Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

zagubov

incandescent wrote: »

Every political and financial leader, and the electorate of the rest of the UK are opposed to a currency union.

I'd say that means a currency union is very unlikely to happen.

I'm afraid that's more of a non sequitur than you seem to think.

If I were you I'd trust those financial leaders as far as I could through a grand piano.

Regarding negotiations on a currency union, you can struggle with it all you like but you know that cat's just not going to fit back into the bag.

ColdIron wrote: »

So of the countries you mention two are not managing it, one manages it no more and your aspirations for Scotland are to be like Leichtenstein?

What a small affluent neutral democracy? With more businesses than people and a university for every 16,000 people and a school system as good as this? And jobs for all?

Or were you trying to insult another country you hadn't got round to yet?

ColdIron

What works for a country with the population of Rutland may not work for Scotland don't you think?

CLAPTON

An independent Scotland can choose to use the pound or euro or US dollar if it wishes: it just doesn't get a seat at the central bankers table.
That may not matter at least in the short term.

What will almost certainly happen, is that all UK wide financial companies based in Scotland, will either move south or divide themselves into a rUK and Scottish company.

It's also almost certain that rUK people will choose to go/stay with a company guaranteed by rUK government rather than a Scottish guarantee.

It is also very likely that most of the Scots (however they voted) would choose to have their life savings/pension guaranteed south of the border too.

What the effect will be I can't say but no money of mine will be lodged north of the border.

incandescent

zagubov wrote: »

I'm afraid that's more of a non sequitur than you seem to think.

If I were you I'd trust those financial leaders as far as I could through a grand piano.

Regarding negotiations on a currency union, you can struggle with it all you like but you know that cat's just not going to fit back into the bag.

So you're just going to ignore what everybody with a say in the matter has said? And ignore the democratic wishes of the rest of the UK?

And you think that will work?

What a small affluent neutral democracy? With more businesses than people and a university for every 16,000 people and a school system as good as this? And jobs for all?

Or were you trying to insult another country you hadn't got round to yet?

If you seriously think Scotland - or anyone else - can be compared to Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, then your grasp on reality is even more tenuous than I thought.

incandescent

CLAPTON wrote: »

An independent Scotland can choose to use the pound or euro or US dollar if it wishes: it just doesn't get a seat at the central bankers table.
That may not matter at least in the short term.

What will almost certainly happen, is that all UK wide financial companies based in Scotland, will either move south or divide themselves into a rUK and Scottish company.

It's also almost certain that rUK people will choose to go/stay with a company guaranteed by rUK government rather than a Scottish guarantee.

It is also very likely that most of the Scots (however they voted) would choose to have their life savings/pension guaranteed south of the border too.

What the effect will be I can't say but no money of mine will be lodged north of the border.

Ditto. Although not having an influence over the central bank means that we'll have no influence over interest rates or money supply. Didn't work out to well for a number of Eurozone countries.

zagubov

incandescent wrote: »

So you're just going to ignore what everybody with a say in the matter has said? And ignore the democratic wishes of the rest of the UK?

And you think that will work?

If you seriously think Scotland - or anyone else - can be compared to Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, then your grasp on reality is even more tenuous than I thought.

Funny how posters get jumped on if they compare Scotland to countries of their choosing such as Norway or Denmark etc. instead of Ireland or Iceland (or as some have now said, Greece or Cyprus now ).

I doubt Scotland would like the rUK (or any other country) to fail or vice versa.

rpc

zagubov wrote: »

If I were you I'd trust those financial leaders as far as I could through a grand piano.

If you don't trust their economic credentials, why not trust their political self-interest?

The rUK electorate do not want a currency union if Scotland votes Yes. Agreeing to one would be political suicide. The primary job of any politician is to get re-elected and turkeys have never yet voted for Christmas.

Regarding negotiations on a currency union, you can struggle with it all you like but you know that cat's just not going to fit back into the bag.

Putting that cat back in context, an offhand remark made by a minister with no fiscal brief but a very vested interest in keeping Faslane and Coulport suggested, during a long alcohol fueled dinner, that a currency union might be negotiable in return for a permanent base over our nuclear deterrent.

If we can stretch credibility far enough to believe that the offer might be made, Yes have already said they won't agree to it.

However, the offer will never be made because of the previous reasoning regarding turkeys and Christmas.

incandescent

zagubov wrote: »

Funny how posters get jumped on if they compare Scotland to countries of their choosing such as Norway or Denmark etc. instead of Ireland or Iceland (or as some have now said, Greece or Cyprus now ).

I doubt Scotland would like the rUK (or any other country) to fail or vice versa.

You said Leichtenstein and Luxembourg.

Leichtenstein has a population of 36,000 - a small town - and bizarre tax laws which have brought it into serious conflict with most European countries. How does that compare to Scotland?

Luxembourg has a population of 537,000. Less than Glasgow, and area less than Ayrshire. It's economy is unique because it is almost entirely driven by vast EU spending and wages paid by EU central institutions. How can that be compared to Scotland?

And Ireland and Iceland? Alex Salmond was never done comparing Scotland to those two. Until their economies utterly collapsed.

And what of Denmark? I suggest you look into the level of tax paid there, its cost of living and the fact that its unemployment levels are slightly higher than ours. And the fact that its economy has nothing in common with ours.

rpc

TCA wrote: »

What is also constantly repeated ad nauseum in this thread is that Scotland cannot do it.

I know that much of the recent Yes material tries to pretend that the question is "Can Scotland be an independent country" but that answer to that is a bit of a no brainer - it is Yes.

The transition, and particularly setup costs which nobody wants to talk about, concern me. It could be decades before we are a stable, growing, successful nation. It could be less, it could be more. But nobody really doubts that it is possible.

Of course, you will find a couple of loons on either side of the argument who will claim that we're all doomed or we're all going to be rich beyond our wildest dreams.

In reality, the question (and therefore the debate) is "SHOULD Scotland be an independent country". That question gets a different answer from many - which is try Yes are to make it a can/can't argument (my three year old has those).

innovate

incandescent wrote: »

Ditto. Although not having an influence over the central bank means that we'll have no influence over interest rates or money supply. Didn't work out to well for a number of Eurozone countries.

Not only that. You would also not have any central bank that would act as a lender of last resort. So your only hope in a crisis would be the IMF.