New Currency for a new Country

purch

Generali wrote: »

So anyway, back to the topic....

Do they deep fry those as well :eek:

purch

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

next time I buy whisky it will be Irish!

Shouldn't that be Whiskey then

Graham_Devon

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Source : Bloomberg

Banks have to be careful though. It's been said that some of the swing to the YES vote recently has been as a direct result to the warnings from the banks.

Let's face it, banks are not exactly flavour of the month, and are hardly in the best position to be telling the man in the street that their vote could ruin financial stability.

People see this stuff and think "well, if it's bad for them, it must be good for me".

The C4 news did a piece on this the other day, and Alistair Darling appears to have gained support from the big multinationals. Whereas Salmond has gained support from the small to mid sized scottish business. (all in general terms of course).

IveSeenTheLight

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Prosperous?

"Scotland, with a geographic share of oil, raised £53bn in taxes in 2012-13. Yet the state spent a staggering £65.2bn, running up a fiscal deficit of over £12bn, or around £5,000 for each household. Government spending represents just over 50 per cent of Scottish GDP, some 5 percentage points higher than in the rest of the UK. A deficit of that magnitude is not sustainable in the long term"

Seriously, when I read this I think "Off you go then!"

I think you;ll find that the UK is running a deficit too.

Instead of being selective on a single year, why not open your mind to a longer period, where Scotland has run a proportionally smaller deficit than the UK.

An Independent Scotland would also choose not to spend on other extravagences the UK does, meaning the deficit would be even smaller i.e. the billions saved from Trident.

Scotland is a prosperous country and why the ROUK wants to keep the union.

IveSeenTheLight

Gangaweed wrote: »

Seriously? Comparing Scotland to a Scandinavian country?

Denmark has an educated population, it espouses free market economics within a social democrat manner. Government debt is fairly low at 44%. They are running a surplus. Life expectancy is 79.5. Scotland has haggis... and life expectancy of 72.5.

Literacy rate in Scotland 73%, Denmark, 99%

Get real. There is no comparison between Scotland and the Nordics.

None at all. Its a fantasy!

Surely your showing that all is not "better together" in the current state, so I ask again, why can't Scotland becaome a successful independent nation like Denmark?

IveSeenTheLight

purch wrote: »

Do you ever actually read the posts ?

I said, that people have a say in their currency through the Government they elect.

Explain how that would be different in an Independent Scotland.
There is to be an election in May 2016 which the Scottish people can elect the party of their choice

purch wrote: »

P.S. In 2000 Denmark had a referendum to choose which currency they would use, either their own DKK or the EUR and they chose the DKK

Yes I know, that's not the general rule for the population of the world. It's a minority situation.

They use the currency that the governments have determined to use.

The currency situation will be negotiated and if no agreement is made, then we'll move on to plan B.

Now, there is no Plan A for more devolved powers in Scotland.

Mark my words, if the people choose against independence, then the future generations will see less devolved powers unless there is a marked change in stance from Westminster (highly unlikely)

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I'm sure it is. So anyway, back to the topic....

No problem...

Meanwhile, the Telegraph today runs with a front-page story that “Yes vote could cause sterling crash”, writing up “ominous warnings” from Goldman Sachs’ chief UK economist. The Financial Times has flagged up the comments of Lloyd’s of London chair John Nelson, that “it is in the interests of the entire Scottish population, and the wider British population… that this union stays together.”


NEF doesn’t take a position on the Scottish referendum. It’s for the people of Scotland to decide their future. And while the City now appears to have woken up to the possibility of a Yes victory, it’s not uncertainty over Scotland’s future that’s troubling them.


Tucked away in the Financial Times’ report earlier in the week was the giveaway. “Currency investors” would apparently be “particularly concerned by the UK’s persistent current account deficit if this were no longer offset by North Sea oil revenues.”
This is something of an understatement. The UK has run a deficit on its trade in goods every single year since 1983. We have imported more goods than we have exported every year for three decades. Including services and overseas earnings (the “current account”), the UK has run a deficit since the mid-1990s. Today, that deficit is close to record levels, at 4.4% of GDP.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

Top stock market analysts have backed Alex Salmond’s claim that North Sea oil is a bonus rather than the backbone of an independent Scotland’s economy.
London brokers Investec said yesterday that it was a “misconception” that Scotland is poorer than the UK as a whole.
In a detailed investors’ note, they said they believed that even without the vast amount of hydrocarbons around its shores, Scotland’s GDP is “roughly equal” to the rest of the UK.
And when Scotland’s geographic share of the UK’s oil and gas is factored in, the asset management giant says GDP north of the border would be 10% higher than in neighbouring England...


But the note also warns that a Yes vote on September 18 could cause chaos on the London Stock Market – and that Scotland’s membership of the European Union could be dependent on it eventually accepting the euro as its currency.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/north-of-scotland/334681/stock-market-analysts-back-salmond-on-oil/

Why is a Yes vote upsetting the currency markets so much if there will be no currency union and that's a good thing for rUK ? This sort of potential panic was the very thing amicable negotiations in the event of a Yes vote were supposed to avoid regarding currency, ( even if a currency union wasn't agreed on in the end ).

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

es I know, that's not the general rule for the population of the world. It's a minority situation.

Maybe explicitly but it is implied by the choices offered by politicians during elections.

For example, the Democrats offered a watered down Silver Standard instead of a Gold Standard in the late C19th amongst other policies. It did so as a result of the Populist Party taking a lot of votes from them who were pretty much a single-issue Silver Standard party.

IIRC, the Lib Dems have offered Britons the opportunity to join the Euro at past elections.

AfD in Germany offers German voters an opportunity to reject the Euro.

Lastly, of course, if you feel strongly about a particular monetary system you are free to start a political movement in the UK, as a free country, and put up candidates to that effect.

purch

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Explain how that would be different in an Independent Scotland.
There is to be an election in May 2016 which the Scottish people can elect the party of their choice

It's like banging your head against a brick wall !!!!

It won't matter who you elect as your Government for an Independent Scotland if you continue to use the GBP, because it will be the Westminster Government who will be in control.

If you have your own currency, then whoever is voted into Government will have control over it.

It is not a complicated concept.

Someone else's currency = No control

Your own currency = control.

That is why the currency question is by far the most important question, and one that the morons in the YES campaign cannot seem to fathom.

Please vote YES in the referendum, but please don't vote for Salmond and his idiotic party in your election.

Scotland can be a successful independent country, but you will reduce your chances hugely if dimwit Salmond is in charge.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Why is a Yes vote upsetting the currency markets so much if there will be no currency union and that's a good thing for rUK ? This sort of potential panic was the very thing amicable negotiations in the event of a Yes vote were supposed to avoid regarding currency, ( even if a currency union wasn't agreed on in the end ).

I've 2 points in response:

1. The markets aren't that upset. This isn't like Black Wednesday or anything.
2. There is uncertainty. It's hard to price risk at the best of times. What are the risks of holding Pounds at the moment? Some people think it's better not to calculate that and just dump them. That's going to be the first problem if there's a Yes vote. Most people won't think, they'll just dump British assets and Scottish ones in particular as they see the rise in risk.

I've a lot of years of experience in finance and this isn't some Little Englander thing. If Scotland votes Yes, the first thing that foreign investors will do is to dump Scotland-exposed assets. The next thing will be to look to finesse things and see if there are Scottish companies that have been 'over-sold' and buy back in.

Neither you nor I, who are really interested in this, understand the economic implications of Yes! A Portfolio Manager in New York is just going to dump and run. Ditto a Treasury Manager who has cash in a bank that sounds vaguely Scottish or perhaps British.

Yes means chaos, short term.