i dont buy the "we don't vote conservative so why should we be ruled by a conservative government" its called democracy. Because tunbridge wells never votes labour does that mean it can seek it's independance when another labour government comes into power?
this is all about salmond wanting more power and harnessing anti english xenophobia and nationalism than it is about actual policies and realism.
Exactly this,
SNP is their UKIP and should be treated as such.
Salmond/SNP have milked the "anti Tory/not got the government we want line" to massive success in recent times. Now at the point of breaking away he flays Darling with it to great effect - Tory lover/anti NHS.
It plays extremely well. No surprise that he won the debate.
Of course Scotland could be an independent state. I just think that leaving the UK just to avoid a few years of Government they don't like, is not the basis of a rational decision.
What about the years when the English suffered governments which were Labour dominated because the number of MPs were swelled by Scottish constituencies who elected Labour MPs on a smaller electorate?
i dont buy the "we don't vote conservative so why should we be ruled by a conservative government" its called democracy. Because tunbridge wells never votes labour does that mean it can seek it's independance when another labour government comes into power?
this is all about salmond wanting more power and harnessing anti english xenophobia and nationalism than it is about actual policies and realism.
Exactly this,
SNP is their UKIP and should be treated as such.
Besides being a million miles apart politically there is also the small matter of the SNP actually winning power and running Scotland whilst UKIP has not even run a local council.
If there is a Yes vote & the B.of.E let them have the pound then I'm emigrating to Oz & taking my £££ with me to spend over there !!
But isn't the pound as much Scottish as English? What did they use before the union? And anyway, what difference does it make if they use the 'pound' so long as it's a Scottish Pound as opposed to the UK Pound?
Whatever happens, it is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth. I've never had anything against the Scottish but this just makes me feel like they should just leave. It's like if you have a group of friends and one of them keeps moaning about the rest of the group, wouldn't everyone else tell him to just go away?
Whatever happens, it is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth. I've never had anything against the Scottish but this just makes me feel like they should just leave. It's like if you have a group of friends and one of them keeps moaning about the rest of the group, wouldn't everyone else tell him to just go away?
I'll have to take your word for that Jimmy because I have never been ostracised ....................yet :-)
Whatever happens, it is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth. I've never had anything against the Scottish but this just makes me feel like they should just leave. It's like if you have a group of friends and one of them keeps moaning about the rest of the group, wouldn't everyone else tell him to just go away?
Except at the moment only 30% or so of Scots are polling to vote to leave. The vast majority of Scots don't hate the English or the rest of the UK. The SNP has whipped up a jingoistic agenda based on underlying fear and prejudice in order to tap into the worst excesses of the Scottish national psyche i.e. hate the English, hate the Tories, rely on the Government and distrust the private sector.
Further to that the cost of moving the base down South could prove so expensive that in effect Scotland would be deciding whether a RoUK nuclear defence was feasible.
I heard there is already contingency to base the "bombers" in the States anyway. The Hunter Killers would need a new home and also Coalport is basically a hollowed out mountain with all sorts of nasty ordinance stored there. They would have to shift that too. Expensive stuff.
Is there anywhere in the rUK which could house the subs ? I thought the west coast of Scotland was chosen because it couldn't be easily blockaded by sea, most of the coast of England and Wales could be quite easily which I would imagine geographically speaking leaves the northern coast of NI which is probably unpalatable for a number of reasons.
I would imagine if Scotland does become independent then the bases at Falsane etc will be leased to the UK on a long term basis as sovereign British territory (Cyprus/Guantanamo style) as a condition of Scotland's ascension to NATO. That way the UK keeps it's deterrent in a preferable location which would technically be on British soil and Scotland gets to join NATO whilst technically ridding itself of nuclear weapons.
I thought it was chosen in case the Scottish people voted yes! (coded reference to Ken Livingstone's book and Chris Mullins book / TV adaptation)
i dont buy the "we don't vote conservative so why should we be ruled by a conservative government" its called democracy. Because tunbridge wells never votes labour does that mean it can seek it's independance when another labour government comes into power?
this is all about salmond wanting more power and harnessing anti english xenophobia and nationalism than it is about actual policies and realism.
Exactly this,
SNP is their UKIP and should be treated as such.
Besides being a million miles apart politically there is also the small matter of the SNP actually winning power and running Scotland whilst UKIP has not even run a local council.
I should clarify. When I say like UKIP I mean in terms of whipping up xenophobics into a frenzy, telling them the problems tbey face are "their fault over there!" And promising them they can solve their problems when in reality they probably can't.
As for Scotland wanting to stay in the EU and UKIP not.. They are both effectively arguing against federalism, with the enemy of Scotland being English rule, aand Britain's being European rule. Both are effectively upset about being governed by others.
The main difference I would argue is that Salmond is 1,000 times more hungry for power. The reason the SNP are able to do so well and have controlled more than those UKIPers who haven't even controlled a council *giggles into copy of the Guardian* is because there's a lot more anti English sentiment in Scotland than there is European hate in the UK. If anything they are worse.
I stand by what I said, the SNP is Scotland's UKIP. The parralels, techniques and personalities are very similar.
i dont buy the "we don't vote conservative so why should we be ruled by a conservative government" its called democracy. Because tunbridge wells never votes labour does that mean it can seek it's independance when another labour government comes into power?
this is all about salmond wanting more power and harnessing anti english xenophobia and nationalism than it is about actual policies and realism.
Exactly this,
SNP is their UKIP and should be treated as such.
Besides being a million miles apart politically there is also the small matter of the SNP actually winning power and running Scotland whilst UKIP has not even run a local council.
I should clarify. When I say like UKIP I mean in terms of whipping up xenophobics into a frenzy, telling them the problems tbey face are "their fault over there!" And promising them they can solve their problems when in reality they probably can't.
As for Scotland wanting to stay in the EU and UKIP not.. They are both effectively arguing against federalism, with the enemy of Scotland being English rule, aand Britain's being European rule. Both are effectively upset about being governed by others.
The main difference I would argue is that Salmond is 1,000 times more hungry for power. The reason the SNP are able to do so well and have controlled more than those UKIPers who haven't even controlled a council *giggles into copy of the Guardian* is because there's a lot more anti English sentiment in Scotland than there is European hate in the UK. If anything they are worse.
I stand by what I said, the SNP is Scotland's UKIP. The parralels, techniques and personalities are very similar.
I really don't think there's much "English hate" in Scotland - "hate" is such a strong word and if there was truly a real undercurrent of hatred then I highly doubt the Union would have lasted hundreds of years and still appear popular with the majority of the country today.
I now understand your SNP/UKIP comparisons though and agree with your points.
If there is a Yes vote & the B.of.E let them have the pound then I'm emigrating to Oz & taking my £££ with me to spend over there !!
But isn't the pound as much Scottish as English? What did they use before the union? And anyway, what difference does it make if they use the 'pound' so long as it's a Scottish Pound as opposed to the UK Pound?
They had the "Pund Scots". It started off at par with the English pound but quickly devalued to be worth about a quarter. By the time of the Union in 1707 when Scotland adopted the English Pound, the inhabitants of Scotland received one proper pound for every twelve of theirs.
What's that quote about history repeating itself?
As far as what difference does it make, well, at the moment every English pound in issue is backed by either British Government Stock or commercial bonds of the same value held by the Bank of England. (Hence the "I promise to pay" bit on the notes). In addition, the Scottish note* issuers are currently required to hold a sum on deposit with the Bank of England to the same value of the Scottish notes they issue. (Which indicates what a vanity project it is as surely they have better use for the money?)
So could they use English pounds? Yes, of course, (they could use milk bottle tops as long as they were generally accepted). But they then have no control over their own economic policy and as the economies diverge, as they surely would over time, the Scottish economy would be at the mercy of Westminster.
Alternatively they could have their own currency which would entail the setting up of their own central bank or join the Euro if the Euro members would have them, which is doubtful.
* These are not legal tender, anywhere, even in Scotland.
Edited to add: as at last Wednesday (yes the BoE does a weekly balance sheet for its Issue Dept.!) there were notes to the value of £62,109,306,960 in circulation. Of course this figure is just cash and does not include the value of "plastic money" bank balances, etc, etc. Quite how the ordinary hard-working Scot living in a newly independent Scotland would go about paying off their credit card bill to the card issuer in, say, Southend, is anybody's guess and not something Salmond wants anyone to give any thought to.
If there is a Yes vote & the B.of.E let them have the pound then I'm emigrating to Oz & taking my £££ with me to spend over there !!
But isn't the pound as much Scottish as English? What did they use before the union? And anyway, what difference does it make if they use the 'pound' so long as it's a Scottish Pound as opposed to the UK Pound?
If they set up a new currency it will fluctuate massively in value with the price of oil. Further to that if they have set up a new currency it would have meant that the rest of the UK had refused a shared currency. Salmond says if that happens they will not pay their share of the debt so they would be a new nation with a new currency which had already defaulted on it's debts. If they continue to use the pound it's not really independence as it is controlled by the Bank of England which will then be in a foreign country.
These are very astute intelligent people so I find it hard to believe the amount of confusion there is around the details of what this vote means in terms of things like currency and in/out EU. I can only conclude that it is intentional and that ALL parties actually want a "No" vote.
I love the Salmond line that the assets, oil, sterling etc, belong to Scotland but the liabilities don't. Fortunately sane people won't see it that way. I do hope the English are represented by a very experienced and tough negotiator ie someone very unlike David Cameron.
We need a yes vote because a narrow no will just lead to years more of the nationalists whinging on and on and the weak Westminster government giving them concessions at the expense of the English while the smug sweaties go on enjoying free prescriptions, tertiary education and whatever else they feel like awarding themselves.
These are very astute intelligent people so I find it hard to believe the amount of confusion there is around the details of what this vote means in terms of things like currency and in/out EU. I can only conclude that it is intentional and that ALL parties actually want a "No" vote.
Is that a "no" like the one said by Jim in the Vicar of Dibley? ;o)
The fact is that any public sector infrastructure built in Scotland in the last 30 years has been bought with borrowed money, so if they don't intend to take ownership of the borrowed money, all assets that were either paid for fully or partly by public money will be owned or part-owned by the UK government, so the Scottish government would need to rent these until they were in a position to purchase these themselves.
Same with non-physical assets like public sector pensions.
These are very astute intelligent people so I find it hard to believe the amount of confusion there is around the details of what this vote means in terms of things like currency and in/out EU. I can only conclude that it is intentional and that ALL parties actually want a "No" vote.
Is that a "no" like the one said by Jim in the Vicar of Dibley? ;o)
Yes!
So, they get a narrow "no" and, as others have said, it's full speed ahead for "devolution-max".
I love the Salmond line that the assets, oil, sterling etc, belong to Scotland but the liabilities don't. Fortunately sane people won't see it that way. I do hope the English are represented by a very experienced and tough negotiator ie someone very unlike David Cameron.
We need a yes vote because a narrow no will just lead to years more of the nationalists whinging on and on and the weak Westminster government giving them concessions at the expense of the English while the smug sweaties go on enjoying free prescriptions, tertiary education and whatever else they feel like awarding themselves.
Bitter? No, pragmatic.
Let's get it over with now and move on.
You've completely made that up. I don't like Salmond, but what he is saying is that if Scotland has to take it's fair share of liabilities (i.e. the proportion of national debt attributable to Scotland) then they should also take a share of the assets, in this case the right to retain the pound in a currency union. The BoE would be the financial mechanism underpinning that currency union and access to that asset is what he's referring to.
The argument is that if the rUK don't let Scotland share in the assets (via a currency union) then they wont take on the liabilities which is, apparently, his pretty terrible sounding "plan b" that we waited for baited breath with on Tuesday night.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
I love the Salmond line that the assets, oil, sterling etc, belong to Scotland but the liabilities don't. Fortunately sane people won't see it that way. I do hope the English are represented by a very experienced and tough negotiator ie someone very unlike David Cameron.
We need a yes vote because a narrow no will just lead to years more of the nationalists whinging on and on and the weak Westminster government giving them concessions at the expense of the English while the smug sweaties go on enjoying free prescriptions, tertiary education and whatever else they feel like awarding themselves.
Bitter? No, pragmatic.
Let's get it over with now and move on.
if Scotland has to take it's fair share of liabilities (i.e. the proportion of national debt attributable to Scotland) then they should also take a share of the assets, in this case the right to retain the pound in a currency union. The BoE would be the financial mechanism underpinning that currency union and access to that asset is what he's referring to.
The argument is that if the rUK don't let Scotland share in the assets (via a currency union) then they wont take on the liabilities which is, apparently, his pretty terrible sounding "plan b" that we waited for baited breath with on Tuesday night.
I never fully got to grips with accountancy, it's always the wrong way round as far as I can tell. But, here goes. If, for you, (or Scotland) a five pound note is an asset, to the Bank of England it is a liability. That's why, as I explained above the BoE holds £62,109mn of assets to back the notes in circulation. Now, if Scotland leave the UK but want to a carry on using the BoE pound, that creates a dilemma. I'm guessing here but let's say £10,000mn of the £62,109mn value of notes in circulation are in Scotland and after independence they stay there. Why should the English tax payer continue to provide the wherewithal to back £10,000mn of the note issue being used, for free, by the Scots? The taxpayer/voter wouldn't stand for it . This (presumably?) is why the three main political parties have said that monetary union is not plausible without political union. That can't stop the Scots from using whatever currency they like but again, any divergence of the economies in whichever direction would put undue pressure on the Scottish economy in particular.
- move to Scotland - take out as many payday loans as possible (possibly millions of pounds) - convert all my money into Euros - refuse to pay any debt as I was no longer using the pound - move back to England debt free
- move to Scotland - take out as many payday loans as possible (possibly millions of pounds) - convert all my money into Euros - refuse to pay any debt as I was no longer using the pound - move back to England debt free
It's already sort of been done - think Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
too true Soapy, I notice they are already trying to squeeze more concessions out of the main parties in the event of a No vote, they should be told where to go by Cameron et al, they should either leave or have all their priveleges removed, not rewarded with more of our taxes if they stay.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
I really can't see NATO letting Scotland in if they insist on moving Trident though - I believe ascension to NATO requires unanimous approval from all members so the rUK would have a pretty strong bargaining position over Trident in the event of a "yes" vote.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
The SNP are a long way from being "hard line Socialists" - even Conservative journals like The Specator admit that....
....they have even long been called "Tartan Tories" by their Labour opponents in the absence of any meaningful Tory presence in Scotland since 1987.
As the piece says the great skill of Salmond is being different things to different people, they may be left of centre on some issues but they are certainly not on others.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
....they have even long been called "Tartan Tories" by their Labour opponents in the absence of any meaningful Tory presence in Scotland since 1987.
This is less due to the fact that the SNP hold any meaningful right-of-centre positions and more to the fact that the Labour Party is largely made up of children who scream anyone who opposes the Labour party must be a Tory. The SNP has now become large enough to reverse this onto Labour who are now, as Salmond said in the 2nd debate, in bed with the Tories because they are both campaigning for a No vote.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
The SNP are a long way from being "hard line Socialists" - even Conservative journals like The Specator admit that....
....they have even long been called "Tartan Tories" by their Labour opponents in the absence of any meaningful Tory presence in Scotland since 1987.
As the piece says the great skill of Salmond is being different things to different people, they may be left of centre on some issues but they are certainly not on others.
They are to left of anything else in these Isles of ours in their aspirations and policies, was what I was trying to get over.
What kind of undependance is built on using another nations currency? Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Agreed. The one thing I don't understand is why take the Pound, BoE, Queen etc but not look to enter into some sort of common defence plan ? The one thing that Scotland would never be able to replicate on its own is armed forces anywhere near the quality and size of the UK's. I'd rather have the British Armed forces than the British Pound or royal family.
The SNP and Salmond are intrinsically hard line socialists. Their mandate is in a Scotland that in recent history is more left leaning than the rest of the UK (or to be more specific the Middle to South of the UK). One of the cornerstones of their constitution is complete nuclear disarmament and in their case the getting rid of the UK's nuclear deterrent based on Scottish soil. They have the need of a defence force of course but more on the lines of a near neighbour, the Irish Republic. Spend the bare minimum to maintain a smokescreen of independence, knowing full well that if the shit hits the fan, NATO would take care of them. NATO in turn would never turn its back on an Independent Scotland due to its strategic geography in regard to the Northern Atlantic and it's need to keep an eye on the activities of Mother Russia. As with all things SNP it is political symbolism and rhetoric, knowing deep down that all other bases are covered and paid for by someone else.
I really can't see NATO letting Scotland in if they insist on moving Trident though - I believe ascension to NATO requires unanimous approval from all members so the rUK would have a pretty strong bargaining position over Trident in the event of a "yes" vote.
NATO and roUK /USA would never have a non NATO aligned country in such a strategic part of Northern Europe. Whether they are in or out OF it they will cover Scottish arses.
Comments
It plays extremely well. No surprise that he won the debate.
Of course Scotland could be an independent state. I just think that leaving the UK just to avoid a few years of Government they don't like, is not the basis of a rational decision.
What about the years when the English suffered governments which were Labour dominated because the number of MPs were swelled by Scottish constituencies who elected Labour MPs on a smaller electorate?
It cuts both ways.
As for Scotland wanting to stay in the EU and UKIP not.. They are both effectively arguing against federalism, with the enemy of Scotland being English rule, aand Britain's being European rule. Both are effectively upset about being governed by others.
The main difference I would argue is that Salmond is 1,000 times more hungry for power. The reason the SNP are able to do so well and have controlled more than those UKIPers who haven't even controlled a council *giggles into copy of the Guardian* is because there's a lot more anti English sentiment in Scotland than there is European hate in the UK. If anything they are worse.
I stand by what I said, the SNP is Scotland's UKIP. The parralels, techniques and personalities are very similar.
I now understand your SNP/UKIP comparisons though and agree with your points.
What's that quote about history repeating itself?
As far as what difference does it make, well, at the moment every English pound in issue is backed by either British Government Stock or commercial bonds of the same value held by the Bank of England. (Hence the "I promise to pay" bit on the notes). In addition, the Scottish note* issuers are currently required to hold a sum on deposit with the Bank of England to the same value of the Scottish notes they issue. (Which indicates what a vanity project it is as surely they have better use for the money?)
So could they use English pounds? Yes, of course, (they could use milk bottle tops as long as they were generally accepted).
But they then have no control over their own economic policy and as the economies diverge, as they surely would over time, the Scottish economy would be at the mercy of Westminster.
Alternatively they could have their own currency which would entail the setting up of their own central bank or join the Euro if the Euro members would have them, which is doubtful.
* These are not legal tender, anywhere, even in Scotland.
Edited to add: as at last Wednesday (yes the BoE does a weekly balance sheet for its Issue Dept.!) there were notes to the value of £62,109,306,960 in circulation. Of course this figure is just cash and does not include the value of "plastic money" bank balances, etc, etc. Quite how the ordinary hard-working Scot living in a newly independent Scotland would go about paying off their credit card bill to the card issuer in, say, Southend, is anybody's guess and not something Salmond wants anyone to give any thought to.
If they continue to use the pound it's not really independence as it is controlled by the Bank of England which will then be in a foreign country.
We need a yes vote because a narrow no will just lead to years more of the nationalists whinging on and on and the weak Westminster government giving them concessions at the expense of the English while the smug sweaties go on enjoying free prescriptions, tertiary education and whatever else they feel like awarding themselves.
Bitter? No, pragmatic.
Let's get it over with now and move on.
Same with non-physical assets like public sector pensions.
So, they get a narrow "no" and, as others have said, it's full speed ahead for "devolution-max".
The argument is that if the rUK don't let Scotland share in the assets (via a currency union) then they wont take on the liabilities which is, apparently, his pretty terrible sounding "plan b" that we waited for baited breath with on Tuesday night.
Salmond doesn't want independance he wants Devo max, max, max. With the Bank of England there to support Scotland if and when it all collapses in a heap.
Why should the English tax payer continue to provide the wherewithal to back £10,000mn of the note issue being used, for free, by the Scots? The taxpayer/voter wouldn't stand for it . This (presumably?) is why the three main political parties have said that monetary union is not plausible without political union. That can't stop the Scots from using whatever currency they like but again, any divergence of the economies in whichever direction would put undue pressure on the Scottish economy in particular.
- move to Scotland
- take out as many payday loans as possible (possibly millions of pounds)
- convert all my money into Euros
- refuse to pay any debt as I was no longer using the pound
- move back to England debt free
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/02/the-snps-vision-for-tartan-neoliberalism/
....they have even long been called "Tartan Tories" by their Labour opponents in the absence of any meaningful Tory presence in Scotland since 1987.
As the piece says the great skill of Salmond is being different things to different people, they may be left of centre on some issues but they are certainly not on others.