How rude. By all means continue to over simplify everything, it's what the YES camp did to try and avoid problems. Why stop the tactics now that you've lost and been shown to be in an obvious minority? May as well continue to pretend that the glaringly obvious problems aren't problems. Even better, pretend you weren't emphatically beaten in a democratic referendum that showed you to be pushing an idea your country doesn't agree with. Even more hilarious is the idea that common sense is the reason why it'll all work as if common sense has anything to do with politics!
You think a newly independent Scotland without control over its own currency (which would stop, or at the very very least delay Scotland joining the eu), with a plan heavily reliant on the highly unpredictable commodity, oil, massive uncertainty and a big old chunk of national debt to now deal with is going to have a higher credit rating than the uk? Especially when you consider the UK has one of the best credit ratings in the world currently...
K Absolute nonsense! I may not know as much as you about Scotland, but I assure you I know a damn sight more than you about how the international credit rating system works. Your initial credit rating would be extremely low. Yes, it may improve in time - a relative long time. But without the backing of the UK central bank, Scotland would struggle in the international credit markets. The only possible way they could borrow at any reasonable level would be by securitisation. I.e. Borrowing against future oil revenues, which would then be in hock to the lenders until the debt was paid.
There may be some short term pain but over time the cost of borrowing will be driven by the performance of the Scottish economy. A central Bank is only an influence if it really has the resources to meet its commitments. Norway is a similar size nation to Scotland and gets along just fine with its own currency, but I don't believe it would have much different economic performance in practice f it adopted the GBP, USD or EUR as its currency.
"Perhaps you need to look at the bigger picture rather than just a few isolated figures. Mutual business, Balance of Payments, Oil revenue, Energy supplies, Financial Services, Whisky sales, Trident, The EU, all point to a currency Union." Balance of payments, Fiscal position. Monetary position. Debt. International credit rating. % of oil revenue. For starters. All point to no currency union.
"No you fail to grasp the inherent econimic strength of Scotland that could easily have a HIGHER credit rating than the UK. The Scottish economy is stronger than the rUK." Moodys don't seem to think so (as of May 2014) .
Never mind, i see. Hahaha, poor S(p)murfy. Water off a duck's back i'm sure. Rival watch is tagged with "i've got a hairy bumhole"
A central bank that has a trusted currency and economy, plus a good credit rating can print money. Which is what the BOE, ECB, and the Fed have been doing. Norway has had a stable economy, large oil revenues, and a stable political environment for many, many years. I'm not saying Scotland cannot achieve that, in time. But we are talking a long time - it ain't going to happen next week, or year. Norway could have joined the EURO, but sensibly decided not to.
"Norway has had a stable economy, large oil revenues, and a stable political environment for many, many years. I'm not saying Scotland cannot achieve that, in time. But we are talking a long time - it ain't going to happen next week, or year." Moodys were stating a likely credit rating of A (two below that of the AAA held by the UK) . Which for a newborn nation with an economic profile akin to the UK, but a tenth of the size, is not bad at all for starters IMHO.
Yes, I read the assessment. It seems contingent on many things. A possible single A with a negative outlook. Bank deposits I would expect to be lower.
"Yes, I read the assessment. It seems contingent on many things. A possible single A with a negative outlook. Bank deposits I would expect to be lower." The main caveat (in the summary assessment) seemed to be "responsible" acceptance of some of the UK debt burden. Other than that, it looked like Moodys thought Scotland were ok on paper.
Ah yes. Obviously the same debt that Salmond, not too cleverly, threatened to renege on!... As to ok, on paper, I'm sure Moodys would do a far more in depth assessment had the vote gone the other way.
"As to ok, on paper, I'm sure Moodys would do a far more in depth assessment had the vote gone the other way." AFAIK they did such an assessment, but you needed to cough up to get access to the full report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11116932/Alex-Salmond-urged-to-drop-referendum-conspiracy-theories.html Fair assessment of the YES camp post-referendum
I see that Cameron is claiming that the Queen "purred" when he told her the vote was No. I wonder what she would have said, had it gone gone other way? Perhaps, "You ****ing imbecile!!" Would Cameron be in the Tower for treason, perhaps?
