Scottish Independence.

[Trigger_Andy]

Not sure where to start here.

You mentioned my comment and asked why I said it:

… England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. …

Some argue that Scotland would not be allowed to use the GBP, others argue that Scotland could use it but not enter into a Currency union. There is plus and minus points for each as I previously covered.

The reason its an issue is many believe that if it is infact true that the UK debt stays with the UK and Scotland leaving the UK is not required legally to take on such debt, to a tune of 100 billion GBP then the rest of the UK might default especially with the loss of the Oil and Gas revenue. Its a bargaining chip Scotland is planning on using to be in a currency union.

If there is no currency union then I still think this point is very valid:

An independent Scotland that used the pound as
its base currency without the English government’s
permission would probably have a more stable
financial system and economy than England
itself.”

Of course there is spin on each side. The No Campaign is full of holes, scaremongering and outright lies. So of course sources for what I believe are going to be from a pro-source.

I guess time will tell, thats in an event of Scotland actually having the backbone to go for it. You have to ask yourself why Darling and Cameron are fighting tooth and nail to keep scotland in the Union, I think the answers obvious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28938670



Mr Salmond told viewers: "We could have a Scottish currency. We could have a flexible currency like Sweden or Norway has. We could have a fixed rate Scottish pound attached to the pound sterling. That's what Denmark does with the euro and Hong Kong does with the dollar."

Asked to choose between these options, Mr Salmond stuck by his preferred Plan A, saying no-one could stop Scotland using the pound and no chancellor would let Scotland get away with escaping its share of the UK debt liabilities.

"We don't need permission to use our own currency. The argument actually is that they will deny us the assets of the Bank of England. The reason that won't happen is that if you deny us the financial assets, then the UK will get stuck with all of the liabilities," he said.

However Mr Darling argued: "If your first message in the world is here we are, here is Scotland, and by the way we've just defaulted on our debt, what do you think that would do to people who are lending us money in the future? Nobody would lend us any money in the future."

I’m not sure which part you don’t understand? …

Evening Andy, thanks for posting back. I appreciate the links that you’ve supplied, although they are not directly related to the question I was asking, I will have a read and comment when I get a moment.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... 1408948717

England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. Something they will not accept. Not to mention that the UK's Debt is propped up on 'Taratan Oil'

I read your comment, followed the link supplied above, and read the article.


If I could summarise the position of the article (feel free to comment if you think I have it wrong):


Pro-Independence Scottish Newspaper publishes an opinion piece based on comments from Sir James Mirrlees (Nobel Laureate), Crawford Beveridge and Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Laureate), all members of the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic advisors, and a spokesperson for John Swinney, Scottish Finance Secretary.

“It is hard to see how Scotland can take on the debt unless there is a full currency union” (Sir James Mirrlees)

“One would expect that if we were to bear a proportional burden of historic liabilities then we would reasonably expect a reasonable share of the assets” (Crawford Beveridge)

“The pound is as much Scotland’s pound as the rest of the UK’s, and a currency union is in the interests of both – which is why the Scottish Government proposes it, and which is why it will be agreed after a Yes vote” (Spokesperson for John Swinney, Scottish Finance Secretary).


The main thrust of the article with this in mind seems to be:

1. Scotland and the rest of the UK share “ownership” of the Pound.

2. Scotland will not accept a share of the debt of the UK unless it has a currency union with the rest of the UK.


Point One is self-evidently true.

Point Two seems to be a matter of personal opinion from a number of individuals. I can see the logic that is implied by the comments when put together, but I don’t think it is a logical position that can stand on its merits.

I have to say that there are a number of very poor comments in this article. At best, they are poorly quoted / worded. At best, they are misleading, simplistic and somewhat confrontational.


The reason why I said that I didn’t understand was the reason for you posting the link.

I can’t see that the comment …

… England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. …

… is supported in an objective way by the link. Hence I was just curious as to why you posted it - as in, what was the outcome that you were looking for? (And why others seem to be doing so over the internet).

Just my 2p worth on this post and link, that is all. I do love a good debate, but I really don’t like lazy journalism, nor “spin doctors” – of any ilk (and there are just as many terrible ones on the “pro-union” side too, I will happily admit!).



(Note: I'm not implying that you are a "spin doctor" Andy, but am referring to the people in the article / author of the article)

[CLPete]

Not sure where to start here.

You mentioned my comment and asked why I said it:

… England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. …

Some argue that Scotland would not be allowed to use the GBP, others argue that Scotland could use it but not enter into a Currency union. There is plus and minus points for each as I previously covered.

The reason it’s an issue is many believe that if it is in fact true that the UK debt stays with the UK and Scotland leaving the UK is not required legally to take on such debt, to a tune of 100 billion GBP then the rest of the UK might default especially with the loss of the Oil and Gas revenue. It’s a bargaining chip Scotland is planning on using to be in a currency union. …

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the reply.

I do think the currency issue is the one that catches my eye the most.

The original article that you linked, in my opinion, isn’t worth more consideration that as an opinion piece dressed up as “fact” (please don’t take that as a personal attack – it is more my opinion on how the article has been written and presented both in the paper and on-line since – “propaganda” might be another word for it really).

I think if I summarise the options (for the currency):

1. Scotland enters into a currency union with the rUK
2. Scotland uses the pound but isn’t in a formal currency union
3. Scotland creates a new currency (or keeps the “pound” & the rUK create a new currency)
4. Scotland uses the Euro.

Options 1 & 4 would need the permission of the other party.

I would have thought that all options would work in varying degrees, but to link them to the debt issue is disingenuous.


I think the debt is a separate issue.

Scotland could of course (as a sovereign nation in the case of a “yes” vote) refuse to accept any share of the current UK debt. It could, of course, refuse to return any of the “shared” assets from the rUK as well (“fixtures & fittings” so to speak – such as roads etc).

However, it is not just rUK that Scotland would need to deal with in that case. At some point, borrowing will occur on the international markets, not to mention internation interactions. To unilaterally walk away from a shared debt on the basis of no currency union (but selective taking some shared assets) will create (in my opinion) a question mark over the reliability of Scotland as an international player.


Why would someone lend money to someone who has defaulted on debt in the past, to put it simply.


Just my thoughts, really. To be able to say that an independent Scotland could threaten to walk away from the debt in negotiations and “bankrupt” rUK is ignoring the (I feel) significant impact on Scotland as well.

[Trigger_Andy]

Why would someone lend money to someone who has defaulted on debt in the past, to put it simply.


Scotland would not be defaulting on its loan though. If Scotland does not get a share of the financial assets then it would be under no obligation to share the debt either. The debit is not owned by Scotland it is owned and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund ( the Treasury).

I think the below article is the most balanced Ive seen and basically says nobody knows,lol.

There is very little mention of what Scotland would be entitled to either, ie Armed forces and Gold for an example. If Westminster refuse to asset share then why would Scotland only accept the bad parts of the deal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... debts.html

[MilesnMiles]

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts
However, something should be noted. The 'Yes' vote does not guarantee that Scotland will suddenly leave the Union. That would require a protracted negotiation about many of the topics being discussed above.
The behind the scenes civil service negotiations following Devolution were complex to say the least. Anyway, as I understand it Scotland is not currently empowered to just break away fro the Union following a 'Yes' vote.

You may not know or recall, but when the Good Friday Peace Agreement was signed back in '99 both sides had to agree to future discussions about Ireland becoming re-united. Pretty sure such a 'road map' does not exist.

[Trigger_Andy]

I guess we'll see come the 18th.

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts
However, something should be noted. The 'Yes' vote does not guarantee that Scotland will suddenly leave the Union. That would require a protracted negotiation about many of the topics being discussed above.
The behind the scenes civil service negotiations following Devolution were complex to say the least. Anyway, as I understand it Scotland is not currently empowered to just break away fro the Union following a 'Yes' vote.

You may not know or recall, but when the Good Friday Peace Agreement was signed back in '99 both sides had to agree to future discussions about Ireland becoming re-united. Pretty sure such a 'road map' does not exist.

[CLPete]

Why would someone lend money to someone who has defaulted on debt in the past, to put it simply.


Scotland would not be defaulting on its loan though. If Scotland does not get a share of the financial assets then it would be under no obligation to share the debt either. The debit is not owned by Scotland it is owned and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund ( the Treasury).

I think the below article is the most balanced Ive seen and basically says nobody knows,lol.

There is very little mention of what Scotland would be entitled to either, ie Armed forces and Gold for an example. If Westminster refuse to asset share then why would Scotland only accept the bad parts of the deal?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... debts.html

Hi Andy,

I did see that article (& the other coverage) at the time.

I did think it was a shame that an attempt by the current UK as a whole to reassure investors that the money that they were lending to the “whole” as it were would be paid back, no matter the outcome (& thus ensuring that the “whole” could continue to borrow and function as a sovereign state) was used as a political tool.

The downsides of the treasury not taking that action would not only have impacted on the rUK but on Scotland – in real time, not after the vote. Simply put, they had no choice to say what they did, and it was poor of Mr Salmond to use it as a political tool (as he’d have paid the price along with the rest of us in an economic crisis had it not been done).

… Scotland would not be defaulting on its loan though. If Scotland does not get a share of the financial assets then it would be under no obligation to share the debt either. The debit is not owned by Scotland it is owned and guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund ( the Treasury).
…

Scotland does own the debt in so far as Scotland owns a share of the Consolidated Fund (The Treasury) along with the rUK. We are all jointly the backers of this debt (when it was taken out)

As I said earlier, if Scotland becomes a Sovereign State (a separate nation), it doesn’t have to listen to anyone else.

An extreme example of that policy is North Korea – it listens to no-one, but still exists and functions (after a fashion).

However, the point I was trying to make is that debts are run up currently as a union.

Rather like a marriage. If one partner in the marriage happens to say “I’ll pay back the cash, no matter what happens to the marriage” (so as to obtain good rates on credit etc for them both), it doesn’t follow that the debt is in the name of that person only. Both could be on the paperwork as an “entity”.

“Scotland” as an independent sovereign state doesn’t exist at the moment, so can’t default on a loan – as it can’t have one. However, it is part of a union that has taken on the debt (for better or worse).

It could say “debt isn’t my issue”. Of course, how the international markets take that is up for debate. My own opinion is “not well”.


I think the issue of shared assets and debt are not linked, in terms of international finance. What does a large cash-rich bank care about the negotiations in terms of who owns how much of British Rail, for example? All they will care about is “will I get paid back”.


And, why wouldn’t Scotland get a share of the assets? It should be due their fair share, after all. This would of course include things right down to the local park bins. After all, they are owned by a local authority which forms part of a political unit with ownership ultimately ending in the hands of the UK as it stands at the moment.

I think three issues are getting muddled together here (in my opinion only, of course!).

1. Assets – I feel should be shared (but the exact formula for sharing will be fun! Rarely in a divorce does one party calculate their share in such a way that reduces their share!)

2. Debt – An independent Scotland could walk away (as I’ve discussed above), but I don’t think this is practical for either party, not just “rUK would go broke if we walk away”.

3. Currency Union – I don’t feel this is an automatic outcome or even a “right” of a separation.


Simply put, point one is a “right” for Scotland, Point Two is a commercial reality, and Point Three something that could be negotiated but isn’t a right.


Sorry for the long post – I do get carried away sometimes!

[CLPete]

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts
However, something should be noted. The 'Yes' vote does not guarantee that Scotland will suddenly leave the Union. That would require a protracted negotiation about many of the topics being discussed above.
The behind the scenes civil service negotiations following Devolution were complex to say the least. Anyway, as I understand it Scotland is not currently empowered to just break away fro the Union following a 'Yes' vote.

You may not know or recall, but when the Good Friday Peace Agreement was signed back in '99 both sides had to agree to future discussions about Ireland becoming re-united. Pretty sure such a 'road map' does not exist.

Correct me if I am wrong though, in that if there is a "yes" vote, there will be a "sovereign state" formed - an independent Scotland, as it were?

I don't know the "in's & out's" - what happens if one party decides not to give on an issue, and the negotiations stop? How would that be resolved?

Interesting, as I had assumed that "no matter what", Scotland would become independent. And, if so minded, could walk away from everything with no "come-back" (as you can't tell another independent country what to do - well, without force of arms, that is).

[Dave999]

just picking up a comment from way above

scotland is a free country as we stand

independence or not

you are pretty free to do as you wish already

and I can't help feeling that what £££ flow into westminster isn't all lost to england, thats obvious, but emotive comments are tending to make it sound like that is the case.

if you work hard in scotland you get richer
if you work hard in england you get richer

maybe employ some people and get a starship enterpirise award off the prince of wales to go next to your investors in people certificate

good old hard work and a bit of imgaination goes exactly the same distance either side of the boarder

scotland does however have a much wider Labour support than england and traditionally Labour has represented the workers, and the guys in the trade unions..


and to use a very wide brush the attitude of somebody in semi skilled or skilled industry and/or who is a member of a union tends to be that they are working for the BOSS, and the BOSS is a bad man, only in it for himself. A man who care's nothing for the rights of his workers
keep em poor and keep em in line...
the enemy. The the boss says black the workers say white and never will the two agree.

this refrendum appears to be just highlighting this attitude on a National scale.

Yes my views are probably offensive. My own view is that the trade unions are not that relevant in a modern world with workers rights entrenched in the law of the land so i guess you can see where i'm coming from.
Yes I've basically implied the whole of scotland is a bunch of lefty trade unionists and that is not fair...

but that is how its looking to me.

Alex salmond is the union Rep

means well

Sticks to his princepals but ultimatly ends up hurting the very people he is trying to help.


righty-ho bucket of hot tar and big fat brush has been confiscated

so i'll climb back into my box.

to be honest a Yes vote will make me slightly indignant.

but i will have some admiration if it all works...

even more if it all works as Salmond is implying. but i wouldn't bet on it

Dave

[latil]

Other implications money wise.
NS&I National Savings.
Premium Bonds.
National Lottery.

[mad machs]

Interesting debate now that the quality has risen with more recent posts

What you trying to say Miles?

You want quality? Ok, time for a Daily Heil article...

Votes for sale

[CLPete]

Other implications money wise.
NS&I National Savings.
Premium Bonds.
National Lottery.

It's an endless list, if you think about it really!

It is like a marriage, really, that is breaking up.

"That's my table, given to me by my granny & only important to me - so I should get it".

"But it has a financial value. You get that table, I want the dividends from our share investments"

"But they keep on going each year"

"Well, we'll sell the table ..."

Etc etc!

I like the fact that things down to street lights (owned by various government authorities from local councils all the way to the highways, govt buildings etc) need to be valued, and ownership divided up.

Who "owns" overseas embassies? Who gets "sued" by overseas "historic" parties for past actions of the UK or Empire (Kenya victims for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ctims.html).

Who pays future liabilities too? Pensions?

My favorite one is this:

It used to be (about 15 years ago) that an Australian - born in Australia, who had a British Father; could apply for British citizenship (not sure of the rules now). That person would not have been born in Britain.

In the case of a separation - does that person get a rUK passport, a Scottish one, or could they chose?

Imagine how many situations like that there are!?

[Dave999]

Other implications money wise.
NS&I National Savings.
Premium Bonds.
National Lottery.

and that last one has quite big implications for quality of sport/culture/life/environment
way bigger than most know becasue the lottery funded sign is not often displayed.

it has implications for credit checking UK residencey checking

one of the main bodies that does fit and proper clerance is based wholey in scotland if scotland is independent that company won't have access to the data they need from the rest of the UK...

TV licencing and access to internet services

i mean you might end up with BBC prime

passports
National insurance
income tax
gambling over state/international boarders
NHS
land registry
electoral roll

the reorganistaion of all of that costs us money as well.


dave

[Trigger_Andy]

Not sure if you are putting losing these over as a plus or a negative.

Other implications money wise.
NS&I National Savings.
Premium Bonds.
National Lottery.

[CLPete]

Not sure if you are putting losing these over as a plus or a negative.

Other implications money wise.
NS&I National Savings.
Premium Bonds.
National Lottery.

You can have the house of lords - you part-own it at the moment!

Trade it for some oil!

[Trigger_Andy]

Free do do as we wish, well thats not true. There is various things that have been forced on, the picture lists 4 main ones. Not to mention the Conservative Government. Even if the whole of Scotland voted for one party it would not sway the vote one way or the other. That means we do not get the government we vote for. Thats not very democratic is it?

Nuclear weapons, not many in Scotland want them stored on our door steps and have them traipsed through our cities in the dead of night but we really have no option currently.

Trident is another issue. Not many want them in Scottish waters, for one it stops some oil fields in the West of Shetland opening up and two the cost Scotland has to pay each year is huge.

We have no control on where the Oil revenue goes.

We have no control over the privatization of the NHS should it happen.

We have very little control of anything really.


I like offensive views, the more offensive the better. :d

just picking up a comment from way above

scotland is a free country as we stand

independence or not

you are pretty free to do as you wish already

and I can't help feeling that what £££ flow into westminster isn't all lost to england, thats obvious, but emotive comments are tending to make it sound like that is the case.

if you work hard in scotland you get richer
if you work hard in england you get richer

maybe employ some people and get a starship enterpirise award off the prince of wales to go next to your investors in people certificate

good old hard work and a bit of imgaination goes exactly the same distance either side of the boarder

scotland does however have a much wider Labour support than england and traditionally Labour has represented the workers, and the guys in the trade unions..


and to use a very wide brush the attitude of somebody in semi skilled or skilled industry and/or who is a member of a union tends to be that they are working for the BOSS, and the BOSS is a bad man, only in it for himself. A man who care's nothing for the rights of his workers
keep em poor and keep em in line...
the enemy. The the boss says black the workers say white and never will the two agree.

this refrendum appears to be just highlighting this attitude on a National scale.

Yes my views are probably offensive. My own view is that the trade unions are not that relevant in a modern world with workers rights entrenched in the law of the land so i guess you can see where i'm coming from.
Yes I've basically implied the whole of scotland is a bunch of lefty trade unionists and that is not fair...

but that is how its looking to me.

Alex salmond is the union Rep

means well

Sticks to his princepals but ultimatly ends up hurting the very people he is trying to help.


righty-ho bucket of hot tar and big fat brush has been confiscated

so i'll climb back into my box.

to be honest a Yes vote will make me slightly indignant.

but i will have some admiration if it all works...

even more if it all works as Salmond is implying. but i wouldn't bet on it

Dave