Scottish Independence survey

[Spizz]

Letting a liability go should be a no brainer, but obviously not in this case

We had a friend staying over last week, a German who lives in Edinburgh. And it was her attitude that finally got me off the fence (not that I've got a say now anyway). But a typical Tory from the posh part of Edinburgh, who seems unaware that the argument from the South being sewn in the North is 'could we', but the real question is 'do we want to'?

And she has bought it hook line and sinker.

But hey. Of course we could, but does it make sense and do we want to? That is the question.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

There's a lot of information and misinformation being bandied about at the moment with regards to this and it's difficult to know who to believe.

But one thing is telling to me. If we are to believe the unionist argument that Scotland is a net beneficiary of the union and it does indeed receive more than it spends, why are they trying so hard to keep them?

The Tories have courted everyone from the BBC to Vladimir Putin in their efforts to retain the Scots. Why?

Well for a start they don't want their nukes back and the oil revenue is nice to have, but really, in all aspects from high ranking politicians and civil servants, to taxes, education and science, Scots have contributed more to the union than they have ever received.

As an expat I don't get the vote, but the way that the smarmy lying tories are conducting themselves in this campaign is insulting and I hope for a resounding YES.

I'm guessing they want to keep their army/navy base, too.

 

[Nicodeamus]

FREEEEEEEEDOM!...sadly independence movements look less exciting if there aren't populists promising heaven on earth. Scottish independence has been reduced to ''well, we 'might get more kids in universities or this tax might be gone vs that tax'. There is no UHMF...

 

[Arthur]

Countries make money by having another use their currency. This works as long as the money does not get returned.

Nope. They make money by producing more than they consume. Period. The rest is just Accounting.

 

[cr@zydude]

Nope. They make money by producing more than they consume. Period. The rest is just Accounting.

I'm talking about seigniorage. Since it costs less than 5 pounds for the UK mint to produce 5 pound notes, they make a profit on them.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Seigniorage is a form of appropriation and tax in reality
Now I would agree with the assertion that a country being at the centre of a currency issuing pivot is able to minimally tax the use of that currency and effectively if the production of certainty and trade facilitation on that currency is sufficient to absorb the seigniorage that the economy of that country benefits.

[A clumsy way to express what I mean but my mind is running around elsewhere at the moment]

 

[Arthur]

And a particularly underhand appropriation at that.

It relies on a sleight of hand monetary trick that books the difference between the production and materials cost and the nominal or face value of the bill or coin. It abuses the trust of others that the redeemed real exchange value will at least equal the nominal value. For that to work, the next buyer needs to be hoodwinked as well, because the currency has already been debased by the seigniorage. Over time, confidence erodes along with real value. In other words, like more open fiat money, it's an inflationary confiscation. And governments do it all the time.

At least historically the Scots were notably canny and prudent in managing their financial affairs, but I wonder if they haven't learned too many tricks from their imperial Southern hegemons. Och, 'tid be the pity.

 

[Paul Hjul]

I disagree seigniorage is inherently underhanded appropriation mechanism. It is a taxation form but if using a particular currency is a choice then the persons engaging in transactions in that currency are simply electing to pay that tax in order to gain the benefits of the transactional properties of the currency.


On a related note I really don't have a problem with the SA Reserve Bank superstructure and JSE regulation and so on. What I have a problem with is that I am precluded from inserting gold clauses into a contract and that I have to monetize all transactions to ZAR etc ... The idea of a sovereign affording a currency system and having inferior courts which only settle in same is fine but when progressivists step into the equation freedom of currency is the first to go.

Fundamentally until 1930 that was the thinking in the US - the Secret Service guarded the president and the currency, the dollar banking system was the basis for legal tender on liquidating demands and so on but you really could chose to not use it and the US Treasury made their fair share of profits of seigniorage, but knowing full well that a dozen or so other systems would step in if their value (not the currency value but the transaction value of using the currency) was lost. The moment you add force or the threat of force to support a value Gresham's law kicks in and a redistribution of wealth with consequent impoverishment inevitably occurs.

Paradoxically my position is as critical of a gold standard as it is of the rampant fraud in the contemporary monetary system.

 

[Arthur]

In my view, seigniorage is fatally tainted by a Nominalist confusion of substance and sign. It is the pseudo-creation of an overweening positivism. In economic terms it always and necessarily dilutes the currency, subverts the assets of those who hold it, and illicitly (but not illegally) transfers it to Caesar and his minions. Enough said. We can agree to disagree.

However, I do agree with you about a gold standard. It's no less fiat then any other tangible asset. In my view, the real 'gold' or currency backing, or indeed any value-backing, is human integrity - that I will in fact and in deed deliver the full and undiluted value of what I promise. When that fails, no amount of matter from Au to Zr can recover the loss, for matter alone, howsoever arranged, has no inherent value.

 

[Paul Hjul]

I don't disagree with you as to the nominalist confusion but my point is that the transfer is to the guarantor of value - you are in fact paying Caesar what is due to Caesar for his services provided in mint.

There is no currency greater than integrity and justice. I am not persuaded that absolute delivery on promise is required both because of systemic risk and because of minds not always quite meeting, but if all men seek to do what is just all the profits of commerce and industry flow.

 

[zippy]

Why would the UK want to let Scotland keep the pound?

As someone who lives in the South East of England, I wouldn't mind the scots getting independence.(my grandfather was a Scot). But if they want use the British pound then, that's a no. It will be like Germany's economy carrying Greece.
No UK warship has been built outside of the UK. These jobs will move South. This will accelerate to other sectors because of uncertainty regarding Scottish EU membership. There have already been noises made about some Scottish based companies moving South because their access to their largest market, England will be harder. The Scottish economy will be weaker. Linking it the pound will impact on English and Welsh who don't have a say on this.