionists/devolutionists/whateverists demanding to know every single little detail about how independence could possibly work is the bizarre idea that it’s a completely alien concept which has never been tried out before. Loads of countries have become independent, so there are a wealth of examples to look on and see how it will work for Scotland.
#84 by Tormod on November 10, 2011 - 1:52 pm
Doug, there is none so blind who do not want to see!
#85 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 2:04 pm
The flaw here is the tissue thin excuse as to why Salmond hasn’t made this clear.
It seems quite obvious from your argument that a Scottish pound, independent of but pegged to Sterling, would be the only sensible currency for an independent Scotland which wanted to eventually join the Euro.
Surely it’s more scary for the “children and horses” to have no clarity at all and to be mired in uncertainty?
Salmond isn’t pretending to stick with Sterling to avoid scaring people. So why is he?
#86 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 4:20 pm
Independence Monetary policy
Under independence, Scotland would have the opportunity to choose the monetary framework and currency that best suited the needs of the Scottish economy.
A larger currency union can offer some protection from financial market speculation, although countries forgo the ability to tailor monetary policy to their specific economic circumstances.
Monetary union can also benefit economic integration and trade by eliminating exchange rate risk.
Scotland would continue to operate within the sterling system until a decision to join the Euro by the people of Scotland in a referendum when the economic conditions
were right.
A monetary union necessarily limits monetary policy discretion and flexibility. Greater emphasis is therefore placed on fiscal policy to address the Scottish economy.
Fiscal policy
With independence, the Scottish Parliament would be fully responsible for fiscal policy in Scotland, including the collection of all taxes and government expenditures.
The Scottish Government would be able to borrow freely in international capital markets, subject to market
constraints.
Ensuring the sustainability of public expenditure would be Scotland’s own responsibility, as would managing the national budget over the short and long-term. It would, however, be for an independent Scotland to decide the taxation to be levied, the level of government borrowing and the level of public expenditure.
#87 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 2:09 pm
I think what he’s saying is the pound in your pocket will still be the pound in your pocket.
Though come to think og it if David Cameron orders that no-oen is to accept Scottish money any more that might not be such a bad thing. My mortgage is with an English building society. They refuse to take my money but I keep the house. That could work.
#88 by Ken on November 10, 2011 - 3:27 pm
I think you’re spot on for the first 3 paragraphs. But with your 4th, in fairness, people do have a right to know (or ‘demand’) how independence could work, especially as you point out loads of countries have done so – in various different ways with various different processes and outcomes.
So they’re entitled to have concerns if the attitude from the SNP comes across a bit…well, “it’ll be alright on the night sure”
#89 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 3:47 pm
In fairness, is this now what a referendum debate is all about? Discussing the options, engaging in the issues, agreeing on what it’s going to be? 4 years is a long time to set a question and hope it’s still relevant when the question comes around? The SNP could say that “Yes” is a vote for joining the Euro… the Euro might not be around in 4 years time.
This is no different to the Unionists who probably couldnt even tell you what the status quo represented? Calman? Calman II? The Scotland Bill? Whatever comes out of the latest LibDem commission?
The hysteria is premature. The question only needs to be clear when the date is set, and given the considerable time between now and 2014/2015, I think it’s a little hasty to be expecting bullet points outlining exactly what a Yes vote means. The landscape can change.
Would be interesting to know the date, question and definition of Independence Westminster would like to ask? “Would you like to be like North Korea?” 😉
#90 by Ken on November 10, 2011 - 3:59 pm
“I think it’s a little hasty to be expecting bullet points outlining exactly what a Yes vote means. The landscape can change.”
The SNP has been in existence for how long? They should know what they want and what it entails off by heart 😉
#91 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 4:36 pm
The SNP has been n existence since 1934.
There has not been an unchanging vision of what it would mean because the world has undergone a number of rather radical changes since then.
And continues to change.
That is the problem perhaps with people with very rigid minds demanding utter certainties about issues like whether or not an independent Scotland would be made to join the euro – a question which nobody in the entire world can answer at this point in time with any degree of certainty.
#92 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 4:02 pm
If that is the case then why has the SNP’s campaign for a yes vote been launched? By your definition we don’t know what we’d be saying yes to. If we have to wait to find out, why is Angus Robertson chairing a campaign already? How can he?
#93 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 4:28 pm
“If that is the case then why has the SNP’s campaign for a yes vote been launched?”
Where can I find this campaign’s website, please? Where can I read its literature? What are its slogans? Can I look at some of its posters and leaflets? How many TV broadcasts has it made?
If by “launched” you mean “the SNP are planning towards how they’ll get people to vote for independence”, of course, then that’s been true for about 70 years.
#94 by @dhothersall on November 11, 2011 - 1:01 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15419108
#95 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 3:00 pm
That isn’t an answer to any of my questions. The BBC is the only one using the word “launched” in that story, and there’s nothing there that the SNP haven’t been doing for as long as they’ve existed.
Robertson says “We will work as hard as possible in an unprecedented national campaign to secure the majority ‘yes’ vote for a sovereign independent Scotland.” Was there ever a time in history when the SNP *wasn’t* working as hard as possible to get a sovereign independent Scotland?
#96 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 3:07 pm
Angus Robertson:
“SNP campaign director Angus Robertson told activists at the party’s annual conference in Inverness: “Our independence campaign starts now. It’s starting. The starting gun is being fired.””
Sounds like a launch to me…
#97 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 3:38 pm
We’re at a silly level of nitpicking now, but as Duncan started it…
“is starting” and “is being” are not the same as “has started” and “has been”. The SNP’s independence campaign started in 1934. Drawing a distinction between what it’s been doing its whole life and what it’s doing now, compared to what it was doing (say) three months ago, is rather weird and I’m not sure what point Dunc is flailing at.
#98 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 3:43 pm
There’s a difference between an independence campaign and a referendum campaign. A big difference.
#99 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 4:06 pm
The we’ll have to disagree. Since the referendum is solely and entirely about independence, they’re exactly the same thing. The SNP has always wanted independence, and it has always – certainly in the modern era – wanted it through a referendum. Nothing has changed, except that the referendum is actually going to happen.
As far as I’m concerned, the “campaign” has started when there’s referendum-specific literature and advertising and, well, campaigning. Until then, the SNP are just doing what they’ve always been doing – trying to persuade people to support independence.
#100 by BaffieBox on November 10, 2011 - 4:55 pm
How can he what? Argue for full fiscal independence? Argue for powers over telecommunications, broadcasting and pensions? Argue for a Scottish exchequer? Argue for powers over the national grid?
Im not really sure what planet you and other Unionists are living on Duncan, but it’s certainly not Scotland in 2011. If you are unsure about the scope of what is up for grabs in this referendum, you are in the wrong game. All of this and more will be voted for and the SNP and others are way, way ahead of making the case while the opposition, for reasons only known to themselves, display mock outrage at the apparent ambiguity of it all. If truth be told, the total vacuum of ideas means this is the extent of the opposition to independence – trying to bleat about dates, about the question, about what it is we will vote for in 3/4 years time. I really hope someone, somewhere, in the UK, is actually taking this seriously.
Instead of worrying about the question Duncan, think about your campaign. Worry yourself about any monetary union when it comes clear what the SNP propose. Worry yourself about the EU when the time comes. For now, the Unionists should have more than enough to debate. If they dont, the union is long dead.
#101 by @dhothersall on November 11, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Here’s where you’re really missing the point. Who says Labour is unionist? I don’t. I say Labour wants what’s in the best interests of Scotland.
The SNP sees every other party as “unionist” but it’s not the case. I have no interest in planning a “unionist” campaign. I’m not defined by what you’re not, no matter how desperate you are for me to be so.
#102 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 1:27 pm
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to label those voting No in the coming referendum as ‘unionist’.
I’m not a fan of the Alternative Vote but I was still a YestoAVist in May, simple because I was voting Yes.
#103 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 3:14 pm
If you want Scotland to remain in the UK, then you are a unionist. It’s quite simple.
You say Labour wants what’s in the best interests of Scotland; however, it’s clear that they have decided remaining in the UK is what is best for Scotland. Ergo, Labour are a unionist party. To say otherwise is preposterous – do you think “real” unionists actually want Scotland to stay in the union because they think it is worse for Scotland?
Your mantra there would be more accurate thus: Labour wants what’s best for Scotland as long as that means keeping Scotland in the UK.
#104 by Manny on November 11, 2011 - 3:33 pm
In the AV referendum the Labour Party let each member decide which side they were on, there were Labour MP’s campaigning on both sides, for and against.
This is not the case for Independence, it has come from the top that the party will oppose independence and campaign for Scotland staying in the union.
That makes Labour a unionist party.
I don’t get the issue anyway, if you’re in favour of keeping the union together then you’re a unionist. If you yourself are ashamed to be called a unionist then what chance do you think you have of convincing others?
#105 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 1:36 am
People have a right to know, of course they do. But there is a difference between asking questions because of genuine inquisitiveness, and the scattergun approach that is being taken by those who have already decided they will vote “no” in the referendum.
Unionists are convinced that there is a weakness in the independence argument, they just don’t know what it is. So they’re firing off all these questions, some of which are important, some of which are reasonable, and some of which are just downright inane. Those who still question the timing of the referendum are most certainly in the latter camp, incidentally.
Nationalists answer these questions as sufficiently as is possible – after all, the world is constantly changing (and one of the main reasons for independence is to allow Scotland to be better equipped for adapting to these changes). However, each answer is met with “yeah, but what about this, and what about this, and this, and this?” That’s not inquisitiveness, that’s trying to find a fault. Most of the questions we see are just attempts to trip up the independence argument. It’s like the difference between someone who uses a computer system in a normal manner to learn about it, and someone who pokes about at it, trying out every possible combination of button presses in an attempt to break it. The difference is software testers are just trying to make sure the system works properly, whereas unionists are hell bent on scuppering independence.
The SNP doesn’t take an “alright on the night” approach. Some of us pro-independence bloggers may do that, but the party itself doesn’t. As Indy seemingly has to keep mentioning, most of these questions have had their answers laid out in black and white by the SNP over the years. It’s not their fault that a media which is all of a sudden interested in the independence debate has not bothered to do even the most basic of research, thus people like Salmond still have to keep repeating the same answers to the same questions, thereby denying the public the chance to be better informed.
#106 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 9:49 am
I have to say Doug, I find the ‘the world is constantly changing’ line very weak indeed.
The SNP should be prepared for questions on currency and the EU, from inquisitive members of the public and opposition parties alike, and should be batting them out the park with clear, distinctive policies. They are seeking to take a nation out of a country; there is no space for a question being too difficult or too icky in such circumstances.
Yes, the referendum is still a few years away so, yes, there is still time for a position to be formed and stuck to, but in the meantime all this confusion over what our policy is with regard a struggling Euro and, crucially, the timescales around that, cause confusion and undermine confidence in the Nationalist cause. I agree that the SNP is unlikely to go for ‘alright on the night’ come 2014/15 but that’s pretty much where they are now so where does that leave the Scottish public?
If we might end up staying with Sterling long term, say so; if a Scottish pound has a chance, say so; and if it’s the Euro come what may, say so. The SNP will look like amateurs if they go into a referendum campaign saying ‘ooh, you know, the world’s always changing, we don’t really know what we’ll do’.
#107 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 10:42 am
The world is constantly changing though Jeff – particularly in the eurozone! I don’t think we could reasonably add to their woes by demanding that they hurry up and sort out the future of the currency so that we can have a clear position on it going into the referendum.
There was a really amusing illustration of the effect that changing circumstances can have on political arguments on GMS this week when they had George Lyons and Alyn Smith talking about an independent Scotland’s position in the EU. George Lyons was making various points based on a parliamentary answer that the Lib Dems had been given in 2004 which he claimed undermined the SNP’s case regarding EU constitutional matters. Then Alyn Smith gently pointed out that 2004 was pre-Lisbon Treaty so many of the points he was making were moot. I felt a wee bit sorry for George Lyons actually as he was left floundering but people need to keep up to date otherwise that kind of thing will happen.
#108 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 12:14 pm
But it is constantly changing Jeff, and independence will not stop Scotland being able to react to that. Some people seem to think that we only have one shot at getting it right, that the independence settlement has to be 100% perfect, otherwise we’ll live to regret it. It’s patently nonsense, like thinking that a piece of software has to be 100% bug-free before you release it. It doesn’t – you can release patches afterwards, just as post-independence we will be able to renegotiate any treaties or agreements we sign with other bodies that we don’t feel we got quite right the first time around.
You can’t future-proof things. The problem with some of these questions being bandied around is they’re trying to pin the SNP (and therefore a post-independence Scotland) down to a set position based on one set of circumstances, when we all know circumstances change. The independence settlement people will vote for in 2014/15 will be the settlement that is right for Scotland in 2014/15. It will be for future governments to decide what is best for Scotland in 2030, or whenever a decision on the next stage of the currency is made.
It might sound weak, but it’s the truth.
#109 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 12:47 pm
I don’t think people are necessarily trying to pin down the SNP on one single option but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect answers along the lines of ‘if x happens, we’ll do y’ and ‘if b happens, then we’ll do c’.
It’s in the SNP’s interests to do so too as I just can’t envisage Scots being brave enough to make the leap into the relative unknown unless it’s reasonably clear what potential worlds it is that we are stepping into.
The appetite of the SNP to take Scotland into the Euro in the foreseeable future is the big question for me. There’s been a lot of ‘we don’t have to join the Euro if we don’t want to (a la Sweden)’ which doesn’t sit well against the apparent plan for Sterling to be a stopgap between the UK and Scotland within the Euro. The EU’s not going to look too kindly on Scotland trying to hedge his bets in terms of how much it talks up Europe. Does the SNP want Scotland in the Euro in the foreseeable future or not.
That’ll make a big difference to a lot of people and, quite reasonably, could be a dealbreaker.
#110 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 1:15 pm
What questions have mot been answered though?
You know what the SNP propose vis a vis the currency – to remain with sterling until such time as the Scottish people vote to join the euro or to have a separate currency.
The SNP can’t unilaterally decide whether Scotland joins the euro. That is something that has to be decided y the people.
And let’s face it you do not even know if there will be a eurozone in 10 years time. No-one does.
#111 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 3:07 pm
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect answers along the lines of ‘if x happens, we’ll do y’ and ‘if b happens, then we’ll do c’.”
Surely that’s exactly what Salmond is saying, where X = the economic conditions favouring Scotland joining the Euro AND the Scottish people voting to do so in a referendum; Y = Scotland joining the Euro; B = the Scottish people choosing NOT to join the Euro; and C = Scotland not joining the Euro.
The line is that we’ll stick with Sterling for the foreseeable future. There’s no guarantee that even the UK won’t one day join the Euro, so it’s no problem saying that Scotland could one day as well. Salmond only mentions it because of a view that, on the whole, being in the Euro would be good for Scotland. If anything, he’s being too honest, by throwing the Eurosceptics a bone. He would be quite within his rights to simply say “we’ll stick with Sterling for the foreseeable future”.
#112 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 3:44 pm
“Does the SNP want Scotland in the Euro in the foreseeable future or not. That’ll make a big difference to a lot of people and, quite reasonably, could be a dealbreaker.”
Conversely, my view is that 95% of the population doesn’t really give a damn either way.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12070
Could the average punter in the street tell you five things that had noticeably changed in his/her life as a result of Britain joining the EU? I doubt it. I don’t think I could, and I’m a politics nerd. The entire issue of Europe is one I don’t think the vast majority Scotland could really care less about.
#113 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 3:47 pm
Being a member of the Euro is different to being a member of the EU.
#114 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 3:49 pm
Replace “EU” with “Euro”. Same question.
#115 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 3:51 pm
So your question is:
“Could the average punter in the street tell you five things that had noticeably changed in his/her life as a result of Britain joining the Euro?”?
Britain isn’t in the Euro.
#116 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 4:02 pm
Is it International Hairsplitting Day today? 😀
You know the question I’m asking. How much does the average voter care about EITHER membership of the EU or adoption of the Euro?
(Nobody wants to join the Euro right now, for obvious reasons, but by the time the referendum comes round it’ll have been sorted out one way or the other, and either everything will be fine or we’ll be back to francs and marks and guilders and the issue will be moot.)
My view, based on every survey I’ve ever seen of the electorate’s priorities (among other things, such as those in the piece I linked), is “Barely at all, if not actually zero”. If your view is different, why?
The political village loves to obsess over it, but I don’t think Joe McPublic gives a toss, and certainly won’t base their referendum vote on it.
#117 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 4:09 pm
“(Nobody wants to join the Euro right now, for obvious reasons, but by the time the referendum comes round it’ll have been sorted out one way or the other, and either everything will be fine or we’ll be back to francs and marks and guilders and the issue will be moot.)”
…which, incidentally, is an excellent reason NOT to have the referendum now, while such uncertainty reigns. It’s terribly irresponsible of the Unionists to be demanding a referendum tomorrow AND demanding to know what currency we’d be using, when we can’t say for sure at this point what currency France and Germany and Italy and Greece and Spain will be using a year from now. Much more sensible to let things calm down a little before we make any hasty decisions, no?
#118 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 10:30 am
Yes – partly, it is a definite tactic. Unionist demands that SNP “comes clean” and answers a particular question thus creating the perception that the SNP has something to hide. When it is pointed out that the SNP has in fact set out its position in black and white the riposte is either that it is far too difficult for people to find the information on the Scottish Government website (despite the fact that they can find their way to political blogs that allow them to make comments easily enough) and when it is pointed out that a massive attempt at public engagement has already been undertaken, with public meetings across the entire county you get the standard riposte that the National Conversation was either just a farce or happened such a long time ago that people can’t remember it – now is the time for the SNP to come clean and answer the difficult questions, not then!
It’s the same with the issue of how many questions will be on the ballot paper with demands that the SNP clarify exacty what Devo Max is so that the question can be asked when it’s not even our policy!
And in a way it’s quite a good tactic if you’ve got nothing else to say. But, looking at it as objectively as possible, they have started it far too soon. Another 3 or so years of this and people are going to be heartily sick of it and it comes over as almost completely negative.
And in some senses they know that because if you read blogs like Labour Hame etc there’s a definite recognition of the need to make a positive case for the Union. But so far that positive case seems to be a little bit like the Holy Grail, always sought, never foud. Although maybe I am being overly pessimistic, perhaps once the new leaders are in place and settled in things will become clearer.
#119 by R.G. Bargie on November 11, 2011 - 10:39 am
“if you read blogs like Labour Hame etc there’s a definite recognition of the need to make a positive case for the Union. But so far that positive case seems to be a little bit like the Holy Grail, always sought, never foud”
Don’t worry, I’m keeping an eagle eye out for it…
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/?p=12039
#120 by Tormod on November 10, 2011 - 1:44 pm
OK Jeff playing the game of what if.. Firstly Cameron would be peeing in his tea, as in the obvious effect on £ from North Sea oil balance of payments.
Secondly it would effect the RUK economy in the same bad way as Scotland.
So in this game we would have two options adopt the euro or create Scots £.
This would happen in a timescale at best 12 years from now.
#121 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 4:01 pm
No Duncan the argument is not that it will “enforce” a left of centre hegemony, it is that the people of Scotland will get the government they vote for. As Stephen Maxwell points out in this month’s Scottish Left Review if the UK coalition survives to the end of its five year term it wll mean that Scotland will have been governed from Westminster by parties it rejected for thirty two of seventy post War years. That is what many people actually find offensive in a democratic sense and it is not in the least gormless to point it out.
#122 by @dhothersall on November 10, 2011 - 4:35 pm
And here we go again. We are part of the UK. You don’t like it but it is a fact. We vote in UK elections and we are governed by the people we vote for.
There is a grotesque disparity in UK democracy, but it is nothing to do with treating nations and regions differently. It is the first past the post system.
And the answer is democratic reform in the UK, not separatism. Because separatism is just self-interest. I care about the democratic deficit across this country, not just in Scotland. Why don’t you?
#123 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 6:08 pm
That’s a bit of a non-sequiter isn’t it. We are part of the UK, that’s why we get governments we don’t vote for.
Uh-huh.
That’s actually what I said.
And you can’t blame the electoral system for every result.
The Tories won the election in 2010 because they got the most votes as well as the most seats Duncan. It’s not like there was actually a Labour majority disguised by the electoral system. The majority of English people voted Tory in 2010 just as they voted Tory every other time the Tories got into power. That is WHY the Tories got into power.
With independence we are offering a political system where Scotland will only ever be governed by the party that wins the most votes. You are offering a system where almost half the time Scotland can be governed by the party that lost the election in Scotland.
You can’t really argue with that, as a fact, except to say that you consider it a price worth paying to stay part of the UK.
#124 by R.G. Bargie on November 10, 2011 - 6:30 pm
“We are part of the UK. You don’t like it but it is a fact.”
That’s rather the matter under discussion, isn’t it?
“And the answer is democratic reform in the UK”
The answer might as well be space aliens, because having rejected even the piddly useless reform that is AV, the chances of the UK electorate being offered electoral reform again in either of our lifetimes is about as high as, well, the Tories winning an election in Scotland.
And that’s the difference between you and us, Duncan. You’re pinning your hopes on a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will never happen. (Labour got elected promising electoral reform and did nothing about it in 13 years.) We’re pinning ours on a vote we have a genuine chance of winning, and which will free us from the UK’s perverted FPTP system forever. The only mystifying thing is why you’re not joining us.
#125 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 1:59 am
We’ll take you more seriously if you opt not to go along with the current unionist dogma of referring to independence as “separatism” at all times.
“And the answer is democratic reform in the UK, not separatism. Because separatism is just self-interest. I care about the democratic deficit across this country, not just in Scotland. Why don’t you?”
I really can’t stand this high and mighty “ooh, I’m thinking of the greater good, you’re just selfish” attitude that Labour supporters are prone to adopting. Scotland can’t change the democratic deficit in the UK, or at least it can’t do it from inside the UK. We can’t even influence who wins the election, as Labour’s total domination in Scotland so helpfully illustrated last year.
Scotland could do far more for the rest of the UK by being a shining example of what a country can be like if it rejects neo-liberal politics. It’s not self-interest, it’s helping yourself in order to help others. But you would rather remain in the UK and somehow impose your idea of democracy on the other 90% of the UK? It’s pure arrogance to even think that you could do that, never mind thinking that you should. Why stop there? Why not just resurrect the British Empire and show all those countries how it’s REALLY done?
If the rest of the UK wants to keep electing the Tories and stick with a flawed voting system, then that’s their prerogative. But there’s no reason why Scotland should be dragged down with them, just because of some sort of misplaced notion of responsibility to help them see the light.
#126 by Craig on November 10, 2011 - 4:32 pm
Retaining the Sterling/Sterling link has the same problem as joining the Euro: namely we won’t have control of our monetary policy or exchange rates. Without significant convergence with the Rest of the UK (specifically England given their dominating economy), major imbalances will build up. We’d either end up in an investment boom and bust (like Ireland and Spain) or stagnation and gradual debt build up (like Greece, Italy and Portugal).
Leaving aside previous complaints that our economies aren’t converged at the moment (and that BoE interest rates didn’t take into account Scotland) and assuming that our economies are indeed converged today – there is no guarantee that will remain the case after independence. Especially if Scotland begins to pursue an independent fiscal policy, or oil prices flunctuate significantly.
This is likely when you consider that one of the main arguments for independence is that it will lead to better economic performance for Scotland – effectively acknowledging that the economy is expected to diverge from England’s.
There’s another issue with the sterling link/Euro: an independent Scottish government would not be an issuer of its own currency – its bonds would be subject to default risk, meaning higher interest rates. This is what we’re seeing in Greece (and potentially other PIIGS). A Government that issues its own currency can avoid default by simply devaluing, which tends to be less damaging than a liquidty-driven default. You can get away with that if you have a track record (just look at the pound).
Which brings us to the Scottish Government issuing its own currency. With no track record, the new currency would immediately depreciate away from the presumed 1:1 exchange rate with Pound Sterling. This is partly because it’s a new currency of a relatively small country (with no track record) and partly because the pound sterling is a minor reserve currency with the lower interest rate benefits.
The new Central Bank of Scotland (or whoever controls Scottish monetary policy) would have to decide between increasing interest rates to maintain parity – strangling the economic growth promised by independence – or allowing the currency to depreciate, increasing the real value of debts denominated in Pound Sterling (there’s no getting away from the fact that an independent Scotland will have to assume some of the UK National Debt (either on per-population or per-GDP basis) and increasing the cost of imports – which while good for our export businesses, will reduce the standard of living for Scottish consumers.
This is why the issue of currency in an independent Scotland is about more just the state of the Euro at the time or whether David Cameron will take his ball home.
.
#127 by Chris on November 10, 2011 - 4:34 pm
Indy’s mortgage is a case in point. In order to pay her mortgage after indpendence she is going to have to earn Scottish pounds, sell these Scottish pounds and buy English pounds. So she can look forward to paying a bank for that service. And Scotland can look forward to an increased balance of payments deficit.
#128 by Indy on November 10, 2011 - 6:11 pm
Yes but that’s not really going to happen.
It’s a debating point.
If there was any serious suggestion that it would happen I would of course immediately transfer my mortgage from an English company to a Scottish one thus depriving the English company of my pounds. And so would everyone else in Scotland in the same position.
#129 by setindarkness on November 10, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Also, quite a lot of people work for UK companies. Legally, and logically it will take time to transfer that into a Scottish subsidy.
There is going to be a huge transition period where all this will be sorted out.
#130 by Angus McLellan on November 10, 2011 - 6:53 pm
Well, let’s see.
Would Lloyds TSB plc operate in Scotland directly or would it operate via a Scottish registered subsidiary? The decision would ultimately be one for Lloyds’ management to take although the Bank of England might whisper things in their ears. I have no idea what they’d decide, but someone more familiar with corporate structures may well do. One thing we can be sure of is that sentiment will play no part in their choice.
As for the denomination of Indy’s mortgage, that’s a a bit easier I think. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that ABC Co decide to keep their mortgages in GBP and DEF Co redenominate theirs in Poonds. It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that DEF’s sales pitch will point up the risks to Mr & Mrs Average of having that ABC Co Sterling-denominated mortgage. The Averages will be more likely to switch their mortgage than otherwise. But that situation couldn’t last and you can reliably predict ABC Co’s eventual “m3 t00” response.
Still, you’ll probably be right about the balance of payments.
#131 by douglas clark on November 10, 2011 - 6:12 pm
There are lots of currencies we could tie ourselves to, the mighty dollar, the even more mighty Chinese yuan.
Or, more sensibly, we could have a Scottish Pound. Which, I’d imagine, would float around and about the Pound Sterling? At first at least.
It would be interesting if anyone knows the trajectory of the Norwegian Kroner -v- say the US dollar over the last 40 years?
#132 by cynicalHighlander on November 10, 2011 - 7:26 pm
Dissection required.
#133 by PX1403 on November 10, 2011 - 8:30 pm
The SNP don’t really want the Devo Max option do they?
The SNP probably want the Scottish people to see for themselves that the Labour Party are just as unionist as the Tories.
#134 by Bloody Ell on November 10, 2011 - 11:20 pm
There are usually stupid posts on here, but this takes the biscuit.
There literally is no point here.
Even if (and it will never happen) the UK say no, and Scotland says no to ERM2, Scotland will still have a currency. Who cares what name.
No country will not take Scots cash, because of the oil.
An absurd post about a fictional circumstance that more than reeks of unionist scaremongering
#135 by Craig Gallagher on November 11, 2011 - 7:06 am
I always feel like everything I want to say has already been said when I get here to comment. This is the problem with my bloody time zone.
But yes, Jeff, you do well in theory to try and pick holes in what independence for Scotland means, but you don’t necessarily do all that well in practice. This is a non-starter. Your logic, such as it is, does not take any account of the oil, of the continued English need to negotiate with Scotland for the transfer of defence resources and for hammering out some kind of cross-border treaty to prevent massive discrepancies in business rates like the Republic and the North of Ireland. Among rather a lot else, not least the Boy David’s obsession with how he is perceived abroad and particularly in the Eurozone.
This, sadly, smacks of a belief that England and Scotland will somehow descend into acrimony after independence, which I very much doubt will happen. There might be a hard bargain to drive on what the post-independence landscape will look like for both countries, but at no juncture do I expect Cameron et al to take their ball and go home. They might as well say they don’t accept the result of the referendum.
#136 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 8:53 am
Ah well Craig, given i often respond to comments top down and I was a bit out the loop yesterday, it might not be so bad!
First thing to say is that I do genuinely think this is a big deal. We have a fairly pro-Indy comments section (which is fine) so I’m still holding my view despite the arguments the other way. Though I am of course, as always, mindful that I may just have the wrong end of the stick.
I don’t really see how the oil comes into it to be honest, unless you’re suggesting rUK would want its currency linked to Scotland because how wealthy we would be. Which is fair, but I wasn’t really coming at it from that angle. My angle was more profound that David Cameron is entitled to be of the view that independence should mean the whole hog, no shared currency, irrespective of other considerations. It’s a simplistic view but not an unlikely one given how black and white the more right wing Tory view can often be. I also don’t think I’m even imagining an acrimonious arrangement but something perfectly normal from NZ/Aus dollar through Norwegian/Swedish kronor to US/Canada dollar. If Salmond is saying we’ll keep Sterling for two years then fine, if it’s 20 years then that’s a different kettle of fish. The strongest argument is the other way is that with so much cross-border trade, different currencies doesn’t help either side. Which, again, is perfectly fair.
And another aspect that you’ve not considered Craig, one that I was really getting at given this is a Politics blog, is that Cameron could primarily make this statement simply because it might help win the No vote a few percent or, if I’m more correct than many commenters here, a lot more percent than that. He can always keep in his backpocket, after a Yes result, the offer of happily having Sterling on both sides.
The currency question is surely the SNP’s weakest link though, this issue is just one (possibly small) part of that.
#137 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 10:56 am
It is unlikely because government is not just about short term political interests. It has institutional interests as well and they exist irrespective of who the PM is and indeed which party is in power. And there would be no institutional interest in creating difficulties over currency. That would in fact create significant problems for them as well as for us.
#138 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 11:38 am
“The currency question is surely the SNP’s weakest link though, this issue is just one (possibly small) part of that.”
I don’t really agree. As I said further up, one only has to look at the history of the currencies of newly independent nations to see what a completely unexceptional idea it is that the SNP are proposing. I couldn’t even find an example of a country starting life off with their new-found independence with a completely new currency.
One of the things people need to understand – particularly scaredy cats who think independence is some one-off event that will set the constitutional set-up of Scotland in stone for the rest of eternity and is likely to include lots of mistakes in the negotiation settlement, particularly in regards to the DVLA (I’m not referring to you by the way, Jeff) – is that things aren’t going to change the day after the independence referendum. There will be a transition period to ease us into independence. So there’s no use people worrying about the lights going out, or whatever it is that leads politicians to refer to independence as “dangerous”. The currency is one of these things – we won’t suddenly find we can’t spend money in English shops the day after a “yes” vote, for example.
#139 by Craig Gallagher on November 11, 2011 - 5:19 pm
Ok, the politics angle, I can see the point you’re trying to make a little more clearly. It would definitely be the type of tactic I can see the fear-mongering Tory right approving of, but would Cameron really want to commit himself to such a hardline position? It’s one thing to do it because it might win your the referendum, but it’s a gamble, particularly as it would be really easy for Alex Salmond to spin it as the Tories simply don’t care about Scotland and here’s the proof you need, they’re blackmailing us into staying in the Union.
Imagine Cameron does adopt this strategy. Now imagine that Salmond successfully spins it – and we have seen no real evidence thusfar to suggest that he isn’t at least the equal of the best Westspinster has to offer – and wins the referendum. Where does that leave the PM? I honestly can’t see him being willing to outright block Scottish attempts to retain sterling, temporarily or otherwise, simply because to force Scotland into the Eurozone or into a novel Scottish currency risks sending the whole country into recession. It’s worth remembering that the UK is having to contribute to the EU bailout despite not being a Eurozone member, after all.
#140 by Doug Daniel on November 11, 2011 - 8:40 am
Just noticed SNP policy guru Stephen Noon’s latest blog post in which he puts his degree in EU Law to use by setting out exactly why Scotland is not legally bound to join the Euro at all.
Kind of piddles on the chips of some commenters here. Better get your heads together and decide what the next “unanswered question” is.
#141 by Bloody Ell on November 11, 2011 - 12:54 pm
Some of what jeff is on please!
“Currency is the weakest link” argument, seriously?
How many union propeganda cookies have you eaten?
By your logic, europe is as likely to stop recognising the £ cos cameron wants us out.
The rest of us live in the real world, can we all chip in to get you a ticket here?
#142 by Jeff on November 11, 2011 - 1:08 pm
Just because it’s the “weakest” link, it doesn’t necessarily make it a ‘weak’ link.
“europe is as likely to stop recognising the £ cos cameron wants us out”
I genuinely don’t know what that means; and the rest of your post is just light abuse (which is fine) so I don’t really have any scope to pick up another argument thread, as much as I’d like to…
#143 by Chris on November 11, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Indy
If you transfer your mortgage you will have to borrow Scottish pounds from a Scottish bank in order to exchange them for English pounds. This will increase the amount you have to borrow, even if the rate is fixed.
People working for UK companies could face the same dilemma. Their pay would have to be converted, leading to an exchange loss every month.
This would be averted if Scotland sticks to sterling rather than keeping a Scots pound at parity. Which requires negotiation with a UK government denuded of oil revenues and we’d be seeking to undermine through becoming a corporate tax haven.
#144 by Indy on November 11, 2011 - 4:28 pm
I think you misunderstand me – if David Cameron did as Jeff suggests I would immmediately transfer my mortgage. I wouldn’t wait until after independence.
But since I am pretty sure David Cameron won’t do that I think it is all academic.
#145 by Angus McLellan on November 12, 2011 - 2:04 am
Other countries have, for greater or lesser periods of time, run currency boards with success. Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and so on. The evidence suggests that it’s rather easier to do this in good times than in times of crisis, but even then it can be done.
As for salaries, most people would end up being paid in Scots currency, even if that were at parity. After all, people who work for US companies today don’t get dollars and people who work for Eurozone ones don’t get Euros. I only say “most” because very small rUK-domiciled businesses, or those with only a handful of employees in Scotland, would likely not create a subsidiary to run their Scottish operations.
As for the “corporate tax haven” lark, it seems like that’s an unlikely route. We have John Swinney quoted in the Herald where he mentions the advantages of a 3% cut in headline rates. Some tax haven.
#146 by Scottish republic on November 13, 2011 - 10:48 am
Currency is a choice.
We can start our own currency – we don’t require the euro nor do we require sterling.
We already produce banknotes, we can go one step further.
We don’t need the English economy as much as it needs us.
We produce more food than we eat.
We produce more energy than we need.
We have the most beautiful countryside in the British isles.
We produce more whisky than we need.
We produce more fish than we eat.
We have huge potential that will remain untapped without independence and the powers that brings.