New polling has found that a majority of people outside Scotland oppose the idea of a currency union.
As the SNP gather for their spring conference, the last conference before September’s referendum, they will do so with another cloud hanging over their flagship policy of an independent Scotland keeping the pound.
New polling conducted by YouGov for the international currency transfer service UKForex has found that a majority of people outside Scotland oppose the idea of a currency union.
The survey, which questioned people only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, found that 53 per cent would oppose a currency union compared with 26 per cent who would support it and 21 per cent who did not know.
The polling piles yet more pressure on Alex Salmond to come up with a Plan B on his currency policy.
As he took to the Today programme this morning, his case amounted to the clutching of straws, citing a report in the Guardian last month quoting an unnamed minister as saying that a currency union would happen if Scotland opts for independence.
But such a position has become untenable given the scope and nature of the many organisations and individuals who have objected to a union.
In February the chancellor, chief secretary to the treasury and shadow chancellor all went on the record to rule out a currency union whilst the CBI has made clear the need for the SNP to come up with a “credible plan B on currency” that addresses the concerns of Scottish business about being part of an “unstable currency union”.
Also in February, the treasury took the unusual step of publishing formal advice from the permanent secretary to the treasury Sir Nicholas Macpherson to the chancellor in which he advised “strongly against” a currency union with an independent Scotland.
Speaking earlier this week to the Public Administration Select Committee as part of its inquiry on civil service impartiality, Sir Nicholas said of the letter’s publication:
“Throughout the debate on economic issues the Scottish government has sought to cast doubt on the British government’s position.
“It has claimed that we are blustering, bluffing – in effect, casting aspersions on the UK government’s integrity.
“My view in this case, and it’s a very exceptional case, is that if publishing advice could strengthen the credibility of the government’s position, then it was my duty to do it.”
Commenting on the new poll, Better Together Campaign director Blair McDougall said:
“A currency union between a separate Scotland and the continuing UK would not happen. The prime minister, the chancellor, shadow chancellor, chief secretary to the treasury and the permanent secretary of the treasury have all said it would not happen. Now it’s clearer than ever that people living elsewhere in the UK wouldn’t agree to it either. What people in Scotland need from Alex Salmond is his Plan B for what would replace the Pound – would we rush to adopt the Euro or would we set up a separate unproven currency?
“The fact that people living elsewhere in the UK would remove their money from Scotland is very worrying. Scotland can’t afford a run on its banks. This would put thousands of Scottish jobs at risk and be a disaster for our economy.
“As part of the UK we can have the best of both worlds – a strong Scottish parliament, with the guarantee of further powers, backed up by the strength, security and stability of being part of the larger UK. We don’t need to put this at risk.”
25 Responses to “Pressure mounts on Salmond for currency plan b”
uglyfatbloke
OK….I accept that my experience as a student, lecturer, writer and consultant is nothing compared to yours, that Civil Servants are not under the sway of the government of the day, that FPTP delivers a fair result, and I certainly acknowledge that I do despair of the sheer mindlessness of Better Together (though I live in hope of improvement) and I accept that the widespread opinion among economists that a currency is, of itself, an asset (though cash on hand can be seen as a liability) is quite wrong and that I think opportunism is a good thing.
Do I hell.
You’ve cheerfully tried to twist anything I’ve said to suit your desire to vent some spleen and have a go at someone; better me than someone who might be genuinely upset.
Since you are so keen to apply the word ‘liar’ let’s just remember that when you talk about ‘an Act, not a Treaty’ we are faced with only two possibilities. Either you have failed to read a book on the subject, or that you have read a book, but you did n’t like the data. I can’t help that, but lets just assume you are ignorant as opposed to lying.
Alec
Who’s saying you aren’t competent in your chosen field? Here, your argument is utter mince, relying as it does on argumentum ad incredulum; question begging; special pleading; and general use of gossamer-like arguments and splattering of the thread with subject-changes and introduction of new info so to trip up your opponent when they make a minor error or you introduce new info which they could not possibly reasonably have anticipated.
It’s a common tactic of dissemblers and liars. And, as someone you has implicitly and/or explicitly said that Ed Jacobs and others were advocating forbidding an independent Scotland from using Ster£ing informally you are lying.
You also are pursuing non-points about fly-blown documents from over three hundred years which have been superseded and cast aside many times over to claim there are only two nations in the UK. This is, for all intents and aims, a lie as well.
By your own admission, you are not an economist, so your views on what a currency is have, for all your appeals to [your own] authority, no more value than mine. Unless you are a constitutional historian, your views on the constitutional status of the early 18th Century UK history are of questionable superiority as well… and even if you are a constitutional historian, your peculiar views on the social history of these islands have no extra authority.
~alec
uglyfatbloke
I did not say – in any sense – that Ed Jacobs was advocating anything at all, I was merely pointing out something that tends to get lost in the laundry bag of politics. Anyway…I’m sure you’ve enjoyed your thesaurus – it’s given you access to new ways or repeating yourself, but you might profit by reading a book (or two) on constitutional history and practice before you pontificate rather than after.
I note that you are very brave at a keyboard….that’s nice for you, but do be good enough to stop sending me emails.
Alec
I did not say – in any sense – that Ed Jacobs was advocating anything at all,
For goodness sake, of course you did. You most certainly said that. If you didn’t. your opening sneer was of no more substance than a haggis’ fart.
Your argument is jumping around far too much for it to be anything other than conscious deceit. You’ve ran alongside one one line of argument from me – not just about the petty lie over use of Ster£ing, but also of your support for some sort of Ster£ing post-YES (even your very support for YES) not to mention your repeated dismissal of my objection to Salmond’s opportunism – only to, further down the line, say “ah-ha! I was saying something else all along!”.
It’s of the same intellectual – and emotional – worth of a sniggering five year old saying “I know something you don’t know”.
Now, when you’ve run out of options there, you’ve seized on another non-point to troll.
You do not have a point about the nations in the UK. The constitutional set-up in 1707 ceased to have prescedence at the next Parliament, and has become less and less relevant in the three centuries since then.
It matters Sweet Felicity Arkwright that Wales was a Principality. She was and still is populated by Welshes who see themselves as a distinct nation, something more than demarcation lines on a map and statements of political control. For those of us who’re not reactionary weirdos who see countries as the property of whichever gangmasters are in charge, this is what matters.
Why should I believe you’re any sort of academic or lecturer? You’ve offered naff all in proof… not just a verifiable name/position (instead of an Internet pseudonym) but also citation sources and texts which indicate a deeper knowledge than cribbing Wiki.
And, even if you are, you’re a snob filled with disdain for those you consider your intellectual lessers (which is pretty much everyone). You must loathe the Internet which allows plebs an equal voice without due deference to you.
Your lectures would have been a treat:
You: “X is an incontestable fact.”
Student: “I disagree, look at such-and-such.”
You: “That refers to X, you prat. I clear was referring to Xi, or even Y.”
Student: “I still disagree because of ~*whatever*~.”
You: “How can you possibly believe that? No-one of any intelligence could! It clearly is as I say!”
Student: “No it’s not. I may not be as insightful and qualified as you, but I know a buffoon and argumentum ad incredulum when I see it.”
You: “Do you think you’re here to learn??? You’re here to listen! To me! I’m blah-blah-blah! Do you know who I am?”
Student: “No, I don’t. Who are you? You just have strolled in here without identifying yourself or pointing to a letter of achievement. You might as well be the chicken soup machine attendant for all I know. How do I complain to the Departmental head?”
~alec
SERAPH1212
Well you don’t obviously.