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

[welshbairn]

Fair enough.

What are the assets, then, that are up for negotiation?

I think we should push for Bermuda.

[MarkoRaj]

The reason why I don't think it would be a good idea for the rUK is simple, when you conduct scenario analysis you need to look at the possible outcomes based on a range of different scenarios. In a 'no currency union' environment, then you may have some relatively minor additional costs/headwinds for the rest of the UK. In the 'currency union' environment, while you may avoid these minor costs, you risk a far greater disruption in an adverse scenario (which could be caused by external or internal factors).

This is why if I lived in the rUK, I would definitely not want to enter currency union with an independent Scotland.

You're playing down the scenarios that are very likely and worrying about events that are extremely unlikely imo. But I can understand that point of view

[joozy]

You're playing down the scenarios that are very likely and worrying about events that are extremely unlikely imo. But I can understand that point of view

Arguably, that's the prudent approach. It's why people buy insurance after all.......you're quite happy to keep paying the small premiums to protect yourself against the potential big loss.

[Tio Pepe]

And what about the transaction costs for Scottish businesses?

They will be passed on to UK consumers. The difference is Scotland 'exports' around £50bn to the rest of the UK. Say transactions costs were 2% then cost per head to the UK consumer is around £18. The rest of the UK 'exports' around £60bn to Scotland. Using the same assumptiosn the cost per head to the Scottish consumer is £240.

Fair enough.

What are the assets, then, that are up for negotiation?

Anything is up for negotiation. Basically it will be anything which is not fixed and does not form an integral part of the continuing state.

[Ad Lib]

Fair enough.

What are the assets, then, that are up for negotiation?

In theory, literally everything. In practice, there will be detailed discussions about the apportionment of all assets held by UK institutions. Obviously fixed assets like hospitals will be split territorially, but this doesn't happen for military assets, it won't happen for fungible assets like those of the Bank of England, it won't happen for overseas embassy and consular buildings, it won't happen for government departments etc.

[Tio Pepe]

In theory, literally everything. In practice, there will be detailed discussions about the apportionment of all assets held by UK institutions. Obviously fixed assets like hospitals will be split territorially, but this doesn't happen for military assets, it won't happen for fungible assets like those of the Bank of England, it won't happen for overseas embassy and consular buildings, it won't happen for government departments etc.

Good examples of integral parts of the continuing state.

[Confidemus]

Do No supporters seriously believe the rUK would block a Currency Union? I don't think for one second they would. This is merely posturing by No and it's supporters.

[Thundermonkey]

There will be no CU because the condacending twat in the audience said so last night.

"YOU WERE TOLD NO"

[welshbairn]

Arguably, that's the prudent approach. It's why people buy insurance after all.......you're quite happy to keep paying the small premiums to protect yourself against the potential big loss.

You get insurance to enable things, not to avoid them.

[ayrmad]

There will be no CU because the condacending twat in the audience said so last night. "YOU WERE TOLD NO"

Aye, last night was a perfect example of why the public should not be in attendance, booing and heckling statesmen in a worldwide event just doesn't do it for me.

[Tonsilitis]

They will be passed on to UK consumers. The difference is Scotland 'exports' around £50bn to the rest of the UK. Say transactions costs were 2% then cost per head to the UK consumer is around £18. The rest of the UK 'exports' around £60bn to Scotland. Using the same assumptiosn the cost per head to the Scottish consumer is £240.

Anything is up for negotiation. Basically it will be anything which is not fixed and does not form an integral part of the continuing state.

The UK Continental Shelf is treated as a separate region for UK accounting. That means that oil flowing from the North Sea into Grangemouth is treated as an import into Scotland within your £60bn. Likewise, costs of goods and services provided by the rest of the UK into the North Sea - e.g. Oil platform maintenance etc, is treated as an export from rUK to the Continental Shelf. These services come partly from Scotland and partly from rUK so working out the impact of Oil on the Scottish economy is tricky.

The Scottish Government estimate that if Oil exports and costs are factored in, in 2012 Scotland's exports would have risen by around £20bn, probably enough to create a trade surplus but because of the way it s recorded, it is difficult to precisely establish.

As I understand it, if plan B is to simply continue using Sterling, the transactions costs you refer to would not exist.

[Ad Lib]

You get insurance to enable things, not to avoid them.

And if there isn't an insurance policy available, and the potential for catastrophic loss outweighs the benefits, it's reasonable to have a second think about whether you want to do the thing.

[H_B]

It's not for Scotland to tell what will be a foreign country what is best for them. That is supreme arrogance.

That's the incredible thing about this. the Nat fools on here's denials of this.

Can you imagine if the UK said "Once you become independent you will have to remain in a currency union with us. You can't join the euro or start yuor own currency. We've had a look at it with our analysts and have decided it's in your best interests (and ours) for you to be in a CU with us after secession, so that's what needs to happen. Sorry, don't really care if you think it's a good idea politically - we've decided it needs to happen, so it will".

The seethe from the Nats would be enormous. "How dare they tell us what we can and can't do... they have no control over us now... etc etc"

[H_B]

This might be a stupid question, but is our share of the UK debt linked to sterling?

No

[Baxter Parp]

They will be passed on to UK consumers. The difference is Scotland 'exports' around £50bn to the rest of the UK. Say transactions costs were 2% then cost per head to the UK consumer is around £18. The rest of the UK 'exports' around £60bn to Scotland. Using the same assumptiosn the cost per head to the Scottish consumer is £240.

Not if they buy less.

[ayrmad]

That's the incredible thing about this. the Nat fools on here's denials of this.

Can you imagine if the UK said "Once you become independent you will have to remain in a currency union with us. You can't join the euro or start yuor own currency. We've had a look at it with our analysts and have decided it's in your best interests (and ours) for you to be in a CU with us after secession, so that's what needs to happen. Sorry, don't really care if you think it's a good idea politically - we've decided it needs to happen, so it will".

The seethe from the Nats would be enormous. "How dare they tell us what we can and can't do... they have no control over us now... etc etc"

We've been told what we can't do all the way through this debate, why do you think the vote that should have been a rout is going to be close.

[Tonsilitis]

That's the incredible thing about this. the Nat fools on here's denials of this.

Can you imagine if the UK said "Once you become independent you will have to remain in a currency union with us. You can't join the euro or start yuor own currency. We've had a look at it with our analysts and have decided it's in your best interests (and ours) for you to be in a CU with us after secession, so that's what needs to happen. Sorry, don't really care if you think it's a good idea politically - we've decided it needs to happen, so it will".

The seethe from the Nats would be enormous. "How dare they tell us what we can and can't do... they have no control over us now... etc etc"

Its more along the lines of "If you divorce me, I am going to burn down the house"

[welshbairn]

And if there isn't an insurance policy available, and the potential for catastrophic loss outweighs the benefits, it's reasonable to have a second think about whether you want to do the thing.

What are these catastrophic potential scenarios?

[MarkoRaj]

That's the incredible thing about this. the Nat fools on here's denials of this.

Can you imagine if the UK said "Once you become independent you will have to remain in a currency union with us. You can't join the euro or start yuor own currency. We've had a look at it with our analysts and have decided it's in your best interests (and ours) for you to be in a CU with us after secession, so that's what needs to happen. Sorry, don't really care if you think it's a good idea politically - we've decided it needs to happen, so it will".

The seethe from the Nats would be enormous. "How dare they tell us what we can and can't do... they have no control over us now... etc etc"

I don't think that's the case.

Imo the uk government should be negotiating everything post independence in order to make things as smooth as possible for the people of both nations. By refusing to even entertain negotiations in order to get Scotland to vote a certain way goes against this and could be construed as anti democratic.

If after a period of negotiations a currency union is unworkable then so be it.

[Baxter Parp]

What are these catastrophic potential scenarios?

Give him time, he'll think of something, be corrected on it and then think of some pedantic way in which he's correct.