Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

Genuine question - I thought you said polls meant nothing?

They do, except when I want to gloat.

As a position on the independence referendum, this far out, they are meaningless.

[xbl]

Australia, New Zealand and several other former dominions adopted their own currencies at par with the pound years before they actually became independent states. They therefore, on day one of independence, had full monetary autonomy, and chose to unpeg and redenominate to where they are now.

ETA: independent states with their own currencies from day one also include South Africa and other former colonies. A recent example of virtually instantaneous decoupling was South Sudan, which redenominated within 9 days of independence, after agreeing to on Independence Day when their legislature was formally constituted.

Not what Alex Salmond says. He implies we'll use the BoE pound unilaterally. Using another currency called the pound with an actual exchange rate to it, even if pegged at par, is a Scottish currency. That's the right policy. But it's not what the SNP are saying.

But you've just admitted we might HAVE to use something different, even if it's called the Scots pound and is kept at par, because unilaterally adopting the GBP has major drawbacks.

Broken clocks still tell the right time twice a day. The unionists are correct to say that currency is a sovereign power. They are correct to say that we have no automatic right to a currency union and that rUK can veto it. They are correct to say that if that veto happens, Scotland will be in a position EITHER lacking its own lender of last resort or having to have its own currency. We need the SNP, who will be overseeing the transition to day 1 of the brave new world, to demonstrate they have the skills and the nous to set us up properly for that eventuality.

Nope. Even if polls counted for more than sod-all it doesn't make the SNP policy a good one, a viable one or a well thought through one. All a poll showing no major shift would show is that people aren't listening to the discussion, not that it's unimportant. No one is suggesting that this issue in isolation will change attitudes. It's about the bigger picture. It's about the seeds of doubt that incompetence sew and which grow between now and 2014, on both sides of the divide.

Using something called the pound, which is kept at 1:1 with the pound, is just the same as using the pound. Your stance on this is idiotic, your inability to comprehend how reality works is shameful, and your attempts to make something out of nothing makes you come across as someone who zips up at the back.

[Enigma]

Why is the adoption of an independent currency on day 1 so bad xbl? What ill effects can we expect? Hyper inflation? Deflation? The sky falling in? Why can't Scotland have an independent currency on independence but South Sudan can?

[Ad Lib]

Using something called the pound, which is kept at 1:1 with the pound, is just the same as using the pound.

No it's not. You know fine well why it's not. People aren't asking this because they're worried the SNP will call it the dollar and denominate it at $1000 to the pound or a £1000 to the dollar. It's about the mechanism by which our currency operates. The SNP's policy is to use the actual GBP. A currency issued by the Bank of England, the central bank of what would be another sovereign state, unless an agreement is reached to have a currency union, in which case it would be the central bank of that.

That is NOT the same as independently pegging a Scottish pound issued by a Scottish central bank to the GBP. It has a different effect on who is your last resort lender is, what you need to do to decouple, what rights you have to print money, what rights you have to alter interest rates and even what kind of reserve you'd need to maintain. The SNP do NOT have a clear back-up policy that explains what form they'd look to use the pound if they could not secure a currency union. As the transitional government to be, they have to tell us this, in the interests of an informed independence debate and out of democratic respect to the citizens this decision will affect.

Your stance on this is idiotic, your inability to comprehend how reality works is shameful, and your attempts to make something out of nothing makes you come across as someone who zips up at the back.

My stance on this is shared by a lot of people in favour of independence, at least as many independent observers as Alex Salmond can recite on his side, is grounded in the precedent of giving discrete currency under the full control of other newly autonomous states, from Australia to South Sudan, and is even favoured by several of Salmonds former economic advisers.

If you think my intentions are duplicitous and dishonourable, fine. But you're wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm not right about the substance either.

[xbl]

Why is the adoption of an independent currency on day 1 so bad xbl? What ill effects can we expect? Hyper inflation? Deflation? The sky falling in? Why can't Scotland have an independent currency on independence but South Sudan can?

I just think (and I'm not the only one) that given our crossborder connections and relationships, when other stuff is going to be changing too, it makes no sense whatsoever to add another needless change on top of that. Businesses are so intertwined right now that requiring currency conversion will cause a real headache in my view.

After a few months, when people have made sense of the differences and there is a clearer division (hell, England might have even moved timezone!), then we can look at the currency issue much more dispassionately. We're voting on independence, not on a currency. There is a reason why the "CURRENCY NOW!!!" people seem to be Unionists. Some in the Yes camp would like their own currency, but most seem to be in favour of it post transition. The Unionists though, are demanding a currency, NOW. And Ad Lib of course.

Look at Alistair Darling. A few months ago, he was describing a currency union as "logical" and "desirable". Now suddenly, its a recipe for disaster. Every economical report is seen through the prism of independence. After independence, then this issue won't be there, and we'll actually get the facts.

I'm quite relaxed over the future currency choice, but right at the start, it makes sense to use the same 1:1 currency while things get untangled and sorted. I mean the Lib Dems (yes, them again!) were saying how the current post referendum timescale was not enough to sort things out. Now they want to add MORE complexities?

Plus, lets look at the political aspect of things regarding independence. If the SNP come out and say "we'll adopt a new currency", will the media hail this? Will the Yes campaign will be praised? Or will there first be criticism of them for a "u-turn", and then relentless criticism over how hard a new currency will make things? If you're not Ad Lib, the answer is obvious.

[xbl]

If you think my intentions are duplicitous and dishonourable, fine. But you're wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm not right about the substance either.

No, I think they are stupid and naive. Plus, despite what the media attempt to say, this isn't a vote winner or loser. It isn't that big a deal. However, if the SNP change their mind now, then the resulting shitstorm WILL have a negative effect. If you can't see this, then stupid and naive is too kind a description.

[Ad Lib]

I just think (and I'm not the only one) that given our crossborder connections and relationships, when other stuff is going to be changing too, it makes no sense whatsoever to add another needless change on top of that.

But we'll have to make significant changes ANYWAY as regards the currency. A currency union isn't a preservation of the status quo; it's a complex and new structure designed to preserve the effects of the common currency as currently exercised. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing that. But it's still a big change. So, by the way, is having a new currency. So, by the way, is unilaterally adopting the BoE pound. So, by the way, is pegging or not pegging a new currency. No matter what happens here, there will be a change, because sovereignty is changing. It's absolutely ridiculous that the SNP are arguing for independence then whittling away, bit by bit, the things that actually differentiate independence from very advanced autonomy within the same sovereign state. They're undercutting their own arguments.

We need control over our currency for the "economic levers" argument to hold any water.

1. Businesses are so intertwined right now that requiring currency conversion will cause a real headache in my view.

2. After a few months, when people have made sense of the differences and there is a clearer division (hell, England might have even moved timezone!), then we can look at the currency issue much more dispassionately. We're voting on independence, not on a currency.

1. This is nonsense. Businesses cope absolutely fine between the rest of the EU and Britain. Denmark does just fine with the rest of the EU tradewise. The whole point of economic autonomy is to allow the Scottish economy to diverge where it needs to. The currency is an integral part of that.

2. The currency is integral to what independence actually means. Independence without even starting with our own currency (note that every member of the Eurozone *chose* to abandon their sovereign currencies) is scarcely independence at all, economically speaking.

There is a reason why the "CURRENCY NOW!!!" people seem to be Unionists. Some in the Yes camp would like their own currency, but most seem to be in favour of it post transition. The Unionists though, are demanding a currency, NOW. And Ad Lib of course. Look at Alistair Darling. A few months ago, he was describing a currency union as "logical" and "desirable". Now suddenly, its a recipe for disaster.

This is really the real life equivalent of poster not the post. You're paranoid about it because, uhm, the Unionists are raising it! Try to be objective for once, instead of slavishly following Salmond's line.

Every economical report is seen through the prism of independence. After independence, then this issue won't be there, and we'll actually get the facts. I'm quite relaxed over the future currency choice, but right at the start, it makes sense to use the same 1:1 currency while things get untangled and sorted.

But no one's arguing about initially having currencies of roughly equal denomination! The question is about the MECHANISM by which that is achieved? Is it a currency union? If you can't get a currency union, is it a unilateral adoption or a Scottish peg? They are three fundamentally different propositions. The SNP have not explained which of the second or third they will pursue if Osborne and co do not relent. We need to know, if for no other reason than it means we then know what we are and aren't voting on. If we're not voting on the right of Scotland to issue a sovereign currency, then independence means something different and we have a right to know that.

I mean the Lib Dems (yes, them again!) were saying how the current post referendum timescale was not enough to sort things out. Now they want to add MORE complexities?

Plus, lets look at the political aspect of things regarding independence. If the SNP come out and say "we'll adopt a new currency", will the media hail this? Will the Yes campaign will be praised? Or will there first be criticism of them for a "u-turn", and then relentless criticism over how hard a new currency will make things? If you're not Ad Lib, the answer is obvious.

The reason people were saying 2 years was pushing it was precisely because these issues have to be addressed. Irrespective of whether or not Scotland does in fact adopt its own (even pegged) currency. Transition of highly developed states into independent sovereign states is a complex and intricate process. It deals with the essential trappings of statehood. The right to issue a currency you control is precisely that: a sovereign issue.

When the ship is sailing towards the lighthouse, as the SNP's currency policy is, it is better for the ship to u-turn than to shout about the lighthouse deliberately obstructing it. Even if the captain gets shouted at in the aftermath for putting his crew in danger, at least his ship hasn't sunk. If the SNP are really so unconfident in their ability to explain why a separate currency would be in Scotland's best interests, and to win that argument, they don't deserve to win the referendum and they don't deserve the right to negotiate on our behalf in its aftermath if they do.

The bruised egos of Salmond and the SNP must not be allowed to sacrifice the strongest Yes case at their altar.

[10 CC ICT]

Have you seen the price of razor blades these days?

[Ad Lib]

Have you seen the price of razor blades these days?

As soon as SNP-loyalists have their status quo preservatism called, what do they do? Feign boredom. Deflect deflect deflect. Straight out of Alex Salmond's book of FMQs.

[Colkitto]

Yeah, only a daft nationalist would attempt to lord up the fact they are still being horsed in their own referendum.

Makes you wonder why the Unionists used very trick in the book over the years to deny Scotland a referendum now that they cannot lose and are undoubtedly in easy street with not a care in the world so early in the campaign.

[DeeGas]

As soon as SNP-loyalists have their status quo preservatism called, what do they do? Feign boredom. Deflect deflect deflect. Straight out of Alex Salmond's book of FMQs.

Yep,pathetic arrogance.

Insulting to Scotland,Wales,N Ireland and England.

[Swampy]

Of course a currency union isn't something you just flip a switch on, but is anyone really buying the Ad Libdems' hysteria that it's just as complex as a new currency on day one? In the Ad Libdem world the whole project seemingly begins and ends with minting rates and monetary policy. Presumably the fact that every business in the country currently operates in GBP has eluded him, and that if we switch to a Scottish currency on day one, that might just prove to be a bit more complicated.

I wouldn't criticize anyone for thinking deeply about the issues around Scotland's currency choice (and that's what it is - a choice, for the people to make) but "complexity!" is the new "uncertainty!" - essentially a fear tactic used to obfuscate the debate.

[monkfish]

It would be politically damaging for the SNP to come out in favour of a new currency. Imagine the opportunities that would give the unionists to stoke up the hysteria about changing currency when visting your auntie, etc.

Its not in the Yes campaign's interest to paint independence as any more of an upheaval than necessary. For most people all a separate currency represents is extra hassle with no immediately visible benefits.

Those debating monetary policy are living in an ivory tower: sure its an important issue, but the political factors far outweigh your economic concerns which are of negligible interest to the wider electorate.

[~~~]

[DeeGas]

Just for the record,i've now met Mhairi Threfall,the Scottish girl Labour candidate for Eastville Bristol.

No comment on the recent argument between Lib Dem and Labour.

She is an absolutely likeable,charming young lady,who comes across as honest and intelligent.

[Paulo Sergio]

I watched this documentary the other day:

It's about six months old now and I'm not sure if it has been posted before, but it's a decent watch. The bit about the snakes in London fiddling with the details on oil is sickening.

[Ad Lib]

Of course a currency union isn't something you just flip a switch on, but is anyone really buying the Ad Libdems' hysteria that it's just as complex as a new currency on day one? In the Ad Libdem world the whole project seemingly begins and ends with minting rates and monetary policy. Presumably the fact that every business in the country currently operates in GBP has eluded him, and that if we switch to a Scottish currency on day one, that might just prove to be a bit more complicated.

I wouldn't criticize anyone for thinking deeply about the issues around Scotland's currency choice (and that's what it is - a choice, for the people to make) but "complexity!" is the new "uncertainty!" - essentially a fear tactic used to obfuscate the debate.

What on earth are you dribbling on about? I've said that the whole point of the two year transition is to facilitate transition to, e.g. new institutions like a Scottish central bank. You'd be doing dual denomination with a peg, just like the original Eurozone did in the run-up to the phase out of the other currencies.This is not something business struggles with and anyone who suggests that they can't cope with a basic conversion mechanism (clue, it's called a *calculator*, available at all good WH Smiths) is being deliberately disingenuous and suggesting that it's more difficult than it actually is.

All I have said is that absent a currency union, which the representatives of what would be rUK in negotiations have indicated they are disinclined to, there has to be a back-up plan for what we will do with our currency. Tell me this: what will it be? Unilateral adoption of the GBP, without our own lender of last resort, or our own currency (whether or not pegged to the GBP)? The SNP haven't answered this. And the answer to this question IS important, as it lets us know what they actually MEAN by independence and what we're voting for.

I never suggested for a minute that "the whole project begins and ends" with the currency. This is just lies. But the right to issue currency is a sovereign power. The GBP is issued under sovereign right. If we become a new state, we will not be exercising the sovereign power that is used to issue GBP currency, because that emanates from the Bank of England, a body founded under UK domestic law, which persists into rUK. Unless that power is deliberately pooled by a specific agreement like the Eurozone treaty provisions, the question remains "how is Scotland going to exercise that sovereign power from day 1". It is important to know this. Currencies aren't things you change on a whim. Our starting point matters.

And actually no, complexity is NOT about scaring people. The world is complex. This isn't a dog-whistle. This is about being intelligent and not oversimplifying things. Complex things can still be important things and imperative things to do. How we exercise the sovereign power in respect of currency is a complex thing to do, because currency is a complex construct and involves detailed relationships between different state bodies. Those details fundamentally alter the nature of our sovereignty and therefore what independence means.

The referendum itself is a referendum on sovereign powers as a whole, including the currency. It is for precisely that reason that any negotiation of sovereign powers must first come from an informed mandate by the people as to what exactly is to be negotiated.

[xbl]

As soon as SNP-loyalists have their status quo preservatism called, what do they do? Feign boredom. Deflect deflect deflect. Straight out of Alex Salmond's book of FMQs.

Zzzzzzzzzziiiiiiippppppp

And that is the sound of Willie Rennie zipping you up at the back.

[Ad Lib]

Zzzzzzzzzziiiiiiippppppp

And that is the sound of Willie Rennie zipping you up at the back.

He fucking wishes.

[Ross.]

I just read this online...

"i would vote independence....however the queen would still be the head of state....so a no vote makes more sense..."

Words fail me.