An Independent Scotland?

gman said:
So no politician is responsible for the financial stability of their country?
Click to expand...
Is that a genuine question or are you just stirring? I'll assume it's genuine.

In formal logical terms what you've done is called a false dichotomy. 'A causes Z' does not rule out the possibility that 'B causes Z', but you have wrongly assumed that it does.

In practical terms the question is meaningless until you define "responsible". Carney has it in his job description, and he's probably unique in that respect. But he is very clear that his job is to implement the policies handed down to him by his political masters, so it's clear that he is not solely responsible.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
It was rhetorical lol
 
Is it safe to go to Scotland on holiday next week or have the Home Office advised against?
 
Just avoid the deep fried haggis in chocolate sauce and you'll be fine.
 
Steep said:
Just avoid the deep fried haggis in chocolate sauce and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
I`m more concerned about breakfast at Charlies and seeing @BRASH again
 
fracster said:
I`m more concerned about breakfast at Charlies and seeing @BRASH again
Click to expand...

I'm sure that as long as he's been fed beforehand there won't be any issues, just don't try to pet him.
 
gman said:
Putting it in bold doesn't change its lack of clarity.

Salmond has specifically said: "Scotland won't take share of UK debt without currency union"

So if we can come back to reality for a moment where things don't always go to plan or the way you want it, if the currency union is not agreed do you think it's right that Scotland don't take on a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

It seems there may be no debt for Scotland to take on if WM refuses to join a currency union.

This from a Daily Record article today.

" Q: But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.

A: The Bank of England is a publicly owned asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to. If Westminster grabs all the assets of the central UK bank then, under international law, it also gets lumped with the liabilities, ie the UK’s £1.3trillion debt.

Q: So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?

A: Absolutely scot free.

Q: How much will we save?

A: Scotland’s share of debt interest is calculated at £5billion a year.

Q: But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…

A: Wrong. On January 13, 2014, the UK Treasury issued a statement to the money markets, saying it would honour all the UK debt if Scotland voted Yes.

This was despite the SNP government offering to pay in negotiations after a Yes vote.

You cannot default on debt that is not yours."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182
 
That's like saying after independence then the Scots still expect to send MPs to Westminster as that building is an asset to be shared. Ridiculous.
 
HuntingMartians said:
That's like saying after independence then the Scots still expect to send MPs to Westminster as that building is an asset to be shared. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


It seems the Yes camp are getting increasingly strange in their announcements since Salmond did so badly in last weeks debate.

Maybe the next announcement will be Salmond expects Big Ben or part of Buckingham Palace to be delivered to Edinburgh because historically Scotland helped fund it...
 
Yes announcement? If it's the law it's the law, got nothing to do with who told you.

The Yes camp have repeatedly said Scotland will take it's share of the national debt but if WM insist on taking it on themselves...
 
Steep said:
It seems there may be no debt for Scotland to take on if WM refuses to join a currency union.

This from a Daily Record article today.

" Q: But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.

A: The Bank of England is a publicly owned asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to. If Westminster grabs all the assets of the central UK bank then, under international law, it also gets lumped with the liabilities, ie the UK’s £1.3trillion debt.

Q: So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?

A: Absolutely scot free.

Q: How much will we save?

A: Scotland’s share of debt interest is calculated at £5billion a year.

Q: But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…

A: Wrong. On January 13, 2014, the UK Treasury issued a statement to the money markets, saying it would honour all the UK debt if Scotland voted Yes.

This was despite the SNP government offering to pay in negotiations after a Yes vote.

You cannot default on debt that is not yours."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182
Click to expand...


If the Scots own "their share" of UK assets, as the Welsh and NI do and we all own our share of the assets in Scotland that have been paid for by the UK public purse …….. how is it all going to be apportioned and valued

how do you share the assets/liabilities in this divorce
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Yes announcement? If it's the law it's the law, got nothing to do with who told you.

The Yes camp have repeatedly said Scotland will take it's share of the national debt but if WM insist on taking it on themselves...
Click to expand...

Scotland will take its share of debt, to think otherwise is naive. Not a single asset will be handed over and till that's agreed.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Scotland will take its share of debt, to think otherwise is naive. Not a single asset will be handed over and till that's agreed.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, this is what the negotiations will cover in the event of a Yes vote.
 
Usually the value of currency increases typically when employment is high, exports are high or central bank interest rates are increased etc. So you could say that currency isn't really an asset but more a reflection on a country's prosperity. The debt has accumulated from sustaining the country and maintaining/building new assets - of which plenty will be in Scotland. You can't tie the National Debt to the currency. As for saying the Bank of England is also owned by Scotland and therefore the currency value, then what happens when England come back and say that they've contributed to the building and running of North Sea oil, so we'll have a great big chunk of that thanks?

If Scotland are predicting to be so prosperous then why would they want a currency which is being held back by the apparent doomed rUK? It doesn't make sense.

So once again, why don't Scotland want their own currency if they are going to be so rich and successful?
 
gman said:
Usually the value of currency increases typically when employment is high, exports are high or central bank interest rates are increased etc. So you could say that currency isn't really an asset but more a reflection on a country's prosperity. The debt has accumulated from sustaining the country and maintaining/building new assets - of which plenty will be in Scotland. You can't tie the National Debt to the currency. As for saying the Bank of England is also owned by Scotland and therefore the currency value, then what happens when England come back and say that they've contributed to the building and running of North Sea oil, so we'll have a great big chunk of that thanks?

If Scotland are predicting to be so prosperous then why would they want a currency which is being held back by the apparent doomed rUK? It doesn't make sense.

So once again, why don't Scotland want their own currency if they are going to be so rich and successful?
Click to expand...

Who's to say Scotland won't have its own currency in the future, when the time is right?
 
gman said:
... why don't Scotland want their own currency if they are going to be so rich and successful?
Click to expand...
Bobsyeruncle said:
Who's to say Scotland won't have its own currency in the future, when the time is right?
Click to expand...
I think that's it. Keeping sterling is a short term tactic which is aimed at making the transition to independence smoother. It may or may not be a good long term tactic, but none of the politicians are thinking long term.
 
gman said:
As for saying the Bank of England is also owned by Scotland and therefore the currency value, then what happens when England come back and say that they've contributed to the building and running of North Sea oil, so we'll have a great big chunk of that thanks?
Click to expand...
A sizeable chunk of the North Sea oil has already been taken by rUK with the 1999 amendment. It's more a case of how Scotland would wrest that back, rather than whether rUK would get it.

gman said:
If Scotland are predicting to be so prosperous then why would they want a currency which is being held back by the apparent doomed rUK? It doesn't make sense. So once again, why don't Scotland want their own currency if they are going to be so rich and successful?
Click to expand...
Agree, and indeed I very much do want a new currency. The whole issue is not about "I want to be independent from England", the issue (for me) is about "the current system is not working for Scotland OR England. The best way to change that is by going it alone and trying to do so". The best scenario is to be able to issue your own currency fully backed by public reserves. Money creation would not be debt backed, nor by private banks. Monetary and credit functions totally separated (as they used to be). Neither the Pound nor the Euro meets any of those criteria, so best option is to try independently. The WORST option (again IMO) is to be "independent", yet allow another sovereign nation to control the currency you use - that is by no definition independence! Incurring debts denominated in a currency you do not control is a major threat to prosperity and independence, and I see that as a very bad idea.
 
Meanwhile, here's Andrew Maxwell at the Edinburgh Fringe:

"Alistair Darling v Alex Salmond. What a choice you've got, Scotland. One of them looks like he met his second wife at a health-and-safety conference and the other one looks like he'd sell you something out of a sports bag."
 
If the plan is for a currency union in the short term and then to progress onto our own currency then he should be saying that because I think that would go a lot further with gaining public support.

Of course saying it's just for a smooth transition may be true, but then if Scotland ends up being a disaster then they still have the safety of a strong currency - so it brings people back to seeing the Scots as wanting their cake etc. but not willing to take any risks.

As for the 1999 Amendment, I think it's been firmly established that this wouldn't be upheld in the event of independence as the globally accepted way upon which a country's sea boundaries are created would contradict this. I personally found that an extremely devious thing for Westminster to do and a disgusting abuse of power.
 
Last edited:
While it's true that the rUK paid a lot into setting up the various oilfields it's also true that the rUK has benefited from them far more so while negotiations might find some extra revenue allotted to them it would likely be in exchange for something else, not as a 'right'.
 
Very true :)
 
Nobody has made any claims to the contrary.
 
So there is no truth to the rumour that the SNP have a plan B if currency union isn't possible?

I heard they were considering a new currency called the Salmond :cool:

:exit:
 
gman said:
....this wouldn't be upheld in the event of independence as the globally accepted way upon which a country's sea boundaries are created would contradict this. I personally found that an extremely devious thing for Westminster to do and a disgusting abuse of power.
Click to expand...
Agree. Trouble is when we cast our eyes around the world there are a LOT of things happening, despite the fact they are in contradiction not only with globally accepted ways, but treaties and international law.

So I hope that would simply be reversed (and it was very devious), but until agreed it''s a bridge still to be crossed.
 
Dave1 said:
So there is no truth to the rumour that the SNP have a plan B if currency union isn't possible?

I heard they were considering a new currency called the Salmond :cool:

:exit:
Click to expand...

No plan B for currency.

No plan B for any of their work streams - it's all or nothing !

T minus 31 days to the ballot.
 
Moadib said:
Agree. Trouble is when we cast our eyes around the world there are a LOT of things happening, despite the fact they are in contradiction not only with globally accepted ways, but treaties and international law.

So I hope that would simply be reversed (and it was very devious), but until agreed it''s a bridge still to be crossed.
Click to expand...

UK really wants to be seen as upholders of law and justice around the world, double dealing so obviously in any negotiations would harm their reputation a lot.
 
As i keep seeing this "tax" on bedrooms mentioned. Why should people on benefits expect to have a spare bedroom funded by their government?
 
HuntingMartians said:
Is it not?
Click to expand...

No, in most cases it's an unavoidable charge on people. For example, a person needing medical equipment or medical reasons for requiring another bedroom (like a dialysis machine) are still expected to pay, and even worse there are thousands of tenants who have agreed to downsize, unfortunately due to 30 years of government policy there are no 1 or 2 bed properties for these people to move to.

Marvellous when you have an unavoidable tax imposed on a person who has agreed to do as asked, but can't because the council or housing association just doesn't have the property for them to move to.

It was a good idea, completely twisted and wrecked in it's implementation by this government.
 
Dave1 said:
So there is no truth to the rumour that the SNP have a plan B if currency union isn't possible?

I heard they were considering a new currency called the Salmond :cool:

:exit:
Click to expand...

Aye and there's 100 Sturgeons in a Salmond hehe
 
Was just wondering and this isn't a loaded question, but what's the worst case scenario for Scotland if she goes independent? I'm not interested in the anticipated and unrealistic replies such as "there isn't one" etc, but more a pragmatic one with some potential numbers, consequences and solutions?

For example, the current deficit of Scotland with a geographical share of North Sea oil is £8.6 billion. So if Scotland goes independent and gets a currency union, so let's assume that on that basis trade and assets and other associated elements retains their current value and stauts, but despite reforms with revenue and expenditure the deficit remains at £8.6 billion what would be the consequences and potential solutions to combat this? Realistically and practically, based on current conditions and events.

I do have theories in my head but I'm interested in hearing what other people's views would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top