to wonder why the SNP aren't getting the same bashing that UKIP are?

[kinkytoes]

I'm not a political expert by any means and I know there has been a lot of discussion on both topics here.

But both these parties have the same ultimate aim - independence for their countries. Why is no-one calling SNP supporters racist? Not that I think they should be - just curious about the apparent double standard.

And I'm sure I don't need to add that opposition to a currency union has a perfectly explicable basis, in that firstly it would not be in the rUK's economic interests and secondly the rUK would not be under any legal, moral or economic obligation to take an independent Scotland's interests into account.

Please explain why a currency union would not be in the rUK's interests. Things like share of liability for national debt, transaction fees and costs to businesses based in the rUK surely deserve consideration.

I refer you to the recent problems with the Euro, and before that, sterling's departure from the ERM.

More importantly, I refer you to just about all comment made by economists other than the panel picked by Alex Salmond.

"It is an appeal to the emotion, not the mind"

I think that sums up the whole debate.

I think a LOT of Scots would vote Yes to Independence if it were purely an emotional decision, but I think economics will overtake that and the result will be NO / borderline and some sort of Devo-Max deal will come to pass.

Please explain why a currency union would not be in the rUK's interests. Things like share of liability for national debt, transaction fees and costs to businesses based in the rUK surely deserve consideration.

Liability for national debt has nothing to do with the establishment of a currency union. Salmond's threat to take no debt if there is no union is madness.

Transaction fees and costs- well, look at the rUK stats.
40% of rUK exports go to the Eurozone.
20% of rUK exports go to the USA.
10% go to Scotland.

Using the 'cost' argument, the rUK would be more likely to adopt the dollar or the euro.

The only viable argument really is geographical proximity. I am not sure how valid this is- it is the same flight time from London to Glasgow as it is from London to Paris. The Eurostar is 2 and a half hours to Paris and 2 hours to Brussels. London to Glasgow is over 4 hours.

wingsoverscotland.com/little-lies/ No currency union, no debt for Scotland. Even the UK Treasury accepts that they, and they alone, are responsible for the debt.

In practice, that would mean Westminster continuing to control Scotland's taxation, spending and borrowing. How do you think that would be to Scotland's benefit, given that Scottish representation at Westminster would have ended?

Which is why independence doesn't really mean independence it's more like camping out in your garden with your parents bringing you cakes when it gets dark.

You saw the Eddie Izzard warm-up artiste, then, caruthers?

No debt is not a good thing. It's a ridiculous attitude for the SNP to take.

I have never seen Eddie Izzard in real life or his warm up artists....or is it hartistes now

No debt would be a fantastic thing. If we need to borrow, the international lending institutions wouldn't be standing around tutting about dropping a moral obligation to pay the debt of a currency we don't use, they'll be looking at our oil and gas revenues, our whisky industry etc and be quite willing to lend. Even the Adam Smith Institute, hardly known as SNP supporters, has said no cu but continue to use the £ might be a better thing for Scotland.

The warm-up chappy made a similar joke on TV. :)

Am I understanding correctly that the proposition is for Scotland to walk away from a jointly incurred UK debt (so they can borrow more from other nations) but keep the pound Sterling?

Yep, that's a moral way to behave....

If we need to borrow, the international lending institutions wouldn't be standing around tutting about dropping a moral obligation to pay the debt of a currency we don't use

they'll be looking at our oil and gas revenues, our whisky industry etc and be quite willing to lend.

You clearly don't have a clue how economies work.

If you need to borrow? Why would you not need to borrow? No debt, no assets remember. So no solid gold reserves. Effectively, on Day 1, Scotland has no money. You can't even depend on tax, firstly because tax revenues take a few months to come in and secondly because no assets includes no computer systems used in calculating and collecting the tax revenue.

So the Scottish government will have to go to a bank and borrow money. It will have to float new debt, with no credit history. No international bank will look favourably on that. The interest rates would be punitive, and it would greatly affect the Scottish economy.

The warm-up chappy made a similar joke on TV. smile

I'm nearly as funny as someone who's nearly famous for being funny?

I'll take that

No, firstchoice, the proposition is that rUK and iScotland would share a currency union using the £ sterling, and iScotland will continue to pay a share of the debt. But if rUK refuse CU, iScotland can continue to use the £, with no obligation to pay the debt (and no call on tne resources of BoE).

All Scottish banknotes are supported by gold stored by BoE, that's still ours, of course we'll have money. What a strange thing to say.

All Scottish banknotes are supported by gold stored by BoE, that's still ours, of course we'll have money. What a strange thing to say.

You said it yourself: no debts, no assets.

No UK debts no UK assets.

Cash stored at BOE to back Scottish currency is a Scottish asset.

At no time have I said "no debt, no assets". I have said no CU, no debt. Which is agreed by the UK Treasury.

Also re currency union
m.stv.tv/news/scotland/269177-report-commissioned-by-sir-tom-hunter-into-currency-with-rest-of-uk/

Wings over Scotland is an interesting site. Its comments on the issues I know a bit about is that some of what it says is correct, some if it is arguable (albeit couched in terms of propaganda) and some of it isn't.

Its comment that Scotland as a newly-created state would be free of any debt is correct. The basis of this is that states, like people, aren't generally born owning property or obligations. Arrangements have to be made if this is to happen.

What it doesn't say are two things. Firstly, how walking away from the UK without debt would result in an AAA credit rating (thus meaning less borrowing costs for government). They have no evidence that it would, because I don't think any economists think this is really likely to happen.

The second point it doesn't mention is that independence is in the gift of the Westminster parliament. I have noticed some Yessers assuming that the referendum is binding on Westminster under the Scotland Act. However, it isn't. Westminster could refuse to legislate until iScotland agreed to take on its fair share of debt.

The third point it doesn't mention is that the rUK can unilaterally veto Scottish accession to the EU. I notice that WOS takes a bob each way on this issue, saying that it is arguable that Scottish secession would mean the disssolution of the UK and thus separate applications by iScotland and rUK. But if this is correct (and it isn't even reasonably arguable, btw), assets and liabilities would be proportionately split, and iScotland would not be able to walk away debt free.

I think points 2 and 3 are quite extreme measures. But so is refusing to take one's fair share of the debt. I really do fail to see the moral case for saying that the rUK should enter into a currency union with Scotland against its interests. I actually fail to see how what rUK decided would be any of iScotland's business.

As an interesting aside, when Ireland seceded from the UK, it didn't take a proportionate share of debt. I've never read an explanation as to why this was. Ireland became de facto independent, then the southern counties took Dominion status in 1922 (therefore back under the British crown), and then became fully independent in 1936. It's possible that no one actually thought about it. The UK eventually gave up its demands, but that was after blocking Irish membership of the LON and UN for some period. There is probably a backstory, but I've no idea what it is.

Cash stored at BOE to back Scottish currency is a Scottish asset.

I don't think it would work so easily.

The banks which can issue Scottish notes must back those notes with Bank of England banknotes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. So these are private deposits owned by the bank and not by the government, whereas the cash reserves backing up the Bank of England banknotes are government assets, no?

itsallgoingtobefine

There are no "Scottish assets" at present. Scotland has no existence at international law.

As for the Leslie Young report, I prefer to take the opinion of just about everyone else over the report of one person clearly commissioned to make a political point. I quote this bit:

It adds: "No chapter in the Eurozone story is at all likely in a currency union between Scotland and rUK. They would start from very similar political and business cultures, hence very similar macroeconomic and business structures and financial parameters.

"So currency unification would not bring on the tensions that drove the Eurozone crisis. Were a financial crisis to arise, the two governments and the central bank could quickly agree to head off any downward economic spiral with decisive action, given their shared values and culture, virtually identical business, financial and fiscal systems, and the familiarity, goodwill and respect that obtain between their electorates."

I actually do doubt that Macpherson, Osborne and others would disagree with this. But it presumes that iScotland and rUK would be so closely integrated that iScotland wasn't actually independent. The comment relies on iScotland being absolutely in synch with the hated Westminster, politically, economically and fiscally.

Clydesdale, for example, have their reserves in Threadneedle Street in London and are owned by an Australian bank.

(www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/apr/22/scottish-independence-banknotes)

An interesting point Peach. Hadn't thought of that - never quite understood the mechanics behind Scottish banks issuing banknotes. I used to enjoy getting and using the different notes though.