Could be interesting. It has already been discussed here why they cannot go straight into the Eurozone so they would have to stay with the Scottish Pound. It was in existence before the Union so it is traditional. The problem comes as to who issues it.
At the moment there are three Scottish banks that issue notes, effectively promissary notes, that are not legal tender anywhere, not even in Scotland. The three are the Royal Bank of Scotland, 84% owned by the British government. The Bank of Scotland; merged with the Halifax Bank and then taken over by LLoyds Banking Group, both English; and the Clydesdale Bank, owned by the National Australia Bank, obviously Australian. The Scottish offices that issue these banknotes have to base it on something and all Scottish notes have printed on them:

promise to pay the bearer on demand (Five/Ten etc) Pounds Sterling at their office.

So Scottish notes are tied to the GB Pound. How do you use a currency that belongs to another country using banks that are owned by other countries. To issue its own would mean that the Scottish pound, whatever it is called, will have to float on the market. Should it fluctuate against its nearest and only neighbour that can bring all sorts of problems from attracting investment to doing the weekly shopping.

Interesting times if it happens.

Separating Scotland from the rest of the UK will cost a staggering amount of money when you consider all aspects that will have to be created or taken on by the new Scottish state. A considerable amount of duplication will have to be paid for. Yet the western world is near to bankruptcy; Europe (or more accurately – the Euro) is bankrupt and the UK (as it stands at the moment) is in dire straits financially. Both Scottish banks HBOS and RBS had to be bailed out by the UK tax payer at vast expense and show no real signs of sustained recovery.

So, my question is this; are we really prepared to pour staggering quantities of money that we don’t have down the political drain for a ideological solution to a problem that isn't there.?

It would seem that the SNP think we should :ugh:

It looks like Scottish acceptance into the EU is something that will not be encouraged.

Spain could wield veto over Scotland's EU membership

So it looks like Scotland really would have to go its own way. I would imagine that Gibraltar is at the forefront of Spanish thinking as well.

My thoughts exactly. Unless what Salmond really wants is the trappings of power without all the tedious, expensive bureaucracies that are required by a modern sovereign independent state, then the vast amounts of time, effort and money required to duplicate all the existing UK national infrastructure that isn't already devolved is something that nobody can afford right now.

taxy dual

That would be a "Quid Pro Quo" then?:ok:

PS The Country of Scotland has two World Class Soccer Teams - the City of Manchester has two as well!!

WTF?

Is that the very best you can do?

Pop'n Glasgow = 592,820
Pop'n manchester= 498,800

Pop'n England = 51,446,000
Pop'n Scotland = 5,222,100

English cities w/pop'n >0.4 million = 8
Scottish " " " " " " = 2

And your point caza2?

18 currencies are presently used within currency unions. No reason whatsoever why the Pound Scots couldn't be pegged to the Pound Sterling, or the Euro, or the Dollar, or whatever.

Spain is playing to the benefit of the home audience.

Two Sovereign States ("A" & "B") enter into a treaty of union to create a single Sovereign State. ("C").

"C" enters into a treaty of union with a gouping of sovereign states ("Z").

Whilst a member of "Z", "C" repeals its founding treaty of union and reverts to "A" and "B".

Under such circumstances, any and all treaties undertaken by "C" in respect of "Z" apply equally to "A" and "B".

If a member of "Z" desires to exclude "A" from "Z", then the basis for exclusion applies equally to "B".

The Euro-sceptics must be ecstatic; Spain's efforts to keep an Independent Scotland from joining the EU could see the remainder of the UK similarly kept out. I can see Bill Cash joining the SNP, oh, sometime next week.

rab-k

It's called banter - defined as "to assail with good-humoured raillery". You appear to have little (if any) sense of humour.:=

Ahhh, I see...

Sometimes "banter" in this place would qualify as "bile" elsewhere. As such, it is often easy to confuse the two.

My wife often says I have a "warped" sense of humour; but then what would she know, she's English. :ouch:

Rab, by your reckoning then, your last comment was racist bile. Don't go thinking you can have it both ways. I fear this is the trap that a clutch of Scots have fallen into, the ABE brigade, who see any criticism as racist and oppressive, but are happy to
paint everyone south of the border as rabid imperialists raping their fair land. Hypocrisy that knows no bounds I'm afraid.

Be careful what you wish for in the coming years. The law of Unintended Consequences has a nasty habit of catching out idealists......

You demonstrated my point nicely in as much as the distinction is drawn by those who read, rather than by those who post.

If we're having a political/economic discussion then perhaps we should avoid any confusion and stick to precisely that; leaving the "banter" for the pub/Jetblast.

I would have thought that this thread should have been on Jet Blast anyway. I fail to see why it is on the Military Forum. The first couple of posts had a military twang but after that is it is pure politics.

Fareastdriver,

It's got plenty to do with the military. If it keeps you happy, here's the latest offering from the press:

Former Army officers ridicule SNP plans to transfer famous regiments into 'Alex Salmond's home guard'

The real danger is, of course, which regiments the goverment will now cast their eyes over when they look at disbanding more over the next couple of years. I fear that Salmond has given Scottish regiments the kiss of death. :{

But that is the whole basis for our racial equality laws.

It is based on what I think you meant and not on what you thought you meant.

One should also avoid emotive comment. Bile and rabid may be considered by many to be emotive.

Read cazatou's comment, simple explanatory comment without resort to emotion.

One might think you are typical of a particular son of the manse but it would be emotive to call you as such.

Wrong place ..............you mean City of London

Another interesting decision coming up soon:

British arms maker 'mulling closure of historic dockyard'

[my bold]

Faced with the possibility of Scottish independance, I wouldn't put too much money on Portsmouth closing.

Since Clyde has come up again, if the UK Gov't decided to move all military activity from Clyde to somewhere in the UK, where would they locate it ?

As someone said above, it seems to me that anything based in Scotland is likely to not have money put into it until this whole issue is put to bed.

This is but one small can of worms in the Scottish Independence kitchen.

The yards are owned by the business groups within BAE and run for the contracts supporting the MOD, but the bases are owned by the MOD and run for them by BAE.

Should the Government make the MOD assign the bases to the Vietjock Armed Forces, there is no legal authority that can make the Peoples Democratic Republic of Jockistan take on BAE as managers.

This leaves the MOD open to all sorts of compensation claims from BAE.

Wee Eck may of course want to keep the Clyde naval facilities open for business (not just Scottish business) and provide the (English) MOD with a cost effective solution that beats opening Portsmouth.

All of this debate over affording the armed forces is based on the old fashioned idea of what Scotland needs. I would have thought that the MRA and Harrier Force destruction was a clear signal that times have changed.

The world still turns.

LFFC (#285 above): The reason Spain may want to veto Scottich EU membership has more to do with clipping the wings of the Catalans and the Basques than it has to do with Gibraltar (in my opinion). There may be other member states who might also want to curb the ambitions of breakaway regions.

Imagine an EU of 60 members !

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/mu..._2_600855t.jpg

It is within living memory that in times past this chap might have been handing a wreath to his Colonel-in-Chief.

Amazing what can happen if people put their minds to it; despite the suggestions of others.

Elizabeth, as Queen of Scots, would continue to receive the Oath of Allegiance from any Scottish Defence Forces personnel; although the reference to "the Second" in her title would probably be dropped.

And all of them with the vast financial clout of members like Ireland, Portugal, Estonia.....etc etc