Scottish Independence: #IndyRef2 - The Bear and Badger

adkm1979

And if you go back far enough, I'm sure it was carved bones and furs. The union was, as per the name, a union, and not a take-over. It's been our currency for 305 years, and since the two national banks were set up only a year apart, only twelve and thirteen years before the union, there is no significant claim of exclusivity from either side.

This is not to say that I think Scotland should keep the pound, just to say that cries of, "They can't keep our currency," are ludicrous. Besides, Yoss, I'm sure many cultures would find the notion of owning the currency pretty twisted. ;o)

adkm1979

Mod74 wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

our currency.

Did it occur to you that it's our currency too?

It's yours for as long as you're part of Great Britain.

Linking the currencies came about when the kingdoms of Scotland and England united. England won't be part of that union any more, either.

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

What would be the benefit to us of giving Scotland a seat on the Bank of England?

Just as a compromise. We'd benefit from Scotland retaining Sterling, they'd want some say over decisions.

Yossarian

The currency existed in the rest of the UK before it did in Scotland, Scotland was allowed to join as part of the union, there's definitely a better claim of ownership over here.

Yossarian

monkey wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

What would be the benefit to us of giving Scotland a seat on the Bank of England?

Just as a compromise. We'd benefit from Scotland retaining Sterling, they'd want some say over decisions.

Why would we benefit? I'm not saying we won't, but I don't understand why, especially as Scotland is considering retaining sterling anyway.

Hulka T

monkey wrote:

Hulka T wrote:

If Scotland want 'Independence', how could they feasibly stay with Sterling and have British govenmental control over their currency? It would be a contradiction in terms and the weakest attempt at independence since Geri Halliwell went solo.

The Govt doesn't really control Sterling. So Scotland could have a seat on the Bank of England and retain some say. In reality, stuff like quantitative easing is calibrated to take account of things like Govt spending. So if the Scottish govt were spending like there's no tomorrow but Westminster isn't, then the effects of QE will devalue the Scottish spend more, making their policies less effective.

It would be a mess.

In general, the more people using your currency the better, so if Scotland wanted to retain Sterling, we'd give them a seat on the Bank of England, ensuring all their oil and financial trading is carried out in Sterling. It would be churlish to kick them out and of no benefit to us.

It wouldn't be a good situation for Scotland, to lose control of their currency in that way. Arguably they'd have more say than, e.g. Ireland does on the Euro though.

I realised the BoE as soon as I posted it but yes, a mess is the best possible outcome. I could not see a reason to give Scotland a seat on the board and I'm fairly sure itdoesn't work that way in any effect. Old Merv woul be more than aware of what was happening but a foreign countrys ill or well health would have little effect on he decisions taken there. Its not as if they would be an economic heavyweight in any event (thats not a disbaraging remark but the likely scenario)

Anyhoo, I think my point was of Sotland wanting independence more than psedo-independence? Surely they wouldnt want to keep the Sterling either?

adkm1979

Yossarian wrote:

The currency existed in the rest of the UK before it did in Scotland, Scotland was allowed to join as part of the union, there's definitely a better claim of ownership over here.

Allowed to join? You've got a skewed view of history. You know that there was no UK before that, right? Fuck me, people.

Mod74

adkm1979 wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

our currency.

Did it occur to you that it's our currency too?

It's yours for as long as you're part of Great Britain.

Linking the currencies came about when the kingdoms of Scotland and England united. England won't be part of that union any more, either.

Err, I'm sure some Scots are under the illusion that jumping ship means they're causing some damage down south or an end to Great Britain but it doesn't in the slightest.

We'll still be using and trading the Great British Pound. I dunno what you'll be using. The Euro or the euphemistic "Sterling". I can't see many of the flag waving freedom fighters accepting the Great British Pound as their currency. You'll be needing some new ones with Dear Leader on the front.

Hulka T

adkm1979 wrote:

It's been our currency for 305 years, and since the two national banks were set up only a year apart, only twelve and thirteen years before the union, there is no significant claim of exclusivity from either side.

Thats a joke right?

adkm1979

My post doesn't say anything about causing damage down south, Mod, nor is it implied. It's a simple statement of fact, but since the only emotional flag-waving in this thread is being done by you (why change the status quo) I can understand your difficulty in grasping it.

monkey

Yossarian wrote:

monkey wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

What would be the benefit to us of giving Scotland a seat on the Bank of England?

Just as a compromise. We'd benefit from Scotland retaining Sterling, they'd want some say over decisions.

Why would we benefit? I'm not saying we won't, but I don't understand why, especially as Scotland is considering retaining sterling anyway.

The wider a currency is circulated, the cheaper it is for countries that use that currency to trade.
No conversion rates to account for.

So if we want to buy a load of oil or haggis, we can do so in our own currency.

Yossarian

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

The currency existed in the rest of the UK before it did in Scotland, Scotland was allowed to join as part of the union, there's definitely a better claim of ownership over here.

Allowed to join? You've got a skewed view of history. You know that there was no UK before that, right? Fuck me, people.

I used the term 'rest of the UK' to refer to the other countries which entered into the union as I did not know the collective term for them. I did not refer to them as the UK. It appears you have a skewed understanding of my post.

Mod74

Why am I emotional flag waving? I don't care what Scotland does. It's not going to affect me in the slightest. If I lived in Scotland I would care very much how it was going to affect me but how it'll affect me is apparently a secret for Alex to know and you to find out.

adkm1979

Yossarian wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

The currency existed in the rest of the UK before it did in Scotland, Scotland was allowed to join as part of the union, there's definitely a better claim of ownership over here.

Allowed to join? You've got a skewed view of history. You know that there was no UK before that, right? Fuck me, people.

I used the term 'rest of the UK' to refer to the other countries which entered into the union as I did not know the collective term for them. I did not refer to them as the UK. It appears you have a skewed understanding of my post.

So that'd be Wales, which has been little more than an English county since 500 years before the union, and Ireland, which didn't share the currency until 100 years after. Cool beans.

adkm1979

Mod74 wrote:

Why am I emotional flag waving?

I don't know why, but your constant playground jibes and petulant toddler la-la-la-ing have been the most persistently irritating and irritatingly persistent disruptions to this forum. I mean thread, sorry. Thread.

Yossarian

Yes, you are correct. Um, cool beans?

monkey

How the currency started is completely irrelevant. It's currently controlled by a British central bank. Scotland have little sway on getting things how they want them since the BofE's primary responsibility will be to Britain, and Scotland have no choice but to use Sterling and put up with the terms offered to them.

They could start their own currency or join the Euro. Both of which would be massive gambles at this point in time.

Mod74

adkm1979 wrote:

Why am I emotional flag waving?

I don't know why, but your constant playground jibes and petulant toddler la-la-la-ing have been the most persistently irritating and irritatingly persistent disruptions to this forum. I mean thread, sorry. Thread.

Well gosh I'm sorry if my take on your little circus is disrupting the flow of the thread. I've seen very little in the way of support here so I'd argue you're the one disrupting the flow with your support for it and bizarre references to unions made three hundred years ago.

Forget the historical grudge shit and get your head into 2013. Or more importantly 2023, 2033 and beyond. Forget about whatever injustice your great great great gran da suffered and worry about what your vote will do to the country your kids will inherit.

WorKid

Everyone continuing to use sterling makes the most economic sense. Cheers.

Hulka T

But this is not an economic question, its a Yes/No one.

Diluted Dante

I think we're on about what happens post independence not the question of independence itself.

Obviously they should vote no though.

adkm1979

Mod74 wrote:

Forget the historical grudge shit and get your head into 2013. Or more importantly 2023, 2033 and beyond. Forget about whatever injustice your great great great gran da suffered and worry about what your vote will do to the country your kids will inherit.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Mod. You're the only person talking about grudges and perceived injustices. The snivelling little shit doth protest too much.

monkey

Hulka T wrote:

But this is not an economic question, its a Yes/No one.

A Yes vote would be chaos. Starting up a new country from scratch in this day and age.

What Government would you trust to do that job competently?

Mod74

adkm1979 wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

Forget the historical grudge shit and get your head into 2013. Or more importantly 2023, 2033 and beyond. Forget about whatever injustice your great great great gran da suffered and worry about what your vote will do to the country your kids will inherit.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Mod. You're the only person talking about grudges and perceived injustices. The snivelling little shit doth protest too much.

You're the one citing the events of 300 years ago and how they affect any claim of ownership.

Hulka T

Thats exactly my feeling.

I believe its also a reason Old Salmon and whomever else are very scarce on details

edit: At Monkey, obviously

Brooks

Was told I could vote for Beyonce in here, think I've been had.

WorKid

monkey wrote:

Hulka T wrote:

But this is not an economic question, its a Yes/No one.

A Yes vote would be chaos. Starting up a new country from scratch in this day and age.

What Government would you trust to do that job competently?

It's been done quite successfully several times in my lifetime.

monkey

Where?

Elmlea

Diluted Dante wrote:

Obviously they should vote no though.

Why?

I posted earlier in the thread that I know a lot of very intelligent people with a right to vote in this, who genuinely think it might be the only chance for a nation to make a small degree of difference and start doing things a little differently. Every nation in the west bar the Scandinavian ones are semi-identical social democracies with centrist governments.

If you were fed up with that, why wouldn't you vote for the opportunity to try something else?

WorKid

The USSR broke up. As did Yugoslavia.
Germany was sort of new. Sort of.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories