[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Sweden was one of the "original" EU members, the current EU new member rules will not allow Scotland to join in the same way Sweden or indeed the UK membership works. New members have no opt outs. Scotland will have to make a compelling case to be allowed to join and making comparisons with old existing members isn't going to get them anywhere.

@bencooper - passports are an interesting one. The UK is pretty flexible about multiple passports so I would imagine the UK may well let you keep your UK passport and you can apply for a Scottish one too. That way you would have freedom of movement within the EU even if Scotland didn't join / wasn't allowed in. I would imagine the SNP aren't so daft as to insist that Scots give up their UK passport as Alex wants his cake and to eat everyone else's, but they might.

@gordimhor - the "poor" in the UK have really done very well over the past 50 years, look around at the poor elsewhere, particular outside Europe. I don't agree with much Mrs T had to say but one point she made is that focusing on the gap between rich and poor shows you don't actually care about the poor being better off, you'd rather see them worse off if the gap was smaller. The fact is in society the rich have gotten richer whilst the poor's employment has been undermined by cheap production of goods in Asia etc.

In the Uk. Scots who now live in England, those with family in Scotland and business owners who do business/trade with Scotland mostly.

I thought they were all moving back to the mother country so they can vote YES 😉

If you asked the average rUK voter if they are happy giving away some sovereignty to Scotland post independence so the Scots can have sterling what do you think the response will be?

Factor in that they will be asked in 2015 to vote for a new UK parliament

Then add in a likely referendum of rUK to give the Ok (based on the "lock" on European treaty changes that impact sovereignty)

Where do you think the negotiations will be starting from?

As we go round and round the roundabouts, its worth noting the sign that we pass at the entrance - 'a currency union is in the best interests of Scotland' - there it is, in big bold capital letters - yS are 100% clear: WE DONT ACTUALLY WANT INDEPENDENCE since our analysis shows that it is not in our best interest.

By definition, unions are about [b]greater levels of interdependence[/b] and less independence. That is a simple truism. And its [b]interdependence of the most basic functions of government[/b] - controlling monetary and fiscal policy.

In his usual, unbalanced way wee eck with stand up tomorrow and talk about only one side of currency unions - reducing transaction costs and he will "dress this up" by calling GO/EB/DA/HM Tres notion (incorrectly) a "tax" on business. Conveniently, he will ignore the other side of unions - giving up independence - since that is counter to the whole debate. He will of course also use the three Bs and "assets". He may also have to add his mate's new retort "preposterous" as well? If only predicting the outcome of horse races was this easy!

Remember Mark Carney's penultimante sentance

Decisions that [b]cede sovereignty[/b] and [b]limit autonomy[/b] are rightly choices for elected governments and involve considerations beyond mere economics.

Could not be clearer - nothing about gaining sovereignty or increasing autonomy. Why? Because the yS proposal, at its core, involves ceding and limiting not gaining freedom at all. Perhaps the elephant is so big that the only thing to do is to ignore it completely?

A former European Court judge says Barroso is wrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20757450

As does the man who negotiated the UK's entry into the EC in the 1970's:

https://archive.is/37wSD

involves ceding and limiting not gaining freedom at all. Perhaps the elephant is so big that the only thing to do is to ignore it completely?

Or perhaps, even that is better than what we currently have.

Could not be clearer - nothing about gaining sovereignty or increasing autonomy. Why? Because the yS proposal, at its core, involves ceding and limiting not gaining freedom at all. Perhaps the elephant is so big that the only thing to do is to ignore it completely?

Show me a country in the world which doesn't have any international treaties and obligations, and I'll concede the point. By your logic, there's no such thing as an independent country.

Or perhaps, even that is better than what we currently have.

What, being part of a stable and successful Union with a worldwide influence, yet still having a reasonable level of autonomy but with zero risk attached?

THM, don't know if you saw Barosso on Marr this morning - he was making some good points about how fiscal integration in the Euro area, depended on deeper political integration,

good quote: [i]The solidity, the credibility, of a currency, depends on the solidity of the institution or political construction behind it [/i]

There are only degree of independence of course. Do you want more or less? Possibly the worst case scenario is the one being offered. Its the worst of both worlds.

i didnt see it ninfan - but there is nothing new. The € has failed to date because it has failed to deliver monetary AND fiscal union (oh and it doesn't satisfy the criteria for a successful currency union, but thats a separate point!). The lesson is as clear as night and day. Currency unions require less not more independence. Forget myopia, you need to be 100% blind not to see that.

Of course, if you do that in a structure where you (will) have little, if any representation, then you are really making things worse. It frankly beggars belief....

Or perhaps, even that is better than what we currently have.

You really have no idea how lucky you are. So much of this seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it on a massive scale.

I don't agree with much Mrs T had to say but one point she made is that focusing on the gap between rich and poor shows you don't actually care about the poor being better off, you'd rather see them worse off if the gap was smaller.

What a daft thing to say. Healthy, happy societies are more equal ones. There's a lot of evidence showing this.

You really have no idea how lucky you are.

...only been part of one of the most successful economic and political unions in history.

Grum, where is the gratitude from these guys?!? 😉

Something else I've noticed here...

Most of the YES voices all say they aren't worried about financial union either way. No problem.

However.

To AS it appears to be fundamental...

Can someone explain to me why that is?

Perhaps the YES voices should reconsider there position when AS doesn't appear to be fully representing your feelings?

@thm

Of course, if you do that in a structure where you (will) have little, if any representation, then you are really making things worse. It frankly beggars belief....

Could you explain this for me please? Surely if we have a shared currency then each country (Scotland, population 5M; rUK, population 60M) would have an equal vote when deciding on economic policy? Anything else would be totally unfair on the smaller country. I can't see how [s]AS[/s]Scotland would ever agree to anything less....

Perhaps the YES voices should reconsider there position when AS doesn't appear to be fully representing your feelings?

Yes Scotland != SNP

No the relationship would be assymetrical and clearly in favour of rUK (in practice exclusively so, since there is no lobby to satisfy).

You agree because you want the benefits.

Did you not state ben that the Lib Dems are dead, Scotland will not forget Labour standing shoulder to shoulder with Tories on currency union? What are the viable options? I believe a vote Yes is as big an endorsement of the SNP that can possibly be made.
can anyone believe that Johan Lamont may be sitting down to discuss splitting up the assets and liabilities of the UK with Ed Milliband???

Dear Leader will be our first Prime Minister after Yes vote.
Since he and his supporters do not think the press is overly favourable, I would not rule out nationalisation of a newspaper or two followed by a purge of editors. Director general of the state television company, Blair Jenkins perhaps? He is well qualified.

If anyone thinks that unbelievable, George Galloway, whom I have heard some sense from on the issue of independence, does take it a bit far with talk of anti Catholic pogroms and ethnic cleansing.

I just can't see how Scotland is going to gain independence with the current set of incumbents..

A complete lack of transparency from the YES (AS) campaign & the basic fact that independence, as offered, seems to be some kind of "lite" version.

Jambalaya

focusing on the gap between rich and poor shows you don't actually care about the poor being better off, you'd rather see them worse off if the gap was smaller.

I would not rule out nationalisation of a newspaper or two followed by a purge of editors

😆

If anyone thinks that unbelievable, George Galloway, whom I have heard some sense from on the issue of independence, does take it a bit far with talk of anti Catholic pogroms and ethnic cleansing.

Do you have a YT link - that would be amusing to listen to.

Good list of some of the ex colonies that have shared sterling in media today. Reinforces the idea that Friday's announcement had a huge amount of political motivation. I wonder why the Cooks islands and Nigeria were better bets than us? 8)

Duckman, you are chosing an admirable peer group. Big difference, though, we didnt stand behind their banks.

Athgray Can you name any pro independence newspapers or editors ?

Athgray Can you name any pro independence newspapers or editors ?

Wait I got this, hold on......just a minute.......

Ummm, nope.

This is the closest I've seen lately from the main stream http://www.scotsman.com/news/andrew-wilson-hold-nerve-when-wolves-bears-teeth-1-3307659

Someone suggested the herald the other day when I asked the same question

A complete lack of transparency from the YES (AS) campaign

Someone suggested the herald the other day when I asked the same question

Scotroutes, although he actually said he found it "the least biased"

Hence the purge then? I can see prominent positions for those in charge of Wings over Scotland. A delightfully vitriolic read.
I tend to read the Times. Not perfect but certainly not the worst. Very wary of anything in the Telegraph although I tend to use the paper as a window into the wider world, rather than a source for voting in the referendum.

Oh I see!!!

The Scotsman carries different views but appears to lean towards no, at least from afar!

Won't it be the Record that counts in terms of readership?

Or equally you could say the pro independence voices have already been purged.

BY Holyrood??? 😉

The Herald is printing a reasonable number of pro-Independence stories recently. Then again, the FT and Daily Mail have printed a few also.

No major Scottish newspaper is Scottish-owned, which probably has some bearing on it.

No by apple they've got an app for it

Well I accept the rUK position of refusing to discuss it and making announcements that only ever piss on AS chips is consistent and clear but it is no more helpful than his position.

Fair point, though he does make it easy for them.

They both do

TBH I dont trust either side to be saying anything other than what they HOPE will happen/serves their agenda best. They are after all politicians

No one knows what the reality will be like but it will be UNLIKE both sides claims at the minute.

TBH I dont trust either side to be saying anything other than what they HOPE will happen/serves their agenda best. They are after all politicians

No one knows what the reality will be like but it will be UNLIKE both sides claims at the minute.

And yet, people are being asked to vote on such supposition, hope and vagiary.

From both sides.

How can anyone vote on something that is so undecided, so vague, so full of maybe?

The pro independence argument has certainly not been purged. thm you may not be aware of what it is like uphere in the run up to the referendum. Despite the alleged bias of all mainstream media outlets, the yes camp is certainly the loudest.

Interviews with dear leader and his generals would have anyone voting no feel like they are supportive of a tory regime in a country bent on war mongering, flouting weapons of mass destruction., getting one over on the poor, and the subjugation of Scots. Bumper stickers on cars emblazoned with YES over a saltire and saltire festooned rallies leave you in no doubt who own Scottishness.

England is portrayed as epitomizing the UK with its residents acting as a single homogenous voting block, blindly electing fools to piss over us all.

The SNP bark the same "we can either be ruled by evil westminster, or we can rule ourselves!" tripe.
Add a level of scare mongering at their party conference, opened by a vote yes broadcast video Leni Riefensthal would have been proud of.

A prominent SNP politician not afraid to speak his mind believes his party to be intellectually bereft, schooled in the old Russian ways, and all too willing to tow the party line. Some claim Jim Sillars a bitter failure. Trotsky by that margin was also a failure, but I bet he could have shed interesting light on the masinachions of his party.

Websites proclaiming Robert Burns would have voted Yes, you should do the same evoke an image of the bard pointing from a poster with the words "Your country needs you" like Kitchener.

The SNP do bully, and I reckon many undecided voters are actually no voters that may be scared or feel an unnecessary pang of guilt that they may let Scotland down. I would urge them not to feel this way. I feel no such guilt.

Businesses, especially small businesses keeping quiet after proclamation that some of our largest employers can bugger off for daring to to challenge Shangri-La.

Admissions by dear leader that lack of knowledge of a regions vernacular precludes you from having an opinion on it's politics. Angus Robertson acting as main propaganda minister. He toutes the WMD, serfdom line like no other. Justice minister can't control his actions at a Scotland England football match resulting in a stint in a prison cell.

We have not got to the Commonwealth games, Ryder Cup and God forbid the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn. Anyone wanting to see a fully ramped up propaganda machine should wait for June 24th.

I reckon the yes campaign see these as preliminary examinations of Scottishness or revision on route to the final examination on polling day. If you fail the exam in SNP eyes I am sure further education will be required.

I don't blame yes voters for any of this, and state this is only my opinion that we are not in for a rosy future. Either believe that or the white paper. I know which future I believe to be less fanciful in an independent Scotland.

In a way it is a shame that many of those supportive of the UK here, are not eligible to vote.

[quote=jambalaya ]Sweden was one of the "original" EU members, the current EU new member rules will not allow Scotland to join in the same way Sweden or indeed the UK membership works. New members have no opt outs. Scotland will have to make a compelling case to be allowed to join and making comparisons with old existing members isn't going to get them anywhere.

Wrong. Sweden joined the EU in 1995. It is required to join the Euro once it meets the criteria. It does not have an opt out. The rules regarding the Euro for Scotland would be broadly similar. I wrote all this in my previous posts on the subject which you seem to be ignoring. To suggest that Scotland would have to join the Euro before Sweden does is as silly as most of the stuff AS spouts (if you look at the issue properly, it's clear that the UK could also easily avoid joining the Euro if it was joining the EU as a new state).

[quote=duckman ]Good list of some of the ex colonies that have shared sterling in media today.

Which of those have actually had currency union and hence a say in fiscal policy affecting the currency in the way AS wants? Or have they just had "plan B" which even AS's advisers don't appear able to agree on?

[quote=athgray ]The SNP do bully, and I reckon many undecided voters are actually no voters that may be scared or feel an unnecessary pang of guilt that they may let Scotland down.

I do wonder whether this "election" is going to show one of the largest disparities between opinion polls and actual result...

I am not sure aracer. I think it will be close. I reckon either side could virtually claim 60% as a landslide. For the record I reckon a statement of intent towards acheiving devo max by the no campaign would be a game changer though.

I am going to hear Jim Sillars speak on friday 21st in Fort William. It's free to all although it is a YesScotland event,there is more to Yes than Alex Salmond.

As to newspapers,the times scotland section has five headlines on the e copy. Three are usually telling us to fatten up our least favoured child.

I believe a vote Yes is as big an endorsement of the SNP that can possibly be made.[\quote]
Electorates have a habit of being "ungrateful": Churchill lost the first post-WW2 election, didn't he?

 

@gordimhor - over any reasonable timeframe, eg 10-15 years, everyone is better off. And to @grum we have one of the most egalitarian societies in the world.

@aracer I put original in quotes deliberately, perhaps I should have used longstanding. The rules governing Scotland joining the EU will be very different than Sweden, much has changed in the EU with regards to new members. In my view if Scotland try and adopt an approach which says they want to join "as per Sweden" for example their entry will be blocked, not least by other recent joiners who've had to sign up without any opt outs. The only way an independent Scotland benefits the EU is if they join up in total including the euro and they make a decent net contribution to the EU coffers.

On a somewhat irrelevant note Braveheart is on the TV in France, dubbed into French, the Aussie guy is still the hero though, we're at the battle scene where the Scots are showing their arses to the English which sums up the Yes campaign really

[quote=jambalaya ]@aracer I put original in quotes deliberately, perhaps I should have used longstanding.

Well yes, given the significant difference. Though to be honest I don't think 1995 exactly counts as "longstanding" either - that might reasonably apply to those countries who joined in the 70s (UK, Eire, Denmark) or 80s (Greece, Spain), but things had already changed by the time Sweden joined. The terms they joined under were broadly similar to those which would apply to Scotland, and as you seem to have missed it the last couple of times I mentioned it, they don't actually have any opt-out on the Euro, they simply don't meet the convergence criteria.

@aracer, understood. I stand by my point that the new EU membership process will, in my view, mean Scotland will have to join the euro immediately and sign up to the whole package of legislation without opt outs.

you might want to look at this jambalaya[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-25-year-gap-between-the-life-expectancy-of-rich-and-poor-londoners-is-a-further-indictment-of-our-unequal-society-9061888.html ]the independent[/url]
Granted looking at data over 10 -15 years is better than shorter terms but 30,50,70 years is better still.

Athgray, I fully agree and have consistently argued that the vote will be a lot closer than polls suggest and also agree about the effect of sporting events. One of the reasons why I have hoped that the NO campaign would finally start to up their game for all our sakes.

History shows us clearly that people often vote for things only to be sadly disappointed. Voting for sugar coated candy especially is as appealing as it is ultimately sickening.

Looking forward to hearing/reading the contorted mental and verbal gymnastics tomorrow. It should be a masterclasses in obfuscation. One for the scrapbooks.

@gordimhor - yes read that, it doesn't compare the uk to other countries and also it speaks again of the gap between rich and poor rather than the absolute levels. The UK isn't perfect but it's better than most in terms of equality. As for the life expectancy point that's far more complicated than a simple attempt to make rich v poor the decisive factor in life expectancy.

[b]athgray[/b]
England is portrayed as epitomizing the UK with its residents acting as a single homogenous voting block, blindly electing fools to piss over us all.

My point was that poverty and inequality are massive causes of breakdown and conflict in society. This article relates those points to the independence debate.
[url=.scotsman.com/news/gerry-hassan-the-fourth-most-unequal-country-in-the-world-1-2178654]uk 4th most unequal country[/url]

Also conveniently ignoring the fact there was a labour government for 10 years with a bunch of Scots at its centre.

I suspect that nationalist supporters are just as heterogenous as any other group.I absolutely do not believe that this is in any way a Scots v English issue. Nor is it a Scotland v UK issue. Lots of yes voters on here have explained their various reasons for voting yes. Mostly I would say a desire to try to create a fairer country as the westminster system is broken. I think many Labour supporters feel very let down by New Labour. Mind you since I havent voted Labour for 31 years I cant speak for them.

it's Ok the YES campaign have a video to reassure all the people who think things can't change

I suspect that nationalist supporters are just as heterogenous as any other group.I absolutely do not believe that this is in any way a Scots v English issue.

do you have the opinion polling for the resident non UK EU nationals who can vote in the referendum?

are the Poles going to vote differently to the Spanish? 😉

I can see why the SNP would do this, trying to frame the argument tin terms of the English v Scottish history,

gordimhor - Member
I suspect that nationalist supporters are just as heterogenous as any other group.I absolutely do not believe that this is in any way a Scots v English issue. Nor is it a Scotland v UK issue. Lots of yes voters on here have explained their various reasons for voting yes. Mostly I would say a desire to try to create a fairer country as the westminster system is broken. I think many Labour supporters feel very let down by New Labour. Mind you since I havent voted Labour for 31 years I cant speak for them.

Actually there'll be some for who it's and Scots vs English issue. I've recently met some. It actually resulted in me getting quite agitated. The problem that caused this agitation is the lack of recognition that it's not just Scots being let down by Westminster.

The article Gordimhor linked earlier is a perfect example really. And a good example if why I'm voting the way I am. I'm under no illusions that this will be some easy Sunday arvo picnic though, no mistake. Lots of risks, lots of unknown.

Earlier in this thread someone alluded to how well the poor have done over the last 50 years or so, which for me misses the point. They've done well relative to themselves, maybe. But it's relative to the overall wealth if the economy that counts. And since I've been alive the gap between rich and poor has done nothing but widen.

Mostly I would say a desire to try to create a fairer country as the westminster system is broken.

According to the World Democracy index the UK seems right up there with the best.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index ]Democracy Index[/url]

I can guarantee you that if Scotland do go independent then within a few years the Scots furthest from Edinburgh will be whinging that the Edinburgh system is broken - "they just don't care what happens to us up here in the Highlands". The grass isn't always greener you know.

In a true democracy, I would have thought that everyone in the UK gets a vote as to whether Scotland gets independence or remains part of the UK.

I wonder how that might pan out?

Could be a bit of a shock for the Bonny Scots, to realise that the majority of the English and Welsh don't give a rats and vote 'yes, please go and whinge at someone else about your valueless currency!'

Could be a bit of a shock for the Bonny Scots, to realise that the majority of the English and Welsh don't give a rats and vote 'yes, please go and whinge at someone else about your valueless currency!'

The ones that read the Daily Mail might, but those that think about things a bit more would be quite unhappy.

"One for the scrapbooks" eh? Listen, wee eck could start promising us unicorns as public transport and he would still be playing catch up with the no campaign on the BS front.You do realise they were named project fear after their threats that "an independent Scotland wouldn't get the bbc." Of course it is inconvenient for you to recognize that the no campaign are anything except a wonderful institution trying to point out the many lies told by that nasty man who is upsetting and spreading discontent among the PM's northern subjects.
Oh,and even if we are forced to take Oxford educated Tony Blair as a Scot,(and he fancied himself as a Geordie) to go with happy Gordon...10 years of one and a bit Scottish PM's v 297 years of English ones* what was the point you were trying to make jambalaya? And can you provide any evidence,as others have asked you for that it is a campaign based on historical hatred of the english? I realize the failure of so many of our southern contributors to read what reasons we have given on here for wanting a divorce has obviously led to some confusion,but it isn't that we have been taught to hate you by a clever SNP campaign.

*I am sure that there are several more Scots in there and as a history teacher I should take more interest,buts it's half term.

Could be a bit of a shock for the Bonny Scots, to realise that the majority of the English and Welsh don't give a rats and vote 'yes, please go and whinge at someone else about your valueless currency!'

The ones that read the Daily Mail might, but those that think about things a bit more would be quite unhappy.

As I seem to be missing the childish/Daily Fail-esque 'anti-anything-that-isn't-Welsh/English' gene that so many seem to have been born with, I'll be quite gutted if the United Kingdom were to no longer include Scotland.

"One for the scrapbooks" eh? Listen, wee eck could start promising us unicorns as public transport and he would still be playing catch up with the no campaign on the BS front.

I doubt it, but relax my tartan warrior. Enjoy the gymnastics - although perhaps I should call them Salmond Slopestyle to keep on the Olympic theme and recognise the twists and turns. Better than Salmond speedskating since the last few days have showed us that this requires folk to keep to the rules!

Of course it is inconvenient for you to recognize that the no campaign are anything except a wonderful institution

No, see above. Plenty of concerns about No campaign but at least they have woken up and gone straight for the facts at last. Although as I have said, you don't really need to say too much, just let AS condemn himself out of his own mouth. Read my lips, "we don't want independence, we want to be an adjunct to and in union with [s]Europe[/s] Westminster now." Hey, I thought that was what we didn't want?

Roll on the slopestyle. What time is the entertainment starting in Aberdeen? Do we need popcorn?

According to Alastair Darling, Sir Chris Hoy is a closet nationalist because he used the word "yes":

http://archive.is/V4TA8

I think Brains is getting paranoid...

You do realise they were named project fear after their threats that "an independent Scotland wouldn't get the bbc."

In what context was it said? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There are plenty of ex pats in Europe who watch the BBC via satellite. However, this is in breach of copyright and is technically illegal.
Are you suggesting that you will still pay your licence fee after a Yes vote?
If not, are you suggesting you will continue to watch without paying?

Why would you want such an anti Scottish broadcaster anyway?

In other good news, Paul Dacre has said he'll stop doing the Scottish edition of the Daily Mail if we vote Yes.

Listen, wee eck could start promising us unicorns as public transport

Probably would have worked out cheaper than the trams 😆

I particularly like the fact that 'project fear' now seems to include:

The Treasury
The Bank of England
The President of the EU
The Reptilians

Are you suggesting that you will still pay your licence fee after a Yes vote?

Yes, to the Scottish Broadcasting Company, who will make programmes or import them just like BBC Scotland do at the moment,

Yes, to the Scottish Broadcasting Company

So you won't get the BBC then!

What about those of us who will be happy enough to see Scotland leave the Union because of concerns about the long term effects of this continuing aggravation?
Just because we/I think both the UK & Scotland would be better served by separation doesn't mean we are Scottish-hating Daily Mail reading bigots thank you very much.
Ive no doubt Scotland can & will be successful as an Independent Nation, not wanting to be tied into a currency union with that Nation does not make me a bigot, or a bully for that matter.

So you won't get the BBC then!

Okay, if you want to be pedantic, then no. The shiny building on Pacific Quay will change one or two letters on the front. It'll likely have no effect at all on programming.

In other good news, Paul Dacre has said he'll stop doing the Scottish edition of the Daily Mail if we vote Yes.

There will a lot of disappointed Scots then, it's the 3rd best selling paper in Scotland!* 🙂

*Yes I know the Fail is the 2nd in England.

Back to Osborne - the Wall Street Journal thinks he's wrong too: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/02/14/how-scotland-can-keep-the-pound/

Pacific Quay will change one or two letters on the front.

Are you suggesting that the SBC will be able to make similar programs to the BBC? The BBC has a budget of something like £5 BILLION!

It will be more than change a few letters.

Ben, you did read the whole article in the link including the obvious "disadvantages" at the end? You appear to pick some odd things to support your case, or are you just checking that we are awake on a Monday morning? 😉

Hanke is referring to the idea of a currency board. In the simplest terms, Scotland would peg the new Scottish pound to Sterling one-for-one. It would be British pound, for all intents and purposes and there would be little that Osborne can do to stop it.

That said, there are some downsides:

First, Scotland would cede monetary policy to the Bank of England.

Ben - This isn't a currency union. It's simply pegging to Stirling, it was never suggested that this wasn't possible.

Are you suggesting that the SBC will be able to make similar programs to the BBC? The BBC has a budget of something like £5 BILLION!

The BBC buys programmes from around the world, and sells the programmes it makes around the world. The SBC will do the same.

I'm sure the BBC will be quite happy to sell the SBC its programmes (just like it does to loads of export markets) just like the SBC will be to sell them to the BBC. You know that plenty of programming is made in Scotland and there is already an internal market in programming, right?

It's not pedantic to say the SBC won't be the BBC...but I wonder how they will stop people located in Scotland picking up the rUK signal. IIRC holland and Ireland got all the UK channels when it was analogue...is it still the same under digital?

Hanke is referring to the idea of a currency board. In the simplest terms, Scotland would peg the new Scottish pound to Sterling one-for-one. It would be British pound, for all intents and purposes and there would be little that Osborne can do to stop it.

That said, there are some downsides:

First, Scotland would cede monetary policy to the Bank of England.

Ben - This isn't a currency union. It's simply pegging to Stirling, it was never suggested that this wasn't possible.