Scottish Referendum debate - watch with Mumsnet

[KatieMumsnet]

So tonight sees the first TV debate of the Scottish Referendum with First Minister and key advocate of the pro- yes campaign, Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign coming together for a head to head debate for the first time.

You can watch live from 8pm on STV and if you're south of the border can tune in via the STV player.

Fancy watching along with us? What are you hoping to see from tonight's debate? What are your thoughts on the campaigns so far?

If you've decided which way to vote, why? And if not, what will help you decide?

Do feel free to share these, and any more thoughts you have

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

Well that sets out why Scotland might want CU but it doesn't say that it would have to go ahead, and I cannot see why we (rUK) would want it. I'd vote against any party saying they would support CU in the next GE.

I found this more convincing: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/279454/CM8815_2901849_SA_SterlingUnion_acc.pdf

CU is as far as I can see in the best interests of rUK?

What are the downsides for rUK?

I don't think, from a quick read, that actually answers saintlyjimjams' question though. It questions the logic and rationale of the treasury/govt position - fine. But it does not answer why do people keep saying the currency union will happen

I think what saintly was getting at (correct me if I am wrong saintly!) is that all major UK political parties have said no, and there is at the moment significant public opposition to it in England and Wales. Given this, regardless of whether it would actually be better or worse for Scotland or the rUK, why are people refusing to countenance that it won't be allowed to happen because 68% of those polled in England and Wales oppose it and so it would be a political disaster for the party in power to push it through. Especially given that there is a general election in the middle of the negotiating period and it looks likely that all parties will include a manifesto pledge against it.

xposted with everything after oldlady's first link!

Downside for rUK - both sides would have to approve each others budgets and fiscal plans I believe. Why would the rUK want to do that, especially given the insistence that Scotland will have such different priorities?

I would imagine that as a very junior partner Scotland would have very little say in what rUK did. And surely the terms of a CU would set out what each party can and cannot "do".

I cant see any risk to the rUK, but I can see lots of difficulties for rUK if it is refused. A biggie of course is that Scotland would have to take back all the money it has in BOE to back Scottish notes, and of course rUK would have more debt with less assets.

Yes - that's exactly it StatisticallyChallenged.

Downsides for the UK is that we get a whole load of risk and no benefit. I would expect the rUK government to act in our interests - not Scotland's.

TBH I can't see the point of a CU, informally continuing to use the pound would seem to be better, and less contentious.

Downside for rUK is they're on the hook if Scotland has some sort of collapse. No thanks.

From my link above for example The continuing UK would become unilaterally exposed to much greater fiscal and financial risk from a separate state. Greater fiscal risk would come from UK taxpayers being asked to support the wider economy of another state and also financial risk were banks from that state to fail

Although my question is actually the one the Statistically highlighted. Whatever the arguments for or against it's clearly not going to happen. So why do people keep ignoring that?

Define " collapse" and why would this happen? I think TBH the risk would more be to Scotland in the event of an rUK collpase - City of London is where all of the dodgy high risk banking activity happens.

As well as financial institution from government policy. Have a read of the link above though for all the negatives. There's more than just that.

I don't believe the rUK is more likely to collapse than a small country such as Scotland.

But anyway my question remains - it's clearly not going to happen as the majority in rUK do not want it (I feel for those who would live in England and work in Scotland though) - so why keep pretending we'll suddenly all see the light and it will go ahead?

My understanding is that the risk of collapse would be greater for Scotland because the banks, as it stands, are much bigger relative to Scotland than the UK as a whole. Much bigger than it was for Iceland.

"I would imagine that as a very junior partner Scotland would have very little say in what rUK did"

So, we'd be a really junior partner and therefore rUK would still have significant control over what we did...so what's the point!

"I can't see the point of a CU, informally continuing to use the pound would seem to be better, and less contentious."

It's certainly an option and one I could see us ending up with. But it has very significant downsides especially when you would potentially have two economies pulling in opposite directions. The BoE would have absolutely no obligation to consider Scotland in its decision making process. This could be really, really bad if our economies diverge- actions taken for a flourishing rUK economy could be massively damaging for a recessionary Scotland. And borrowing would be tricky...

Another article on CU:

www.cityam.com/article/1394565144/big-independence-lie-scotland-could-keep-pound

But that's not CU is it? That's using the pound. Completely different thing from CU. I have no issue with Scotland using the pound if they want to - it's up to them what they use, but if there's to be CU the rUK have to agree- and I don't believe CU is in the interests of the rUK, nor do I think it will happen.

Yup using the pound is a very very different thing.

I know. But the No campaign is making such a massive issue out of the whole CU/no CU when really it is a non-argument. CU makes things easier for both sides, but is in no way a deal breaker for whether an I scotland can be successful.

Having no control over your currency is not a good long term option. It means that huge amounts of control over your economy are gone. It's worse than currency union by a long way -which is probably why salmond won't admit that it is plan b because he knows that it raises far too many awkward questions.

It makes quite a difference to people living in Scotland. Providing there's no CU I have no particular personal interest in what Scotland does, but I personally wouldn't want to live in a country that was using the pound in the way other countries might use the dollar (or pretty much any of the other options). All I can see is lots of risk and negatives and no positives.

I do think that if people vote Yes thinking they will be able to force CU through, then they are mistaken. Everything I've read of any substance is clear about that - CU won't be happening.

But you never have full control over your own currency anyway unless you don't trade internationally. Lots of countries are successful using another countries currency, including many in the Eurozone.

But the Eurozone has currency union?? (except UK and Denmark).

Yes. But individual countries in the Euro don't have full control of the currency.

I'm no expert but isn't that why UK stayed out?

Anyway - that's still a completely different situation to Scotland using the pound without CU - isn't it like Kosovo & Montenegro using the Euro without union (and no representation at all). Very different from the European countries in the CU.

No currency operates in a vacuum.
Currently Scotland has little say over currency.
An iScotland in CU would have little say over currency.
An iScotland using £ informally would have little say over currency.

No CU really isn't a big deal.