Independent Scotland's FIAT currency - when should I move my savings?

bowlhead99

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This might turn out to be an absolutely miserable night for Yes....

Kellner at YouGov noting a swing from Yes voters to No, has just gone on Live TV saying he thinks it's a 99% certainty No have won

Yes BBC mentioned the percentage result from today's yougov poll which was not quite an "exit poll" but involved people who had actually voted, taking the poll online afterwards. 54 to 46 in favour of No.

Then after what seemed like an age they got round to having the head guy from Yougov for his five minutes of fame to talk about it.Apparently that poll is not just a little one with 500 or 1000 people whose opinion gets extrapolated across the country. Oh no. They had, wait for it, drum roll... about 1800 people.

So, if those 1800 people are an exact representation of the 4.5 million that voted, it'll be 54-46. If they aren't, it won't be!

BBC and ITV are both playing the same old filler until they can start to get the actual results in a few hours so I think I'll be turning in and seeing what brave New world we wake up to tomorrow. As a "rest of" Brit, I'd be happy for it to be the same old world, but if I lived in Scotland, who knows, maybe my heart would rule my head.

anoncol

Buzby wrote: »

How childish! You overlook the fact the refusal to accept the debt is a direct result of a refusal to share the currency we have used. As a bargaining ploy on WM side, it was pants. But if WM want to be perverse, then refusal to accept the debt is a pretty good bargaining ploy.

Since Trident will get its marching orders, getting to 'keep' Edinburgh Castle is unlikely - they couldn't afford to pay the Council Tax anyway. As I recall, it is still owned by Historic Scotland with the army leasing a section of it so that ship has sailed.

Holyrood Palace - the queen will retain it until her demise, and then revert.

It is the UKs currency though, not scotlands.

Chadsman

Buzby,
On several occasions on this forum and elsewhere I have tried to engage with the 'yes' side why you want a currency union rather than adopt a policy of sterlingisation but neither you nor anyone else has ever attempted to answer- the silence is still deafening. So I thought I would try a slightly different approach.


'Yes' talked about hope not fear- it was more like head in the sand not realism. Fortunately for the future of Scotland a majority of voters were realistic.


Better luck next time.

atush

God save the Queen!
I'll save Elizabeth Fry, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, Matthew Boulton and James Watt.[/QUOTE

Gosh, you left off Louis pasteur, marie curie, watson and crick and einstein lol.

TCA

Chadsman wrote: »

'Yes' talked about hope not fear- it was more like head in the sand not realism.

The referendum engaged the electorate unlike anything in my lifetime. A true success for democracy and a great reflection on Scotland and its people.

You can continue to make snipes, but those 1.6m people with their 'heads in the sand' forced the Westminster parties into enough panic to offer last-gasp further "powers" and in the end, this is what probably swayed enough of the 2m No voters to tip the balance. Don't think for a moment that 2m people voting No was a resounding endorsement of Westminster politics, because it wasn't.

Further powers of any nature will of course be welcomed by whoever governs Scotland and that's what the majority of the electorate wanted, but time will tell how well the London unionists keep to their promises. Ed Milliband already appears to be backtracking. This story isn't finished yet.

CLAPTON

TCA wrote: »

The referendum engaged the electorate unlike anything in my lifetime. A true success for democracy and a great reflection on Scotland and its people.

You can continue to make snipes, but those 1.6m people with their 'heads in the sand' forced the Westminster parties into enough panic to offer last-gasp further "powers" and in the end, this is what probably swayed enough of the 2m No voters to tip the balance. Don't think for a moment that 2m people voting No was a resounding endorsement of Westminster politics, because it wasn't.

Further powers of any nature will of course be welcomed by whoever governs Scotland and that's what the majority of the electorate wanted, but time will tell how well the London unionists keep to their promises. Ed Milliband already appears to be backtracking. This story isn't finished yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by the London unionists


they are people from Scotland, Wales, N Ireland and England who have been democratically elected by people from Scotland, Wales, NI and England


There is no guarantee that the changes will be for the better but the majority of the UK will be pleased if the Barrett formula is finally laid to rest as I'm sure that all the peoples of the UK feel it is unfair.

Chadsman

TCA,
a majority rejected what I presume is your opinion.

I agree 'Yes' ran a better campaign than 'no' but that does not mean their view is correct.

You say the electorate was engaged- I say again no one neither on here, nor anywhere in the press I have ever read have said why they believe a policy of currency union with rUK would be better for either iScotland or rUK than sterlingisation. Neither did the SNP reply to any of my emails, tweets or facebook messages asking same.

We have seen with the Euro the dangers of currency union without political union. Without serious answers as to how the problems it would create are answered (or even that dangers existed) it was a 'head in the sand' policy.
If you believe that question has been answered why not enlighten us all and point out the answer?

Perhaps you can tell us why you think its better...?

TCA

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by the London unionists

Cameron, Clegg and Milliband.

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is no guarantee that the changes will be for the better but the majority of the UK will be pleased if the Barrett formula is finally laid to rest as I'm sure that all the peoples of the UK feel it is unfair.

The continuation of the Barnett formula was one of the three Gordon Brown promises that the Westminster leaders signed up to. I'm not a fan of it either to be honest. It's very difficult to see how this "devo-max" option can be implemented with agreement from all quarters, when it's unlikely that Cameron will get agreement from within his own party.

TCA

Chadsman wrote: »

If you believe that question has been answered why not enlighten us all and point out the answer?

Perhaps you can tell us why you think its better...?

I'm not about to restart the debate as I only just managed to extricate myself from it on here months ago after conceding a losing battle.

But for the record, I was for a new Scottish currency in time.

Archi_Bald

TCA wrote: »

But for the record, I was for a new Scottish currency in time.

You may have been but this was not what was on offer for the voters.