Scottish independence

jimjames

MIKESISHLA wrote: »

[FONT=Comic Sans MS, cursive]
Salmond has stated that unless we get to keep the Pound we will not take a share of the National Debt. He declares that,'Keeping the Pound is the sovereign right of the Scottish people.' [/FONT][/SIZE]

I find it utterly bizarre that SNP want to have independence and yet keep the currency of a foreign country. If the Scots use the pound as part of a currency union then they have to accept monetary policy from London and interest rates set from there too. Hardly what I would consider a great level of independence.

And if they use the pound without currency union then they have to find someway to buy those pounds. Oil might do some of it but that isn't enough to run the whole economy.

It seems far more logical to me that the Scots would want their own currency in the event of independence so they have control over their destiny -surely that is what independence is meant to be about.

kangoora

jimjames wrote: »

I find it utterly bizarre that SNP want to have independence and yet keep the currency of a foreign country. If the Scots use the pound as part of a currency union then they have to accept monetary policy from London and interest rates set from there too. Hardly what I would consider a great level of independence.

And if they use the pound without currency union then they have to find someway to buy those pounds. Oil might do some of it but that isn't enough to run the whole economy.

It seems far more logical to me that the Scots would want their own currency in the event of independence so they have control over their destiny -surely that is what independence is meant to be about.

My DW raised a comment about this. She said it sounded like a teenager who wants to leave home but wants the bank of Mum & Dad to guarantee his rent/mortgage (and keep returning with the washing on weekends).


Thing is, I agree with her

Linton

The assumption that in the event of a split in the UK sterling is the sole property of England/Wales/NI seems somewhat unreasonable to me. Surely if Scotland is currently a full part of a united country, the UK, rather than a subservient colony it has a moral right to take part in any decision on sterling's future.

anoncol

Using the pound is crazy and soft of them scots. Surely they should use their own currency if England is so selfish.

Archi_Bald

Linton wrote: »

The assumption that in the event of a split in the UK sterling is the sole property of England/Wales/NI seems somewhat unreasonable to me. Surely if Scotland is currently a full part of a united country, the UK, rather than a subservient colony it has a moral right to take part in any decision on sterling's future.

It's not about morals or "ownership" of the Pound Sterling.

It is about who would be the lender of last resort for iScotland. I don't think anybody could realistically expect the BoE / the rUK government to assume this role if iScotland chose to have a currency called the Pound Sterling, would you?

So who would be their lender of last resort?

EDIT:

Linton wrote: »

....it has a moral right to take part in any decision on sterling's future

Just re-reading your post.....no country anywhere in the world has the right, morally or otherwise, to take part in decisions of the the future of another country's currency.

If Scotland walks away from the UK, they can have a currency they call "the pound", or "the scottish pound" or whatever they like to call their currency. They could control this currency of theirs in any which way they like, and no other country would have a right to interfere.

But they would not have any rights whatsoever over what rUK would do with the Pound Sterling. Nor would they be able to command rUK to use anything but the Pound Sterling, for the simple reason that any democratic decision would result for a majority vote for rUK to retain the Pound Sterling.

I think it's time we called an end to the tail wagging the dog in this debate and brought some reality into it.

zagubov

kangoora wrote: »

My DW raised a comment about this. She said it sounded like a teenager who wants to leave home but wants the bank of Mum & Dad to guarantee his rent/mortgage (and keep returning with the washing on weekends).


Thing is, I agree with her

How weird. Many other posters used the analogy of a divorce where things are more evenly split. Has this fallen out of favour?

dealsearcher

The UK stock market seems to be falling this morning due, apparently, to concerns over a possible 'yes' vote.

ColdIron

dealsearcher wrote: »

The UK stock market seems to be falling this morning due, apparently, to concerns over a possible 'yes' vote.

Yes with SSE, RBS, Weir Group, Lloyds BG, Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management hit the hardest. Looks like the market had not properly priced in a Yes vote until now

On a more positive note - Scottish debt wouldn't be called Gilts but Kilts. Unlikely to rise as there is of course nothing underneath

MIKESISHLA

bowlhead99 wrote: »

However, negotiating hard as part of an independence move does not mean that the lenders would think that Scotland would happily default on legitimate debts from sovereign fundraising by their own central authorities in a post-independence world. Ergo, it does not necessarily scare markets into providing the finance for mortgages down the line at massive massive cost.

Scotland,immediately prior to the Union, defaulted on it debts. Salmond's statement is damaging and will spook Financial Institutions. Think about it,would you willingly give someone a loan who had stated that they were not going to honour a debt to someone else?

Financial Institutions research and assess risk for each Country. The UK gets money on the cheap because we have an excellent track record of honouring debt.

An Independent Scotland will not find it easy to borrow Money and the cost of borrowing will reflect our History and Salmond's statements. The cost of Money to and in an Independent Scotland will be considerably higher because of the perceived risk. Salmond has done Scotland no favours. He has in fact weakened an Independent Scotland's ability to negotiate how the National Debt will be shared. He will be forced to accept a share of the National Debt,quickly, and on any terms that the UK dictate because of the consequences of his irresponsible statements.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of him or his politics or economics, but at least by avoiding writing in Comic Sans and declining to shout about him being a power craving bare faced LIAR, I might have people think I'm being a grown-up about it.

Politicians do,at times, have to be economical with the truth to get elected in a Democracy. Its very difficult to win an election based on a Manifesto of bad news . What we are experiencing in the the Scottish Referendum is quite different. There is no the space on this blog,nor do I have the time, to list the blatant LIES of the SNP.I will cite just a few:

• Unless we get to keep the Pound we will not take a share of the National Debt.

• Keeping the Pound is the sovereign right of the Scottish people.

• If we keep the Pound then there would be no Border Controls or charges.(They will NOT collect the VAT on Imports?)

• Faslane even after all the Nuclear Submarines have left will still be used supporting a Scottish Navy.(Employing the same number of workers?)

• We would still build complex advanced warships for the Royal Navy. (Perhaps the Ships that defeated the Spanish Armada were built on the River Clyde?)

• We are told that Rosyth Dockyard would stay open.(Building Aircraft Carriers for the Scottish Navy?)

• The very large Scottish Financial Sector will not move but continue to employ many thousands in Scotland.

The basic line being taken by the YES camp is that with Independence everything would be the same,nothing is going to change, it is just going to be an awful lot better. We are a very rich Country just like Norway or Switzerland.

I was going to conclude by stating that the only other Politician in recent history who told as many LIES was Adolph Hitler. But that is not quite accurate Hitler never told as many LIES as Salmond.

If the YES vote wins the day,within a 2-5 years, those who have voted for it will come to realise they have been conned. Scots have an aggressive streak and it will turn ugly, many in the YES camp will want to 'string Him up.'

Happier with Arial?

jimjames

ColdIron wrote: »

I've just watched Nicola Sturgeon on Sky News claim that there would be No cuts after Independence

I guess this is possible.

What the Scottish people should ask is if there are guaranteed to be no cuts, how much will tax rates rise to cover any deficit? There are 2 sides to tax and spend. If you don't cut spending then you have to raise taxes.

So how much will taxes rise under independence?