"No currency union! No surrender!"
I have to say I find the Westminster government's categorical assertion that there will be no currency union disappointing, in what should be a mature debate. It beggars belief that they would seek to impose millions of pounds of transaction and currency-conversion costs on businesses and citizens in the UK. A more plausible explanation is that they're bluffing, so as to scare the undecideds into the No camp. Shades of Northern Ireland float about again. "We never make deals with terrorists and seceders! No surrender!" Or at any rate, not until Good Friday. What scumbags.
They're also seeking to sow doubt, confusion and fear into the minds of the voters. There was evidence of this in the reaction of some poor benighted businesswoman on Radio 4 lunchtime news today, who said that she was part of the anti-independence campaign but just wanted certainty. Why did she want certainty, given that she'd made up her mind? How had she made up her mind, given that there was no certainty? Osborne further muddied the waters by pointing out that the UK was under no obligation to allow Scotland to use sterling. Not quite, George: there's no obligation for the UK to allow a *formal* currency union, but Scotland could just use sterling anyway, whatever the UK government said, creating an informal union. These options were set out by the Fiscal Commission in 2013, so who does Osborne think he's misinforming here?
I notice in this evening's news that Cameron is reported as saying that a currency union would be "very unlikely". This is less hard-nosed than earlier statements that it would never happen, and from Alistair Darling's claim that any negotiations on currency union would be "extremely short-lived". Perhaps the scumbags are already rowing back.
They're also seeking to sow doubt, confusion and fear into the minds of the voters. There was evidence of this in the reaction of some poor benighted businesswoman on Radio 4 lunchtime news today, who said that she was part of the anti-independence campaign but just wanted certainty. Why did she want certainty, given that she'd made up her mind? How had she made up her mind, given that there was no certainty? Osborne further muddied the waters by pointing out that the UK was under no obligation to allow Scotland to use sterling. Not quite, George: there's no obligation for the UK to allow a *formal* currency union, but Scotland could just use sterling anyway, whatever the UK government said, creating an informal union. These options were set out by the Fiscal Commission in 2013, so who does Osborne think he's misinforming here?
I notice in this evening's news that Cameron is reported as saying that a currency union would be "very unlikely". This is less hard-nosed than earlier statements that it would never happen, and from Alistair Darling's claim that any negotiations on currency union would be "extremely short-lived". Perhaps the scumbags are already rowing back.
Comments
Post a Comment