Scotland Debate

[Val]

plan b, c, and d are in the white paper, B] Sterling used as an international trading currency. C] Sterling as a Scottish pound pegged 1-1 with the UK pound and D] Scottish pound as a floating currency, all viable although plan A best.

Now I have found this section, it said as follows

Currency and monetary policy
An independent Scotland will be able to decide our currency
and the arrangements for monetary policy
.
Four currency options were examined by the Fiscal Commission
– the continued use of Sterling (pegged and flexible), the
creation of a Scottish currency and membership of the Euro.
They concluded that retaining Sterling as part of a formal
monetary union with rest of the UK will be the best option. The
Fiscal Commission proposed a practical and workable model,
including governance and institutional arrangements that would
create a successful and robust framework.
The Commission’s analysis shows that it will not only be
in Scotland’s interests to retain Sterling but that – post
independence – this will also benefit the rest of the UK.
Under such an arrangement, monetary policy will be set
according to economic conditions across the Sterling Area with
ownership and governance of the Bank of England undertaken
on a shareholder basis.

That is not 4 options, that is one option.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Now I have found this section, it said as follows



That is not 4 options, that is one option.

Even that White paper smacks full of arrogance

There appears to be no provisions for what happens when they don't get what they want under a yes vote

 

[FairwayDodger]

In truth, I think there is a fair chance if we go independent that we will indeed form a currency union with rUK. The big question is what will we have to give up during negotiations to achieve that....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Supporters of the union have been focussing, in particular, on Alex Salmond’s apparent lack of a ‘Plan B’ on currency. I couldn’t care less if Scotland has pounds, dollars, euros or groats as long as they have a currency that works for them. Most of us buy goods from across the world and pay in our currency. Those from whom we purchase goods get paid in their local currency. It works. Large businesses are already trading in multiple currencies without difficulty. And there is no doubt, despite what Alistair Darling says, that the pound is Scotland's to use, if they want to. It is used by the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, all of which govern themselves.

Alistair Darling knows full well from the report of the Fiscal Commission that there is a Plan B on currency. And a Plan C, D and E. Rather than being seen as a weakness or a seeming inability to answer the question, it is correct for the First Minister to promote the plan that is best for Scotland - and incidentally the rUK - of a formal currency union.

The next best plan for Scotland, according to Annex 1 of the Fiscal Commission report, seems to be to use the pound without a currency union. This wouldn’t be as beneficial to Scotland in its early days of independence but it would be even less beneficial to rUK and that is why I believe there will be a currency union.

What supporters of the union won’t tell you is that, without a currency union, it is very likely that sterling would devalue. This would have a very serious effect on the rUK’s ability to meet its debts and public expenditure. Take oil, gas and whisky revenues out of the rUK’s balance of payments - which would happen in the absence of a currency union - and Westminster would have serious problems. That really is the nub of the matter and why George Osborne and Ed Balls have been playing what they see as their trump card of scaring people in Scotland into believing they can no longer use the pound and there will be no currency union.

 

[Val]

Supporters of the union have been focussing, in particular, on Alex Salmond’s apparent lack of a ‘Plan B’ on currency. I couldn’t care less if Scotland has pounds, dollars, euros or groats as long as they have a currency that works for them. Most of us buy goods from across the world and pay in our currency. Those from whom we purchase goods get paid in their local currency. It works. Large businesses are already trading in multiple currencies without difficulty. And there is no doubt, despite what Alistair Darling says, that the pound is Scotland's to use, if they want to. It is used by the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, all of which govern themselves.

Alistair Darling knows full well from the report of the Fiscal Commission that there is a Plan B on currency. And a Plan C, D and E. Rather than being seen as a weakness or a seeming inability to answer the question, it is correct for the First Minister to promote the plan that is best for Scotland - and incidentally the rUK - of a formal currency union.

The next best plan for Scotland, according to Annex 1 of the Fiscal Commission report, seems to be to use the pound without a currency union. This wouldn’t be as beneficial to Scotland in its early days of independence but it would be even less beneficial to rUK and that is why I believe there will be a currency union.

What supporters of the union won’t tell you is that, without a currency union, it is very likely that sterling would devalue. This would have a very serious effect on the rUK’s ability to meet its debts and public expenditure. Take oil, gas and whisky revenues out of the rUK’s balance of payments - which would happen in the absence of a currency union - and Westminster would have serious problems. That really is the nub of the matter and why George Osborne and Ed Balls have been playing what they see as their trump card of scaring people in Scotland into believing they can no longer use the pound and there will be no currency union.

Is this your own thought, something you heard, a discussion in the golf club, a post on another website?

If it's your genuine thoughts its the best post you've made on this 3264 post thread.

However, you can dress it up all you like as it stands a currency union is not on the cards therefore Salmond needs to consider plan B and beyond in a bit more depth at least to add some substance to his thoughts.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Is this your own thought, something you heard, a discussion in the golf club, a post on another website?

If it's your genuine thoughts its the best post you've made on this 3264 post thread.

However, you can dress it up all you like as it stands a currency union is not on the cards therefore Salmond needs to consider plan B and beyond in a bit more depth at least to add some substance to his thoughts.

Some own thought some other thought reflecting mine

 

[Deleted member 18588]

What supporters of the union won’t tell you is that, without a currency union, it is very likely that sterling would devalue. This would have a very serious effect on the rUK’s ability to meet its debts and public expenditure. Take oil, gas and whisky revenues out of the rUK’s balance of payments - which would happen in the absence of a currency union - and Westminster would have serious problems. That really is the nub of the matter and why George Osborne and Ed Balls have been playing what they see as their trump card of scaring people in Scotland into believing they can no longer use the pound and there will be no currency union.

True the tax revenues would disappear but so would the costs. In any event oil and gas revenues have long since peaked .

Also the UK economy seems to be growing steadily.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I was really surprised how low down Trident was on the Yes side of the debate by Salmond.
I think it was mentioned three times by selected audience members at the start of the Debate.

I believe a deal has been struck for giving Scotland the currency union if they keep Trident.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I was really surprised how low down Trident was on the Yes side of the debate by Salmond.
I think it was mentioned three times by selected audience members at the start of the Debate.

I believe a deal has been struck for giving Scotland the currency union if they keep Trident.

Excellent - the horse trading has started behind the scenes - about time too. What is Westminster's contingency plan for Trident if an indep Scotland kicks it out - can't recall hearing or reading about it. There must be one.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Excellent - the horse trading has started behind the scenes - about time too. What is Westminster's contingency plan for Trident if an indep Scotland kicks it out - can't recall hearing or reading about it. There must be one.

You are talking like what Doon has suggested is actually the truth

At the moment when looking at the polls a yes vote isn't going to happen - so why do they need to do any "deals"

I'm unaware that Westminster had to produce contingency plans

 

[Val]

Excellent - the horse trading has started behind the scenes - about time too. What is Westminster's contingency plan for Trident if an indep Scotland kicks it out - can't recall hearing or reading about it. There must be one.

No need, yet.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No need, yet.

No need? Then why are businesses seemingly all preparing their contingency plans? They do it because they do a risk assessment then decide if their is a risk what they can do to mitigate it - and what they would need to do if they could not mitigate it. If business sees the need for contingency plans - and we hear of many of the 'we'll move from Scotland if YES' nature - then why would Westminster and the MoD not be doing the same?

Actually I would be very surprised if the MoD did not already have a contingency plan for moving Trident. And one reason would be 'business continuity' in the context of 'disaster recovery'. Ask the question how Trident would operate in the loss of the Coulport base...through fire let's say. Where would the subs and warheads go? etc Every government department has to have these plans in place.

 

[SocketRocket]

No need? Then why are businesses seemingly all preparing their contingency plans? They do it because they do a risk assessment then decide if their is a risk what they can do to mitigate it - and what they would need to do if they could not mitigate it. If business sees the need for contingency plans - and we hear of many of the 'we'll move from Scotland if YES' nature - then why would Westminster and the MoD not be doing the same?

Actually I would be very surprised if the MoD did not already have a contingency plan for moving Trident. And one reason would be 'business continuity' in the context of 'disaster recovery'. Ask the question how Trident would operate in the loss of the Coulport base...through fire let's say. Where would the subs and warheads go? etc Every government department has to have these plans in place.

Even in the case of a Yes vote I think you would be looking at a 20 year plan to move them.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Even in the case of a Yes vote I think you would be looking at a 20 year plan to move them.

Certainly for a permanent move - but there has to be a short term disaster recovery plan. Might well simply be that they are all sent out to sea. More likely I'm guessing that the Trident sub that will be at Coulport/Faslane is berthed up somewhere else. That might be Rosyth (secure enough?) but in independence scenario that wouldn't be possible so Portsmouth is obvious place. Quite possible that they might also go to nearest US base but not sure that that would be politically acceptable (in the more global political sense)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Certainly for a permanent move - but there has to be a short term disaster recovery plan. Might well simply be that they are all sent out to sea. More likely I'm guessing that the Trident sub that will be at Coulport/Faslane is berthed up somewhere else. That might be Rosyth (secure enough?) but in independence scenario that wouldn't be possible so Portsmouth is obvious place. Quite possible that they might also go to nearest US base but not sure that that would be politically acceptable (in the more global political sense)

Or quite possibly they will stay exactly where they are :thup:

That is the only place for them to be stored in the UK

 

[Val]

No need? Then why are businesses seemingly all preparing their contingency plans? They do it because they do a risk assessment then decide if their is a risk what they can do to mitigate it - and what they would need to do if they could not mitigate it. If business sees the need for contingency plans - and we hear of many of the 'we'll move from Scotland if YES' nature - then why would Westminster and the MoD not be doing the same?

Actually I would be very surprised if the MoD did not already have a contingency plan for moving Trident. And one reason would be 'business continuity' in the context of 'disaster recovery'. Ask the question how Trident would operate in the loss of the Coulport base...through fire let's say. Where would the subs and warheads go? etc Every government department has to have these plans in place.

Businesses make plans because it affects their entire day to day running. As much as it seems not, Trident is only a small part of the UK forces so they don't need contigency just yet, as far as I was aware, 1 - Coulport is currently UK waters and will remain so until independence is fully confirmed and accepted world wide. 2 - It would be a long time before permanent removal, it's not like you are just evicting a tenent. 3 - Do you seriously suggest that the YES camp would just evict everything from Coulport and make many people redundant in the stroke of a pen?

Even in the case of a Yes vote I think you would be looking at a 20 year plan to move them.

:thup:

Certainly for a permanent move - but there has to be a short term disaster recovery plan. Might well simply be that they are all sent out to sea. More likely I'm guessing that the Trident sub that will be at Coulport/Faslane is berthed up somewhere else. That might be Rosyth (secure enough?) but in independence scenario that wouldn't be possible so Portsmouth is obvious place. Quite possible that they might also go to nearest US base but not sure that that would be politically acceptable (in the more global political sense)

The short term disaster recovery would have been in place since subs were first stuck on the Clyde, that is not going to be a new thing.

So in theory you agree with my statement there is no need for contigency......yet.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Businesses make plans because it affects their entire day to day running. As much as it seems not, Trident is only a small part of the UK forces so they don't need contigency just yet, as far as I was aware, 1 - Coulport is currently UK waters and will remain so until independence is fully confirmed and accepted world wide. 2 - It would be a long time before permanent removal, it's not like you are just evicting a tenent. 3 - Do you seriously suggest that the YES camp would just evict everything from Coulport and make many people redundant in the stroke of a pen?



:thup:



The short term disaster recovery would have been in place since subs were first stuck on the Clyde, that is not going to be a new thing.

So in theory you agree with my statement there is no need for contigency......yet.

Not really - you are hostage to fortune if you don't have a contingency plan in place but rely on your risk mitigations. You are OK if your risk mitigation is 100% and MoD may see there as being no risk of either Coulport or Faslane being put out of commission. But loss of site is a standard risk and all businesses will (or should) have a contingency plan for that. They almost certainly will have one if the site is 'business critical'. Maybe the MoD view is that they'd decide what to do if and when they Coulport or Faslane were lost. But I'm not sure a government department - certainly one as critical as the MoD - would be allowed to go about their business without contingency plans in place. Certainly the likes of the DWP must have contingency plans for all risks.

But of course for obvious reasons the MoD is NEVER going to tell us of their contingency plan for loss of Faslane or Coulport - even if they have one.

 

[Val]

Not really - you are hostage to fortune if you don't have a contingency plan in place but rely on your risk mitigations. You are OK if your risk mitigation is 100% and MoD may see there as being no risk of either Coulport or Faslane being put out of commission. But loss of site is a standard risk and all businesses will (or should) have a contingency plan for that. They almost certainly will have one if the site is 'business critical'. Maybe the MoD view is that they'd decide what to do if and when they Coulport or Faslane were lost. But I'm not sure a government department - certainly one as critical as the MoD - would be allowed to go about their business without contingency plans in place. Certainly the likes of the DWP must have contingency plans for all risks.

But of course for obvious reasons the MoD is NEVER going to tell us of their contingency plan for loss of Faslane or Coulport - even if they have one.

Would it be a fair assumptions these plans would have been already in place at ALL mod stations regardless of whether we were having a referendum or not?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Would it be a fair assumptions these plans would have been already in place at ALL mod stations regardless of whether we were having a referendum or not?

I would assume that all government departments and sites have disaster recovery contingency plans. Certainly all main DWP sites do, as must all sites of any company providing the DWP with a key service.

So a disaster recovery contingency plan for Trident sites will exist - though we can never be told about it. Point is that there is somewhere not in Scotland that the Trident subs could go, and basic plans will be in place for such a move.

 

[Foxholer]

Maybe the MoD view is that they'd decide what to do if and when they Coulport or Faslane were lost. But I'm not sure a government department - certainly one as critical as the MoD - would be allowed to go about their business without contingency plans in place. Certainly the likes of the DWP must have contingency plans for all risks.

But of course for obvious reasons the MoD is NEVER going to tell us of their contingency plan for loss of Faslane or Coulport - even if they have one.

MoD is one of the Departments that adopts the (slightly arrogant) approach that they can simply requisition certain things without going through 'normal' procedure. They quite possibly have contingency plans for those Faslane and Coulport being out of commision for a period, but it wouldn't surprise me (and as you say, we'll never find out) if there were no plans to cover permanent loss. I'm sure there would have been some checking - and maybe planning - done in the last year though!

Business, on the other hand, is legally required to identify all major risks and develop plans to mitigate them - which is why the likes of Standard Life et al identified and documented them in their Annual Report. The news media simply leaped on these an (distortadly in several cases) reported their 'plans to move'! Headline grabbing of the worst kind imo!