FIRSTMINSTER Salmond and, by definition, the Nationalists, consistently refer to currency as an “asset”. They argue that the sterling currency is as much an asset of Scotland’s as it is of England’s and rUK. It’s why their argument of ‘deny us our assets and we’ll ignore our liabilities’ (debts) holds such resonance for the indy committed. Unionists, as would be expected, say that currency isn’t an asset. So what is it? AhDinnaeKen disnae ken:
By Izzit Tangible
ON YESTERDAY’S BBC Marr show, Firstminster Salmond said “if you claim ownership of all of the United Kingdom assets like the Bank of England and the currency then you end up with all the liabilities!”
A clear threat that an indy Scotland under the Firstminster’s rule would default on its debt should it be denied a currency union with rUK.
His statement also begged the question, just who is the bully, bluffer and blusterer and is currency an asset?
Here’s what AhDinnaeKen’s extensive investigations found ie we* trawled the internet.
In 2001, Kathy Mann, Director of the Office of the Fiduciary Advisor at State Street Global Advisors concluded:
“However for all intents and purposes, active currency has zero correlation to the major equity and fixed income asset classes.”
That’s a naw. It isnae an asset.
The website ETF.com (Electronically Traded Funds) opens an article entitled ‘Currency: The Overlooked Asset Class’ like this:
“International currency is the largest and most liquid asset class in the world.”
That’s an uncontestable aye. It is an asset.
The implication by ‘The Bankwatch’ is clear here:
“I think there is a lot of confused thinking about Bitcoin. I believe today it is an asset and not a currency. That view is supported by first Germany, and now Norway.”
It strongly implies currency is not an asset.
And then there’s an overall balanced argument as put forward here by Advisor.ca:
“On the one hand, there are those who argue that currency is either its own asset class or a subset of alternative asset class, giving it a place in modern portfolio theory.
“In the other camp are the traditionalists who say currency has no inherent value, and as a result is not an asset class in the same way stocks and bonds are.”
The conclusion is clear. Nobody, not even the experts in the field, knows for sure.
In Firstminster Salmond’s case, it comes down to that old faithful of committed indy supporters – trust.
If you trust Salmond, currency is an asset.
If you don’t trust him, it’s not.
If you neither trust him nor distrust him, then it’s mebbe’s it is, mebbe’s it isnae.
The whole argument is moot though.
And it’s ever so slightly offset by the fact that the Tories, the Lib-Dems and the Labouring party aren’t prepared to have a currency union whether it’s an asset or an intangible or a barrel of Brent sweet.
As if it needs repeated, the currency union rejection by the indy opposition has effectively sunk the Yes campaign.
The Nationalists present campaign strategy is of manning the lifeboats and seeing how many survivors they can muster before the whole ship ignobly sinks.
Yesterday’s attack on Andrew Marr by the Firstminster is symptomatic of that contingency strategy.
He knows he’s lost, it’s just a matter of regrouping and re-enthusing the faithful for yet aother push later on – no doubt with a different leader.
And, of course, culprits such as the BBC will always be there to take the blame due to their intangible bias and bullying.
Because that’s the only way right minded people would consider any other alternative than voting Yes. Right kids?
Gie’s a len o’ a poun mister!