Currency uncertainty: So do we introduce a new currency (yeah of all the times to introduce a new currency) or do we go with the Euro (that laughing stock among currencies)? Why is it that Salmond ludicrously claims Scotland could still use Sterling and 'the UK government can't stop Scotland from using it'? Is it because he still wants to blame the UK government for any economic issues post independence? he knows a new scottish currency would be next to worthless and we'd be a country akin to destitute african nations using US dollars! Doesn't Salmond want independence or are we still to be hanging onto the coat-tails of the English?
Currency uncertainty: A new scottish currency would be far from worthless as it would be based on tangible assets eg oil. Short term probability is the pound sterling will remain the currency of an independent Scotland until the Scottish people decide otherwise. The pound is our national currency just as much as it's the currency of the rest of the UK, and Scotland owns a proportional share of the central bank, the Bank of England, which underwrites that currency. As an independent state, Scotland would have just under 10% of a stake in the Bank of England, and 10% of influence. At the moment any influence Scotland has is exercised by George Osborne. 10% of influence is a damn sight more than the influence we have just now.
In any case there's no way that Westminster could prevent Scotland from using sterling. It's a fully tradeable currency, and as such any country could adopt it if it felt like it. However if Westminster did somehow force Scotland out of the pound, they'd wreak havoc on the economy of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] UK as Scotland would march off with about 10% of the Bank of England's reserves.
Ireland used the pound sterling as its currency from independence in 1922 until the Republic signed up to the ERM, the precursor to the euro. The Irish punt was worth exactly the same as the pound sterling. It was in fact the pound sterling, only in a prettier wrapping.
RBS/HBOS: An independent Scotland could never hoped to bail out both RBS and HBOS, or would Salmond have pretended that they were actually english banks?
RBS/HBOS: Actually, I’d rather they hadn’t; makes about as much sense as the British government picking up the clean up bill for BP just because “British” is in the company’s title. However, Scotland could have bailed out RBS quite easily. Scottish GDP in 2008 was an estimated £145 billion. The cost to the UK of the RBS / HBOS bail out in 2008 was £88 billion.
However the actual Scottish share on a per capita basis was £8.8 billion, and on the debt accrued by the Scottish registered banks which would have been an independent Scotland's liability is estimated at £2.4 billion. We'd only have had to cough up even that much assuming that Scotland implemented the same slash-and-burn approach to regulation of the financial sector as Westminster.
The Unionists would have us believe that we'd be bankrupted by the price of a £1 bus fare out of a London riot zone, even though we've got £75 in our pocket. And we can reasonably hope to get a refund on that bus ticket at some point in the future. It wasn't Scotland that allowed bankers to run riot, it was Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Brown and Darling and their ilk are effectively telling us we can't be independent because they're so bleedin' incompetent. But we already know that, which is why we're not so inclined to vote for them any more
Bloated public sector: Scotland employees more people in the public sector per capita than across the rest of the uk. The public sector in scotland costs £40 million per year to run and scotland raises only £27m in revenue.
Really? So Westminster want to keep hold of us out of the goodness of their heart? Theres a lot of good reasons why Scotland should be independent, and one of the strongest of these is economics; we put in much more than we receive. The Barnett formula was only designed to ensure that Scotland would get a similar share of the money spent in England but is now failing due to changes in the way money is allocated and spent. Eg The government is squandering millions on the Olympics yet the way its allocated means neither Scotland nor Wales will see any reciprocal benefits – even though our taxes are paying for this!
Edinburgh trams & the Parliament building: If you want examples of how the Scottish public sector are incapable of fiscal responsibility then look no further.
Agreed. But then I’m not a fan of Labour – or any other London based party for that matter.
Alex Salmond: his claims about scottish curency (see above) and his claim that scotland could vote for political independence but
still be part of the UK. Enough said.
That would surprise me as the UK in effect would cease to exist, so I cant see him saying this. Perhaps you are confusing this with the British Isles? Post independence theres still going to be a lot of negotiations required, if for no other reason than many of us have family and friends south of the Tweed and don’t want to see them suffer. Whether it takes on a Council of the Isles, or some form of confederation is impossible to say. But what is certain is the days of Scotland being used as cannon fodder or some rich guys private shooting estate are gone.
What a lot of people in Scotland forget is London has had the fright to end frights, and London does not like frights. Westminster have demonstrated time and again they will react ruthlessly to anything that causes them fright. For a recent example, just look at the sentences against the rioters last summer, with the Olympics approaching riots gave Westminster a fright and Westminster struck back. Hard.
Voting for the status quo is not an option. I've got three children – that’s £100,000 Ive got to find to let them study for a degree. Even if they work hard for it, they’ll probably be forced to work for their benefits because Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a City means there are no jobs. London have proven themselves capable of protecting the City, the bankers & bonus schemes, but at isolation in Europe, wage freezes, austerity, lower living standards, higher fuel bills and the weakest in our society being targeted and vilified. Why on earth do you think so many people in England want their own devolved powers? London simply cannot be trusted.
