There won't be a currency union, should there be a yes vote.
Whenever he is asked about what happens if the other parts of the UK don't want a currency union, and if there is a "plan B", then Salmond always says "we have a plan B, we have a plan c, d, e, f, as well" and that it is all bluff and bluster from the unionist parties.
In recent days, Salmond has said there would be a Scottish "Observer" on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, which amongst other things, sets interest rates. This is a climbdown from previously, when he insisted there would be a Scottish seat on the committee.
In the past, he's said that the 58m people of N.Ireland, Wales and England, "don't have the right to a referendum on a currency union", because it would be "undemocratic", to say to Scotland that there won't be a currency union.
So, with the existence of "plan b,c,d,e,f", then it is clear that at the first point at which the Monetary Policy Committee makes a decision to benefit the 58m people which they are accountable to, and that decision is neutral or detrimental to the 5m people of Scotland, then that is when a currency union falls apart, because Salmond will not take actions necessary for the currency union that are detrimental.
Which shows there is not the commitment necessary to make a currency union work. The senior civil servant to the Treasury said as much, that for a currency union to work, then there has to be an absolute commitment to it, and that this has to be seen to be credible to the outside world.
And "Plan b,c,d,e,f" shows that there is not the commitment, and that the union would not be credible to the outside world.
With only an observer, and thus, no influence on the MPC, this is a worse situation than present, where the MPC takes into account what would benefit all 63m people.
As for not allowing the people of N.Ireland, Wales and England to decide if they want to enter a currency union, then that is ludicrous.
Which means that the idea of a formal currency union is just not going to happen.
Leaving an informal sterling zone, with no regulator of the Scottish banks and other financial institutions, and no guarantor of savers deposits, pensions, and all that.
Joining the Euro means abandoning the whole idea of the distinct Scottish banknotes, and the culture of them, the EU does not allow any member state to have their own designs on the Euro notes or coins.
A Scottish Currency, call it the Groat, the Unicorn, whatever, is a giant "Kick Me" sign to all the financial speculators out there. To have it pegged at a certain exchange rate with the £, is a tempting target to financial speculators, to see how much they can push it before the exchange rate mechanism breaks - we've been there before, many, many times. Look at some other countries of the world, I think one of the SE Asian countries ran into this in the past few years - their exchange rate against the $ was massively changed to their detriment, simply because some currency traders thought they could make lots of money doing this.
So the options for currency in an independent scotland would mean either having no guarantee that your money will still be in the bank tomorrow, having no Scottish cultural identity on the banknotes, or a currency that will be a speculators toy.
Super.
As for defence, those shipyards on the Clyde will not build future RN warships.
It would be cheaper for the UK, to joint-procure ships with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Bundesmarine, or the French Navy, when the roles for the ships are similar enough. It would be a saving for any of the partner nations as well, by spreading design&development costs across more units.
There is such a thing as "technology transfer", which the SNP don't seem to understand. They point at how Brazil bought some warships from the Clyde yards not so long ago, and say "this is proof of the Clyde yards being able to win export orders". What they don't say, is that Brazil bought something like 4 ships from the Clyde, while having the Clyde yards train some of their workforce, and share knowledge, such that Brazil built, in Brazil, another 8 or so of that class, and will be building the successor class as well.
Warships for export is a dead industry - the only long-term buyers are regimes who have no interest in a domestic shipbuilding industry, which means dictators.
If it was the case that Britain had to purchase some warships from the Clyde, then it would be on a technology transfer basis. There's something like 12 Type 26 frigates planned. Currently the plan would be to procure all 12 from the Clyde yards. In a yes-vote situation, the UK government will do no such thing. They'll order 2 or 3, and have the other 9-10 built in a re-opened shipbuilding yard somewhere else, on a technology transfer basis.
And there is nothing the SNP can do about that. The UK defence procurement decision makers wouldn't be responsible to the people of Scotland. It's that simple.
And yes, the Scottish Defence Forces, which the SNP say will be part of NATO. NATO is a nuclear organisation. Something to note in this instance, was that when POLARIS and later Trident were being procured, the Scottish MPs lobbied intensely, to have those facilities based in Scotland, because of the jobs they entailed.
Anyway, the Trident weapon system, in another interesting note, is not actually the UK's nuclear deterrent. As part of the treaties that resulted in the UK having Polaris and later Trident, then all the nuclear weapons operated by the UK, including other systems such as the now defunct bombs once used by the RAF, are part of NATO's nuclear deterrent, not the UK. The weapons cannot be used independently unless the situation in the UK is extremely dire. They are NATO weapons, and are to be used in support of NATO.
Being part of NATO, but insisting that NATO weapons not be based there, is plain NIMBYism.
As part of the SNP "ethical foreign policy", then "illegal wars" will not be something that Scottish forces would participate in.
Which means sitting idly by, while atrocities are committed, because Salmond's idol Putin uses the UN Security Council veto on any intervention, such as the Kosovo crisis, which Salmond said intervening to stop massacres was "unpardonable folly", because Russia had vetoed UN intervention.
And, when Scottish forces are involved, they will always, in perpetuity, take a junior role. Example would be any naval forces - the most senior Scottish naval officer would likely have no experience of commanding multiple ship formations, which means there will never be a Scottish naval officer in command of a multinational task force.
Amongst other things, the plan is for one fast jet squadron, using Eurofighters, to be based at Lossiemouth iirc.
One squadron means that should any Scottish forces be deployed abroad, as part of a European or other multinational force, then they would be entirely reliant on air support from other nations. Communication difficulties abound in that situation, as do friendly fire incidents, because of misunderstandings and equipment problems.
Actors, writers and musicians opinions are fluff. Millionaire tax exiles who decided that the people of Scotland are beneath them, and do not deserve to benefit from any taxation of their income.
The plan to have independence wrapped up before 2016, is simply to try and get it done before the next election to the Edinburgh parliament, so that the millions allocated for commemorative heroic scale statues of the "First Minister of the New Scotland" are going to be of the "correct person".
So, with the "I'm all right Jack" and NIMBY attitudes, the SNP have become what they claimed to be against, the "Tory Middle England voters".
Author
Topic: The Scotland Referendum (Read 16943 times)