Will Scotland Leave the UK?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Is it a definitive "No", that's the real question here. Most things I've read about this since yesterday talk about "Unlikely" and scaremongering.

Sounds fairly conclusive...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26163637

The three main Westminster parties will declare that whoever forms the next UK government would not agree to allow an independent Scotland to use the pound.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Sounds fairly conclusive...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26163637

Yes, I read that earlier. Balls, however, is apparently to make a statement at a later unspecified date and he has, frankly, been wooing the Scots for months reassuring them of his committment to The Edinburgh Agreement and making noises about what he'll do for Scotland if / when he becomes chancellor. Suspicious? Me? Never.

If a large enough group listen to ed balls and believe what he says a lot of villages are going to want their idiots back.

The message is clearly co-ordinated by all three UK-wide parties to close off any lingering hope of monetary union between rUK and sepScotland. On the one hand, the official Treasury report sets out what would have to be put in place to make a Sterling currency zone work, and on the other hand all the parties who are likely to have a say in it have given their political response to the technical assessment, which is (unsurprisingly) that the United Kingdom does not wish to have a formal currency union with a foreign state.

Only the most deluded seps actually thought a Sterling zone was possible, and even then only since their high priest Alec told them to think so, because his earlier prophesies of Scotland's prosperity lying in monetary union with the Eurozone proved less than watertight.

And, let's not forget, the Scottish electorate are not fools, and polls show that most of them had already concluded for themselves that a Sterling zone was not likely to be on the table in the event of a 'yes' vote.

So: a separate Scotland will either have to resurrect Pound Scots, with or without Sterling peg, or else use Sterling as a substitute currency. All of these have risks. Personally I think once the minds of the voters begin to concentrate on how they're *actually* going to vote in September, this one issue will bury the Guess camp more effectively than any other single question.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Yes, I read that earlier. Balls, however, is apparently to make a statement at a later unspecified date and he has, frankly, been wooing the Scots for months reassuring them of his committment to The Edinburgh Agreement and making noises about what he'll do for Scotland if / when he becomes chancellor. Suspicious? Me? Never.

Be as suspicious as you like but don't take Ed Balls for an idiot. He's an English Labour politician who knows that his chances of future high office are much better with 50-odd Scottish Labour MPs sitting in Westminster than without them. There is absolutely no way he is going to do anything to make the SNP's job easier here.

The pre-briefing that has gone on over the past 24 hours is quite stark. Whoever is responsible for it has been able to point the BBC, the Grauniad and the Daily Wail (all of whom seem to have been at the front of the queue for handouts) not just to the conclusions of a report by Treasury officials, but also to forthcoming comments by the Treasury spokesmen of all three main parties.

Interesting article following up on this by Angus Armstrong, director of macroeconomic research at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26161046

We expect the Scottish government to argue that a currency union, even if it is an informal union - "sterlingization" - is possible and the path to follow.

In our view, because of the level of debt an independent Scotland would inherit, this arrangement is likely to be unstable.

An alternative coherent option is for an independent Scotland to introduce its own currency.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Be as suspicious as you like but don't take Ed Balls for an idiot. He's an English Labour politician who knows that his chances of future high office are much better with 50-odd Scottish Labour MPs sitting in Westminster than without them. There is absolutely no way he is going to do anything to make the SNP's job easier here.

The pre-briefing that has gone on over the past 24 hours is quite stark. Whoever is responsible for it has been able to point the BBC, the Grauniad and the Daily Wail (all of whom seem to have been at the front of the queue for handouts) not just to the conclusions of a report by Treasury officials, but also to forthcoming comments by the Treasury spokesmen of all three main parties.

"An idiot" is about the last (yet possibly most endearing) thing I'd take Ed Balls for.

He's a bare-knuckle politician. He's not going to do anything to jeopardise the electoral advantage Labour derives from the Union. He will do anything to shore it up. Making concessions to nationalists that strengthen their case for separation won't figure in his calculations, but making concessions to the disaffected West-of-Scotland traditional Labour sympathisers who gave the keys of Bute House to Fat Alec in 2011, will do so.

Balls' speech will rule out a Sterling zone in the event of a yes vote but I expect there to be bribes a-plenty contingent on a big fat NO.

[Mr Angry]

As with every debate there are many takes.

"Scotland would not need permission to continue using the pound despite the Chancellor's view on the issue, and could continue with the currency in the same way countries like Panama and Ecuador use the US dollar, Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute said today."

This will prove interesting whatever the outcome.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As with every debate there are many takes.

"Scotland would not need permission to continue using the pound despite the Chancellor's view on the issue, and could continue with the currency in the same way countries like Panama and Ecuador use the US dollar, Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute said today."

This will prove interestingwhatever the outcome.

Of course that could happen. And the BBC and other news outlets have worded their reports accordingly.

What is under discussion here is what the SNP says it wants, which is a formal currency union, and what all of the people they would be negotiating with have said, which is that they will not agree to a formal currency union.

All currency options are not equal. The Euro idea was the SNP's favourite because they *knew* a Sterling zone would render their cherished independence from Westminster effectively meaningless from the moment they gained it. Sadly for them, the Euro has shown itself risky, precisely because it lacks many of the checks and balances the UK Treasury has said would be necessary for a Sterling zone to work. The SNP has since been talking up a Sterling zone because they're trying to make the best of a bad job and because they know the Scottish people won't want a newfangled currency in their pockets.

Pointing out that Scotland could continue to use Sterling without rUK's permission is to completely miss the point. To give them their due, the SNP aspires for Scotland's economy to operate on a far higher level than any of the international minnows that are frequently cited as examples of economies that use a substitute currency. Sterlingization of an independent Scottish economy would be disastrous. Why would any large business located in Scotland choose to remain there, in the knowledge that Scotland had no central bank and therefore no means of rescuing its own economy in the event of any serious financial difficulties arising? The SNP might as well hold the door open and invite any and all businesses who wish to, to up sticks and move south where there would still be a powerful, fully functioning central bank that has proven its ability to keep the money flowing no matter what.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As with every debate there are many takes.

"Scotland would not need permission to continue using the pound despite the Chancellor's view on the issue, and could continue with the currency in the same way countries like Panama and Ecuador use the US dollar, Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute said today."

This will prove interesting whatever the outcome.

Some people in Panama may disagree with you....

http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/a-...ncy-wars-6161/

Decades ago when the dollar was actually a respected store of value, Panama’s dollarization really meant something. Today is a different story. Yet while Panama is still unable to print its own currency, Ben Bernanke obviously has no such restrictions.

The trillions of dollars that Bernanke has created over the last few years have made their way into the financial system and reduced the purchasing power of US dollars. Right now this is being felt acutely with respect to fuel prices denominated in USD.

The consequent rising prices hit dollarized countries like Panama very hard because there is no central bank here to monetize the debt and finance populist deficit spending.

Case in point– Ricardo Quijano, Panama’s Minister of Industry and Trade, confirmed this morning that the government’s fuel compensation fund has completely run out of money. In the face of rising fuel prices, the government is now no longer able to subsidize gasoline.

As Quijano said, “We are almost in a national emergency. Oil prices are not going down.”

It seems clear now that the Panamanian government recognizes the challenges of being dollarized and is exploring a number of options to circumvent its limitations.

btw, it will be amusing if the SNP use a libertarian think tank to back up their arguments...

[Mr Angry]

Not my argument to disagree with .

Interesting take all the same.

Apologies - some people in Panama may disagree with the libertarian polemicist's take on things.....

[Sirius]

UK Chancellor George Osborne is live on Sky news at the moment explaining the governments position on the pound and should there be a yes vote in Scotland

The seps are in meltdown this morning. The over-riding impression is of denial mixed with suicidal defiance.

It is always good to be reminded that the SNP is a small-time, regional political party stuffed with third-rate amateurs and fronted by a gambler with a big mouth.

[Osem]

Listening to a few people on the radio who seem to feel this announcement is tantamount to 'bullying'. This of course is what the SNP want - they'd quite like Scots to get all angry with the 'auld enemy' and vote accordingly. I heard one guy claim he'd hitherto been a 'no' voter because he believed that Scotland was stronger within the UK but is now going to vote 'yes'. Why? This isn't exactly a big surprise is it? Does this announcement suddenly mean they will be worse off in the UK or is he just spitting his dummy? This sort of emotional reaction to events is really very stupid but it's exactly what Salmond's Tartan Twits are relying upon. They're happy to promise populist stuff they can't deliver knowing they can then shout 'bullying' when it's made clear they won't get their way. I'd have thought most people would see through that sort of tactic but hey ho, there's nothing like a bit of nationalist resentment to fog the brain is there...

Anyway, at what point do such people want to be told the reality they're facing and what's at stake? Before they vote or afterwards? By all the parties concerned or just the ones with the message they want to hear? Can you imagine the furore if all this had been kept quiet - they'd then have been whining that they'd been deprived of all the facts by those nasty bullies in Westminster.

Really, what do these people expect? That they can walk away from the bad bits of the UK, look after themselves and be true Scots but keep the bits of the UK they quite like. Sorry but it doesn't work like that and these voters better be very sure that putting their future into Salmond's hands isn't something they can just undo if they feel like it at the next election. That's why it's so important that the realities are made clear. This clearly is a case of "damned in they do and damned if they don't" and frankly anyone who falls into the trap of voting on that basis deserves to suffer life under a party that's making it up as they go along and a leader who wants to have his cake and eat it.