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.

Thanks Bertha, it has also been a long time since I looked at an economics textbook!

I don't understand the 'yes' campaigns argument that it is in the best interests of WM to agree to share currency with Scotland. If WM agree to share Sterling with Scotland it will be entirely on their terms which means that Scotland can have all the independence in the world on paper but it won't have control of its economy. WM think that Scotland should remain part of Britain and any agreement they have with Scotland will try and replicate that set up as much as possible for the sake of rBritain.

Does the 'yes' campaign have no other solution in mind for their future currency then? They can't join the Euro for a variety of reasons so what is their plan? Can people vote yes without knowing something as important as what their future currency will be or are they hoping that everybody will roll over and give Scotland anything it asks for when agreeing the terms for separation? I don't know. I am a southerner. I would love a balanced summary of what each side if offering but I can't find one. What I am picking up from here is that you are voting 'yes' for an ideal and not for an actual concrete concept of what Scotland will be like.

Santana - I did an economics degree but haven't looked at it seriously in the 25 yrs since I finished (if I had my time again I would have done something else if I am honest)! I do know that economists can argue black is white though. There are no right answers so I could be wildly off track too.

wingsoverscotland.com/why-there-will-be-a-currency-union/ Not unbiased (is anyone? Even Prof Leslie has been accused of partiality!) but the Yes side of it.

Professor Leslie Young, of course, that was terribly informal of me.

scotlandseptember18.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FinalScotlandCurrencyA1The-Hunter-Foundation.docx Part A of Prof Young's Report.

scotlandseptember18.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Currency-Options-for-an-Independent-Scotland.docx Part B.

Well this thread went all high-brow!

Am trying to follow. Can someone explain what rUK is please?

rUK is the remaining UK, ie England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And to sum up Prof Young's Reports, currency union (CU) is in the best interests of both an indy Scotland and rUK, and if the Westminster (WM) gvt says otherwise, it's because they're either economically illiterate or scaremongering.

His language is a little more moderate, though.

Thank you OldLady

He argues that under a currency union there will be tight fiscal rules for iScotland driven by BoE which is exactly what has been questioned in this thread- how is this independence when fiscal policy will be decided by the BoE? How will the Scottish govt be able to go in a different direction to Westminster when monetary policy is controlled by the BoE? As he states, "but the Scottish Government might not be willing to commit to tight fiscal rules for a very long term, as this would undermine the purpose of independence."

So yes, he argues a currency union is the best way forward for both parties. The problem is, it's not independence!

Is there such a thing as "true" independence in our increasingly-globalised 21st century? Would you say that France isn't an independent country, because it's part of the Euro?

It's a whole lot more independence than we have now. It's a whole lot more independence than any devo proposals WM might come up with, given that WM can close Holyrood right down any time it feels like it (and Farage would do just that).

So, slightly-compromised independence, or many more years of child poverty, austerity, possibly out of the EU after 2017 and the risk of a Tory/UKIP gvt at WM?

There seems to be this misconception that independence is xenophobic and anti-english, it isn't. More like anti Westminster. There are things westminter, under current and previous governments, have forced upon Scotland that Scottish people are tired of. for example dumping of nuclear waste in the forth causing "concerning" levels of radiation on our beaches and the towns and villages along the banks. Imagine the uproar if this was the Thames? Yet many people not living in Scotland are aware of this and others things like it. We just feel like the government in Westminster, no matter which party it is will ever do whats best for Scotland and feel a bit treated like a dumping ground to be honest.

Would you say that France isn't an independent country, because it's part of the Euro?

France is part of a monetary union not a fiscal union . This is actually referred to in passing in part A of your links while explaining the difference between the rUK/iScotland fiscal union and the Euro.

The difficulty with arguing that policies would change under independence is that those changes would be severely restricted by tight fiscal rules. This is the trade off that Prof Young is talking about in part B. You can't argue, for example, about austerity because that is directly linked to fiscal policy.

I'm Scotland's only Tory voter so I'm quite happy with the Tories in Westminster but that's neither here nor there and I'm not paying attention to what they are saying about indpendence any more than I am paying attention to what the SNP are saying.

"And to sum up Prof Young's Reports, currency union (CU) is in the best interests of both an indy Scotland and rUK,"

yes, and you can find people who say Jeffrey Archer isn't a crook.

But since the current and potential future leaders of rUK don't agree, and aren't offering it, and since the voters of rUK refuse to accept it, the question is immaterial. It isn't going to happen.

They say they're not offering it. Have you heard of "politics"? ;)

have you heard what the electorate of the UK outside Scotland say?

Do you know who puts politicians into jobs?

As for politics, what do you call it when the putative leader of a potentially independent company says what the future leaders of another potentially independent country will do for him?

I think the position is different with the Euro. The EU is the umbrella over all of the countries within it. In theory, they all sit round the table and decide policy together and its currency is not the responsibility of any one country, it has always been shared. It has never belonged to one country with an agreement to share, so there are none of the economic and historical complications that brings. That is nothing like Sterling.

Sterling is the British currency that WM may or may not decide to share with Scotland and its management won't be driven by Scottish economic policy, why would it? A minority of people, which is no longer part of the Union can't hope to have a say in economic policy as set by WM. Scotland will always be reacting to WM policy and have little or no say in setting it. WM have apparently decided that they don't want to share the currency. If they do change their minds it will be on their terms and there is nothing that Scotland can do about that.

Re the pollution on the Forth compared with the Thames, no I hadn't heard that but I suspect that there is a lot of London news I haven't heard either. In terms of national importance, you also have to take into account the number of people involved. There are over 8 million people in London. There aren't even that many people living in Scotland in total, let alone those living within a similar proximity to the Forth. Of course London news has a bigger impact - so many more people are affected. If you have limited resources as any government does, you put them where the most people will benefit surely?

"country," obv.

I have heard, anecdotally, that the citizens of rUK wouldn't be happy with CU, mostly in a sort of "fuck you" way. However, most of the electorate don't vote, so I don't think it's that much of an issue.

If you're talking about Salmond as a "putative leader" (he is actually FM), then he's making his opening offerings, not dictating anything.

He is a putative leader of a potentially independent Scotland. He is not yet leader of an independent Scotland.

he is not "offering" monetary union, he is saying he wants it and "will" get it.

I want a million pounds and a solid gold Ferrari.

I have not yet found anyone who wants to give it to me.

Thanks for the links OldLady. It seems that everybody makes assumptions but I suppose they have to since we don't have crystal balls.

It is seems to be a bit of a worry that Scotland's plans seem dependent on getting the revenue from North Sea Oil when there has been no agreement on how they will be divided up. Some (Fitch the credit rating agency for example) are saying that the majority (92%) could remain with rUK because of a per capital division and in all likelihood Scotland aren't going to get nearly as much as they seem to be banking on. I didn't realise even something so fundamental had yet to be decided.

But do you have several of the world's cleverest economists, including two Nobel Prize-winners, suggesting to a third party that it would be in their best interests to give you your £million and fancy car?

International law says the oil is 90% Scottish, whatever a credit-rating agency suggests. And that's without considering the reserves, as yet unexplored, believed to lie off the west coast.

So according to Bertha just because more people live in London than in Scotland, Scotland doesn't matter when it comes to the Westminster govt dumping poisonous crap? and you wonder why many in Scotland feel like their voices fall on deaf ears

Sadly the number of economists in favour does not exceed the number against. In which respect it is not unlike the idea that one independent country can be compelled to form a currency union with another independent country.