I have decided to vote.....

[Anonapersona]

Did you even read the articles? It explains quite clearly why it was implemented in Scotland first - Thatcher wanted to do it across the UK at the same time. It was done in response to the differences in the phasing of rate revaluations in Scotland and the rest of the UK. It was a crap tax and implemented stupidly, but saying that Scotland were chosen as 'guinea pigs' just isn't true.

Yes I read the articles. But I'll say it again, there was absolutely no need to have a one year separation between implementations. I mean seriously, what kind of government develops a new tax and then introduces it to one part of the country first? Of course it isn't fair. It doesn't matter if it was Thatcher or Santa Claus or Papa Smurf who was calling the shots, it demonstrated that Westminster can and will do this kind of thing.

[Mr Bairn]

Even if it were in rUK's interest, the problem everyone ignores in this debate is the role of politics. Something being in rUK's interest in theory doesn't mean they'll actually have the political capacity to put it into practice. Just look at the UK's EU membership for proof of that: something which is overwhelmingly in the UK's interest (arguably to a far larger extent than a currency union with Scotland would be) yet it's one of the most controversial issues in UK politics.

Are backbench Tories - far less UKIP - going to rally around the idea of a currency union just because our Fiscal Commission Working Group thinks it's a good idea? That's not even considering the fact it would involve an embarrassing U-turn for whoever wins the next election given both major parties have spent the last year telling us a currency union would be a disaster.

To be honest, it really doesn't matter what UKIP think given they have no Westminster seats and will probably have one at most after the GE

I do agree that it would be a very un-westminster thing to just swallow its pride and agree a currency union.

[GalaKev]

Correct decision. Don't let confidemus talk you out of it with his complete crap. The facts never lie my friend and welcome to reality and not fantasy. Hope more undecideds make the same correct decision you have made sir and have a nice day.

Its not the question that some passionate person can talk me out of anything. Off course yes and no will create passionate debate. I will not knock anyone who is either yes or no and passionate about it.

My whole questions, is about proof of what is plan B, if Plan A does not come to fruition. I have asked these questions and have been red dotted a few times, but yet no one has pointed me into where it is written in stone. Just to say that this or that could happen if it does not go right, not by someone who is a poster on this board and not in government is not good enough. Although I understand it may well happen, but where is it official, rather than it will be alright on the night.

I had one poster question that I don't understand business, well I think I may just. I run a reasonably successful company, registered in Scotland, but does 50/50 business with Scotland & England. I have also been questioned over my understanding between using just Sterling or being in a currency union. Well, yes I do know probably, as I am an accountant.

So my conclusions is that after 7 pages, no one has linked me into official documents which state what would happen, there is none. Is that correct?

[git-intae-thum]

Its not the question that some passionate person can talk me out of anything. Off course yes and no will create passionate debate. I will not knock anyone who is either yes or no and passionate about it.

My whole questions, is about proof of what is plan B, if Plan A does not come to fruition. I have asked these questions and have been red dotted a few times, but yet no one has pointed me into where it is written in stone. Just to say that this or that could happen if it does not go right, not by someone who is a poster on this board and not in government is not good enough. Although I understand it may well happen, but where is it official, rather than it will be alright on the night.

I had one poster question that I don't understand business, well I think I may just. I run a reasonably successful company, registered in Scotland, but does 50/50 business with Scotland & England. I have also been questioned over my understanding between using just Sterling or being in a currency union. Well, yes I do know probably, as I am an accountant.

So my conclusions is that after 7 pages, no one has linked me into official documents which state what would happen, there is none. Is that correct?

If you are talking of the currency issue this is not correct.

The issue is covered in the white paper.

The options are clear

-The pound in currency union

-The pound without currency union

- The Euro

- A new Scots currency

So in the event of plan A being rejected by Westminster, there is indeed a plan B,C and D detailed by the yes camp.

I suspect what you are looking for is clarification from Westminster. Well good luck and keep looking. You will not find it. This is deliberate.

Please do not be fooled into accepting a position that a no vote is a continuation of what we have now.

The no camp have not published any vision for Scotlands future.

They cannot agree themselves on what if any powers will be added (or removed) from Holyrood.

We still do not know what will happen to the Barnett formula.

We have no indication of any plan to redress the housing bubble once again developing in the SE. The only concievable measures are fiscal policy changes not beneficial to the rest of the country.

When is the UK going to get a hold on its debt? What real assets does it hold? ( excluding those in Scottish territory) Barring market confidence what is holding the pound up?

Will the inevitable currency price correction harm your business if we are in the UK?

As a businessman, surely the possibility of a Euro exit would fill you with dread. A very real possibility. What is the plan if/ when we leave.

Hope you manage to find those answers from Westminster. Good luck trying to find them. Tell the rest of us when you do.

No is not the status quo. No is uncertainty.

[Blaven]

Its not the question that some passionate person can talk me out of anything. Off course yes and no will create passionate debate. I will not knock anyone who is either yes or no and passionate about it.

My whole questions, is about proof of what is plan B, if Plan A does not come to fruition. I have asked these questions and have been red dotted a few times, but yet no one has pointed me into where it is written in stone. Just to say that this or that could happen if it does not go right, not by someone who is a poster on this board and not in government is not good enough. Although I understand it may well happen, but where is it official, rather than it will be alright on the night.

I had one poster question that I don't understand business, well I think I may just. I run a reasonably successful company, registered in Scotland, but does 50/50 business with Scotland & England. I have also been questioned over my understanding between using just Sterling or being in a currency union. Well, yes I do know probably, as I am an accountant.

So my conclusions is that after 7 pages, no one has linked me into official documents which state what would happen, there is none. Is that correct?

The white paper could give you 7 different plans, for everyone of the question raised.

The UKG would say " No. That wont work" to every one of them.

On every single issue, they have said that it wont work. Every single one. How can that possibly be?

Do you think it would be at all possible for any government to put forward a white paper that the UKG would say " YES. That is how we would do it. YES. That will work for us?

They dont want to part with their cash cow. Their free resources. Their mythical standing in the world.

Do point us all to anything that is set in stone.

Lets start with this other mythical promise of more powers.

Then move on to the UK staying in the EU.

Cant even say when " saviour party " labour, will get back in at westminster.

Can you tell us what the strength of the pound will be when the UK leave the EU?

How will that effect your buisness?

There are three hot war zones that the UK are not at the moment involved in. Can you tell us whether the US will drag the UK into any of these?

I, at one point in this thread asked you a question to which you never replied.

What is your answer to the question that will be on the ballot paper?

[bunkmedal]

If you are talking of the currency issue this is not correct.

The issue is covered in the white paper.

The options are clear

-The pound in currency union

-The pound without currency union

- The Euro

- A new Scots currency

So in the event of plan A being rejected by Westminster, there is indeed a plan B,C and D detailed by the yes camp.

Listing options (which is largely pointless in the first place as everyone already knows what the options for any country are currency-wise) isn't the same thing as putting forward a plan. At the moment we've been told that the currency union is (rightly in my view) plan A, but what you've suggested here is that by listing the other options there's a clear plan B - which isn't actually true because at no point has anyone said which alternative we'll adopt in the absence of a currency union.

We also have to be honest about this debate and recognise the drawbacks in each proposal. A currency union provides stability and is more likely to give us favourable lending rates, but it almost certainly means sacrificing some of our autonomy (through a fiscal compact or some other form of restriction on our borrowing/spending) and obviously relies on Westminster agreeing to it in the first place.

The issues with the euro are obvious - and it's impossible to simply join the euro overnight in any case - while a new currency, whether it's pegged to the pound or not, is a leap into the unknown. We keep hearing slightly irate attempts to try and sweep this issue under the carpet as if it's unimportant, but whichever one of these alternatives to a currency union transpires there are real negatives and none of them can realistically be expected to put us in a better position than what we currently have.

It's not the be all and end all of the argument, but it is a clear area of uncertainty and one of the better reasons to vote No. We'd be better off accepting that for what it is rather than pretending independence is a concept so flawless it's impossible to pick holes in it.

[BlackIsleBud]

Listing options (which is largely pointless in the first place as everyone already knows what the options for any country are currency-wise) isn't the same thing as putting forward a plan. At the moment we've been told that the currency union is (rightly in my view) plan A, but what you've suggested here is that by listing the other options there's a clear plan B - which isn't actually true because at no point has anyone said which alternative we'll adopt in the absence of a currency union.

We also have to be honest about this debate and recognise the drawbacks in each proposal. A currency union provides stability and is more likely to give us favourable lending rates, but it almost certainly means sacrificing some of our autonomy (through a fiscal compact or some other form of restriction on our borrowing/spending) and obviously relies on Westminster agreeing to it in the first place.

The issues with the euro are obvious - and it's impossible to simply join the euro overnight in any case - while a new currency, whether it's pegged to the pound or not, is a leap into the unknown. We keep hearing slightly irate attempts to try and sweep this issue under the carpet as if it's unimportant, but whichever one of these alternatives to a currency union transpires there are real negatives and none of them can realistically be expected to put us in a better position than what we currently have.

It's not the be all and end all of the argument, but it is a clear area of uncertainty and one of the better reasons to vote No. We'd be better off accepting that for what it is rather than pretending independence is a concept so flawless it's impossible to pick holes in it.

Eh?

Sterling.

We'll be using Sterling.

The currency that will be in use will be Sterling.

PLAN A, B, and C will be Sterling.

S-T-E-R-L-I-N-G

[MarkoRaj]

Its not the question that some passionate person can talk me out of anything. Off course yes and no will create passionate debate. I will not knock anyone who is either yes or no and passionate about it.

My whole questions, is about proof of what is plan B, if Plan A does not come to fruition. I have asked these questions and have been red dotted a few times, but yet no one has pointed me into where it is written in stone. Just to say that this or that could happen if it does not go right, not by someone who is a poster on this board and not in government is not good enough. Although I understand it may well happen, but where is it official, rather than it will be alright on the night.

I had one poster question that I don't understand business, well I think I may just. I run a reasonably successful company, registered in Scotland, but does 50/50 business with Scotland & England. I have also been questioned over my understanding between using just Sterling or being in a currency union. Well, yes I do know probably, as I am an accountant.

So my conclusions is that after 7 pages, no one has linked me into official documents which state what would happen, there is none. Is that correct?

Yes this is correct. There is no official plan b through z.

Of course it has been plainly pointed out exactly why we don't need them but it seems that you would prefer to just repeat yourself rather than actually debate the issues

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Eh?

Sterling.

We'll be using Sterling.

The currency that will be in use will be Sterling.

PLAN A, B, and C will be Sterling.

S-T-E-R-L-I-N-G

There's Currency Union and there's Currency Union.

The Nat version has Scotland as equal partners, the rUK version has rUK as the dominant partner - something that iScotland would struggle to accept.

[renton]

There's Currency Union and there's Currency Union.

The Nat version has Scotland as equal partners, the rUK version has rUK as the dominant partner - something that iScotland would struggle to accept.

Yeah well, we currently have a currency union, and the net effect of that is domination by London and the South east in the minds of those who set monetary policy. There is no Scottish input. Therefore, at worst what is being mooted is simply the status quo. At best we may gain some traction over how these policies are shaped.

[joozy]

Yeah well, we currently have a currency union, and the net effect of that is domination by London and the South east in the minds of those who set monetary policy. There is no Scottish input. Therefore, at worst what is being mooted is simply the status quo. At best we may gain some traction over how these policies are shaped.

Well that's not true on a couple of levels. The worst case scenario is not the status quo. The financial leaders of all 3 main political UK parties have made it clear there will not be currency union. Using Sterling unilaterally, or 'dollarisation', would be markedly worse for an independent Scotland than currency union.

Secondly, arguably the MPC's current stance is far too dovish for London and the South East - which have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Hardly evidence of their domination of the MPC.

Finally, since the yes campaign continually claims that Scotland's voice is simply not heard at Westminster, it is strange that you think having a member sitting on the MPC representing a small fraction of the combined nations would have any 'traction' over policy decisions.

[joozy]

Eh?

Sterling.

We'll be using Sterling.

The currency that will be in use will be Sterling.

PLAN A, B, and C will be Sterling.

S-T-E-R-L-I-N-G

Nobody disputes that an independent Scotland could use sterling as its currency. However, like many people on the yes side, you apparently fail to recognise that there is a colossal difference between using sterling in a currency union (which all 3 main WM parties have said will not happen) and dollarization.

[renton]

Well that's not true on a couple of levels. The worst case scenario is not the status quo. The financial leaders of all 3 main political UK parties have made it clear there will not be currency union. Using Sterling unilaterally, or 'dollarisation', would be markedly worse for an independent Scotland than currency union.

Secondly, arguably the MPC's current stance is far too dovish for London and the South East - which have been growing faster than the rest of the country. Hardly evidence of their domination of the MPC.

Finally, since the yes campaign continually claims that Scotland's voice is simply not heard at Westminster, it is strange that you think having a member sitting on the MPC representing a small fraction of the combined nations would have any 'traction' over policy decisions.

Actually, some bodies - I think it was deutsche bank - reckoned using Sterling unilaterlally might be better for Scotland than a currency union, it is not necessarily a bad way to go. I'd also note that anything said by them before a Yes vote is coloured at least partially by trying to prevent that Yes vote. Therefore we cannot actually be certain that such a union would not come to pass.

I don't find it strange to think having someone on the MPC would give us traction. Maybe not a lot, certainly. But a small number is still bigger than zero - which is what we have now.

[Confidemus]

I think Joozy's a little in love with the word "dollarization".

[joozy]

Actually, some bodies - I think it was deutsche bank - reckoned using Sterling unilaterlally might be better for Scotland than a currency union, it is not necessarily a bad way to go. I'd also note that anything said by them before a Yes vote is coloured at least partially by trying to prevent that Yes vote. Therefore we cannot actually be certain that such a union would not come to pass.

I don't find it strange to think having someone on the MPC would give us traction. Maybe not a lot, certainly. But a small number is still bigger than zero - which is what we have now.

It's certainly not the Deutsche Bank report, which points out that although using Sterling unilaterally eases the transition, goes on to mention the drawbacks of lack of control over monetary policy, the need to acquire Sterling, the inability to print money or act as a LOLR and likely higher foreign currency borrowing costs.

While agreeing that we cannot be absolutely 100% certain that a monetary union cannot come to pass, I would argue that the odds are stacked heavily against it. Economically it's not attractive for the rest of the UK and politically it's now pretty toxic. All major parties have been very clear on their stance, back-tracking would leave them vulnerable to attack - especially with a forthcoming general election. Furthermore, polling makes it clear that currency union is not popular amongst the rUK - I doubt a yes vote would make it any more popular.

Finally, your claim that Scotland has zero traction in the MPC is not true. If you mean that there is no direct representative for Scotland on the MPC, you could make the claim for any other part of the country. The MPC's responsibilities are for the whole of the UK. Claims that it acts solely to serve London are not borne out by their actions in recent years. If London and the South-East had an independent monetary policy, I'd expect interest rates to be higher than they currently are in the UK.

[renton]

It's certainly not the Deutsche Bank report, which points out that although using Sterling unilaterally eases the transition, goes on to mention the drawbacks of lack of control over monetary policy, the need to acquire Sterling, the inability to print money or act as a LOLR and likely higher foreign currency borrowing costs.

While agreeing that we cannot be absolutely 100% certain that a monetary union cannot come to pass, I would argue that the odds are stacked heavily against it. Economically it's not attractive for the rest of the UK and politically it's now pretty toxic. All major parties have been very clear on their stance, back-tracking would leave them vulnerable to attack - especially with a forthcoming general election. Furthermore, polling makes it clear that currency union is not popular amongst the rUK - I doubt a yes vote would make it any more popular.

Finally, your claim that Scotland has zero traction in the MPC is not true. If you mean that there is no direct representative for Scotland on the MPC, you could make the claim for any other part of the country. The MPC's responsibilities are for the whole of the UK. Claims that it acts solely to serve London are not borne out by their actions in recent years. If London and the South-East had an independent monetary policy, I'd expect interest rates to be higher than they currently are in the UK.

Ultimately, using Sterling without the CU is viable. In terms of gaining a CU, I don't think the odds are stacked against it - there are clear benefits to it for both sides, at least in the short term. As a long term option I'm not so sure. As for back tracking? I doubt it's that toxic post 2015 GE. The parties will deal with the situation as it arises, I also don't think polling on it showed it was that toxic anyway.

As to the last point, I'm not so sure. It's possible for London and the South east to dominate monetary policy without seeing a very quick rise in interest rates. It's a quesiton of how cautious the govenor is being, not necessarily their concern for those outside of the immediate growth drivers in the City.

[bunkmedal]

Eh?

Sterling.

We'll be using Sterling.

The currency that will be in use will be Sterling.

PLAN A, B, and C will be Sterling.

S-T-E-R-L-I-N-G

What you're doing here (other than grandstanding like a ten year old on the internet) is suggesting that there's no difference between a currency union and simply pegging our currency to the pound from outside. It's an argument that seems to be premised on the idea that just saying "we can use the pound" is the only thing that matters (as if the mere name of the currency or whether the Queen's head appears on it is the issue and not what the currency arrangements actually mean for the economy/our lives).

If you have some coherent point to make in that respect then go for it.

[TheScarf]

Same.

[AUFC90]

What you're doing here (other than grandstanding like a ten year old on the internet) is suggesting that there's no difference between a currency union and simply pegging our currency to the pound from outside. It's an argument that seems to be premised on the idea that just saying "we can use the pound" is the only thing that matters (as if the mere name of the currency or whether the Queen's head appears on it is the issue and not what the currency arrangements actually mean for the economy/our lives).

If you have some coherent point to make in that respect then go for it.

What are the vast differences ? Plenty of economists think pegging it is better than a union.

The lender of last resort thing really is a load of pish. The BOE couldn't afford our bailout the last time so I doubt they'd be able to in the future. God bless America.

So what are these massive differences that make an formal currency union better than an informal one ?

[P45]

I've noticed this on Twitter-

http://www.indyrefanswers.com

I'm glad they kept it simple so the No voters didn't feel overwhelmed by big words and lost interest.