Pounding the Scots

'Is there enough cash in here?'

It's not often I agree with George Osborne. In fact counting on the fingers of one hand would probably leave a couple over for a rude salute. Yet I have to say that I have some sympathy with the UK government's recent observations on what would happen to an independent Scotland when it came to currency.

The SNP was quick to point out that the Osborne observations were little more than campaigning for a 'no' vote in the upcoming referendum (which I still think should be open the all of the UK, not just Scotland), and they were probably right. And yet I am all in favour of Scottish independence, but I can still see Osborne's point.

There seem to be four options available:

Go into the Euro
Keep the pound in some kind of 'Sterling zone'
Use the pound without official sanction from the UK
Set up a separate Scottish currency

Of course until recently the Euro appeared to be the desirable option to the SNP (if you set aside the possibility that Scotland might not have been accepted) - but it has become a poisoned chalice. No one wants that anymore. The 'Sterling zone' is the SNP's new idea, but I really can't see why the rest of the UK would want it. All the evidence is that currencies across multiple sovereign states produce serious problems. Scotland could go for the unofficial pound, just as Panama uses the US dollar, but I suspect this is considered beneath the SNP's vision of a proud, independent Scotland. As for a DIY currency, the SNP is rightfully wary, because Scotland is sufficiently small for this to be a risky approach indeed. Even so, it may be the only real option.

What I was fascinated by was Alex Salmond's rather petulant 'If you won't go with a Sterling zone, we won't accept our share of the deficit.' It made me wonder just how that would work. Given a national deficit isn't like a building society loan, split after a divorce, how would it work? Who would decide who gets what if both sides are saying 'I don't want this bit'? It's an interesting conundrum.

Stereotypical Scottish image from Wikipedia

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog