Salmond "We can take Scotland in two weeks"

[TestMangler]

Try to think outside of the narrow confines of your political position for a moment and take the perspective of the financial markets. The financial markets place a heavy premium on volatility. The best estimates of traders (i.e. the people that understand these markets) are that Sterling will depreciate by 5-10% following a Yes vote, partly due to a worsening of the balance of payments associated with the loss of oil/gas revenues and partly due to short-term speculation. Ignore the Better Together campaign, as a lot of what is being said on both sides is bollocks. I believe satisfactory compromises will be reached in many areas (although I am highly skeptical about a formal currency union - we'll see), but this will take time and, during that period, there will be enormous volatility.

Can you PLEASE explain to me why there would be a worsening of rUK balance of payments ?

Scotland contributes less than it receives, even when you take oil revenues in to account. That is a fact. Eek, Dodgy, Sue Ellen and Cojak among others have continually repeated that Scotland is a drain on Englands finances. The UK government tells us the same, day in, day out.

Even a volatile system like the financial markets must be able to see how good the removal of theses subsidies to Scotland would be for rUK.

(This has nothing to do with the narrow confines of my political position. I'm struggling to understand how removing debt burden from your country can cause uncertainty)

[Batcher]

Currency markets don't like uncertainty, and independence creates uncertainty.

I don't happen to buy into the boorish little Englander get rid of Scotland / financial millstone position, and I think independence may work out nicely for Scotland, but there are significant risks, principally around currency but also around EU membership (although I reckon that this will probably get resolved pragmatically).

But what bothers me is the dishonesty of the debate. Take Batcher's nonsense about the currency being an asset and there is therefore a threat to renege on a share of the debt. Currency is not an asset but a means of exchange. Have a look at:



Alex Salmond drops pound shared 'asset' claim - Telegraph

It's the UK government that have caused the uncertainty due to all the threats of doom and gloom.

It's not nonsense to suggest it is an asset as we have paid into the system that made the £ strong.

[eek]

It's the UK government that have caused the uncertainty due to all the threats of doom and gloom.

It's not nonsense to suggest it is an asset as we have paid into the system that made the £ strong.

You really need to read up on basic economics. A currency is not an asset it is a unit of exchange...

It is also possible (actually probably depending on long term oil prices) that the Haggis could appreciate against a RUK pound...

[Batcher]

But the loss of Scotland's 8% GDP is to rUK's advantage. More money flows south to north than the other way round. I've got a Better Together campaign leaflet in my hand right now, backed by the Prime Minister, The Leader of The opposition and an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer telling me that Scotland receives more than it contributes.

For England, that should be like having the opportunity to switch off the life support of an ageing relative who's medical care you are paying for. Westminster should be shouting from the rooftops that the source of much of their debt is leaving not only the UK, but the EU too. The pound can only get stronger as a result.

Unless of course, what the people of Scotland are being told by the Better Together campaign is actually bollocks :-)

Surely it's not bollocks if two past chancellors of the exchequer say it's true???

Can't understand it myself why rUK don't get rid of the Scottish subsidy junkies dragging them down.

[DodgyAgent]

Funny how you start by saying there are no certainties after the referendum, then tell us what will happen with some tone of certainty.

Get back to overcharging for your services and let the rest of us debate the points

If you cannot counter the argument smear the individual who makes it.

[Batcher]

What I find remarkable and also sadly typical of people on a mission is their point blank refusal to accept any doubt or counter argument about their cause. You find this with Politicians because that is what they are paid to do. there are no certainties about what will happen after the referendum yet the yes zealots are insisting that there will be no problems and everything will unfold as desired by the nationalists.

An independent Scotland will face many problems many of which will revolve around its economy. The socialist Utopia of a "free everything" will not be affordable unless the Scots raise taxes. They will not be able to borrow money at low interest rates and raising taxes will stop North Sea Oil investment and businesses would relocate south.

The trouble with people who say there will be "no problem" is that the more they say it the less confident they are.

You're falling into the same trap that the LibLabCons MPs are - this isn't about the nationalists/separatists/etc. This is a movement by the people of Scotland.

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”
― Oscar Wilde

[jamesbrown]

Can you PLEASE explain to me why there would be a worsening of rUK balance of payments ?

Scotland contributes less than it receives, even when you take oil revenues in to account. That is a fact. Eek, Dodgy, Sue Ellen and Cojak among others have continually repeated that Scotland is a drain on Englands finances. The UK government tells us the same, day in, day out.

Even a volatile system like the financial markets must be able to see how good the removal of theses subsidies to Scotland would be for rUK.

(This has nothing to do with the narrow confines of my political position. I'm struggling to understand how removing debt burden from your country can cause uncertainty)

You're failing to understand what balance of payments actually means. This is not the same as GDP. Balance of payments concerns the net effect of a country's supply and demand by currency (the demand of rUK on goods and services sold in foreign currencies versus the demand on rUK for its own goods and services in GBP). Thus, balance of payments, demand for a currency, and exchange rates are very closely related. Clearly, if rUK loses a large part of its exports (oil and gas), the balance of payments in rUK declines, and this is negative for GBP.

[TestMangler]

If you cannot counter the argument smear the individual who makes it.

I think I countered your argument with the first line and smeared the individual who made it with the second.

Think of it as getting a kind of BOGOF deal.

[DodgyAgent]

[QUOTE=Batcher;1988904]You're falling into the same trap that the LibLabCons MPs are - this isn't about the nationalists/separatists/etc. This is a movement by the people of Scotland.

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.”
― Oscar Wilde[/QUOTE

All of the people of Scotland?

[original PM]

can anyone explain in simple terms what the main benefit the scots will get out of an independent Scotland?

is it just that they 'don't want to be ruled by Westminster?'