Scotland warned it could lose the pound and be forced to join Euro

[doodab]

Current official users of the pound as currency are:

• British Antarctic Territory
• Falkland Islands
• Gibraltar
• Guernsey
• Isle of Man
• Jersey
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Some of those also have their own variant pegged to the pound. Zimbabwe still unofficially uses the pound as their currency. Scottish notes and NI notes are also pegged to the pound.

Chances of the rest of the union forcing Scotland to change currency are nil - for a start, they'd have to recall and replace all the Scottish £1 coins....

But those are all crown dependencies or overseas territories where the UK has sovereignty. Where they have a local currency exchangeable at par it's backed by sterling reserves. Explicitly choosing to be independent would put the Scots in a very different category.

[Arturo Bassick]

I see lots of opinions being stated here, but how many of them are backed up with law or any evidence?

Much of what is being said is mere speculation. Even the newspaper reports and what DC and AS are saying are less than supported.
It seems that a lot of the "supporting" arguments are based on individual interpretations rather than legal fact.

I have read that the Scottish parliament has no legal right to hold a referendum.
I have also read that any new EU applicant will have to commit to joining the Euro.
I have not read that Scotland would be quitting the EU if it quits the UK.
I am fairly sure that the UK would cease to exist due to the complexities of Scotland leaving (UK only exists by act of Union) that England may also have to re-apply to become an EU member.

[doodab]

I have also read that any new EU applicant will have to commit to joining the Euro.

This has been the case for all the new joiners, but Scotland might have a case for retaining the UK's opt out.

[Arturo Bassick]

This has been the case for all the new joiners, but Scotland might have a case for retaining the UK's opt out.

This is the kind of speculation I am asking about. how do you support that argument? What is the logic?
If Scotland extracts itself from the UK how can it claim any "rights" provided by its membership of the UK?

[doodab]

This is the kind of speculation I am asking about. how do you support that argument? What is the logic?
If Scotland extracts itself from the UK how can it claim any "rights" provided by its membership of the UK?

For new joiners the commitment to join the euro is part of the treaties.

There is a precedent for negotiated opt-outs for new joiners in that Poland and the Czechs have negotiated an opt-out for the charter of fundamental rights.

[TheFaQQer]

I have read that the Scottish parliament has no legal right to hold a referendum.

That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.

[DodgyAgent]

That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.

That's too much of an informed argument for this site to cope with Please stick to sweeping generalisations made according to personal prejudices.

[AtW]

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

After that SNP will order freshly liberated nuclear subs to move into strike positions and demand unconditional surrender

[Arturo Bassick]

That's incorrect.

The Scottish parliament has the right to hold a referendum, but there is considerable debate about whether they have the legal power to hold any referendum on whether to leave the union which has binding force.

The attorney general and other constitutional lawyers are of the opinion that the act which devolved power to the Scottish parliament explicitly means that they do NOT have the legal authority to hold a binding referendum which has an impact on the UK constitution. The SNP do not hold the same view, and are arguing that this is just Westminster interfering.

The danger of the two parliaments not agreeing is that if there is a Scottish referendum without this being clarified first, the British government could go to the Supreme Court to have the result declared illegal.

So - the Scots have the right to hold a referendum. The debate is whether if they hold one which impacts the constitution, it's not clear whether it would be legal or not.

That is what I meant, but CBA with the long explanation.
I suspect that if the Scots do hold their own referendum that, legally binding or not, it would be difficult for Westminster to ignore the result.

[scooterscot]

Apparently the Scots want to hold the vote on the anniversary of a battle fought 6 or 7 hundred years ago, a date burned into the frontal lobes of every Scotsman and not even heard of by anyone else. Long memories or what.

Something tells me you'll still be banging on about 1966 in 700 years time n all.