Scottish Independence

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...debt-1-3185848

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7 Hills

And you're unlikely to see this referred to in mainstream Scottish media outlets which are, by and large, ultimately controlled by London offices.

---

Yet the London offices are reporting it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26070030

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...rdable-warning

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-finances.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off.

---

I must have missed the facts and figures in his speech. All I kept hearing was "We're better together", with no real explaination as to why. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7 Hills

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...debt-1-3185848

---

The Scotsman may not be a Cybernat source but there is no doubt about where Gordon Macintyre-Kemp's loyalties lie given that he stood for the SNP before.

The message I keep hearing is don't trust the media but you can rely on 'YesScotland' and SNP folk.

[QUOTE=One Day Soon;3899368]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

As a Social Democrat I take the view that reinstating borders at Berwick and Carlisle - and thereby condeming Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and many other parts of England and Wales to legislation they don't want - isn't a very social or democratic way of behaving.

---

This is something I just don't understand. Why put up with the rubbish if you can walk away from it? Sure, it would be a shame for folk in rUK but I don't see the need to pass up on opportunities to improve Scotland just so that I can share a pain I can easy avoid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7 Hills

Rather more interesting that the report referred to was compiled by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which is based in the City of Westminster, London, wouldn't you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ocial_Research

And you're unlikely to see this referred to in mainstream Scottish media outlets which are, by and large, ultimately controlled by London offices.

---

The case for both sides has been well reported if you look without blinkers on. It's just a pity that both sides are making such a cr@p job of getting their messages across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Let him do that against a fellow Scot, though he'll have a struggle against the articulate Mr Darling.

---

Salmond's opposite number is David Cameron. Perhaps if Cameron wasn't giving it all the "it's up to the Scots" while sticking his oar in at every opportunity then Salmond would be wrong to target him.

Darling's role in all this is as head honcho of Better Together. His opposite number is either Blair Jenkins or Denis Canavan (think it's Jenkins).

I wouldn't have any fears at all for Salmond versus Darling, but it's not the appropriate title bout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7 Hills

Another interesting article - hopefully The Scotsman isn't deemed a "Cybernat" source…

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotlan...debt-1-3185848

---

An opinion piece form the CEO of a group campaigning for a Yes vote? Surely that wouldn't be allowed in the mainstream media?

I had interesting meeting with the Electoral Commission today about donations and the "rules" of the referendum debate and campaigning. Think quiet a lot of groups/individuals are in for a shock on how strict it is. A lot of the splinter Yes groups such as Hibs for Yes or Yes Hibs, whatever they are called, could potentially be in breech of the spending rules. Especially when they have joining up to promote a Yes vote with others such as Jags for Yes as seen at the recent Thistle game. If the commission deem that these groups are working together then their cost are added together. So if every Premiership team had a similar organisation and do joint promotions at games or are seen to be working together then they will have to be a registered participant. I'll post the power point up as it's interesting how the referendum differed from a normal election.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/agbeh9v9ov...ion%202014.ppt


Hope this works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

"

I will grant you that trumping John Barrowan (oo err missus) is not easy. But I think Sean Connery, Eddi Reader and Elaine C Smith are a pretty unedifying bunch for a variety of reasons related variously to residency, tax contributions, pompousness and just general irrelevance. To be honest I detest the involvement of 'celebrities' in politics of any sort. I think it is shallow and helps debase political debate. It's kind of like "Oi you working class/tv addled oiks, we can't think of a way to engage you in a serious discussion about this so here's some completely unqualified talking head to reach out to you patronisingly and dumb it all down". Kenny Everett with the Tories, Tracy Ullman with Labour, Ian ****ing Hislop with the Lib/Dems. Give it a rest I say.

The wee guy was happy as Larry with the result and with how joyously his dad was shouting his head off and whooping around the room. Still smirking about that.

I'm not Ian Gray - there is more than one Hibs supporter in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK you know! I am however a thinking critic of 5hit politics and particularly the politics we are treated to in Scotland by all sides. What gets my goat most is the use of assertion in place of facts or evidence. I'm getting worse about this stuff too, I think it is a function of age.

You kindly said that I'm no fool. But look at this, I'm s******ing at you writing "economic dispartities" above. So I can be childish if not foolish.

---

I will give you Sean Connery as being unedifying, the other two naw. Both are passionate regarding Independence. Both live in Scotland too, so actually have a vote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

I don't have any time for Cameron or politics for that matter, but, I was quite impressed with his speech today. He might have balanced it too much towards an emotional plea for the union to remain intact, although as he said the speech was directed at people outwith Scotland, so, providing facts and figures to folk who can't vote would've just switched people off.

---

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Everyone knows where Cameron's sympathies lie - with the Union naturally enough. I don't see any point in his coming up to Scotland and debating with Salmond. Is Alex likely to change his mind? Or vice-versa?

It's more a chance for Salmond to try and score some cheap points. Let him do that against a fellow Scot, though he'll have a struggle against the articulate Mr Darling.

---

Dave has been saying since the beginning that it is a Scottish matter and he wont get involved, his stance ended today.
Lets see that debate now please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs

Dave has been saying since the beginning that it is a Scottish matter and he wont get involved, his stance ended today.
Lets see that debate now please.

---

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

---

100% correct. It's just spin by the SNP. What politician who can't vote in an election is going to take part in 121 debate. Cameron is not stupid. But its time the Nats realised this debate is not about Tory Britain v. Salmond's Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

---

Pesky electorate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Pesky electorate.

---

They ruin elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

100% correct. It's just spin by the SNP. What politician who can't vote in an election is going to take part in 121 debate. Cameron is not stupid. But its time the Nats realised this debate is not about Tory Britain v. Salmond's Scotland.

---

Yet that same politician is urging those non-Scots who don't have a vote to try and influence those who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Pesky electorate.

---

Fair enough, point taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yet that same politician is urging those non-Scots who don't have a vote to try and influence those who do.

---

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

---

True but if he can't pick and choose when to get involved in the issue. He either gets involved or says nothing and lets the No campaign handle it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

---

I find it quite patronising actually, on two counts:-

1. the suggestion that ex-pats know better than those who live here.

2. the assumption that ex-pats would vote No if they had a vote.

I read a Twitter page this morning (and I have no idea how representative it is) which had hundreds of comments from ex-pats telling voters to vote Yes. It's no definitive guide, of course, but Cameron's comments may have just hardened a few attitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Big difference asking friends and family to save the union compared to a live TV debate.

---

He either should take a back seat and shut up or man up and stand toe to toe with the first minister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Any debate between Salmond and Cameron would be an enjoyable sideshow at best. I'd rather see the Scots politicians on both sides raise their game than see Salmond's crude attempt to reduce the referundum to an anti-English Tory vote indulged.

---

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmond feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

I love how anything that appears on yesscotland.net or similar cybernat sites is deemed interesting when actually all they are doing is preaching to the converted.

---

Marinello, I think you may want to have another look at this because deeper analysis really does make for interesting reading as 7 Hills initially suggested - just no where near in the way he/she intended.

The NIESR report - actually it is a series of six reports - pretty much brutally damages the Yes campaign on a number of issues. The misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the conclusions of these reports by the article on the Yes site is utterly grotesque. I can understand each side of the campaign wanting to make their case and putting the best shine possible on their position but what we have here from Yes looks totally dishonest compared to what the reports actually say.

Call me sad but I have gone and read the actual reports or what is available from them and here is what they say:

Paper 1 Economic and fiscal implications for Scotland of moving to independence highlights hole in Scottish public finances and no oil fund

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "In terms of its fiscal balance, Scotland's independence would require taxes derived from its offshore (North Sea) activity to be sufficient to offset the extra monies (in per head terms) currently transferred from the rest of the UK (via the Barnett formula system) in order to pay for the current level of public services. Based on current projections, such North Sea related tax revenues would amount to less than the likely Barnett transfer, leading to a net loss in funding at the time of independence. Under such circumstances the question of whether or not Scotland could afford to initiate the building up of an ‘Oil Fund', is largely a redundant one."

Paper 2 Scotland: Currency Options and Public Debt questions capacity to sustain pound monetary union due to tight conditions of rest of UK

Conclusion:
"The amount of public debt that an independent Scotland would inherit is critical to the optimal currency choice. The lower Scotland’s initial debt and debt servicing burden, the smaller the fiscal tightening necessary to return to a sustainable debt burden, and the less painful any further spending cuts or tax rises would be to the electorate. The less painful is fiscal adjustment, the more likely are markets to believe it to be a credible adjustment mechanism. If Scotland were to find itself with high debt and interest rates, and in the throes of an already painful austerity drive, and were to face a further adverse shock, then markets might question the commitment to remaining in the monetary union. The Scottish government’s acknowledgement that the decision to remain in a monetary union inevitably depends on future governments implies that the commitments cannot be binding in all circumstances."

Paper 3 Funding pensions in Scotland: Would independence matter? pensions cheaper to buy, but higher taxes/service cuts to pay for them

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The liquidity premium would make pensions cheaper to buy, but taxpayers or the consumers of public services would have to pay the cost."


Paper 4 Can an ageing Scotland afford independence? ageing costs more with independence though govt finance damage smallish

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): "The comparison suggests that Scotland is worse off in the case of independence. The effective labour income tax rate in the independence scenario has to increase further compared with the status quo scenario.......The difference for government finances between the status quo and independence scenarios is thus relatively small."


Paper 5 Fiscal challenges and opportunities for an independent Scotland independence means even bigger cuts and/or tax increases than UK

Conclusion: "Our projections for Scotland’s long-term public finances are sensitive to a number of assumptions. However, our broad conclusion – that Scotland faces a tougher long-run fiscal challenge than the UK as a whole – is robust to a variety of alternative, sensible assumptions. Our modelling suggests that the UK as a whole would face a long-run fiscal gap of 0.8 per cent of GDP. Under the most optimistic scenario considered, we estimate that the fiscal gap for Scotland would be 1.9 per cent of GDP – or more than twice as large. This suggests that Scotland would be required to make more spending cuts and/or tax increases after independence (in addition to those already planned by the UK government) in order to ensure long-run fiscal sustainability.

However, the long-run fiscal pressures that our model suggests would face Scotland might point to a higher level of taxation there."


Paper 6 The political economy of small European states; and lessons for Scotland - neutral conclusion

Abstract (conclusion not available for free on website): It is not possible to pick and choose items of different models since they have an internal coherence. The Scottish White Paper on independence supports the social investment state. Scotland has some, but not all, of the prerequisites for this so that independence would require internal adaptation.


The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

I must have missed the facts and figures in his speech. All I kept hearing was "We're better together", with no real explaination as to why. :confused:

---

I said if he had just spouted off about facts and figures it would just turn folk off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs

It is people like yourself that dont have any interest in politics that is a worry, if you decide to vote. Especially if you are impressed by Dave.

---

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

---

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

---

I think you'll find it's the Westminster system of government that AS dislikes. I can't recall AS saying he hates the English. Maybe you could substantiate your comments by providing some evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

The Yes article linked to turns all this into a Banderson style response.

Report says: 'Massive Holes in Independence case.' Yes says: 'Scotland could be even wealthier than has been previously estimated'

I'm not surprised that the Yes page doesn't hyperlink to the actual reports anywhere from their site.

I blame AMC for drawing me into reading up on this stuff in detail. However the more I do, the bigger the unanswered economic questions for independence clearly are.

---

I'm not sure whether to be pleased or pissed off at being held responsible for you being 'semi engaged' again but, anyway, here's something else for you to read which, as it happens, is somewhat at odds with your take on the NIESR report.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8...de.html#slide1

Both sides of the debate can, and will, pick pointers from reports that support their case. On balance, I think it is fair to say that an iScotland would have nothing to fear in an economic sense and do hope you're not being as silly to suggest we'd be some kind of economic basket case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUTCHYHIBBY

If it will put your mind at rest let me know how you want me to vote and you can consider it done.

---

Cool, I like that idea. My initial response wasn't meant to be a dig at you personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

I don't think it's unreasonable for the UK PM to address the rUK on Scottish independence. Why is salmons feared of facing Alaistair Darling in a tv debate

---

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

---

:rolleyes: Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heretoday

Hear hear! Salmond is keen to score cheap points and the We Hate The English tactic is the cheapest out. He started this Independence nonsense so let him sort it out with the folk who are going to be most affected i.e. Us lot!

---

Sorry, but pretty much all of that isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls

There will be a referendum to sort this nonsense out. As for Salmond starting it, it's been going on for longer than that.

---

Around 300 years in one form or another...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

Hang on, you are defending Cameron here. He said the debate is one for Scotland to have. Are you saying that, despite Cameron saying that, it's in order for him to keep butting in?

As I posted above, Salmond's opposite number is Cameron. Darling is a back-bench MP. Salmond's got no fear of debating with him, it's just that it's the wrong line-up.

---

Not defending Cameron. Just stating a fact. Darling is the leader of the recognised No campaign. Just like he is of the yes one. So it would make perfect sense for a tv debate between them. Cameron has no vote in the referendum. Only reason the mats want a debate with cameron is make the referendum about Scotland v the Tories. Sadly the *******ised offer on the table is not independence but a mixed up mess which leaves Scots with less control of its destiny.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

---

I don't think this issue will be addressed before the referendum. It's been raised ever since the original plan of joining the Euro became a very bad idea. When inconvenient issues like arise, we're just going to continue to be told that it makes no sense not to let us in or get repeated references to "Project Fear" and "Project Bully". Such is the quality of the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

---

If we vote Yes then this will be subject to negotiation with both sides having to concede ground. I'm not so sure that a Tory chancellor playing hard ball at this stage is helpful. A currency union would have benefits to the rest of the UK so to simply dismiss it now without any meaningful debate seems wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

:rolleyes: Can't ever remember Salmond being quoted as saying he hates the English. This old chestnut that folks who want independence hate the English is utter ***** and cringe worthy. Most of us just really want Scotland to be governed by Scotland, hate doesn't come into it.

---

:agree:

I don't hate the English. I just hate Westminster and their group of cronies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

---

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-26147783

Not a good headline for the Nats this morning. If this IS the case, that no such Union is forthcoming, is it more likely that the Euro or a Scottish pound would advocated?

Either way, it'll be a total pisser to have to change currency every time you cross the border.

---

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

Biggest problem for the Scottish pound( which has been around for a good few hundred years ) is that if independence is agreed, our pound may become very strong with the wealth of the oil revenue, similar to the Norwegian Krone. Linking the Scottish pound with the English will make sure it doesn't become too strong in the market place, also remember our banks are now linked up with their English counterparts, RBS with Natwest and Bank of Scotland with Halifax, how can you have this happening, 2 companies working with separate currencies.

---

That happens all over the world, though. Multi-nationals, including RBS, already work in Sterling, in Euros and US Dollars, and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southfieldhibby

An interesting and radical development, if they actually do come out and 100% refuse any currency union.I'd be be very,very surprised if they do, so lets wait and see.

As Sturgeon said this morning, no currency union= no share of debt and all sorts of mess for balance of payments etc.


Wonder when the question of coulport/faslane will be brought to the fore....

---

That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.

The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Day Soon

That's just completely wrong.

Currency union is not functionally related to share of debt except in so far as Sturgeon/Salmond etc may try to make it a negotiating position that they would not take a share of debt unless the rest of the UK agrees to the currency union they are demanding.

The problem with that nuclear option is the effect it would have on both the capacity to borrow and the interest rate at which any borrowing would require to be paid by a separate Scotland. Money markets seeing that one of the first acts of a separate Scottish Goverment was to walk away from any debt responsibility would take a pretty dim view of any prospective future lending. In other words they would loan less and charge much more because of the risk premium.

That means taxes up to pay for the higher costs of borrowing, public spending further restricted to pay for the higher costs of borrowing and a smaller capital expenditure budget all round. But greater freedom to raise and spend more money on capital projects like infrastructure is one of the main public finance arguments John Swinney prays in aid for independence. They're shooting their own fox if they pursue this line.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

The refusal to take a share of debt will lead to no sharing of assets. I'm just glad it's very unlikely Scotland will vote yes

---

Of course Scotland will take on its share of debt, she was making the point that both options aren't really very sensible.It's time for both sides to become sensible.

There are two main points, one on either side which are pretty vital to the other lot.BT have the power of the £, Yes has Coulport.Both are essential to the opposition, possibly coulport being more important to Westminster than the £ to Holyrood.

Why not have an agreement, currency union for 10 years followed by Scotland floating its own currency (allowing us to build up a track record of repaying loans to the market) and Faslane/Coulport stays home for the subs for the same length of time?It's time to be pragmatic, to meet half way and show the voters that both sides can be grown ups instead of dafties.

I) RBS is a dysfunction and insolvent publicly funded company, already headquartered in London. If they want to "leave", we should be glad to get shot of them.

II) Osborne is playing a political game. Mark Carney has already stated that they could find a way of arranging a currency union. As for seeking a lender of last resort that isn't your own national bank, I believe both the federal reserve of the USA and the European Central Bank put their hands in their pockets when Brown bailed out the banks.

III) Yes Scotland should be a bit braver. As unionists were celebrating the collapse of the Icelandic economy, little did they realise that a few years later, having left their dysfunctional banks go to the wall, Iceland would be back and about to launch the worlds first viable virtual currency: the aurora, they've ridden out the storm and are experiencing growth beyond that of the UK.

Fact of the matter is, that politicians on all sides should admit that if people voted Yes, they'll get on with it and make it work - like the Chairman of Barclays said the other day and to a more nuanced degree by Carney of the Bank of England.

The rest is just political manoeuvring.

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

---

I'm not sure they have actually said this yet?Lots of nods and winks suggesting this, but not one firm statement of this intent?Just like not one firm intent from SNP leadership they'd refuse the debt burden if no currency union.

Which brings it back to the point were they should all stop talking ***** and come out with firm and definitive answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

Not defending Cameron. Just stating a fact. Darling is the leader of the recognised No campaign. Just like he is of the yes one. So it would make perfect sense for a tv debate between them. Cameron has no vote in the referendum. Only reason the mats want a debate with cameron is make the referendum about Scotland v the Tories. Sadly the *******ised offer on the table is not independence but a mixed up mess which leaves Scots with less control of its destiny.

---

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

---

Apart from the fact the main reason the party he leads exists is to push for Independence. And the fact that the Government he leads introduced the referendum bill. And also produced the White Paper to argue the case for Independence. And that the vast majority of people would identify him as the leader of the Yes campaign. I hope you are not going to claim that the real leader is Blair Jenkins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

Alex Salmond isn't the leader of the Yes campaign.

---

course he is.Lets be sensible here.

Salmond is leader of Yes and Cameron is leader of BT...Darling and Jenkins do as they're told.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

It's very clear Scotland would need to have its own currency. The present leaders of the rUK have stated they won't support a currency union. The problem for a independent Scotland is that a new currency would be worthless, especially if she refuses to accept a share of the debts. But an even bigger problem is that refusing to take a share of debts will lead to Scotland not getting a share of assets. If this scenario happens then the majority of the white paper promises collapse as there is not the money there to do most of it. As it will be needed to start up the countries services.

Demanding a currency union and threatening not to take a share of the debt is lessening the argument for independence.

---

We've always had our own currency, just wish people would read more ??

The pound Scots (Modern Scots: Pund Scots, Middle Scots: Pund Scottis) was the unit of currency in the Kingdom of Scotland before the kingdom unified with the Kingdom of England in 1707. It was introduced by David I, in the 12th century, on the model of English and French money, divided into 20 shillings, each of 12 pence. The Scottish currency was later debased relative to sterling and, by the time of James III, the pound sterling was valued at four pounds Scots.
In addition to the pound Scots, silver coins were issued denominated in merk, worth 13 shillings 4 pence (two-thirds of a pound Scots). WhenJames VI became King James I of England in 1603, the coinage was reformed to closely match that of England, with 12 pounds Scots equal to the pound sterling. In 1707, the pound Scots was replaced by the pound sterling at a rate of 12 to 1, although the pound Scots continued to be used in Scotland as a unit of account for most of the 18th century.
Today there is no distinct Pound Scots; but Scotland's three largest clearing banks (the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland and theClydesdale Bank) still print paper pound notes. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling value as do Bank of England notes in England and Wales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southfieldhibby

course he is.Lets be sensible here.

Salmond is leader of Yes and Cameron is leader of BT...Darling and Jenkins do as they're told.

---

The Better Together campaign is lead and run by Scottish based politicians as it should be. I may disagree with them but that can't be denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The Better Together campaign is lead and run by Scottish based politicians as it should be. I may disagree with them but that can't be denied.

---

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southfieldhibby

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.

---

That's just wrong too.

What's your evidence for this claim? A question we seem to have to ask Yes campaigners an awful lot these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southfieldhibby

So they're autonomous from Westminster?Who put Carmichael in place?

they're ran by the govt.

---

So the Better Together campaign is all an English Tory plot? Wow. Do you think that the BT campaigners are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Project fear....classy stuff from the SNP.

Despite the drum banging I don't see the problem with what the treasury paper is allegedly going to state. Currency unions can't work without a high degree of cooperation between the participants in terms of tax, budgets and cross border transfers.

The euro zone travails show very well what happens when those types of controls are not in place...sure it might not be so pronounced to start with in a Pound version as the economies are more similar than say Greece v Germany but the technical difficulties are still there.

It all smacks of a complete lack of understanding of these and other significant questions from the politicians that have set us down the road to this vote. To blithely suggest it must happen because it's in the other parties best interest without fully addressing the issues such an agreement would have on the other party could be seen as slightly rude.

I've said it before but I'll say it again....independence as a concept is a good one, the half arsed, half baked proposal being muted here is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southfieldhibby

I'm not sure they have actually said this yet?Lots of nods and winks suggesting this, but not one firm statement of this intent?Just like not one firm intent from SNP leadership they'd refuse the debt burden if no currency union.

Which brings it back to the point were they should all stop talking ***** and come out with firm and definitive answers.

---

The Welsh first minister has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

I) RBS is a dysfunction and insolvent publicly funded company, already headquartered in London. If they want to "leave", we should be glad to get shot of them.

---

RBS HQ is in Edinburgh (St Andrews Square or Gogarburn).

Given that they are a major employer in Scotland, I'm fairly sure that 'we' (and the thousands that they employ in Scotland) wouldn't be glad to get shot of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StranraerHibee

The Welsh first minister has.

---

It may well come to pass that Osbrone, Alexander and Balls will tomorrow/on Friday say "no nae never". That will be legitimate news. However, what the Welsh FM has to say is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever, and I do have to wonder why he's being rolled out again to come out with this line. Why is he being given any attention? Did the Welsh devolution settlement give Cardiff a veto on UK economic policy???? Will the Office of the Mayor of London rule it out, too? What about Hull City Council?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

We've always had our own currency, just wish people would read more ??

The pound Scots (Modern Scots: Pund Scots, Middle Scots: Pund Scottis) was the unit of currency in the Kingdom of Scotland before the kingdom unified with the Kingdom of England in 1707. It was introduced by David I, in the 12th century, on the model of English and French money, divided into 20 shillings, each of 12 pence. The Scottish currency was later debased relative to sterling and, by the time of James III, the pound sterling was valued at four pounds Scots.
In addition to the pound Scots, silver coins were issued denominated in merk, worth 13 shillings 4 pence (two-thirds of a pound Scots). WhenJames VI became King James I of England in 1603, the coinage was reformed to closely match that of England, with 12 pounds Scots equal to the pound sterling. In 1707, the pound Scots was replaced by the pound sterling at a rate of 12 to 1, although the pound Scots continued to be used in Scotland as a unit of account for most of the 18th century.
Today there is no distinct Pound Scots; but Scotland's three largest clearing banks (the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland and theClydesdale Bank) still print paper pound notes. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling value as do Bank of England notes in England and Wales.

---

But scots notes are not widely accepted through out England or the rest of the world. If Scotland want independence we must have our own currency. The euro has been a disaster for most countries. Currency unions don't work but it's worse when you try to use a currency of another country without agreement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

It may well come to pass that Osbrone, Alexander and Balls will tomorrow/on Friday say "no nae never". That will be legitimate news. However, what the Welsh FM has to say is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever, and I do have to wonder why he's being rolled out again to come out with this line. Why is he being given any attention? Did the Welsh devolution settlement give Cardiff a veto on UK economic policy???? Will the Office of the Mayor of London rule it out, too? What about Hull City Council?

---

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just replying to a previous post.

I guess he is being given attention cause the BBC are a bunch of London-based unionist mouthpieces. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StranraerHibee

I didn't mean to upset anyone, I was just replying to a previous post.

I guess he is being given attention cause the BBC are a bunch of London-based unionist mouthpieces. :wink:

---

Ah, now you're talking. There is hope for you yet, young Skywalker! :greengrin:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

But scots notes are not widely accepted through out England or the rest of the world. If Scotland want independence we must have our own currency. The euro has been a disaster for most countries. Currency unions don't work but it's worse when you try to use a currency of another country without agreement

---

Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

---

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

Therein lies a lot of the problems when our pound isn't even recognised in England even when it's the exact same as the Bank of England ones. We have notes already being produced so where's the problem?

---

Technically they are not exactly the same as BoE notes. I'm sure they are not 'legal tender'.

A technicality for sure but there is a Mia conception that they are the same when actually they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

---

A massive problem in my experience (Liverpool, Chester, North Wales), so much so that I don't even bother with the hassle anymore and just use an ATM in Liverpool rather than take Scottish notes with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Technically they are not exactly the same as BoE notes. I'm sure they are not 'legal tender'.

A technicality for sure but there is a Mia conception that they are the same when actually they are not.

---

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again.


I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are.
These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling value as do Bank of England notes in England and Wales.

Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above.

So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again.


I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are.
These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling value as do Bank of England notes in England and Wales.

Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above.

So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

---

From the BofE website.

The phrase ‘legal tender’ is a widely used expression and is a
common misnomer. The only banknotes to have legal tender
status in England and Wales are those issued by the Bank of
England. There are no banknotes issued by commercial
banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland that have legal
tender status. However, legal tender status has only a very
narrow meaning in relation to the settlement of a debt. The
term ‘legal tender’ simply means that if a debtor pays in legal
tender the exact amount they owe under the terms of a
contract, and the contract does not specify another means of
payment, the debtor has a good defence in law if he or she is
subsequently sued for non-payment of the debt. In ordinary
day-to-day transactions, the term ‘legal tender’ has very
little practical application, as whether or not an instrument
(be it a banknote or local currency voucher) is used as a
means of payment is subject only to the mutual agreement
of the parties to the transaction.
(1

From the Royal Mint website:-

Coins are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amounts:

£5 (Crown) - for any amount
£2 - for any amount
£1 - for any amount
50p - for any amount not exceeding £10
25p (Crown) - for any amount not exceeding £10
20p - for any amount not exceeding £10
10p - for any amount not exceeding £5
5p - for any amount not exceeding £5
2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p
1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p

Other independent countries share currencies without any issues. :rolleyes:

They would be shooting themselves in the foot by forcing us out of the currency union anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steakbake

II) Osborne is playing a political game. Mark Carney has already stated that they could find a way of arranging a currency union. As for seeking a lender of last resort that isn't your own national bank, I believe both the federal reserve of the USA and the European Central Bank put their hands in their pockets when Brown bailed out the banks.

III) Yes Scotland should be a bit braver. As unionists were celebrating the collapse of the Icelandic economy, little did they realise that a few years later, having left their dysfunctional banks go to the wall, Iceland would be back and about to launch the worlds first viable virtual currency: the aurora, they've ridden out the storm and are experiencing growth beyond that of the UK.

Fact of the matter is, that politicians on all sides should admit that if people voted Yes, they'll get on with it and make it work - like the Chairman of Barclays said the other day and to a more nuanced degree by Carney of the Bank of England.

The rest is just political manoeuvring.

---

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

---

Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Completely agree it has got to be said we are a number of months away from teh referendum and the level of reporting in my experience is appalling. The BBC Scotland news item on bbc breakfast each morning openly publicise anything remotely negative about a yes vote and have yet to mention anything remotely positive. Carney's comments werent even mentioned.

As happened previously with the 70s vote the lies and repressing of economic reports will continue under the main UK parties ably backed up by usually Labour lackies, I think it was Bruce Milland at the time.

Given our huge natural resources there is no doubt to me this small country could run itself.

---

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

---

I was talking about bbc scotland news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibercelona

Other independent countries share currencies without any issues. :rolleyes:

They would be shooting themselves in the foot by forcing us out of the currency union anyway.

---

In what way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Carney's comments were widely reported and discussed in detail in the media. You really couldn't escape it.

---

Indeed. I heard about it on a UK-wide radio station, watch an article about it on UK-wide TV news and read about it in UK-wide newspapers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

---

Is it a fact though? Carney has said it could be accommodated. Sounds more like a political game and if it is a decision taken are you happy your party thinks this is acceptable?

Sounds like selected facts. What about the independent reports which were suppressed in the 70's which clearly indicated how well off Scotland as an independent country would be. The fact these were suppressed with the full knowledge of a Scottish Labour Secretary. Is this acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

In what way?
.

---

I think the basic premise is that Scotland's GDP (I think it is?) is a bit better than rUK so is actually a strengthening force on the currency.

The other element is that Scotland is the rUK's 2nd biggest "export" market after the EU and not having a currency union will add additional transactional costs

Something like that......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Story So Far...

Perhaps this was a widespread problem once upon a time but no more. You'll get the odd person who won't accept them but I've not experienced it anytime recently.

And besides - if all else fails, the automated tills at Tesco and the like don't discriminate :greengrin

---

My husband woukd disagree that our notes are widely accepted in England. We spend many a sunday trying to get rid of our clydesdale bank notes as he really struggles to find anywhere that will take them wiyhout a fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

No is doubting that we could run Scotland but its a choice of whether we want to or not. As for negative stories, it's all how you take it, I would rather have the facts. The 3 major parties at Westminster have said they will not be going into a currency union. That's not scare stories or negative its fact. As Scottish people we deserve to be told the truth. If some don't like that then that's tough. It's time the SNP told us there currency of choice as the sterling is no longer an opition

---

But its not a fact though is it? Its merely a set out position as a prerequisate to negotiations.

Scotland could in effect refuse to take on her share of the debt. And forget all the wishy washy statement about debt markets. The debt is backed up by the Bank of England and Sterling. The Scottish Pound wont have any debt. It will have a massive amount of assets to back it up.

Also, the rUK would struggle with said debt if roughly 10% of its ability to service that debt dissapeared overnight. The run on Sterling would be massive as the market would look to dump currency that was perceved as "risky".

Dont believe that the UK parties are looking out for the interests of Scotland and Scotlands people. The status quo suits them. If everybody wants more of the same, then crack on vote no. But dont for a second believe that we could not look after ourselves, be prosperous and a valid contributer to a Sterling Currency Union.

The Negotiations before Independence will take two years. There will be give and take, we wont know what the outcome will be until this has happened.

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Is it a fact though?

---

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

---

More like cynical political positioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

More like cynical political positioning.

---

The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.

Most important national issue in most of our lifetimes. The worst national debate in most of our lifetimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

---

You must know, what politicians say and what they actually do, is always the most pragmatic option open to them.

Posturing IMHO. They are just setting out their stall.

Im more interested in the vote for democratic reasons. Scotland can chose who it wants to represent the people 100% of the time. Surely these elected representatives will have whats good for Scotland at heart, not whats good for the rest of the UK?

J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

---

So saying something makes it a fact now does it?

Pulling us out of the currency union would be highly damaging on the rest of the UK. Trading costs would likely sky rocket if we were forced into a currency alternative.

That's not a price that the UK can afford to pay.

We hold the most valuable trading assets in the UK. They "wont" force us out of the currency union regardless of what happens. It's not a route they can afford to take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

Yes. All three UK parties with a chance of being in the current or next UK government have ruled it out.

---

I'm looking at it in terms of a separation/divorce.

When couples separate, they tend to make the decision first, and then negotiate the practicalities. One party might say "if you leave me, I'll have the kids/the dog/the house", but only as a tool to try and make the other party stay. They can't actually stipulate those terms, no matter how much they might want them, and the actual agreement comes about through negotiation.

If you apply that thinking to the whole independence/separation debate......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm looking at it in terms of a separation/divorce.

When couples separate, they tend to make the decision first, and then negotiate the practicalities. One party might say "if you leave me, I'll have the kids/the dog/the house", but only as a tool to try and make the other party stay. They can't actually stipulate those terms, no matter how much they might want them, and the actual agreement comes about through negotiation.

If you apply that thinking to the whole independence/separation debate......

---

That's how I look at it. As for the currency, I can't see how the UK political parties can say there won't be a union. They are simply stating their current position but if they get a good deal out of any negotiations they wouldn't be doing what they are elected to do if they refused.

[QUOTE=Beefster;3905878]The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.
[Quote]

Quite rightly too. Unionists have form when it comes to being economical with the truth to the Scottish electorate. It's a risky tactic if they get caught out again then most will see through the bull****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

That's how I look at it. As for the currency, I can't see how the UK political parties can say there won't be a union. They are simply stating their current position but if they get a good deal out of any negotiations they wouldn't be doing what they are elected to do if they refused.

---

Exactly. Logic has to be applied here. It would be completely illogical for them to force us out.

All I keep hearing from Westminister is that if we leave the UK, they'll force us out of the currency union, which will have a negative impact on trading.

Which is why it's not in their best interests to force us out, even if we do go independent.

They would be going against the best interests of the UK, by forcing us out.

It's nothing more than blatant scaremongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

I was talking about bbc scotland news.

---

Where it was widely discussed at the time of his speech and has been referred to when relevant since. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc1

Jeez I really cannot believe just how ignorant you actually sound by saying that, it's this kind of attitude that makes many Scots want a separate parliament again. I refer you my earlier post about the Scottish pound, in fact all bank notes in Britain are not legal tender in Scotland, only coins are. These notes may be accepted as payment throughout the United Kingdom, but are much more commonly seen in Scotland; they represent the same Pound Sterling value as do Bank of England notes in England and Wales. Whilst banknotes issued by the Scottish banks are legal currency, that is approved by the UK Parliament, no banknotes issued by Scottish banks, Northern Ireland banks nor the Bank of England are legal tender in Scotland. Thus legal tender in Scotland is limited to coin as noted above. So technically I can refuse to take English notes when they visit Edinburgh, would love to see their faces when I tell them payment for their taxi fare is coins only

---

Keep yer hair on.

So are Scottish bank notes considered legal tender or not? I see nothing in your reply that suggests they are or anything that would make my posting seem so incredibly ignorant...in fact subsequent postings has shown that Scottish notes are not considered legal tender so not quite sure what yer wee hissy fit was about.

Dunno how discussing the technical details of what a certain description of Scottish notes means would lead you to believe that it would drive people to want a separate parliament but whatever floats yet boat I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefster

The cries of "Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the other parties. Only listen to us." are becoming increasingly ludicrous IMHO. The SNP are currently like a kid with a Christmas list who goes "la, la, la, not listening, Santa will still bring it" whenever he's told that he won't be getting something on the list IMHO.

Most important national issue in most of our lifetimes. The worst national debate in most of our lifetimes.

---

Completely agree the debate is poor however you are not saying that the media are impartial are you. Very one sided and pro-union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Where it was widely discussed at the time of his speech and has been referred to when relevant since. :confused:

---

I am talking about the little segment on the BBC breakfast BBC Scotland bit where without fail every morning there is a slanted anti Independence story line. I think the day before they mentioned Carney's speech when obviously he didnt say what they wanted, no coverage was given of it. Like it or not however that segment will be alot of peoples only news of the day and to me it is very biased. I think they had a story once about Scottish Whiskey being dependent on English farmers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

I am talking about the little segment on the BBC breakfast BBC Scotland bit where without fail every morning there is a slanted anti Independence story line. I think the day before they mentioned Carney's speech when obviously he didnt say what they wanted, no coverage was given of it. Like it or not however that segment will be alot of peoples only news of the day and to me it is very biased. I think they had a story once about Scottish Whiskey being dependent on English farmers.

---

Oh dear, I think you are only seeing (or not seeing) what you want to when it comes to press coverage.

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

---

An alternative view, from a reasonably well-informed source.

http://www.adamsmith.org/news/press-...-pound-without

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Oh dear, I think you are only seeing (or not seeing) what you want to when it comes to press coverage.

---

Not at all, think it is one sided to a large degree. Admittedly I only really see little bits here and there usually BBC in the morning. Do you genuinely think that the press are balanced and fair? Some of the press would never write anything positive about the possibility of an Independent Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucky

To me it is a fact, the 3 parties that could/will govern the rUK have ruled out a currency union. It's time for the SNP to give us an alternative. As for politicians bluff and telling half truths I think we will all struggle to be beat Salmond. If Scotland does not take it share of the debt it will not get a share of the assets. If that's the case how do we pay for the start up of the new country? No army, navy, airforce with equipment. No fisheries protection. No joined up railway as Network rail is UK based. No passports. No embassies or high commissions. That's before we start looking at our services. It's time for the separatists to tell us how this is all going happen rather than taking the Yam way of burying their heads in the sand and hoping it will all be better tomorrow

---

No nuclear weapons as well. I thought you were beginning to sound like the Proclaimers , Letter from America or the song from Only fools and Horses, No income tax, no vat etc :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiMar

Keep yer hair on.

So are Scottish bank notes considered legal tender or not? I see nothing in your reply that suggests they are or anything that would make my posting seem so incredibly ignorant...in fact subsequent postings has shown that Scottish notes are not considered legal tender so not quite sure what yer wee hissy fit was about.

Dunno how discussing the technical details of what a certain description of Scottish notes means would lead you to believe that it would drive people to want a separate parliament but whatever floats yet boat I suppose.

---

The answer seems to be "no" and here's the BoE's definition to prove it ...

"Are Scottish & Northern Ireland notes "legal tender"?"
In short ‘No’ these notes are not "legal tender"; furthermore, Bank of England notes are only legal tender in England and Wales. Legal tender has, however, a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he/she owes under the terms of a contract (and in accordance with its terms), or pays this amount into court, he/she has good defence in law if he/she is sued for non-payment of the debt.
In ordinary everyday transactions, the term "legal tender" in its purest sense need not govern a note's acceptability in transactions. The acceptability of a Scottish or Northern Ireland note as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. If both parties are in agreement, Scottish and Northern Ireland notes can be used in England and Wales. Holders of genuine Scottish and Northern Ireland notes are provided with a level of protection similar to that provided to holders of Bank of England notes. This is because the issuing banks must back their note issue using a combination of Bank of England notes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England. More information on these arrangements can be found at
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/Pages/about/
scottish_northernireland.aspx