An Independent Scotland?

Steep said:
Since it was aimed at undecided voters though it does appear A.S. did the job well to some extent. ICM poll after the debate showed 43% rise to 47% for Yes, 57% fall to 53% No.
Click to expand...
Keith W said:
Care to back this up with a link or two?
Click to expand...
Here you go.
http://www.icmresearch.com/media-ce...astair-darling-independence-referendum-debate
Alastair Darling emerged as a semi-clear winner of the Scottish Independence debate, convincing 56% of the 512 survey participants that he was the better man on the night. 44% opted for Salmond.

Darling performed more solidly among No supporters – securing 93% of them who told us their man won, compared to only 82% of Yes supporters who said Salmond won.

And Darling won on the arguments – a majority (51%) said so, with 40% saying Salmond had the better ideas. On the other hand, Salmond’s undoubted personality helped win over viewers, with 47% saying the First Minister had the better personality compared to only 39% who said so for Darling.

But the question is how does this impact on Indyref vote intentions? The answer is “not much”. Of the sample who participated after the debate, views did not move – 53% said they intended to vote No beforehand, and the same figures emerged afterwards. So Darling won on the night, but voters remain steadfast in the way they plan to vote.
Click to expand...

Oh wait, that's not what @Steep said.
 
Steep said:
His cracks about aliens and right side driving only worked if you knew the context (things that have been thrown at Yes by various No campers) which few of the audience will have done.

About Currency Union, you're right, there doesn't need to be a plan B if plan A is a good one, what A.S. didn't get over well last night was why plan B isn't needed.
I think Bernard Ponsonby did a good job of hectoring both of them to try and liven it up mind you.
Click to expand...

Yes there does need to be a plan B

Yes there is a plan B

If you think there is not a plane B or no need for one then again this shows your total lack of knowledge and understanding.

Alex Salmond does have a plan B, however he wants to win the vote and will stick with the option that has the best prospect of doing that
 
Scotland certainly brings something to the table, but with independence it will leave the table. Scotland's independence will have an effect, but not, I think, enough for an independent Scotland to have an impact on monetary policy.

I'm not against Scottish independence if it would be better all round for Scotland but I don't think the case has been well made.

Dave

Agree, Bernard Ponsonby did an excellent job.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how either of them come up with those figures unless they have more/different data to the downloadable tables.
 
Spiritflier said:
Personally, as long as I never hear another word from Alex Salmond, Frankie Boyle, Andy Murray or the Proclaimers, Scotland can have independence! ;)
Click to expand...

Deal, if you promise to keep Gary Lineker, Clare Balding, Boris Johnston and especially Richard Madely(sp?)
 
Steep said:
His cracks about aliens and right side driving only worked if you knew the context (things that have been thrown at Yes by various No campers) which few of the audience will have done.

About Currency Union, you're right, there doesn't need to be a plan B if plan A is a good one, what A.S. didn't get over well last night was why plan B isn't needed.
I think Bernard Ponsonby did a good job of hectoring both of them to try and liven it up mind you.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying there isn't or doesn't need to be a plan B, only that we don't need to concern ourselves with plan B if plan A is the likely option.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I'm not saying there isn't or doesn't need to be a plan B, only that we don't need to concern ourselves with plan B if plan A is the likely option.
Click to expand...

How can Plan A (a complete currency union) be considered "the likely option" when the UK has already discounted that as feasible (or even a good thing for Scotland). How can Salmond run his independent Scotland if his monetary policies are in essence being dictated by a foreign country's central bank?
 
Steep said:
Deal, if you promise to keep Gary Lineker, Clare Balding, Boris Johnson and especially Richard Madeley...
Click to expand...

I was hoping they'd emigrate if the Scots became independent! ;)

I don't think independence is viable... Removing the currency alone will see to that. I haven't been given the opportunity to vote (even though it affects me along with every other UK citizen) and I think it's a mistake as we are better together. If Scotland votes to go it alone, it'll fail and cause a lot of misery!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
The non-confomits were bigging this debate up as their "Bannockburn" - more like their Waterloo !
 
Dave1 said:
How can Plan A (a complete currency union) be considered "the likely option" when the UK has already discounted that as feasible (or even a good thing for Scotland). How can Salmond run his independent Scotland if his monetary policies are in essence being dictated by a foreign country's central bank?
Click to expand...
So the UK government can't decide after a yes vote that a monetary union could actually be a good thing?
I would expect the Scottish Government to run an independent Scotland In a similar way to all the independent EU countries, who have a monetary union, except in our case, it could work better because the two economies are very similar.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Neither one of them shone last night, Darling was Mr ShoutyShouty, Salmond didn't shout enough, you could see him almost lose the rag a couple of times and I think it might have been good for him to let go at least once.
Click to expand...
He did get a bit excited when Darling was banging on about RBS & Goodwin, and it had to be pointed out to him that he was not only in charge of financial regulation at the time of collapse, but his government knighted Goodwin. Fair point.... :-)
 
I watched netflix, couldn't be arsed listening/watching two politians bitch to each other
 
I'm wondering what a "non-confomit" is.
dod said:
Ah good, two totally unbiased sources.
Click to expand...

One actually but you have to know that Yes bias is always right. :)
 
I think it would be a better idea to have Ivan Mckee and a unionist business leader, or Patrick Harvie and a Green unionist (if there is one). Tommy Sheridan V Gordon Brown! Two non-political women even. Get away from main stream politicians.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
So the UK government can't decide after a yes vote that a monetary union could actually be a good thing?
I would expect the Scottish Government to run an independent Scotland In a similar way to all the independent EU countries, who have a monetary union, except in our case, it could work better because the two economies are very similar.
Click to expand...
It's extremely unlikely that there will be a monetary union. Sometimes there are lines drawn and this would be one of them. Whilst principle and politics are strange bed fellows in this case they go hand in hand. There will be no currency union, the voters of rUK will not relinquish control of their currency to a foreign country and it would be the political graveyard for any Westminster politician who argues for it. Has the Euro taught you nothing.
 
The voters of UK already did, UK was in a currency union (effectively) with the Dollar for nearly 25yrs until 1971 when the US ended it, after that for years the pound was pegged to the dollar rise ror rise fall for fall. Thatcher ended that and it's only since the 1980s that Stirling has been a free floating currency. Look up Bretton Woods.

Here's an old Guardian article on currency unions through the ages, it shows that unions work to stabilise the economies of partitioning nations for a time, they seldom seem to last more than 50 years or so but by that time their has usually been done.

Don't forget while you're busy pontificating on what the voters of rUK will not allow that rUK will need it just as much as Scotland if not more. Losing Scotlands income and 90% of the oil revenues will be a big blow to rUKs economy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/10/euro.eu
 
Last edited:
Bobsyeruncle said:
Nice to see you taking an interest in Scotland's future:p
Click to expand...
I have a very strong interest in Scotland's future, and I also didn't waste time watching the debate. Scotland's future has nothing to do with what happens in the next two or three years, but rather the next few hundred. Looking back today we would laugh at people trying to judge the success of the Union in the early 1700s. So too we would think it ridiculous reading in history that the English shouldn't kick out the Romans because they wouldn't be able to keep the Roman groat, or because that Boadicea is a bit untrustworthy.

There seems a (for me) unfathomable interest in staring at issues which are under our feet, and I (rightly it seems) expected the debate to be even more of the same. For sure today is an issue (we have to live today), but it's not the key concern.
 
jakeblu said:
It's extremely unlikely that there will be a monetary union. Sometimes there are lines drawn and this would be one of them. Whilst principle and politics are strange bed fellows in this case they go hand in hand. There will be no currency union, the voters of rUK will not relinquish control of their currency to a foreign country and it would be the political graveyard for any Westminster politician who argues for it. Has the Euro taught you nothing.
Click to expand...
I would fully expect England to want currency union, I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Salmond wants it. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" (Rothschild). Why on earth would you want another country to be able to control the value of your currency?! Look at what that has done for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc., with their interest rates set at what Germany needs, rather than what they need. What's worse is that they can't devalue their currency to regain competitiveness. Scotland would like suffer the same - GBP value and corresponding interest rates set according to the needs of the city and the south-east, with bad effects for Scotland. I expect Scotland to need a relatively weak currency after independence, which would not be the case with GBP.
 
Moadib said:
I would fully expect England to want currency union, I'm absolutely gobsmacked that Salmond wants it. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" (Rothschild). Why on earth would you want another country to be able to control the value of your currency?! Look at what that has done for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc., with their interest rates set at what Germany needs, rather than what they need. What's worse is that they can't devalue their currency to regain competitiveness. Scotland would like suffer the same - GBP value and corresponding interest rates set according to the needs of the city and the south-east, with bad effects for Scotland. I expect Scotland to need a relatively weak currency after independence, which would not be the case with GBP.
Click to expand...
Well that's most of England screwed as well then, apart from London and the south east.
There are plenty of EU countries who have not suffered in the way that the ones you mention have.
.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
I have a very strong interest in Scotland's future, and I also didn't waste time watching the debate. Scotland's future has nothing to do with what happens in the next two or three years, but rather the next few hundred. Looking back today we would laugh at people trying to judge the success of the Union in the early 1700s. So too we would think it ridiculous reading in history that the English shouldn't kick out the Romans because they wouldn't be able to keep the Roman groat, or because that Boadicea is a bit untrustworthy.

There seems a (for me) unfathomable interest in staring at issues which are under our feet, and I (rightly it seems) expected the debate to be even more of the same. For sure today is an issue (we have to live today), but it's not the key concern.
Click to expand...


Scotland's future has a lot to do with what happens in the next 2 years.
The English didn't kick the Romans out, they left to protect the Roman Empires interests elsewhere
 
j crossley said:
But don't Scotland already have their own currency? Have you ever tried spending a Scottish fiver in an English shop!!!
Click to expand...

They are quite common around here (but I am in the North East).

If you really want have people act like you've just tried to pay them with Zimbabwean Dollars try and pay with Northern Irish notes ;).
 
The idea that Scottish bank notes are not accepted in England was, to some extent, true many years ago; but not now. I visit Scotland about 5 or 6 times a year and return with, as the saying goes, "loads a money", and I never have a problem using the notes.

Dave
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Scotland's future has a lot to do with what happens in the next 2 years.
The English didn't kick the Romans out, they left to protect the Roman Empires interests elsewhere
Click to expand...
The principle is the same - the Union wasn't judged in 1710, looking back today that would be laughable. I can see why people would think the next couple of years are important, they are what WE can see, and the ones that affect US. However in the grand scheme of things they really aren't. It is where the country is 50, 100, 500 years hence - has that starting trajectory allowed us to be better off than we otherwise would have been. Was Taiwan independence judged at that weak moment, or better looking back today with their strong position in world semiconductors and manufacturing? At the moment they were worse off, today they can judge more clearly. Substitute any newly independent country - it's the trajectory and what you make of it.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Well that's most of England screwed as well then, apart from London and the south east.
There are plenty of EU countries who have not suffered in the way that the ones you mention have.
.
Click to expand...
Indeed, because the interest rates and monetary policy happened to be appropriate for those other EU countries (i.e. their needs were broadly similar to Germany). Differences show up the policy problems, and the PIIGS were different in their needs from Germany, hence low interest rate policies caused them massive problems. With one currency such differing policies cannot be applied. As the EU must support the main economy (Germany) so the BoE must support the south-east. Others will be a cork in that ocean - it may fit, it often won't.
 
Moadib said:
I can see why people would think the next couple of years are important, they are what WE can see, and the ones that affect US. However in the grand scheme of things they really aren't.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it's a big ask. How many people would be willing to accept a potential worsening of their own circumstances in order to provide a potentially better future for their great-great-grandchildren? Not many, if the debate over global climate change is anything to go by.

Unfortunately I don't think your line of argument is going to win you many converts.
 
Last edited:
If Scotland is so prosperous and wealthy, with abundant natural resources generating so much wealth etc, then why wouldn't we want our own currency which would surely be stronger than the alleged weaker UK? If we can control our own currency then we can also potentially control our exports by keeping the currency value intentionally low so that people would be more interested in buying Scottish products as they would be cheaper (I think China executes this practice). This would give a welcome boost to our manufacturing industry which desperately needs improving.

The proposed oil fund that Salmond wants to start interested me and it's a genuine question, not loaded or anything. I think it was 15% of Scotland's revenue that oil generates (please correct me if wrong) and we are currently running a deficit of 8.6Bn and this doesn't include our share of the national debt. As a currency union isn't guaranteed and therefore we don't know what our borrowing ability and interest rates will be with an Independent Scotland (I know some places have given their opinion but that's not guaranteed) so our ability to deal with this debt is also unknown, how are we going to afford to build an oil fund when it seems that we need all the revenue we've got, and more just to try and reduce the deficit never mind the share of national debt and even more importantly the potential pensions liability?

Also, is there any clarity on whether or not Scotland's exports to the rUK would be subject to Import Duty and VAT with an Independent Scotland?
 
gman if you watch the video I posted on Page 44, Ivor McKee makes a good explanation of the finances.

If both countries are in the EU there will be no import duties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top