AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 And the consequences would be? And the consequences for the UK if they have to pay more debt. Lose 10% of GDP, take a hit on sterling and enforce transaction costs in the north of England ? It's not and ideal situation for both parties, that's why a deal WILL be done ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Well the UK would need to vote us into the EU so a direct link there. Further if you think the EU would not have an opinion on a 'breakaway' state walking away from debt from a precedent perspective then I think you are missing something. There is not any direct link between scotland's debt position and the EU. Your reluctance to discuss the blame part of the scenario is all telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Which would be? Its not my proposal; as its now being touted as a potential policy post yes perhaps the yes camp can guide people on the impact of this decision. Surely something so huge in terms of the economy has been fully analysed and considered by the yes camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 And the consequences for the UK if they have to pay more debt. Lose 10% of GDP, take a hit on sterling and enforce transaction costs in the north of England ? It's not and ideal situation for both parties, that's why a deal WILL be done ffs Right so despite the yes campaign identifying it as a policy we are not allowed to look at it in any detail cos it wont happen? Very persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Its not my proposal; as its now being touted as a potential policy post yes perhaps the yes camp can guide people on the impact of this decision. Surely something so huge in terms of the economy has been fully analysed and considered by the yes camp. Eh naw. The UK have had months to tell us the impact of not having a currency union. They've not. Why should Scotland go into details regarding a plan of action that will only happen if the UK decide to be c***s ? Your mask has thoroughly slipped today Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Its not my proposal; as its now being touted as a potential policy post yes perhaps the yes camp can guide people on the impact of this decision. Surely something so huge in terms of the economy has been fully analysed and considered by the yes camp. So you haven't found a flaw in the argument? Your just going over old ground again? Try and look past the problem to the solution and not just stop at the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Right so despite the yes campaign identifying it as a policy we are not allowed to look at it in any detail cos it wont happen? Very persuasive. No assets = no debt. Entirely up to the UK. Anything else is just waffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 No assets = no debt. Entirely up to the UK. Anything else is just waffle. Yes we have established what the policy is. Does the yes side have anything to add re potential impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 So how about the policy whereby Scotland don't want Faslane? Have rUK got a plan B for this? How about if the Scottish Government stated that the rent for Faslane initially was to be equal to the Scottish Debt - on an annual basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Yes we have established what the policy is. Does the yes side have anything to add re potential impact? 5 billion a year saving on interest payments Does the no side have anything to add re potential impact of losing 10% GDP buy still having to pay all the debt ? Not mentioning the other downsides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 So you haven't found a flaw in the argument? Your just going over old ground again? Try and look past the problem to the solution and not just stop at the problem. Its a clearly identified potential policy of the yes camp - or perhaps at least the SNP. It would have huge consequences on the economy but there is no detail in terms of impact; is this the financial prudence we are starting out with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Yes we have established what the policy is. Does the yes side have anything to add re potential impact? How far down this hypothetical route do you want to go? Have rUK got a plan for if they refuse Scottish membership of the EU, NATO etc. This will have a direct impact on rUK as well as Scotland. If so then why haven't they made it public like the CU issue and if they haven't...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 So how about the policy whereby Scotland don't want Faslane? Have rUK got a plan B for this? How about if the Scottish Government stated that the rent for Faslane initially was to be equal to the Scottish Debt - on an annual basis? What if the UK said - we will let you use the infrastructure of HMRC for a similar rent per year ? Is this seriously where this debate is going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Its a clearly identified potential policy of the yes camp - or perhaps at least the SNP. It would have huge consequences on the economy but there is no detail in terms of impact; is this the financial prudence we are starting out with. It would have a bigger impact on the UK economy. Your refusal to even acknowledge this is very telling. SNP is policy which is in the white paper is to take their share assets and debt. This a very fair policy. Not their fault that the UK have decided to be fannies about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 5 billion a year saving on interest payments Does the no side have anything to add re potential impact of losing 10% GDP buy still having to pay all the debt ? Not mentioning the other downsides. Sounds great on the face of it - I wonder why this isn't plan A then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 What if the UK said - we will let you use the infrastructure of HMRC for a similar rent per year ? Is this seriously where this debate is going? A Scottish exchequer is in the pipeline as we speak. The offices and the staff that are based in Scotland will go to the Scottish exchequer. Not rocket science. Unless you seriously believe that the UK will demolish all HMRC buildings in Scotland and bus all the staff to London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 It would have a bigger impact on the UK economy. Your refusal to even acknowledge this is very telling. SNP is policy which is in the white paper is to take their share assets and debt. This a very fair policy. Not their fault that the UK have decided to be fannies about it. Right ok - if we go with you then it could/would be disastrous for the UK. What would the consequences for Scotland be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Sounds great on the face of it - I wonder why this isn't plan A then ? You know what plan A is. You also seem to be of the belief that only Scotland will be affected if the negotiations turn sour. This is quite clearly not true. Continue going round in circles all day if you want but I won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 A Scottish exchequer is in the pipeline as we speak. The offices and the staff that are based in Scotland will go to the Scottish exchequer. Not rocket science. Unless you seriously believe that the UK will demolish all HMRC buildings in Scotland and bus all the staff to London. Why would the staff go a Scottish exchequer? If we are walking away from UK debts and assets then we can take nothing for granted. The buildings might be there but would the IT work? This Scottish exchequer in the pipeline? would we not be better waiting on the sovereign will of the Scottish people before spending money on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 10, 2014 Share Posted August 10, 2014 Yes we have established what the policy is. Does the yes side have anything to add re potential impact? We will have to borrow at a higher rate until our rating rises. That would be a few years at most. The UK will be f*cked. They will loose all Scottish input. Plus they have to deal with the Rulers of London ( Russian ). The will have to pay for Faslane and it's relocation. New trident. Hs2. Hinkley point. Spend all winter hoping the south east doesn't flood again and ALL THE DEBT. The rUK have more to loose by not having a CU than Scotland do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.