Mr. Bojangles Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Not just Scottish money. The tax of the whole of the UK. Scotland would be one of several parts, London included, under the example I gave, to experience a net reduction in spending in order to support the growth of deprived areas like Wales and the North East of England. I think that would be ultimately a good thing, for the same reason that I think a significantly increased redistribution of wealth from London, Paris and New York to Calcutta, Johannesburg and Sao Paolo would ultimately also be a good thing for the people of London, Paris and New York. Never going to happen, and unless I'm massively off the mark, not even the unionists are talking openly about a New World Order. They've talked of scrapping Barnett and introducing a needs based formula, but there's also a lot of talk of freeing up London from the tyranny of Brussels over-regulation. England and Wales will be one pot, Scotland the other. We'll pay more than we receive and London won't lose out at all. It might be split in a different way, but you can be damn sure that it won't be the SE losing out. If you can't see that every one of the unionist parties is only concerned with the welfare of London, I'd suggest you open your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Our currency. Surely it's the currency of the UK? It is, officially it can Ireland or Eire Ireland is an island. The Republic of Ireland is a nation. They are not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Surely it's the currency of the UK? Ireland is an island. The Republic of Ireland is a nation. They are not the same thing. We are part of the uk at the moment. Its our currency. Of course, if the currency isn't ours, then neither is the debt, right?No assets, no debt. Seems fair. Debt free Scotland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 By using numbers that suggest "Scotland"'s "money in" to "money out" ratio is 17:12 you were going FURTHER than simply to say we don't fully control all the money raised in Scotland (this is surely a "no shit" point too, for the record). You were suggesting that we pay in SIGNIFICANTLY more than we get back. This isn't true. It's not true by a significant margin. People aren't here to read things for fun. They are here to be telt. Must be a sare yin when someone notices right off the bat that you're writing boring essay notes on something that they didn't ask for an explanation of and avoids getting telt altogether. No wonder you threw such a hissy fit about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Never going to happen, and unless I'm massively off the mark, not even the unionists are talking openly about a New World Order. Except it is happening, slowly but surely. Global markets are redistributing wealth to developing countries. Development aid is accounting for more as a % of GDP in the West than ever before. No one is asking for revolution, but gradually these things are changing. They've talked of scrapping Barnett and introducing a needs based formula, but there's also a lot of talk of freeing up London from the tyranny of Brussels over-regulation. Whataboutery. And completely unrelated to revenue allocation. England and Wales will be one pot, Scotland the other. Okay you've literally just made that up. That's not what's been mooted at all. No one has suggested that the allocation of revenue should cease to be split between England and Wales. Absolutely no one. Except you. Now. The direction of travel if you paid any attention to the Silk Commission is if anything one whereby Wales is taking more responsibility for revenue raising, up to something broadly commensurate with the Calman powers, making its pot more discrete from money spent in England, not less. If you're going to lie at least be convincing. We'll pay more than we receive and London won't lose out at all. It might be split in a different way, but you can be damn sure that it won't be the SE losing out. If you can't see that every one of the unionist parties is only concerned with the welfare of London, I'd suggest you open your eyes. First of all, you can't know that this will happen. If anything, any proposal that would further benefit the South East would generate outright hostility from all three devolved administrations and significant swathes of North and Western England. Even insofar as London would be protected, that's not evidence that "every one of the unionist parties is only concerned with the welfare of London". It's literally untrue to say that. It's true to say that most of the policies they pursue have failed to tackle the structural disproportionate advantage enjoyed by the capital city (a problem far from unique to the UK) but to say then that that means the politicians or the parties don't *care* about other parts of the UK just has no basis in reality. You can have eyes firmly open to the nature of the problems with the Westminster state without buying into this silly narrative that the London parties hate Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 We are part of the uk at the moment. Its our currency. Of course, if the currency isn't ours, then neither is the debt, right? No assets, no debt. Seems fair. Debt free Scotland! Except we do have assets. Currency =/= assets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Except we do have assets. Currency =/= assets I would say that our currency bloody well is an asset. Thats our central bank and our own currency that they are talking about us not being allowed to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I would say that our currency bloody well is an asset. Thats our central bank and our own currency that they are talking about us not being allowed to use.We've dealt with this before.A currency is not an asset. It is a legally defined denomination for a bill of exchange which is honoured against goods owned by (usually) a government. A central bank is an asset which belongs to a state. It's just a building with furniture in it to which a government pays money into a pot to employ people to discharge statutory functions on its behalf concerning free exchange in their territory. Scotland, as a matter of public international law, does not own a pro indiviso share in the pound sterling. And even if it did, it wouldn't be worth anything. We would, in any reasonable negotiations, be entitled to a proper share of the collateral assets (gold, platinum, foreign banknotes to be honoured by other central banks against other assets etc) against which notes are printed, or the monetary value in lieu of those assets, but that is not the same as getting to keep the currency, which is an instrument of law and not an asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Clearly you haven't been listening to your own party. We will get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 A currency is not an asset. It is a legally defined denomination for a bill of exchange which is honoured against goods owned by (usually) a government. Agreed. As you say, the currency in use is not always owned by a government. So, what's to stop an institution (or two or three institutions) from collecting a whole lot of Sterling Pound Notes and issuing differently designed pieces of paper promising to pay the bearer a certain number of Pounds Sterling if they bring that bit of paper to the institution's Head Office? Doesn't this happen already in various parts of the UK? Why does Alistair Carmichael seem to believe that Osbourne can ban this practice after independence? Please keep us honest........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 If we've voted to screw them over by becoming independent then they're not going to be favourable towards us. This is tripe. The UK maintains good relations with most of it's former colonies and the Irish Rep. If they get all huffy and decide against a currency union out of spite what, exactly, can they do to stop us adopting Sterling unilaterally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Agreed. As you say, the currency in use is not always owned by a government. So, what's to stop an institution (or two or three institutions) from collecting a whole lot of Sterling Pound Notes and issuing differently designed pieces of paper promising to pay the bearer a certain number of Pounds Sterling if they bring that bit of paper to the institution's Head Office? Doesn't this happen already in various parts of the UK? Why does Alistair Carmichael seem to believe that Osbourne can ban this practice after independence? Please keep us honest........ Anyone saying we can't use the pound or that we can't use a derivative of the pound without the permission of rUK's Treasury is an idiot. Equally, anyone saying we can enter a currency union post independence without their explicit and active consent is an idiot. I've already said on here and elsewhere in considerable detail that it's not in Scotland's interest to enter into a currency union, simply because it's far too inflexible and has virtually no advantages over the better alternatives that retain de facto parity and ease of exchange. The smartest thing to do would be to secure a near pro-rata share of Bank of England notes and vest them in a new central bank of our own, and issue Scottish notes at par for every Bank of England note held. Then when they want to exercise control over monetary policy, all they have to do is use the Bank of England notes to buy real or other derivative assets and/or print more Scottish notes, thereby making it possible to increase the money supply where it is necessary to stabilise fiscal policy, without necessarily causing the Scottish pound to fluctuate greatly against the BEP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Clearly you haven't been listening to your own party. We will get nothing. Can you quote me a Lib Dem representative stating that Scotland would not be entitled to a (broadly) pro-rata value equivalent of the assets of the Bank of England post negotiations in the event of a Yes vote? Because I don't believe that's what anyone, let alone Alistair Carmichael, has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Except we do have assets. Currency =/= assets We've dealt with this before. A currency is not an asset. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/24/alex-salmond-westminster-hurdles-independent-scotland-2015-general-election#start-of-comments Sturgeon said a currency union was in the best interests of the UK and was one of a number of proposals in the independence white paper. Scotland was England's second largest trading partner; Scotland's oil revenues and exports would bolster the UK balance of trade and both economies were very closely integrated. She said she was confident that both countries would agree to share the pound: if the UK was insisting that Scotland took a fair share of the UK's debt, then Scotland was entitled to a fair share of its assets, including sterling, which belonged equally to Scotland. Who to believe, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Strategy or one guy that supports Carmichael's Liberal with the truth Democrats and another that can't have relatives who are foreigners? I recommend that article by the way. Must be a tip off about something really juicy in the White Paper if the Edinburgh Agreement doesn't even count anymore. Wooft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Boris Johnson wants the Americans to step in & act as some kind of marriage councillor before Scotland & England divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Anyone saying we can't use the pound or that we can't use a derivative of the pound without the permission of rUK's Treasury is an idiot. Equally, anyone saying we can enter a currency union post independence without their explicit and active consent is an idiot. I've already said on here and elsewhere in considerable detail that it's not in Scotland's interest to enter into a currency union, simply because it's far too inflexible and has virtually no advantages over the better alternatives that retain de facto parity and ease of exchange. The smartest thing to do would be to secure a near pro-rata share of Bank of England notes and vest them in a new central bank of our own, and issue Scottish notes at par for every Bank of England note held. Then when they want to exercise control over monetary policy, all they have to do is use the Bank of England notes to buy real or other derivative assets and/or print more Scottish notes, thereby making it possible to increase the money supply where it is necessary to stabilise fiscal policy, without necessarily causing the Scottish pound to fluctuate greatly against the BEP. This. Definitely the way forward with regards to currency. I am beginning to wonder, with the white paper and it's apparent "answer to all questions" that this line of thinking is perhaps outlined in the document? Unionists have commented that Sturgeon et'al go schtum when probed about a plan . C or D with regards to currency, maybe it's not because they can't say, more a matter of they won't.... Regardless, today will be interesting indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/vote-scotland-grab-chance-secession good article from John Harris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Scotland is part of Britain, thus, the British government cares about Scotland. Anyway, if they hate us so much, why would they let us use their currency? :lol: sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/25/vote-scotland-grab-chance-secession good article from John Harris. I'm surprised the guardian allowed that. Clashes a bit with their editorial line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie guevara Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 So tomorrow we will see, in detail, what the offer is from the Yes campaign, warts and all. I'm pretty sure that I won't agree with all of it. I'm absolutely sure that I'll be irritated at the fact that there will be gaps in the "certainty". What will we get from Better Together and its constituent parts? "Ye cannae, ye willnae, we'll no' let ye" are guarantees, but what about a vision? What will Labour's One Nation deliver in 2015 if they win the election? What will Osborne and Cameron's endless cuts mean for us from 2015 -2020 if they win? Will the LibDems have any influence at all, post-2015? Do Scotland's votes really count at a UK level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.