Rhetoric.
Scotland won't lose the Data, it simply would not be subject to consideration of the MPC any longer.
Yet as part of the UK and the mechanisms which form its governance, it does nonetheless.
Last edited:
Would an independant Scotland be forced to join the Euro?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
Rhetoric.
Scotland won't lose the Data, it simply would not be subject to consideration of the MPC any longer.
Yet as part of the UK and the mechanisms which form its governance, it does nonetheless.
That isn't representation on the MPC or 'influence'. It's merely market data.
Inter-connectivity and dependence. The BoE is always considering the influences and impact of foreign economies and currency zones, including its own. It's not so much that it would have to consider Scotland, in that our monetary interests are unlikely to diverge in the short term at least.
It's an economic function, 1/12th of that represents somewhere just over 10% of the whole. That is clearly under-representation at face value, which is, the very premise you are asking me to accept. That the market data alluding to "economic and business conditions" is representation.
It's reasoned retort to some vacuous operational accounting function being used as some sort of vein for Scotland to be catapulted into the decision making process by way of influence and representation (when it is demonstrably true that even accepting this premise, Scotland is clearly under-represented at present by way of economic zone reporting). The data and public relations aspect won't be undertaken it is claimed, it would more than likely be replaced with some relations with a Scottish Treasury. There remains common economic interests in the advent of Independence despite the current bluster from the Chancellor and the other discredited ex-Chacellor.
Yet as part of the UK and the mechanisms which form its governance, it does nonetheless.
By Government's that it doesn't influence. Yup, excellent.
It is data that plays a role in representing the economic situation in Scotland, along with the input of Scottish business this gives a representation to the MPC when they make their policy decisions.
It only considers foreign economic factors on how it impacts the UK. As long as an independent Scotland has the same interests then you are right, however Scotland would potentially have no control over its own monetary policy if and when it needed to react to economic factors that diverge from the rUK. Something that doesn't happen now....
You cannot objectively state that the effects of any region have equal impact overall, for example, oil price instability would effect Scottish business more so than the other regions, yet the MPC may make decisions based on that instability and therefore during that time Scottish interests would effectively be greater represented at the decision level...as it is the interested of the UK as a whole which are considered and each region would have different impacts at different times depending on both policy and economic conditions.
Last edited:
I just spat out a mouthful of coffee reading that!!! Scotland or Scottish people in the UK do not get to vote in General Elections?
You are operating under the misconception that Scotland is somehow intrinsically separate from the rest of the UK, when it is not...it is part of the same governance and policies that the rest of the UK are as a single political and economic state. In fact Scotland has its own devolved representation in certain areas and while I understand that as a nationalist you don't necessarily recognise the UK as a valid single State, it doesn't mean that Scotland is somehow excluded from the UK, either politically or economically in its overall considerations. Scotland, like any other part of the UK is represented and considered within the UK and while you can argue that independence would increase representation for Scottish people in Scotland (obviously), it doesn't imply that Scotland or its people are not currently represented within the UK.
Last edited:
It's a report. It isn't representation on the committee.
That isn't the case in terms of its own currency zone.
Which is why it isn't a threat at all, and will give Scotland long enough to establish its own currency for such eventualities.
Scottish business isn't more or less susceptible to oil price instability than anyone else in the world, relevant industrial production levels and accrued renevues would, but that sort of market volatility hits everything. Scotland does not have a noose around its neck being one of the most energy rich nations in Europe. It has a tremendous array of assets.
The other issues is that because of the accounting practices employed by the Treasury mean that the oil fields are viewed as its own economic zone. This means that they are essentially viewed as their own entity, and are only posthumously added into national statistics by extrapolation.
Oil and its revenues and industry might crop up from time to time, but that isn't again representative of Scottish influence say or representation.
Play the ball Castiel.
They do, but it's worthless in terms of deciding which Government comes and goes. They would have all occurred as they did in any event.
What a massive straw man that is too. Yet if I must bite, Scotland is poorly represented, and of course I recognise the UK as a valid single state. It just so happens to be near falling apart.
It is a representative report to the committee...the committee represents everyone in the UK, including Scotland.
What currency zone would that be? And if we look at other such zones, it is exactly what happens.
Perhaps, but at what cost and under what precise conditions, what would the economic impact be? Too many unanswered questions biohazard, it is easy to say 'this is how it will be, or this is what will happen' it is something else to define it and given evidence for it.
It was an example, not a real world assessment..I might have used any example of regional factors that impact or influence the UK overall and how their impact is assessed by the MPC. It was to illustrate how you cannot objectively quantify the impact any part of the UK has on monetary policy at any given time, so you cannot say whether Scotland is underrepresented or not, as I said Scotland is part of the UK, it is not a separate economic sandbox. It is considered along with the whole.
Would they? I think it was shown in the other thread that this was not the case at least as far as representation goes...... Scotland is represented in the same way as everyone else in the UK, Scottish MPs (including SNP members) sit in the UK parliament and Government, and all the major UK political parties are represented both at national and regional level in Scotland and the UK. Is there not talk all the time that without Scottish Labour/Liberal voters that the Conservatives would hold a significant advantage?
That doesn't support what you say.
In your opinion. It remains to be seen if this is actually the case.
Last edited:
The UK's interests are primarily London's come England's, Scotland is under-represented by your own measure of reporting submissions to the committee and that's fine. Nothing will change, a report on our economic outlook isn't much say over anything. It's an absolute threadbare argument for some sort of inclusive Scottish aspect to this, which is often the tone of what Scotland would apparently lose, and it's quite likely that the BoE would interface with Scotland.
Especially considering we part created it, own it and have a significant amount of money sat in it.
Sterling.
Oh noes, the too many unanswered questions. No, I think the problem is that all these questions are answered easily and sensibly.
Not an economic sandbox you say..
No Castiel, I said this;
"They do, but it's worthless in terms of deciding which Government comes and goes. They would have all occurred as they did in any event."
Those Government's would have occurred in any event. Scotland doesn't decide its own Government in UK elections, other parts of the country do.
Scotland does get some MP's, that's not the same thing though as a representative Government however.
The Conservatives failed to pick up an outright majority like the 80's because they failed to win over England to the same degree. Scotland voted against them resoundingly and repeatedly yet were lumbered with them all the same. It's no different now irrespective of the constituent makeup of the administrations.
Come on, you don't have to be a nationalist to see that there are some very strong - sometimes conflicting - pressures on this country least of which national politics.
Again, this is rhetoric as the policy is made for the UK as a whole, not regionally. It is interesting that you admit to owning/creating/having money in the BoE, yet you claim it doesn't represent Scotland....Scotland is part of the UK economy, not separate from it.
The one that ceased to exist in 1979 when Ireland imposed exchange controls?
Yet nonetheless they remain unanswered, at least substantively.
I never said it didn't represent Scotland, just that there is no specific Scottish representation for monetary policy at committee level.
Scotland is a part of the UK economy, but the interests of the UK economy do not lie with Scotland.
We still have a Sterling currency area with the likes of the Isle of Man and other British overseas territories. Many nations that became independence and joined the commonwealth as independent nations continued to use a currency zone after leaving Westminster Rule, just like Ireland.
......
The government represents the UK, Scotland is part of the UK is it not, it has the same voting and political rights as the rest of the UK population does it not? We are a single political state are we not?
No one voted for a coalition....what about the successive Labour Governments, did they not represent the voting situation in Scotland?
People vote for their local MP, they then represent those people in parliament, sometimes they form part of the Government, sometimes they represent from opposition...this is true of everyone in the UK. An independent Scotland will not change that, some people will be represented directly by those they voted for, some will not...it's the nature of democracy.
We have been through this before.
There is a referendum, so we shall see just how strong and conflicting they are.
Last edited:
There is no specific representation of any country of the Union, the committee represents the UK and all its constituent parts.
The interests of the UK economy are inclusive of Scotland. There is no separation.
We have no Sterling Area...it ended in 1979 when the UK removed its exchange controls. Anyone can use sterling as an exchangeable currency, but that doesn't imply controls or responsibilties for guaranteeing of such currency. The Manx pound is not underwritten or guaranteed by the UK Govt/Treasury.
Last edited:
One more time Castiel.
It's worthless in terms of deciding which Government comes and goes. They would have all occurred as they did in any event
I don't think they have much of a mandate, certainly not morally anyway. Those Labour government's were co-incidental. It made no difference to what Government was in power when Scotland returned the "feeble fifty".
Scotland does not influence the outcome of Government, that is decided largely by England. Should our political expressions and choices diverge, Scotland has no way out. It is impossible for Scotland to impose unpopular Governments on England and elsewhere.
The outcome of the referendum will do little to hide the reality of the problems facing the UK, economically politically and socially.
So Scotland has no specific representation to lose, and certainly will not lose any "say over it".
Of course there is, the UK is a highly segregated in terms of accounting practices. I don't think Scotland is high on the agenda somehow, and I don't think a lot of Scots do either if the attitude surveys are anything to go by.
This looks nothing like a currency zone does it;
The pound sterling (symbol: £; ISO code: GBP), commonly known simply as the pound, is the official currency of the United Kingdom, the British Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, the British Overseas Territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,[6] the British Antarctic Territory[7] and Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (in Tristan da Cunha only).[8] It is subdivided into 100 pence (singular: penny).
Australia, Canada Ireland and others all continued to use GBP in the advent of independence.
It is absurd to suggest that Scotland would not be afforded the same.
Which doesn't imply that they are not representative of Scotland or its people however.
...so they were just coincidental to the voting wishes of the Scottish people...how convenient.
You are operating under the same misconception that we are all separate political entities, we are not.
As a rule, unpopular Governments are unpopular across a wide demographic across the whole of the UK, not only Scotland.
You can however argue that devolution represents an acceptance that in certain areas the different countries who have a devolved govt have slightly different needs and priorities and that it is recognised.
And Scotland does have a way out.....it has a referendum (not the first one) bought about by the Scots voting in a party that has an independence mandate, the will of the people will decide, will it not?
There are plenty of problems facing the UK, whether independence (or not) will solve any of them or whether the majority of Scots agree with your political stance remains to be seen....as I said.
Of course it does.
...so they were just coincidental to the voting wishes of the Scottish people...how convenient.
Essentially, yes.
Scotland clearly is a political entity, and unpopular Government's elsewhere aren't of a concern really to the problem of Scotland's Westminster governance.
Clearly this has had a remarkable effect on Scotland's political landscape in past decades.
The former has nothing to do with England voting in the Westminster Government of the day, and when that choice is in stark contrast to Scotland there is no way out in the current UK political settlement. We won't have an independence referendum each time we get foisted with an unpopular Government we didn't vote into office. At best, we have a devolved parliament that Labour and the Conservatives would like to exist to mitigate against the worst excesses of Westminster rule.
What a miserable existence that is.
Which was my point, that it was irrespective of the referendum.
Last edited:
Scotland has the same representation as everyone else in the UK...are you suggesting that Scotland be given preferential treatment?
'You don't think'...is exactly the point, it is your opinion. The interests of the UK economy are inclusive of ALL the UK, that includes Scotland.
No it isn't. It is, for practical purposes a currency union, however the UK Treasury doesn't guarantee or underwrite the Manx Pound, and the others are all using it as an exchangeable currency without legal tender status within the UK proper and/or subject to the BoE and Treasury policies of the UK.
There is nothing stopping Scotland using Sterling, but their is also no obligation to Scotland by the BoE or the rUK Treasury.
It isn't absurd, it is something that will have to be negotiated, if Scotland chose independence. The rUK and BoE will act in the interests of the rUK and if that means a currency union then I am sure that will happen, however, if it doesn't or if there is issues such as Euro admission requirements on Scotland, then it may well not happen.
Again, no substantive proposals, just 'this is what will happen'...anyone can say whatever they want, the reality is often somewhat different however. Even the Yes Campaign cannot agree what they want at the moment.
Last edited: