Does anyone here believe we can't use the pound?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Hate to break it to you but the UK have accepted liability as well.

???

Liability for what?

[Jamaldo]

Hate to break it to you but the UK have accepted liability as well.

Beat me to it

[Baxter Parp]

???

Liability for what?

The debt. Perhaps, as an economist, this passed you by?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/treasury-uk-debts-scottish-referendum

[AUFC90]

FFS

The only explanation I've heard all morning is that we're all thick.

Away for 40 winks Dee, I think you need it.

[AUFC90]

The debt. Perhaps, as an economist, this passed you by?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/treasury-uk-debts-scottish-referendum

I wasn't even going to humour him with that

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The debt. Perhaps, as an economist, this passed you by?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/13/treasury-uk-debts-scottish-referendum

Honouring debt is different from being liable.

I don't believe rUK would have any option but to given the expected reaction from financial markets if it didn't.

[strichener]

Whereas you have a degree of stupidity

How about providing some figures then in respect of Scotland's financing position if we choose not to take on any UK Debt?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Ihttp://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/refusing-debt-share-is-worth-double-oil-revenue.23969942

I don't have the full report link or I would post it. There would be a short-term fiscal benefit in not having to pay the debt service interest - it would actually outweigh takings from NS oil taxation. The downside would be punitive rates of interest not just for a borrowing uScotland government but also for local authorities and individuals themselves. Walking away might look beneficial in the short-run but in the long-run it would not be good.

There has to be a sensible negotiation over debt and assets.

That all being said, I think it's also political posturing on behalf of BT by downright refusing to discuss CU. Personally, the real issue with CU is that rUK won't be prepared to have iScotland as an equal partner in CU. I just can't see iScotland being prepared to accept accept anything other than equal partnership.

[MarkoRaj]

Dted you're basically agreeing with everything we've said and yet you're throwing abuse around. Calling people idiots even though we are discussing a subject area you have a degree and a lot of experience in. Seems rather ott. You might be trolling actually

[strichener]

Ihttp://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/refusing-debt-share-is-worth-double-oil-revenue.23969942

I don't have the full report link or I would post it. There would be a short-term fiscal benefit in not having to pay the debt service interest - it would actually outweigh takings from NS oil taxation. The downside would be punitive rates of interest not just for a borrowing uScotland government but also for local authorities and individuals themselves. Walking away might look beneficial in the short-run but in the long-run it would not be good.

There has to be a sensible negotiation over debt and assets.

That all being said, I think it's also political posturing on behalf of BT by downright refusing to discuss CU. Personally, the real issue with CU is that rUK won't be prepared to have iScotland as an equal partner in CU. I just can't see iScotland being prepared to accept accept anything other than equal partnership.

So you can't produce figures then? The only number mentioned in this article is the £5.5bln annual savings.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Dted you're basically agreeing with everything we've said and yet you're throwing abuse around. Calling people idiots even though we are discussing a subject area you have a degree and a lot of experience in. Seems rather ott. You might be trolling actually

No. I have said in previous posts my views on the currency and BT's stance. I also believe the stance taken over not taking the debt is equally "head in the sand".

[chomp my root]

Have I missed something with this whole debt issue ? If Salmond is threatening not to take Scotlands 'share' of it if he doesn't get Scotland's share of the assets then he accepts that in any divorce then we would share debt/assets. Is this too simple and have I overlooked something ?

[Ad Lib]

1) International law is a hazy subject and what you are referring to are international conventions. There is something called the Vienna Convention setting down guidelines for what happens on secession but not all countries, including the UK are party to it. The clue though is in the title - "Convention". There are, however, international norms in these situations and what they talk about is an "equitable" division of of both assets and liabilities. These though are far from firm as you describe and every situation is different - the closest example I can think of might have been Quebec had they voted yes. Peaceful splits are far and few between. All that Scotland has to down is be seen to take a reasonable position to satisfy international law and where there are genuine disputes no other country is going to intervene. The issue is more one of perceptions and how international money markets will see things.

Just because something is called a "convention" doesn't mean it isn't part of the body of international law. Are you suggesting that the European Convention on Human Rights isn't law? The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Your conception of law is, amusingly enough, characteristically positivist and really very English. The Vienna Conventions codify the principles of international law that operated before they existed, to provide clarity and to regularise those relationships. That doesn't mean that those who haven't signed it aren't subjected to the same legal principles when they interact with other actors on the international stage.

There is nothing "fuzzy" about this. Even archpositivists in law like John Austin defined law broadly as a system of rules the transgression of which leads to co-ordinated political sanction. The only difference in the context of international law is that you don't have a dominant superior capable of enforcing against any and all other actors, so political sanction is partial and not always effective.

I also accept that a more likely problem would be rUK throwing their toys out and taking measures like voting against Scottish EU membership and spiteful nature of what we have seen so far from Westminster suggests that is a possibility. I also accept that negotiations are likely to be complex and there are numerous areas of doubt eg:

It wouldn't be remotely "spiteful" to refuse to co-operate on critical issues of international relations if Scotland decided to defy international legal norms and be a debt shirker.

• The value of UK assets and attaching liabilities in relation Scotlands geography e.g. what liabilities does the UK have in relation to North Sea investments?
• What happens to rUKs costs in relation to the split which they would not have otherwise had without it such as relocating Trident or setting up Government departments currently based in Scotland?

I don't see any of the above as a good reason not to vote for Independence, given the medium/longer and even possibly some short term benefits.

You seem to be forgetting that the actual settlement of debt obligations goes hand-in-hand with the division of assets. Refusing to take the debt is literally just UDI. This means you don't get consent from the UK to defined borders enforceable in international law. They would be able to contest ownership of the North Sea, refuse to put it to dispute resolution through the International Tribunal, and use its military force to secure control of the pipelines. They could similarly just point blank refuse to remove Trident from the Clyde and frustrate absolutely everything this pariah state did until it ceased to go rogue.

2) I am a chartered accountant specialising in insolvency and so I am more aware of the meaning of joint and several liability than most. I was not implying that Scotland would physically take liability for UK gilts by formal assignation, merely that we would acknowledge our liability to the rUK to pay a share of these. Gilts are simply a method whereby Governments borrow money and insofar as they therefore comprise part of the UK's overall borrowing, we would take an equitable share.

Again, you wouldn't "pay a share of these". You would create a commensurate new debt obligation. This distinction is extremely important.

1. You talk about risk though and I fail to see why a country with the resources we would have and with possibly a current account surplus, would not command a good credit rating. Both Standard and Poors and Moody's say Scotland would merit an "invest" rating - S & P rating us higher than the present UK and Moody's just slightly below.

2. I am not talking about taking just Oil out of the UK balance of payments rather the total of Scottish exports. I accept that we have a trade deficit in terms our trade with rUK but most economists seem to believe we would have an overall current account surplus when oil is factored in. If we would have a current account surplus, but a deficit on trade with rUK, it follows that we would have a large surplus on "foreign" trade. if you take that out of rUK, there would be an increase in their deficit, more than you estimate. The precise figures are hard to establish because of UK methods of accounting e.g. the continental shelf is treated as a separate UK region and so Scotland presently "exports" services to the North Sea but "imports" oil.

1. That's to do with future borrowing, not current liabilities. Besides which, your credit rating is only part of the story. In a recent Robert Peston documentary one of the rating agencies said that you would expect to see at the very least a 1% premium on future Scottish borrowing for the forseeable future.

2. And again you miss the point. The certainty of Scotland's "ownership" over North Sea oil is ONLY achieved if they reach an agreement with the UK about maritime borders. If they refuse to shirk the debt, the frigates can be sent in. It is precisely because the UK has this nuclear option that no one can credibly say that no currency union = no debt. It's a cretinous position.

[Ad Lib]

Required by whom? This just looks like a tiff between two nations, and both sides taking unilateral action against the other. Where does international law come into it?

By asking "required by whom" you show that you don't really understand the nature of international law. As I explained quite comprehensively, law can exist without some over-arching body enforcing it against all parties. Ireland was required by the operation of law connected to the circumstances which facilitated its secession and recognition in international law as an independent state to honour the treaty obligations it undertook as part of that. When it reneged, The UK enforced the remedies that exist for it, namely trade sanctions. This is no more "just a tiff" than a country going to war with another that invaded another country is.

Read that back to yourself and when you comprehend the idiocy of what you are posting then feel free to post again.

Constant variable: a variable whose value cannot be changed once it has been assigned a value. This isn't difficult, champ.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-we-shouldnt-do-walking-away/

Even Wings recognises that walking away is not a good option.

"Should Scotland walk away, then? (A separate question from the ability to walk away.) The answer is that it almost certainly shouldn’t, currency union or no. But why?

1. Without any assets inherited from the UK, Scotland will need to borrow, not just to smooth out its cash flow (like using an overdraft), but also to finance the (considerable) costs of starting from scratch.

To put it simply: if we can inherit a frigate from rUK, and in return take on the equivalent debt at, say, a negotiated 2%, it makes more sense than having to borrow to build one from scratch at 3.5%, if that’s all the lenders would offer us.

2. No matter how hard Scotland protested, potential lenders might still consider that Scotland has somehow shirked its responsibilities. This is why the No campaign is bombarding us with talk of defaulting and reneging. Perception counts, and the paper on Quebec mentioned above carries this warning:

“The lessons on debt division to be derived from the sovereign debt literature are unequivocal. The repudiation of foreign debt is not a viable option for a country interested in maintaining extensive international economic or diplomatic relations.”

If perception is hostile, no matter what Standard and Poor’s say, Scotland might find it hard to borrow at a reasonable rate. The counter-argument to that says that freed of of the billions of pounds it contributes every year towards the UK debt, Scotland’s borrowing would be so much lower that it could afford to pay a slightly higher rate for it. That’s where the final and key point comes in, and perhaps holds the explanation of why Salmond is sticking so doggedly to Plan A.

3. If the rUK has to take on the whole of its debt without Scotland paying a share, its financial position begins to look truly horrible. But that’s not good news for Scotland – it’d be left using an increasingly vulnerable Sterling (or an untried currency with no tested lender of last resort) and with its biggest trading partner in deep trouble. The dead weight of the UK could drag us down with it. Scotland is trapped in an unwilling suicide pact.

So it’s in Scotland’s interests to reassure the markets, establish its own credibility, and relieve the pressure on rUK by accepting a share of the debt, in exchange for London’s support over the EU, NATO and so on. Anything else would be a high stakes face-off, and could do a lot of damage to both sides"

[Ad Lib]

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.

I didn't say it was statutory, champ. Most of international law isn't statutory. All of Jamaldo, on the other hand, is a moron.

In the world of law, you provide evidence for the claims you actually make. Since I didn't claim an international statute compels Scotland to take a share of the debt, I don't have to provide evidence in support of such a claim.

He specifically said that international law dictates that Scotland would assume a share of the debt. He was wrong and you are wrong... Unlucky.

Wrong. I said that "international law clearly provides that Scotland would assume an equitable share of liabilities". What *IS* an equitable share of liabilities is subject to a series of assumptions in customary international law, subject to contrary mutual agreement between the relevant parties.

[MarkoRaj]

No. I have said in previous posts my views on the currency and BT's stance. I also believe the stance taken over not taking the debt is equally "head in the sand".

Well I totally agree which is why I don't think either will happen. However if one side throws its toys out the pram ie wm refuse to negotiate CU, I think we could well see a similar stance from sg, for better or worse re. the debt

[AUFC90]

I didn't say it was statutory, champ. Most of international law isn't statutory. All of Jamaldo, on the other hand, is a moron.

In the world of law, you provide evidence for the claims you actually make. Since I didn't claim an international statute compels Scotland to take a share of the debt, I don't have to provide evidence in support of such a claim.

Wrong. I said that "international law clearly provides that Scotland would assume an equitable share of liabilities". What *IS* an equitable share of liabilities is subject to a series of assumptions in customary international law, subject to contrary mutual agreement between the relevant parties.

It's there in black and white. You said dictate unless you've now edited it. You were either doing your usual fibbing or you were just plain wrong. If you were wrong on the 3rd paragraph on your first post on this matter- what else are you wrong about ?

[AUFC90]

Well I totally agree which is why I don't think either will happen. However if one side throws its toys out the pram ie wm refuse to negotiate CU, I think we could well see a similar stance from sg, for better or worse re. the debt

That's exactly what I've been saying for days. A deal will be done because the alternatives are not good for either country.

[Ad Lib]

It's there in black and white. You said dictate unless you've now edited it. You were either doing your usual fibbing or you were just plain wrong. If you were wrong on the 3rd paragraph on your first post on this matter- what else are you wrong about ?

I didn't say dictate! Go and read the post again. And it wasn't edited. If it were, there would be a time stamp to show that it was so.

Stop being wrong.