Censored : the debate

IronWolf

sss555s wrote: »

The trouble is that the bank of England is a UK government owned entity.

I think it's the title that gets to people.

If it was called the bank of UK then I'm sure people may see that it isn't owned by any one Country of the UK.

Scotland, along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland have all contributed to the cost and support of running the BoE.



The more I see of this, the more I realise that the UK needs Scotland sharing the currency on similar terms as the UK may go bankrupt without it.

But its not going to happen. The rUK doesn't want a currency union with Scotland or anyone else. For a currency union you need both parties to agree. The rUK will keep the BoE and have full control over it - given that rUK is essentially guarantor to all of Scotland's current share of the national debt

The rUK cannot go bankrupt as it will still have the BoE.

CLAPTON

sss555s wrote: »

:rotfl: Can it possibly be any worse than the embarrassment of Westminster financial calamities.




.

The worst embarrassment of UK financial calamities seem to have involved two companies one called Royal Bank of Scotland and the other Halifax Bank of Scotland.
But of course that has been air brushed out of Scottish history (along with any mention of Iceland, Ireland, best mate Fred etc)

sss555s

IronWolf wrote: »

But its not going to happen. The rUK doesn't want a currency union with Scotland or anyone else. For a currency union you need both parties to agree. The rUK will keep the BoE and have full control over it - given that rUK is essentially guarantor to all of Scotland's current share of the national debt

The rUK cannot go bankrupt as it will still have the BoE.

Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it...

Your right. The currency union may not happen.

Your wrong about the debt though.

The debt is UK debt. It's not divided up into regions of the UK, it is UK government debt.

I'm pretty sure that Scotland is willing to take a share of the UK debt if the currency union stays as it is. That is called give and take and is inline with the Edinburgh agreement.

Your not going to get it all. :EasterBun

So what would you rather have?

A currency union or Scotland take a share of the UK debt?

CLAPTON wrote: »

The worst embarrassment of UK financial calamities seem to have involved two companies one called Royal Bank of Scotland and the other Halifax Bank of Scotland.
But of course that has been air brushed out of Scottish history (along with any mention of Iceland, Ireland, best mate Fred etc)

I don't even think Gen will back you up on this if he is being honest.

That calamity was created in London and the biggest part of the end result IMO was down to Tony Blair, Fred Godwin and George Bush.

Don't get so hung up on names like bank of England and Royal bank of Scotland.

CLAPTON

sss555s wrote: »

Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it...

Your right. The currency union may not happen.

Your wrong about the debt though.

The debt is UK debt. It's not divided up into regions of the UK, it is UK government debt.

I'm pretty sure that Scotland is willing to take a share of the UK debt if the currency union stays as it is. That is called give and take and is inline with the Edinburgh agreement.

Your not going to get it all. :EasterBun

So what would you rather have?

A currency union or Scotland take a share of the UK debt?




I don't even think Gen will back you up on this if he is being honest.

That calamity was created in London and the biggest part of the end result IMO was down to Tony Blair, Fred Godwin and George Bush.

Don't get so hung up on names like bank of England and Royal bank of Scotland.

what would constitute a currency union to you?

a 8% Scottish vote at the BoE meetings?

A shared responsibility for RoUK and Scottish Government past and future debts? (split 8-92%)?
A shared responsibility for RoUK and Scottish past and future banking failures (split 8-92%)?

Scotland able to print unlimited money?

IronWolf

sss555s wrote: »

Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it...

Your right. The currency union may not happen.

Your wrong about the debt though.

The debt is UK debt. It's not divided up into regions of the UK, it is UK government debt.

I'm pretty sure that Scotland is willing to take a share of the UK debt if the currency union stays as it is. That is called give and take and is inline with the Edinburgh agreement.

Your not going to get it all. :EasterBun

So what would you rather have?

A currency union or Scotland take a share of the UK debt?




I don't even think Gen will back you up on this if he is being honest.

That calamity was created in London and the biggest part of the end result IMO was down to Tony Blair, Fred Godwin and George Bush.

Don't get so hung up on names like bank of England and Royal bank of Scotland.

I'd rather have the debt, as we've already guaranteed it anyway to any UK debt holders.

The Scottish share of the national debt is a drop in the ocean that the rUK can easily absorb.

And I wonder what financial markets would make of Scotland walking away from debt and then trying to borrow money in GBP?

sss555s

IronWolf wrote: »

I'd rather have the debt, as we've already guaranteed it anyway to any UK debt holders.

The Scottish share of the national debt is a drop in the ocean that the rUK can easily absorb.

And I wonder what financial markets would make of Scotland walking away from debt and then trying to borrow money in GBP?

I don't think it would make any difference. There is nothing illegal if it was to go that way.
Just like what the rest of the World think of the UK trying to load Scotland with a stack of debt while not wanting to share services that Scotland has contributed to.
No one will be bothered.

Once the dust settled, Scotland would be a very resourceful small Country and the markets are all about Money, opportunity and growth.

dryhat

sss555s wrote: »

I guess were all just going to get used to the fact that the bank of England is owned by the UK government.

I think you'll find it's the other way around.

sss555s

dryhat wrote: »

I think you'll find it's the other way around.

In 1998, it became an independent public organisation, wholly owned by the Treasury Solicitor[5] on behalf of the government, with independence in setting monetary policy

The Treasury Solicitor's Department (TSol) is the largest in-house legal organisation in the United Kingdom's Government Legal Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

I'm only going by Wikipedia and trusting that is right, unless you have any better proof of your statement?

dryhat

Oh, well if it's come from the governments solicitor it must be right.

They wouldn't lie to us, would they?


(p.s. generally, wikipedia is a far more trustworthy source than the government)

IronWolf

sss555s wrote: »

I don't think it would make any difference. There is nothing illegal if it was to go that way.
Just like what the rest of the World think of the UK trying to load Scotland with a stack of debt while not wanting to share services that Scotland has contributed to.
No one will be bothered.

Once the dust settled, Scotland would be a very resourceful small Country and the markets are all about Money, opportunity and growth.

What has Scotland contributed to the Bank of England?? If anything its the other way round, the Bank of England has been contributing to Scotland for many years now.

you're welcome to your share of assets of the bank of England (mainly just UK debt) but don't expect to have a say in rUK monetary policy.

Why do you even want your monetary policy dictated by rUK? We are much larger and will pretty much get our way in terms of policy whatever happens, even if the MPC is 8% Scottish.