Scottish Independence discussion area

porsche959 wrote: »

"they will simply have no control over it"

Which is no change from current position - so what's all the scaremongering from No side about then?

If an independent Scotland uses the pound Sterling without entering into a formal currency agreement with the UK then they will be unable to borrow money and will have to run a surplus on every budget. That's not scaremongering.

Billy86

George Galloway's hat.

That is all.

barney4001

ld not keep their noses out of it could they

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/Orange-Order-to-march-to-stop-Scottish-independence-from-UK.html

barney4001 wrote: »

they could not keep their noses out of it could they=1

Sorry, can't read that, first sentence put me off.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If an independent Scotland uses the pound Sterling without entering into a formal trade agreement with the UK then they will be unable to borrow money and will have to run a surplus on every budget. That's not scaremongering.

It is scaremongering, because the hypothetical chain of events you've set out here is entirely implausible.

The western world survived and bounced back from a banking crisis in 2008/2009 that almost ruined us. These issues are utterly trivial in comparison and can be easily sorted with sensible negotiation.

porsche959 wrote: »

"they will simply have no control over it"

Which is no change from current position - so what's all the scaremongering from No side about then?

But at the moment it is one economy, this will split it into two economies, similar to irelands position with germany, we have an interest rate of 0.05 or whatever it is, that is not for us, that is for the larger EU nations.

Pensions, mortgages?

Im sure they will sort all this stuff out, if there is a yes vote, but to suggest it is a red herring? Scaremongering?

I actually dont really care, if more than 50% wish to be independent of the uk, good luck.

Donkey Oaty

There's all kinds of weird legal stuff that is without precedent in this scenario.

I was reading an article earlier that said that there is a legal technicality under which Alex Salmond, as leader of an independent Scotland, is entitled to declare that Eng/Wales/NI is a new state as well and that would mean the UK loses its seat on the UN Security Council - and he could use that threat as a negotiating chip.

Sounds like nonsense to me, but the law is an odd beast and stranger things have happened.

Scotland will do alright, might slip backwards a wee bit, but it's England who will suffer the most, no matter how close the relations and neighbourliness that may exist after the yes vote.

I never like simple yes, no votes, people will always vote the wrong way anyway, I'd say there would be a lot of people who'd like to think on a bit more like, there should be a Come Back In Ten Years and ask again box.

porsche959 wrote: »

Complete semantics, Jesuitical hair-splitting.

Jesuitical. That is now my favourite word.

porsche959 wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Why are some on No side trying to put it about that Scotland would have to adopt own currency if there is a Yes vote?

I know, I was trying to confirm your point.

I didn't realise anyone on the no side had said that, only that the currency union was ruled out.

Red Nissan wrote: »

Scotland will do alright, might slip backwards a wee bit, but it's England who will suffer the most, no matter how close the relations and neighbourliness that may exist after the yes vote.

I never like simple yes, no votes, people will always vote the wrong way anyway, I'd say there would be a lot of people who'd like to think on a bit more like, there should be a Come Back In Ten Years and ask again box.

Why will England suffer the most?

fiachr_a

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

Ha, he would have annexed half of france as well by now

A Dub in Glasgo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Showing my ignorance, and probably missing something obvious, but why would Spain veto it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They don't want to set a precedence when their own regions look for independence. The Italians would be thinking along similar lines.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8682-spanish-minister-confirms-spain-will-stay-out-of-scots-eu-bid-after-yes-vote

'Spain will not interfere in any EU membership negotiations if Scots vote Yes in this year’s independence referendum.

Spain's Foreign Minister has told the Financial Times that the Scottish referendum is different from the situation in Catalonia and that Madrid will not block a legal bid for membership of the European Union.'

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/8682-spanish-minister-confirms-spain-will-stay-out-of-scots-eu-bid-after-yes-vote

'Spain will not interfere in any EU membership negotiations if Scots vote Yes in this year’s independence referendum.

Spain's Foreign Minister has told the Financial Times that the Scottish referendum is different from the situation in Catalonia and that Madrid will not block a legal bid for membership of the European Union.'

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Next: No side claims that independent Scotland would be ravaged by EBOLA VIRUS.

porsche959 wrote: »

It is scaremongering, because the hypothetical chain of events you've set out here is entirely implausible.

The western world survived and bounced back from a banking crisis in 2008/2009 that almost ruined us. These issues are utterly trivial in comparison and can be easily sorted with sensible negotiation.

It's not scaremongering if it's true.

If Scotland adopts sterlinigization (where they adopt the use of the pound without a formal agreement with the UK) they will have no sovereign control over their monetary policy and will not be able to provide liquidity to their financial sector should another crash happen.

The former will hurt Scotland's economy as England as a country has very different needs than Scotland and the former will encourage Scotland's financial institutions to move to England.

There is no negotiation under which England will agree to share the pound with Scotland, it's not in their interests to do so.

Also Olli Rehn has made it very clear that Scotland will not be admitted to the EU for as long as it uses sterlingization.

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

The way it works is you grant the vote, applaud the result and then proceed to totally ignore it. :pac:

Donkey Oaty

porsche959 wrote: »

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Myth or not, it's a widespread belief.

Our own Ruari Quinn said pretty much the same, six months after the date of that article Dub posted.

The thing is that it's a parliamentary vote for the countries, not at the discretion of the Spanish Foreign Minister.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not scaremongering if it's true.

If Scotland adopts sterlinigization (where they adopt the use of the pound without a formal agreement with the UK) they will have no sovereign control over their monetary policy and will not be able to provide liquidity to their financial sector should another crash happen.

These things can easily be negotiated in the event of Yes vote. It is in both countries interests to do so.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The former will hurt Scotland's economy as England as a country has very different needs than Scotland and the former will encourage Scotland's financial institutions to move to England.

If it is true that England has very different needs to Scotland, then you are essentially making a pro-independence argument here, which is curious.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no negotiation under which England will agree to share the pound with Scotland, it's not in their interests to do so.

I would disagree, I suggest it is in their interests to do so.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Also Olli Rehn has made it very clear that Scotland will not be admitted to the EU for as long as it uses sterlingization.

And ECB head honchos said would be no quantitative easing on many occasions before they actually did quantitatively ease, remember that?

porsche959 wrote: »

Oh dear. Another scaremongering myth busted.

Next: No side claims that independent Scotland would be ravaged by EBOLA VIRUS.

Do you see any difference between scaremongering and caution?

This is not the same as an election, it is not another crowd of 'the same olds' going into an established system, with the same civil servants as the last crowd.

This is 6 million people choosing to create a completely different system.

Are you suggesting that anyone who even raises the question of EU membership is to be totally dismissed?

fiachr_a wrote: »

If only Britain had Putin in charge! He would stop this independence nonsense and send in the tanks!

Probably wouldn't be too rosy for Ireland as well.

eeepaulo wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone who even raises the question of EU membership is to be totally dismissed?

No. But I am suggesting that people do basic research before casting around No side myths as fact.

It has been said on this very thread that the Yes lobby have no post-referendum plan or timetable whatever. That simply isn't true. The plan is relatively 'high level', but there is a plan. Plenty of time has been built in to iron out the fine details.

Madam

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

porsche959 wrote: »

No. But I am suggesting that people do basic research before casting around No side myths as fact.

It has been said on this very thread that the Yes lobby have no post-referendum plan or timetable whatever. That simply isn't true. The plan is relatively 'high level', but there is a plan. Plenty of time has been built in to iron out the fine details.

I have claimed nothing as fact, no one knows.

The idea of a plan is quite troublesome.

For me, if i was an average wage earner in northern ireland, england or wales, if scotland do choose to become independent, it then stops being a negotiation between 2 parties campaigns, i feel like it is a negotiation between 54 million and 6 million.

Im not sure, thats how i think i would feel, i would like to see them go forward in prosperity.

porsche959 wrote: »

These things can easily be negotiated in the event of Yes vote. It is in both countries interests to do so.

If England enters into a formal currency agreement with Scotland they will essentially become a "lender of last resort" for Scotland should the Scottish banks (who combined control assets worth 1,200 times Scotland's gdp compared to 800 for Ireland pre-crash) require a bail out from the Scottish government. England will never agree to such as thing because it is not in their interests to do so.

Instead they will encourage Scottish banks to transfer their asset administration to England and Scotland won't be able to offer them the security they need to stay.

If it is true that England has very different needs to Scotland, then you are essentially making a pro-independence argument here, which is curious.

I'm saying iScotland as a small open mostly exporting economy would benefit from a lower valued currency relative to the pound since Scotland exports most of their products to the UK.

Sterlingization would cost an iScotland sovereignty over their monetary policy and would put them at a competitive disadvantage to Ireland, another small open export driven economy against whom iScotland would be competing against to export products to English markets.

But these disadvantages wouldn't exist if Scotland remained in the union, essentially independence and sterlingization gives Scotland the worst of both worlds.

I would disagree, I suggest it is in their interests to do so.

Why?

[And ECB head honchos said would be no quantitative easing on many occasions before they actually did quantitatively ease, remember that?

Utterly irrelevant, and you do realise all these "head honchos" are different people? Grouping them all together as if they had a single mind is ignorant and juvenile, just like your arguments here actually.

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

Depends on what option Scotland decides to take. If they keep the pound, nothing.

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

Whatever currency Scotland uses, there will be a phasing in process.

Don't tell me you're starting to worry?

Donkey Oaty

Madam wrote: »

Daft question perhaps but what happens to all the sterling floating about in Scotland after independence?

If they stay with sterling, it's business as usual more or less.

If they don't, they'll convert it at an agreed rate to whatever they are going to use in future - or a floating rate if its the Euro - and the notes will be incinerated.

A bit like when Ireland broke the link with sterling in 1978, or when we converted to the Euro.