Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps anyone looking for more info from the politicians mouths (for what its worth) here are just a few I have found and they are between 0 - 1 years old!

 

 

These should be covered by the fair use act for anyone worried about copyright problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Salmond writing in the Sunday Herald about currency choices. Spoilt for choice re currency threads on here.....but it doesn't really fit either of them .so

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-the-no-camp-think-telling-ordinary-scots-they-have-zero-entitlement-to-a.25003848

 

A couple or three quotes from it:-

the language of the No campaign on the issue of what currency an independent Scotland should use is perhaps more revealing than they had ever intended.

Their obsession with a "Plan B" says it all. Implicit in that formulation is settling for what is second-best, and in this case what would be second-best for Scotland.

Having spent my entire political career fighting for what I regard as being in the best interests of Scotland, I am not going to settle for second-best on currency or anything else.

 

and

 

The Scottish Government commissioned a group of eminent economists, with two Nobel laureates - Joseph Stiglitz and James Mirrlees - among their number, to look at the currency options for an independent Scotland, and their detailed report was published last year.

It concluded that retaining sterling in a formal currency union is the best option for Scotland. It is also the best option economically for the rest of the UK.  As such, the No campaign's tactic of saying no to a currency union makes absolutely no economic sense.

 

plus

 

It is simply impossible for the Westminster establishment to follow through on their campaign rhetoric about blocking Scots using the pound. They can however deny Scotland continued use of the Bank of England, which is a shared asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to since it was nationalised in 1946.

The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.

 

Seems impeccable logic, to me, however much I don't like the idea of a Currency Union, and in the short term, is the sensible way to go, until we can decide for ourselves about our currency choices going forward.

 

Bear in mind that, since 1946, the UK itself has used pretty much all the currency options for Scotland given in the White Paper, up to just stopping short of joining the Euro at the ERM stage.  It is only since 2002 (I think)  that it has become a fully independent freely traded currency.

 

I'm no expert on these issues and look at them from the perspective of an ordinary confused voter.  From that perspective I am very concerned about Salmond's continuing intransigence illustrated here.  He has no plan B because he continues to insist that currency union is in the best interest of all concerned.  Regardless of  the opinions expressed in a report written for the Scottish Government, The Unionist parties continue to be adamant that there will be no currency union. Salmond needs to come to terms with that.  It is perfectly reasonable for him to continue to argue that a shared currency is best and to pledge to pursue that option, but he does need to have a fall back position in the likely event that he does not manage to get the Unionist parties to do a u-turn.

 

He also needs to understand that it is not the Scottish pound, it is the UK pound.  He walks away from the UK then he walks away from infuence over the pound.  What he does not walk away from is the Scottish share of the national debt

 

With the focus on what is best for Scotland, people tend to forget about how this is will all impaact on the rest of the UK.  The break up of the union will have a number of practical difficulties for the rUK as a result of a unilateral decision by one partner to leave the union.  The rest of the electorate in the UK will have had absolutely no say in this massive constitutional change and will not be inclined to do the Scots any favours.  The view that will be taken regarding what Salmond may perceive as shared assets is that if Scotland has walked away from the Union then it relinquishes any right to certain assets.  For instance, DVLA provide a very smooth service for Scottish road users and whilst it may be relatively easy for procedures to change to accommodate a service to an Independent Scotland, rUK may take the view that they are not prepared to make any changes and therefore the Scottish Government will need to set up it's own agency.  Any area requiring negotiations around what are currently shared assets will be met with the line that these are UK assets and given that Scotland has unilaterally left the UK, Scotland's access to those shared assets will be strictly on the basis of whether or not it suits rUK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Bragg!  The Yes supporters slagg off David Bowie for encouraging the Scots to vote "No", but it's apparently OK for Bragg to come up and encourage us to vote "Yes".

 

 

I don't see the no camp stopping anytime soon and it is not nearly as bad as the 200 that wrote a "love letter" to scotland....

 

He also needs to understand that it is not the Scottish pound, it is the UK pound.

 

Tell that to all these countries that are not part of the uk

 

Guernsey (in a currency union with the uk but is not part of the uk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_pound

 

Isle of man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_pound

 

jersey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_pound

 

Falkland islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_pound

 

Gibraltar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_pound

 

Saint helena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_pound

 

South georgia and the south sandwich islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling_in_the_South_Atlantic_and_the_Antarctic

 

 

Former pound users

 

Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_pound

 

New zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_pound

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guernsey etc are British Crown Territories whilst the Falklands etc are British Overseas Territories.  That is quite different from sharing a currency with a foreign state which is what Scotland will become if there is a "yes" vote.  Australia and New Zealand both had a currency called the pound which their own monetary policy sometimes aligned to the UK pound, but there was no formal currency union with them as independent countries.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guernsey etc are British Crown Territories whilst the Falklands etc are British Overseas Territories.  That is quite different from sharing a currency with a foreign state

 

So still being in the commonwealth after a yes vote means squat?

 

p.s the queen will still be head of state in an independent Scotland so it will be under the british crown like the above countries it just wont be a part of the uk

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign

 

"situated outside a place or country; especially :  situated outside one's own country"

 

So it would be england in our eyes that is the foreign state not scotland by that logic although it is flawed on both sides and I doubt either country will think differently of each other either way the vote goes.

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Bragg!  The Yes supporters slagg off David Bowie for encouraging the Scots to vote "No", but it's apparently OK for Bragg to come up and encourage us to vote "Yes".

 

Bowie made a one-line pronouncement, Bragg was initially a no and has now come round to a reasoned argument for Yes, which he sets out convincingly in the article.

 

Not every Englishman wants to cling desperately to Britain's imperial past, and some like BB can even see that the referendum is the best chance to renew politics and society in both Scotland and England. :smile:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Guernsey etc are British Crown Territories whilst the Falklands etc are British Overseas Territories.  That is quite different from sharing a currency with a foreign state

 

So still being in the commonwealth after a yes vote means squat?  Of course!  There are no independent nations in the commonwealth who have a currency union with the UK - why should Scotland be any different?

 

p.s the queen will still be head of state in an independent Scotland so it will be under the british crown like the above countries it just wont be a part of the uk  It would become an independent state like Australia and New Zealand but would be quite different from the other "countries" you mention because they are Terretories with defined constitutional links with the UK..  Of course, an Independent Scotland could vote to become a Republic if it wanted to!

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foreign

 

"situated outside a place or country; especially :  situated outside one's own country"

 

So it would be england in our eyes that is the forgien state not scotland by that logic.  Yes, it works both ways.  The rest of the UK and it's terretories would become foreign countries for those of us living in Scotland whilst Scotland would be a foreign country to them.

 

Nothing in what I am saying is an argument against independece, it is simply a plea that before we decide how we vote we understand what independence really means.  Sometimes I get the impression that Salmond doesn't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Billy Bragg!  The Yes supporters slagg off David Bowie for encouraging the Scots to vote "No", but it's apparently OK for Bragg to come up and encourage us to vote "Yes".

 

Bowie made a one-line pronouncement, Bragg was initially a no and has now come round to a reasoned argument for Yes, which he sets out convincingly in the article.

 

Not every Englishman wants to cling desperately to Britain's imperial past, and some like BB can even see that the referendum is the best chance to renew politics and society in both Scotland and England. :smile:

 

And at least Billy Bragg lives and pays his taxes in the UK.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alex Salmond writing in the Sunday Herald about currency choices. Spoilt for choice re currency threads on here.....but it doesn't really fit either of them .so

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-the-no-camp-think-telling-ordinary-scots-they-have-zero-entitlement-to-a.25003848

 

A couple or three quotes from it:-

the language of the No campaign on the issue of what currency an independent Scotland should use is perhaps more revealing than they had ever intended.

Their obsession with a "Plan B" says it all. Implicit in that formulation is settling for what is second-best, and in this case what would be second-best for Scotland.

Having spent my entire political career fighting for what I regard as being in the best interests of Scotland, I am not going to settle for second-best on currency or anything else.

 

and

 

The Scottish Government commissioned a group of eminent economists, with two Nobel laureates - Joseph Stiglitz and James Mirrlees - among their number, to look at the currency options for an independent Scotland, and their detailed report was published last year.

It concluded that retaining sterling in a formal currency union is the best option for Scotland. It is also the best option economically for the rest of the UK.  As such, the No campaign's tactic of saying no to a currency union makes absolutely no economic sense.

 

plus

 

It is simply impossible for the Westminster establishment to follow through on their campaign rhetoric about blocking Scots using the pound. They can however deny Scotland continued use of the Bank of England, which is a shared asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to since it was nationalised in 1946.

The Bank of England itself holds the title to over a quarter of the UK's entire national debt of around £1.3 trillion. And it is all that debt which Westminster would be agreeing to take on board in its entirety if Scotland was denied continued use of the central bank.

 

Seems impeccable logic, to me, however much I don't like the idea of a Currency Union, and in the short term, is the sensible way to go, until we can decide for ourselves about our currency choices going forward.

 

Bear in mind that, since 1946, the UK itself has used pretty much all the currency options for Scotland given in the White Paper, up to just stopping short of joining the Euro at the ERM stage.  It is only since 2002 (I think)  that it has become a fully independent freely traded currency.

 

I'm no expert on these issues and look at them from the perspective of an ordinary confused voter.  From that perspective I am very concerned about Salmond's continuing intransigence illustrated here.  He has no plan B because he continues to insist that currency union is in the best interest of all concerned.  Regardless of  the opinions expressed in a report written for the Scottish Government, The Unionist parties continue to be adamant that there will be no currency union. Salmond needs to come to terms with that.  It is perfectly reasonable for him to continue to argue that a shared currency is best and to pledge to pursue that option, but he does need to have a fall back position in the likely event that he does not manage to get the Unionist parties to do a u-turn.

 

He also needs to understand that it is not the Scottish pound, it is the UK pound.  He walks away from the UK then he walks away from infuence over the pound.  What he does not walk away from is the Scottish share of the national debt

 

With the focus on what is best for Scotland, people tend to forget about how this is will all impaact on the rest of the UK.  The break up of the union will have a number of practical difficulties for the rUK as a result of a unilateral decision by one partner to leave the union.  The rest of the electorate in the UK will have had absolutely no say in this massive constitutional change and will not be inclined to do the Scots any favours.  The view that will be taken regarding what Salmond may perceive as shared assets is that if Scotland has walked away from the Union then it relinquishes any right to certain assets.  For instance, DVLA provide a very smooth service for Scottish road users and whilst it may be relatively easy for procedures to change to accommodate a service to an Independent Scotland, rUK may take the view that they are not prepared to make any changes and therefore the Scottish Government will need to set up it's own agency.  Any area requiring negotiations around what are currently shared assets will be met with the line that these are UK assets and given that Scotland has unilaterally left the UK, Scotland's access to those shared assets will be strictly on the basis of whether or not it suits rUK.

 

 

I'm no expert either, but he does have a plan B, as far as I understand it.  It has been the option I have continually preferred from the start of all this, as a short term option, sterlingisation, as it limits borrowing opportunities and forces balanced budgets, while we get our ducks all in a row, While I knew walking away was a possibility, I didn't expect we would do that. I have always assumed that we would still be paying our share of debt/getting our share of assets, as the Currency Union (I hoped) would not happen as Westminster would put too onerous restrictions on any agreement, like permanency/irreversability, for example, and we would decide not to go along with it.

 

However, once the Westminster Parliament which had said it would not pre-negotiate anything, decided  to pre-negotiate/dictate currency options (much on the dictat lines as Netenyahu uses prior to any talks with the Palestinians),  I can see from whence Salmond comes. DD, you forget we already have a Scottish Pound, and in order to have that Scottish pound, we already, within the Union, practice defacto sterlingisation, as the issuing banks have to deposit a combination of Bank of England banknotes, UK coin and funds in an interest bearing bank account at the Bank of England, as backing assets, in case of insolvency. Haven't you noticed that, while English notes say "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of X pounds,  Scottish notes say X pounds Sterling.

 

Scotland has no debt, the UK does........they have said so. There is a difference between a legal obligation, which Scotland does not have, and a moral one, which I agree it does have.  What he does not walk away from is the Scottish share of the national debt sounds much like the Three Westminster Stooges saying "you will not be  allowed to use the pound".  If we walk away from our share of the debt, it will be a situation brought about solely by the political posturing of "no pre-negotiation" Westminster, not due to a choice made by Alex Salmond. Be interesting to see who blinks first if it comes down to it. 

 

 

DD, and given my personal preferences for sterlingisation and an eventual Scottish Currency , I'm playing Devil's Advocate, here....... the best for both countries is what Alex Salmond is suggesting with a Currency Union.  We already cover our note issues..and there is no reason why that should not continue within a Currency Union. Past risky behaviour by investment bankers in London, inadequately supervised by the Bank of England, and under Westminster regulation, somehow disqualifies an independent Scotland from a currency union with England how exactly? I'd have said it would be foolish of Scotland to risk a Currency Union with a country so heavily in thrall to a financial services casino banking Industry, which is still not adequately controlled.

 

I take your point about the DVLA........but then there are UK Government Services, like HMRC, which deal with areas of England from bases in Scotland. Transition works both ways. I always thought one benefit of independence would be actually getting some decent jobs imported into Scotland, and with a bit of luck and citizen lobbying, getting Government Departments, in these days of easy communication, out of Edinburgh/Glasgow and into the sticks.....like Inverness,  Elgin or Wick. :wink:

 

It is generally the case that fixed assets within a country belong to that country, so we can set up our own HMRC in our share of the buildings already owned by HMRC in Scotland. We already pay our share of the costs, including staffing, of HMRC UK wide, so the only real necessity to spend money would be, given we have to simplify the UK tax (and benefits) system to make it less unwieldy, a new IT system..and we might even, with decent procurement criteria and competent staff undertaking the procurement, pick one which will actually work first time of asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in what I am saying is an argument against independece, it is simply a plea that before we decide how we vote we understand what independence really means.

 

 

Fair enough I will put my hands up and admit that I interpreted it as an argument against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Billy Bragg!  The Yes supporters slagg off David Bowie for encouraging the Scots to vote "No", but it's apparently OK for Bragg to come up and encourage us to vote "Yes".

 

 

I don't see the no camp stopping anytime soon and it is not nearly as bad as the 200 that wrote a "love letter" to scotland....

 

He also needs to understand that it is not the Scottish pound, it is the UK pound.

 

Tell that to all these countries that are not part of the uk

 

Guernsey (in a currency union with the uk but is not part of the uk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_pound

 

Isle of man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_pound

 

jersey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_pound

 

Falkland islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_pound

 

Gibraltar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_pound

 

Saint helena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Helena_pound

 

South georgia and the south sandwich islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling_in_the_South_Atlantic_and_the_Antarctic

 

 

Former pound users

 

Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_pound

 

New zealand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_pound

 

You forgot to add Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and South Sudan. All of which use Pound as their currency yet have no ties to Britian.

 

Here's an interesting website from our celtic brothers across the sea. http://www.irishforyes.org/

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Scottish banks still have their Fiduciary issues , so called, which sets a limit to which they can issue their own Scottish bank notes without depositing a coin into the bank of England as backing.

But once that limit is reached then they have to deposit some money of value ..maybe gold or silver or even Bank of England notes.. to back the issue of their notes over that limit.

This could be tricky, the money issue, however:

What I am wondering is how all this may affect my DSS pension payment which I assume will still be deposited into my Scottish Bank account once per month?

What if Scotland chooses not to continue with the pound then what currency would they use? And what currency would the,then English, pounds deposit be made in? i.e would the Royal Bank of Scotland exchangeit at the rate prevailing on the date of each deposit and , of course, how would that then be converted to Canadian dollars if not in pounds when I draw it off for my own use in Canada by means of cashing acheque in Canada

Most importantly, at what rate of exchange would this take place?

It follows that if Scotland chooses to use Scottish pounds then that is going to cost the banks a bundle.If the SCOTTISH pounds are not viewed in the currency exchange markets as valuable as (English) sterling money then at what exchange rate will the market post for exchanges into and from any other currency, especially , in my case, Canadian dollars.

And, if I lose a bundle as a result, can I sue the new Scottish Government?

My guess is that New Scotland (heh, that's Nova Scotia in Canada) will continue with "British" sterling as is. +....???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You forgot to add Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and South Sudan. All of which use Pound as their currency yet have no ties to Britian.

 

 

And their pounds have no ties to British pounds!

 

The most relevant pound is the poll showing that support for independence has taken a "pounding" since Salmond got his ass kicked by Darling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You forgot to add Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Lebanon and South Sudan. All of which use Pound as their currency yet have no ties to Britian.

 

 

And their pounds have no ties to British pounds!

 

The most relevant pound is the poll showing that support for independence has taken a "pounding" since Salmond got his ass kicked by Darling.

 

 

I had you down as more intellgent and mature than that.... congratz on being the 3rd best poster on the site btw :wink:

 

 

Well the scottish pound will have nothing to do with sterling apart from the fact it would be pegged 1 : 1 with sterling so you said it yourself those other countries manage so can we!

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is quite telling that BT have latched on to this one non-issue to further put the frighteners on the Scottish people. What else do they have? Is there one single positive argument they have made for Scotland's future being better in the union? No doubt, the UK would be better with our wealth, skills and resources but what good does it do us, the people of Scotland, to remain in the union? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops the truth slipped out

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-letting-slip-4034087

 

 

"In an interview the bungling mayor of London railed against “ever more things we are giving Scotland”, and claimed that there is “no reason” for Scotland to have more powers.

He said instead that tax-raising powers should be granted to major cities in England."

 

 

 

 

Expect to see more "real" labour politicans coming out from under the right-wing rock in the coming weeks

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/no-thanks-its-yes-now-4036997

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprising news that 100% of William Hill punters in Dundee and Motherwell have backed independence

 

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/Independence-Debate/Punters-backing-Scottish-independence-11082014.htm

 

 

 

William Hill spokesman Joe Crilly said: “If the Scottish punters turn out to the voting booths as they have done to the betting shops, then we could well see a ‘yes’ vote when the referendum takes place in September."

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops the truth slipped out

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-accused-letting-slip-4034087

 

 

"In an interview the bungling mayor of London railed against “ever more things we are giving Scotland”, and claimed that there is “no reason” for Scotland to have more powers.

He said instead that tax-raising powers should be granted to major cities in England."

 

 

 

 

Expect to see more "real" labour politicans coming out from under the right-wing rock in the coming weeks

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/no-thanks-its-yes-now-4036997

 

That clown Boris has every chance of being PM of the UK--that is the reality of a No vote, more of these privileged, anti-Scottish elites more than willing to commandeer our resources while grinding us down through indifference and outright hostility.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the sterling non-issue, a letter to the Herald from the Adam Smith Institute, not exactly known for their Marxist-Leninist thinking:

 

 

I HAVE no wish to argue for or against independence, but as an economist I would like to separate the economic realities of the currency issue from the political bluster that obscures them.

The Chancellor has ruled out a formal currency union, though some say this is just negotiating bluff. Either way, there is nothing to stop Scots continuing to use the pound if they choose. A Westminster government with no jurisdiction over an independent Scotland has no power to stop them.

Several independent countries, including Panama, use the US dollar, without seeking the permission of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve. In the absence of a formal currency union agreement, Panama has no say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which is conducted solely for the benefit of America. Some argue, by analogy, that if an independent Scotland continued using the pound without a formal currency union, Scotland would have no say in Bank of England policy, which could be potentially damaging for Scotland's economy.

Nevertheless, as a result of using the dollar, Panama - a country comparable in population to Scotland - has one of the world's most stable banking sectors. And the economic interdependence between Scotland and the other countries of the present United Kingdom is so deep that the Bank of England would, in reality, have to take Scotland's welfare into account when setting monetary policy. Not to do so would risk damaging the other UK countries just as much as Scotland.

Another suggestion, from Jim Sillars, is that Scotland should print its own currency and tie it to the pound. There is no substantive difference between this idea and using the pound. As the two are pegged, the only difference is the design on the currency. And why (apart from national pride) go to the expense of printing Scottish notes, exactly equivalent to the pound - but which people south of the Border might be reluctant to accept?

The other option, switching to some other currency such as the euro, would be even more costly and difficult, and would raise huge, business-damaging uncertainties. It would also leave Scotland subject to the monetary policy of a country or agency with a very distant interest, if any, in Scotland's welfare.

The easiest solution, therefore, would be for Scotland to continue using the pound, with or without a currency union, safe in the knowledge that, as an important part of the sterling economy, the Bank of England would have to take Scotland's interests into full account when setting policy. The currency problem just isn't a problem.

Eamonn Butler,

Director, Adam Smith Institute, 

23 Great Smith Street,

London.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt it, but it is Alex Salmond you need to convince.  He is still hell bent on the one option which is not available.

 

That would be because he is trying to work within the Edinburgh Agreement...and Westminster isn't.  Plan A is Plan A and will be until, if we vote for Independence, and all Westminster parties refuse to negotiate a currency Union.........we go to Plan B.

 

However, in the end,  it won't be Westminster who decides, we all know that.......Westminster doesn't have as much power as big business nowadays.....it will be the money men who decide...those same money men who obliged Westminster to take ownership of all the debt Westminster had run up. They want to guarantee they will get paid, so while we are waiting to see whether Westminster or Salmond will blink first, it will be interesting to see the reaction of investors, shareholders and companies (the market) to the possibility of 10% of the UK balance of payments being wiped off the balance sheet (and Scotland not paying any share of the UK debt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Adam Smith statement makes sense to me.  Why then is Alex Salmond so fixated on the idea of currency union when the option of using Sterling or a Scottish pound outside of a currency union are perfectly viable options?  I think both sides are playing political silly b*ggers here.  On the one hand Salmond appears to be adopting his position in order to create the idea of Westminster being deliberately obstructive, whereas the unionist parties are making a big play of the suggestion that Scotland will struggle not being within a currency union and they suggest Scotland will not have the pound - which is not actually true.

 

I think it is entirley reasonable for the Unionist Parties to say there will be no currency union and I personally think it is helpful that this is being said now rather than having to wait for post referendum negotiations.  If only Salmond had the commonsense to accept that and say we'll use Sterling or the Scottish pound without currency union then this would be a non issue.  It would also defuse a major argument that the BT campaign is promoting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy