H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Because that's the amount of UK debt that the UK Treasury owns, surely we're entitled to our 8.4% share of that. In simple terms they borrowed from themselves. Right, but it is still debt that requires to be repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jambo-rocker Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 1) It's not about being "worse" as a qualitative thing. It's about the lack of balance. In the UK, both Labour and the Conservatives have to appeal to the middle ground (which I'd say I am in) to win. Labour won under Blair because they stopped scaring people in the way Neil Kinnock did. Neither can afford to be too left or right wing as they will alienate large swathes of the population. I like the balance. In Scotland, you have the SNP and Labour. There is no right wing check and balance. 2) No, I don't like FPTP. I quite like coalitions. I am comfortably for balance as well (and I get you are in between a rock and a hard place with posters here), and I don't think that Scotland would go against having a right wing balance if their only answer to it wasn't the heavily tainted (and will probably forever will be) Conservatives. I would argue that with independence there would be a better chance of a right-wing voice emerging from it without said taint, because I'd bet that no matter how badly right-wing politics might suit the country in the future, it won't happen because Scotland (with the exception of the South counties granted) are so against the only real right wing option in Scotland if it's under the name of the Tories. I don't like it at all, mainly because there will always be Labour or Conservative involved government for another generation or two to come by until the system is 'attempted' to be changed again. At least with Independence there is a much better chance that the SNP will f**k off for good eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Right, but it is still debt that requires to be repaid. If you owe someone £10 and you print £2 and loan it to yourself you owe £12 but £2 is owed to yourself, the net amount you owe is still £10. My earlier assumption was a wee bit out as I was wrongly assuming that the level of QE would rise as the national debt increased, it would be calculated as population share of national debt less population share of £375 billion if no further QE took place.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If you owe someone £10 and you print £2 and loan it to yourself you owe £12 but £2 is owed to yourself, the net amount you owe is still £10. My earlier assumption was a wee bit out as I was wrongly assuming that the level of QE would rise as the national debt increased, it would be calculated as population share of national debt less population share of £375 billion if no further QE took place.. Well, there's a difference between debt and assets. Scotland's share of the debt would be 8.4% of 1.588 trillion. Calculation of assets would be separate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Right, but it is still debt that requires to be repaid. Not "New" Scotlands debt though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 1) It's not about being "worse" as a qualitative thing. It's about the lack of balance. In the UK, both Labour and the Conservatives have to appeal to the middle ground (which I'd say I am in) to win. Labour won under Blair because they stopped scaring people in the way Neil Kinnock did. Neither can afford to be too left or right wing as they will alienate large swathes of the population. I like the balance. In Scotland, you have the SNP and Labour. There is no right wing check and balance. 2) No, I don't like FPTP. I quite like coalitions. For the life of me I am struggling to understand why you intend voting no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Not "New" Scotlands debt though. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Why not? See the word in inverted commas which is the one that you use regularly, the SG will be starting negotiations of "legally" owing s.f.a., that will be the price for the WG;s point of view that Scotland will be a new nation rather than 2 successor nations emerging after independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 ETA - WG's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 See the word in inverted commas which is the one that you use regularly, the SG will be starting negotiations of "legally" owing s.f.a., that will be the price for the WG;s point of view that Scotland will be a new nation rather than 2 successor nations emerging after independence. That's right. However that ignores the fact Scotland has to take on a share of the debt if it wants to borrow from the market itself in the future. It would be an international pariah if it didn't service a portion of the debt. And as I've said, rUK could just say "fine, do that. You won't be getting into the EU though". It's not a real threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 That's right. However that ignores the fact Scotland has to take on a share of the debt if it wants to borrow from the market itself in the future. It would be an international pariah if it didn't service a portion of the debt. And as I've said, rUK could just say "fine, do that. You won't be getting into the EU though". It's not a real threat. You actually don't understand what you're arguing about if you're suggesting Scotland will have to take on 8.4% of the debt without being entitled to a £31.5 billion rebate due to QE. And I've not heard Salmond stating anything other than we' will take on our fair share of the debt, you don't even have the fairmindedness to acknowledge that Scotland owns ~£31.5 billion of the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 You actually don't understand what you're arguing about if you're suggesting Scotland will have to take on 8.4% of the debt without being entitled to a £31.5 billion rebate due to QE. It's not a rebate. Scotland's share of the debt would be 8.4% of 1.588 tn. A share of the 375bn would be an asset. It's two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 That's right. However that ignores the fact Scotland has to take on a share of the debt if it wants to borrow from the market itself in the future. It would be an international pariah if it didn't service a portion of the debt. And as I've said, rUK could just say "fine, do that. You won't be getting into the EU though". It's not a real threat. The Edinburgh agreement covers both sides of that argument in my opinion, still nobody in the SG is saying anything other than they will accept a fair "debt - asset" swap, but in my opinion, the SG's negotiating position has been strengthened dramatically by these recent developments. I doubt very much if the rUK would win the no EU argument if they choose to use it, & anyway as I have said previously, to me at least EU membership is preferable but not a deal breaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 It's not a rebate. Scotland's share of the debt would be 8.4% of 1.588 tn. A share of the 375bn would be an asset. It's two different things. Rebate is just a word, use whatever word you feel comfortable with using regards us getting £31.5 billion back on the good side of our balance sheet. And? Are we not entitled to a share of said assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If anything of value is an asset then yes it is. The pound is no more an asset than the Newton or the litre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I doubt very much if the rUK would win the no EU argument if they choose to use it, You'll need to expand on this. It's not an "argument". It's a veto. The UK don't have to argue with anyone to exclude Scotland from the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 The pound is no more an asset than the Newton or the litre. Come on Ad Lib, it is a lot easier saying "the pound" than "the assets that underpin the UK's unit of currency" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 You'll need to expand on this. It's not an "argument". It's a veto. The UK don't have to argue with anyone to exclude Scotland from the EU. If it comes to it I think the "less spiteful" EU members would persuade the WG that it is in everyone's interest for Scotland to be an EU member. Common Sense & Logic prevail in most circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If it comes to it I think the "less spiteful" EU members would persuade the WG that it is in everyone's interest for Scotland to be an EU member. Common Sense & Logic prevail in most circumstances. Right. And failure to accept a portion of the debt is i assume "not spiteful". What you are saying is that the UK's European partners would say "look, we know you could veto New Scotland's membership, and we know they are refusing to take on any share of your debt now they have seceded, but gonnae just no use the veto you have"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The pound is no more an asset than the Newton or the litre. Is the value of a Newton measured against the centimetre? Nope, currencies have value and are assets when compared to other currencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.