I voted yes....but felt like I'd been kicked in the ba's the day

[Taintedice]

Whatever options they come up with next time, it cannot include any expectation of cooperation with or from England, which should be treated as a hostile entity, just as the Baltic States treated Russia as hostile. England will not look to do Scotland any favours at all, so less naivety from the SNP would be good if they're really serious about staging a second referendum.

[Nevermore666]

In theory yes Jack in reality seldom happens, Sweden good example the people said they didn't want it in 2003 so it never happened. Both the UK and Denmark have opted outs. All that would be thrashed out in negotiations. Scotland will start its Independence with its own currency probably the pound linked to its own central bank. Would prob shadow the UK pound for the first few years. Personally I don't particularly care what kind of money I have in my pocket all the same to me.

You not want to adopt the shekel stewy?

[noahrab]

In theory yes Jack in reality seldom happens, Sweden good example the people said they didn't want it in 2003 so it never happened. Both the UK and Denmark have opted outs. All that would be thrashed out in negotiations. Scotland will start its Independence with its own currency probably the pound linked to its own central bank. Would prob shadow the UK pound for the first few years. Personally I don't particularly care what kind of money I have in my pocket all the same to me.

Phuck all to do with theory.

The reality is their is no more opt outs.

A few posts ago you said it was optional.

[JackSnakes]

Hardly matters as long as it's spendable. Can't actually see why anyone would give the slightest fk what currency was used, as long as it was recognised and tradeable.

[Mook1]

Hardly matters as long as it's spendable. Can't actually see why anyone would give the slightest fk what currency was used, as long as it was recognised and tradeable.

They might give a phuck when the price of everything rockets like it did in Ireland.

[noahrab]

Hardly matters as long as it's spendable. Can't actually see why anyone would give the slightest fk what currency was used, as long as it was recognised and tradeable.

One big issue the last time was Salmonds insistence that we would get a currency union with RUK despite the RUK telling him it wouldn't happen.

[Red_Zeppelin]

could you imagine sturgeon on question time or standing up in front o the movers n shakers in oor business community and saying:

"Can't actually see why anyone would give the slightest fk what currency was used, as long as it was recognised and tradeable"

obviously she wouldn't use fk....but you get the drift.

she would get laughed at

[Taintedice]

Phukk the EU, no oil for them. Or whisky.

[stewarty27]

Phuck all to do with theory.

The reality is their is no more opt outs.

A few posts ago you said it was optional.

Yes I said it was "optional" then qualified it by saying in theory it was. But if you want to be pedantic (see I used your favourite word there) I assume you know what it means.

The Eurozone for Dummies and people called Paddy

The fact is Scotland couldn't join the Euro even if it wanted do. There is a thing called the The Eurozone Convergence Criteria.

The Eurozone Convergence Criteria (aka the Maastricht Criteria, as they were defined by the Maastricht Treaty in 1994) state five conditions that a country must fulfil before it is allowed entry into the Eurozone. These are:

1. Price stability – the country’s Consumer Price Inflation (HICP) rate must not be more than 1.5% above the rate of the three best performing Eurozone member states.

2. Sound public finances – the government’s deficit must not be higher than 3% of GDP.

3. Sustainable public finances – the government’s debt must not be higher than 60% of GDP.

4. Durability of convergence – the country’s long-term interest rate must not be more than 2% above the rate of the three best performing Eurozone member states in terms of price stability.

5. Exchange rate stability – the country’s existing currency must have been part of ERM II (Exchange Rate Mechanism II) for at least 2 years without severe tensions.

Now, let’s just think about how many of those conditions Scotland would fulfil on day one of independence because unless we met all five in full on Day 1 of independence, Errm Phuck all.

Whether Scotland could meet any of the first four as a brand new independent country is open to debate, quite simply because we’ll have a lack of history outside the UK to prove it.

An Indy Scotland would be commited to taking on their part of the UKs massive debt .unless we told the conniving Britnats to feck off which legally we could do. But we're better than that Ken So we’ve taken on a proportionate share of the debt, we’re instantly buggered on 3 and possibly 2. following so far Paddy ?



But the last of the five – essentially the last step before any country can join the Eurozone – is membership of ERM II for a minimum of two years. Now, unless the current UK government has a complete reversal in policy towards the Euro pretty much right now, Scotland cannot possibly be said to have been in ERM II for two years on independence day, because right up until then Scotland’s currency will have been Sterling, and so won’t have been in ERM II for two minutes, never mind two years.

There’s simply no way the EU would bend this rule either, as Sweden’s continued policy of failing this rule on purpose to give a de facto Euro opt-out shows. So just as Scotland cannot be forced to join the Euro, we are also prevented from joining it voluntarily – just like Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania, all of whom want to join the Euro, but can’t because they don’t fulfil the five criteria (Sweden don’t want to, and the Czechs can’t seem to decide).

There is, of course, one other requirement which is not in the Maastricht Criteria, because to be bound by the Maastricht Criteria you must have one fundamental quality first – being a member of the EU

So every person who talks of Scotland “joining the Euro” is implicitly confirming that they believe Scotland would be a full member of the EU on day one of independence. No EU membership, no Eurozone entry. (Unless you think Scotland is a micro-state like Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City.)

There is one way Scotland could use the Euro without meeting the Maastricht Criteria. It’s the same way Montenegro are able to use the Euro, despite not being in the EU and not meeting the criteria. That is to use the Euro without permission, in the same way Scotland can use Sterling if it wants to, because the Euro is a fully convertible currency. (Of course, that’s not joining the Euro, that’s using the Euro.)

But if this was the option that journalists were referring to, then why limit our options to the Euro? Why not include the Danish, Norwegian or Swedish Kroner? The Swiss Franc? The Canadian Dollar, even? More to the point, if Scotland goes down the road of using a fully convertible currency without permission, then it’d be absurd and pointless to use anything but Sterling.

So bearing all that in mind, is there any chance that everyone could shut up until they have at least the vaguest beginnings of a clue what the hell they’re talking about?

Anyway this is and always been a red herring and part of project fear its really not as big an issue as the Britnats like to make it.

[Red_Zeppelin]

the very money we have in our pockets......not a big issue?......I shake my head.

so where are we now:

- the euro is a no go
- the sterling zone with the rest o the uk is also a no go (see link in first post)

- maybe we could go wi the scottish pound and find out its nae actually worth a sh1t.