Indyref 6

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Welcome to indyref 6

Spidergirl8 asked close to end of last thread:

What impact would independence have on fiscal policy and economic stability
What impact would the ageing population have on the future
Is the predicted future a positive one, based on fact

If the bite goes no, what has actually been achieved? Does that not just put Scotland on the back foot?

Let's try and give not too biased answers please!

Now this is interesting...
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/scottish-independence-referendum-research-more-information-likely-vote-yes?CMP=twt_gu
"A study by the Behavioural Laboratory at the University of Edinburgh found that when undecided voters are presented with a balanced set of arguments, their support for independence increased by between 10% and 15%"

So what I'm asking is - what are the actual obstacles to a currency union - other than (anticipated) public opinion in rUK? Because it doesn't seem guaranteed that public opinion would necessarily be against a currency union in the actual event of independence if it actually offered the greatest measure of stability to Scotland and rUK. I've heard a lot about how currency union could be bad for iScotland, but not a great deal about why it would be difficult for rUK, other than the electorate might not warm to it.

I can partially answer this although it's off the top of my head - I can try to find links later. The Eurozone situation, where smaller countries (economy wise) basically failed and had to be rescued by the others spooked people (govt/treasury etc). There were fiscal pacts and restrictions, it wasn't a case of "do what you want" for the member states. But it wasn't nearly enough to prevent several countries pretty much imploding. Without saying we're too wee, it's undeniable that the Scottish economy is considerably smaller than that of rUK. So for them, it would be a one way bet - we would never be able to bail rUK out, but they could bail us out if it was needed. The general tone of the debate has been that iScotland would be wanting to take a different approach on numerous elements of tax and spending which could easily cause our economies to diverge. After Europe, they're not confident that they could make it strict enough to protect rUK from a similar problem. And, crucially, the markets know this too. A drop in UK credit rating could happen for example - and that's a massive risk and could easily hurt more than the transaction costs or job losses from not having the union.

Deedee your response to that question is far more realistic and sensible.

Ooft, don't rely on Murdoch for anything - he will only do what is good for him/his companies at any one time so will swing with the wind.

Too many answers given with no thought whatsoever.

Personally, for me, nukes are over the line, and a non-negotiable.

(Especially if Murdoch is swinging behind us. )

What we're now relying on Murdoch to help out? Oh good grief.

But if it was a time limited thing stat? Say 5-6 years? With appropriate safe guards for both economies and a bargaining of housing trident while rUK worked out what to do with it?

When it comes to a currency union, no voters have suggested both that Scotland and rUK are too fiscally integrated, too economically intertwined, and too administratively interwoven to make independence worth the bother AND that a currency union would be impossible because a successful currency union depends on a high degree of fiscal integration (which we have and would have). These two positions can't be coterminous.

You're slightly conflating two separate arguments here. The first is to do with the complexity, length and difficulty of the separation negotiations and the second is more to do with the policies of the two states. The Yes campaign likes to tell us all that Scotland's economy is very different and that its priorities re spending are different. Under this line of argument, it doesn't make sense to use a currency which would be engineered for the benefit of a country with different needs to yours.

what are the actual obstacles to a currency union - other than (anticipated) public opinion in rUK?

Under a CU, the Bank of England would have to take responsibility for both countries. As I pointed out above, this doesn't make sense in the face of the Yes campaign's promise to take Scotland in a different direction, and of course an oil economy is subject to a more volatile economy too. And Scotland can't offer anything in return because of its size- it's a totally one sided risk when you look at the perspective of the rUK.

Lady C there are plenty of unionists who are unionists for its own sake.

Not all human decisions are economic ones! Our lives are more than numbers. So much that is so important can't be measured in £££.

It's very hard to create those safeguards though, especially in an economy going through potentially enormous change. It is possible that something very strictly time limited might be more acceptable politically- never say never - but I doubt it.

I guess again maybe timescales are an issue (and maybe this gives Osborne a bit of wiggle room) ?

Ie Maybe no currency union actually means no currency union of indeterminate length. As I said before we will certainly still be in a CU on 19th September, and I guess exactly when the currency union ends would be a matter for negotiation?

Fair enough, Murdoch is noone's friend, but I guess I was just trying to make the point that the media will play a huge role. And if certain broadcasters and papers get behind currency union public opinion could change very quickly. Also people are very influentional too and the amount of family, friend and business links between the two countries isn't going to end with a yes vote.

^^which seems to place Scotland between a very big rock and a very hard place if it wants to say shove Trident.

I guess exactly when the currency union ends would be a matter for negotiation?

I am pretty sure it would be on the date of independence. Would take some pretty good negotiating to swing anything different.

The entire population of Scotland being behind a CU wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference.

I'm really interested by the Trident thing. It's such a cornerstone of the Yes campaign- it would seem like a massive comedown to agree to keep it for the money.

The safe guards could be agreed though, on a timescale, where there's a will there's a way.

I think trident won't be leaving Scotland till 2020. Probably the same year currency union ends and independant Scotland enters the EU?

I'm really interested by the Trident thing. It's such a cornerstone of the Yes campaign- it would seem like a massive comedown to agree to keep it for the money.

I don't think (I hope) they willbaxk down. As far as I remember most Scots want it gone.

Most yes supporters recognise that independance isn't a panacea . There would be difficulties and compromises. That's life, and the path to something worthwhile is usually one strewn with hard choices. I'm all for getting rid if trident, but I could be persuaded of the need for the long game to ensure a smooth stable separation

Ah, you see, division in the yes camp already

Really ought to be a referendum on that one alone!

Voting yes isn't about hurting the rest of the uk for me. I no more want my friends and family down south to live next door to trident than I want to. I would see no need for vindictiveness when cateful thoughtful mutually beneficial negotiations are happening. And I would hope the rest of the uk would feel the same way when thinking about currency union.

I wouldn't agree to keep trident in exchange for CU (as was asked)
I do realise however that they can't be shifted immediately (Unless could we Free cycle them?).

I had an English family member give a surprisingly angry response today to what should happen in the case of a Yes vote, after saying if he were Scottish he'd vote for independence.

I think rUK electorate will be stunned and hurt by a Yes vote and not inclined to want their government to be overly helpful.

I don't think there is evidence to suggest that will does exist though DeeDee, at least not in rUK. The timing of the general election is a killer IME - to get a workable CU the negotiations would take a long time. I don't think any party would risk changing their stance before the GE - it would be suicidal. Unless they were going to do a U-Turn literally as soon as they took power (also political suicide, it generally needs to be at least a few months) then it becomes too late to do it anyway.

Santana, there is division in the yes camp! Hadn't you noticed that already? We're not all the same anymore than the no camp is! Duh!

%I think rUK electorate will be stunned and hurt by a Yes vote and not inclined to want their government to be overly helpful.*

I agree. We've all had years to think about this, mull over consequences etc. As far as I can tell it has pretty much not been on the radar down south until now. Everyone assumed it would be a no vote, so just ignored it.

And I would hope the rest of the uk would feel the same way when thinking about currency union.

Problem is that there are very little benefits of being in a CU with Scotland from rUK perspective. Is it vindictiveness to put your own economy first? I don't think so.

(Unless could we Free cycle them?)

I reckon Gumtree is a better bet