Salmond "We can take Scotland in two weeks"

[TestMangler]

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.

So, because rUK buys so much foreign tulipe and sells virtually nothing, Scotland contributes positively, in a financial sense to the UK. Is that what you're saying ?

[SueEllen]

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.

I don't understand why Scottish people who want independence don't want their own Scottish pound with their own Central Bank to control interest rates that suit Scottish monetary policy.

If you want a currency union then the Bank of England would simply ignore any Scottish problems and put interest rates at a level that suit the monetary policy of the rest of the UK.

[Old Greg]

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.

An embassy building is an asset and has a monetary value. What is the monetary value of the currency?

[SueEllen]

An embassy building is an asset and has a monetary value. What is the monetary value of the currency?

You just reminded me an independent Scotland would have to go around the world and start their own embassies. That's quite expensive especially in some countries........

[TestMangler]

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...

Eeek, I've met you before (and may at some point again if passport control allows), so I feel I can put this point to you and you can take it in the spirit it was intended.

Imagine for a minute, we were discussing India here, rather than Scotland. Would you have dared to call their imaginary currency 'the poppadum' or 'the peshwari nan' without fear of a) a punch in the mouth or b) an accusation of casual racism ?

[TestMangler]

You just reminded me an independent Scotland would have to go around the world and start their own embassies. That's quite expensive especially in some countries........

You ever worked on an IT project ?

Did you sit at meetings and say "This all sounds a bit risky, it might be a bit difficult, there are things that we'll need to do, can we not just carry on using DOS on the desktops ?"

[jamesbrown]

So, because rUK buys so much foreign tulipe and sells virtually nothing, Scotland contributes positively, in a financial sense to the UK. Is that what you're saying ?

I can see that you're really struggling to clear the blue mist and participate in sensible discussion here. But, yes, that's essentially the problem. The rUK would be left buying more tulipe in foreign currencies than it sells in GBP. More importantly for the markets, there would be a period of volatility because both sides are adamant about their positions (definitely "keep the pound" versus definitely no currency union), neither of which is tenable, but the markets see this and increase the risk premium, both for Scotland and rUK. Seriously, I hope you get your independence, but the market response will be ugly for some period afterwards and the negotiated settlement could be bitter and protracted, even though there would be some desire to minimize market turmoil.

[SueEllen]

You ever worked on an IT project ?

Did you sit at meetings and say "This all sounds a bit risky, it might be a bit difficult, there are things that we'll need to do, can we not just carry on using DOS on the desktops ?"

I was just thinking of this.....

[jamesbrown]

Spain without the sunshine

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/op...heck.html?_r=2

[TestMangler]

I can see that you're really struggling to clear the blue mist and participate in sensible discussion here. But, yes, that's essentially the problem. The rUK would be left buying more tulipe in foreign currencies than it sells in GBP. More importantly for the markets, there would be a period of volatility because both sides are adamant about their positions (definitely "keep the pound" versus definitely no currency union), neither of which is tenable, but the markets see this and increase the risk premium, both for Scotland and rUK. Seriously, I hope you get your independence, but the market response will be ugly for some period afterwards and the negotiated settlement could be bitter and protracted, even though there would be some desire to minimize market turmoil.

I'm not struggling to see through the blue mist at all. I was just trying to lead you towards saying some of the things youn just said above :-)

So, if we rise above the '**** off, you're a bunch of subsidy junkies' AND the 'We'll keep our oil and you'll be ****ed' brigade, and look at this sensibly........

Scotland CAN keep the pound (either by currency union or the panama model). England is (I think) Scotland's biggest export market and Scotland (i think) is England's second biggest export market, so, bearing in mind that and the balance of payments issues and GDP Vs debt issues, is the UK government not currently taking a piss on it's own birthday cake with the 'Definitely no currency union' stance, as a currency union, with terms agreed by both countries, not as much in the interests of rUK as it is for Scotland ? For a start, it would quell some market fears.