How Sterling Is It?

[Humerous Vegetable]

There seems to be a bit of a stushie at the minute about an independent Scotland staying with the pound sterling and the bank of England and I am asking myself why we would want to do that. The sad "vote no" lot are currently telling us we would lose our Scottish banknotes, would have to accept the Euro and would not be able to stay in the current fiscal system anyway.....more hot air and hysterical PR.
Why does the Scottish government not enter into negotiation with the Scandinavian Monetary Union?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Monetary_Union All the participating countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland keep their own currencies, are not part of the eurozone and appear to have reasonably low inflation rates. We probably have more in common with Scandinavia historically, than we do with the South East of England.
i would welcome information and opinion on this.:confused

[equusdriving]

The sad "vote no" lot

mmm all the no voters i have come across seem anything but sad, in fact they seem positively happy and confident :) whereas the "vote yes" lot are looking more and more desperate and seem to be clutching at straws trying to convince people to join them in their blind faith

[orkneycadian]

I think there will a lot more stushie than just currency. It appears that there is an ever increasing list of factors that have not been properly considered, and could come together to make this referendum a huge "wool pulling over eyes" affair. Recently, we have heard that Scotland cannot be assured membership of NATO, unless it formally applies and "signs up properly". How that works when, in the same breath, we send Trident packing, will remain to be seen. We also hear that Scotland will have to apply to join the EU, and its application will be considered on the same merits as any other new applicant. Why we don't use this excellent opportunity to not rejoin the EU is beyond me, but Mr Salmond seems to be keen on being part of it.

With so many potential issues at bay, in order to not hoodwink the voting public, I really feel that the SNP should lay out all the issues in both detailed and summarised form that makes it patently clear to the populus what will happen should the Yes vote carry. I expect this will end up about the thickness of a phone book, and will need to directly address questions. For example;

"Will an independent Scotland be able to keep the pound and have a fixed exchange rate (£1:£1) with the remainder of the former UK?" A typical answer will have to be a straight "Yes, we can guarantee that the £ will remain in force as before", "No, we will have to set up a new currency" or "We don't know enough about this at this stage, and cannot guarantee anything either way"

Or

"Will an independent Scotland still have the same Royal Mail service as we do at the moment?" Yes/No/Can't guarantee.

By the time all the issues are addressed, I do expect the "Yes" camps Election Communication will have to rival the Yellow Pages in dimensions. If it doesn't, or if the majority of the issues are answered negatively or with "Can't say", then its a dead duck before it even starts.

[Gronnuck]

I think there will a lot more stushie than just currency. It appears that there is an ever increasing list of factors that have not been properly considered, and could come together to make this referendum a huge "wool pulling over eyes" affair. Recently, we have heard that Scotland cannot be assured membership of NATO, unless it formally applies and "signs up properly". How that works when, in the same breath, we send Trident packing, will remain to be seen. We also hear that Scotland will have to apply to join the EU, and its application will be considered on the same merits as any other new applicant. Why we don't use this excellent opportunity to not rejoin the EU is beyond me, but Mr Salmond seems to be keen on being part of it.

With so many potential issues at bay, in order to not hoodwink the voting public, I really feel that the SNP should lay out all the issues in both detailed and summarised form that makes it patently clear to the populus what will happen should the Yes vote carry. I expect this will end up about the thickness of a phone book, and will need to directly address questions. For example;

"Will an independent Scotland be able to keep the pound and have a fixed exchange rate (£1:£1) with the remainder of the former UK?" A typical answer will have to be a straight "Yes, we can guarantee that the £ will remain in force as before", "No, we will have to set up a new currency" or "We don't know enough about this at this stage, and cannot guarantee anything either way"

Or

"Will an independent Scotland still have the same Royal Mail service as we do at the moment?" Yes/No/Can't guarantee.

By the time all the issues are addressed, I do expect the "Yes" camps Election Communication will have to rival the Yellow Pages in dimensions. If it doesn't, or if the majority of the issues are answered negatively or with "Can't say", then its a dead duck before it even starts.

Wait long enough piratelassie or squidge will be along to answer all these questions and put all our minds at rest..... or maybe not.
From my own perspective I would like to ask, "Do the SNP know of any possible threat to the infrastucture of a newly independent Scotland and what do they propose to do to counter any such threat?"

[theone]

................................
With so many potential issues at bay, in order to not hoodwink the voting public, I really feel that the SNP should lay out all the issues in both detailed and summarised form that makes it patently clear to the populus what will happen should the Yes vote carry. I expect this will end up about the thickness of a phone book, and will need to directly address questions. For example;

"Will an independent Scotland be able to keep the pound and have a fixed exchange rate (£1:£1) with the remainder of the former UK?" A typical answer will have to be a straight "Yes, we can guarantee that the £ will remain in force as before", "No, we will have to set up a new currency" or "We don't know enough about this at this stage, and cannot guarantee anything either way"

Or

"Will an independent Scotland still have the same Royal Mail service as we do at the moment?" Yes/No/Can't guarantee.
......................

First class post.

The SNP have had several decades of planning to answer these questions but they can't, or more worryingly, won't.

It seems to be a case of "let's go up this one way street with our eyes shut, we'll worry about where it takes us later".

Every question cannot be answered, but until such fundamental, serious issues are explored and adressed fully by those wishing independence, I cannot take them seriously.

[equusdriving]

The SNP have had several decades of planning to answer these questions but they can't, or more worryingly, won't.

It seems to be a case of "let's go up this one way street with our eyes shut, we'll worry about where it takes us later".

Every question cannot be answered, but until such fundamental, serious issues are explored and adressed fully by those wishing independence, I cannot take them seriously.

100% spot on

[secrets in symmetry]

Why does the Scottish government not enter into negotiation with the Scandinavian Monetary Union?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Monetary_Union All the participating countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland keep their own currencies, are not part of the eurozone and appear to have reasonably low inflation rates. We probably have more in common with Scandinavia historically, than we do with the South East of England.
i would welcome information and opinion on this.:confusedAye, I'm sure you would welcome some information on the Scandinavian Monetary Union lol! Are you on a wind-up, or are you doing the standard sessessionists' thing and making it up as you go along?

[macadamia]

What Mr Darling has come to tell us is that by all means feel free to spend, collect, and pay in pounds sterling - just don't think for one second that the Bank of England is going to let any of you Brigadoonists anywhere near the main controls of Threadneedle Street. If you need to know why (apart from the fact that Scotland, if achieving independence, will be a de facto foreign country) then consider from a UK perspective a couple of Scottish Banks which rather overreached themselves, and are currently being bailed out via the UK taxpayer from "Wastemonster". Unless you want to take over RBS's & HBOS's combined and total debts.....

[Flynn]

Could always go back to dollars, testouns, or marks.

[MerlinScot]

Could always go back to dollars, testouns, or marks.
Shillings, Roman coins.... LOL

[MerlinScot]

From my own perspective I would like to ask, "Do the SNP know of any possible threat to the infrastucture of a newly independent Scotland and what do they propose to do to counter any such threat?"
SNP proposed that Scots will flee and they will be chased by the terrorists who will drown all in a boggy moor... see Bannockburn and Stirling battles... you don't change a winning strategy ;)

[Flynn]

The man from Westminster, he say, "On yer bike, son (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22251103)".

[Oddquine]

There seems to be a bit of a stushie at the minute about an independent Scotland staying with the pound sterling and the bank of England and I am asking myself why we would want to do that. The sad "vote no" lot are currently telling us we would lose our Scottish banknotes, would have to accept the Euro and would not be able to stay in the current fiscal system anyway.....more hot air and hysterical PR.
Why does the Scottish government not enter into negotiation with the Scandinavian Monetary Union?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Monetary_Union All the participating countries, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland keep their own currencies, are not part of the eurozone and appear to have reasonably low inflation rates. We probably have more in common with Scandinavia historically, than we do with the South East of England.
i would welcome information and opinion on this.:confused

There's not a stushie....but there is a lot of sabre-rattling and scaremongering from Osborne.......in fact from every Unionist politician all the time! :roll:

We can use sterling if we want...as long as we want, as long as it suits us....and it is the obvious short term solution, though I would hope that it would only be until Scottish Governments can build a reputation by showing themselves to be fiscally sensible and stable. That won't happen overnight, though...but then we can move out of sterling and have our own currency etc. What the SNP wants is not necessarily how it is going to be after 2016, after all.

Anyway, given Westminster has always assumed what suits London suits the UK, I'd be surprised if that attitude would change after Independence for Scotland....so I can't see that it would matter much if there was a formal agreement to use sterling or a unilateral adoption of it...we'd still be ignored....but at least we will have tools to help ameliorate the effects of the rUKs monetary policies...something we have never had to be able to combat those of the UK.

Does the Scandinavian Monetary Union still exist.......thought it had died by the time of WWI? I'd be for joining EFTA rather than the EU, though.

[orkneycadian]

We can use sterling if we want...as long as we want, as long as it suits us....

Can we? Assuming that we piggy back on the rest of the UK's monetary system (£1 Scottish = £1 English), then does this not mean that the value of the £Scottish is set by the monetary policies of the UK? Is that really independence or just playing at it?

[Oddquine]

Can we? Assuming that we piggy back on the rest of the UK's monetary system (£1 Scottish = £1 English), then does this not mean that the value of the £Scottish is set by the monetary policies of the UK? Is that really independence or just playing at it?

What does having a different currency have to do with independence, though? Did using sterling from the time of independence until 1978 make Eire not an independent country until 1978? Are Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man not independent? Does using the US dollar make the British Virgin Islands any less of a British Overseas Territory...did Ecuador stop being independent in 2000, is Panama still independent? Is Liechtenstein not an Independent country because it uses the Swiss Franc?

I really don't quite understand the kerfuffle over the currency in an Independent Scotland. Come 2016, the intentions could change anyway......if we vote in the Greens, for example, they only want to use sterling in the short term and move to our own currency.

[equusdriving]

What does having a different currency have to do with independence, though?

it doesn't have anything to do with Independence, but it should have something to do with any rational persons decision whether to vote for it or not [disgust]

[macadamia]

I think the National Newspaper has a well-considered thought or two....


A scathing analysis of the Nationalists' currency 'shambles' by Brian Wilson in today's Scotsman.


"But our Nationalist friends are nothing if not flexible.


"Having adjudged that floating the groat would not do much for their credibility either, they were left with only one option. So, they came up with a brilliant new policy. The millstone would be transformed into a life-raft. The pound sterling would be Scotland’s future.

"Needless to say, they did not ask anyone else if they thought this might be such a great idea, far less consider their legitimate interests.


"The fact that the pound sterling is the currency of the state from which they are seeking to secede may seem to lesser mortals like a significant inconvenience. But not to those who just make it up as they go along."

[Oddquine]

it doesn't have anything to do with Independence, but it should have something to do with any rational persons decision whether to vote for it or not [disgust]

Why? <10 characters>

[Oddquine]

I think the National Newspaper has a well-considered thought or two....


A scathing analysis of the Nationalists' currency 'shambles' by Brian Wilson in today's Scotsman.


"But our Nationalist friends are nothing if not flexible.


"Having adjudged that floating the groat would not do much for their credibility either, they were left with only one option. So, they came up with a brilliant new policy. The millstone would be transformed into a life-raft. The pound sterling would be Scotland’s future.

"Needless to say, they did not ask anyone else if they thought this might be such a great idea, far less consider their legitimate interests.


"The fact that the pound sterling is the currency of the state from which they are seeking to secede may seem to lesser mortals like a significant inconvenience. But not to those who just make it up as they go along."

As I have already said......a lot of kerfuffle over nothing . If the rUK doesn't want a currency agreement which suits both of us......then we will just use sterling anyway until we decide otherwise. Monetary policy is not the same as fiscal policy, you know. We already live under UK monetary policy, in which we have no say or representation......so the change would be what, exactly?.......bar we will have, at last, the fiscal tools to deal adequately with a monetary policy which favours the South of England and London.

I can do quotes as well.....but from the Herald, not the Hootsmon....and from a respected journalist, Ian Bell, not a failed Labour Westminster MP who has always been paranoid about the SNP and was chairman of the "Labour Vote NO Campaign for the 1979 referendum.

The full article is here......http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/osbornes-threat-shows-independence-is-viable.20893521

But a quote for those who can't be bothered checking it out.

That, of course, is the political heart of the matter. Contrary to much of the propaganda, Scotland is a prize worth keeping. It is not some broke little country incapable of contemplating independence. It has assets that are valued, and not all of those are in the North Sea. A Chancellor who believed his accounts would be improved by Scotland's departure from the UK would not be going to the trouble to which Mr Osborne has gone.


The argument cuts both ways. The Chancellor's threats are clear evidence that an independent Scotland is viable. Even a currency union would work, if that's your taste, given goodwill on both sides. Mr Osborne has just made it clear that the prize is too valuable to let such a sentimental notion get in his way.


Before everyone gets too carried away by thoughts of the Chancellor's iron heel, Scotland twinned with Cyprus, or the possible future value of the groats in Scottish pockets, a few pertinent facts are worth remembering. Comparisons between Scotland and Norway are far from exact, sadly for the SNP, but they are far from fanciful.


Here we have a small, oil-rich, north European country with its own currency. It is not a member of the EU, but does most of its trade with the union. It is part of the European economic area and a member of the European Free Trade Association. A large part of its economy depends on a volatile trade in mineral resources, but somehow it struggles along. Norway, for the benefit of clarity, is not a fantasy country.


If you chose to believe the No campaign in which Mr Osborne is a significant player – though generally kept out of sight, for obvious reasons – Norway should not exist. It should certainly not survive. The idea that it could survive and prosper, as Norway has a habit of doing, should be beyond the bounds of credibility.

[equusdriving]

Why? <10 characters>

as I said "any rational persons decision"

[Oddquine]

as I said "any rational persons decision"

Why does worrying about nothing much make someone rational? I assume you didn't read the link in my previous post. That is rational thought.

[macadamia]

Norway are a bit clever. Their oil (its extraction, delivery, storage and consumption) is generally used to benefit Norway, and its contribution to the national coffers is completely and utterly within the control of the Norwegian government.

Would that be the case with an Independent Scotland?

[piratelassie]

Thanks Oddquine for this informative post.


As I have already said......a lot of kerfuffle over nothing . If the rUK doesn't want a currency agreement which suits both of us......then we will just use sterling anyway until we decide otherwise. Monetary policy is not the same as fiscal policy, you know. We already live under UK monetary policy, in which we have no say or representation......so the change would be what, exactly?.......bar we will have, at last, the fiscal tools to deal adequately with a monetary policy which favours the South of England and London.

I can do quotes as well.....but from the Herald, not the Hootsmon....and from a respected journalist, Ian Bell, not a failed Labour Westminster MP who has always been paranoid about the SNP and was chairman of the "Labour Vote NO Campaign for the 1979 referendum.

The full article is here......http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/osbornes-threat-shows-independence-is-viable.20893521

But a quote for those who can't be bothered checking it out.

That, of course, is the political heart of the matter. Contrary to much of the propaganda, Scotland is a prize worth keeping. It is not some broke little country incapable of contemplating independence. It has assets that are valued, and not all of those are in the North Sea. A Chancellor who believed his accounts would be improved by Scotland's departure from the UK would not be going to the trouble to which Mr Osborne has gone.


The argument cuts both ways. The Chancellor's threats are clear evidence that an independent Scotland is viable. Even a currency union would work, if that's your taste, given goodwill on both sides. Mr Osborne has just made it clear that the prize is too valuable to let such a sentimental notion get in his way.


Before everyone gets too carried away by thoughts of the Chancellor's iron heel, Scotland twinned with Cyprus, or the possible future value of the groats in Scottish pockets, a few pertinent facts are worth remembering. Comparisons between Scotland and Norway are far from exact, sadly for the SNP, but they are far from fanciful.


Here we have a small, oil-rich, north European country with its own currency. It is not a member of the EU, but does most of its trade with the union. It is part of the European economic area and a member of the European Free Trade Association. A large part of its economy depends on a volatile trade in mineral resources, but somehow it struggles along. Norway, for the benefit of clarity, is not a fantasy country.


If you chose to believe the No campaign in which Mr Osborne is a significant player – though generally kept out of sight, for obvious reasons – Norway should not exist. It should certainly not survive. The idea that it could survive and prosper, as Norway has a habit of doing, should be beyond the bounds of credibility.

[equusdriving]

Why does worrying about nothing much make someone rational? and voting for Independence regardless of having no answers to such important issues, as what money we will be using (amongst many others) is rational?
I assume you didn't read the link in my previous post. funnily enough I value my time far too much to follow propaganda spouted by people who could make such astonishingly blinkered statements[disgust]

[Oddquine]

Norway are a bit clever. Their oil (its extraction, delivery, storage and consumption) is generally used to benefit Norway, and its contribution to the national coffers is completely and utterly within the control of the Norwegian government.

Would that be the case with an Independent Scotland?

That would be the intentions......to set up an oil fund on the same lines...and I would hazard a guess it would be the intentions of any Scottish Government of any colour. Certainly there is not as much oil as there was in the 1970s..as we are continually being told......but there is still a substantial amount.......and I'm confident that a Scottish Government..any Scottish Government......could do much more with it than use it to fund discounts to sell off the family silver to benefit private companies and a minority of individuals, and to pay the welfare benefits for people deliberately thrown out of work as has been happening since the oiil started bringing in income.

Such a waste of finite resources.

[equusdriving]

That would be the intentions......to set up an oil fund on the same lines...and I would hazard a guess it would be the intentions of any Scottish Government of any colour. Certainly there is not as much oil as there was in the 1970s..as we are continually being told......but there is still a substantial amount.......and I'm confident that a Scottish Government..any Scottish Government......could do much more with it than use it to fund discounts to sell off the family silver to benefit private companies and a minority of individuals, and to pay the welfare benefits for people deliberately thrown out of work as has been happening since the oiil started bringing in income.

Such a waste of finite resources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9794316/Alex-Salmond-warning-over-Shetland-oil-after-independence.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/366081/Dwindling-oil-cash-means-grim-future-after-independence
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086465/Scottish-independence-referendum-What-Scotland-did-alone.html

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9794316/Alex-Salmond-warning-over-Shetland-oil-after-independence.html)

[ducati]

Norway are a bit clever. Their oil (its extraction, delivery, storage and consumption) is generally used to benefit Norway, and its contribution to the national coffers is completely and utterly within the control of the Norwegian government.

Would that be the case with an Independent Scotland?

You also have to bear in mind Norway had the mother of all bail-outs after the end of WW11 that kickstarted her economy.

[tonkatojo]

Shillings, Roman coins.... LOL

What could be wrong with the good ole "groat"..

[Oddquine]

You also have to bear in mind Norway had the mother of all bail-outs after the end of WW11 that kickstarted her economy.

And would that have been a bigger mother of all bailouts than we got, out of interest. We got $3.2 billion, the largest share of the $13.2 billion of Marshall Aid of any of the 10 European nations.

France got $2.7 billion, $1.5 billion went to Italy, $1.4 billion to the post WWII Germany.which left $4.4 billion to be shared among the remaining 6 countries, which included Norway.

Our Government, being the economic numpties they still continually show they are......made by far the least effective use of Marshall Aid of the 10 countries...being well bottom of the "Economic Growth during the Marshall Plan Years" table ! Quelle surprise!

Just shows that the average (and they are very average) UK politicans are economic numpties...(or chancers, you choose)...so you are going to sneer at the position of the Norwegian economy in 2013 because they got a bail-out between 1948 and 1951, when you appear to happily accept that at the same time and in the same circumstances as Norway was growing their economy....the UK Government decided the economy wasn't as important as spending much of the bail-out to have a go at continuing its Imperial past. They succeeded, and passed on the legacy of perceived world importance to all their successors...and we suffer because in 2013, that is still where we are.........in a crap economy UK with delusions of grandeur, which is like an impoverished aristocrat, and has no income to support their lifestyle......unless they tread on the necks of the serfs and increase their income from the poor.

And then people wonder why so many of us want to get out from under the UK thumb? :confused

[Oddquine]

What could be wrong with the good ole "groat"..

Quite like the idea of a Scottish groat! :D Would be a shade different from the plethora of (some capital letter denoting a country) pounds and (some capital letter denoting a country) dollars.

[Alrock]

What could be wrong with the good ole "groat"..

Would that make the Groatie Buckie legal tender?

[squidge]

There is an interesting article on National Collective about currency choices http://nationalcollective.com/2013/04/24/the-currency-question

It is easy to read and written by a Catherine Schenk and Duncan Ross. Catherine is a Professor of Economic Hostory and author and Duncan is Senior Lecturer in Economic History at Glasgow University.

In light of the gobbledegook which is discussed on this issue I was pleased to see National Collective reappearing with an easily digestible article.

[ducati]

And would that have been a bigger mother of all bailouts than we got, out of interest. We got $3.2 billion, the largest share of the $13.2 billion of Marshall Aid of any of the 10 European nations.

France got $2.7 billion, $1.5 billion went to Italy, $1.4 billion to the post WWII Germany.which left $4.4 billion to be shared among the remaining 6 countries, which included Norway.

Our Government, being the economic numpties they still continually show they are......made by far the least effective use of Marshall Aid of the 10 countries...being well bottom of the "Economic Growth during the Marshall Plan Years" table ! Quelle surprise!

Just shows that the average (and they are very average) UK politicans are economic numpties...(or chancers, you choose)...so you are going to sneer at the position of the Norwegian economy in 2013 because they got a bail-out between 1948 and 1951, when you appear to happily accept that at the same time and in the same circumstances as Norway was growing their economy....the UK Government decided the economy wasn't as important as spending much of the bail-out to have a go at continuing its Imperial past. They succeeded, and passed on the legacy of perceived world importance to all their successors...and we suffer because in 2013, that is still where we are.........in a crap economy UK with delusions of grandeur, which is like an impoverished aristocrat, and has no income to support their lifestyle......unless they tread on the necks of the serfs and increase their income from the poor.

And then people wonder why so many of us want to get out from under the UK thumb? :confused

I wasn't sneering just pointing it out.