ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Why would an independent Scotland expect a currency union with the UK?(192 Posts)
I mean, I can see why they would, but doesn't that just totally undermine their desire for independence?
Am I missing something blindingly obvious...?
The reason Salmond is so desperate to keep the pound, and the backing of the Bank of England is so that he can still blame 'The English' when things are not rosy in Scotland's garden.
If Scotland are totally autonomous, with their own currency, then he will be completely exposed as the self-serving, incompetent fool that he is.
So the criticism about the recent 'you can't share the pound' as being Westminster 'bullying' is just another attempt to sidestep any responsibility?
The currency argument and the debt/liability argument are two different things.
A country can issue debt in another currency but its own. Its quite common. The currency argument is red herring really. Its just a piece of paper or an accounting entry but symbolic of national sovereignty of course. Scotland could issue a currency backed by oil, timber rights and whisky instead of gold for example. That would be quite popular I suspect. A currency backed by real assets that people holding the currency have a legal claim on.
The issue of debt is a more interesting one. If Scotland wanted to leave the union and its new Govt in waiting de facto declared UDI, refused to accept any joint liability for UK debt and its people refuse to pay taxes to UK Treasury then we would have in effect a similar situation as when the US declared independence. The UK Parliament would not have any leverage except invasion of Scotland. Lets not go there shall we - it didn't end well last time.
The SNP could make 'No taxation without representation' a very popular rallying cry.
Well of course it is up for negotiation. If the UK government in Westminister don't agree to the ridiculous demands of Salmond then the whole thing is dead in the water
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
why does everyone fixate on Salmond?
he won't be running Scotland
There are more sidesteps in this debate than Strictly Come Dancing. 'Westminster bullying' is put up as the rationale for everything that goes wrong in Scotland past, present and presumably future.
I think that there should be a referendum in the UK before the entering a currency union with any other foreign country. Scotland can exercise self-determination to become independent, but cannot them assume that 5)3 UK or any other foreign country will enter into any particular arrangements with it.
The division of debts and assets is totally separate from forming a new union.
a)Because he's an arse
b)Because no-one else is pushing for independence (well, none of the credible parties)
c)No-one I know who votes Tory/Labour/LibDem is remotely interested in independence. If you're voting for independence you're voting for the SNP, by and large.
d)Because he's an arse.
As for not being able to have a currency union being 'bullying from Westminster' - utter nonsense. And they still haven't come up with a Plan B.
But I thought that after the referendum, if yes, then Scotland would call a general election - we could end up with a Labour government (if they get their act together)
Also there are alot of people pushing for independence who are not keen on Alex Salmond. It's not about one man or woman.
Its going to take more than one mans vote to win this referendum.
People pick on Salmond because he is an easy target, and because that is easier than engaging in debate, and coming up with some positive reasons to vote no.
SNPs main thread is independence, always has been. It is fairly telling that they won a majority in a parliament specifically designed to avoid majority governments.
Ubik I would be surprised if there was a GE straight away. The incumbent Scottish Parliament would remain while all the negotiations happen probably - some sort of coalition between the SNP and Labour is a very likely option.
You can't vote for independence on the assumption of getting a particular government.
First general election in 2016 I believe
If its so essential to have monetary union with someone, why doesn't Scotland get the Euro. Then at least they can moan about France and Germany making all the decisions rather than London.
Exactly!!!! Salmond wants independence so Westminster isn't calling the shots. With the pound England still would be pretty much. He who controls the money always does.
Since Scotland wants to join the EU and promising to adopt the Euro is a pre-requisite, why not just adopt the Euro right away until membership of the EU. After all you don't need permission from London to use the UK Pound so by the same token you don't need permission to use the Euro right?
I'm not voting on the assumption of anything
I'm an ordinary punter interested in voting for independence. Most of these debates seem to caught up in tribal nationalism and knee-jerk reactions. I was making the point that this won't be the Socialist Republic of Salmond - otgher parties will be involved. Haven't they even talked about breaking up the SNP after independence?
I think I am going to vote Yes - am still not completely sure.
There is absolutely nothing knee-jerk about my reaction or other voters on the 'no' side, just as there is nothing - economically, politically, socially or even emotionally - that warrants breaking up the Union. The SNP have put forward nothing more than a wish list for an independent Scotland tied up in the blue and white ribbon of nationalism - which is not sustainable in long term. The fact that they have been caught off guard with the rejection of a currency union with no Plan B for something so fundamentally important to our future would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
I don't have a vote as I'm in England. I do hope that Scots vote to stay as part of the union. (But if not they can sod off and use the Euro.)
Quite right too Mistle. If it were the other way around, then I can't imagine I would support an independent Wales, N Ireland or England voting to go it 'alone' - but only for the bits that suit them.
(But, please vote to stay part of the UK Scotland!) (And that's nothing to do with the pound, economics or anything - we seem to do pretty well as a whole and it would be a pity to throw hundreds of years of union away unless there's a REALLY good reason, and I can't seen one)
Scotland can't join the Euro. One of the stipulations is that a country's own currency must have been part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism for at least two years before being considered for joining. We don't fulfill that requirement.
Scotland only has the Pound Sterling because it had to be rescued by England in the 1800s when its banks failed. in effect, England just rescued Scotland again when RBS and HBOS got into difficulty.
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
If the Bank of England had not been there and Scotland had been independent in 2007 then it would have received the same treatment by financial markets as Iceland and Cyprus.
That's an excellent point MoreBeta although I wonder if it's true. If so, why haven't we heard it before? Although RBS HO iscin Edinburgh, it hasn't really been Scottish owned for a long time, has it? Of the deposits that would have been lost had it gone down, what % were from Scottish investors?
Yes, the pattern being that anything with the word Scotland in the title is assumed by you to be Scottish owned... never mind the facts eh?
These banks were wholly regulated from London. Their money lending policies were changed only at the say so of Westminster. Most of the UK staff were based outwith Scotland, so most of the tax was paid to Westminster, and not counted as Scottish or Scottish Government revenue. Same deal with the national insurance and corporation tax was paid. Most of the losses were generated in London.
What you are really suggesting is that because it suits your argument, the revenue from the successful years of these banks should have been a UK boon, but when the these banks were buggered in London, due to Alastair Darlings failed strategies, and London had to bail them out, they become Scottish messes that the poor English had to deal with?
Its true RBS and HBOS were not 'owned' by Scotland or even their shares particularly held by Scottish people but their branches and depositors were very much dominated by Scottish people like Northern Rock in Newcastle was very much a regional bank still with many local people as depositors. The failure of two local regional bank would have destroyed the deposits of many Scottish savers, caused huge job losses in Scotland and disrupted a large part of the Scottish economy.
Regional banks, when they are doing basic deposit taking and basic lending and making payments and small business loans to local companies (like they are supposed to be doing rather than pretending to be on a par with the large money centre banks in international capital markets) are quite an important part of a local economy.
See, that's not true either McFox, all the really bad decisions leading to RBS' downfall were made in Edinburgh by an empire building Scott who wouldn't be told anything by anyone....
Isn't Iceland doing ok now?
England just rescued Scotland again when RBS and HBOS and there was me thinking we also pay taxes in Scotland. Are these banks even 'Scottish' anymore?
I suppose for me the question is what is the benefits of a union with the current Westminster government? Fuck all it seems. They are not interested in Scotland. I think SNP is currently doing a good job.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.