Why would an independent Scotland expect a currency union with the UK?

[JapaneseMargaret]

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...?

And I suspect there are a few in his party who think the independence debate is unworthy.

If you aren't getting a vote in it, why would you bother to get involved?

Don't get me wrong, the cultural stuff is important and the No campaign is sadly lacking but I don't think it's the most important part of the debate.

My point exactly - it shouldn't only be the folk who have a vote that should be bothered about it

Surely this affects the whole of the UK???? Why is there such a lack of media coverage down South?

It does affect the entire country, but when only 5 million out of 63 million have a vote, why would the 63 million bother to take any more than a passing interest?

You can tell it's Friday night... 63 million minus 5 million is 58 million. Sorry!

I have a sneaky feeling that if the remaining 58 million were to be given a vote it would be a resounding 'off you trot if it stops your whinging'.

Can anyone on here give us one 'fact', either for or against independence, that we can all agree on?

Thought not. So it's all down to belief, prejudice and gut feeling then? Thought so.

In which case, the question we should be asking ourselves is: Do we fancy a huge leap into the dark and scary unknown? Or, to put it more positively, are we brave enough to follow a dream?

Either way, from the minute Scottish Independence started to look (to some) as if it might be possible, the status quo was not an option - but that's OK, most of us want some sort of change, I expect. But in wishing for change, we have to accept the bad with the good, because you never get one without the other. Our populations are made up of people who are so diverse they could be living on different planets. What benefits one sector will disadvantage another.

Ubik1 Fri 14-Feb-14 16:07:44
Isn't Iceland doing ok now?

Thats the myth that it is. The truth is a lot more painful than that. And I actually despair of anyone who uses the example of Iceland as an economic example to follow as they clearly don't have a very good understanding of the consequences for the average Icelander and what they have to live with. They are in a situation where their children will still be paying for the collapse of their economy.

Here is an illustration of the worthlessness of the Icelandic Currency. The difference between a mortgage taken in Iceland, and one taken in Norway. For a mortgage worth ISK 26 million (USD 224,000), the Norwegian winds up paying back ISK 40 million. The Icelander, on the other hand, pays back ISK 500 million (USD 4.3 million).

Still think that Iceland is doing ok now?

Ubik1 Fri 14-Feb-14 13:36:01
I don't really understand why Westminster wouldn't allow Scotland to keep the pound.

I suppose if Westminster is determined to not have currency union, Scotland could tell them to shove the national debt and walk away.

So you don't think that there would be any economic consequences to doing so? Even if Scotland has natural resources it can sell and use, I'm not sure that that will be helpful in terms of borrowing. The Scottish government will have to borrow from somewhere. The English if saddled with debt which they feel the Scottish have defaulted on will be reluctant to do that. Maybe other countries might be willing to, but again it depends on how the credit agencies view a move like that. Potentially you could find a situation where it would be very expensive indeed to borrow money...

The example above of an Icelandic mortgage doesn't look so unlikely to a Scotland that walks away from debts. England would probably end up honouring them, to protect its own credit worthiness but I do not think that Scotland would be viewed internationally favourably for it, because of the instability and uncertainty it would create in the markets whilst it was all be fought over and sorted out. It would end up being a black mark against them in the end.

Is that what Scots really want?

Personally I have always found the idea that Scotland would retain the pound in the name of Independent an odd one. It just makes no sense. At all. Its totally contradictory.

To me its not England V Scotland. Its understanding economics and politics versus being a clueless numpty who believes the myths of the media of things like the Icelandic crisis without bothering to try and fully understand them.

Can anyone on here give us one 'fact', either for or against independence, that we can all agree on

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is an extremely important point. There are no certainties with independence or a no vote. Both outcomes are a leap into the unknown.

Following my own line of reasoning (for once) I have just realised that the outcome will be decided by those who have most to gain from change - any change - and nothing to lose by a leap into the unknown. (I know it's not rocket science, but my brain doesn't work very fast).

So poor people in Scotland want change. The thing is - those are the people who don't normally vote. So it's up to the SNP to mobilise them I suppose. But the very fact that the main supporters of independence will be from the lower social classes will automatically alienate the sectors of society that don't identify with them. Hence my colleague's remark the other day, that she would vote for independence, but she doesn't like the look of the other people who are going to vote for it. Which I didn't understand at the time, but I do now.

So a personal voyage of discovery for me, which I am sharing with you.

So it's a class struggle! (I'm on a roll here)

Think Clearances, think South Sea Bubble. T'was ever thus.

I suppose it is sort of. Westminster/Tories/politicians are mostly the elites with a very far right view point. Think every man for them self. If you are in poverty its your fault for not trying hard enough and the state should not help you.

Scotland/north England very broadly speaking old Labour heartland, more working class, more socialist values.

New labour/Tories/lib dems have just kept moving WM politics further and further right.

So, my learned friends, as we have proved that there are no absolute certainties in this debate, this leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the results of the referendum will depend not on reasoned argument, but on the number of people who feel they have nothing to lose - and who feel strongly enough about it to vote.

And these are the people who will decide the futures of those of us who have quite a lot to lose.

There's a rather piquant little irony here. Methinks.

What is it that you have to lose Solopower?

And why should one person's vote mean any more than another person's? Is it because they don't have much money?

And the working classes in Scotland typically vote Labour (for all the good it's done them)

To be honest, I think that politics in the UK, has turned into a situation where the main reason to vote isn't to vote FOR something, but to vote against the alternative.

Which is actually quite sad and not particularly healthy state for democracy to be in.

One person's vote means the same as anyone else's. It just depends how many of 'them' there are and how many of 'us'. Obv.

What have I got to lose? My rather pleasant, safe, secure little lifestyle, I suppose. I think we've got it just about right in Scotland - the best of all possible worlds - at the moment.

But I would be quite interested in what would happen in the event of independence. I just wouldn't want to here in Scotland during the 30-40-year adjustment period. On the other hand, great change brings great opportunities. For some.

It's interesting how the pro- union position is always framed in these finger-wagging, patronising terms. Rather than discussion, rather outlining the benefits to me, a public sector worker with three children, of staying in the union.

The whole pro-union campaign seems to be put in terms of 'it's too complicated/difficult/scary' and 'you are all to stupid to understand/run a country/be grateful for whatever you have.

I feel like I am being asked to just put up with the same old shit fir the next 50 years just so some wealthy people can continue to do well out of the union and others, who don't live in Scotland anymore, can continue to feel sentimental about the old country.

Sorry Solo - when I said finger wagging I didn't mean your post

'I think we've got it just about right in Scotland - the best of all possible worlds - at the moment'. I take that back, and wish to remove it from the record. Of course we haven't got it right, and we need to work to make it better.

Xposts. Thank you, Ubik 1. FWIW, I don't think we would be more than capable of self-rule. It would just take a while, that's all. And we could hardly do a worse job than the Coalition. Would that even be possible?

I mean I think we would be more than capable ...

Well if you use the example of Iceland being in a good state as an example, I would question your understanding of economics tbh.

It means you are buying into a romantic media vision of what happened there rather than an honest version and how much people are struggling with the reality.

Is it that the pro-union campaign are simply patronising? Or are they trying to present a vision that is less rose-tinted and they are highlighting the fact that the independence campaign isn't being as honest as it should be either?

One appeals to heads, one appeals to hearts.

Maybe we just keep the Scottish pound. According to most English shop keepers it is a foreign currency.

should

... it would just take a while to adjust, I meant. Hope that's not patronising?

I think it's hearts and hearts tbh, RedToothBrush. Although I take your point about Iceland. And neither side is being entirely honest imo. Both sides are trying to manipulate us, one way or another.