[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

40 vs. 1300 isn't an all-out response, it's tickling a giant and getting swatted.

Are you serious.

If you delivered 40 x 475kt warheads you could destroy all of the principal cities in Russia. Hardly tickling.

Besides, the main reason to have them is so you don't have to use them.

I would suggest that the people of Edinburgh have more in common with Londoners than they do with the people of Skye or Orkney.

I would suggest that Edinburgh is a small city with less than 500,000 people living in it. It makes very little difference what the people of Edinburgh think if the rest of Scotland choose to vote differently. It's a bit like the ratio of Scotland to rUK in that respect. The smaller place is so greatly outnumbered that it has effectively no say in the matter.

If you delivered 40 x 475kt warheads you could destroy all of the principal cities in Russia. Hardly tickling.

Great, so the only effective use for these weapons is to kill millions of civilians - that's neither moral, or militarily effective.

So, run through the scenario. Say we're getting involved in a war with Russia - at what point do we launch the nukes? If Russia invades the Ukraine? If Russia invades Western Europe? If Russian aircraft invade our airspace?

Bearing in mind that, as soon as we launch the nukes, the UK ceases to exist.

So when does it make more sense to launch the nukes than not launch them? Never.

Besides, the main reason to have them is so you don't have to use them.

That only works if your opponent thinks you might carry out your threat. Since there's no way we could use the nukes without being obliterated, there's no scenario apart from all-out nuclear war where they would be used. And in all-out nuclear war we'd all be dead, so it wouldn't matter.

Also, if nuclear weapons are such a vital part of national defence, why do most countries not have them?

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound? After seeing how much trouble the Euro is to small countries like Greece and Germany effectively controlling their budgets why is he so keen on a currency union if he wants independence? Seems a no brainer that Scotland could have it's own currency though I guess it has the possibility of being a petro currency. He just seems to be shooting himself in the foot being so inflexible and he sounds a bit crazy saying it is Scotland's pound and the rest of the UK must let them share it.

Also, if nuclear weapons are such a vital part of national defence, why do most countries not have them?

Or another question is "Who could we nuke 40 times that wouldnt lead to us being wiped off the face of the planet?"

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?

Salmond first said that a iS would have a member on the BOE Monetary Policy Committee but he's since changed his mind to only having an observer.
It makes little sense for an independent country to have no influence on it's interest rates, they'd be better off starting fresh with their own currency.

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?

There was an independent Commission set up to look into it, comprising a bunch of experts including a couple of Nobel Prize winners. They came back with several options, and said that the preferred option was for Scotland to continue to use Sterling as part of a currency union, and that was the best option for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

So Salmond is keen on it because the experts said it was the best option.

Whereas Osborne's objection to it is based on a three-page memo produced on demand by one civil servant.

Whereas Osborne's objection to it is based on a three-page memo produced on demand by one civil servant.

.......... and public opinion in rUK

.......... and public opinion in rUK

Which was what before the three-page memo and the better together scare tactics?

Oh, and for completeness, the other options are:

- Use Sterling without a currency union
- Use a Scottish currency pegged to Sterling
- Use a Scottish currency not pegged to Sterling
- Use the Euro

All options have pros and cons, none of them is a deal-breaker. This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.

.......... and public opinion in rUK

Since when was public opinion the best guide on financial policy?

Since when was public opinion the best guide on financial policy?

Well the Scots seem to be using as a basis to decide theirs, by way of a referendum for independence. Maybe it isn't the best way, perhaps a committee could decide for them?

This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.

Which makes it all the more bizarre that AS won't just come out and say so. Perhaps it's important after all?

Well the Scots seem to be using as a basis to decide theirs, by way of a referendum for independence. Maybe it isn't the best way, perhaps a committee could decide for them?

Oh do try to keep up. The referendum is about way more than financial policy. On the list of things that make me want Scotland to become independent financial policy is probably in around 50th place.

I can see it may be better for the UK as a whole but then I suppose it could be deduced that it would be better for Scotland to remain as part of the UK for the whole British Isles economy. From a political point of view and the climate of non-cooperation a currency union seems like a backward step for independence. When they go on about the Euro it is always no currency union without political union.

Makes independence seem a bit of a waste of time if:

[*]The economy/interest rates are decided as they are at the moment but with even less control for Scotland. (If there is a currency union.)[/*]
[*]Discounting the powers that devolved Scotland already has, or have been promised[/*]
[*]Discounting the powers/laws that are collectively decided at the European level[/*]

Which makes it all the more bizarre that AS won't just come out and say so. Perhaps it's important after all?

He should come out and say "the experts want this option but we want a different one"?

Anyway, he effectively has. He's said we'll keep the pound, which means either in a currency union or not. The pound is an internationally traded currency, no-one can stop us using it, and if the rUK wants to cut off it's own nose by refusing a currency union then that's what we'll do.

Isn't it interesting the way Better Together have fixated on the currency argument? It's as if they don't have any other arguments to make.

Well, yes, but that would be silly. Do I really need to explain how polling works?

Yup, Dumfries, the Borders and Fife are where Yes needs to do the most work I think.

Anyway, he effectively has. He's said we'll keep the pound, which means either in a currency union or not. The pound is an internationally traded currency, no-one can stop us using it, and if the rUK wants to cut off it's own nose by refusing a currency union then that's what we'll do.

Of course anybody can use it but third parties do not have any control over money supply or interest rates. Look at Greece for what happens if things go pear shaped.

If you want independence then go for it. The whole way currency included otherwise you will just blame the UK for everything that doesn't work. The only convincing argument I've heard so far was that people don't care if it doesn't work out because at least it will be scotts screwing it up not English people.

If you want independence then go for it. The whole way currency included otherwise you will just blame the UK for everything that doesn't work. The only convincing argument I've heard so far was that people don't care if it doesn't work out because at least it will be scotts screwing it up not English people.

The Flying Ox - Member
Do try to keep up mate. It's me, not gobuchul, you're talking to ...

Aye, sorry about that. Spotted it too late to edit. Must have gone batshit mental or something... 🙂

...So back to the point at hand: is it OK for me to be a second class citizen based upon how I vote? ...

Sadly that's one of problems with democracy. There will always be someone who doesn't get what they want, but the majority do.

The only way to avoid that is to establish an oligarchy on top of a pseudo democracy and be a member of the oligarchic group.

The great thing about the UK is that you do have that opportunity.

Just make several million pound donations to a suitable political party, and you can join the House of Lords, no worries about those pesky elections, and you remain in a position of power for the rest of your life. You must admit Lord Flying Ox of Rotten Borough has a ring to it. 🙂

Just make several million pound donations to a suitable political party, and you can join the House of Lords,

You must admit Lord Flying Ox of Rotten Borough has a ring to it

This is a "do we have marble or granite worktops in the kitchen?" discussion, not a "do we buy the house?" discussion.

Ben that's not a bad summary but their/your conclusion is highly subjective. The Nobel prize winners (to the extent that this is relevant) merely laid out the various options that any A level economics student would be able to lay out. They did add some context to it which may be a bit beyond a school child. There was then a major jump between the analysis and the front page of the report which jumps to his spurious conclusion about not only what is best for Scotland but then extended this to what is also best for the rUK supposedly. But this is where the schoolboy can step in as the only real benefit to the rUK would be lower transaction costs. Business and officials deem these to be less important than the obvious disadvantages and impractical nature of the solution. So we (all parties) have been clear in saying no thank you very much.

Now the DO keeps trying to tell us (bluff or bully us) into accepting that we are all wrong. But we are not having any to it indeed Ed M is not going to make a manifesto commitment ruling a CU out. How clear does this need to be? And then we get the lies about currencies being assets, walking away from debt etc. Again, that is when you know the DO is losing it. It's his, "oh shit, I'm screwed" default position.

Of course, to repeat myself, both the DO and the fiscal commission argue that the interrelated nature of two economies (rUK and iS) and other factors mean that the best solution is to have the same currency and the BOE having operational independence over monetary policy instruments with Westminster setting the parameters for monetary and fiscal policy. In other words, what we have now,

Brilliant!! Time and money saved, STFU salmond & co. Vote No and do what is everyone's best interests. It really is so simple.

I would suggest that Edinburgh is a small city with less than 500,000 people living in it. It makes very little difference what the people of Edinburgh think if the rest of Scotland choose to vote differently. It's a bit like the ratio of Scotland to rUK in that respect. The smaller place is so greatly outnumbered that it has effectively no say in the matter.

It's also a bit like the ratio of London to the UK as well, but when that argument is posed then the relationship is somehow skewed to London's favour. But then in the last election more Labour MPs were elected to London seats than those of any other party, so it seems a little unfair to blame the Londoners for all of Scotland's ills when they've voted for the very people that Scotland moans about not being elected? Unless you're talking about the issue with Parliament being centralised in London and therefore taking on a London-centric viewpoint when deciding upon and implementing policies, which is basically the same point gobuchul makes about the Scottish Parliament being centralised in Edinburgh. But you appear to be refuting that.

So what do you actually mean?

Given that you appear to have no idea what cognitive dissonance actually is I'm not surprised it boggles your mind.

To answer your question I'll ask two questions. Where is the money and power located in Scotland? Where is the money and power located in the UK. I suspect that you will not get the answer to the first question correct.

THM, Salmond isn't delusional. Regardless of his public pronoucements I have little doubt that he and the SNP cabinet know full well that they will struggle to join the EU, that they have no chance of a shared currency with the UK, and zero chance of retaining naval shipbuilding and so on.

Salmond's objective is independence and he will tell people whatever they want to hear to curry favour temporarily and get their vote - he is perfectly willing to mislead, fudge statements and tell everything up to and including downright lies in order to win the referendum. He will worry about clearing up the economic and political crisis he has created after the vote in the unlikely event he wins it.

Whats for sure is that if he does win, any and every problem encountered by the new state will continue to be blamed on the evil Westminster government , either due to intransigence in the post referendum negotiation of assets, or their behind the scenes bullying and political machinations which will be blamed for holding up EU membership, international investment etc.

put simply, The Scottish people are being sold a pup - what I personally really begrudge is the fact that [u]when[/u] it all goes tits up, it will be us, the rest of the UK, that end up bailing them out (again) against our own will, just like we had to with Ireland!

Salmond's objective is independence and he will tell people whatever they want to hear to curry favour temporarily and get their vote - he is perfectly willing to mislead, fudge statements and tell everything up to and including downright lies in order to win the referendum. He will worry about clearing up the economic and political crisis he has created after the vote in the unlikely event he wins it.

You are telling me this????

Actually, I don't agree. Your fourth word is incorrect. He doesn't want independence at all that is why he has been caught with his pants down over the currency. This is the elephant in the room that is now trammelling the yS case underfoot. Not that there has been a case ever.

Replace that with power/ego/vanity and it reads much better.

Given that you appear to have no idea what cognitive dissonance actually is I'm not surprised it boggles your mind.

To answer your question I'll ask two questions. Where is the money and power located in Scotland? Where is the money and power located in the UK. I suspect that you will not get the answer to the first question correct.

Isn't it interesting the way Better Together have fixated on the currency argument? It's as if they don't have any other arguments to make.

Ben, it's simole again. Imagine discussing the correct bike to go and ride on and exclude the frame. It may be interesting to discuss the bell and the water bottle but if you miss out the centre bit, the whole thing becomes irrelevant and unridable.

Would you let someone out of the shop without the frame!

The other problem you have is that the main man actually wants the red, white and blue version not the blue and white frame.

You're asking me questions purely about the current state of affairs. I'm asking you questions about your position regarding the current state of affairs vs how things might be in an independent Scotland. Two different things. I'm not sure how "London" and "London" strengthens your case.

Have you been drinking?

No, I'm at work extracting lots of lovely *UK* oil. But thanks anyway for the lazy slurs regarding my personal habits. Can you say [i]ad hominem[/i]?

Glug, glug..
[i]
.. ad homonu.. ad homime.. ad himonim..
[/i]
No.

Can someone fill me in with the background on why Alex Salmond is so so keen to keep the pound?

because he is trying to set up the very best position for an iS

like with a divorce - he wants the kids, the house, the car, the savings and the pension out of the settlement, then after a long negotiation, agree somewhere in-between

and then in 10 years time (or whenever the EU and economy dictates) ditch pound sterling for the euro

swopping 300 years of horrible evil english overlords for their new exciting federal german overlords instead.... 😆

epicyclo - Member

It's not Gibson we admire, it's what William Wallace achieved.

Oh did I get that wrong ? Dammit !

Who was William Wallace then ?

ernie_lynch - Member
Oh did I get that wrong ? Dammit !

Who was William Wallace then ?

A Mel Gibson wannabe? 🙂

[img] [/img]

😆

Frankenstein, the more appropriate costume for Darling is John Balliol. 🙂

Went out on the bikes with Scotroutes today.

Good day out it was.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cfzxk ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cfzxk[/url]

listen from 9mins37sec

C

Just saw a nice wee graphic on Twitter.[img] :large[/img]

The graphic isn't totally accurate in that the amounts should be in $ rather than £, but it's still a shed load of bailing out.

Dont recall hearing much about any of that at the time...

It was actually on BBC news (iirc) at the time regarding US Federal input. It's been mentioned on these forums quite a few times as well.

But I assumed as it wasn't UK taxpayer money nobody gave too much of a shit.

Dont recall hearing much about any of that at the time...

It's been in the public domain for years, certainly from well before when this referendum debate began. From 4 years ago :

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed ]British banks account for $640 bn of Federal Reserve bailout money[/url]

UK contribution to the bailout of British banks was £124billion, what could Scotland have afforded ? And would the Federal Reserve have seen the same urgency as it did for the whole of the UK had Scotland simply existed as a small independent country ? You need to ask yourself that.

BTW I believe that when banks get into difficulties and need propping up it is sometimes useful not to reveal too much, for obvious reasons.

Wanmankylung it's worth getting your info from better sources than that. The UK banks were bailed out through direct equity investments from HMG, various forms of loan guarantees from same source, and liquidity schemes from BoE. All underwritten by the UK taxpayer including you.

Feel free to correct me but I think the US government ended up funding many UK and worldwide banks because it decided to stand behind positions taken by US banks in difficulty, and also I think derivative positions taken by AIG. Effectively the US paid out on debts owed by its own financial institutions, or I suppose continued financing arrangements in place.

The above graphic only proves one thing, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

That is a sad and rather desperate poster

The info in the poster appears to come from a good source - i.e. the one above.

Makes you wonder why there is so much austerity...

Might be a good idea to read the report and understand how it works.....

bainbrge, I think the point the Nats are trying to make is that an independent Scotland would not have been at a disadvantage during the bailout period since the banks received so much support from the US.

Oh I understand how it works. I also understand your motivation for keeping on posting in a thread about scottish independence when you will have very little input into the final outcome.

Apples and oranges isn't it?

UK government made a capital investment, ie. put money into the bank in return for shares in the ownership of the bank

As I understand it the US fed reserve was largely short term borrowing, so if I borrowed $100 million overnight, that I used to buy a load of Euro's, and then sold them the next day at a profit and repaid the loan then I have borrowed $100 million - if I keep hold of the shares for five days and then repaid then this would show in the records as me borrowing $500 million

THM, is that right?

The point the nats are trying to make is that if the federal reserve bailed out british banks to such a degree, what did westminster and the bank of england actually do?

for keeping on posting in a thread about scottish independence when you will have very little input into the final outcome.

How do you know that THM "will have very little input into the final outcome" ?

For all you know thousands of Scots who were formally Yes supporters have changed their minds due to THM's persuasive posts. Well maybe two have.

😀 Ernie!

We just have to deal with the consequences of a bafooon and his announcements.

Ask yourself what function the Fed was providing when it made those sums available and then have a little think about what was being proposed over the past few days. Then you quickly realise why the poster is BS that is typical of yS.

Sounds persuasive (like claiming a currency is an asset) but actually simple deceit. Desperate times....

The BOE actions are different correct - again all in the public domain.

wanmankylung - Member
Oh I understand how it works.

Excellent, so I look forward to your explanation of why the poster is at best misleading ( the polite response )

...and please also explain why whoever made it couldn't be arsed to phrase it properly in English and use the correct currency.

A question.

Let's assume independence happens and the rUK decides not to "share" the £.

It looks like then Scotland won't accept responsibility for the debt.

From what I have seen in the financial press a lot of the faith in the £ is because of oil reserves which will then be predominantly in Scotland.

Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)

Or will it rise because the rUK has got rid of its subsidy junkies?

There would (hypothetically) be volatility due to the uncertainty and time it would take to sort the inevitable mess out. But it is largely irrelevant because there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default. It would have to raise substantial amounts from international markets and you don't start that programme by showing that your do not behave responsibly. Outside the deceitful one, there are few people (in the know) even mumbling the idea of not compensating rUK. Why should they, it's shooting yourself in the foot.

Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction - get the options handbooks out!

teamhurtmore - Member
...there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default...

Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction - get the options handbooks out!

Something I am not clear on. Who owes the debt? The Bank of England owned by the govt, or the actual govt?

If it is the BoE and we don't get our share, I can understand not taking its debts.

If it's the govt I don't understand the complexities involved, but feel we should take a share.

Volatility tends to be too exciting for me 🙂 I usually take long positions.

The government owes it. The actually debt is issued by the Debt Management Office (part of HM Treasury) on behalf of the government [b]not the BOE. [/b]. The BOE no longer plays any part in this process (since the last 1990s). The debt is a liability for the government - it ultimately has to pay the money back (or at least be able to) plus interest to the investors who lend the money.

The debt cannot actually be split between countries in the event of a separation - that would constitute a technical default and HM Treasury has been clear about this. The issue is quite simple. All parts of the UK have benefited from the services provided by the UK and paid for by the debt (the Fiscal Commission is also clear on this). An iS would compensate the rUK for this benefit, that is what would be negotiated in terms of how much and how ie a one off payment or staged payments. The rest is just noise designed to deceive.

You do have to wonder who is writing the DOs speeches and advising him at the moment. The latest BS today about wanting its share of the BOE is patent nonsense. The only good thing would be if, as part of the required due diligence, the DO looked at the balance sheet of the BOE to see which side the current sits on. So his argument becomes we won't take on your liabilities unless you agree to give us a share of your liabilities. You couldn't make it up.....

Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)

Indeed especially the way Jim Sillars described in the week. Kerching for the speculators!!!!

Boris Johnson, who may well end up being the next PM, says there is no reason to give the Scottish parliament any more powers after a No vote.

In relation to other parts of the UK, he is probably right. As I said earlier, Pandora's box has been opened by all three parties promising more devolution. It will create an unbalanced democratic process across the UK.

Scotland could start by fully using the powers it already has....

Johnson is the same person who said that a pound spent in Croydon was worth a lot more than a pound spent in Strathclyde.

But more importantly it shows up the "more powers" thing for the lie it is - if there really were going to be more powers after a No vote, they would have been mentioned in the Queen's speech, there would be pending legislation in the works, there would be detail of exactly what powers are coming.

Since there's none of that, we can safely assume that if there's a No vote then Scotland goes back to being ignored again.

Ben that is clearly not the case. Remind us what role has at the moment? Then remind us what the current leaders of political parties have already promised? Then reconcile with the above.

Scotland ignored...c'mon...

You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today...

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots[b] backed by the strength of the UK’[/b]

Ie, vote No. Brilliant.

No hint of independence at all....now there's a surprise

You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today...

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’
Ie, vote No. Brilliant.

The Scotsman? You mean this Scotsman article?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/yes-and-no-campaigns-reveal-september-battle-plans-1-3504618

Where that exact quote is used - except it was said by Danny Alexander of Better Together 😀

‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’

Douglas Alexander MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

Breaking News!!!!! Douglas Alexander has defected to the Yes side!!!

Either that or a fail by THM. Perhaps it's time to take a break THM?

Ahem It was Douglas Alexander of Better Together not Danny but an easy mistake to make .

Ha, yes, wrong clone 😉

I sometimes get the two Blairs mixed up too, that's worse as they're on opposite sides...

Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control. For example those controlled by international treaties, (eu, world trade, tafta), other countries and global corporations.

As a smaller country is there more or less chance of getting pushed around by these actors outside of the countries control?

Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control.

We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.

Of course, like almost all countries, we'll give up some of that control via treaties and the like, but as an independent country we will have the ability to negotiate those treaties ourselves, instead of hoping that the UK government will act in our interests.

Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394565144/big-independence-lie-scotland-could-keep-pound

I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.

Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.

Nah, September 19th will be a tartan apocalypse. All will collapse into chaos and despair.

I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.

This whole "you can't stop us using the £" nonsense is the greatest demonstration of a textbook strawman argument we're ever likely to see on a stage this big.

There is a problem in that it's always reported as "you can't use the pound" "you can't stop us using the pound" when in fact we all know that there's no way the rUK could stop iScotland using the pound - the discussion is all really about whether we have a currency union or not.

An independent Scotland will use the pound - whether that's with a currency union or not is up for negotiation after the referendum.

I'd prefer either of plans b,c or d to plan a.