New Currency for a new Country

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're not making a blind bit of sense. Sorry. If there's a Yes vote rUK has ruled out a currency union. Scotland would still like to try and negotiate for it. No-one is forcing anyone to do anything.

Lack of a currency union, or any negotiations on a currency union is causing acute uncertainty. I said the first polls to show Yes gaining anywhere near 50% would have the £ slide. And I'm not even an economist. :eek:I just read up a bit. Polls good for Yes = £ slide. You said I was wrong actually. You said there would never be anyone who commissoned a poll that 'sat' on it intentionally due to newspaper's gaining sales. My words were, 'well there's sitting on a poll, then there's crashing the pound' ??? Yes haven't shown anywhere near a lead yet. Yet the markets are already 'chuntering' shall we say...It's like they've woken up.

And from that reading up a bit, I gleaned a few things. One of which is that the rUK will probably regret their intransigence on this one. Because their own finances are in pretty dire shape. The oil and the whisky/food and Scottish contributions all help maintain things as they are. We do a lot of 'propping up' actually, economically speaking.

The loss of Scotland and it's contributions.. yes, Skintland, subsidised by English taxpayers, 50% of the population on welfare and benefits ( Farage speaking tonight on American tv ), deep fried mars bar's eating wasters, because 'those with mattresses in garden's don't win elections'.... Glad to get shot of them, and up yours to any currency union. See how Salmond likes that.

Win, win... But still. The markets are still a bit worried anyway. Well there's a thing. And I think they ARE more worried about rUK than iScotland. Because if Scotland was such a drain. They'd be pricing in all the good stuff. But they are only seeing bad if Scotland goes.

Yes has made it very clear what they are negotiating for, it's never wavered in fact in 3 years. It's rUK that's causing the uncertainty. Because they'd rather go ***s up again a la 2007/8, than do the very sensible common sense thing and keep the oil/whisky/exports/currency etc as is, at least till things stablise, propping up the £/trade deficit/balance of payments.

More fool them then.

there is no uncertainty about currency union as the three main RUk parties have ruled it out.


The general uncertainty is partly caused by the unpredictable and unprecedented situation and partly deliberately by SNP who refuse to say what their plans are because they fear they will be unpopular.


If a YES vote then the general uncertainty will last 2 or more years as none of us know how the two government will interact nor do we know the market reaction nor how Scotttish finance sector companies will respond nor indeed what will happen at the general election next May.

Generali

The Economist has the following to say about the dangers facing the UK's economy in the event of a no vote and Scotland's in particular:

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21615593-scottish-referendum-nears-capital-takes-fright-case-jitters

BEFORE this week many investors and money managers had dismissed the possibility that Scotland would vote to leave the United Kingdom on September 18th as too remote to worry about. But then came a poll by YouGov for the Times newspaper showing that support for independence had risen sharply. And so all the well-rehearsed uncertainty over an independent Scotland’s economic and financial arrangements is beginning to feel rather less theoretical, and more urgent.
Most jittery are banks, pension funds and other businesses with significant cross-border interests. Polls from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce have shown in the past that 10% of firms have considered moving away from Scotland if the country votes to go it alone, that a further 8% have definite plans to move and that 5% would expand their English operations or set up an English company. More such businesses have spoken openly as the referendum nears. Standard Life, an insurer, has said it has drawn up contingency plans to move south in the event of a “Yes” vote. It has been widely reported that Lloyds Banking Group, which owns Bank of Scotland, would shift its headquarters from Edinburgh to London as well.

The risk of capital flight is very real. The risk of Scotland's economy slowly ebbing south as the Dutch Disease hollows out the competitiveness of many Scottish companies is highly likely in a country that would be a oil economy.

If you don't think the risk is there, when was the last time you bought anything made in Norway, Saudi or the UAE?

Andy_L

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It may have been on another thread, but there was a discussion about running a system on a cost per head basis.

Let's take the DVLA for example, Instead of paying road tax to the DVLA, it can be paid to an SDVLA if you like.

Why is there additional costs, indeed there may be an opportunity to streamline and reduce costs in some instances.

You have the additional costs of initially setting up the SDVLA (unless the break-up talks come to the pragmatic solution of sharing "back office" government functions - ISTR reading that some EU nations have done similar things).
Once you've created something like that, where the big costs are setting up the database then the marginal cost of processing another few million road tax applications is minimal

wotsthat

If I had a vote I'd be extremely concerned that with just days to go the currency situation remains as clear as mud. The three party leaders have ruled out a monetary union and yet Salmond refuses to even hint at what the currency might be for Scotland long term.

We all know that if there's a yes vote there would be an element of negotiation but to simply assume that these negotiations would lead to a shared currency is ridiculous. Given the clarity of the no shared currency message it's hard to see how there's space for back-tracking without a rUK referendum and all the uncertainties that go with it. I would rather the rUK kept the debt than entered into a currency union with Scotland.

Article here covering Salmond's refusal to answer...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11072166/Alex-Salmond-refuses-three-times-to-name-independent-Scotlands-long-term-currency-without-shared-pound.html

and to show what a nice guy he is here's an article about how he got his revenge.

http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2014/09/alex-salmond-labelled-bully-he-offers-junior-reporter-some-sweets

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Look in before you look out stringy. You might see past the 'SNP lot' mindblock and actually take some hard facts and figures in ? Mabye read the articles put in front of you ? I do with any you provide before commenting on them. Just a thought.

If there's a Yes vote there will be chaos. One big reason for that is that a currency union has already been ruled out. This weakens rUK in the short term, it doesn't strengthen. And there are 18 months, perhaps more of negotiations to go.

One big reason for chaos (if it happens) is the SNP/Yes lot's refusal to answer any of the major questions and consider contingency plans simply for the cynical purpose of garnering votes.

Facts are not the same as wishful thinking Shakey.

I'd take your protestations a lot more seriously if you actually addresses the issues rather than acting as apologist for the indefensible all the time.

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Already done.

All my savings and pension funds are now out of Scotland and Scottish institutions.

I thought you guys were adamant that Yes had no chance.

Why panic?

Out of interest, are you considering relocating to ROUK?