Options

A question for English, Welsh & N. Irish Posters only...

2»

Comments

  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    Currency Union is so potentially damaging to the UK that no government would agree to it.

    There is nothing Westminster could do to stop them using it unofficially though.
  • Options
    mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    There isn't anything we could do to stop them really. It's like some South American countries using the US dollar. The US can't stop it but at the same time they have no say over us fiscal policy.

    I think you're confusing Scotland using the pound and currency union. They are very different things, the former being of no consequence to the UK, the latter meaning UK taxpayers cash would be the back up for Scotland finances, and no government at Westminster will accept that.
  • Options
    clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    There is nothing Westminster could do to stop them using it unofficially though.

    That wouldn't be a currency union.
  • Options
    fermynfermyn Posts: 2,766
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    There is nothing Westminster could do to stop them using it unofficially though.

    Scotland can use the pound if it so wishes. That's probably what would happen.

    However, that's not the same as agreeing a currency union between Scotland and the rUK.

    Salmond's attempt to muddle the two is a deliberate smoke and mirrors trick on his part.
  • Options
    swingalegswingaleg Posts: 103,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    I think you're confusing Scotland using the pound and currency union. They are very different things, the former being of no consequence to the UK, the latter meaning UK taxpayers cash would be the back up for Scotland finances, and no government at Westminster will accept that.

    To be honest I think Salmond deliberately confuses the 2 in order to use the phrase 'it's Scotland's pound' as a rallying cry without explaining that using the pound is not the same as a currency union
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    That wouldn't be a currency union.

    I know. Hence the word unoficially.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    I think you're confusing Scotland using the pound and currency union. They are very different things, the former being of no consequence to the UK, the latter meaning UK taxpayers cash would be the back up for Scotland finances, and no government at Westminster will accept that.

    I am not confusing the two. I am sure it would have some consequence if Scotland used it unofficially. They'd no doubt ask us for either a loan or a bailout of some sort if they had a crash. Even though we'd be under no obligation to give it to them.
  • Options
    SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    WBAboy wrote: »

    My personal view is no. I would not want my taxes used to 'prop up' a foreign country.
    We already do prop up foreign Countries. It one of the benefits of us being in the EU
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    I am not confusing the two. I am sure it would have some consequence if Scotland used it unofficially. They'd no doubt ask us for either a loan or a bailout of some sort if they had a crash. Even though we'd be under no obligation to give it to them.

    I would vote no but Scotland would be like Ireland and remember when we had to help bail Ireland out a few years ago. ;-)
  • Options
    Welsh-ladWelsh-lad Posts: 51,925
    Forum Member
    I would support a limited period whereby the currency union goes ahead until the new country has found its feet.
    There will be a lot of things to sort out, to establish and to organise once the new Scotland is founded, and I'd be happy for them to keep the currency union while all that is going on. Good will and all that.
  • Options
    nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, I wouldn't support a currency union either.

    If Scotland truly wants independence, then they should be independent.
  • Options
    niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't see why we would support an economy we didn't control. If they want to use the pound unofficially we can't stop them, but they are responsible for their own debt with no BoE safety net.
  • Options
    LateralthinkingLateralthinking Posts: 8,027
    Forum Member
    WBAboy wrote: »
    ...would you support a currency union with an independent Scotland?

    Alec Salmond seems to think that should Scotland vote 'yes' the rUK politicians will back down and agree a currency union.

    In my opinion he fails to take into account the views of English, Welsh & N. Irish people and has not once informed us why it would be to our benefit.

    The rUK politicians will have no choice but to reflect the will of the rUK people.

    My personal view is no. I would not want my taxes used to 'prop up' a foreign country.
    I would want my government to ensure that rUK takes as much from Scotland as possible... jobs, business etc. and brings them here.
    I would also welcome as many Scottish people who wanted to move south too before a border is created.

    E, W & N.I. what are your thoughts?

    I would politely request that Scottish posters do not comment. Thanks.

    1. British 2. English.

    No.

    And I hope Scotland rejects independence.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,181
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm with the OP on this one, but I wouldn't bet Westminster will agree when push comes to shove::(
  • Options
    mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    We already do prop up foreign Countries. It one of the benefits of us being in the EU

    I would vote no but Scotland would be like Ireland and remember when we had to help bail Ireland out a few years ago. ;-)

    We didn't have to bail out Ireland, our government chose to, and that's a very different thing. If an independent Scotland, should that happen, were not in the euro it would have no call on an EU bail out, but if it were in a CU with us we'd have pay its debt. That's why CU will not happen.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mRebel wrote: »
    We didn't have to bail out Ireland, our government chose to, and that's a very different thing. If an independent Scotland, should that happen, were not in the euro it would have no call on an EU bail out, but if it were in a CU with us we'd have pay its debt. That's why CU will not happen.

    Our government chose to as Ireland is one of the biggest importers of our goods and a very close trading ally which Scotland would be in f they became independent.
  • Options
    justatechjustatech Posts: 976
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No. Indepence means being completely independent and not cherry picking the bits of the union that you want to keep.

    Interestingly the overwhelming view on here is no. Perhaps that needs to be communicated to Salmond?
  • Options
    BluescopeBluescope Posts: 3,432
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    Our government chose to as Ireland is one of the biggest importers of our goods and a very close trading ally which Scotland would be in f they became independent.

    Ireland was slightly different we loaned them the money (at a low rate). You also have to bare in mind it was a no lose situation as Ireland is part of the European Union and has the Euro. Their was no risk they would default on the payment worst that could have happened is the Germany and France would have bailed them out.

    If Scotland goes it alone I am sure the UK would offer them a loan if they felt it could be paided back. However unlike with a CU we dont have to. We could avoid Scotland to fail. While they are a trade partner they are tiny so would not hit sterling much.
  • Options
    MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bluescope wrote: »
    Ireland was slightly different we loaned them the money (at a low rate). You also have to bare in mind it was a no lose situation as Ireland is part of the European Union and has the Euro. Their was no risk they would default on the payment worst that could have happened is the Germany and France would have bailed them out.

    If Scotland goes it alone I am sure the UK would offer them a loan if they felt it could be paided back. However unlike with a CU we dont have to. We could avoid Scotland to fail. While they are a trade partner they are tiny so would not hit sterling much.

    I guarantee you that if Scotland became independent, then the UK would be its biggest trading partner. We'd be so intertwined that if we didn't help them, some of our companies may go bust. Just like the situation with Ireland. I don't think France is in any state to bail anyone out. Its economy is a disaster.
  • Options
    fermynfermyn Posts: 2,766
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bluescope wrote: »
    If Scotland goes it alone I am sure the UK would offer them a loan if they felt it could be paid back. However unlike with a CU we dont have to.

    I don't think that'd happen if they refused to take their share of the debt in the first place.
  • Options
    JosquiusJosquius Posts: 1,514
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What's in it for the UK? There is no advantage.
    grah2702 wrote: »
    No if they want to be independent then they should be truly independent not cherry pick what suits them best.
    This
    At least Hadrians Wall will get rebuilt with integrated border posts.

    Hoy! Don't throw most of Northumberland and half of Newcastle out too!
Sign In or Register to comment.