Does anyone here believe we can't use the pound?

[Tonsilitis]

Banks are multi national organisations and bailing them out requires multi national solutions because if they fail, the impacts are felt where they operate just as much as where they have their brass plate. The UK banks for example cost the UK taxpayer £124bn to support but what many people don't appreciate is that the US Federal Reserve injected £.640bn into our banks also. Their share that injection was why Barclays felt they did not need to take anything from the UK government.

Ireland has no central bank and has recovered faster and better than us. To say a bail out of nominally Scottish banks would be down to Scotland solely just does not stand any reasonable scrutiny.

[Homer Thompson]

WHATEVER happens with currency in an iScotland, we'll be fine. The sky won't collapse. The earth won't open up and swallow us all. We won't die.

BUT BUT lender of last resort. BUT BUT banking collapse.

I couldn't give a shiny shite to be honest.

This.

Whatever happens there is no way things are going to be significantly worse than they are now, or better to be fair, in the short term. Ive seen a couple of people worried about tax hikes and losing their houses. Sorry, but its utter nonsense.

The vote is nothing do with what currency we use but everything to do with who runs our country

[Confidemus]

This.

Whatever happens there is no way things are going to be significantly worse than they are now, or better to be fair, in the short term. Ive seen a couple of people worried about tax hikes and losing their houses. Sorry, but its utter nonsense.

The vote is nothing do with what currency we use but everything to do with who runs our country

It's quite a clever tactic to be fair from BTUKOKNOTHANKS.

Make the people believe that the currency issue is far more important than it is. That takes the glare off the scare stories and lies they've spun over the past 6 months and stops people looking at quite how badly Westminster have fucked this country up.

[Homer Thompson]

It's quite a clever tactic to be fair from BTUKOKNOTHANKS.

Make the people believe that the currency issue is far more important than it is. That takes the glare off the scare stories and lies they've spun over the past 6 months and stops people looking at quite how badly Westminster have fucked this country up.

The main thing I dont get with people who think this way is why they think things are so great now. Even in the last few years we've had banking scandals and collapses, wages cut, public spending cut, or frozen, and a debt of staggering proportions that just keeps rising. Why are the people who think they'll lose their house with a Yes vote so happy to continue as we are? There are as many unknowns and risks in the economic future of the UK as there is with an iScotland.

[Confidemus]

The main thing I dont get with people who think this way is why they think things are so great now. Even in the last few years we've had banking scandals and collapses, wages cut, public spending cut, or frozen, and a debt of staggering proportions that just keeps rising. Why are the people who think they'll lose their house with a Yes vote so happy to continue as we are? There are as many unknowns and risks in the economic future of the UK as there is with an iScotland.

Quite simply I believe it's because a great deal of No voters just don't give a f**k. They're voting No to protect THEIR pension, THEIR mortgage and THEIR job. They couldn't give a shit about the rest of Scotland. If everything for them is fine in the UK, why should they give a f**k about anyone else

I truly think a large swathe of No voters think this way.

Our job is to persuade soft No voters and don't knows to give a f**k and show some basic human empathy.

[Ad Lib]

They'll have to do much the same as Labour when they last won power in Westminster, reassure the financial markets with a conservative monetary policy for a few years. * A Socialist paradise awaits us after that though.

*that's where the similarities diverge..

Nope. Scotland will be economically more right wing if it becomes independent. That's the best thing going for it.

[Confidemus]

Nope. Scotland will be economically more right wing if it becomes independent. That's the best thing going for it.

I used to think you were better than this Ad Lib. You're an intelligent bloke. Why allow yourself to be swamped down in this shit?

[HaikuHibee]

The real problem with sterlingisation (rather than an independent currency) is that you have no capacity to bail out the banking sector.

This Darling horseshit. Bailout the banking sector? YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO.

[Baxter Parp]

How did the negotiations of what went on the ballot paper go?

We won.

[Mr Bairn]

Did ye aye?

[scothmist]

Nope. Scotland will be economically more right wing if it becomes independent. That's the best thing going for it.

Hit the nail on the head there.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/scotland_conservatives_support.htm

[Confidemus]

Hit the nail on the head there.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/scotland_conservatives_support.htm

Other than your homework from school giving vague 40 year old stats, what does that prove?

[Thumper]

"Economically right wing" can mean a number of things. It's most certainly not the case that Scotland will in general favour less regulation on the financial sector: it may well have been Salmond's intention up until about five years ago but it's politically radioactive now.

On the other hand, the big bailout was a massive bit of government intervention that you'd hope the SG would be very clear wouldn't happen in future. That the financial sector knew that the public would step in and save their arses (and salaries, and bonuses) was a big part of the reason they took on the absurd level of risk that they did.

[git-intae-thum]

Banks are multi national organisations and bailing them out requires multi national solutions because if they fail, the impacts are felt where they operate just as much as where they have their brass plate. The UK banks for example cost the UK taxpayer £124bn to support but what many people don't appreciate is that the US Federal Reserve injected £.640bn into our banks also. Their share that injection was why Barclays felt they did not need to take anything from the UK government.

Ireland has no central bank and has recovered faster and better than us. To say a bail out of nominally Scottish banks would be down to Scotland solely just does not stand any reasonable scrutiny.

This deserves to be highlighted.

The no camp are getting away with a huge whopper of a lie here completely unchallenged by the msm.

They say that the UK will not act as lender of last resort to Scotlands financial sector.

When the UK's banks recently collapsed it was unable to act as lender of last resort to its own banks.

Why or when then, could the UK ever have been considered "lender of last resort" to Scotland whether in CU or out of CU.

This is pure colonel blimpism

[scothmist]

Other than your homework from school giving vague 40 year old stats, what does that prove?

It helps prove what Ad Lib stated . You really are Confusedalot.com

[nowthennowthen]

We won.

We being the Scottish people who wanted a Devo Max option?

[Blaven]

It helps prove what Ad Lib stated . You really are Confusedalot.com

Who are you today?

Scoth?

Scotch?

Bairn?

Or Fanny?

[bunkmedal]

This Darling horseshit. Bailout the banking sector? YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO.

If we have to explain how a bank works then so be it. What banks do is take existing deposits and loan them out to make a profit. If that's all they did then at any given point if all of the customers in the bank demanded their money back it would be impossible for the bank to pay everyone because most of the money they have would be loaned out to someone else at that precise moment in time. That's why a "bank run" is so problematic - people start withdrawing their own money at such a rate that the bank can't cope and it goes out of business. It's what happens when people suddenly think that their savings aren't guaranteed and panic.

The reason why banking works in the first place is that there's a guarantee that if you deposit your money in a bank you'll get it back. It's guaranteed ultimately by the bank having access to enough money that should the worst happen there's some guaranteed source of funding to fall back on. In the vast majority of cases "the worst" never happens, but banks still couldn't operate without that guarantee. Typing YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO in capital letters is utterly irrelevant - the point is that nobody will deposit money in a bank which doesn't have this guarantee when you have perfectly normal operating banks elsewhere that do have that guarantee available (e.g. in foreign banks that do have a lender of last resort through a central bank).

This isn't a debating point - we're not arguing against independence and it has nothing to do with Darling - we're describing the very basics of how a bank works and why sterlingisation would be worse than an independent currency.

[AUFC90]

If we have to explain how a bank works then so be it. What banks do is take existing deposits and loan them out to make a profit. If that's all they did then at any given point if all of the customers in the bank demanded their money back it would be impossible for the bank to pay everyone because most of the money they have would be loaned out to someone else at that precise moment in time. That's why a "bank run" is so problematic - people start withdrawing their own money at such a rate that the bank can't cope and it goes out of business. It's what happens when people suddenly think that their savings aren't guaranteed and panic.

The reason why banking works in the first place is that there's a guarantee that if you deposit your money in a bank you'll get it back. It's guaranteed ultimately by the bank having access to enough money that should the worst happen there's some guaranteed source of funding to fall back on. In the vast majority of cases "the worst" never happens, but banks still couldn't operate without that guarantee. Typing YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO in capital letters is utterly irrelevant - the point is that nobody will deposit money in a bank which doesn't have this guarantee when you have perfectly normal operating banks elsewhere that do have that guarantee available (e.g. in foreign banks that do have a lender of last resort through a central bank).

This isn't a debating point - we're not arguing against independence and it has nothing to do with Darling - we're describing the very basics of how a bank works and why sterlingisation would be worse than an independent currency.

Sterlingisation would be marginally worse than a CU. Although if we don't have any debt then I'd say it's better. Sterlingisation and CU will be temporary anyway. Currency really isn't the big deal that a lot of folk have come to believe.

ETA I see you were actually comparing sterlingisation to an independent currency. Floating a new currency straight away would be a disaster imo.

[MarkoRaj]

If we have to explain how a bank works then so be it. What banks do is take existing deposits and loan them out to make a profit. If that's all they did then at any given point if all of the customers in the bank demanded their money back it would be impossible for the bank to pay everyone because most of the money they have would be loaned out to someone else at that precise moment in time. That's why a "bank run" is so problematic - people start withdrawing their own money at such a rate that the bank can't cope and it goes out of business. It's what happens when people suddenly think that their savings aren't guaranteed and panic.

The reason why banking works in the first place is that there's a guarantee that if you deposit your money in a bank you'll get it back. It's guaranteed ultimately by the bank having access to enough money that should the worst happen there's some guaranteed source of funding to fall back on. In the vast majority of cases "the worst" never happens, but banks still couldn't operate without that guarantee. Typing YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO in capital letters is utterly irrelevant - the point is that nobody will deposit money in a bank which doesn't have this guarantee when you have perfectly normal operating banks elsewhere that do have that guarantee available (e.g. in foreign banks that do have a lender of last resort through a central bank).

This isn't a debating point - we're not arguing against independence and it has nothing to do with Darling - we're describing the very basics of how a bank works and why sterlingisation would be worse than an independent currency.

So what happened to savers' money when they refused to bail out the banks?