Scottish independence: currency union warning 'backfires' on Westminster

Scottish independence: currency union warning 'backfires' on Westminster
Voting analyst says support for independence increased after George Osborne ruled out a currency union



A warning by Britain's three main political parties that they would rule out a currency union with an independent Scotland has "backfired" as a new poll shows that just over a third of voters do not believe Westminster, according to a leading psephologist.

As David Cameron tries to win over wavering voters by holding the first meeting of his cabinet in Scotland next week, John Curtice said that the gamble on a currency union had failed to boost the pro-UK camp amid signs of an increase in support for independence.

The professor of politics at Strathclyde University issued his warning as Alex Salmond said that George Osborne's decision to rule out a currency union in a speech in Edinburgh last Thursday had "backfired in spectacular fashion".

Salmond told MSPs: "Most people in Scotland would feel that George Osborne insulted the intelligence of the Scottish people … The indications we have so far is that the joint enterprise between George Osborne and Ed Balls has backfired on the two unionist parties in spectacular fashion."

The first minister turned on Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats after a poll in the Scottish Daily Mail showed an increase in support for the pro-independence side in the week since the chancellor's speech. The Survation poll found that 38% support independence (up six points on a poll two weeks ago) compared with 47% who support the UK, down five points. Survation cautions that a direct comparison cannot be made between its two polls because of a change in its methodology.

The poll also found that only 37% of voters believe that the Westminster parties mean what they say, suggesting that Salmond's attack on Osborne for "bluff" is striking a chord. Curtice pointed out that only 48% of voters want to form a currency union anyway.

Curtice said that the strategy of the pro-UK Better Together campaign – to create a game-changing moment by ensuring that Britain's three main political parties ruled out a currency union on the same day – has failed. Curtice wrote on the BBC website: "The poll's headline findings suggest that, if anything, the 'no' side's stratagem has not only failed to deliver any immediate boost to the unionist cause, but has actually backfired."

Salmond seized on the Daily Mail as he joked that he was breaking the habit of a lifetime to quote from the pro-Union right wing paper. The first minister dismissed attacks from the Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont by saying that Labour had inflicted severe damage on itself by aligning itself with Osborne.

He said: "The Labour party have done themselves huge damage by associating with the Conservatives and in particular George Osborne. The reaction of the Scottish people to being told, instructed from on high that our currency – the currency that we jointly built up – actually doesn't belong to us, it belongs to George, is entirely understandable and will be deeply uncomfortable for the Labour party in Scotland."

Salmond was scathing about José Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, who said it would "difficult if not impossible" for Scotland to join the EU because Spain might block its accession bid. Barroso pointed out that Spain, which fears secession by Catalonia, has blocked Kosovo's membership bid because it broke away from Serbia. Salmond highlighted remarks by Jim Currie, a former director general for environment directorate at the European commission, who described Barroso's remarks as "extremely unwise" and "inaccurate".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/scottish-independence-currency-union-warning-backfires

I completely agree, it was absolutely stupid of the Labour Party to align themselves with something that was bound to backfire and annoy the Scots so much it turned them towards the Yes vote.

If the scots want to gamble well good for them. They can pay for that gamble on their own for years to come.
What an expensive gamble. So you are saying Salmond is right and everybody else is wrong?
Hmmmm.

No, I'm saying Osborne's plan of trying to frighten them to say no backfired.

It wasn't Osbornes it was a joint approach you need to keep up!

If the Scots are buying Salmonds hate Westminster line then they are not very bright are they?

The advice from an Independent civil service was unequivocal don't do it. Just how many pieces of information do the Scots need before they stop following that clown Salmond. I think you have the hots for Irn Bru and its clouding your vision. You are old enough to be his Grandma.

56kevins wrote:It wasn't Osbornes it was a joint approach you need to keep up!

If the Scots are buying Salmonds hate Westminster line then they are not very bright are they?

The advice from an Independent civil service was unequivocal don't do it. Just how many pieces of information do the Scots need before they stop following that clown Salmond. I think you have the hots for Irn Bru and its clouding your vision. You are old enough to be his Grandma.

   

I still don't believe the Scots would take such a big gamble, although the stakes are a bit higher now that they feel intimidated by the English. Can't wait for the referendum, should be interesting!

The Scots and Welsh have a case of small man syndrome, the same as all the South American countries do with the USA.

It's a shame.

56kevins wrote:It wasn't Osbornes it was a joint approach you need to keep up!

If the Scots are buying Salmonds hate Westminster line then they are not very bright are they?

The advice from an Independent civil service was unequivocal don't do it. Just how many pieces of information do the Scots need before they stop following that clown Salmond. I think you have the hots for Irn Bru and its clouding your vision. You are old enough to be his Grandma.

  

What bit of 'I completely agree, it was absolutely stupid of the Labour Party to align themselves with something that was bound to backfire and annoy the Scots so much it turned them towards the Yes vote' didn't you understand Kevin?

And my other half is a Scot, from the Highlands, ex Black Watch Sergeant Major, so I have an interest all of my own, 'cos we might end up living there.

And if you notice, an opinion about whether they should say yes or no wasn't given, just the fact that the tactics had backfired.

So what this actually means is not that currency warning backfired but that Scottish people did not believe it and see it as a threat that wont happen.

Anyone want to consider the consequences of this - of Scotland voting for independence and waking up to the discovery that they do not have a currency.

sphinx wrote:So what this actually means is not that currency warning backfired but that Scottish people did not believe it and see it as a threat that wont happen.

Anyone want to consider the consequences of this  - of Scotland voting for independence and waking up to the discovery that they do not have a currency.

Aye lassie, but there's more to life than cash, jobs and a stable country with that lot, there's PRIDE!

lol

BigAndy9 wrote:The Scots and Welsh have a case of small man syndrome, the same as all the South American countries do with the USA.

It's a shame.

It's more like some Scots are sick to death of being run by Westminster, and wish to have control over its own commodities, welfare spending etc, I'll keep you right fella.
As well as the mess this coalition has created, many Scots do not want further dragged under by another RW government...


I bet if it were a Labour government that were elected, then less Scots would want to leave, the fact that independence support is growing while under this coalition tells a story.

A dirty blackmailing trick sadly, by all 3 main parties.

Joy Division wrote:A dirty blackmailing trick sadly, by all 3 main parties.

What evidence do you have that it is a trick?

Why this assumption that it will not happen?

Surely independence should mean just that? If a teen wants to be independent and move out of their parents home then they should be expected to provide their own money - if parents are still providing money they are not truly independent. If Scotland wishes to be truly independent it should be showing that it has clear workable plans for a currency that is not dependent on someone else.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:A dirty blackmailing trick sadly, by all 3 main parties.

What evidence do you have that it is a trick?

Why this assumption that it will not happen?

Surely independence should mean just that?  If a teen wants to be independent and move out of their parents home then they should be expected to provide their own money - if parents are still providing money they are not truly independent.  If Scotland wishes to be truly independent it should be showing that it has clear workable plans for a currency that is not dependent on someone else.

I have a feeling these spotty teens want to live next door to mum and dad and have them do their washing and ironing for them whilst slipping them a few tenners every night.

If they get in a fight with their neighbours it'll be mum and dad protecting them, too.

But it isn't blackmail it is reasoned logic based on the experience of the Euro area.

The Scots are playing with fire which is their right but as a resident of the biggest part of the UK I don't want to get burned because they have as Andy puts it so well "small man issues". They haven't been blackmailed they have been informed Salmond calls it blackmail to whip up the Nats.

To accept an Independent Scotland wedded to a spend spend spend culture as part of the pound makes no sense whatsoever.

Simply can't happen because of debt repayments, which would mean Scotland would simply not be liable for it's share of the national debt, and Osborne knows that. Would put our finances in a mess as well as Scotlands, only ours probably more. Hollow, empty and unworkable and the Labour Party were stupid to back it.

let them just make a decision, they know the pitfalls..

heavenly father wrote:let them just make a decision, they know the pitfalls..

That's it Favva, Scotland can , should and will decide..whatever that decision be is what it will be.

Joy Division wrote:

heavenly father wrote:let them just make a decision, they know the pitfalls..

That's it Favva, Scotland can , should and will decide..whatever that decision be is what it will be.

and so they should, if they are to govern themselves real decisions have to be made and this is one of the biggest i guess.. :D 

They can't have their cake and eat it. They get free uni education but say that's because they choose to spend their money on subsidising it. Fair enough - they have their Scottish parliament and the Welsh have theirs. Recently the UK government announced a £1m fund for businesses affected by the flooding, and the Welsh have been whingeing because it won't apply to them. That's because they have their allocation of money and their Welsh assembly don't choose to spend it on this. Cake - eat it!

Half a billion on that wonderful Scottish "parliament" - £75 million per year to run.

My god, they must be rolling in money up there!

Hang on, it did come from their own budget, didn't it?

Tess. wrote:They can't have their cake and eat it.  They get free uni education but say that's because they choose to spend their money on subsidising it.  Fair enough - they have their Scottish parliament and the Welsh have theirs.  Recently the UK government announced a £1m fund for businesses affected by the flooding, and the Welsh have been whingeing because it won't apply to them.  That's because they have their allocation of money and their Welsh assembly don't choose to spend it on this.  Cake - eat it!

pmsl

Good points there Tess!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Tess. wrote:They can't have their cake and eat it.  They get free uni education but say that's because they choose to spend their money on subsidising it.  Fair enough - they have their Scottish parliament and the Welsh have theirs.  Recently the UK government announced a £1m fund for businesses affected by the flooding, and the Welsh have been whingeing because it won't apply to them.  That's because they have their allocation of money and their Welsh assembly don't choose to spend it on this.  Cake - eat it!

pmsl

Good points there Tess!

Very good and I agree with everything 56 Kevins said too.

heavenly father wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


That's it Favva, Scotland can , should and will decide..whatever that decision be is what it will be.

and so they should, if they are to govern themselves real decisions have to be made and this is one of the biggest i guess.. :D 

...indeed Favva, Scotland's people should be able to weigh up the pros and cons of an independent Scotland.

Sassy wrote:Simply can't happen because of debt repayments, which would mean Scotland would simply not be liable for it's share of the national debt, and Osborne knows that.   Would put our finances in a mess as well as Scotlands, only ours probably more.   Hollow, empty and unworkable and the Labour Party were stupid to back it.

Well that is your opinion - whereas the three traditional parties have all looked at the figures and said different from you - and as its their job I would be rather inclined to listen to them.

So taking that you have stated your opinion can I know repeat my question of earlier namely what happens if Scotland does go independent and discovers that not being allowed sterling was not a hollow threat but just the simple truth.

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:Simply can't happen because of debt repayments, which would mean Scotland would simply not be liable for it's share of the national debt, and Osborne knows that.   Would put our finances in a mess as well as Scotlands, only ours probably more.   Hollow, empty and unworkable and the Labour Party were stupid to back it.

Well that is your opinion - whereas the three traditional parties have all looked at the figures and said different from you - and as its their job I would be rather inclined to listen to them.

So taking that you have stated your opinion can I know repeat my question of earlier namely what happens if Scotland does go independent and discovers that not being allowed sterling was not a hollow threat but just the simple truth.

The leader of these three parties(at very least two of them) will be more concerned about the impact on England rather than on Scotland should we leave the UK.

And the threat on currency only proves that.

I don’t want to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom, so have watched in horror as Alex Salmond repeatedly outmanoeuvred his unionist opponents.

I therefore cheered when the debate seemed to turn on a sixpence this week, with the Westminster elite closing ranks to say the Scots could not have the pound if they voted for independence.

Sterling has always been the Achilles’ heel of the separatist movement, and this seemed to be a killer blow. Game, set and match to London; there now scarcely seems any point in even having a referendum. In any case, that’s the prevailing view.

I’m not so sure, and I fear that Alex Salmond is actually right to insist that Westminster is bluffing – that, in the event, the Bank of England and the pound will still have to be there for the Scots if they vote for independence.

This is because there are actually no viable alternatives for an independent Scotland other than monetary union with the rest of the UK.

To deny Scots the pound is therefore to deny them independence. Once this fact sinks in, the bravado of last week’s threats could easily backfire.

If Scots vote for independence, they have to be accommodated. London cannot honourably or constitutionally take any other course.

It was for very good reason that Holyrood’s Fiscal Commission Working Group rejected all the other options in attempting to flesh out likely monetary arrangements for an independent Scotland; none of them would work, or rather, they couldn’t be made to work in an acceptable manner.

Scotland cannot realistically form its own currency while accepting its rightful share of the national debt, for this would be tantamount to default on that debt, throwing both Scottish and British debt management into chaos.

Even if the mechanisms for immediate access to the euro existed – they do not – it would be wholly unrealistic for Scotland to join it, again, partly because its legacy debts would be denominated in sterling, but more particularly because the vast bulk of its trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Likewise, sterlingisation – where Scotland uses the pound but with no say in monetary policy, in the same way as Panama uses the dollar – is unrealistic for a country with such a large financial and banking sector. With no access to Bank of England liquidity and lender of last resort facilities, repeated crises would be certain.

A more plausible approach would be a sterling “currency board”, but quite apart from the fiscal and monetary disciplines this imposes, such arrangements wouldn’t work without substantial reserves and minimum debt.

This too looks a non-starter. Despite its obvious disadvantages for the rest of the UK, the pound is the only realistic currency alternative for an independent Scotland.

As I say, I would hate to see Scotland leave, but I don’t share the “better together” view that economically, it would be a disaster for all involved.

By galvanising change north and south of the border, it might in time be a net positive, leading to a much smaller state, dismantlement of a largely redundant military, and much other necessary reform of institutions designed for a bygone age of empire and increasingly unviable system of entitlements.

It would be a shame to break with hundreds of years of shared history, but scarcely a catastrophe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/10640435/If-Scots-vote-for-independence-the-only-realistic-currency-is-the-pound.html

I read the article what a good paper that Telegraph is.You really should go there more often.

I repeat all the main parties, the civil service, the Banker andd uncle Tom Cobbeley think otherwise. The Politicians have the final say on very sound advice Salmond is not sound and neither is his advice. If the Scots follow it they will ruin their country and their economy. They can all sing the Tartan Army but life will not be good.

Why should we UK residents suffer for the small man syndrome wrecking the union. Let them have what they want but let them get there own currency. They can call it a Pound clearly they haven't got any other ideas.

That is what's called cutting off your nose to spite your face, as we will end up with the whole National Debt. Rather a silly move on our part.

The treasury has guaranteed the whole debt.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/13/treasury-pledges-to-honour-all-uk-government-debt-up-to-referendum-date-4261711/

So what it would amount to on the world stage would be and Independent Scotland refusing to accept a share of debt it is responsible for while that debt is paid anyway.

Sort of like a controlling spouse who tells their partner they will bankrupt them if they leave isnt it? I am sure the rest of the world will be well impressed with that stance from an Independent Scotland.

If Scotland wants independence then it is going to have to act independent.

A few green at the gills on this one, whatever Scots vote will be.

The point is Sphinx that if the rest of the UK refuse to let Scotland keep the pound, Scotland is not legally bound to pay any of the debt, therefore it's the people stopping them keeping the pound and trying to blackmail them who need to grow up and face facts and stop behaving like a child who's friend doesn't want to play anymore.

Sassy wrote:The point is Sphinx that if the rest of the UK refuse to let Scotland keep the pound, Scotland is not legally bound to pay any of the debt, therefore it's the people stopping them keeping the pound and trying to blackmail them who need to grow up and face facts and stop behaving like a child who's friend doesn't want to play anymore.

Not at all - if Scotland wants independence it has no right to keep the pound. The treasury has shown that the debt will be covered even if Scotland pays nothing.

So Scotland is saying "if you let us have our own way on the pound we will recognize our financial obligations but if you will not we will refuse to recognize them because they cannot be enforced legally" while the rest of the UK is saying the debts will be met whatever happens.

This is exactly like the bloke saying to the woman that if she does what he wants he will pay the bills but if she does not he will not and cannot be made to while the woman says whatever he does she will pay the bills herself.

Scotland wants independence they are going to have to deal with independence - they might have no legal obligation to pay the debt but that does not mean there is not an implied moral obligation and their choice in the matter will impact on how other countries relate to them. The UK government has made it clear that they are prepared to handle it either way.

Oh jeez, yes the debt is covered - BY US, instead of Scotland taking it's fair share. And that's fact.

Sassy wrote:Oh jeez, yes the debt is covered - BY US, instead of Scotland taking it's fair share.   And that's fact.

Scotlands fair share - your words sassy.

Do you think the rest of the world will miss that?

WE'LL miss it. The National Debt is £1.6 TRILLION, if Scotland is only liable for a third of that, that is £5.3 TRILLION, you think that's ok to land on our shoulders instead of theirs? Christ on a Bike!

Sassy wrote:WE'LL miss it.   The National Debt is £1.6 TRILLION, if Scotland is only liable for a third of that, that is £5.3 TRILLION, you think that's ok to land on our shoulders instead of theirs?   Christ on a Bike!

You think it better to give in to Scotlands blackmail I take it.

56kevins wrote:But it isn't blackmail it is reasoned logic based on the experience of the Euro area.

The Scots are playing with fire which is their right but as a resident of the biggest part of the UK I don't want to get burned because they have as Andy puts it so well "small man issues". They haven't been blackmailed they have been informed Salmond calls it blackmail to whip up the Nats.

To accept an Independent Scotland wedded to a spend spend spend culture as part of the pound makes no sense whatsoever.

This small man issue you talk about. Is that pretty much the same thing as little Englander syndrome that I keep hearing about?

Alex Salmond is simply delivering what the SNP promised the electorate - a referendum - something that no government in Westminster has had the guts to offer the UK electorate on their future. I keep hearing all this bleating about the SNP wanting to give the people of Scotland a say in whether the would rather a government in Scotland ran their own affairs and I can see why because let's face it the governments down in Westminster have been sh!t at doing that for decades.

And just for the record the Scottish government have ran a balanced budget every single year the SNP have been in power and they've managed to do that and at the same time provide free education to the children that live here and give the population free prescriptions to look after their healthcare.

I'm not particularly in the 'Yes' camp on this but some of the stuff I see written in the newspapers and on-line is really trying to drive me there.

The OP is 100% accurate.

Sassy wrote:WE'LL miss it.   The National Debt is £1.6 TRILLION, if Scotland is only liable for a third of that, that is £5.3 TRILLION, you think that's ok to land on our shoulders instead of theirs?   Christ on a Bike!

And remember that if Scotland accepts it's share of the debt then we're also entitled to the same proportionate share of the UK assets.

Sure are, especially as Scotland has been putting in more money per capita than England and has had a surplus in tax.

If we accept a third share of the debt then we get a third of the Army, the Navy, the RAF as well as a third of the Bank of England, Crosstrail, London Underground. In fact a third of every single public asset that hasn't yet been flogged of to private investors and even then we should be claiming a third of what money was recieved from these sales which includes the recent Royal Mail sell-off.

No wonder they want to get us to stay. Blimey - we'll be quids in.

Hadn't thought of it like that lol

Irn Bru wrote:If we accept a third share of the debt then we get a third of the Army, the Navy, the RAF as well as a third of the Bank of England, Crosstrail, London Underground. In fact a third of every single public asset that hasn't yet been flogged of to private investors and even then we should be claiming a third of what money was recieved from these sales which includes the recent Royal Mail sell-off.

No wonder they want to get us to stay. Blimey - we'll be quids in.

..I never thought about that Irn, that sounds about right to me, just wonder if Sphinx has a reply to you're post?

You get more and more deluded daily you lefties. If you cannot accept the reasoned advice of the Bank and the civil service you are not fit to govern. We English dont want to be a part of your nationalistic suicide.
Manage your own pound you dont want to be controlled from london which you would have to if you keep the uk pound.

So because and Englisman at the Bank of England and someone in Brussels says Scotland can not run it's own finances , then that's it?

Alexa Salmond and his yes voters better just give up?

No they have not said Scotland cannot run its own finances they have said an Independent Scotland would have to run its own finances itself and would not be able to piggy back off other peoples already existing finances.

Joy Division wrote:So because and Englisman at the Bank of England and someone in Brussels says Scotland can not run it's own finances , then that's it?

Alexa Salmond and his yes voters better just give up?

We are saying if you go it alone you go it alone on the pound as well. You can keep your own pound you will have to create am infrastructure to manage it.

Independence means just that you can't pick and choose and expect the rest of us to dance to your tune.

If you don't want us we don't want you.

I don't understand how one minute they are saying they want independence then the nextthey say they want to keep the British pound. Note the British pound.
They really are a confused lot I think walking about in womens skirts with no underpants is affecting their thinking.

I don't think any of you anglish have taken in Irn's point, which is quite on the mark. Sphinx, are you avoiding it because it is pretty compelling?

If you start splitting assets, you've gotta go all the way.