HardyBamboo Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 It's not really a "strategy", more a recognition of the international law position. One that i have made clear time and time again, and amusingly one the SNP have lied to people about. It's great to see them latch onto the very same law they have continually told people won't apply. Now it seems, we are to forget about John Swinney, Salmond and Sturgeon lying to people for years, airbrush that from history, and move on with the reality the SNP have denied. Brilliant! It is a treasury strategy as far as the timing & content of the announcement is concerned, do you agree that it is useful as far as the SG's negotiating position is concerend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well, I'm glad we can all acknoledge the SNP are liars and have consistently told the Scottish people a lot of utter nonsense. Edinburgh knows best. I honestly.couldn't care less. I have been.bomberded with lies from the.no camp even more. As recent as yesterday with big Carmichael talking crap. And I am.more.than confident that Edinburgh knows best about our country more.than London. ETA also when we do.get.into.the EU and get.the pound without a hitch they will be proved more right.than wrong.unlike.the.no side who have been hilariously proved wrong time after time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 It is a treasury strategy as far as the timing & content of the announcement is concerned, do you agree that it is useful as far as the SG's negotiating position is concerend? Well, not really. I think it's more a short term move to prevent UK borrowing going up in the next 9 months because of market fears about a potential referendum Yes win, however unlikely. This topic was covered at some length during Quebec's secession - it's quite interesting, but also clear that nothing under international law can compel a new state to take on a portion of the debt of the continuing state. It was however noted that it would be almost impossible for this not to happen, through pressure from the markets/bad publicity for the new country to start life as a debt dodger and of course the UK could, should it choose to, block New Scotland's EU membership in a quid pro quo manner if Salmond and co thried to welch on the debt repayments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 ETA also when we do.get.into.the EU and get.the pound without a hitch they will be proved more right.than wrong.unlike.the.no side who have been hilariously proved wrong time after time. The SNP told people we wouldn't have to "get into" the EU as we would inherit EU membership, along with rUK. Laughably wrong, and a position they have had to retreat from as it became more and more untenable. The SNP have been utterly routed on the EU situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The SNP told people we wouldn't have to "get into" the EU as we would inherit EU membership, along with rUK. Laughably wrong, and a position they have had to retreat from as it became more and more untenable. The SNP have been utterly routed on the EU situation. How do you know ? If it.turns out.there isn't a break in membership at all then the SNP will.be right. You nor I wont know this.until the time comes. Going by your.posts on the matter you think it.must be an important issue or something. Whereas most people couldnt.give 2 shits as long as we get in, which we will easily. Red carpet and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well, not really. I think it's more a short term move to prevent UK borrowing going up in the next 9 months because of market fears about a potential referendum Yes win, however unlikely. This topic was covered at some length during Quebec's secession - it's quite interesting, but also clear that nothing under international law can compel a new state to take on a portion of the debt of the continuing state. It was however noted that it would be almost impossible for this not to happen, through pressure from the markets/bad publicity for the new country to start life as a debt dodger and of course the UK could, should it choose to, block New Scotland's EU membership in a quid pro quo manner if Salmond and co thried to welch on the debt repayments. As well you know, they have never made any suggestion that they would do that unless the WG tried to play silly buggers with a fair negotiation of Assets & Liabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 How do you know ? If it.turns out.there isn't a break in membership at all then the SNP will.be right. You nor I wont know this.until the time comes. Going by your.posts on the matter you think it.must be an important issue or something. Whereas most people couldnt.give 2 shits as long as we get in, which we will easily. Red carpet and all that. Because they have subsequently altered their position. That's a bit of a giveaway sign to people who are not as slow as you appear to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 As well you know, they have never made any suggestion that they would do that unless the WG tried to play silly buggers with a fair negotiation of Assets & Liabilities. Well, that's only an issue because the SNP (deliberately) pretend that Sterling is an asset, which it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well, not really. I think it's more a short term move to prevent UK borrowing going up in the next 9 months because of market fears about a potential referendum Yes win, however unlikely. This topic was covered at some length during Quebec's secession - it's quite interesting, but also clear that nothing under international law can compel a new state to take on a portion of the debt of the continuing state. It was however noted that it would be almost impossible for this not to happen, through pressure from the markets/bad publicity for the new country to start life as a debt dodger and of course the UK could, should it choose to, block New Scotland's EU membership in a quid pro quo manner if Salmond and co thried to welch on the debt repayments. Still interested to know what your opinion on the impact on the SG's negotiating position is, unless that is what you meant by not really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Because they have subsequently altered their position. That's a bit of a giveaway sign to people who are not as slow as you appear to be. Says the.one that has been shown up to.be slow on many occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well, that's only an issue because the SNP (deliberately) pretend that Sterling is an asset, which it isn't. Proof ? Is the BOE an asset ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Proof ? Is the BOE an asset ? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Still interested to know what your opinion on the impact on the SG's negotiating position is, unless that is what you meant by not really? I don't think it improves it really, no. Both the UK government and the Scottish government know that Scotland cannot absent themsevles from a share of debt should they become independent. It's not a real threat - in the same way the UK vetoing a Scottish application for the EU isn't either. I'd say Faslane is for example a much better negotiating tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 No. No proof about.the pound then ? We will be in a currency union. I seen a Scottish economist on tele who when asked about it just laughed and said we are doing them a favour offering a currency union. It will happen or they would have said no by now just like Rahoys inability to say no when questioned about voting against our EU membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The pound and the EU. 2 non issues that will be continually dragged to avoid proper debate about the bigger issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 No proof about.the pound then ? We will be in a currency union. I seen a Scottish economist on tele who when asked about it just laughed and said we are doing them a favour offering a currency union. It will happen or they would have said no by now just like Rahoys inability to say no when questioned about voting against our EU membership. The Bank of England is a regulated organ of the state under statute. It is not an asset. The pound is a regulated unit of currency representing a value determined by a basket of assets held by the Bank of England. It is not itself an asset. The gold, silver, platinum, banknotes, buildings, pencils, pens, pads of paper, computers, paintings, toilet roll and suchlike owned by the Bank of England are assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The Bank of England is a regulated organ of the state under statute. It is not an asset. The pound is a regulated unit of currency representing a value determined by a basket of assets held by the Bank of England. It is not itself an asset. The gold, silver, platinum, banknotes, buildings, pencils, pens, pads of paper, computers, paintings, toilet roll and suchlike owned by the Bank of England are assets. Ok so its a currency union or.no debt and 10 perecent of the precious metals. There will.be a currency union. They are.probably discussing the workings of it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ok so its a currency union or.no debt and 10 perecent of the precious metals. There will.be a currency union. They are.probably discussing the workings of it already. No. Whether or not there is a currency union is unconnected. Assets (precious metals) and liabilities (debts) will be subject to domestic bilateral agreement. If Scotland refuses to make an acceptable contribution towards the bonds, taken out before independence day for the whole of the United Kingdom, as and when they fall due until there are none left, then the UK can refuse to give them any of the corporeal or incorporeal assets of the British state, save perhaps those already physically located in Scottish territory. If they refuse to take on any debt, they are effectively going with a UDI. This would leave them quite explicitly out in the cold in the international community as the rUK, as the continuing member state of the EU, would then naturally say that the price of Scottish membership of the EU is accepting liability for their share of the debt they shirked, failing which the veto would be used. It is absolutely insane to say that Scotland will not take on some of the debt, and it's stupid to say that it is rationally, logically or institutionally linked to whether or not there will be a currency union. It is precisely because such an exercise in brinkmanship would be so mutually damaging that this is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 No. Whether or not there is a currency union is unconnected. Assets (precious metals) and liabilities (debts) will be subject to domestic bilateral agreement. If Scotland refuses to make an acceptable contribution towards the bonds, taken out before independence day for the whole of the United Kingdom, as and when they fall due until there are none left, then the UK can refuse to give them any of the corporeal or incorporeal assets of the British state, save perhaps those already physically located in Scottish territory. If they refuse to take on any debt, they are effectively going with a UDI. This would leave them quite explicitly out in the cold in the international community as the rUK, as the continuing member state of the EU, would then naturally say that the price of Scottish membership of the EU is accepting liability for their share of the debt they shirked, failing which the veto would be used. It is absolutely insane to say that Scotland will not take on some of the debt, and it's stupid to say that it is rationally, logically or institutionally linked to whether or not there will be a currency union. It is precisely because such an exercise in brinkmanship would be so mutually damaging that this is so. Im.not saying thats what will happen but that is a hand we have when the debate takes place. It's also stupid to suggest a currency union wont happen.Also it will damage the UK as much as, if not more, than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dipped Flake Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 After Independence there will be a currency union, Scotland will be in the EU and we will take our share of the debt. All of these are accepted by the YES campaign and any honest no supporter will surely accept that these are, at the very least, likely to happen. So any chance we could discuss how Scotland will get on financially after Independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.