Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
This was on facebook. I'm old enough to remember most of it but I have to say I'd forgotten.
It might be worth considering a Brief History of the Pound.
1947-1971 - The pound was in a formal currency union with the US dollar in a fixed exchange rate known as the Bretton Woods system. In effect, the UK used the dollar and did not have an independent monetary system. This period is remembered for a long trend of economic growth, albeit not directly related to currency management.
1971 - After Nixon ended Bretton Woods so that he could pay for Vietnam, the GBP moved to a floating exchange rate with the USD similar to the way that Denmark is pegged to the euro today. In the same year, Decimalisation was introduced. This re-denomination remains the most drastic and noticable change in money handling that the British public has seen in living memory. Only limited control of the pound is possible.
1976 - Economic turmoil results in the UK asking the IMF for a bailout loan. One of the conditions of the loan is tighter management of the currency peg.
1979 - 1986 - Thatcher's government adopts monetarist policies involving loosening but not abandoning the informal peg with the USD.
1986 - The Louvre Accord. Thatcher's government agrees to change the benchmark of the currency peg from the USD to the German Deutsche Mark. The UK still does not have an "independent currency".
1990 - John Major's government signs a formal currency union taking the pound into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the forerunner to the euro.
1992 - Black Wednesday. The pound is taken out of the ERM, not because of any failure of the Mechanism itself but because currency speculators, encouraged under Thatcher's policies of the '80's, realised that they could make a quick buck by crashing the system. George Soros infamously made himself £1 billion by this move. The pound is now "independent" of any other currency though still partially pegged to gold and silver. The Treasury estimates that the move cost British taxpayers around £3.3 billion.
1999 - Gordon Brown announces in advance that he'll sell the UK's remaining gold reserves and buy euros. Traders short the value of gold and drive it to a near historical low price. By 2002 the move is completed and the UK, for the first time ever, has a fully, freely traded and independent currency.
You'll notice all of the options on this list: Formal Currency Union, Informal currency union, fixed peg, floating peg, mixed basket peg and freely floating.
All of these options are currently on the table for Scotland's currency choice post independence. The UK has actively used all of them in the last 60 years. I don't recall at any time the UK declaring that it was no longer an independent country.
It might be worth considering a Brief History of the Pound.
1947-1971 - The pound was in a formal currency union with the US dollar in a fixed exchange rate known as the Bretton Woods system. In effect, the UK used the dollar and did not have an independent monetary system. This period is remembered for a long trend of economic growth, albeit not directly related to currency management.
1971 - After Nixon ended Bretton Woods so that he could pay for Vietnam, the GBP moved to a floating exchange rate with the USD similar to the way that Denmark is pegged to the euro today. In the same year, Decimalisation was introduced. This re-denomination remains the most drastic and noticable change in money handling that the British public has seen in living memory. Only limited control of the pound is possible.
1976 - Economic turmoil results in the UK asking the IMF for a bailout loan. One of the conditions of the loan is tighter management of the currency peg.
1979 - 1986 - Thatcher's government adopts monetarist policies involving loosening but not abandoning the informal peg with the USD.
1986 - The Louvre Accord. Thatcher's government agrees to change the benchmark of the currency peg from the USD to the German Deutsche Mark. The UK still does not have an "independent currency".
1990 - John Major's government signs a formal currency union taking the pound into the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the forerunner to the euro.
1992 - Black Wednesday. The pound is taken out of the ERM, not because of any failure of the Mechanism itself but because currency speculators, encouraged under Thatcher's policies of the '80's, realised that they could make a quick buck by crashing the system. George Soros infamously made himself £1 billion by this move. The pound is now "independent" of any other currency though still partially pegged to gold and silver. The Treasury estimates that the move cost British taxpayers around £3.3 billion.
1999 - Gordon Brown announces in advance that he'll sell the UK's remaining gold reserves and buy euros. Traders short the value of gold and drive it to a near historical low price. By 2002 the move is completed and the UK, for the first time ever, has a fully, freely traded and independent currency.
You'll notice all of the options on this list: Formal Currency Union, Informal currency union, fixed peg, floating peg, mixed basket peg and freely floating.
All of these options are currently on the table for Scotland's currency choice post independence. The UK has actively used all of them in the last 60 years. I don't recall at any time the UK declaring that it was no longer an independent country.
Show More
And the point is ... ?
Of course, Scotland can use the pound without being part of a formal currency union. Ireland did so for decades.
The point is that in a currency union, the Bank of England would be "lender of last resort" for the Scottish banks, whereas without a currency union, the Scottish Government would need to stand behind them (or announce that it would not).
If there is no *credible* lender of last resort, the banks would need to shift themselves south of the border, together with their assets, best-paying jobs, and taxes.
That is why it matters. It has sod all to do with being an independent country.
Now, if Scotland is to enter a currency union, its choices are rUK (which does not seem to be on the table) and the Eurozone. Either way, Scotland's economic policies will be largely dictated by the larger parties. In which case, what is the point of independence? Scotland already has its own flag national anthem at sporting events.
The polls suggest Scots will vote no. The main parties have already made it clear more powers will be devolved -- the so-called Devo-Max option. Cynics, including me, will say this is what Alex Salmond wanted all along. So Salmond will lose the referendum but still win the main prize.
Of course, Scotland can use the pound without being part of a formal currency union. Ireland did so for decades.
The point is that in a currency union, the Bank of England would be "lender of last resort" for the Scottish banks, whereas without a currency union, the Scottish Government would need to stand behind them (or announce that it would not).
If there is no *credible* lender of last resort, the banks would need to shift themselves south of the border, together with their assets, best-paying jobs, and taxes.
That is why it matters. It has sod all to do with being an independent country.
Now, if Scotland is to enter a currency union, its choices are rUK (which does not seem to be on the table) and the Eurozone. Either way, Scotland's economic policies will be largely dictated by the larger parties. In which case, what is the point of independence? Scotland already has its own flag national anthem at sporting events.
The polls suggest Scots will vote no. The main parties have already made it clear more powers will be devolved -- the so-called Devo-Max option. Cynics, including me, will say this is what Alex Salmond wanted all along. So Salmond will lose the referendum but still win the main prize.
And the point is ... ?
No particular point, but interesting nonetheless.
Of course, Scotland can use the pound without being part of a formal currency union. Ireland did so for decades.
Correct. I've made that point on several forums but have yet to receive any reply or comment. The Punt was pegged to Sterling for long enough.
The point is that in a currency union, the Bank of England would be "lender of last resort" for the Scottish banks, whereas without a currency union, the Scottish Government would need to stand behind them (or announce that it would not).
If there is no *credible* lender of last resort, the banks would need to shift themselves south of the border, together with their assets, best-paying jobs, and taxes.
That is why it matters. It has sod all to do with being an independent country.
That's your opinion, others disagree. Personally I don't know enough about the mechanics to argue.
Now, if Scotland is to enter a currency union, its choices are rUK (which does not seem to be on the table) and the Eurozone. Either way, Scotland's economic policies will be largely dictated by the larger parties. In which case, what is the point of independence? Scotland already has its own flag national anthem at sporting events.
As things stand, the UKs economic policies are dictated elsewhere. Oh whoop de doo, we have a flag and anthem, let's all be grateful!
The polls suggest Scots will vote no. The main parties have already made it clear more powers will be devolved -- the so-called Devo-Max option. Cynics, including me, will say this is what Alex Salmond wanted all along. So Salmond will lose the referendum but still win the main prize.
The main parties are to be trusted? Give me one instance of any party manifesto being carried out to the letter, or even close to it.
I can assure you that you are 100% wrong with your assertion about Salmond and "Devo Max". That is nowhere near the main prize, and he and the SNP urged that it should be a third option on the ballot paper. This was refused by the "main" parties.
Finally, check what the polls said just before the 1997 devolution referendum, and also the last Holyrood election. Both times significantly wrong.
No particular point, but interesting nonetheless.
Of course, Scotland can use the pound without being part of a formal currency union. Ireland did so for decades.
Correct. I've made that point on several forums but have yet to receive any reply or comment. The Punt was pegged to Sterling for long enough.
The point is that in a currency union, the Bank of England would be "lender of last resort" for the Scottish banks, whereas without a currency union, the Scottish Government would need to stand behind them (or announce that it would not).
If there is no *credible* lender of last resort, the banks would need to shift themselves south of the border, together with their assets, best-paying jobs, and taxes.
That is why it matters. It has sod all to do with being an independent country.
That's your opinion, others disagree. Personally I don't know enough about the mechanics to argue.
Now, if Scotland is to enter a currency union, its choices are rUK (which does not seem to be on the table) and the Eurozone. Either way, Scotland's economic policies will be largely dictated by the larger parties. In which case, what is the point of independence? Scotland already has its own flag national anthem at sporting events.
As things stand, the UKs economic policies are dictated elsewhere. Oh whoop de doo, we have a flag and anthem, let's all be grateful!
The polls suggest Scots will vote no. The main parties have already made it clear more powers will be devolved -- the so-called Devo-Max option. Cynics, including me, will say this is what Alex Salmond wanted all along. So Salmond will lose the referendum but still win the main prize.
The main parties are to be trusted? Give me one instance of any party manifesto being carried out to the letter, or even close to it.
I can assure you that you are 100% wrong with your assertion about Salmond and "Devo Max". That is nowhere near the main prize, and he and the SNP urged that it should be a third option on the ballot paper. This was refused by the "main" parties.
Finally, check what the polls said just before the 1997 devolution referendum, and also the last Holyrood election. Both times significantly wrong.
Im sick of Salmond and his childish threats concerning reneging of the debt.Scotland post independence needs trade with England far more than the other way around and its time the UK politicians spelt the reality out to him.
The currency issue is what's going to result in a no vote.
SNP should have put forward a better case, i.e. ask/agree for a 10 year currency union with the aim of having an independent currency in 10 years time.
SNP should have put forward a better case, i.e. ask/agree for a 10 year currency union with the aim of having an independent currency in 10 years time.
This has gone all around the internet in the last few days but completely fails to mention that at all times the Bank of England was lender of last resort for UK financial institutions. With a Yes result, the BoE will be lender of last resort for rUK not for iScot.
Dotchinite 09 Aug 14 14:21 Joined: 19 Apr 04 | Topic/replies: 3,731 | Blogger: Dotchinite's blog
Im sick of Salmond and his childish threats concerning reneging of the debt
Nobody is threatening anything and it wouldn't be reneging. If you can't have the assets, why should you shoulder any of the debt? Remember, it's the UKs debt, not Scotland's.
Scotland post independence needs trade with England far more than the other way around and its time the UK politicians spelt the reality out to him.
By England, I assume you mean rUK, yes? If England/rUK doesn't need Scotland so much, why the phuck are the Tories, Libdems and Labour all desperate to keep Scotland in the union? You use the term "UK politicians". Who exactly do you mean? The present Westminster govt has no mandate in Scotland. For most of us, that's the big problem. You think Cameron can throw his weight around with only ONE MP from 59 seats?
erse2, there are still nearly six weeks left. That's about the normal span of a general election campaign. Prepare for some surprises, lots of things can happen.
Im sick of Salmond and his childish threats concerning reneging of the debt
Nobody is threatening anything and it wouldn't be reneging. If you can't have the assets, why should you shoulder any of the debt? Remember, it's the UKs debt, not Scotland's.
Scotland post independence needs trade with England far more than the other way around and its time the UK politicians spelt the reality out to him.
By England, I assume you mean rUK, yes? If England/rUK doesn't need Scotland so much, why the phuck are the Tories, Libdems and Labour all desperate to keep Scotland in the union? You use the term "UK politicians". Who exactly do you mean? The present Westminster govt has no mandate in Scotland. For most of us, that's the big problem. You think Cameron can throw his weight around with only ONE MP from 59 seats?
erse2, there are still nearly six weeks left. That's about the normal span of a general election campaign. Prepare for some surprises, lots of things can happen.
1979 - 1986 - Thatcher's government adopts monetarist policies involving loosening but not abandoning the informal peg with the USD.
1986 - The Louvre Accord. Thatcher's government agrees to change the benchmark of the currency peg from the USD to the German Deutsche Mark. The UK still does not have an "independent currency".
1986 - The Louvre Accord. Thatcher's government agrees to change the benchmark of the currency peg from the USD to the German Deutsche Mark. The UK still does not have an "independent currency".
Pegging a currency has more to do with its relative value against all other currencies, rather than being the lender of last resort or setter of interest rates. Seems to me that the notion of independence would give us the desire to set our own interest rates, regardless of whether our currency would be pegged or not.
I admit that I don't understand it as well as you seem to, erse. A point Ramruma made above though interests me and over the last couple of weeks I've asked for thoughts on it on different forums - i.e. the Irish punt was pegged to the £ for long enough before RoI joined the euro, and it seemed to work OK. Any thoughts?
When it's pegged like that it tends to be to avoid volatility and is done by smaller nations. It can work against you though, e.g. if England set interests rates to 5% and GBP strengthened considerably, it'd hurt an independent Scotland's exporters. Essentially any kind of currency union are hands are still tied to London's economic policy.
It worked for Ireland though. and it works elsewhere I believe. What about the likes of Norway, outside the EU?
I guess 'worked' is relative though. Ireland had done pretty well after adopting the Euro and becoming part of that economic area.
It would have got messy if Ireland could not rely on Europe for its bailout too. Who would bailout Scotland as an entity independent of the UK and Europe? Iceland is probably a good example there.
Norway has about 500 billion USD in a trust fund from its oil. That's probably more than the entire economic output of the country. I think their government could comfortably be a lender of last resort.
btw I'm not all up on the finer details either, but I get the general gist of the pros and cons.
It would have got messy if Ireland could not rely on Europe for its bailout too. Who would bailout Scotland as an entity independent of the UK and Europe? Iceland is probably a good example there.
Norway has about 500 billion USD in a trust fund from its oil. That's probably more than the entire economic output of the country. I think their government could comfortably be a lender of last resort.
btw I'm not all up on the finer details either, but I get the general gist of the pros and cons.
I'm pro independence ideologically and will vote accordingly alias but some of the leading lights in the SNP are behaving like spoilt brats. It has been said by several of them that if they can't have the asset ie the currency then they don't take the debt. That seems to me to be a bit of a can of worms. If you load the gun in that way don't be surprised if it blows up in your face with the rest of the UK saying post independence, "okay we will take the assets and take the debt".
Bye bye oil.
Bye bye oil.
Then there is the point previously raised which is that at all times The Bank Of England has remained lender of last report. This will not be so with independence for Scotland. There are several ramifications flowing from that but also a great big elephant in the room which hasn't been touched on. In an article in The New Statesman (I think it was) earlier this year it was asserted that a precondition to entry to the EU was a banking system with a lender of last report. That won't be the case. That may have ramifications for whether Scotland is accepted into the EU as a sovereign nation.
I seem to remember that the UK Treasury bailed out the Irish economy to a tune of 6 billion because they were one of our main trading partners.
Bye bye oil
So it IS an asset then? And I reckon that argument would have to be settled by some kind of arbitration, as it's in Scottish waters. Most of it. AND once we get rid of the Nuke trash, the fields in the Clyde basin can be exploited.
So it IS an asset then? And I reckon that argument would have to be settled by some kind of arbitration, as it's in Scottish waters. Most of it. AND once we get rid of the Nuke trash, the fields in the Clyde basin can be exploited.
earlier this year it was asserted that a precondition to entry to the EU was a banking system with a lender of last report.
Shirley Sum mishtake! Do Luxembourg, Belgium, etc have their own?
BTW, as for spoilt brats, there are still nearly 6 weeks to go - a week is a long time in politics said H Wilson - there'll be lots of toys bunged from prams yet.
Shirley Sum mishtake! Do Luxembourg, Belgium, etc have their own?
BTW, as for spoilt brats, there are still nearly 6 weeks to go - a week is a long time in politics said H Wilson - there'll be lots of toys bunged from prams yet.
Norway has about 500 billion USD in a trust fund from its oil.
EXACTLY erse. That is where we could and should have been, and if the reports of the west Shetland fields and Clyde basin are correct, we still could be.
EXACTLY erse. That is where we could and should have been, and if the reports of the west Shetland fields and Clyde basin are correct, we still could be.
It would have got messy if Ireland could not rely on Europe for its bailout too.
Ireland using the euro was reason why it needed the euro bailout in the first place, if the debt was in punts it would have just devalued like Wilson did to the pound in 1967.
Lender of last resort is just access serious cash ie to the printing press so you can print money or raise cheap money via the bond markets. A debt free independent currency for scotland could do both of them imo just the same as the BoE could in a currency union
Ireland using the euro was reason why it needed the euro bailout in the first place, if the debt was in punts it would have just devalued like Wilson did to the pound in 1967.
Lender of last resort is just access serious cash ie to the printing press so you can print money or raise cheap money via the bond markets. A debt free independent currency for scotland could do both of them imo just the same as the BoE could in a currency union
Alias: re pegging your currency to the pound, you say, "It worked for Ireland though..."
Did it really? As I understood it, economic life in the Republic when using the punt was pretty bleak. Why else did nearly all their good horses have to be sold?
Did it really? As I understood it, economic life in the Republic when using the punt was pretty bleak. Why else did nearly all their good horses have to be sold?
So it IS an asset then? And I reckon that argument would have to be settled by some kind of arbitration, as it's in Scottish waters. Most of it. AND once we get rid of the Nuke trash, the fields in the Clyde basin can be exploited.
Did anybody say it wasn't Alias? If the argument is that you keep the assets and the debts it seems hard to validate an argument that you can't have the oil though. Like you say. Likely arbitration. Could take years to sort out. By the way once the can is opened don't be too sure where the contents will end up. Scottish waters? Not if Shetland and Orkney decide that it is actually their oil. Would you support their right to a referendum if that is what they want and their right t claim their oil if that is what they want?
Let's be clear. You're selling the dream. Sell the reality or the fact that the reality is very uncertain. That's the only way to secure an honest and meaningful independence.
Did anybody say it wasn't Alias? If the argument is that you keep the assets and the debts it seems hard to validate an argument that you can't have the oil though. Like you say. Likely arbitration. Could take years to sort out. By the way once the can is opened don't be too sure where the contents will end up. Scottish waters? Not if Shetland and Orkney decide that it is actually their oil. Would you support their right to a referendum if that is what they want and their right t claim their oil if that is what they want?
Let's be clear. You're selling the dream. Sell the reality or the fact that the reality is very uncertain. That's the only way to secure an honest and meaningful independence.
As for the central banking system of those countries I'd say that events have overtaken things somewhat. Nobody is under any doubt that existing countries now are effectively underpinned by the ECB. The question is do they want to take on more potential liabilities? I don't know the answer. I do know it was raised as an issue in respect of Scotland though.
The more information people have to go on the better don't you agree?
The more information people have to go on the better don't you agree?
read somewhere but cand find it now but it was along these lines under international law a country doesn't gain full rights to its mineral wealth from the parent country (ie england) i think i read it was 10 years
@Alias -- Norway has about 500 billion USD in a trust fund from its oil.
EXACTLY erse. That is where we could and should have been, and if the reports of the west Shetland fields and Clyde basin are correct, we still could be.
Not if Scotland spends the oil money. Norway has pretty high taxes paying for government spending, so can invest the oil money.
EXACTLY erse. That is where we could and should have been, and if the reports of the west Shetland fields and Clyde basin are correct, we still could be.
Not if Scotland spends the oil money. Norway has pretty high taxes paying for government spending, so can invest the oil money.
What's the problem exactly? The world is full small countries with their own currencies. You can peg it to another currency if you like. Denmark for example has its own currency, but it's fixed against the euro. That works fine for Denmark. Sweden has its own currency that is freely floating. That also works fine.
Not if Shetland and Orkney decide that it is actually their oil. Would you support their right to a referendum if that is what they want and their right t claim their oil if that is what they want?
YES I would. Can you now offer me a price against that happening?
YES I would. Can you now offer me a price against that happening?
Salmond in the Sunday Herald:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-the-no-camp-think-telling-ordinary-scots-they-have-zero-entitlement-to-a.25003848?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-the-no-camp-think-telling-ordinary-scots-they-have-zero-entitlement-to-a.25003848?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email%2Balert
options were all looked at in 2013, for "the Fiscal Commission Working Group - First Report - Macroeconomic Framework Chapter 7"
.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00414291.pdf
"It concluded that retaining sterling in a formal currency union is the best option for Scotland. It is also the best option economically for the rest of the UK."
I think that's for us to decide Alex.
I think that's for us to decide Alex.
Why would one economy 12 times the size of the other, sign up to an arrangement to play safety net for the smaller economy, when there is no way the smaller country could reciprocate in any way?
I think that's for us to decide Alex.
No, it either is or it isn't.
Anyway:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/of-course-there-will-be-a-currency-union-says-senior-uk-government-minister/
No, it either is or it isn't.
Anyway:
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/of-course-there-will-be-a-currency-union-says-senior-uk-government-minister/
And here's a man who should know.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7274-financial-giant-very-angry-at-distortion-of-independence-facts
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/7274-financial-giant-very-angry-at-distortion-of-independence-facts
You don't think it's for rUK to decide whether a currency union is in its best economic interests? That we should be forced into a currency Union even if we think it's a stupid idea?
'Koz weev goat ILE.'
You've also got aggregated bank balance sheets at 1250% of GDP. Cyprus and Iceland were at 500% when they went to the wall, and look at the damage they did with economies at 10% the size of Scotland. rUK doesn't have anything like the resources to offer a safety net for you. Since present North Sea revenues are dwarfed by the costs of bailing out those great Scottish socialists at RBS and HBOS, avoiding a currency union is perfectly viable.
You've also got aggregated bank balance sheets at 1250% of GDP. Cyprus and Iceland were at 500% when they went to the wall, and look at the damage they did with economies at 10% the size of Scotland. rUK doesn't have anything like the resources to offer a safety net for you. Since present North Sea revenues are dwarfed by the costs of bailing out those great Scottish socialists at RBS and HBOS, avoiding a currency union is perfectly viable.
that argument seems a wee bit slanted though. All the UK has ATM is a paper loss on its shareholding of those banks. Oil is very much real and the revenue from amounts to a much larger amount than the paper loss.
if the banks went tits up again, TBH it's all academic as it'd be a systematic meltdown.
if the banks went tits up again, TBH it's all academic as it'd be a systematic meltdown.
I mean when you say "we", do you mean the people? Because I doubt very much if they'd put that to a referendum.
I'd bet big that in the event of a YES, there will be a currency union. All this crap from Miliband about putting it in his manifesto ffs. How many party manifestos have ever been adhered to? Utter sh1te.
I'd bet big that in the event of a YES, there will be a currency union. All this crap from Miliband about putting it in his manifesto ffs. How many party manifestos have ever been adhered to? Utter sh1te.
those great Scottish socialists at RBS and HBOS
I won't pretend to understand much of the rest of your post ics, and I certainly don't know where you got that ^ from!
I won't pretend to understand much of the rest of your post ics, and I certainly don't know where you got that ^ from!
If foregoing that revenue is a cost the rUK has to wear to avoid exposure to Goodwin practices in Scotland again, it would be a veritable bargain. Instability is far more dangerous than making allowances for x being removed from the national balance sheet. The £65bn pumped into RBS/HBOS is far greater than the equivalent governmental oil revenue since that bailout. The cost of bailing out banks and financial institutions is high, and it is unrealistic to expect an independent country to do that. Independent Scotland wouldn't underwrite someone else in that way or on the terms that are being proposed.
can you base voting for independence on the basis of the HQ of listed banks? Shirely they can relocate at any moment to a number of different countries?
the general opinion of the Edinburgh based banks is 'vote no'. You are right, they'd probably relocate and likely to England.
Not definite, but I think banks and financial institutions have to technically be based in their home country, but can have 'facilities' elsewhere.
You'd have to set up a stock exchange too for the companies in Scotland.
given they have pretty deep pockets, I imagine they'd argue, perhaps legally, that they have a right to choose between UK and Scotland as their 'home'.
It might not be home, it might be principal country of operation, can't be sure, read about it years ago, but they could definitely argue to be rUK if that's the case. I suspect Salmond would make a deal to persuade them to stay though.
ics - A Goodwin type could pop up anywhere. Before him this man made RBS a burgeoning company.
Respected former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir George Mathewson has expressed his anger over the way information on the independence referendum is being distorted.
Sir George has spoken out after UK Chancellor George Osborne visited Scotland this week and claimed the rest of the former UK would not want an independent Scotland to share the pound.
In an interview with the Times newspaper, the highly respected former banking giant criticised the current UK Chancellor and former Labour Chancellors Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.
“I cannot understand why the sterling zone would not wish to have the revenues from North Sea oil and the benefits of all the other Scottish exports, such as whisky, to support the currency," he told the Times. “It’s one failed Chancellor, George Osborne, adopting the same tactics of another failed Chancellor, Gordon Brown, seeking to influence opinion by saying: ‘Let’s use fear.’
“This kind of tactic will not work. To have one more snooty English person coming up and telling us how things are going to be ... in most parts of Scotland, it won’t be all that meaningful."
Responding to arguments that an independent Scotland would not have a great deal of influence over Bank of England policies, he said:
"We might have a scintilla more influence than we have at the moment. But then, at the moment, we’ve no influence at all."
Sir George poured scorn on suggestions that an independent Scotland would not be better off and dismissed claims over EU membership and interest rates as "side issues".
"We’ve got the UK, the most in-debt country almost, in the whole world — and somehow it’s a disaster for Scotland to have its own economic government? These are almost side issues and they’re based on fear. These things will be solved and worked out in due process and due time, and if it’s the Bank of England currently with effective control over the interest rate ... that’s the way it is at the moment."
Sir George was scathing of another former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling saying his claim that an independent Scotland could not have coped with the collapse of HBOS and RBS, had "forever coloured him in my eyes”.
He said. "The reason RBS was bailed out and HBOS was bailed out is because the whole UK economy was threatened. You don’t bail out banks because of where their head office is, or because of what their name is; you bail out a bank because if you don’t, your economy is going to go down the tube."
Sir George said there was no such thing as a national bank and pointed out that almost all of RBS business in the UK had been carried out in London by Nat West.
"It’s taken a long time for people to understand that. RBS’s head office is in Edinburgh, but 95 per cent its business was done in London. NatWest was a subsidiary of RBS. Who owns a bank doesn’t make any difference; it’s what it does."
Respected former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir George Mathewson has expressed his anger over the way information on the independence referendum is being distorted.
Sir George has spoken out after UK Chancellor George Osborne visited Scotland this week and claimed the rest of the former UK would not want an independent Scotland to share the pound.
In an interview with the Times newspaper, the highly respected former banking giant criticised the current UK Chancellor and former Labour Chancellors Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.
“I cannot understand why the sterling zone would not wish to have the revenues from North Sea oil and the benefits of all the other Scottish exports, such as whisky, to support the currency," he told the Times. “It’s one failed Chancellor, George Osborne, adopting the same tactics of another failed Chancellor, Gordon Brown, seeking to influence opinion by saying: ‘Let’s use fear.’
“This kind of tactic will not work. To have one more snooty English person coming up and telling us how things are going to be ... in most parts of Scotland, it won’t be all that meaningful."
Responding to arguments that an independent Scotland would not have a great deal of influence over Bank of England policies, he said:
"We might have a scintilla more influence than we have at the moment. But then, at the moment, we’ve no influence at all."
Sir George poured scorn on suggestions that an independent Scotland would not be better off and dismissed claims over EU membership and interest rates as "side issues".
"We’ve got the UK, the most in-debt country almost, in the whole world — and somehow it’s a disaster for Scotland to have its own economic government? These are almost side issues and they’re based on fear. These things will be solved and worked out in due process and due time, and if it’s the Bank of England currently with effective control over the interest rate ... that’s the way it is at the moment."
Sir George was scathing of another former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling saying his claim that an independent Scotland could not have coped with the collapse of HBOS and RBS, had "forever coloured him in my eyes”.
He said. "The reason RBS was bailed out and HBOS was bailed out is because the whole UK economy was threatened. You don’t bail out banks because of where their head office is, or because of what their name is; you bail out a bank because if you don’t, your economy is going to go down the tube."
Sir George said there was no such thing as a national bank and pointed out that almost all of RBS business in the UK had been carried out in London by Nat West.
"It’s taken a long time for people to understand that. RBS’s head office is in Edinburgh, but 95 per cent its business was done in London. NatWest was a subsidiary of RBS. Who owns a bank doesn’t make any difference; it’s what it does."
“I cannot understand why the sterling zone would not wish to have the revenues from North Sea oil and the benefits of all the other Scottish exports, such as whisky, to support the currency,"
I cannot understand why anyone would class what has been proposed by Alex Salmond and the SNP as anything approaching independence. I cannot understand why any supposed independent country would expect another independent country to underwrite any potential mess ups.
“This kind of tactic will not work. To have one more snooty English person coming up and telling us how things are going to be ... in most parts of Scotland, it won’t be all that meaningful."
Whereas the tactic of Salmond deciding what is best for rUK and how it should proceed isn't the other side of that same coin?
If independence occurs, both independent countries will act in self interest. The rUK will want full control of its currency, and it won't want an independent country's balance sheet on its books. If the rUK is such a basket case why is Salmond, a self professed hater of the pound, 'that toxic sub prime currency', so desperate to forge a currency union? What is he up to? Trying to say anything to get the vote? Fearing a migration of business south of the border? Who knows.
As for RBS and HBOS, they were bailed out as UK banks because Scotland is part of the union. Those banks wouldn't have been bailed out if Scotland was independent as there are difficulties with nationalising a bank of another country! The UK helped Ireland, but it didn't nationalise Irish banks, it loaned Ireland the means to nationalise its banks to ultimately be repaid back. The UK loaned Iceland money, it didn't nationalise its financial institutions. This is a different dynamic and is about as much as you can expect from another independent country. Considering iScotland wouldn't be able to provide any such help to rUK you've got a decent deal there.
I cannot understand why anyone would class what has been proposed by Alex Salmond and the SNP as anything approaching independence. I cannot understand why any supposed independent country would expect another independent country to underwrite any potential mess ups.
“This kind of tactic will not work. To have one more snooty English person coming up and telling us how things are going to be ... in most parts of Scotland, it won’t be all that meaningful."
Whereas the tactic of Salmond deciding what is best for rUK and how it should proceed isn't the other side of that same coin?
If independence occurs, both independent countries will act in self interest. The rUK will want full control of its currency, and it won't want an independent country's balance sheet on its books. If the rUK is such a basket case why is Salmond, a self professed hater of the pound, 'that toxic sub prime currency', so desperate to forge a currency union? What is he up to? Trying to say anything to get the vote? Fearing a migration of business south of the border? Who knows.
As for RBS and HBOS, they were bailed out as UK banks because Scotland is part of the union. Those banks wouldn't have been bailed out if Scotland was independent as there are difficulties with nationalising a bank of another country! The UK helped Ireland, but it didn't nationalise Irish banks, it loaned Ireland the means to nationalise its banks to ultimately be repaid back. The UK loaned Iceland money, it didn't nationalise its financial institutions. This is a different dynamic and is about as much as you can expect from another independent country. Considering iScotland wouldn't be able to provide any such help to rUK you've got a decent deal there.
ics, I've already indicated that I'm not an expert. You appear to think you are, but for now I'll take the word of the man who made RBS a massively successful business.
No expert. Just observations. So why does Salmond want the pound?
He doesn't sumo. If enough people wanted to trade in sheep he'd be baaaahing all the way to the polls. A few years ago the pound was a dead currency to him and plenty of others. The euro was the place to be. Then we had the arc of prosperity which turned into the bag of shiite. He's a politician. If you asked him to dance on your great grand mothers grave he'd ask you if you wanted him with or without a kilt on.
Take your pick from any SNP document on the subject between 1999-2012...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539