This is Johann Lamonts grasp on fiscal policy and Scotland keeping its own currency - the currency it has invested in and built as part of the UK (although youd be surprised these days to learn that the pound belongs as much to Scotland as it does to any other part of the UK). Apparently Lamont believes mortgage holders in Scotland could be £1600 worse off under independence if Scotland gets to keep the pound: “Let’s say you have a mortgage of £80,000. Independent analysts have said that interest rates in a separate Scotland would be 1 to 2 per cent higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom – and much higher than that if Alex Salmond follows through on his threat to default on Scotland’s debt. A 1 per cent rise would mean families having to find an extra £800 a year to keep their homes. A 2 per cent rise would mean an extra £1,600 a year for the privilege of living in Salmond’s Scotland.” Im no economist, but that strikes me as a paragraph containing a litany of errors, and downright false scare stories. There is a reason Labour in Scotland has nosedived in popularity and this type of incompetent nonsense is exactly why. Who would trust Labour with a groat, a bawbee or the Armenian dram when this is the best they can do on currency? (Nothing childish about invoking the above as possible currency options Johann?) 1. Why are you talking about an extra £800 a year while at the same time telling us that we cannot use Sterling? 2. Explain to me how, in the circumstances above, Scotlands interest rate would be higher than the rest of the UK? One of two things would be the case: The Bank of England would be setting the interest rate, in which case it could not set different interest rates in different areas of the Sterling Zone. Or Scotland would be using Sterling in a 1:1 shadowing, in which case interest rates would be set... by the Bank of England and could not be set differently in other areas of the Sterling Zone. 3. Not only has Alex Salmond NEVER made a threat to default on Scotlands debt, but it is in fact impossible to default on a debt that doesnt exist. (Remember too that Scotland under devolution must legally balance its books, so has never raised any debt since the devolution settlement - all debt is raised in Westminster. Scotland just pays for it, having no say in the matter). If Westminster refuses to enter a currency agreement, it is essentially declaring itself liable for all UK debts. In fact, it has already made an official announcement accepting this. That has nothing to do with Scotland and everything to do with Westminster intransigence. Scotland has repeatedly said that it will accept the liabilities as well as the advantages of a currency agreement. I dont see the UK telling any other indebted nation in the world that it will arbitrarily take on its debt even though it has nothing to do with it. But that is what Lamont appears to be asking Scotland to do: We wont give you our currency, but dammit, you can still pay our debts! It may as well be Armenia making that demand. There is also the additional fact that the markets will perfectly well understand that Scotland has pledged to take on that debt, but that Westminster has refused to allow it. That is not a reason for the markets to act negatively towards Scotland, and in fact the opposite is far more likely to be true: that an independent Scotland will begin life with zero debt and the markets will look very favourably indeed on that scenario, given it will be both one of the only countries in the world with no debt and one of the richest countries in the world in terms of its natural and human resources. Ultimately, more fear and negativity is all we hear from It Doesnt Get Better. That Lamont would have the red neck to suggest that a No vote would make it easier to tackle inequality by redistributing wealth from other parts of the UK to Scotland, shows just how idiotic she believes the Scottish - or indeed the UK - electorate are? (This is the same woman who earlier this year was telling a North East England newspaper that they had nothing to fear, because Scotland would be receiving no new money. Presumably she doesnt expect them to be listening when she says the exact opposite in a Scottish newspaper.) If that was the case, what is it, in the past 50 years, say, that has prevented this redistribution of wealth from already happening? Scotlands manufacturing industry was destroyed by successive Tory governments and Labour - be it at Westminster or in Edinburgh - have done nothing to redress the massive inequality that followed. In fact, as everyone knows, the inequality gap is widening daily. Yet we are expected to accept this generic statement from the leader of a party that was trounced at the last Scottish election for making similar unsubstantiated statements and whose party has almost no chance of gaining power at Westminster in the next general election? The Yes campaigns vision is positive. It is a vision of what the future can be in a Scotland with full control of all of its economic, social and cultural decision making. The No campaign threaten that Scotland is incapable of running its own affairs better than its elitist masters, who know much better that Scotland does what their country needs. They offer no positive vision, just the same old same old, which apparently cant possibly be improved on. Except that it can be, by voting Yes.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 15:01:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015