DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 The debt isn't being reneged on though. The only way the debt will be defaulted on is if the UK defaults. Money markets only care about money getting paid. So again... Examples or precedents would be nice on how debt that isn't being reneged can adversely affect a credit rating. I'd go as far to say that a debt free Scotland would be very attractive to lenders. Deluded in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 The NCC in full fuqwit mode today. ^^^^^ losing the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Yep. As I thought. You have no answers. Game set and match. You really don't get it though - or more likely, choose not to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Deluded in the extreme. You have provided zero answers on why you have formed you opinion Mr Economist and you call me deluded. It's almost as if you've been browsing the BT website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 ^^^^^ losing the argument. No. Dealing with deluded morons. If you can't understand that iScotland would be toxic if it choose to walk away from the debt then you are dumber than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 You have provided zero answers on why you have formed you opinion Mr Economist and you call me deluded. It's almost as if you've been browsing the BT website. Not been near BT's website. It's economic reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Is Ad Lib going to provide the statute that states that Scotland must assume a share of the UK's debt (a debt which the UK government have said they will assume responsibility for in the event of independence) or is he going to admit that he lied when he made that statement. In the world of law, you provide evidence to support your points. That's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 No. Dealing with deluded morons. If you can't understand that iScotland would be toxic if it choose to walk away from the debt then you are dumber than I thought. Again... Can you provide some evidence or examples of nations being adversely affected even though the debts getting paid and another nation has accepted liability ? You married couple analogy falls flat on it's face if the husband accepts responsibility for the debt. If you want to resort to name calling because I've called you out on your bullshit then be my guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 I don't know what's worse, Ad Lib's lack of proof re his outlandish claim or DeeTillEhDeh's H_B like meltdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Is Ad Lib going to provide the statute that states that Scotland must assume a share of the UK's debt (a debt which the UK government have said they will assume responsibility for in the event of independence) or is he going to admit that he lied when he made that statement. In the world of law, you provide evidence to support your points. That's how it works. He specifically made no claims that there was a statute which dictated this. Utter utter fail. Nice of you to lecture on the world of law though.... having completely failed to understand his post, and being so completely out of your depth that you think international law is merely statutory. Here's a tip. It isn't. You are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 He specifically made no claims that there was a statute which dictated this. Utter utter fail. Nice of you to lecture on the world of law though.... having completely failed to understand his post, and being so completely out of your depth that you think international law is merely statutory. Here's a tip. It isn't. You are welcome. He specifically said that international law dictates that Scotland would assume a share of the debt. He was wrong and you are wrong... Unlucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 "When the Soviet Union broke up, Whitehall officials argued long and hard about how best to deal with the USSR's international debt. It was not fair to put the whole Soviet burden on Russia. On the other hand, the hassle involved in trying to share it out among the 15 republics would be horrible, plus Russia seemed more likely do pay back the debt. Eventually Russia did take on the whole debt, and in August 2006 finally paid it all off -- an impressive achievement. This simplification of the problem made it much easier for the other new countries to launch themselves on international financial markets and set up their own new currencies." http://www.thecommentator.com/article/910/scottish_independence_consider_the_break_up_of_the_ussr_and_yugoslavia_for_some_lessons Hmmmm. Would quite like to see a reply re this from the nos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 No. Dealing with deluded morons. If you can't understand that iScotland would be toxic if it choose to walk away from the debt then you are dumber than I thought. We can't walk away from debt we don't owe. The international money markets will understand that even if you can't get it into your thick skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 We can't walk away from debt we don't owe. The international money markets will understand that even if you can't get it into your thick skull. Don't talk to him like that. He has a degree in economics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Would quite like to see a reply re this from the nos? But, but, there were so many countries involved there and that's completely different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 But, but, there were so many countries involved there and that's completely different Just clog up pages and pages by insulting people to try and avoid it seems to be the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Would quite like to see a reply re this from the nos? Because Russia decided to take on the debt - not because the other 14 walked away. It's part of the negotiation process - the refusal to take the debt is posturing - it would be akin to rUK saying that iScotland were not to get a share of the assets. Where there is perhaps doubt is the amount of debt (and assets) to be taken - but that would be up to negotiators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Don't talk to him like that. He has a degree in economics Whereas you have a degree of stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 We can't walk away from debt we don't owe. The international money markets will understand that even if you can't get it into your thick skull. Looks like you havent got a clue about the markets then Parp. Not surprising, just add it to the massive list of things that you don't have a fucking clue about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Because Russia decided to take on the debt - not because the other 14 walked away. It's part of the negotiation process - the refusal to take the debt is posturing - it would be akin to rUK saying that iScotland were not to get a share of the assets. Where there is perhaps doubt is the amount of debt (and assets) to be taken - but that would be up to negotiators. Hate to break it to you but the UK have accepted liability as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.