You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
When Scotland votes NO I wonder how Alex will package his response?
'The Scottish people have shown that they aren't quite ready for a fully independent Scotland, but want a roadmap leading to this starting with Devolution'.
Or summit like that.
No you fat, short ****. They didn't say that (etc)
1. The No campaign's responses have to be negative by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be the No campaign.
They could focus on all the good reasons to stay and the positive nature of the relationship
They do not need to be negative at all they choose to do this.
I think most Scots want more decisions about their affairs made in Scotland, and less of them made in Westminster, but don't want independence.
And who can blame them.
They're not offered that choice by the UK government, because they'd take it.
[b][i]"Do you want so much cake it makes you vomit, or no cake at all?"
"Sorry, you want a nice slice of cake? Forget it, that's not an option. Now vote."[/i][/b]
and so, after the referendum...
a) [b][i]"Keep eating it... don't blame us you're feeling sick, it was your choice. Shut up!"[/i][/b]
b) [b][i]"We don't care that you're hungry, it was your choice, this is our cake, hands off! Shut up!"[/i][/b]
Do you think Holyrood is? or any politician for that matter?
Broadly, yes. They're far from perfect, but doing a lot of good. Like mitigating the bedroom tax recently, to pick just one example.
bencooper - Member Does anyone think the Westminster government is acting in your best interests?
Ben you starting to sound like project fear! 😉 strip away a lot of the BS and there is a huge amount of positive work down in committees etc and by the majority of constituency MPs. A lot of this is done on a cross-party basis and shows how well MPs can actually do things outside the whips and cameras etc.
With relevance to this debate, the Scottish Analysis section is decidedly better informed analysis than the BoD, so rather than all this negativity, perhaps people could look harder at what is done and what excellent analysis is available. It would save the headache of grappling with 670 pages of fairy tales.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis
Plenty of positive stuff for those inclined/bothered to read it. Even today's reports, dismissed immediately as bullying, sets out clearly (indeed the very first para) the benefits of Scotland remaining part of the UK. It takes a pretty extreme form of myopia to ignore that, even if it is inconvenient for the current yS narrative.
@bencooper
sorry i dont mean to pick, but so does Westminster - like recently writing of the debt from Shetland housing projects,
same goes for EU, lots of negative press, yet funding for a lot of grass roots projects.
what i would say about your response "Like mitigating the bedroom tax recently, to pick just one example."
That really is a "we are doing this because its popular" , in fact the money thats mitigating these issuesm "from westminster" should be used to BUILD AFFORDABLE housing. so we would not need the bedroom tax at all.
is it fair for a Scot living in glasgow with 2 teenage kids who has just lost his/her job cannot get a 3 bedroom council house on a short term basis because people who do not need those bedrooms can sit in the council house for life?
i am not saying the bedroom tax solves this, but what else can be done when governments of either borders, will NEVER BE SEEN to force people out of 2+ bed council homes into 1 bed council homes , despite there being a real "need" case.
To repeat
Good old Scottish 'They're all out to get us!' at it's finest there with that post [ straw man, ad hom ]
I think you're totally wrongYour next reply should be entertaining
And your point is Junkyard? Please feel free to baffle us with some more clever linguistical abreviations that we'll all have to Google.
My point was that there's a lot of Scots posting on here who seem bitter and resentful about the union, probably because they themselves are not personally in a good place at the moment. They seem to want to blame the English, the Union, the Con/Dems, infact anyone but themselves for their own situation.
I'm not talking about the majority of Scots here, just a few vocal voices who through the style of their posts seem to think that there's a big conspiracy out there against Scotland.
Nothing could be further from the truth of course, but often people believe what they wish to believe and no doubt this will still influence their opinion come referendum time.
If the Tories have long enough after the vote,I can assure you we will NOT have so much cake forced down that we vomit. That is judging how badly Westminster cut the scottish budget after the poll in the 70's. George Younger had to go cap in hand to Westminster as he was to be choosing between schools and hospitals after the next budget.
Isn't today's affordable housing shortage Thatchers fault anyway? If we'd got independence in the 70's we wouldn't have this problem now. Nor would we have the bedroom tax 😉
They seem to want to blame the English, the Union, the Con/Dems, infact anyone but themselves for their own situation.
I dropped out of the debate for a bit a missed a few pages but I still haven't seen anyone blaming the English, just the Westminster government and the Tories. Very different thing.
My point was that there's a lot of Scots posting on here who seem bitter and resentful about the union, probably because they themselves are not personally in a good place at the moment. They seem to want to blame the English, the Union, the Con/Dems, the English, infact anyone but themselves for their own situation.
Nope,try harder...You seem very keen to make this an issue of race.
My recollection was that devo max was taken off the vote for the reason that interpreting the results might lead to some grey areas.
What if the result was that 90% vote yes for devo max and 50.0001% vote yes for independence.
What should the result be?
Devo max would appear to be the most democratic choice, but if the independence vote was also slightly positive that would overrule it.
So in the proposed referendum, the option with the greatest support might end up being ignored.
So why bother asking?
Like it or not, all or nothing gives a clearer decision, and prevents grey areas, no matter which side of the Yes/No divide you fall on.
Holyrood is only representative if you live in the central belt, where it regularly p*sses money up the wall. Can't wait for an independent Scotland where it sucks in even more tax payers money.
@bencooper - I do not think this Westminster Government nor the prior one is/was "out to get me"
I predict that should Scotland get independence the Scots will be far more hacked off with a Scottish Government than they ever were with Westminster
Like it or not, all or nothing gives a clearer decision, and prevents grey areas, no matter which side of the Yes/No divide you fall on.
It's an artificial divide though... forced to chose between Independence and the Status Quo, when you may well want neither.
I want the Scots to vote NO... but if I was a Scot forced to make that choice... I don't think I could vote for "more of the same" given political history of the last 40 years.
There is no "clarity" or "finality" in the decision that will come out of the referundum, because it delibrately avoids posing the question that people actually want asking... "do you want more say over your affairs in future, without breaking up the UK". That question will still hang in the air... whatever the result.
Do you think Holyrood is? or any politician for that matter?Broadly, yes. They're far from perfect, but doing a lot of good. Like mitigating the bedroom tax recently, to pick just one example.
Ben if you really believe that was done for anything more than it being popular then you are a mug.*
They are all the same, professional politicians who care more about their careers and egos than the people they are supposed to represent.
*To further support this statement, by your own admission you did buy a piece of scrap for £200. 🙂
Kelvin, go back a year or so and the dominant voice (here and elsewhere) was not about DMax or economic self-interest, it was about the principle of independence. It was very clear and honourable. That is what you have now on a plate with a simple yes and no. No ifs or buts, no are we better off in the ST or not. Just do you want full independence or not.
Ok, it's a bit tricky now that the BoD argues for something different, but whose fault is that? It would be a bit odd for the same people to start arguing that it's unfair to have a vote in full independence after all that they said in the beginning.
I predict that should Scotland get independence the Scots will be far more hacked off with a Scottish Government than they ever were with Westminster
For sure, but at least they will have voted them in. So Turkeys do vote for Xmas after all 😆
The Scots will vote NO.
So, what happens next?
The'll be told they've made their choice.
For a while clearly, no one welcomes the uncertainty/aggro which will only get worse over the next few months. There will be little appetite for more in the immediate aftermath. Leading to the obvious question.....
[....and if yes, two years of acrimonious negotiations. Well it will keep the politicos, journos and lawyers happy and in the money. Meanwhile, for the rest of us........]
No clarity or finality either way... which is what happens when people don't get to cast a vote for the result they actually want, but have to decide which of the options given to them is the least bad.
Ok once rebel12
And your point is Junkyard?
You were wrong but you are not going to admit that and apologise
Also you agreed with the post you described as totally wrong so I did not have high expectations for you to get a fairly basic point.
We know the content of your character as well as the content of your brains.
Please feel free to baffle us with some more clever linguistical abreviations that we'll all have to Google.
One word was abbreviated so it should be singular and I doubt anyone but you found them to be clever or required google to decipher
My point was that there's a lot of Scots posting on here who seem bitter and resentful about the union, probably because they themselves are not personally in a good place at the moment. They seem to want to blame the English, the Union, the Con/Dems, infact anyone but themselves for their own situation.
no there are the odd [s]troll[/s] person like you who tries to say this and provoke a reaction but there is no sabre rattling [ beyond banter] on either side of the fence [ except you]
Blimey, you almost feel a little sorry for dear nicola there. How much longer will the pretend assets/liabilities argument last I wonder?? We want a partnership (sic) to the lender of last resort question....does she have any idea what that means? You couldn't make it up.....that is really quite painful to watch. She must have had a very good legal training though as she managed to avoid blushing at any stage. May be she is also a good bridge/poker player?
TBF, the use of "Tory" and/or "bully" was a lot less than the normal script!!!
If we are sharing assets ,how much of the oil does the uk keep?
We know the content of your character as well as the content of your brains
Haha Junkyard that's a classic! You keep nit picking if that's what you like to do 😆
Nicola didn't come out of that very well did she? So there's no Plan B it would seem. With politicians like her on the side of the YES campaign it's no wonder Osbourne and Co won't debate the issues until they really have to - otherwise they'd be debating from now until the next millennium without her ever answering a straight question.
If we are sharing assets ,how much of the oil does the uk keep?
The oil and gas is a different matter. There's standard and well known rules for dividing off shore resources. 10% is roughly the amount that lie in rUK waters.
Bully ,does seem to be their buzz word. We have all 3 parties, the governor of the Bank of England ,that clever bloke from the video and the president of the eu all ganging up on little Alex.
The thing is if I was Scottish I would be voting yes ,purely for nationalistic reasons. The money side of it has come to the fore and no one seems to have any facts.
Thanks whatno beer I didn't know that.
Broadly, yes. They're far from perfect, but doing a lot of good. Like mitigating the bedroom tax recently, to pick just one example.
Hasn't Alex Salmond been acting in Donald Trump's interest?
Hasn't Alex Salmond been acting in Donald Trump's interest?
Considering Trump is wanting to sue the government because he thinks AS interfered with the wind farm decision, I wouldn't say he has.
Plan B, which isn't a great one, seems to be to use the pound, but have no say in it. That's the answer I thought she gave multiple times quite clearly. Also, I think she's right, not about independence being a good thing, I don't share that opinion at all, but that the UK parties are bluffing about currency union being impossible in a result of a YES vote. That decision hasn't really been made yet by rUK, the politicians are just pretending it has to try and make Independence a scarier prospect. Everything would be on the table in negotiations after a YES vote, rUK would dangle the carrot of currency union to make sure they kept full access to Scotland as a market, as a debt payer, and for its resources.
Hasn't Alex Salmond been acting in Donald Trump's interest?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/defeated-donald-trump-turns-his-back-on-scotland-1-3301941
The one thing they are not doing is bluffing. The stakes have been raised and both sides are playing a much higher risk game now. Time to play with the big boys. This has all be careful choreographed and interesting to see just how canny Darling has played his cards here. Easy to underestimate the quiet ones!!
Dear Nicola may be struggling a little bit, but even she is not stupid enough to argue the case of just using the pound in isolation. One of the key drivers of the Scottish economy is financial services. Doesn't anyone imagine for one moment that a bank would remain domiciled in a country without a lender of last resort. To throw that idea into the mix would be economic and political suicide.
OK but didnt he originally approve the plans for the development in somewhat dodgy circumstances? Overriding local planning etc?
kelvin - MemberPlan B, which isn't a great one, seems to be to use the pound, but have no say in it. That's the answer I thought she gave multiple times quite clearly.
She mentioned that yes, but at no point committed to that being their plan b.
BTW is he still planning to undercut UK corporation tax? Doesn't seem to fit very well with the socialist utopian vision.
Grum, the wind was blowing from the other direction at that point. 😉 Its a stormy "Southerly" one now!!
Undercut taxes, outdo on spending etc.....you name it.....
Surprised dear Nicola hasn't jumped on the fact that Macpherson is an OE!!! It could be another distraction while she draws breath.
In that video the man hits on uk students having to pay in Scotland.
If scotland joins the eu how would that arrangement hold up under eu law?
The one thing they are not doing is bluffing.
I dont share your confidence as neither side has much to gain from the Pound not being shared tbh. That is it will cost both sides real money to do this and will create lots of problems and hassles for no real gain.
Will they do this when it is a reality - I doubt it in much the same way as I doubt scotland will not take on any of the debts - its more likely than that though but I still think it is brinkmanship. The outcome, as with so much of this will all depend on the negotiations
And here's Ed Balls' view in the Scotsman today:
And as Chancellor in a UK Labour government after the general election, I simply could not support or recommend to Parliament that we form a currency union with a separate Scotland. [b] Looking at the economics of this, it’s the only conclusion I can reach. A currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is not going to happen.[/b]........[doesnt sound like a bluff to me]....
.....Alex Salmond must now come clean and explain to the Scottish people what currency an independent Scotland would have. [b]It is the most fundamental economic question a country has to decide.[/b] The troubled experience of the euro over the last decade shows why it’s so vital to get this right.
She mentioned that yes, but at no point committed to that being their plan b.
That's because the commentators are trying to get her to commit to a plan b, which would then be taken as saying that it is going to happen, where as she is trying to maintain that: just because Gideon/Balls/Alexander say that there wouldn't be currency union does not make it so.
Doesn't anyone imagine for one moment that a bank would remain domiciled in a country without a lender of last resort
They better get out of the UK sharpish, then - the UK couldn't bail out British banks without help from the US Federal Reserve.
MMM just read some more on this
It may indeed not be a bluff
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26170638
Still not sure anyone can say with any confidence what will happen but yes he has a hard sell to convince rUK.
And as Chancellor in a UK Labour government after the general election, I simply could not support or recommend to Parliament that we form a currency union with a separate Scotland.
If he was, and if he did, then hopefully there would be plenty of MPs in Parliament that realise Ed Balls is the last man on earth you should take advice from on an economic decision that big.
Ben, not so fast. They bailed out the US bits and in response they are now requiring US subsidiaries to be independently capitalised. It's a major headache for European banks now. At least in some quarters, the lessons of the crisis have been learned.
kelvin - Member
just because Gideon/Balls/Alexander say that there wouldn't be currency union does not make it so.
Are you suggesting that UKIP will win the next election. Quick where's my passport.....
No [b]teamhurtmore[/b], but I am suggesting that what these people say now is not a good guide to what they would actually do after a YES vote. There's also every chance that none of these three will have as big as say in the decision as they suggest or think.
I was joking!!!
But the serious point, is that this is not the unilateral decision that the SNP like to pretend it is. And it is very, very unusual for civil servants to be so clear, so far in advance in what their advice will be commeth the dreaded hour!
And the advice:
If you follow Treasury advice and this week rule out a currency union in the event of Scottish independence, you can expect the Scottish Government to threaten not to take on its share of the United Kingdom’s debt. [u]I do not believe this is a credible threat[/u]. First, the sooner an independent Scotland established economic credibility, the better it would be for its economic performance. An extensive wrangle about its share of the debt would increase uncertainty and hence its funding costs. Secondly, the debt is one of a number of issues which would have to be settled post independence, where the new Scottish state would require the cooperation of the international community including the continuing UK.
There you have it. The advice is call their bluff.
Can we not just sell or privatise Scotland as some kind of theme park. Sort of sell it to the Scots somehow???
You could have the
Outdoors Mountain Zone
The Nessy Zone
Whisky & Buckfast Bar
Nuclear Sub World - Life in the Faslane
Photo with Rab C Nesbitt for a $1 Braveheart Dollar
Bit like selling the Royal Mail really
Can we not just sell or privatise Scotland as some kind of theme park. Sort of sell it to the Scots somehow???
Quite a bit of the highlands is already like this. Although in this theme park you get a gun.
Something that irks me about the YES campaigners.
This is all about the right of Scotland to Self Determination, a fine and noble concept we can all agree on.
So why, when the UK exercises that very same right - the right to determine the financial path that is in the best interests of the country - are Scottish toys thrown out of the pram amid screams of bullying?
As pointed out before the rUK has an election in 2015. A mandate for a currency union needs to be obtained then.
Getting the rUK to give up some sovereignty in these circumstances is going to be challenging.
Hence I don't think it will happen
THM - apparently, regardless of the argument over necessity of joining the Euro - it would be impossible for Scotland to just use the Pound as a base currency and gain EU membership, since that would leave them without a central bank!
ownership of CB is required for full EU membership due to the European system of Central Banks, according to the treaty on the functioning of the EU - Luxembourg had to create one in 1998 to fulfil membership criteria.
There goes plan B 😆
Is that so - I am little hazy on the technicalities of EU membership for obvious reasons! But that makes sense. They also need their own regulator for € entry. Equally, the lender of last resort is so fundamental which is why no one seriously gives the idea much credence outside idle gossip/speculation.
I am not sure that this necessarily kills plan B - it just has to be determined how an independent currency would work and how the infrastructure that supports it would be put in place. The SNP have had years to think about this, so it will be easy to roll out. Their advisors have also done plenty on it. Failing that, my fees are really quite reasonable!?! But it pretty simple really and indeed not a bad option. As the NIESR conclude, "The Scots pound option has the highest transaction costs and least assistance with financial support but also the greatest degree of flexibility in monetary, exchange rate and fiscal policy terms."
This all reminds me of when M&A deal fever sets in with companies. At the start, they say we want to acquire a company to fill a square hole. Sadly, there are no square bricks available. But there is a rather pretty triangular one. Cue sensible men and women now trying to explain how a square hole is actually triangular or that a triangular brick is actually square. When this all fails, someone just goes "sod it" and tries to force the said brick into the said hole, breaking everything in the process. For deal fever, think referendum fever......
...as I mentioned before, all very funny except for the fact that the outcomes are very serious in this case. Not that dear Nicola seemed to get that.
Lots of broadsheet/news media comments on how a so-called "canny politician" has allowed himself to get boxed in so badly. Welcome to the big boys world......
AS and NS will have their day again though, these things are never smooth and they will be stinging from today. The bully card will help them through in the ST but they need a new LT answer and quickly.
Something that irks me about the YES campaigners.
This is all about the right of Scotland to Self Determination, a fine and noble concept we can all agree on.
So why, when the UK exercises that very same right - the right to determine the financial path that is in the best interests of the country - are Scottish toys thrown out of the pram amid screams of bullying?
Because, basically, the assumption seems to be that the pound isn't ours already. It is - it belongs equally to everyone in the UK. Osborne is saying we can't have something that's already ours. Now this is nothing new - this is the man who presided over selling our Royal Mail back to us - but it seems a bit of a cheek.
The second factor is that the Westminster government said that the referendum was a matter for the people of a Scotland. It was supposed to be a discussion between the Yes and No campaigns with Westminster stating out of it until there's a result, then negotiations could begin about how independence would come about if that's what the people of Scotland voted for.but now we have all the Westminster parties jumping in on the no side.
The interesting thing is that everyone's at the bridge burning stage. The Lib Dems are already dead, but people in Scotland won't forget Labour standing side-by-side with the Tories.
it belongs equally to everyone in the UK.
Therefore, it does not belong to any country not in the UK.
No one is stopping you using the pound - the UK is simply protecting its interests in not entering a formal currency union.
By all means use the pound as a currency, just don't expect UK taxpayers to be your bail out option. That surely cannot be hard to understand?
Because, basically, the assumption seems to be that the pound isn't ours already. It is - it belongs equally to everyone in the UK. Osborne is saying we can't have something that's already ours.
But does it belong to Scotland? Surely Scotland has the pound by virtue of being part of the UK? If Scotland leaves should it not ergo give up the pound & have its own independent currency? It does seem rather like the Yes contingency want their cake & eat it?
Ben:
No it doesn't - thats the point.
Why, because while the vote is for Scots, the outcome affects us all. Therefore it would be naive to think that rUK would be idle and passive bystanders
Sounds like a threat 😉 !!
I admit that with yS incorrecly framing the issue as an assets/liability question its bloody confusing (deliberately), but what they are doing is simply an clever version of the missing dollar trick
Three guests check into a hotel room. The clerk says the bill is $30, so each guest pays $10. Later the clerk realizes the bill should only be $25. To rectify this, he gives the bellhop $5 to return to the guests. On the way to the room, the bellhop realizes that he cannot divide the money equally. As the guests didn't know the total of the revised bill, the bellhop decides to just give each guest $1 and keep $2 for himself. Each guest got $1 back: so now each guest only paid $9; bringing the total paid to $27. The bellhop has $2. And $27 + $2 = $29 so, if the guests originally handed over $30, what happened to the remaining $1?
All smokes and mirrors
Scottish Independence is a matter for Scotland alone - entering into a formal currency union advocated by a newly Independent Scotland is an entirely different matter and one which concerns every citizen of the UK, so the UK party leaders are entirely within their remit to both comment on & announce policy on the subject.
When you propose currency union its not just about you and your demands anymore.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
"it belongs equally to everyone in the UK."
Therefore, it does not belong to any country not in the UK.
Yes, but in case you haven't noticed, England is not the UK either.
Yes, but in case you haven't noticed, England is not the UK either.
So you're advocating the dissolution of the pound then?
Therefore, it does not belong to any country not in the UK.
And as scotland are it it partly belongs to them
or if you prefer
So the debts are not theirs either
And it is very, very unusual for civil servants to be so clear, so far in advance in what their advice will be commeth the dreaded hour!
That is the thing that makes it very real IMHO
What the politicians say can be taken with a pinch of salt/electioneering/cynicism that they dont mean what they say
The CS is impartial and has to be trusted
On the debt issue expect scotland to argue as I just did with the Cpt.
rUK cannot have it both ways - keep the good stuff for themselves but share the crap equally. The independence lot cannot do it either...like all divirces it will be messy, vitrolic and leave an aftershock for years
Annex A of today's report
A.1The Scottish Government’s White Paper, Scotland’s Future: Your guide to an independent Scotland, states that “the pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK’s”. The Scottish Government’s Fiscal Commission proposed that an independent Scotland seek to retain the UK pound as part of a formal monetary union with the rest of the UK. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government, John Swinney MSP, has argued that the Bank of England is “as much our bank as it is anybody else’s”.
[b]These assertions are premised on a misunderstanding of the nature of a system of currency and a flawed analysis of the legal position of the UK pound and the Bank of England. Members of the Scottish Government, have in their public statements, continually conflated the UK pound as a currency with the issue of assets and liabilities, even suggesting that an independent Scottish state would refuse to take its share of liabilities if the continuing UK did not agree to share the UK pound as part of a currency union....[/b]
...[b]It is important to be clear what the UK pound as a currency is and why it is not an asset.[/b] A currency is a system of exchange, a unit of purchasing power that works when others recognise it as having value. Currency does not have to be the coins or bills which are used by most states; it could be anything that people agree represents value. The UK pound is underpinned by a legal, institutional and administrative framework which enables it to function as a medium of exchange, a store of value, a unit of account and a medium for deferred payment.
It goes on, but you get the legal gist. Page 52 onwards if you want the nitty-gritty!
Like the word "bully", the more yS use the notion of assets and liabilities, the more you know they are flawed in their thinking or simply being deceitful. My money is on the latter. But lets see.....
"The lib dems are dead. People in Scotland will not forget labour standing side by side with the Tories." If we are independent is there any point of a general election? I sense 99% approval polls for Dear Leader.
Ha THM you beat me to it - the pound is not an asset, nor any medium of exchange.
Difficult to explain why unless you include basic economics and central bank theory, but people need to understand this as makes most of the comments on this thread and elsewhere completely irrelevant.
Therefore, it does not belong to any country not in the UK.
Does that logic apply to other things that belong equally to all UK citizens, like foreign currency reserves, military assets, embassies, etc?
Sounds a lot like you're saying the people of Scotland, who helped pay for these assets, shouldn't have a share in them.
As an economist I have stated this several times bainbrge and generally get flamed for telling the truth. Its quite funny. But the sad thing is that AS is also an economist and knows this as well and you and me. Hence the only conclusion is that he is being deliberately deceitful.
Not sure about dear Nicola, she is a law graduate. GO read history but at least he has listened to his advisors!!!
Genuine question. What is it about the pound that SNP say makes it an asset?
Genuine question. What is it about the pound that SNP say makes it an asset?
The reserves held by the Bank of England, for a start. Over $5bn of the foreign currency reserves belong to Scotland.
Athgray, Its the same as the missing dollar puzzle - its a sleight of hand and sounds plausible. In the case of the missing dollar the $2 should be subtracted not added - in this case yS deliberately and deceitfully swap assets and liabilities around - currency is a liability technically (look where it sits on a CB balance sheet). But yS are using an age old ploy and so far its worked pretty well. Point out the basic fallacy though and you become a bully!!! 😉
Ben, reserves are not currency.
surely it is an intangible asset ?It has some value* in terms of recognition and trust within the market place. Given the importance of banking here it probably punches above its weight as a medium for international trade. to claim this has no value as it could be anything is an argument i would need explaining in some detail [ probably very slowly and simply]
I am not getting the technical angle tbh.
* if not just give it up then as it is worthless, Can you see them doing this? Of course not as it does have value - which is indeed what the bit thm said - it tells you it is not an asset then tells you it has value
It is important to be clear what the UK pound as a currency is and why it is not an asset. A currency is a system of exchange, a unit of purchasing power that works when others recognise it as having value.
Its little wonder we dont understand economics tbh [ insert own punchline]
The reserves held by the Bank of England, for a start. Over $5bn of the foreign currency reserves belong to Scotland.
Source?
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/osbourne-says-no-to-currency-union/page/12#post-5772913 ]SOURCE[/url]
EDIT: lame joke linking back to bens post so save yourself some time
I have no idea if true or false tbh
Sounds a lot like you're saying the people of Scotland, who helped pay for these assets, shouldn't have a share in them.
A currency isn't an asset though. A reputation can be (for good or ill). That's what is being argued about - not the pound itself but the reputation and the history that goes with it.
The people of Scotland are of course welcome to keep their memories of what we used to do together, both the good and the bad.
Source?
Then divide by the percentage of the UK population who live in Scotland.
but rUK gets to keep the asset that has no value because ........
why do rUK care what happens to it then if it has no value?
Seriously why care if it has no value?
Seriously why care if it has no value?
So the rUK can choose to run its economic policies how it sees fit without reference to Scotland. And vice-versa of course.
Then divide by the percentage of the UK population who live in Scotland.
So we could use the same formula to work out Scotland's share of the debt too?
So the rUK can choose to run its economic policies how it sees fit without reference to Scotland. And vice-versa of course.
which does not require rUK to keep the valueless pound so again why do they care?