Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

Chadsman

black_taxi wrote: »

no currency union is a political statement to scare Scots

business people are coming out in waves scotland,if YES vote currency union is only option

Currency union may well be the best option for an independent Scotland but it would be a very bad idea for rUK which is why it will not happen which ever way the vote goes.

rpc

black_taxi wrote: »

if scots vote yes,Osborne has to resign,no market will beleive what he says

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

rpc

black_taxi wrote: »

no currency union is a political statement to scare Scots

Well it is what the people of E&W overwhelmingly want. If this referendum is all about democracy, surely we Scots should let the people of E&W decide whether or not to enter into a currency union?

They don't want to.

Archi_Bald

rpc wrote: »

They don't want to.

I think it would probably fair to say that the people in E&W, and those in NI, would not be against a continued currency union if there was a continued fiscal union.

Easy to understand for anybody who wants to understand it.

bigheadxx

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I think it would probably fair to say that the people in E&W, and those in NI, would not be against a continued currency union if there was a continued fiscal union.

Easy to understand for anybody who wants to understand it.

I don't agree with that because most people don't understand the difference. If there was a continued fiscal union, currency union, union of the crowns, unified pension provision and so on, what actually is the argument for independence? Devo Max, which is ultimately to the benefit of E&W is obviously the most logical course to pursue.

Chadsman

bigheadxx wrote: »

Devo Max, which is ultimately to the benefit of E&W is obviously the most logical course to pursue.

I have heard this phrase used but never well defined. What does it mean?

planteria

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Easy to understand for anybody who wants to understand it.

. that phrase could have been used quite a lot in this thread;).

black_taxi_2

federal state

English labour MPS will never go for it

Triumph13

black_taxi wrote: »

pound was a shared currency when union was formed,no country has more rights than another over it

Aaagghhh!
Why can people not undertsand that the value of a currency is entirely down to the markets' estimation of the government that stands behind it. If hte scots are using a pound with the Scottish Govt behind it and the rUK govt a pound with the rUK govt behind it then by definition they are different currencies.
And no, the rUK is not going to stand behind the currency of an independent Scotland.

grey_gym_sock

planteria wrote: »

no UK is no [proper share of the] pound and no EU membership.

please let's not conflate the issues. EU membership is perfectly realistic.

black_taxi wrote: »

pound was a shared currency when union was formed,no country has more rights than another over it

correct. but what does that imply? because 2 independent countries can't be compelled to continue to share a currency, unless both of them want to.

what it really implies is that both countries can continue to use something called the pound, and have full control of their own pound, but they will be 2 different currencies.

the scottish pound would be just as real a pound as the south british pound. laws would be passed to determine which accounts, contracts, debts, etc, that are currently in pounds, would be converted to scottish pounds, and which to south british pounds. and crucially, the share of the national debt which scotland takes over would be in scottish pounds, avoiding the problems of having a debt without controlling the currency.

it may not be your first preference, but this is all perfectly workable.