Scotland Debate

[Old Skier]

Why would anybody vote for something when they have not been given all of the facts and pros and cons.

Does nobody find it strange that the British Government allowed the fat haggis to go ahead with this without major facts about what will or will not happen if Scotland becomes independant.

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Have you read Mark Carney's comments from yesterday?

I did.I wonder if many folk actually did, or are they relying on the interpretation applied by Darling et al?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...currency-union-means-loss-of-powers-1-3286692

Playing Devils advocate for a minute.......

If those voting Yes are happy to have their interest rates and therefore, to a degree, economy, managed by BoE are you not concerned that their primary concern is going to be how macro-economic policy and interest affects the remaining UK and the policy of the governing party therein rather than Scotland?

If Scotland is in a position through either rapid growth or a downturn would you be comfortable that one of the main tools of managing the economy is unavailable to you?

I can't forsee a period where interest rates are going to be massively different in Scotland/England...where would the benefot for either side be?

bookies aren't usually wrong-
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/arti..._100_to_enter_currency_union_50_1_not_to.html

 

[NWJocko]

I did.I wonder if many folk actually did, or are they relying on the interpretation applied by Darling et al?

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...currency-union-means-loss-of-powers-1-3286692



I can't forsee a period where interest rates are going to be massively different in Scotland/England...where would the benefot for either side be?

bookies aren't usually wrong-
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/arti..._100_to_enter_currency_union_50_1_not_to.html

Any comments on this will be interpreted by both sides you're correct. What was interesting was when he talked about Scotland having to "cede partial Sovereignty" in order to enter a currency union. I can't imagine that's what the pro-independence have in mind?

In terms of interest rates, SiLH is incorrect in that the economies are "sufficiently aligned"......

The make up (by GDP) of both economies post separation are markedly different and therefore are unlikely to behave in the same way.

If, presented with the economic data available, you were asked to build a macro-economic forecasting model you would segment the 2 countries without doubt.

Not to say it won't happen, I just think that its odd that a country would want to be independent yet not have full control over it's economy (for better or worse)?

I really am not a particular advocate/campaigner for either side, just interested.

 

[NWJocko]

Why would anybody vote for something when they have not been given all of the facts and pros and cons.

Does nobody find it strange that the British Government allowed the fat haggis to go ahead with this without major facts about what will or will not happen if Scotland becomes independant.

Fat Haggis

It's a good point, all elections are somewhat a leap of faith based on manifesto's etc however the scale of the change this vote could create is not reflected in the depth of information you would expect on both sides.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why would anybody vote for something when they have not been given all of the facts and pros and cons.

Does nobody find it strange that the British Government allowed the fat haggis to go ahead with this without major facts about what will or will not happen if Scotland becomes independant.

Like Westminster being honest with voters in Scotland about whether or not rUK would seek to reach agreement with an independent Scotland on 'monetary union' if that is what the Scottish government sought following a YES vote. Strikes me that Westminster knows that they would do so, but refuse to admit it just in case that encouraged some Scots to vote YES. So Westminster are playing a childish game rather than just stating what their preferred option would be in the circumstances of an independent Scotland coming asking.

Just tell the voters up front on this and let them make their mind up if it's acceptable or not.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Never going to happen.Once you accept that yes is possible and you plan accordingly, the public perception changes and even more momentum gathers behind YES.All of which I accept as part of the game.The public game.But lets not kid ourselves...initial discussions and parameters have been laid down in the event of the inevitable yes victory.

They must have - the vote is only 8months away. What the gov of the BoE was saying makes clear that they must be doing their preparatory work on what an independent Scotland would have to cede and how it would work.

 

[Old Skier]

Like Westminster being honest with voters in Scotland about whether or not rUK would seek to reach agreement with an independent Scotland on 'monetary union' if that is what the Scottish government sought following a YES vote. Strikes me that Westminster knows that they would do so, but refuse to admit it just in case that encouraged some Scots to vote YES. So Westminster are playing a childish game rather than just stating what their preferred option would be in the circumstances of an independent Scotland coming asking.

Just tell the voters up front on this and let them make their mind up if it's acceptable or not.

Why should Westminster come clean when fat Haggis appears not to have a clue about how things are going to progress IF there is a yes vote.

If those who want a yes vote really want independence fine, become truly independant and break the apron strings but as someone looking in it appears that they still want the protection of Britain, Europe and NATO but are not willing to give anything back.

 

[Old Skier]

.initial discussions and parameters have been laid down in the event of the inevitable yes victory.

:lol::rofl:

 

[NWJocko]

Like Westminster being honest with voters in Scotland about whether or not rUK would seek to reach agreement with an independent Scotland on 'monetary union' if that is what the Scottish government sought following a YES vote. Strikes me that Westminster knows that they would do so, but refuse to admit it just in case that encouraged some Scots to vote YES. So Westminster are playing a childish game rather than just stating what their preferred option would be in the circumstances of an independent Scotland coming asking.

Just tell the voters up front on this and let them make their mind up if it's acceptable or not.

Why does it "strike you" that Westminster would enter a monetary union with Scotland?

Or is just your supposition meaning your extrapolation of them playing a "childish game" is based on what?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Why should Westminster come clean when fat Haggis appears not to have a clue about how things are going to progress IF there is a yes vote.

Because the matter of 'monetary union' from the rUK perspective is something for Westminster to make their position clear on - it is not something the Salmond et al can make a statement on - other than give their opinion. That's why they should come clean on it. The Scottish electorate can separately decide on what they make of the YES campaign view on what an iScot would do following a YES.

I also note that on the EU membership matter the view is forming that the EU would take a similarly pragmatic view on an independent Scotland joining if it sought membership, and would seek the line of least resistance and that minimised issue and risks - and that line is accept request.

 

[Old Skier]

Because the matter of 'monetary union' from the rUK perspective is something for Westminster to make their position clear on - it is not something the Salmond et al can make a statement on - other than give their opinion. That's why they should come clean on it. The Scottish electorate can separately decide on what they make of the YES campaign view on what an iScot would do following a YES.

I also note that on the EU membership matter the view is forming that the EU would take a similarly pragmatic view on an independent Scotland joining if it sought membership, and would seek the line of least resistance and that minimised issue and risks - and that line is accept request.

Westminster will gauge Britains reaction if any tom dick or harry that lives in Scotland votes Yes and act accordingly. From the general feeling that is appearing on many social media sites the reaction will be I fear, "you've made your bed " etc. You obviously will live happily ever after no matter the outcome

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Why does it "strike you" that Westminster would enter a monetary union with Scotland?

Or is just your supposition meaning your extrapolation of them playing a "childish game" is based on what?

Westminster aren't playing any childish games, they're playing the game.One of trying to convince voters to vote no by casting doubt in their minds as to what will happen post yes...what currency will you have?How will you pay your mortgage?how will you be paid?YOU'LL HAVE NO MONEY. All that kind of stuff.Absolute nonsense but in line with the nonsense from BT up until now.Project Fear.

you'll note that not one person, from Treasury,Govt,BT have categorically said that there will be no £ zone.And the reason?Because there will be a currency zone.

 

[Old Skier]

Westminster aren't playing any childish games, they're playing the game.One of trying to convince voters to vote no by casting doubt in their minds as to what will happen post yes...what currency will you have?How will you pay your mortgage?how will you be paid?YOU'LL HAVE NO MONEY. All that kind of stuff.Absolute nonsense but in line with the nonsense from BT up until now.Project Fear.

you'll note that not one person, from Treasury,Govt,BT have categorically said that there will be no £ zone.And the reason?Because there will be a currency zone.

And the fat haggis on the other hand is telling everyone the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You'll tell me you believed Braveheart next.

 

[NWJocko]

Westminster aren't playing any childish games, they're playing the game.One of trying to convince voters to vote no by casting doubt in their minds as to what will happen post yes...what currency will you have?How will you pay your mortgage?how will you be paid?YOU'LL HAVE NO MONEY. All that kind of stuff.Absolute nonsense but in line with the nonsense from BT up until now.Project Fear.

you'll note that not one person, from Treasury,Govt,BT have categorically said that there will be no £ zone.And the reason?Because there will be a currency zone.

I agree.

My point is, why would you, as an indpendent country, want control over currency, interest rates and economy controlled by somebody else?

Not a game of politicking, really just interested in the motivation from pro "independence" to have a relaince on another country from an economical perspective?

Initially at least I can't see any other option. I wouldn't be comfortable with it if I'd voted Yes though.......

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Westminster aren't playing any childish games, they're playing the game.One of trying to convince voters to vote no by casting doubt in their minds as to what will happen post yes...what currency will you have?How will you pay your mortgage?how will you be paid?YOU'LL HAVE NO MONEY. All that kind of stuff.Absolute nonsense but in line with the nonsense from BT up until now.Project Fear.

you'll note that not one person, from Treasury,Govt,BT have categorically said that there will be no £ zone.And the reason?Because there will be a currency zone.

I agree - it makes no sense for rUK to go down any other route - rUK knows it but they just won't say it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And the fat haggis on the other hand is telling everyone the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You'll tell me you believed Braveheart next.

Whether he is or not is up to the Scottish voters to decide. But BT and rUK are not saying anything on a 'sterling zone' other than saying they don't have to have one. No they don't - but they will. Salmond cannot speak for rUK on this - only rUK can but they are keeping quiet - because they know it would burst one of BT's mirage balloons (another one being EU membership - which a pragmatic EU would not refuse as the EU always will seek the line of least resistance and that given rise to fewest future problems)

 

[NWJocko]

I agree - it makes no sense for rUK to go down any other route - rUK knows it but they just won't say it.

I've asked before but I'll keep trying...... (need that head against the wall smiley again).

On what basis do you say "it makes no sense for rUK to go down any other route"?! Pretty sure I'd like my own government and Central Bank to be looking after my own country's interests and giving that 100% rather than considering any other countries issues. It appears "independent" Scots don't though and that confuses me.

Re the Project Fear, it is up to the Pro Independence campaign to counter that with more solid information on what will happen, not what it wants to happen which is pretty much what they have put out there so far.

Surely it's up to them to discuss/negotiate with the BoE and Westminster on what would be best for them?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I agree.

My point is, why would you, as an indpendent country, want control over currency, interest rates and economy controlled by somebody else?

But isn't that just the way of the world these days in any case?

 

[NWJocko]

But isn't that just the way of the world these days in any case?

Not sure I follow you.......

Following the latest downturn the US and UK are recovering by using all fo the tools available to them to enable recovery through QE, access to Credit and Interest Rates.

What would an Independent Scotland do if (it may never happen) they find themselves in Ireland's position from about 6 years back?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

And the fat haggis on the other hand is telling everyone the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You'll tell me you believed Braveheart next.

Sorry, but I'm not gonna engage with you on this.Get over the stereotypes and be sensible and I'll reply.

I agree.

My point is, why would you, as an indpendent country, want control over currency, interest rates and economy controlled by somebody else?

Not a game of politicking, really just interested in the motivation from pro "independence" to have a relaince on another country from an economical perspective?

Initially at least I can't see any other option. I wouldn't be comfortable with it if I'd voted Yes though.......

so we're talking about the value of the currency and the interest rate set by the central bank?Say they had to raise interest rates by 1% in 2016 or 2%, for whatever reason.Not ideal for borrowers either side of the wall, but good for savers on both sides.The value of the £, so exports and imports.I'm struggling to see a scenario where someone like Carney would make a decision that benefits rUK but disadvantages Scotland?

We're talking partnerships between two countries, so there would have to be agreements on stuff like corp tax too, which maybe wouldn't suit Salmond, but he'll swallow, but it won't result the central bank 'controlling our economy'...we'll collect all our taxes and spend them on things we think are correct, which brings us back to nuclear weapons,HS2,food banks,thames sewage,boris island,wars etc...we'll set the agenda on the social improvement of Scotland, with all the taxes created in Scotland,spent in Scotland.

and again, I'm only seeing this thru the eyes of someone voting yes who wants to keep the £...I'd ditch it.