Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Who are you arguing with? I was pointing out that while currency isn't an asset under any legal sense an asset, the Yes campaign have bene conssitent in their treatment of it as an asset, mines was a report on their stance, which is accurate - this is how they view it, not necessarily my view. In the same vein, the Yes cmapaign always have assumed a certain 'fairness' in diviison of assets and liabilities, that goes to the root of the white paper, 9.8% of the joint assets, 9.8% of the joint liabilities. Again, there view, that I was contextualising. If that's the Yes campaign's "view" then they are all in need of a psychiatric examination or a law and politics 101 seminar. My point is that the British state are being more cold blooded about this, fine and good for them. They want us to stay put as some kind of vassal state, at least while we have actual corporeal assets or at least until they are sure that losing Scotland would not diminish British standing overseas. as for the Trident thing, logisitcs prevents them moving it out before independence, and if the mere threat of us spray painting the fucking things with a big ban the bomb sign has the hawks frothing at the mouth then so much the better for convincing everyone else about the true face of the british state. We have no legal requirement to take the debt, none, and we have their nukes - more importantly we have the infrastructure, they don't. We tell them to bolt, they have no where to put it, it becomes a homeless useless limp dick of a deterrent. Veto that. There is no credible means by which a UDI Scotland could forcibly remove rUK from a NATO sensitive military base with spray-cans and a foot-up over a barbed wire fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 If we wanted White Van Man's view, we'd read The Sun. Aye ???? Says the failed lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Aye ???? Says the failed lawyer. How is he a failed lawyer when he got a First Class Honours Law degree from the best law School in Scotland then chose not to enter the legal profession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 You are aware that the UK can quite easily maintain Faslane as long as it wants post-Independence as sovereign UK territory. And you call me an idiot Even the most hardened unionists dont want to put their name to that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 How is he a failed lawyer when he got a First Class Honours Law degree from the best law School in Scotland then chose not to enter the legal profession? Did he aye ? He works in IT. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Quick! Grab the Quantitative Easing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 And you call me an idiot Even the most hardened unionists dont want to put their name to that one. Precisely because it is a mental instance of brinkmanship. Much like shirking debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 If that's the Yes campaign's "view" then they are all in need of a psychiatric examination or a law and politics 101 seminar. There is no credible means by which a UDI Scotland could forcibly remove rUK from a NATO sensitive military base with spray-cans and a foot-up over a barbed wire fence. That's their view on it, what do you want me to do about it, maybe they think about assets in terms wider than the strictly legalistic view which slants towards tangible property alone. As for the rest, an invasion of soveriegn property, lovely. Just invite the Americans in, it's their missile technology after all, and it's going to be fun seeing as faslane will not be UK property anymore, yet US missile technology will be in the hands of people who were not signatories to the 1958 UK-US agreement. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to make an absolute pigs ear of their notion of a soveregin and 'independent' deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Precisely because it is a mental instance of brinkmanship. Much like shirking debt. How do you shirk debt that isn't yours ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 How is he a failed lawyer when he got a First Class Honours Law degree from the best law School in Scotland then chose not to enter the legal profession? You are projecting again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 That's their view on it, what do you want me to do about it, maybe they think about assets in terms wider than the strictly legalistic view which slants towards tangible property alone. As for the rest, an invasion of soveriegn property, lovely. Just invite the Americans in, it's their missile technology after all, and it's going to be fun seeing as faslane will not be UK property anymore, yet US missile technology will be in the hands of people who were not signatories to the 1958 UK-US agreement. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to make an absolute pigs ear of their notion of a soveregin and 'independent' deterrent. Come on renton, be realistic. UDI doesn't mean that the UK is suddenly going to withdraw its Royal Navy personnel from Faslane. If anything, UDI is going to be what stops an orderly withdrawal and a transfer of the territory back into the control of either Scottish military or civil authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Come on renton, be realistic. UDI doesn't mean that the UK is suddenly going to withdraw its Royal Navy personnel from Faslane. If anything, UDI is going to be what stops an orderly withdrawal and a transfer of the territory back into the control of either Scottish military or civil authorities. Yes, the point when threatening these things is not to carry them out, it's to get some blustering pompous idiot in westminster to come out with the words 'annexing Faslane' 'protecting UK bases' all that good stuff. If we are talking sheer politics and imagery, it shouldn't be hard to trip them into looking like beligerent areseholes. Anyway, it's just a whim of mine, not a serious suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 No one is saying we shouldn't get an equitable share of assets. No one. The issue is that "the pound" is no more an "asset" than is the kilogram. The way I look at it you are a cretin. We're not. We've mentioned assets several times. But "the pound" is not an asset. Quite what the terminology of citizen and subject has to do with this, I don't know, given that no one except a tiny handful of people born in Ireland before 1949 are British subjects any more, since we all became citizens under the British Nationality Act of 1981, but ho hum. I was talking about mentioning debt & asset in the same statement, to me being a citizen infers value, being a part of the political process & being a subject infers that you are dictated to by a "higher power". For the exclusion of doubt, as I have mentioned previously several times, I dont think that being a part of a currency union with rUK is the right thing for Scotland anything other than short term & on acceptable terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26175401 Incase anyone missed it. Let's play the 'count the number of times Nicola avoided a simple question' game. I got 24, what did you get? The reason she avoided the question is because she doesn't know the answer to it. She should have said ' Andrew, if we don't get a currency union, i have absolutely no fucking idea what we're going to do '. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I was talking about mentioning debt & asset in the same statement, to me being a citizen infers value, being a part of the political process & being a subject infers that you are dictated to by a "higher power". For the exclusion of doubt, as I have mentioned previously several times, I dont think that being a part of a currency union with rUK is the right thing for Scotland anything other than short term & on acceptable terms. This is barely English, let alone an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This is hillarious. Let the cduists have their moment of faux glory, Osbourne has prematurely ejaculated quite spectacularly here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 This is hillarious. Let the cduists have their moment of faux glory, Osbourne has prematurely ejaculated quite spectacularly here. And he gave the YES campaign MONTHS to dismantle the argument. MONTHS!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 And he gave the YES campaign MONTHS to dismantle the argument. MONTHS!!!! He didn't give them months to keep up their current stance, if they don't see that, they're a lot dafter than I think they are. It's time for YES to speak for everyone rather than for their own section of the electorate, if they don't they'd be as well just calling it a day, this isn't hard, it's so obvious only an ostrich would fail to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Here is the Scotland Analysis paper explanation of currency and assets in black and white: It is important to be clear what the UK pound as a currency is and why it is not an asset. A currency is a system of exchange, a unit of purchasing power that works when others recognise it as having value. Currency does not have to be the coins or bills which are used by most states; it could be anything that people agree represents value. The UK pound is underpinned by a legal, institutional and administrative framework which enables it to function as a medium of exchange, a store of value, a unit of account and a medium for deferred payment.In the UK, as in most cases where a sovereign state has its own currency, the central bank has a monopoly right to issue money for its own area of circulation, including regulating the issuance of Scottish and Northern Irish bank notes by retail banks. The production of currency is regulated through legislation passed by the UK Parliament and monetary policy set by the Bank of England. Therefore, the currency of a state is inherently linked to the institution of the central bank and the particular monetary policy in that state – and the UK, the UK pound and the Bank of England are no different in this respect.The sorts of assets that may be subject to negotiation in the event of a vote for Scottish independence are the cash, currency or gold reserves held by the UK state. These assets are very different from the system of currency itself; the particular currency used by a state is not an asset on the state’s balance sheet which can be divided up like the money in a bank account. An individual pound is an asset, as is a collection of pounds in a bank account. The pound as a system of currency is not.The Scottish Government has itself identified the UK Government’s Whole of Government Accounts as the basis of assets for which an independent Scottish State would seek to negotiate. Whole of Government Accounts does not include the UK pound.Because the UK pound is so inherently linked to the functions of the Bank of England which, as has already been established, will remain with the continuing UK, there is no legal basis for asserting “a share” in the UK pound – or the Bank of England – if Scotland voted for independence. It is akin to saying that Scotland is entitled to a share in the functions and services of other UK institutions, such as UK government departments, or the UK Parliament at Westminster, whereas the international law position is clear that these will continue to serve the continuing UK only. Emphasis added. Available here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 But remember International Law doesn't matter This will be decided by politics and fings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.