Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Sorry, but this is why we have a government

I keep out of the debate for Scottish independence, mostly because I'm not being given a vote as to keep them or not, therefore it's irrelevant as to what they do as it's unlikely to affect me or indeed England too much at all. However a statement by a former Labour chancellor caught my eye...
The English should have a vote on whether a separate Scotland could keep the pound, former Chancellor Alistair Darling has said.
Mr Darling - who leads the pro-union Better Together campaign - suggested that residents in the rest of the United Kingdom could seal the fate of whether an independent Scotland is part of a currency union.
Scottish separatists were given a boost last weekend when an unnamed minister said that ‘of course’ Scotland could keep sterling as part of negotiations.
But that claim - made by an anonymous minister to the Guardian - was slapped down by George Osborne, the Chancellor, and his Treasury deputy Danny Alexander.
Until then, the threat of an independent Scotland losing the pound had been a key argument for the Better Together campaign, which has warned Scots of the economic consequences of quitting the UK.
Only Scots will have a say on whether they get to stay as part of the UK in the September 18 referendum.
Now whilst I'm totally against unnecessary government interference in peoples lives, I do believe that in certain decisions it's up to our elected representatives to deal with them and this would appear to be one. I know a good many reasons for or against Scotland keeping the pound as a unit of their currency. It would certainly simplify any independence moves for one, at least in the short term. However tying yourself to another countries currency without having a say in certain factors like interest rates or indeed spending and borrowing which affects the level of that currency in the worlds market for you can bring problems on over which you will have no control at all because you won't be consulted and your needs won't be discussed.
In saying there should be a referendum though Darling is trying to cost the English taxpayer money to make a decision they won't have all the information to make.
Deciding on whether the Scots have a say in keeping the pound is up to the government. Certainly the Scots could keep on using it anyway, but as to having a say in how our economy is run with regards to their independence if they go for it, no, they won't get to do that.
Besides if Salmond gets his way they'll all be using Euro's anyway, assuming the EU let them in.

2 annotations:

Mr. Morden said...

I am not sure I agree with you.

If we had a Government which I thought put the interests of ALL the remaining Home Nations into account, I might agree with you. But the question you have to ask is; "Do you TRUST Cameron / Miliband and Osborne / Balls, to put the interests of say England before those of Scotland or the EU ?"

I do not.

I trust my fellow Englishmen and women to think for themselves and to come up with the right response. A response that is their favour and not that of Scotland or the EU's.

Salmond may like referendums, but he would not like a referendum for mainly the English, over who gets to use our currency. He has not been particularly kind to us, and I for one do not feel inclined to be kind to him. I do not care for submarine bases or the oil. He has, therefore, nothing to offer me. If he wishes to use Sterling, he can, there is nothing stopping him. He just will not be allowed to have a say over financial matters, and I for one do not want the Scottish Government stinking its nose in OUR business.

They can also use the Euro, without having to join the EU, as do San Marino, the Vatican and others. They can use the US Dollar, like Panama. They can peg a Scottish pound to any currency they wish ot, let it float and find its own value. They have a choice and the SNP should have made the people of Scotland aware of those choices.

As for them joining the EU, that is the only bargaining chip we have. Its not worth much, not to me, but it is to them. If they want to be part of it, they should be prepared to accept the amount of debt they have incurred.

Independence means just that - INDEPENDENCE !!

Dan said...

I may be speaking out of turn here, but now that both the EU and the UK government have told Salmond to get lost and go find his own currency, I rather think that the original plan for an independent Scotland is dead in the water.

Petrochemicals from the North Sea were only ever a stop-gap foreign currency earner for Scotland. To survive as an independent nation, Scotland has to have a way of earning a living and the way it operates at the moment will not do. Currently it has a lot of public sector employment, paid for by the UK. That'll presumably disappear south in short order should Scotland go independent.

At this point, several other employers will vanish southwards, and several more slave-labour outfits will appear, hoping to cash in on the weak new Scot-pound. Heavy engineering is out, as other nations can do it better and cheaper; agriculture is a forlorn hope and tourism cannot do very much.

No, Salmond's Great White Hope was to turn Scotland into a tax haven.

To be a good tax haven, a country needs low taxes and a stable currency. UK Pounds or Euros would have done nicely, which is why Osbourne and the EU both told Salmond to go do one. Neither fancies a tax haven opening on their doorstep, Osbourne because it'd compete with London, and the EU because it'd make tax dodging too easy.

Scottish independence is now effectively dead in the water, because a future independent Scotland would have little means to fund its self, and plenty of idle dole-wallahs used to free dole money for life. Worse, should Scotland seek to rejoin Britain subsequently, it might well get told to get lost. After all, who'd want a load more Labour-voting parasites back again after they'd been successfully booted out?