Alex Salmond's comments regarding a currency union

[Shimbleshanks]

There's a precedent closer to home. Ireland had a separate currency from 1928 (the Irish Pound, or punt) but for over 50 years it was tied to Sterling, until Ireland decided to joining the ERM.

This meant that Ireland effectively had to decimalise at the same time as the UK. I guess it meant that it was difficult for Ireland to follow a different interest-rate policy to the UK, at least without strict currency controls.

Incidentally, there is still a similar situation today with Channel Islands currency, which is denominated in Pounds and Pence with physically similar-sized coinage but is not legal tender outside the islands. (In the days when I used to travel regularly to the Channel islands in the 1980s and early 1990s one of the few places in the UK I could get to accept it was the ticket window at Waterloo station.)

I suppose there's no reason why the Scots couldn't have a 'Scottish Pound' that would be tied to Sterling but wouldn't be legal tender south of Gretna Green - and very possibly nothing the English government could do to stop them.

As an aside, I grew up on Anglesey, where the Irish Sea Port of Holyhead was situated and Irish coins (though not notes) certainly were accepted there in the 1960s and 1970s; it may have been an unofficial arrangement. I remember my parents having to sort through their loose change to get rid of any Irish money before venturing onto the mainland at Bangor or beyond for shopping trips - though not when going to Liverpool where there was a similar arrangement. That came to an end when the Pound was 'floated' on the money markets and the tie between the Irish currency and Sterling was ended.

 

[Robinson]

Just an idle thought, but is there are chance that any existing country in the EU (besides this country) who may wish to vote against an independant Scotland joining that organisation ?

They'd be cutting their own noses off to spite their faces if they did veto Scotland joining the EU, as we'd be a net contributor to European resources, and Spain in particular are already rather heavily dependent on their access to our fishing waters. If they veto Scotland being part of the EU, they will lose all of that access.

As a rather less-than-idle thought, England would also be cutting her own nose off to spite her face if she refused a currency union with Scotland, considering that we are potentially one of the richest nations on Earth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the moment, the Bank of England sets Interest Rates for the good of the UK overall (including concerns about Scottish jobs, Scottish inflation, Scottish prosperity). If Scotland were to leave the UK then decisions would be taken in the interest of the remaining bits, with no Scottish representation and no accountability to Scots. Be careful what you wish for.

Delusional. The UK government makes decisions based on what will benefit voters in marginal constituencies in "Middle England"; they don't give the faintest damn about Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is a condition of entry to any new nations joining the EU. Another condition is being in the Schenger agreement,
Can just see customs and passport checks on the M6 etc

But of course, Scotland is not a new nation. It will be a successor state whose citizens are already considered EU citizens. There is no precedent for removing EU citizenship from 5 million law-abiding, innocent people. Also, Sweden as an example is not only in the EU, it also fits the criteria for joining the Euro. It has not done so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's been one of the big (unresolved) issues. I understand the SNP believe that Scotland wouldn't have to 'apply' to be an EU member, they would just inherit (part of) the UK's membership - and effectively membership would continue on the same terms as present. The counter-argument is as you stated.

The problem is that no-one knows which is right - and personally I think it's dangerous to have a referendum when the people do not have all the relevant facts in order to make a sensible decision.

The SNP certainly does not expect to simply carry on with the same terms. They expect to conduct negotiations with the EU between the referendum and the proposed Independence Day in March 2016. Throughout which we will continue with the present arrangement in the UK and therefore as existing EU members.

 

[ainsworth74]

I repeat what I said above. All of that assumes that Scotland gets exactly what Scotland wants and I'd add you are making some pretty huge assumptions in all of that as well.

 

[tbtc]

Delusional. The UK government makes decisions based on what will benefit voters in marginal constituencies in "Middle England"; they don't give the faintest damn about Scotland

So when they say that they'll link potential interest rate rises to the UK unemployment rate coming down below a certain level, they are actually only using data from a few marginal constituencies in they mythical land of "Middle England"?

Okay

There is no precedent for removing EU citizenship from 5 million law-abiding, innocent people

Is that the population of Scotland, minus those in Barlinnie/ Peterhead etc?

Also, Sweden as an example is not only in the EU, it also fits the criteria for joining the Euro. It has not done so

Sweden has been a member of the EC/ EU since 1995 - there was no requirement for new entrants to join the single currency back then because there was no single currency.

There is a single currency now, and any new joiners to the EU would have to join that single currency (e.g. Croatia).

 

[WessexEclectic]

There is no precedent for removing EU citizenship from 5 million law-abiding, innocent people.

And there was me thinking the EU was just a trading bloc...

 

[DarloRich]

Robinson - How on earth do you work out that Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU or "potentially" one of the richest nations on earth? You aren’t even a net contributor to the UK!

 

[Robinson]

Robinson - How on earth do you work out that Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU or "potentially" one of the richest nations on earth? You aren’t even a net contributor to the UK!

9.3% of UK public spending being spent in Scotland against a contribution to UK taxes from Scotland of 9.9% would suggest otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So when they say that they'll link potential interest rate rises to the UK unemployment rate coming down below a certain level, they are actually only using data from a few marginal constituencies in they mythical land of "Middle England"?

Okay

Yes, ever since Tony Blair got his dirty hands on Labour all they've been doing is trying to out-Tory the Tories to win English votes. They've taken the Scottish vote for granted and left us to rot. Now we have to put up with the utterly useless Johann Lamont abandoning all principles of social justice to side with the likes of Ruth Davidson (recently a motion to provide free school meals to children in Primaries 1-3 was voted against by Labour, for no conceivable reason other than blind hatred of the SNP - thankfully the SNP's majority ensured the motion passed).

 

[90sWereBetter]

If I'm honest, the only reason why I don't want Scotland to gain independence is that it would ruin the Union Flag.

That is, unless the powers that be decide to replace the Saltire with the Welsh dragon.

 

[poshfan]

9.3% of UK public spending being spent in Scotland against a contribution to UK taxes from Scotland of 9.9% would suggest otherwise.

Not according to this BBC article. It is 2 years old, but have things changed so much since then?

The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues - but 9.2% of total UK public spending.

Scottish Executive figures for 2009-10 show that spending per capita in Scotland was £11,370, versus £10,320 for the UK. In other words, spending in Scotland was £1,030 - or 10% higher - per head of population than the UK average.

What about revenues? The same source shows Scottish total non-oil tax revenues coming in at £42.7bn in 2009-10, or £8,221 per head, which compares with total public expenditure attributable to Scotland of £59.2bn, or £11,370 per head.

Incidentally, these numbers include not just the so-called "identifiable" public spending that took place in Scotland, on schools, roads and the like, but also more amorphous parts of the budget like defense and debt interest.

On this basis, Scotland 'got' £16.5bn more in UK public spending in 2009-10 than it contributed to total UK revenues - or a 'subsidy' of around £3,150 per head.

Full article at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

 

[Robinson]

I didn't say anything about population; I referred to the percentage of UK taxes Scotland contributes.

Also, the BBC and STV have been exposed as biased in this issue - see Newsnet Scotland's article on the subject.

Furthermore, the difference between revenue and spending indicates precisely nothing about our relative wealth - all it shows is that we are running a deficit (as are the majority of developed nations, Norway being one of the few exceptions).

 

[DarloRich]

Not according to this BBC article. It is 2 years old, but have things changed so much since then?

Full article at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990

I didn't say anything about population; I referred to the percentage of UK taxes Scotland contributes.

Also, the BBC and STV have been exposed as biased in this issue - see Newsnet Scotland's article on the subject.

Furthermore, the difference between revenue and spending indicates precisely nothing about our relative wealth - all it shows is that we are running a deficit (as are the majority of developed nations, Norway being one of the few exceptions).

The top line seems to contradict your own figures - or are you suggesting that the economy of scotland has grown so much in a few years?

You haven't presented anything to back up your fantastical claim that scotland could be one of the richest nations on earth and you seem keen to overlook the facts, provided by your own executive, that scotland requires a subsidy from the UK! The facts are clear!

As for newsnet scotland it is clearly designed to provide a partisan unalloyed nationalist spin on every news story and much of the "news" is actually opinion dressed up as news. To claim bias in others is ludicrous!

 

[Robinson]

I am getting increasingly exasperated at your head-in-the-sand belief that Scots are uniquely too poor, too wee and too stupid to be capable of running our own country. Do you seriously think that we are uniquely stupid enough that we can't be capable of running our own country?

I have already told you that we do not require a subsidy from Westminster. There is a negative difference between revenue and spending because Scotland runs a deficit. That is perfectly normal for a developed nation. In fact Scotland's deficit is smaller than the UK average.

As for potential wealth - try this for size.

Oh and the claim about bias at the BBC wasn't made by me - it was in fact made by a respected academic from the University of the West of Scotland.

 

[Butts]

Robinson - How on earth do you work out that Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU or "potentially" one of the richest nations on earth? You aren’t even a net contributor to the UK!

He is living in cloud-cuckoo land - although he resides in Helensburgh I believe he was born in Darlington with parents of Irish descent

 

[tbtc]

I am getting increasingly exasperated at your head-in-the-sand belief that Scots are uniquely too poor, too wee and too stupid to be capable of running our own country. Do you seriously think that we are uniquely stupid enough that we can't be capable of running our own country?

So you're ignoring anything factual (like why Sweden is no guide to Scotland's membership of the Euro) and you're going for the pitying emotional guff?

Fact is that the version of independence that Salmond is presenting as the one flavour on option has a lot of holes in it. Leaving the UK but keeping the same currency is a terrible fudge - more Quantitative Easing could see the pound in Scots pockets being devalued without any control over it?

Getting rid of those nasty nuclear weapons but wanting the protection of other people's nukes by joining NATO?

Wanting to save money by cutting military spending, but campaigning to "save" any Scottish operations of the MOD (Lossiemouth etc)?

The "we'll be able to pick and choose the best bits of EU membership to suit ourselves" attitude...

If Salmond were a member of this forum, he'd be the person starting threads entitled "My Proposal To Stop The Highland Sleeper At Polesworth".

Its a decision that needs a lot of serious debate, not a popularity contest between the current UK Prime Minister and the current First Minister - its not Celebrity Big Brother. All the "too wee and too stupid" stuff really doesn't help your cause.

PS: That Newsnet Scotland site... it makes North Korean propaganda look middle of the road.

 

[transmanche]

Also, the BBC and STV have been exposed as not toeing the SNP party line on this issue - see Newsnet Scotland's article on the subject.

I've corrected that for you.

 

[NSEFAN]

As for potential wealth - try this for size.

Is relying on oil really a good long-term business plan? What other options are there for the rest of the country who aren't/won't be able to get into the industry?

 

[Robinson]

Is relying on oil really a good long-term business plan? What other options are there for the rest of the country who aren't/won't be able to get into the industry?

Use the revenue which we generate from oil while the oil lasts to invest in renewables. Scotland has more potential for renewable energy than just about anywhere else - potentially we could generate 25% of our energy requirements from tidal power.

 

[DarloRich]

I am getting increasingly exasperated at your head-in-the-sand belief that Scots are uniquely too poor, too wee and too stupid to be capable of running our own country. Do you seriously think that we are uniquely stupid enough that we can't be capable of running our own country?

Or is it, perhaps, that you dont like being challenged to provide some actual facts to support your position? Frankly such emotional guff isn't really worth responding to.

I have already told you that we do not require a subsidy from Westminster. There is a negative difference between revenue and spending because Scotland runs a deficit. That is perfectly normal for a developed nation. In fact Scotland's deficit is smaller than the UK average.

We shall have to agree to disagree on that. I will simply say your own executives figures suggest otherwise.

As for potential wealth - try this for size.

Another quote from a pro independence site. Good balance. No real actual facts in that article either. Lots of mights, if, maybes, perhaps, but no facts. Well apart from the comparisons between Westminster treatment of oil revenue and Norwegian treatment of oil revenue.

Oh and the claim about bias at the BBC wasn't made by me - it was in fact made by a respected academic from the University of the West of Scotland.

I would like to see where the funding came from and the objective criteria used as the basis for such assessments! The whole thing seems terrible subjective

 

[transmanche]

Or is it, perhaps, that you dont like being challenged to provide some actual facts to support your position? Frankly such emotional guff isn't really worth responding to.

In fact it seems that the whole independence argument is based on some sort of Braveheart-seen-through-tartan-tinted-spectacles scenario, with a dash of whisky and shortbread.

 

[Robinson]

So you're ignoring anything factual (like why Sweden is no guide to Scotland's membership of the Euro) and you're going for the pitying emotional guff?

Fact is that the version of independence that Salmond is presenting as the one flavour on option has a lot of holes in it. Leaving the UK but keeping the same currency is a terrible fudge - more Quantitative Easing could see the pound in Scots pockets being devalued without any control over it?

Getting rid of those nasty nuclear weapons but wanting the protection of other people's nukes by joining NATO?

Wanting to save money by cutting military spending, but campaigning to "save" any Scottish operations of the MOD (Lossiemouth etc)?

The "we'll be able to pick and choose the best bits of EU membership to suit ourselves" attitude...

If Salmond were a member of this forum, he'd be the person starting threads entitled "My Proposal To Stop The Highland Sleeper At Polesworth".

Its a decision that needs a lot of serious debate, not a popularity contest between the current UK Prime Minister and the current First Minister - its not Celebrity Big Brother. All the "too wee and too stupid" stuff really doesn't help your cause.

PS: That Newsnet Scotland site... it makes North Korean propaganda look middle of the road.

1) Salmond is not presenting the "one flavour" of independence. He is the First Minister of Scotland and the leader of the SNP, not the chief executive of the grassroots Yes Scotland campaign. There are many independence supporters who do not agree with Salmond's view, such as the Scottish Greens, Scottish Socialists and large groups such as Labour for Independence and, as I've already cited, Business for Scotland.

2) Only 3 nations within NATO possess nuclear weapons - the USA, the UK and France. Scotland would hardly be in a unique situation in that respect.

3) Scotland will spend a lower proportion of its GDP on the military in the event of independence, but it will still be higher than what the UK spends on Scottish defence currently.

4) Alex Salmond has never said "we will cherry pick the best bits of EU membership to suit ourselves". That's David Cameron and UKIP's job (you know, the ones that want us to have an in/out referendum in 2017, which if Scotland is still part of the UK, we'll just have to accept yet again what the English decide for us regardless of our own views).

5) Now with the Polesworth stuff we're just getting silly.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A comment I saw on a pro-Union Facebook page made me think - if the vote comes back as 'No', where does it leave Scotland in the sense of the two sides? Will there be the same divisions around in decades to come or will everyone eventually forgive and forget what divided them? The fact that, for example, cars are now being vandalised for displaying pro-UK stickers makes me think this whole thing could have quite a disastrous social impact on Scotland, no matter what they decide.

 

[ainsworth74]

1) Salmond is not presenting the "one flavour" of independence.

Yes he is. The SNP and Salmond are the by far and away the nosiest group when it comes to campaigning for an independent Scotland. Those other groups may not agree with him but they are being drowned out by the SNP.

2) Only 3 nations within NATO possess nuclear weapons - the USA, the UK and France. Scotland would hardly be in a unique situation in that respect.

There is a difference between not possessing nuclear weapons and a) potentially forcing another member at great expense to relocate their weapons and b) declaring yourself, for all intents and purposes, a nuclear free state that is opposed to nuclear weapons.

NATO is a nuclear alliance and member can't really have a significant issue with nuclear weapons and still be a member and it strikes me as highly hypocritical to have points a) and b) above and still expect to be protected by the nuclear shield provided by rUK, France and the US.

There is no issue with Scotland being a member of NATO and enjoying the protections that will come with that (as well as the responsibilities) but it's very wrong to want to join an alliance whilst causing difficulties for one of the main members of that alliance.

3) Scotland will spend a lower proportion of its GDP on the military in the event of independence, but it will still be higher than what the UK spends on Scottish defence currently.

I'm not sure how you figure that. Current defence spending is running at £35ish billion from what I've seen the SDF would have a budget of £2.5bn at best. That sort of money alone is being spent on procuring things like the aircraft carriers, the Type 45 destroyers and the Type 26 frigates in Scotland. Let alone the maintaining of HMNB Clyde, Rosyth Dockyard, RNAS Culdrose, RAF Leuchars, RAF Lossiemouth and Gordon/Kinloss/Redford/Cameron/Dreghorn/Glencorse/Walcheren Barracks and having all the people involved in them living in Scotland spending money in Scotland. Sorry but I don't see how we're spending less than £2.5bn on that little lot.

Actually perhaps you can tell us how the Scotland will manage to keep all those bases open on a budget of £2.5bn which is what the White Paper told us would happen? As well as affording the not insignificant start up costs of air, ground and naval training facilities, operating Typhoons (the White Paper says you want about 12 of them), a pair of Type 23s, some patrol boats, numerous army vehicles and paying around 10,000 - 15,000 people to run that little lot.

You'll forgive me but so far I'm struggling to see how Scotland does all that on £2.5bn so either the budget has to go up or the aims have to come more in line with reality.

Though of course the real point is that the UK spends £35ish billion on Scottish defence as Scotland is a part of the UK and therefore benefits from it's defence spending which is used for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Yes he is. The SNP and Salmond are the by far and away the nosiest group when it comes to campaigning for an independent Scotland. Those other groups may not agree with him but they are being drowned out by the SNP.



There is a difference between not possessing nuclear weapons and a) potentially forcing another member at great expense to relocate their weapons and b) declaring yourself, for all intents and purposes, a nuclear free state that is opposed to nuclear weapons.

NATO is a nuclear alliance and member can't really have a significant issue with nuclear weapons and still be a member and it strikes me as highly hypocritical to have points a) and b) above and still expect to be protected by the nuclear shield provided by rUK, France and the US.

There is no issue with Scotland being a member of NATO and enjoying the protections that will come with that (as well as the responsibilities) but it's very wrong to want to join an alliance whilst causing difficulties for one of the main members of that alliance.



I'm not sure how you figure that. Current defence spending is running at £35ish billion from what I've seen the SDF would have a budget of £2.5bn at best. That sort of money alone is being spent on procuring things like the aircraft carriers, the Type 45 destroyers and the Type 26 frigates in Scotland. Let alone the maintaining of HMNB Clyde, Rosyth Dockyard, RNAS Culdrose, RAF Leuchars, RAF Lossiemouth and Gordon/Kinloss/Redford/Cameron/Dreghorn/Glencorse/Walcheren Barracks and having all the people involved in them living in Scotland spending money in Scotland. Sorry but I don't see how we're spending less than £2.5bn on that little lot.

Actually perhaps you can tell us how the Scotland will manage to keep all those bases open on a budget of £2.5bn which is what the White Paper told us would happen? As well as affording the not insignificant start up costs of air, ground and naval training facilities, operating Typhoons (the White Paper says you want about 12 of them), a pair of Type 23s, some patrol boats, numerous army vehicles and paying around 10,000 - 15,000 people to run that little lot.

You'll forgive me but so far I'm struggling to see how Scotland does all that on £2.5bn so either the budget has to go up or the aims have to come more in line with reality.

Though of course the real point is that the UK spends £35ish billion on Scottish defence as Scotland is a part of the UK and therefore benefits from it's defence spending which is used for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

No sorry the UK spends 2 billion on Defence in Scotland with 3 billion of the budget comes from Scotland towards defence bill

 

[ainsworth74]

Any sources because £2bn doesn't buy you very much in the defence world and there's an awful lot of defence in Scotland...

 

[SkinnyDave]

Any sources because £2bn doesn't buy you very much in the defence world and there's an awful lot of defence in Scotland...

There is but there is a difference from starting from scratch which I grant you would be a tad more than 2 billion to say the least and inheriting existing assets

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/defence-in-an-independent-scotland-spend-less-to-get-more/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fact it seems that the whole independence argument is based on some sort of Braveheart-seen-through-tartan-tinted-spectacles scenario, with a dash of whisky and shortbread.

That is disingenuous at best and shows no knowledge of the debate going on
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would also agree that the SNP are currently main drivers but it's the Labour vote that is beginning to change the momentum towards Yes

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I would also agree that the SNP are currently main drivers but it's the Labour vote that is beginning to change the momentum towards Yes

I'm surprised any faction of Labour would be so keen on Scottish independence, it would be absolutely suicidal for them (in terms of their UK presence) if it happened.

 

[transmanche]

That is disingenuous at best and shows no knowledge of the debate going on

No it's not disingenuous. It's my considered opinion based on observing the debate at length.

 

[SkinnyDave]

I'm surprised any faction of Labour would be so keen on Scottish independence, it would be absolutely suicidal for them (in terms of their UK presence) if it happened.

That's why Scottish Labour MPs are in No camp because Labour would lose 50-60 seats in Westminster but there are a lot Labour supporters who see it as an opportunity to regain ground in Scotland John Mulvey Alex Mosson etc are now calling for Labour voters to vote yes.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I witnessed a pro-independence leafleting campaign on Waverley station back in September, which featured probably 50-60 people dressed up as Braveheart, so I'm assuming to some percentage of their supporters it is an influence or a symbol of what they do.

I suspect I'll get destroyed for saying this but I must be honest - for a very long time now I have thought that a lot of the independence campaign, especially from Mr Salmond, is based to some degree on nothing but pure and utter resentment for England and the English. Quite sad really.

 

[Butts]

It will be interesting to see what the turnout will be like with so much at stake - I bet it will be less than 70%