3 ms·

> And it wasn’t just Spain, it was all of southern Europe and more. Even euro-area countries with sound finances, like Finland and the Netherlands, have suffere

> And it wasn’t just Spain, it was all of southern Europe and more. Even euro-area countries with sound finances, like Finland and the Netherlands, have suffered deep and prolonged slumps. I hadn't heard of troubles in those two countries before before, though I'm sure like pretty much every country in Europe — or indeed the world — they didn't go entirely unscathed during a global financial crisis. Scotland, the UK as a whole and other western European countries aren't exactly in the depths of recession and unemployment that have been happening in Spain and Greece, for example. Note the lack of mention of Norway (not that it's a eurozone country), which is in an incredible financial position with a $900bn fund made up primarily by saving a portion of oil revenue. While Norway has had 15 years to amass this huge fund, this is the model that Scotland would like to follow — as after independence it would have control of its north sea oil and gas revenue. > In short, everything that has happened in Europe since 2009 or so has demonstrated that sharing a currency without sharing a government is very dangerous. What happened was dangerous, though arguably the use of a shared currency and central bank helped countries support one another. In any case, the most likely outcome in the case of Scottish independence is a currency union with the rest of the UK, in a similar manner to the Euro. If the Bank of England denies Scotland the use of its assets, it will also have to forgo Scotland's share of the liabilities, essentially wiping out Scotland's share of UK debt. So it's unlikely that Scotland's currency would be completely separate in any case. All in all, while there are naturally unknown factors, there are plenty of reasons to seek independence and just in terms of economics — even excluding oil and gas revenue — an independent Scotland would appear to be in a good financial position.

jacquesm 12y ago
The housing market in NL all but crashed and is still just about limping along. In some provinces the situation is pretty dreadful. The funny bit is that the prices haven't dropped all that much (because people are psychologically much less likely to take a loss on a property than they are to cash in on a profit, a big factor in this is that they'll end up with a remaining debt to the bank after selling the house which is definitely not always an option). So the market simply froze with asking prices holding relatively steady and sales dropping to near zero at some point. As of late there is a bit of a recovery depending on the area you look at.
- justincormack 12y ago
  That tends to happen with housing, meaning people cant move but prices do not appear to fall. (In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan, but thats not the case in the rest of the world)
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    > In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan That's only in certain states. Most states are "recourse states" where the bank can sue you for the difference between whatever they sold the property for and the remainder of the loan.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    > In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan Could you explain this a bit more. I think you are saying that in the US when you sell your house for less than the value of the loan, the banks takes the loss instead of you, which is not how I thought it worked. Does this have something to do with mortgage insurance?
    - ojbyrne 12y ago
      I think he means if you get foreclosed, the bank has no recourse beyond just taking your house. If you sell your house, then obviously you're responsible for the difference.
      - olentangy 12y ago
        Sounds like a short sale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate)
      - seanflyon 12y ago
        That seems odd. Why would anyone sell their house for less than their mortgage when they can just walk away and not owe anything?
dizzy3gg 12y ago
The North Sea Oil paid for the 80's, the main income from it now is tax. The Norway government will still own a lot of their oil. It will be very expensive for both the UK and Scotland if its a yes vote. I just hope it isn't because I can't see it being beneficial to either party.
guelo 12y ago
Norway is not a member of the Eurozone, it controls its own currency.
peteretep 12y ago
> If the Bank of England denies Scotland the use of its > assets, it will also have to forgo Scotland's share of > the liabilities, essentially wiping out Scotland's share > of UK debt. The Bank of England's central asset is that people believe the UK economy will produce enough to make the UK government's promises in Pounds Sterling worth something. Salmond Shekels may not carry the same weight, perhaps quintuply so if one of the first acts of the new government is to renege on their financial commitments. Besides: anyone who doesn't think that France, Spain, and other EU members are going to extract their pound of flesh for EU membership for Scotland - in no small part to dissuade their own autonomous regions - is living in la la land. It'll be the Euro, or being locked out of the EU. That the best response to this so far is "No no, it'll all be fine, we're already part of the EU" serves to illustrate the degree to which the independence argument is based on really really really hoping it works out OK.

jacquesm 12y ago

The housing market in NL all but crashed and is still just about limping along. In some provinces the situation is pretty dreadful. The funny bit is that the prices haven't dropped all that much (because people are psychologically much less likely to take a loss on a property than they are to cash in on a profit, a big factor in this is that they'll end up with a remaining debt to the bank after selling the house which is definitely not always an option). So the market simply froze with asking prices holding relatively steady and sales dropping to near zero at some point. As of late there is a bit of a recovery depending on the area you look at.

justincormack 12y ago
That tends to happen with housing, meaning people cant move but prices do not appear to fall. (In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan, but thats not the case in the rest of the world)
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan That's only in certain states. Most states are "recourse states" where the bank can sue you for the difference between whatever they sold the property for and the remainder of the loan.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  > In the US you don't end up with a debt to the bank if the value is less than the loan Could you explain this a bit more. I think you are saying that in the US when you sell your house for less than the value of the loan, the banks takes the loss instead of you, which is not how I thought it worked. Does this have something to do with mortgage insurance?
  - ojbyrne 12y ago
    I think he means if you get foreclosed, the bank has no recourse beyond just taking your house. If you sell your house, then obviously you're responsible for the difference.
    - olentangy 12y ago
      Sounds like a short sale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_sale_(real_estate)
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      That seems odd. Why would anyone sell their house for less than their mortgage when they can just walk away and not owe anything?

dizzy3gg 12y ago

The North Sea Oil paid for the 80's, the main income from it now is tax. The Norway government will still own a lot of their oil. It will be very expensive for both the UK and Scotland if its a yes vote. I just hope it isn't because I can't see it being beneficial to either party.

guelo 12y ago

Norway is not a member of the Eurozone, it controls its own currency.

peteretep 12y ago

> If the Bank of England denies Scotland the use of its > assets, it will also have to forgo Scotland's share of > the liabilities, essentially wiping out Scotland's share > of UK debt. The Bank of England's central asset is that people believe the UK economy will produce enough to make the UK government's promises in Pounds Sterling worth something. Salmond Shekels may not carry the same weight, perhaps quintuply so if one of the first acts of the new government is to renege on their financial commitments. Besides: anyone who doesn't think that France, Spain, and other EU members are going to extract their pound of flesh for EU membership for Scotland - in no small part to dissuade their own autonomous regions - is living in la la land. It'll be the Euro, or being locked out of the EU. That the best response to this so far is "No no, it'll all be fine, we're already part of the EU" serves to illustrate the degree to which the independence argument is based on really really really hoping it works out OK.