OOR columnist MOAN MCVULPINE argues that Firstminster Salmond should call it a day over the currency union. It’s not within his “gift” to bestow it for an independent Scotland.
By Moan McVulpine – looking after the pounds and ending up with the pennies
CONFUSED ABOUT the currency? Let me help…
Firstminster Salmond says: “It’s in the rUK’s best interests to have a currency union.” How can he be sure?
He cannae. If Scotland separates from the UK, English Nationalists will ensure that no rUK governement wid daur do such a thing without a public lynching.
So why are Ed Milliband, Alistair Darling and George Osborne shouting about saying No?
They like to see that “look” on Salmond’s face.
Explain currency union…
London continues to control the Scottish economy, and we all agree to call it independence.
Is it just Alex Salmond’s idea?
Aye. He’s a millstone around the SNP’s neck.
Would we really be independent if we shared the pound?
Yes, of course we would – if you call another country setting your interest rates, limiting your spending and setting your budgets for you, that is.
So what could we do differently from the UK while sharing it?
We could still wholeheartedly blame Westminster aka the basturt English for all our woes.
That sounds like indpendence to me.
Naw it disnae. It sounds like a recipe for disaster and yet more acrimony between the English and the SNP.
Will the rest of the UK benefit from a Scottish currency union?
Will it f**k. Trying to sell the idea of underwriting the ungrateful Jocks shaky independent economy would be political suicide. The English population may be more than tolerant regarding their northern neighbours grumping, but they’re not walkovers.
Could England suffer without a currency zone?
Naw. Economists calculate a refusal of the currency zone would be so funny it would be worth its weight in gold.
But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.
The Bank of England is an institution. There’s a hint in who it belongs to in the name. We’ll leave the free thinkers oot there to work it oot for theirsels.
So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?
And no assets either.
How much will we save?
Hee haw. We’ll lose more in assets than we save in debt.
But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up.
Damn right. The international money markets would see us as Welshers on the deal and treat us accordingly.
Why do Tories and Labour want to lumber the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland with extra debt?
Because they can.
Do they mean it?
There’s only one way to find out. Go ahead, make their day. Punk!
So they are bluffing?
You want to take the risk finding out?
AhDinnaeKen 
I think all this nonsense is just Eck determined to go down with his ship … admirable in a way. What I’m concerned about now is the aftermath, because clearly some true believers out there who just won’t accept a no vote.
Of course the nats’ campaign has clearly stirred up some strong feelings on both sides, but until recently I would have laughed at anyone suggesting there might be trouble after the vote. But I’ve noted with alarm the ramping up of nuttiness on the Yes side in recent weeks .. stuff like suggesting the polls are rigged, and the vote will be too … and there’s always been the ominous suggestion that certain political and media figures would ‘pay the price’ after the vote, but a few days ago arch-bampot “rev” Stu posted a fairly disturbing video, an edit of an obscure 80s film that depicted No politicians and supporters as aliens and ended with a couple of guys shooting up the BBC Scotland building.
I’m starting to wish none of this had ever happened, to be perfectly honest.
I’m starting to wish none of this had ever happened, to be perfectly honest.
Indeed. The unleashing of Nationalist Front types with their language of “traitors”, “cowards”, “Quislings” etc is a total turn off and a potential unwelcome danger.
Regards
Busted flush, love it; so true.
An alleged political titan became a real and present political pygmy during his debate with Darling.
Lolz.
But joking aside, a lot of this is getting a bit worrying, as Charlie articulates above.
We’re used to a degree of misrepresentation in politics, but this is getting beyond the joke.
There’s all sorts of conflation and confusion in Joanie’s piece – some taken apart in the post above, obviously – that’s just plain irresponsible.
For example, she claims international law decrees that if there’s no currency union then Scotland would have no obligation vis-à-vis the UK’s debt. What precedent or provision she’s alluding to is anyone’s guess. She does compare the UK “grabbing all the BoE’s assets”, but that’s a different issue to a currency union. I don’t think anyone’s ever disputed an equitable split of assets readily divisible. Saying there’s an obligation to share the central bank is about as sensible as saying that the House of Commons must be shared, and also undermines the whole concept of independence, as does other assets and institutions that are supposedly to be shared but haven’t garnered the same publicity. And it also demonstrates the misleading nature of the whole independence shtick and indeed even the question on the ballot paper.
Then there’s that by now old chestnut about the UK Treasury guaranteeing to honour the UK’s debt. Of course, that was just to reassure the markets and thus avoid any spike in the interest the UK pays on its borrowings because of any perceived risk of default. It’s a truism that the UK is responsible for the debt, but that contract with bondholders is a different issue to an iScotland’s obligation in law to rUK. It’s like a landlord with a risky tenant reassuring the bank that the mortgage will be paid. The landlord’s contract is with the bank, while the bank has no direct relationship with the tenant. In law the landlord’s contract with the tenant is a different matter entirely. (Yesser’s use of this argument about the UK guaranteeing the UK’s debt also undermines their disputing that the UK would be the continuator state.)
Of course, besides the technical stuff there’s all kinds of more humdrum political nonsense in Joanie’s piece regarding what an iScotland could do, even with the Bank of England controlling monetary policy, and tax and borrowings, but no point in going overboard critiquing that.
Then there’s the likes of this other old chestnut: “Yes, France and Germany share a currency but everyone agrees they are independent countries.”
Eh? Another one who’s clearly forgotten (for example) what the i in Ukip stands for. And the UK isn’t even in the eurozone!
And even on the currency union issue this kind of stuff is all over the place at the moment. Most obviously this morning, how on earth can the likes of Newsnet be claiming that Mark Carney’s statement yesterday is a “blow” to the No campaign?
Then there’s the likes of Pat Kane tweeting that Carney yesterday “guaranteed” a currency union. FFS.
Thankyou Stuart
It’s all embarrassingly desperate for the Nationalists. Their carefully constructed façade of alleged competence is disappearing faster than Joanie could commission a portrait photograph.
Hopefully Joanie doesn’t receive any FM protection when the ‘Et Tu Russell’ night of the McLong knives takes place post Sep 18.
I’ve long held the belief that Pat Kane is the type who suffers deeply from a unique kind of idiocy which comes through the possession of intelligence with no accompanying brains.
As the Swinney faux pas showed, the Nationalist tight ship has more holes in it than a rusty colander called HMS Titanic.
The Nationalists are embarrassing us in front of the world. It’s 1979 amplified exponentially.
If I didnae laugh, I’d…
Regards
For personal reasons I’ve had a deep mistrust of the SNP ever since they started to edge towards the levers of power, both in municipal government and at Holyrood.
But just look at some the big issues pertinent to the currency dispute, and what they say about Salmond’s competence and judgment. Thus he said the Bank of England’s interest rates were inappropriate for Scotland, so he wanted Scotland in the euro (with interest rates set in Frankfurt!) and the pound was a ‘millstone’ round Scotland’s neck. He claimed Labour was OVER-regulating Scotland’s financial sector “with its outstanding reputation for probity”, and was bigging up HBOS and RBS as “global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term” just weeks before they nearly brought the UK’s financial system to its knees. Then there was the “arc of prosperity”, that “WE didn’t mind the economics of Thatcherism”, blah, blah. So the current shambles is just par for the course really.
But as regards what you say about the night of the long Mcknives, let’s hope it’s just the Yessers fighting amongst themselves rather than lashing out at all and sundry, but in view of the current debate and how they seems largely incapable of self-awareness and introspection, I suspect it will be latter who will bear the brunt of the backlash.
(Incidentally, my use of the word Yessers in the brackets at the end of one of my big paragraphs in the post above got the apostrophe in the wrong place!)
What Mark Carney;s statement is for is to prevent a run on the banks in Scotland. As there is the ’18 month’ transition period from the referendum to ‘independence day’ in March 2016. Carneys states that the BOE will do whatever it can to stabilise the economy from 18 Sept 14 to March 16 for the whole UK. But after that…
Thankyou Jay2209
The use of the term “deposit flight” in a news report recently was interesting. It filled my head with the image of a wheelbarrow full of notes being used to buy a loaf of bread.
That kind of language increasingly referred to in the run up to September will kill off any hope the noble cause of independence ever had with the likes of the SNP in charge of it.
Regards.