[Johnny Brown]

Supposedly they're going to build a fairer and more just society aren't they? Given the treatment of Trump though you've got to be cynical. I read an Andy Wightman piece somewhere he pointed out that the vast majority of powers required for land reform are already under the remit of Scotland's government.

[Sloper]

While not disparaging the merit of a thorough and considered debate on the subject of land ownership (trans, a slanging match with injudicious language) I doubt this is within the contemplation of any but a very small section of those already voting Yes and in no one else's mind at all.

It's a bit like us worrying who has to supply white gloves to the monarch prior to their coronation when discussing proposed erforms of the House of Lords.

[GazM]

I read an Andy Wightman piece somewhere he pointed out that the vast majority of powers required for land reform are already under the remit of Scotland's government.

Aye, Andy Wightman gives his thoughts here: http://www.andywightman.com/?p=3843
All very interesting and in a similar vein to Monbiot, full of inspirational idealism but lacking in practical mechanisms for how the revolution is going to work. I definitely don't know how, but I'm not the one suggesting that the logical answer is creating a new country.

[chris j]

Sounds like the SNP are going to be busy after a yes vote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html

Never mind building a fairer Scotland, or negotiating a good deal on separation, they're going to have their hands full with revenge and settling of old scores...

[Fultonius]

Or, if we are to believe the MSM commentators Scotland would become more right wing (I don't really buy this, although understand that Jasper will think I'm in denial of harsh economic facts).

There's no point in repeating myself ad infinitum when nobody has answered the first question I asked anyway!

Never mind being logical though, this is politics after all.

I thought the answer was that both sides would have to find a workable solution for both the short, medium and long term as it was in neither's interest for there to be chaos, uncertainty or a neighbouring country with a weak economy. (I'm guessing you were looking for a more specific answer, but I'm not an expert economist so that's the best I can do.  )

*bashes head against wall*

It's not a question of chaos or uncertainty it's that all the grand plans of the Yes movement mean fuck all without the autonomy they need on spending etc. Nobody has actually answered the question of how this is achievable, probably because it isn't.

I'll shut up now because I'm boring myself but if people can't see that without the means to be truly independent the rest is just posturing and bullshit then I really do despair.

I think you're correct - a formal shared currency, or even a pegged currency do not align with full autonomy.

Another way to look at it is - this is just stage 1, with a "soft landing" of shared currency. Further down the line there's no reason why, if the countries fiscal policies do diverge significantly (which I don't think they will, I think the differences will remain fairly subtle), Scotland couldn't join the Euro, invent a currency, join the Chinese Yuan Renmimbi (or whatever seems best at the time).

[Fultonius]

On another note, I've felt for a long time that the BBC is nowhere near as impartial as it likes to claim.

Alex Salmond clearly answering Nick Robinson's question (and making him look foolish in the process):

Aplogies if you find Salmond smug and annoying, this is not going to change your opinion...

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM&feature=youtu.be

Nick Robinson's Summary:



 

[tomtom]

Thought I'd put up a UKB poll to see what UKB'ers think...

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,24743.0.html

[Oldmanmatt]

Sounds like the SNP are going to be busy after a yes vote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-business-warned-of-day-of-reckoning-if-Scots-vote-Yes.html

Never mind building a fairer Scotland, or negotiating a good deal on separation, they're going to have their hands full with revenge and settling of old scores...

I do hope that is just bluster, as that would seem to be the makings of an "own goal" by the nationalists. Such actions would destroy Scotland's standing in the global economy and make Sillars  sound like a Putin/El Generalisimo/Father of the people/death to all who disagree with me basket case...

[Jaspersharpe]

That's complete bollocks. Again the question would have to be "and how exactly are you going to do all that?".

[Johnny Brown]

I can't find it now, but it read a good piece earlier comparing the Irish succession early last century, and how the Punt was pegged to the Pound for decades before they joined the euro. So clearly it's more possible than Westminster are letting on.

[Sloper]

The punt was certainly floating vs £Sterling before Ireland joined the Euro, I imagine one of the reasons why the peg was more reliable in the early days of independence was the theoretical link to a nominal amount of gold (it's been a long day and I can't remember when we abandoned the gold standard)

[Johnny Brown]

Only became floating vs sterling because they joined the European exchange rate mechanism in 1978, which the UK of course refused. Pegged to sterling for the previous 50+ years since independence in 1922.

[lagerstarfish]

That's complete bollocks. Again the question would have to be "and how exactly are you going to do all that?".

employ some of those financial wizards from London, innit?

[AJM]

I can't find it now, but it read a good piece earlier comparing the Irish succession early last century, and how the Punt was pegged to the Pound for decades before they joined the euro. So clearly it's more possible than Westminster are letting on.

Currency union isn't the same as currency peg though.

Currency union is a shared currency and a shared single bank. Requires a commitment from the rUK and from Scotland.

Currency peg means Scotland has a separate currency which it maintains at a fixed number of pounds. Requires no commitment from rUK at all.

It requires Scotland to either maintain the peg by diktat, which effectively means exchange controls (no taking more than £x in and out of the country and what have you, to stop anyone trading at a rate other than the official one), or it means the Scottish Central bank needs to acquire serious currency reserves, because it means the central bank has to intervene in the currency markets to be a buyer when sellers outweigh buyers and a seller in the opposite position. Importantly in the former case it needs to acquire serious amounts of £, € or $ to be able to sell in order to buy Scottish groats to prop their value up in case of a crash. That's a serious drag on the cash flow.

The Irish punt I suspect was probably in an easier position since in the years before free floating currencies (I don't know when, but say the 70s or early 80s.) there were far more widespread exchange controls and so maintaining a currency peg that way was the more "normal" way of doing things. These days it isn't so much, in the west at least.

[AJM]

the countries fiscal policies do diverge significantly (which I don't think they will, I think the differences will remain fairly subtle)

Sensitivity to the oil price would be a pretty big differentiator between an oil importing England and an oil exporting (or at least far less net importing. I don't know what the picture) Scotland.

Hence one of the needs for the serious cash reserves in the event of a pegged Scottish groat or whatever - every time the oil price swings you need to push money to or fro in the market to maintain a fixed exchange rate with a currency that reacts to oil prices in a different way to yours.

[Jaspersharpe]

It would all be worth it if they really did adopt the groat as their currency.

[tomtom]

Wouldn't the Buck (fast) be more appropriate?

[Fultonius]

I'm surprised this hasn't been more widely reported as it's a pretty strong positive indicator for the health of an independent Scotland's economy:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/

[abarro81]

Can anyone give a succinct run down of pros and cons for 'rUK'  giving Scotland a currency union?
As far as I understand

Pros - they won't renege on debt

Cons - exposes us to risk if Scots spend loads of money or economy crashes

More?

[Fultonius]

I'm surprised this hasn't been more widely reported as it's a pretty strong positive indicator for the health of an independent Scotland's economy:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors/

I was interested in the background source for that article so spent a few minutes on a google search and a trawl through S&P own site. I can find no evidence of S&P saying much of what this writer claims, plenty that contradicts it.

I will admit that I didn't go "fact checking" but I've now read the S&P report and don't find too many inconsistencies. http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/repository/StandardAndPoorsKeyConsiderations.pdf

In case I am looking through biased eyes (always possible...) can you point me to where you see discrepancies?

[petejh]

I don't normally listen to R5 in the evening but tonight found myself listening to a live broadcast from Glasgow tonight of a discussion about the issues. It seems to me from listening to the discussion, and other pieces over the last 7 days, that the BBC have consciously chosen to drop impartiality in favour of adopting an agenda of quite forcefully questioning politicians in favour of independence while not applying the same forceful questioning style against the pro-union side. I find this disturbing.

The message I get from the pro-union side in this debate is what if.. / it won't work because.. / yes but..  The message I get from the pro-independence side is 'yes we can'.

Flip back 5 years and it could be a case of 'yes we can' versus 'no you can't'. Positive v negative. Progressive v status quo.

Jasper, you're particularly conspicuous in your anti-independence view on here; what are your thoughts on other countries having obtained / or are seeking independence? I'm thinking Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia in 1991; Slovakia in 1993, Kosovo in 2008; Tibet's ongoing struggle. In all these cases there were/are compelling reasons to stick with the status quo and use arguments such as 'it just won't work' / 'they haven't thought it though' etc.. Are these countries doing OK and their citizens happier with their lot? I don't know, just asking because Scotland and Engerland aren't unique.

[stone]

Sorry long rant ahead:)

My impression is that whether Standard and Poor's say Scotland's debt is AAA is neither here nor there. All that matters is whether or not the Scottish debt is in a currency that has a central bank that takes it open its self to stand behind that Scottish debt as a buyer of last resort. Standard and Poor's says that Japan's debt is AA- but everyone knows that the Bank of Japan can and does buy enough JGB to keep borrowing costs as low as they want.
A currency union means that there is a central bank that is above and beyond any constituent nation in that currency union. How is that supranational central bank supposed to decide whether to buy the debt of one of the countries in that union that goes on a spending spree/has a crisis/doesn't collect tax etc? That conflict is why currency unions are a totally stupid idea. That is why the eurozone squanders so much on pointlessly high yield government debt. That is why there is appalling levels of youth unemployment in the eurozone. The whole concept of having a currency union without fiscal, political and banking union is broken by design.
If Scotland wants independence then great. They could prosper and be genuinely independent if like say New Zealand or Singapore they had genuine independence with their own currency and government debt denominated in their own currency. I think the UK Treasury and the Bank of England have a responsibility to all of the UK to ensure that there is a solid plan for smoothly transitioning to a Scottish currency if Scotland votes yes. The remaining UK could keep the responsibility for servicing the current stock of UK treasury debt but Scotland's share of the UK debt could be offset by Scotland issuing a stock of Scottish currency debt that was granted to the UK foreign currency reserves. Then the remaining UK would be recompensed with payments in Scottish currency.

I worry Scottish politicians are addicted to blaming England for any problems. They don't want genuine independence with a sovereign currency because then they would only have themselves to blame if they screwed up. Scotland deserves better than that.

The SNP say they want to cut taxes and improve public services and infrastructure to get people and companies to migrate to Scotland. Under the Currency Union they want, is the Bank of England supposed to buy up all of the Scottish debt they issue to pay for that? If so then why would Scotland tax at all? Why hold back at all on spending? Put a Scotsman on Mars by 2020 or whatever. It would be England's job to try and maintain the value of sterling by offsetting Scotland's profligacy -or that is what the SNP want.

[Johnny Brown]

Jasper, you're particularly conspicuous in your anti-independence view on here[\quote]

I don't recall seeing Jasper really offer an opinion for or against. What he has done, as has Stone above, is point out that the yes campaign hasn't offered a credible answer on the currency question. The fact that we've got to this stage without that simply seems bizarre.

I don't really get it, it seems if the SNP were for genuine independence with their own currency and DVLA etc they wouldn't get the support. As others have pointed out, the first thing the Baltic States did was get their own cash, number plates etc - genuine independence, genuine pride in it. But now the SNP seem to be getting the support the independence lite idea seems a bit unresolved.

I hope they do vote yes to be honest cos I can't see the issue going away if they don't. And we'll end up with independence lite anyway.

[abarro81]

So from what stone said it sounds like a currency union ain't very favourable for rUK.. In which case I concur with Jasper that it seems nuts not to have a good plan in place!

[Sloper]

Westminster / the BoE agreeing to a currency union or some other arrangement would be a de facto endorsement of independence, hence the absence of such agreement is hardly surprising.

The 'currency union' in the UK at present doesn't make a lot of sense for Cornwall, the North East / Wales.

While I am not in favour of independence, I think the question as to currency is being blown out of all proportion compared to more important issues as it is one that can be 'grasped' by the electorate.