An Independent Scotland?

I see the WM expenses abuse continues.
 
Bernie174 said:
As I said, it has to be good for the UK, and it isn't.
Click to expand...

So we're clear then, you believe that a situation where Scotland took no part of the UK debt would not have an adverse effect on the rUK economy? the loss of oil revenue not withstanding.
 
Can someone explain something to me.

The view from yes seems to be that if there is no currency union we walk away from the debt. How can that be? The pound isn't as asset, it's only a currency. We've already got a range of assets in the form of roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc etc etc. Surely those are the assets we're speaking about here and there is a debt of some order that comes with those, not the pound?

If I change my bank it doesn't mean I get to stop paying my mortgage.
 
Steep said:
So we're clear then, you believe that a situation where Scotland took no part of the UK debt would not have an adverse effect on the rUK economy? the loss of oil revenue not withstanding.
Click to expand...


Surely as an independent country you'd expect to stand up to for responsibilities as well as your benefits. I'm lost why anyone would think they can run away taking only the good bits with them?
 
dod said:
Can someone explain something to me.

The view from yes seems to be that if there is no currency union we walk away from the debt. How can that be? The pound isn't as asset, it's only a currency. We've already got a range of assets in the form of roads, schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc etc etc. Surely those are the assets we're speaking about here and there is a debt of some order that comes with those, not the pound?

If I change my bank it doesn't mean I get to stop paying my mortgage.
Click to expand...

dod if you are in a business partnership and one partner (say the senior one) signs a loan agreement guaranteeing that they alone will be responsible for it then the debt becomes theirs not the partnerships. This is what has happened with the UK, the Treasury has guaranteed the loans saying that they will cover them in the event of a yes. On top of that there's the issue I brought up earlier about the loans being in the UKs name and not transferable or reassignable even in part without the lenders consent and possibly reassessed charges. What I iScotland can do is offer to make continued payments to rUK towards their debt in recognition that Scotland also benefited from them. The currency has nothing to do with the debt except where the one is being used as a bargaining tool to get the other.
 
Hugh

No, please don't try to misquote me, you aren't an SNP document, and I will correct you. I accept that without CU Scotland is screwed or condemned to the Euro, something I suspect is at last dawning on the Yes camp. But blackmail doesn't work.

You helped spend the debt, you beifitted from it, you are responsible for your part of it. The same as a married couple getting a loan in Wifes name, if both benefited it makes no difference who took the loan out, both are held liable.

No amount of thinking will change that. If you walk away from it, the consequences will be the same as if you didn't pay your own credit. You loose your rating and it costs you more in future.

The threats from the SNP are in effect counterproductive, you don't start on the basis of we will get our own way or we'll stamp our feet like a petulant child.

So, what I am saying is that the expert opinion is that CU is not good for the UK. Once Scotland votes to go, sadly but inevitably, the effect of not having CU on Scotland is of no interest. You want to be Independent, then be, Independence. If you want CU, stay in the Union.

There's nothing Scotland is offering to make it worth the risk to us.
 
boyfalldown said:
Surely as an independent country you'd expect to stand up to for responsibilities as well as your benefits. I'm lost why anyone would think they can run away taking only the good bits with them?
Click to expand...

I certainly would hope that responsibilities would be met on both sides, that's not the point I was making. I was trying to point out why I think CU is going to be good for both parties, others on this thread spend all their time running Scotland down denying the possibility of CU ever happening but I don't think they realise (or possibly it just doesn't suit them to admit) that there could be possibly quite severe consequences for both sides if agreement is not reached.
 
Bernie174 said:
There's nothing Scotland is offering to make it worth the risk to us.
Click to expand...


I've always said morally responsible yes and I'm no legal expert but no-one including you has come up with any evidence to prove wrong the legal side of it.

As for that last bit, 'us' is in your head and possibly the headlines of the Daily Fail, luckily wiser heads will be doing the negotiating if the time should come.
 
I can answer that, in UK law.
If a loan is taken out in one name a couple for example for example, and and both parties benefit, then the loan is defaulted on, then the loan company can seek relief from both parties. Even if it wasn't held like that in International Law, do you think anyone will want to lend you money at low interest when you have previous for walking away from a liability? If you do, you really are living in a world where the Ford Focus has a different shaped gear knob.
US, being the UK, who have the BofE would need something from Scotland to mitigate the risk. You aren't offering anything, apart from a threat, so why would we want CU? Nothing to do with the DM, its common sense.
You've been told, there's cross party consensus on the subject, economists say it would be bad for the UK, it would expose us to your folly and the Governor of the BofE thinks its a bad idea.`
So while you, in your narrow point of view think it's a good idea, those that write your lines need to have it so when their policies fall flat they have somewhere to go, no one else thinks it is.
There's really not much more to add.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
The currency has nothing to do with the debt except where the one is being used as a bargaining tool to get the other.
Click to expand...
And if the Scottish government were to take that line in post-referendum negotiations it would not be productive. These are just two of many issues and linking them so firmly would be pointless. If Salmond et al were to go into the negotiations saying they MUST have one or other of these, then there would be a price to pay in terms of things the UK government decides it MUST have. Are they prepared to pay that price?
 
Steep said:
dod if you are in a business partnership and one partner (say the senior one) signs a loan agreement guaranteeing that they alone will be responsible for it then the debt becomes theirs not the partnerships. This is what has happened with the UK, the Treasury has guaranteed the loans saying that they will cover them in the event of a yes. On top of that there's the issue I brought up earlier about the loans being in the UKs name and not transferable or reassignable even in part without the lenders consent and possibly reassessed charges. What I iScotland can do is offer to make continued payments to rUK towards their debt in recognition that Scotland also benefited from them. The currency has nothing to do with the debt except where the one is being used as a bargaining tool to get the other.
Click to expand...
That's tantamount to blackmail. It's an extremely risky position to take. As you say above, the legality of the viewpoint hasn't been tested. What a bloody farce.
 
Bernie174 said:
I can answer that, in UK law.
If a loan is taken out in one name a couple for example for example, and and both parties benefit, then the loan is defaulted on, then the loan company can seek relief from both parties. Even if it wasn't held like that in International Law...
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a valid analogy. It's predicated on both parties existing and being legal persons when the loan is taken out, and that isn't the case here. You might just as well make an analogy with a parent/child situation, but children generally aren't liable for loans taken out by their parents even if they have benefitted from the loan. This really isn't productive territory.

However...
Bernie174 said:
... do you think anyone will want to lend you money at low interest when you have previous for walking away from a liability? If you do, you really are living in a world where the Ford Focus has a different shaped gear knob.
US, being the UK, who have the BofE would need something from Scotland to mitigate the risk. You aren't offering anything, apart from a threat, so why would we want CU? Nothing to do with the DM, its common sense.
Click to expand...
I agree. A lot of the issues being debated don't have any firm answers, mostly because the UK government has refused to discuss them, and so if you want to see how things might pan out then you have to employ common sense. Common sense says there won't be border posts or trade embargoes, and common sense says NATO would prefer Scotland in rather than out. Common sense says Scotland can't walk away from the UK national debt, whatever the legal position. And common sense says Scotland would need to put something on the table to address the issue of risk in a currency union. (Though I don't know enough about economics to speculate on what that might be.)
 
Steep said:
The UK right now is relying far too much on North Sea oil to prop up its balance of payments (not my words, economics experts) and if the split goes ahead rUK is going to lose a large part of that prop. You'll have to fill the gap in payments somehow....
Click to expand...

Steep said:
....but the internationally recognised dividing line puts about 90% of the oilfields in Scottish waters.
Click to expand...

Hang on a mo. Assuming you are right for a moment. Not that I agree but for the sake of this post let's assume you are right. UK is very reliant on north sea oil. A couple of posts later you then say that the dividing line puts 90% of it in Scottish waters. So basically your argument goes along the lines of "Currency union is best for you because you rely far too much on oil but 90% of that won't be yours anyway."

You see, that to me sounds like you saying to me "You need the car and rely on it far too much. That's why I say we should still share the bank account. By the way I want 90% of the car in the upcoming divorce.". My first thoughts on that would be "Huh?" and my second thoughts would be deleted by the swear word filters.
 
dod said:
That's tantamount to blackmail. It's an extremely risky position to take. As you say above, the legality of the viewpoint hasn't been tested. What a bloody farce.
Click to expand...

I agree. And the first thing I've learned is that you should never ever give into blackmail or it just invites more in the future. So let's say we (stupidly) gave into that just so they will ever so kindly take on some of the debt they didn't object to us borrowing and subsequently spending. What next? "We won't pay if you don't......." It's utterly stupid.

Plus as you can imagine this would make front page news all over the world let alone within the financial markets. Scotland refuses to pay it's debts. Then a few months later Salmond would rock up to the banks and say "Hey....can we borrow some money?" What do you think their response will be?
 
Steep said:
I certainly would hope that responsibilities would be met on both sides, that's not the point I was making. I was trying to point out why I think CU is going to be good for both parties, others on this thread spend all their time running Scotland down denying the possibility of CU ever happening but I don't think they realise (or possibly it just doesn't suit them to admit) that there could be possibly quite severe consequences for both sides if agreement is not reached.
Click to expand...
I'd certainly hope that if Scotland do vote for independence we (the rest of the UK ) can reach agreements very amicably it can't be done overnight there's so many processes and things that will need to be put in place.

As for Gallaway last night I wasn't sure if he was sober at first. The women seemed like that were about to have a cat fight at one point!
 
gadgeteer said:
Hang on a mo. Assuming you are right for a moment. Not that I agree but for the sake of this post let's assume you are right. UK is very reliant on north sea oil. A couple of posts later you then say that the dividing line puts 90% of it in Scottish waters. So basically your argument goes along the lines of "Currency union is best for you because you rely far too much on oil but 90% of that won't be yours anyway."

You see, that to me sounds like you saying to me "You need the car and rely on it far too much. That's why I say we should still share the bank account. By the way I want 90% of the car in the upcoming divorce.". My first thoughts on that would be "Huh?" and my second thoughts would be deleted by the swear word filters.
Click to expand...

That is in part exactly what I'm saying. The infamous Sir Ian Wood told the UK gov that they were relying too much on oil for their balance of payments, if Scotland votes yes and if the 90% does come to Scotland then rUK is going to take a big hit. That's not scaremongering, if all the ifs come together it would be costly. If again no arrangement over debt payments is come to then that's another huge hit to rUK economy. I am not saying that I want any of this, just using the scenario to show why I believe that CU is best for both. Nobody has to agree with me and nobody has to accept that what I think might come about will.
 
StewartR said:
And common sense says Scotland would need to put something on the table to address the issue of risk in a currency union.
Click to expand...

This ^, in any negotiation there's give and take but what most of the naysayers here want everyone to believe is that Scotland want it to be all take, that 'we' wouldn't have anything to give.
 
gadgeteer said:
I agree. And the first thing I've learned is that you should never ever give into blackmail or it just invites more in the future. So let's say we (stupidly) gave into that just so they will ever so kindly take on some of the debt they didn't object to us borrowing and subsequently spending. What next? "We won't pay if you don't......." It's utterly stupid.

Plus as you can imagine this would make front page news all over the world let alone within the financial markets. Scotland refuses to pay it's debts. Then a few months later Salmond would rock up to the banks and say "Hey....can we borrow some money?" What do you think their response will be?
Click to expand...

Again, the no you can't/we'll take our ball home bickering is all political gamesmanship until the 19th, after the 19th if it's yes then sensible hats go on heads and an amicable arrangement will be made because it's in everyone's interest.

I've said why I think CU is the right way to go but if some other arrangement is made I'll be happy with that.
 
I don't think that's a valid analogy.
Click to expand...

Ok, it was intended as a simple example to express a principle.

So now we'll get complicated. Hugh couldn't find any precedent, or law on the subject, however, it took about 5 minutes for me to find one.


The Vienna Convention of 1983. Article 40
“When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State, and form a State,
and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, the State debt
of the predecessor State shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion, taking
into account, in particular the property, rights and interests which pass to the successor
State in relation to that State debt.”
Click to expand...

Now, the Vienna Convention hasn't be ratified by all Countries, but the principles are the ones on which all state splits have been based since 1983.
It seems therefore that Scotland is liable for their share of the debt. I am reasonably sure that lenders would reply upon the Vienna Convention is trying to recover it if Scotland throws it's teddies in the corner.

So, Sorry Hugh, your blackmail card bites the dust, your threat has no basis in fact.
 
Steep said:
Again, the no you can't/we'll take our ball home bickering is all political gamesmanship until the 19th, after the 19th if it's yes then sensible hats go on heads and an amicable arrangement will be made because it's in everyone's interest.

I've said why I think CU is the right way to go but if some other arrangement is made I'll be happy with that.
Click to expand...

Hugh, I'm getting a little confused/concerned now.

All through this thread your stance has been Scotland (as part of the UK) have not got the government it voted for, we'll ignore the democracy side of things for the time being. Your in the Yes camp so you can get the self government you desire. Think I'm reading your feelings correctly so far.

Now, on something as important as currency, you think CU is the right way to go but if CU doesn't happen and another solution (one you presumably don't think is correct) is put in it's place then you are happy with that, not disappointed, concerned or a little nervous but happy.

Seems your position is independence for Scotland at any cost. Fine, if that's your opinion then you are entitled to it, I just find it a little strange.
 
Bernie174 said:
Ok, it was intended as a simple example to express a principle.
So now we'll get complicated. Hugh couldn't find any precedent, or law on the subject, however, it took about 5 minutes for me to find one.
The Vienna Convention of 1983. Article 40
Now, the Vienna Convention hasn't be ratified by all Countries, but the principles are the ones on which all state splits have been based since 1983.
It seems therefore that Scotland is liable for their share of the debt. I am reasonably sure that lenders would reply upon the Vienna Convention is trying to recover it if Scotland throws it's teddies in the corner.
So, Sorry Hugh, your blackmail card bites the dust, your threat has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...

Well done on the first bit, and I'm glad to know that you're sure but could you please stop dragging the conversation down to childish levels as you've done with your last remarks.

The convention you quote may well be applicable but it doesn't address the issue of debt accepted in full by one party and it's not in my scope to argue either way so we'll just have to wait and see.
 
PaulF said:
Seems your position is independence for Scotland at any cost. Fine, if that's your opinion then you are entitled to it, I just find it a little strange.
Click to expand...


That's been my position for the last 35 years, not just the length of this thread Paul but it's on the issue of cost that I and some others disagree. I'll take it any way it comes but I believe that iScotland will be a successful prosperous independent country should we be sensible enough to vote for it.
 
So if the UK markets collapse in the event of a yes vote, and the announcement of a CU would help provide immediate stability, the UK government would still say no?
 
PaulF said:
Seems your position is independence for Scotland at any cost.
Click to expand...

That's the stance of many of the 'Yes' voters though and ultimately what's enabled the Yes campaign to be so vague throughout.
 
It's funny that when every company/party against independence uses the word ' could' all the doomsayers accept that as 'Will'.
They're making the same mistake with our share of the dept. Alex Salmond has said we legally 'could' walk away in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean we will.
 
please stop dragging the conversation down to childish levels as you've done with your last remarks.
Click to expand...

I choose a level that fits the target audience Hugh. As you've spent months rubbishing, calling people liars and only accepting one point of view as valid, that level has to be very low to accommodate you.

The convention you quote may well be applicable but it doesn't address the issue of debt accepted in full by one party and it's not in my scope to argue either way so we'll just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

It means Hugh, as it blatantly obvious, that the liability is there should the Uk decide that it shouldn't take full responsibility. It also means that the constant childish threat made ad nausea by Salmond, and repeated by you at every turn isn't in fact a valid threat. So, an attempt to blackmail the Uk into CU wont work. Oh, and changing the tune when to a different point when what you originally claimed is clearly rebutted does work very well, it does you little credit.

Now, what is more interesting is that while I accept that you wouldn't have known the above, Salmond in all probability does. Why don't you ask him? You see, if he does, and as he's still playing the blackmail card, it again shows that he's dishonest and duping the Scots electorate on the basis of falsehood.

They're making the same mistake with our share of the dept. Alex Salmond has said we legally 'could' walk away in certain circumstances, that doesn't mean we will.
Click to expand...

He could but the only circumstances where that could happen is with the agreement of the UK. He cannot use it as blackmail, which is what he IS trying to do.
 
Last edited:
Chairman of Wutherspoons


Presenter didn't sound too happy with the response he got there.
 
Bernie174 said:
As you've spent months rubbishing, calling people liars
Click to expand...


And provided quotes highlighting the offensive statements on each of the TWO occasions, if you're going to 'rubbish' me I might as well make that clear.
 
Steep said:

That's been my position for the last 35 years, not just the length of this thread Paul but it's on the issue of cost that I and some others disagree. I'll take it any way it comes but I believe that iScotland will be a successful prosperous independent country should we be sensible enough to vote for it.
Click to expand...

Well, I must say I admire your passion.
I would be against personally (I'm English so don't have a say) due to the lack of reliable information/plan. Too many if's and maybe's.
It 'may' work out ok but then again it 'may' not, generations to come will either thank you or hate you! Only time will tell if it's a Yes vote.

On a personal note, and I don't think either side would be swayed or even cared that much, earlier this year we took a look at a holiday home (static caravan) near Dumfries with a view to buying next year, we've decided that if it's a Yes we'll be looking elsewhere as the rates/tax/costs would be completely unknown, pity as the location was near perfect for us.

dinners said:
That's the stance of many of the 'Yes' voters though and ultimately what's enabled the Yes campaign to be so vague throughout.
Click to expand...
I agree, and am astounded that it's been allowed to do so by the people of Scotland (just my opinion). The Scots I do know working/living around me are all against but they don't get a say either.
 
Makes me laugh all the assets are in the UK's name as well how do you think that one will play out if you decide to walk away from your share of the debt. I bet all the assets would add up to quite a bit maybe close to your share of the debt.
Walking away from your share of the debt I should think would scupper any chance of entry into the E.U as well with the fiscal side of things.
 
Paul, wait till next year, you might be pleasantly surprised.
 
100018.jpg


I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet...

BOB fm Home Counties has removed all Scottish music from their playlist.

The station has gone Scot Free until the outcome of the referendum on the future of Scotland next week.

Former BOB fm artists that will no longer be played include Paolo Nutini, KT Tunstall and Deacon Blue. The station has also had a new logo produced (by the work experience kid) which features the union flag without the Saint Andrew's Cross....which is how it could well end up...

Keep listening as the story develops....
 
Steep said:
Paul, wait till next year, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...
By next March/April Scotland will not be independent if it's a Yes vote, it'll still be in the transition phase so we'd be none the wiser and we won't be waiting another 5 years to see how things have worked out before making our decision.
Sorry, if it's a Yes, we'll be buying elsewhere.
 
So where is the evidence supporting these 2 occations? I see nothing that supports your allegations on these?


Post #3136

Simply wrong, if you knew anything at all about what is going on up here you would know this, but perhaps you do know it and just prefer to spread lies, it's not the first time you've done it on this thread.
Click to expand...


Post #3118

You went to a lot of time and trouble and spoiled it all with this lie.
Click to expand...

But anyway, we've dealt with you making accusations, lets deal with the SNP's?

Again, I think we have to come back to your suggestion of duty to correct.

Are you going to now accept that Salmond is wrong to attempt blackmail?
 
Last edited:
Would the last financial institution to leave Edinburgh kindly make sure the flag is run down, lights turned off and erect a memorial in the City Square to commemorate the end of Scottish Banking In Scotland.
 
PaulF said: ↑
Seems your position is independence for Scotland at any cost.
dinners replied : "That's the stance of many of the 'Yes' voters though and ultimately what's enabled the Yes campaign to be so vague throughout."

Fundamentalists - independence and the population reduced to poverty would be chalked up as a success to such people.
 
Some Dude on the news last night was saying he has already posted his 'yes' vote and is regretting it. He thinks he's made a big mistake !
 
Thats the problem, people have been caught up in the thing, but when they look in the cold light of day, it's not quite so clever.
I know the Yes side have made a big issue of the negative campaigning of the No, but lets be honest here, it's the Yes that want it to change, and to present a case for that. It's the No's task to present reasons why the electorate shouldn't. In this campaigns case, that has to be negative simply because there's so much fiction, smoke and mirrors in the Yes sides case.
I really hope people think it through, and don't fall for the SNP's fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top