(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[HalloweenJack]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/salmond-39-...071252202.html

Salmond 'caught between a rock and a hard place' over Scottish currency

usually don't like ian dunt , but this time he has hit the nail on the head.

[TheAnimus]

Not really. He isn't court between a rock or a hard place, he is getting precisely what he wants. He just doesn't realise what he wants. It is truly just what have the Romans ever done for us.. If he wants a currency union, he can not dictate the terms completely. It wouldn't be a problem if they werent trying to rush it, if they had say a 10 year plan, they could go and join the euro meanwhile negotiating with the UK.

But he doesn't want that. He wants to cherry pick. He at best is a dreaming idealist, yes it's crap that somewhere so far from Scotland makes decisions that effect it, but it's better than the alternative.

Or he is just some power hungry egomaniac blind to see that he can't magically fix everything.

[Funkstar]

Oh how Salmond has changed his mind!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...pound-1.263204

From 1999:

Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.

[Rob_B]

Saw 5 mins of the debate last night, two middle age women arguing over each other, i think both looked pretty bad and petty.

[HalloweenJack]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bus...163421216.html

LONDON (Reuters) - An independent Scotland's use of the pound without a monetary union with the rest of the UK could endanger the stability of the nation's financial sector, Scotland's financial services industry head said on Wednesday

[peterb]

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/bus...163421216.html

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.

And it could, but whether it would is another matter...

(Maybe he is more afraid for the stability of an independent Scotland's financial stability - or if mainly Scottish financial companies might decide to uproot themselves to RoUK.)

[Saracen]

....

And it could, but whether it would is another matter...

....

Indeed. iScotland certainly could go down the "sterlingisation" route, but aside from the financial stability issues, another complication is that without currency union, Scotland will have a far harder job meeting EU accession criteria until/unless it sets up a lender of last resort, a credible and stable method of implementing monetary and fiscal policy, and all the infrastructure of financial monitoring and regulatory procedures.

Of course, it can do that. But it will take time, and iScotland doesn't just have to set something up, but something stable and credible enough to meet EU accession criteria.

And no doubt that is one reason Salmond doesn't want to publicly admit that currency union isn't in his gift to insist on, and if he doesn't get it (and, IMHO, there is no chance of it) then he has all sorts of awkward issues to address, and his plan is to re-assure Scots that everything is "stable" after indepedence. Truth is, of course, there are some VERY large uncertainties. Scots may or may not be bothered about them, and may be prepared to pay that price for the 'prize' of independence. But they should be in no doubt that there uncertainties, and several of them are whoppers.

[HalloweenJack]

And so it begins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321

Standard Life is putting in place contingency plans to relocate funds, people and operations to England if Scottish people vote for independence and what it regards as material uncertainties about money and regulation are not sorted to its satisfaction

no lender of last resort , no regulation = they will leave.

[TheAnimus]

They wouldn't be allowed to have English customers, as they wouldn't be regulated by a recognised body.

If they where in the EU, they could 'passport' into the UK, but that would require them passing the EU requirements, which wouldn't happen fast.

[Saracen]

They wouldn't be allowed to have English customers, as they wouldn't be regulated by a recognised body.

If they where in the EU, they could 'passport' into the UK, but that would require them passing the EU requirements, which wouldn't happen fast.

They could get round the first. In the absence of some arrangement allowing iScotland to piggy-back on rUKs regukatory framework, they coukd set up their own.

There are issues doing it, and they aren't trivial. And it absolutely would take time. But there's a supposed 18 months between the referendum decision and the date of independence, which gives some breathing room to do it. Also, a LOT could be duplicated from existing UK regulation, like establishing procedures, nanuals,, structures, etc. Some cooperation from rUK regulators would help a lot, and I can't think of a good reason why that would be withheld.

There ARE good reasons why rUK shouldn't agree to currency union, and whatever Salmond says, the SNP view of what's in the best interests of rUK isn't going to cut much ice down here.mSalmond's position is that Westminster doesn't place enough weight on Scottish interests now, which is a large part if why he wants independence. But if he thinks that either Scotland's interests, or SNP opinion on our interests, will carry more weight after independence, then he's a pure fantasist.

Helping iScotland set up a regulatory framework would be in rUKs interests, as is seeing iScotland successful and healthy. But that interest, for rUK, is very definitely secondary to rUK interests, and iSvotland's interests will carry relevance down when and only when they don't conflict with rUKs interests. And on currency union, IMHO, rUK interests clearly rule it out, whatever rhetoric the SNP come up with. Helping set up regulatory bodies and regimes, though .... I can't see any real conflict.

But whether it could be done in 18 months is another matter.

And even if it could, well, I said some posts back that if the vote goes for independence, I WILL move my modest financial interests out of any financial institution based in, and regulated by, a "foreign" country. I know for a certainty I'm not the only one, and my bet is, it'll be quite common, in rUK.

Less clear is the stance of international investors, etc. The UK financial system is still (surprisingly, after some recent events) pretty highly trusted, nit least because of a long, LONG history. A finanial sector in an iScotland, regulated by an unknown and unproven new regulatory framework? Well, if I were an international investor, I'd be looking to move to a less unknown environment, which might be London, but might also be New York, Hong Kong, or whatever.

On the EU implucations, I entirely agree. iScotland will have to negotiate whatever arranfements with rUK, then xet up whatever regulatory infrastructure it needs to, before it can realistically even start negotiating on that accession requirement with the EU. To think that all that can be done in 18 months is, IMHO, wildly optimistic. I gave doubts about getting the EU bit of that complete and signed off in 18 months, let alone doing the rest first.

There are all sorts of reasons for the Standard Life position, and frankly, I've been wondering for some time how long it would take before some big business said that.

An iScotland could, probably would, still be a practical prospect, and no doubt could stand alone, if it so chooses. But pretending, as Salmond does, that it'll all be plain sailing, sunshine and roses, is ridiculoys, to be point of fantasy. There is simply no way to avoid, at a bare minimum, a fair degree of uncertainty.

SNP answers to a whole host of important issues somply assume that iScotland will get everyone it wants in SNP fantasy land. It won't. If Scots want independence, fair enough. If all these issues and uncertainties are an acceptable price for being on your own, and getting free from Westminster, fair enough. Just don't make the mistake of believing in Salmond's fantasy world where either rUK or the EU just drop their kecks and bend over, because it IS pure fantasy.

But if that's what you want, fair enough, and good luck.

The first major election results in iScotland, after it turns out that Westminster wasn't "bluffing" on the currency union, or that EU accession was neither automatic, fast nor a walk in the park, should be interesting.

[HalloweenJack]

just read that under:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...5L0026:EN:HTML

RBS and Lloyds may be forced to move to England oO

[The Hand]

Things are getting interesting.. The "Yes" vote has taken the lead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29099875

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29096458

There is speculation of a run on Stirling should the "Yes" vote win.. in other words, if you're looking at buying a car you might want to buy before the 18th lol!
I think an independent Scotland is inevitable now, it's just a question of when... in a few days or a few years!

[Saracen]

Well, one poll shows a small "yes" lead, within the margin of error, and dwarfed by the undecideds. Polls from 5 other polling companies in the last few weeks all put "no" ahead. One of those put "no"ahead by enough that if the undecideds voted 100" with "yes", the "no" camp would still win.

I think we can draw several firm conclusions from polling data. One is that it's going to be close. Second is that, predictably, as polling day gets closer the undecideds shrink .... but are still enough to swing it one way or the other.

Third, it's an extremely difficult issue to poll, and you have to be oh-so very careful how you select samples to avoid unintentional polling bias. Many of the usual factors simply don't apply, because of the nature of the issue and the lack of polling precedent. You can't even assume that those that voted SNP last time will necessarily all vote "yes", though a majority probably will. But you can't assume that everybody voting SNP at an election voted that way over the independence issue, because that isn't the only, and maybe not even the primary reason, all voters voted that way.

I also suspect that if the vote is "no", even narrowly, the issue will be off the table for quite a few years.

[adidan]

Lol, this is going to be fun.

'Yes' and a whole lot of problems arise, a 'no' and a whole lot of problems arise - hopefully they won't follow the serious path of their descendants in Northern Ireland who, funnily enough, are adamant about staying in the Union.

If there is a 'no' vote now I can also see it not going down too well south of the border if more and more is seen to be given to Scotland with nothing seen to be gained - even if it is just a perception rather than a reality.

It is pretty much voting blindfolded going by how much use both camps have been - what the hell vote yes Scotland, let's see what hits and what misses the fan

Edit: Serious question, why is it not just Scottish born people who can vote and why can't Scots not living in Scotland vote? It seems a bit odd that EU citizens (amongst others) living in Scotland can decide the future of another nation. They can't vote in a General Election so why on earth can they vote on such a large issue as splitting up the vary same nation that they can't elect the government in?

[HalloweenJack]

a lot of focus on `YES` extremists in English media , some even saying they are akin to IS terrorists....

[Zak33]

I'd rather Scotland stayed with us to be honest.

I have a million views on a thousand things.. but the short thing is this:

It's best sticking together when you know each other as well as we do. Hating each other is fine, so long as we hate other people more and stick back to back if the crap hits the fan globally.

which it is/has/will