(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[Saracen]

This is exactly my point though, by using suicide as an example you are basically saying that Scotland cannot survive on its own but then going on to say it could. I appreciate you are using it to explain the no campaigns tactics but it really hits the nail on the head with regards to their strategy - the use of fear and the underlying assumption that Scotland needs the UK to survive. Comparing independence to suicide doesn't really sit well with me. I appreciate that fear can be an effective campaign tool but i really dont like it and that is the basic root of my issue with the unionist campaign at the moment. Although the example you mentioned is obviously illustrative and intended to make a point it is basically what the no campaign has been about thus far, with the notable exception of Cameron's 'love bombing' recently.

It's just an analogy from me to you, though, not a comparison with independence.

Given that the "no" campaign are trying to argue for no, how are they supposed to do it positively? Their whole point is that independence is worse than union, that it has a large downside. How do they point out the downside without pointing out the downside?

How about this .... you're thinking of changing job. I point out that the new job has longer hours, pays less, involves much longer commuting time and that that will be expensive, that the switch to shift work and doing nights doesn't suit everybody, there's no works canteen and that I know the person that will be your new boss and they're a right bleeeeep.

All that is negative. It's also just plain true.

Now, just maybe, the job your thinking off is what you've always dreamt of doing and you'll put up with all the above to live your dream. And maybe you'll be working harder, have bleep for a boss and be worse off, but be happier .

By pointing out all the negatives, I'm not trying to tell you what to do, or making a value judgement on your future happiness. I'm just trying to make sure any decision you take is based on an informed choice, because the recruiter offering you the job is certajnly singing the jobs praises, and either not mentioning the downside at all, or glossing over parts and misleading on other parts.

Is me pointing out the long list of negatives being negative, or is it just being truthful, and making sure you decide, but eyes-wide-open, and not just bathed in the rosy glow of a silver-tongued recruiter that just wants what HE wants, and doesn't care about your future happiness, because he'll have got his reward just by you taking the job.

Bear in mind, my personal stance is that I'd rather Scotland stayed in the UK, but NOT if it isn't the wishes of the Scottish people. I want you to stay, but not against you will. There will be costs involved that the UK has to bear if Scotland leaves, but they're worth paying if leaving proves to be the will of the people. I want you in, but not as a captive.

I'd say the same about Gibraltar, the Falklands and, yes, NI. I want them 'in', as it applies differently to each, but only if that's what the people want. I think leaving would be a mistake, but if it is, it's for the people of Scotland to make, and at least for those that want independence regardless of other costs or benefits, it wouldn't be a mistake, regardless of other costs.

Also, I've heard the no campaign emphasaise, time and again, theythink Scotland is better off 'in'. And given that that's a decision between status quo, or a change, I can't see how you could argue that out is worse without outlining precisely why out will ve worse.

Again, compare Salmond to Carney, Osborne, etc. The latter have outlined exactly why, for instance, a currency union is not in RofUKs best interests, and therefore isn't happening, while Salmond's response is the political equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting LA-LA-LAAAA-LA-LA.

If the no campaign is negative, so is Salmond, because he won't engage with the notion that the RofUK's interest isn't what he says it is just because he says it is. Cor him to dismiss the broadside against currency union as bluff and bullying is incredibly negative. A positive aporoach would be .... we still think we will be able to reach agreement, but if not, we'll do .... explain plan B.

As it is, you, and everyone else, are being expected to make a very important decision on the basis that, at least on this very important issue, you'll get a negotiated agreement that the other party has told you, categorically, unequivocally and, erm, ... positively .... is simply not going to happen. Hardly a positive way to deal with it by Salmond.

[Saracen]

Lol there's nothing quite like being lectured on internal goings on in Britain by a couple of Americans. They talk about RBS as if it was a Scottish national asset - its a sprawling multi-national. Yes, its based in Edinburgh but most of its UK customer base, employees and income comes from England, not to mention its been a publicly traded company on the London stock exchange for god knows how long and most of its shares, before the collapse, were not held by Scots. Just because it has Scotland in the title doesn't make it so. Similarly, after the oil spill, the American's were at pains to point out BP was British Petroleum when it is also a massive multi-national in which many US investors had stakes in. Just cos its in the name doesn't make it so.

Well all true BUT .... post-independence, is RBS a Scottish bank, or a RofUK bank. Short of a currency (and hence the implied banking) union, it will be one or the other, but not both.

Never mind the name, who regulates the bank? Something will determine which country it is part of. It will either be a foreign bank with branches in Svitland, or a foreign bsnk with branches in RofUK. Even for depositors, which country's regulators regulate it? Which country's central bank is lender of last resort? Which country's deposit-guarantee scheme protects deposits?

I have accounts and investments with an RBS subsidiary. One thing I can tell you, negative or not, is that the day Scotland votes for independence is the day I move those investments and deposits to a bank that isn't in a foreign country.

Whether Scotland stays in the UK isn't within my control. Whether my money is in a foreign bank, and if it is (and some is, now) which foreign bank, and country, is in my control. Given the uncertainty of a newly independent country, my money will come back here, perhaps with some going to the US.

In fact, thinking about it, if it looks likely to be a yes vote closer to the crunch date, I'll pull out and close accounts before the decision. Just in case. Me moving my paltry sums isn't going to wreck RBS (more than it's already wrecked, that is) but I doubt I'll be the only one.

And, of course, Scots may move to Scottish banks from RofUK ones, for many of the same reasons. Or may opt for the stability of a more known option. Who knows. But I do know what I'll do.

[Saracen]

Anyone watch Marr this morning, particularly the Manuel Barroso interview?

Interesting.

While pointing out it was for member states to decide, he had an interesting view on Scotland's applying to join. First, he was categoric that an application would be necessary, but second, it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for such an application to succeed.

And george, he isn't an "honorary director" but, for now at least, a serving EU Commission President.

His logic seemed to be :-

1) ANY applicant needs agreement from EACH existing member, and
2) Spain, for instance, is worried about a breakaway Catalonia joining, and about precedents being set, so
3) Spain has been rigorously opposing Kosovo even being recognised, let alone admitted.

His comments, he prefaced with being in reference to, paraphrasing, any new state emerging from an existing member. Clearly, and bearing in mind Marr's question was specifically about a prospective application from a newly independent Scotland.

And sure, he won't be in power when the time comes for any application, but that's not relevant, because even now, it's not his decision to make, merely his opinion on what would happen should it occur.

Frankly, I was astonished that he said that. Stunned, even. I wonder how long before he "clarifies" what he meant, I.e. rows back on it.

But if he's right, it's another kick in the cojones for the SNP position, because (if right) it holes SNP claims about membership, let alone easy, fast membership, below the waterline.

I know it's "negative", but perhaps Scots ought to consider that not only will they have to apply, but that they may find it "extremely difficult, if not impossible" to get in AT ALL.

And Barroso isn't British, much less English or one of the Westminster elite. He has no horse in this race.

It'll be interesting to see how Salmond et.al. sticks his head in the sand on this one. Maybe it's more "bullying and bluff"?

An independent Scotland might find itself unable to form a currency union with RofUK, and unable to join the EU. If only Spain (and it's not the only one with such internal issues to consider) blocks Scotland, over precedent-setting, that's that.

I've no doubt Scotland is economically, legally etc either qualified to join, or would be after putting measures in place necessary to meet the acquis criterua, but another state's internal politics could, and I stress 'could', not 'would' kill any chance stone dead, despite that.

Will the SNP stick it's fingers in it's ears again, and ignore that possibility, too.

At the absolute least, Barroso MIGHT be right, and therefore Scotland cannot guarantee it could join the EU, at all. What if it can't?

[rob4001]

Lol there's nothing quite like being lectured on internal goings on in Britain by a couple of Americans. They talk about RBS as if it was a Scottish national asset - its a sprawling multi-national. Yes, its based in Edinburgh but most of its UK customer base, employees and income comes from England, not to mention its been a publicly traded company on the London stock exchange for god knows how long and most of its shares, before the collapse, were not held by Scots. Just because it has Scotland in the title doesn't make it so. Similarly, after the oil spill, the American's were at pains to point out BP was British Petroleum when it is also a massive multi-national in which many US investors had stakes in. Just cos its in the name doesn't make it so.

I highly emotive issue. American he maybe he's not lecturing on the internals of Britain its program about economics and argues that to truly be economical independent nation they should have their own currency not tied to the BOE Mark Carney who ruined Canada and now in the process of ruining the uk with 0% interest. Carney is also and ex Goldman Sacs banker & that bank had to be bailed out.

I heard on the radio someone high up in the EU saying it would be impossible for Scotland to join the EU strait away. Another plus for independence in my opinion. Norway& Iceland have similar size population and just do fine without the EU

[wasabi]

1) ANY applicant needs agreement from EACH existing member, and
2) Spain, for instance, is worried about a breakaway Catalonua joining, and about pre edents being set, so
3) Spain has been rigorously opposing Kosovo even being recognised, let alone admitted.

Interesting point about precedents. It stands to reason that the status quo of Europe will want to actively DIScourage states from fragmenting. Or where will it stop? Catalunya could just the start - Belgium could easily explode next. Once it starts unravelling... The relatively recently unified Italian city-states. Resurgence of Prussia perhaps? Or an independent Bavaria.

Sure maybe far fetched, but an independent Scotland could be just the example the rest want to make.

[george1979]

Saracen - I know your point re suicide was merely analogy, I think i did say that but apologies if I wasn't clear. As i said it did hit the nail on the head as to what bugs me about the Union campaign though - which is the fear aspect.
My point regarding some of the 'negatives' you mention such as embassies and so on I don't see as a negative and neither do many Scots. We would see it as a positive sign of Scotland asserting itself as an independent nation - the costs would be worth it. This is my issue with that campaign - what they portray as negatives aren't necessarily negatives to a lot of people.
As for Mr Barroso I really would take that with a pinch of salt - the same as for any advice given to further either argument - but especially given the pressure I'm sure he is under to dissuade similar referendums. My argument is that it would be in the EU's interest to have Scotland in but even if they don't it wouldn't matter - as others have mentioned, Scotland could do just fine outside of the EU if necessary but I doubt it would come to that.

Spain's situation is different from the UK due to their constitution which expressly forbids any attempts by its people to breakaway. The Spanish PM also hasn't said they would attempt to block Scotland's entry into the EU and it would be controversial to say the least if they tried to.

In either case its all hypothetical since it's unlikely to be a Yes vote but its been an interesting, and informed, discussion on it

Its nice to discuss it rationally without all the emotional nonsense that often gets layered on to this debate.

[santa claus]

Westminster opened the door for Mr Salmond; its obsession with the City has sidelined whole swathes of the UK, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England, Cornwall etc.

We have become a Country of disunity; Scotland might only be the start.

It might be an idea if a think tank stops planning for the next foreign adventure and concentrates its attention at home. If it doesn't, we might see mass emigration to Scotland, if they'll have us .

[george1979]

It might be an idea if a think tank stops planning for the next foreign adventure and concentrates its attention at home. If it doesn't, we might see mass emigration to Scotland, if they'll have us .

Of course we would have you guys! Just bring a jumper

[munchie]

I'd say the same about Gibraltar, the Falklands and, yes, NI. I want them 'in', as it applies differently to each, but only if that's what the people want. I think leaving would be a mistake, but if it is, it's for the people of Scotland to make, and at least for those that want independence regardless of other costs or benefits, it wouldn't be a mistake, regardless of other costs.

gibraltar and falklands aren't in the uk. speaking of gibraltar, somewhat fed up with seeing people think gibraltar pound coin (or jersey, etc) are the same thing as uk pound coin. not legal tender over here.

[santa claus]

Of course we would have you guys! Just bring a jumper

Great! Just need to get into character:
Santa McClaus

[Saracen]

gibraltar and falklands aren't in the uk. speaking of gibraltar, somewhat fed up with seeing people think gibraltar pound coin (or jersey, etc) are the same thing as uk pound coin. not legal tender over here.

I know they aren't in the UK. That's why I said "as it applies differently to them".

The point was about it being the will of the people. The people of both have said, very clearly, THEY want to be part of the wider UK family, rather than part of Spain or Argentina.

My view of Scotland is the same - I want them in the UK provided they themselves want to be in. The inference is that if they want out, they ought to be allowed to leave, not held in unwillingly. I.e. whatever the referendum says. I hope they vote to stay, but if they want out, so be it. Bye, and good luck.

[Saracen]

....

As for Mr Barroso I really would take that with a pinch of salt - the same as for any advice given to further either argument - but especially given the pressure I'm sure he is under to dissuade similar referendums. My argument is that it would be in the EU's interest to have Scotland in but even if they don't it wouldn't matter - as others have mentioned, Scotland could do just fine outside of the EU if necessary but I doubt it would come to that.

Spain's situation is different from the UK due to their constitution which expressly forbids any attempts by its people to breakaway. The Spanish PM also hasn't said they would attempt to block Scotland's entry into the EU and it would be controversial to say the least if they tried to.

In either case its all hypothetical since it's unlikely to be a Yes vote but its been an interesting, and informed, discussion on it

Its nice to discuss it rationally without all the emotional nonsense that often gets layered on to this debate.

Absolutely, on the last line.

As for Barroso, it wasn't advice. He was asked a question, and answered. He didn't offer it, unsolicited. As for pressure, he's only got a few months left, so I'm not sure how much pressure could be exerted.

As for Spain, they haven't said they'd block Scotland, but they also haven't said they wouldn't. And that's hardly surprising, as at this stage it might well be seen as interfering in the internal affairs of another member state. However, if an independent Scotland, having left the UK, applies, THEN it becomes a matter of defending Spain's interests.

Spain, or rather their PM, has said his government considers ANY part or region of a current member leaving that member can ONLY apply from outside, and cannot assume success. He's also said he would expect the UK government to take the same line on Catalonia.

And that's politics for you. But consider the Madrid government's adamant opposition to Catalonia seceeding. They've refused to even discuss a referendum, yet Catalonia is going ahead with one. This is a very hot topic in Spain.

Spain has also said clearly it rejects Salmond's assertions about a s.48 "automatic" membership. They sure don't want that precedent set for Catalonia. That's also the position, on the record, of the UK government, Barroso, and the EU Commission itself, among others. Everybody, pretty much, except the SNP.

Could Scotland survive outside the EU? IMHO, hell yes. So could the UK. Bear in mind I'm VERY sceptical about the UK being in the EU, and absolutely in favour if the UK having a referendum on it. But I want an open, detailed, honest and full-fact debate first.

Like Scotland, the UK faces benefits and costs from being in the EU, and would face benefits and costs from leaving. Ditto Scotland. Not all of the arguments about the UK be invthe EU are quantifiable. One, at least, is about self-determination. So I agree about the embassy issue. It would involve a cost, and it might well be worth it. But the people ought to be aware of the implications of voting out, like having to set up probably 150+ embassies .... or getting someone else to represent Scors abroad. And that is one if a very large numver of issues.

If the no campaign can be characterised as negative, the yes camoaign can ve characterised as dishonest. For example, pretending that a "no" to currency union is just a bluff and that it's invthe bag. Salmond and "yes" ought to be honest, acknowledge that abdolutely xannot guarantee that, and tell Scots what they'll do if that happens. Without that, you can't make an informed decision, hence "dishonest". Similarly, about the only ones claiming Scotland will be guaranteed a fast EU entry, or even that it's certain it'll get in at all, is the SNP. And by sticking to their s.48 assertions in the face of disagreement from Barroso, the EU Commission and foreign leaders whose agreement is necessary for accession, is starting to make Salmond and SNP claims look ridiculous.

Could Scotland survive outside the EU? Of course, but don't Scots deserve an honest assessment of that possibility, and an explanation of the implications, in order to make an informed decision? But instead, all the SNP do is pretend that everyone else, including the RotUK, and the EU want what the SNP wants because it's in the SNPs interests. I doubt Spain much cares about Scotland one way or the other, but precedents about seceding 'new states' joining the EU is definitely on it's radar. That emphatically hits Spain's own self-interest in a sensitive place.

[munchie]

My view of Scotland is the same - I want them in the UK provided they themselves want to be in. The inference is that if they want out, they ought to be allowed to leave, not held in unwillingly. I.e. whatever the referendum says. I hope they vote to stay, but if they want out, so be it. Bye, and good luck.

sure. i'm rather unconcerned whether they end up staying or going really. granted, it'll affect the rest of uk and all that, but people will adapt one way or the other.

i don't really see how salmond can "deconstruct" the arguments of the 3 parties on currency union with anything but hot air, as usual. it's not really an economic issue, but a political one. sure, economically it might make sense to not raise barriers, ignoring the bits about having to bail out scotland due to being their lender of last resort. but if uk is broadly sceptic about the european single currency, why would we enter a different single currency and let the scots influence our policies once scotland ditches us?

[Saracen]

I don't see how he can deconstruct it either, but I'll listen to what he says, just in case. I think the possibility of currency union being minimal or zero is both economic and political, and that the politics will determine it, even if the economics don't. But either would do. My bet is that his "deconstruction" will be his usual blend of blanket assertion and bluster, but .... we'll see. Maybe he'll surprise me.

[peterb]

Westminster opened the door for Mr Salmond; its obsession with the City has sidelined whole swathes of the UK, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England, Cornwall etc.

And just remind me which political party was elected on the back of a devolution vote in 1997? Presumably to 'buy' the labour vote in Scotland? It wouldn't have ben "an ordinary working" (Scottish) Public School educated politician named Blair by any chance? (Fettes, IIRC). The irony is that if Scotland does become independent, it could make Labour unelectable for some time. While it is tempting to welcome that, it is true that gGovernments with a weak opposition are generally a bad thing.

might be an idea if a think tank stops planning for the next foreign adventure and concentrates its attention at home. If it doesn't, we might see mass emigration to Scotland, if they'll have us .

Well, foreign adventuring might take on a new twist if the 'yes' vote gets it way.



What astounds me (although it shouldn't) is Salmond's conviction that he would have sole power to dictate the terms on which an independent Scotland would interact with other nation States. And to accuse the Westminster Government of bullying is really "Pot, this is kettle". I missed his speech as it was broadcast, but having read the synopsis, it seems more of the same old, and gives me the impression that he is fighting back from a corner.

However, I look forward to Saracen's analysis, which will be more insightful than my own.

(And there is still the Defence question (among others) )

[scaryjim]

There's actually a bigger problem for Scotland in terms of currency union and the EU - as a new member state joining the EU it would have to sign up to switch to the Euro anyway - presumably as a new independent member state it wouldn't be protected by the UK's Maastricht exception. So Salmond's claim that they can keep the pound and join the EU sounds pretty empty from where I'm sitting...