ceebmoj
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmojThe UK cant stop Scotland using the £ ...
On what do you base that assertion? My understanding is that a country cannot share another country's currency as its principal currency,
without a mutual agreement of monetary union.
There are countries that use another country's currency as legal tender on a day-to-day basis (for example Panama and several others, I think,
use the the US dollar), but underpinned by a 'national' currency with a variable exchange rate.
There are both practical and political difficulties to monetarily linking two separately controlled economies; you need an exchange rate mechanism,
similar to that used for the Euro, which needs political agreement. The UK will be under no obligation to sign up to such an agreement. Without
it, Scotland has two choices: adopt another currency, or not function as a separate political and sovereign entity.
[Edited on 25/8/14 by Sam_68]
Your understanding is wrong.
Cheers
Davie
Any one can use any currency they like, they just need to purchase a sufficiently large amount. Granted you would have no control over interest rate,
but the currency can be used. It may be that you consider giving up control of interest rate a problem and I tend to agree. I guess it depends on how
aligned the economy's are and given that present the same interest rate is applied to both economy's they must be resnobly aligned at
present.
[Edited on 25/8/14 by ceebmoj]
|
|
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Any one can use any currency they like, they just need to purchase a sufficiently large amount.
Purchase it with what, exactly?
March in to that Bank of England and ask for several hundred billion pounds in barter for some substandard timber, a few cases of Scotch and some nice
Harris Tweed?
What happens when inflation has reduced that £several hundred billion to the price of a new Dacia Sandero? What do you buy more with?
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Granted you would have no control over interest rate, but the currency can be used.
Exactly. You have no control over a number of other important factors, either. In short, you have no fiscal independence.
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
Your understanding is wrong.
Cheers
Davie
Then, as I have requested already, put me right: tell me the basis for your assertion.
...otherwise you're just making it up.
The pound is a fully trade-able currency which means any country can use it.
I can't expand on that but I don't believe I'm making it up.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
The pound is a fully trade-able currency which means any country can use it.
Not disputed.
But see my post above - what do you trade for it, if you have no currency of your own?
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
I don't believe I'm making it up.
I know lots of people who don't believe they're making up an invisible friend called Allah (or God, or Jehovah). I've yet to
find a single one of them who have managed to persuade him (her, it) to sign their cheques...
[Edited on 25/8/14 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
ceebmoj
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
Sam_68, I agree with you. But that does not mean the currency can't be used. It means its not a great idea to do it. As I said before I'm
surprised an independent currency has not gained more traction.
Oil, timber and other assets would seam to be good for trading for £.
[Edited on 25/8/14 by ceebmoj]
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:53 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Any one can use any currency they like, they just need to purchase a sufficiently large amount.
Purchase it with what, exactly?
March in to that Bank of England and ask for several hundred billion pounds in barter for some substandard timber, a few cases of Scotch and some nice
Harris Tweed?
What happens when inflation has reduced that £several hundred billion to the price of a new Dacia Sandero? What do you buy more with?
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Granted you would have no control over interest rate, but the currency can be used.
Exactly. You have no control over a number of other important factors, either. In short, you have no fiscal independence.
Good recovery, looks like you did know what you were talking about all along 
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 08:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmojIt means its not a great idea to do it.
It goes beyond being 'not a great idea'.
As I've said previously, there are a number of countries who use the US$ as their practical, day-to-day currency (and I suspect there may even
be some that use the £UK), but without an exchange rate mechanism, you need your own currency to allow your economy to operate independently.
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
Good recovery, looks like you did know what you were talking about all along
Well, if you know what you're talking about, why not answer some of the questions I've raised?
Starting with the one above: what do you purchase your £UK's with, if you've no currency of your own?
Followed by, what happens if the Bank of England refuses to sell you any ('cos there sure as hell aren't enough floating round the open
money markets to buy them independently in quantities sufficient to run even a tin-pot, third world economy like Scotland's, without screwing up
the balance of global monetary exchange).
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:07 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmojIt means its not a great idea to do it.
It goes beyond being 'not a great idea'.
As I've said previously, there are a number of countries who use the US$ as their practical, day-to-day currency (and I suspect there may even
be some that use the £UK), but without an exchange rate mechanism, you need your own currency to allow your economy to operate independently.
What you said previously was that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to use the pound, which was clearly a load of nonsense, not sure I'd trust
anything which came after
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
What you said previously was that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to use the pound
I thought it would have been obvious, even to a complete moron, that by implication we were talking about its use as a sovereign currency.
Obviously even a private individual such as myself can nip down the post office and buy pretty much any currency in the world (with my
hard-earned £UK's of course!), which I can then use to trade for goods (or other currencies) with anyone willing to accept it. Sadly, it
doesn't give me sufficient fiscal control to be able to set up my own republic (or set interest rates, control inflation, or fix policies that
depend on either).
But you were about to start answering some of my questions, I had hoped?
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
What you said previously was that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to use the pound
I thought it would have been obvious, even to a complete moron, that by implication we were talking about its use as a sovereign currency.
Obviously even a private individual such as myself can nip down the post office and buy pretty much any currency in the world (with my
hard-earned £UK's of course!), which I can then use to trade for goods (or other currencies) with anyone willing to accept it. Sadly, it
doesn't give me sufficient fiscal control to be able to set up my own republic (or set interest rates, control inflation, or fix policies that
depend on either).
But you were about to start answering some of my questions, I had hoped?
Sorry I was typing my last post when you replied.
I cant answer your questions as I don't really understand them, guess I must be a moron from from tin pot third world country.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
I cant answer your questions as I don't really understand them...
Then, by your own admission, you're about to vote to take your country, irreversibly, into an uncertain future on the basis of arguments that
you don't understand.
God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or possibly Buddha) help Scotland, if it is depending on the knee-jerk opinion of people like yourself to guide it in the
right direction!
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by jeffw
Scotland having the Euro as the currency will depend on EU membership and them meeting the criteria to join. And then they will be members of a club
which is slowly destroying most of the countries that are members.
Ah, the trusty old 1-2. 
The 'you're not getting into the EU' jab... followed swiftly by the 'and even if you do the EU is shit'
right hook.
Love it!
Friends try and stop friends doing silly things....even if a few home truths are required.
Scotland will not have currency union with the UK as an Independent country. Currency union requires a country to give up an element of control, in
this case fiscal policy to the Bank of England. Where is your independence then?
|
|
|
ceebmoj
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
Have we agreed that Scotland can use the £ assuming, the Bank of England agrees to sell £ to Scotland and Scotland has the resource to purchase £ at
the market rate. However this means that Scotland would not be have any financial control over £?
Does an independent Scotland want control of interest rates and the other financial mechanisms that having a sovereign currency bring? If European
membership is the goal, surly the answer is no as the euro will not offer this either.
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 09:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
I cant answer your questions as I don't really understand them...
Then, by your own admission, you're about to vote to take your country, irreversibly, into an uncertain future on the basis of arguments that
you don't understand.
God (or Allah, or Jehovah, or possibly Buddha) help Scotland, if it is depending on the knee-jerk opinion of people like yourself to guide it in the
right direction!
I'm not going to continue this discussion with you Sam, as your continual insults and derogatory remarks make me think your probably not the
kind of person I'd enjoy a chat with over a pint.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 10:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Have we agreed that Scotland can use the £ assuming, the Bank of England agrees to sell £ to Scotland and Scotland has the resource to purchase £ at
the market rate.
Yes, but I'd still like to know what Scotland intends to buy those £ with.
You suggested 'oil, timber and other assets'. Fair enough, except the last figures I've seen suggest that Scotland is running a net
deficit of £14 billion per year (in other words, it's importing £14 billion more than it's exporting, already).
So Scotland hasn't got the resources to purchase £ at the market rate, except, perhaps, by selling off the family silver (other fixed
assets).
Scottish timber is crap and is getting crapper, due to climate change (as is British and Welsh timber, to be fair - decent quality structural timber
all comes from colder, slower-growth climates like Scandinavia and Canada), the oil won't last for ever, and other resources are limited either
in supply or demand. The only way is down...
|
|
|
spaximus
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 10:31 PM |
|
|
Sad that this discussion, which is very important to both countries is descending into a bad tempered pub argument.
What has been said before is politicians spin the story to their own ends. What the Scottish electorate, not just Scots, have to decide is what they
believe. To my mind if the facts were given by a third party it would be easy to decide. The truth is neither side can do a good job as it is all
sound bite.
Some questions, The Scots could use the pound as described, however an independent Scotland would then have no control over the part a currency could
have in their fiscal policy. The UK by not being in the Eurozone, has been able to keep interest rates down as it was in the interest of our economy.
Scotland would forfeit that control, why would you do that?
How would getting rid of the naval bases in Scotland help the economy.
We hear of Scotland wanting a share of supposed assets, but little mention of their share of the national debt being transferred, a bit like a wife
running up huge credit card debts, running off with someone else, not paying anything but still getting half the house and income for life, how would
the yes group want to take that hit?
Too much of this is down to historical dislike of the English from the yes group, yes the English hundreds of years ago were ruthless in their methods
to try to rule, but they were not us. In truth the rulers were just as ruthless with any groups who wanted to argue against them, but we have moved on
since then, but clearly some have not in Scotland.
I truly believe that there will be a resounding no vote, which should be the end of it, but it will not be, this will keep going on ad nauseam for the
next few hundred years, but one of the great things about democracy is that you have a vote, if it is yes them we should try to make the best of it,
if it is no then there is no change.
|
|
|
ceebmoj
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 10:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Have we agreed that Scotland can use the £ assuming, the Bank of England agrees to sell £ to Scotland and Scotland has the resource to purchase £ at
the market rate.
Yes, but I'd still like to know what Scotland intends to buy those £ with.
You suggested 'oil, timber and other assets'. Fair enough, except the last figures I've seen suggest that Scotland is running a net
deficit of £14 billion per year (in other words, it's importing £14 billion more than it's exporting, already).
So Scotland hasn't got the resources to purchase £ at the market rate, except, perhaps, by selling off the family silver (other fixed
assets).
Scottish timber is crap and is getting crapper, due to climate change (as is British and Welsh timber, to be fair - decent quality structural timber
all comes from colder, slower-growth climates like Scandinavia and Canada), the oil won't last for ever, and other resources are limited either
in supply or demand. The only way is down...
The problem for me is, I don't know how everything is calculated. None of the partys seem to be keen to make this clear. For instance does the
deficit include all revenues related to the oil that has been taken out of the north sea? There is potential for a lot of renewable power to be
generated in Scotland and that would be something that could be traded with the UK that is very short of it at the moment.
I would guess that some significant additional revenue could be made from leasing land back to the UK for things like the nuclear power stations (who
will pay for decommissioning). Would an independent Scotland be allowed to have the stations for reasons of non proliferation?
|
|
|
ceebmoj
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spaximus
Sad that this discussion, which is very important to both countries is descending into a bad tempered pub argument.
What has been said before is politicians spin the story to their own ends. What the Scottish electorate, not just Scots, have to decide is what they
believe. To my mind if the facts were given by a third party it would be easy to decide. The truth is neither side can do a good job as it is all
sound bite.
Some questions, The Scots could use the pound as described, however an independent Scotland would then have no control over the part a currency could
have in their fiscal policy. The UK by not being in the Eurozone, has been able to keep interest rates down as it was in the interest of our economy.
Scotland would forfeit that control, why would you do that?
How would getting rid of the naval bases in Scotland help the economy.
We hear of Scotland wanting a share of supposed assets, but little mention of their share of the national debt being transferred, a bit like a wife
running up huge credit card debts, running off with someone else, not paying anything but still getting half the house and income for life, how would
the yes group want to take that hit?
Too much of this is down to historical dislike of the English from the yes group, yes the English hundreds of years ago were ruthless in their methods
to try to rule, but they were not us. In truth the rulers were just as ruthless with any groups who wanted to argue against them, but we have moved on
since then, but clearly some have not in Scotland.
I truly believe that there will be a resounding no vote, which should be the end of it, but it will not be, this will keep going on ad nauseam for the
next few hundred years, but one of the great things about democracy is that you have a vote, if it is yes them we should try to make the best of it,
if it is no then there is no change.
good post
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
The problem for me is, I don't know how everything is calculated. None of the partys seem to be keen to make this clear.
Fair comment; certainly the two sides can't agree on the numbers.
But whilst different figures are used on either side of the argument, even the SNP is admitting to a deficit of £9 billion, so there remains less than
nothing (at least £9 billion less than nothing) with which to be purchasing currency at its market value.
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
For instance does the deficit include all revenues related to the oil that has been taken out of the north sea?
The UK Government assessment of £14 billion deficit assumes that an 81% share of North Sea oil and gas belongs to Scotland.
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
There is potential for a lot of renewable power to be generated in Scotland and that would be something that could be traded with the UK that is very
short of it at the moment.
True, but it requires very large sums to be invested in the generating equipment and distribution network to access it. There is potential for a lot
of renewable power to be generated in England (I'm sitting typing this a stones throw from the Severn estuary, which if barraged according to
current proposals would make all Scottish hydro put together look a bit feeble in comparison), so why would we want to invest in renewables in
Scotland and be held to ransom, when can have them under our own control?
Why would we want to trade, if the price is that we have to make allowances in our own fiscal management for a foreign country using our currency?
As Jeff has said repeatedly, if Scotland chooses to spit in our faces, why should they expect anything less than political hardball as a response?
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by spaximus
Sad that this discussion, which is very important to both countries is descending into a bad tempered pub argument.
What has been said before is politicians spin the story to their own ends. What the Scottish electorate, not just Scots, have to decide is what they
believe. To my mind if the facts were given by a third party it would be easy to decide. The truth is neither side can do a good job as it is all
sound bite.
Some questions, The Scots could use the pound as described, however an independent Scotland would then have no control over the part a currency could
have in their fiscal policy. The UK by not being in the Eurozone, has been able to keep interest rates down as it was in the interest of our economy.
Scotland would forfeit that control, why would you do that? In the case of a currency union so that Scotland could benefit from the
security of the assets backing up the currency.
How would getting rid of the naval bases in Scotland help the economy. Are you discussing getting rid of Trident/Nuclear subsfrom Faslane?
If so there are several aspects, Trident is huge waste of money as it not a suitable deterrent for the type of conflict (terrorism) we are involved in
today. If we didn't have nuclear subs in the area then there is possibility for oil exploration. Faslane is th eproposed base for the Scottish
navy.
We hear of Scotland wanting a share of supposed assets, but little mention of their share of the national debt being transferred, a bit like a wife
running up huge credit card debts, running off with someone else, not paying anything but still getting half the house and income for life, how would
the yes group want to take that hit? The proposal from the YES SCOTLAND is that we will inherit our share of the national debt in return
for a currency union. This seems entirely fair, Scotland gets it's share of the debt in return for the security which the assets provide, if the
UK wish to keep all the assets then it is fair that they keep all the debt also.
Too much of this is down to historical dislike of the English from the yes group, yes the English hundreds of years ago were ruthless in their methods
to try to rule, but they were not us. In truth the rulers were just as ruthless with any groups who wanted to argue against them, but we have moved on
since then, but clearly some have not in Scotland. While this is definitely a driving force for some people I believe more of the people
of Scotland (not just the Scottish) who want independence see it as a way of (hopefully) getting back to a government which runs the country for the
benefit of the people and not the shareholder or club member.
I truly believe that there will be a resounding no vote, which should be the end of it, but it will not be, this will keep going on ad nauseam for the
next few hundred years, but one of the great things about democracy is that you have a vote, if it is yes them we should try to make the best of it,
if it is no then there is no change. I will accept what ever the outcome is either way, once there is a decision made then it is in all
our best interests to make the best of it either ay.
I've answered where I could with how I understand things may work.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
daviep
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
quote:
Originally posted by Sam_68
quote:
Originally posted by ceebmoj
Have we agreed that Scotland can use the £ assuming, the Bank of England agrees to sell £ to Scotland and Scotland has the resource to purchase £ at
the market rate.
Yes, but I'd still like to know what Scotland intends to buy those £ with.
You suggested 'oil, timber and other assets'. Fair enough, except the last figures I've seen suggest that Scotland is running a net
deficit of £14 billion per year (in other words, it's importing £14 billion more than it's exporting, already).
So Scotland hasn't got the resources to purchase £ at the market rate, except, perhaps, by selling off the family silver (other fixed
assets).
Scottish timber is crap and is getting crapper, due to climate change (as is British and Welsh timber, to be fair - decent quality structural timber
all comes from colder, slower-growth climates like Scandinavia and Canada), the oil won't last for ever, and other resources are limited either
in supply or demand. The only way is down...
The problem for me is, I don't know how everything is calculated. None of the partys seem to be keen to make this clear. For instance does the
deficit include all revenues related to the oil that has been taken out of the north sea? There is potential for a lot of renewable power to be
generated in Scotland and that would be something that could be traded with the UK that is very short of it at the moment.
I would guess that some significant additional revenue could be made from leasing land back to the UK for things like the nuclear power stations (who
will pay for decommissioning). Would an independent Scotland be allowed to have the stations for reasons of non proliferation?
Like yourself I don't understand completely how everything is calculated but I do know that the calculation which shows Scotland running at a
£14.2 billion deficit for the year 2012 - 2013 excludes any revenue from North Sea oil and gas see
HERE.
Googe "McCrone report" for some interesting reading baring in mind it was written 40 years ago.
Cheers
Davie
“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone.”
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:21 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviepThe proposal from the YES SCOTLAND is that we will inherit our share of the national debt in return for a
currency union. This seems entirely fair, Scotland gets it's share of the debt in return for the security which the assets provide, if the UK
wish to keep all the assets then it is fair that they keep all the debt also.
Currency union isn't about sharing assets; it's about sharing currency.
It ties together the two countries fortunes, to some extent, and thereby provides some stability for Scotland (in theory, your economy couldn't
go into a downward spiral with hyper-inflation without the UK's going with it), and it gives you our credit rating as a leading world economy,
instead of your own credit rating (which, like it or not, would be somewhere at the top end of 3rd world status, simply due to your GDP), but it most
certainly wouldn't give you direct access to our assets: you don't get to keep the shared bank account after the divorce.
From our perspective, your share of the national debt is yours; end of. You shouldn't expect any 'sweeteners' for simply accepting
what you're responsible for. Again, the divorce analogy is applicable: once each partner has taken their share of the negative equity in their
house, why should there be any expectation that they continue to share the same credit rating?
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by daviep
Like yourself I don't understand completely how everything is calculated but I do know that the calculation which shows Scotland running at a
£14.2 billion deficit for the year 2012 - 2013 excludes any revenue from North Sea oil and gas see
HERE.
That's the Scottish Parliament calculation. It differs from the UK Government assessment (which calculates £19.3 billion deficit excluding
oil/gas revenue).
The Scots are admitting 'a deficit of £13.6 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of
£8.6 billion (5.9 per cent of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue..'
...so the 'best case' figure of £8.6 billion is a little better than the £9 billion I quoted above, but what's £0.4 billion
between friends? 
Assuming the (more generous) geographical share, this suggests that North Sea oil and gas are worth about £5.6 billion to the Scottish economy
anyway... not enough to make a difference, and projected revenues are declining sharply?
[Edited on 26/8/14 by Sam_68]
|
|
|
johnny chimpo
|
| posted on 25/8/14 at 11:50 PM |
|
|
I've just read all the posts about this and if I'm honest most of it goes over my head. Some posts here are good and others almost like a
school yard slagging match, which I would expect to see on other forums but not this one!
I'm scottish and living on the west coast. For me it comes down to faslane and if that goes along with BAE Systems as a result of a yes vote,
then I don't know how the west coast will survive with the loss of that many jobs. I already come from a town with high unemployment and as a
result a high number of crime and drug problems. How much worse would it get if faslane etc go???
So I unfortunately will be a No vote. In theory I like the idea of a Yes vote, but I just don't think long term that it will work.
With regards to all the figures etc getting batted about, this seems a very good video if you've got a spare 30mins to watch it.......
YouTube link
|
|
|
