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

[Thumper]

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

What you're missing here is that the debt is an abstract thing. The assets, by and large, are physical things which exist on this side of the border. it's not as if Westminster is going to say "very well, we want HMS Saughton back, kindly dismantle it and ship all the bricks to Liverpool by next Wednesday".

[edit] Not that they wouldn't try, of course. I await the Sun running with that one.

[chomp my root]

What you're missing here is that the debt is an abstract thing. The assets, by and large, are physical things which exist on this side of the border. it's not as if Westminster is going to say "very well, we want HMS Saughton back, kindly dismantle it and ship all the bricks to Liverpool by next Wednesday".

[edit] Not that they wouldn't try, of course. I await the Sun running with that one.

Our assets include embassies etc abroad so if we're going to get our 10 percent(ish) of them then I suppose we could 'demand' that the rest of the UK dismantle them and ship them up to Saughton and replace the prison with some nice buildings. You've obviously never been divorced if you think its that simple.

[Thumper]

Our assets include embassies etc abroad so if we're going to get our 10 percent(ish) of them then I suppose we could 'demand' that the rest of the UK dismantle them and ship them up to Saughton and replace the prison with some nice buildings. You've obviously never been divorced if you think its that simple.

I didn't say it was simple. But it's not some huge unknown. iScotland holds a good hand in these negotiations by simple virtue of the majority of the assets in play being physically located within its sovereign territory. Embassies, access to government databases et cetera are things that iScotland will want to negotiate, but they're not deal-breakers; if rUK refuses to negotiate them, then I dare say they're worth less than the debt iScotland has written off. But I don't believe it will come to that, because contrary to everything that the No campaign says it was not in fact completely refuses to negotiate with iScotland come independence.

[chomp my root]

I didn't say it was simple. But it's not some huge unknown. iScotland holds a good hand in these negotiations by simple virtue of the majority of the assets in play being physically located within its sovereign territory. Embassies, access to government databases et cetera are things that iScotland will want to negotiate, but they're not deal-breakers; if rUK refuses to negotiate them, then I dare say they're worth less than the debt iScotland has written off. But I don't believe it will come to that, because contrary to everything that the No campaign says it was not in fact completely refuses to negotiate with iScotland come independence.

You certainly give the impression that it's simple, here's a load of assets, lets just divvy them up. You don't think there might be different valuations on these assets ? Its going to be a far from simple task and I've got to laugh at your notion that because they're physical they are somehow more 'real' than debt.

I'm not sure that the UK government have actually said they wouldn't negotiate with an independent Scotland in the (unlikely) event that it goes that way.

[Thumper]

I'm not sure that the UK government have actually said they wouldn't negotiate with an independent Scotland in the (unlikely) event that it goes that way.

It's difficult to keep up with what they're claiming isn't negotiable this week. Whatever frightens most people, basically.

[git-intae-thum]

Oh no... just when you think the entire quota of legal fail has been filled, along comes a clown quoting David Scheffer ..

Awkward!

It "fails" to match the warped views of Britnat Nawbags.

[GalaKev]

Going on the subject of oil and Scotland not taking its share of debt.

Can someone explain how this may not happen.

A coastal nation automatically has 12nm as territorial waters, based at low water, unless another nation would overlap, where it would be taken as the midway point, In my book that means Scottish up to 12nm out.

A further 12nm out (12nm to 24nm) is a contigouous zone. This is where a nation can exert limited control to protect its interest i.e. to stop smuggling, defend its borders. But is not strictly within their control.

Lets assume that the first 24nm are without doubt Scottish.

Why would the United Kingdom, give up any right of areas from 24nm up to the now limit? International law has accepted this is now United Kingdom waters. The United Kingdom still exists, even though Scotland are no longer part of the United Kingdom. As long as free travel without hindrance above on and below the water is allowed, the UK would not be breaking any international law.

So if Scotland does not take its share of debt, what is going to stop the UK refusing to negotiate on continental shelf? I would imagine few oilfields are within 24nm of the coast?

[Confidemus]

Going on the subject of oil and Scotland not taking its share of debt.

Can someone explain how this may not happen.

A coastal nation automatically has 12nm as territorial waters, based at low water, unless another nation would overlap, where it would be taken as the midway point, In my book that means Scottish up to 12nm out.

A further 12nm out (12nm to 24nm) is a contigouous zone. This is where a nation can exert limited control to protect its interest i.e. to stop smuggling, defend its borders. But is not strictly within their control.

Lets assume that the first 24nm are without doubt Scottish.

Why would the United Kingdom, give up any right of areas from 24nm up to the now limit? International law has accepted this is now United Kingdom waters. The United Kingdom still exists, even though Scotland are no longer part of the United Kingdom. As long as free travel without hindrance above on and below the water is allowed, the UK would not be breaking any international law.

So if Scotland does not take its share of debt, what is going to stop the UK refusing to negotiate on continental shelf? I would imagine few oilfields are within 24nm of the coast?

Something like 98% of the oilfields are in Scottish waters, not UK waters.

HTH.

[AUFC90]

Going on the subject of oil and Scotland not taking its share of debt.

Can someone explain how this may not happen.

A coastal nation automatically has 12nm as territorial waters, based at low water, unless another nation would overlap, where it would be taken as the midway point, In my book that means Scottish up to 12nm out.

A further 12nm out (12nm to 24nm) is a contigouous zone. This is where a nation can exert limited control to protect its interest i.e. to stop smuggling, defend its borders. But is not strictly within their control.

Lets assume that the first 24nm are without doubt Scottish.

Why would the United Kingdom, give up any right of areas from 24nm up to the now limit? International law has accepted this is now United Kingdom waters. The United Kingdom still exists, even though Scotland are no longer part of the United Kingdom. As long as free travel without hindrance above on and below the water is allowed, the UK would not be breaking any international law.

So if Scotland does not take its share of debt, what is going to stop the UK refusing to negotiate on continental shelf? I would imagine few oilfields are within 24nm of the coast?

The oil is in Scotland's territorial waters. If there was any chance that the UK could lay claim to it then I'm sure BT would've been trying to scare everyone with that stick as well.

[GalaKev]

Something like 98% of the oilfields are in Scottish waters, not UK waters.

HTH.

Are they really within 24 nautical miles of the coast of Scotland, what that's about 26 normal miles of the coast?

Not saying you're incorrect, just surprised me if so.

[Anonapersona]

Are they really within 24 nautical miles of the coast of Scotland, what that's about 26 normal miles of the coast?

Not saying you're incorrect, just surprised me if so.

Is there any reason you're not taking Scotland's EEZ into account?

[Confidemus]

Are they really within 24 nautical miles of the coast of Scotland, what that's about 26 normal miles of the coast?

Not saying you're incorrect, just surprised me if so.

They're in Scottish waters. Trust me.

[Tonsilitis]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

1) At no stage have I ever said we would not take a share of debts and I agree that to suggest otherwise is silly. However, the international "law" that you hang your hat on merely indicates that there should be an equitable division of assets and liabilities. My suggestion is merely that the proportion of debt we inherit should be broadly similar to the proportion of liabilities. In round terms if we do not share the Bank of England, there will be an equivalent impact on liabilities we inherit. We will, of course still take liabilities, just a smaller share.

2) The European convention on human rights is an international treaty adherence to which is mandatory for EU members. It is properly codified and overseen by the European Court of Human Rights and there is case law to back it up. There is no equivalent to it regarding separation of states and the Vienna convention was established to help deal with decolonisation. No two cases have been the same and the only recent peaceful split was the break up of Czechoslovakia which is far from comparable due to the vast economic differences between the two new states. Scotland and rUKs economies are far closer on most measures. In any event, any international conventions there are merely state that there should be an equitable split of assets and liabilities. There is, however, no court to refer to settle what equitable means.

You can't have international conventions all ways. The same conventions you correctly say oblige us to take an equitable share of liabilities also sees assets which fall into a new country geographically as belonging to it. Suggesting rUK would send in the Frigates is taking Project Fear to new levels.

[Tonsilitis]

Going on the subject of oil and Scotland not taking its share of debt.

Can someone explain how this may not happen.

A coastal nation automatically has 12nm as territorial waters, based at low water, unless another nation would overlap, where it would be taken as the midway point, In my book that means Scottish up to 12nm out.

A further 12nm out (12nm to 24nm) is a contigouous zone. This is where a nation can exert limited control to protect its interest i.e. to stop smuggling, defend its borders. But is not strictly within their control.

Lets assume that the first 24nm are without doubt Scottish.

Why would the United Kingdom, give up any right of areas from 24nm up to the now limit? International law has accepted this is now United Kingdom waters. The United Kingdom still exists, even though Scotland are no longer part of the United Kingdom. As long as free travel without hindrance above on and below the water is allowed, the UK would not be breaking any international law.

So if Scotland does not take its share of debt, what is going to stop the UK refusing to negotiate on continental shelf? I would imagine few oilfields are within 24nm of the coast?

Internationally it is recognised that countries own the economic rights to their offshore waters up to 200 miles offshore or to the halfway point between that country and another country "across the water" if the halfway point is less than 200 miles.

Westminster did however work a flanker by changing the maritime border between Scotland and England. It used to go due East from the Tweed but they redrew it to follow a line running roughly North East from Berwick to follow the approx angle of the land border, thereby annexing thousands of square miles of formerly Scottish Waters.

[welshbairn]

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.

Ireland and the Uk disagreed about what Ireland owed from 19th Century loans. Ireland refused to pay and UK retaliated with an import tariff on Irish agricultural products. Ireland responded with tariffs on UK coal imports. There was no international law involved, no set remedies, just two parties playing tit for tat.

[Ad Lib]

1) At no stage have I ever said we would not take a share of debts and I agree that to suggest otherwise is silly. However, the international "law" that you hang your hat on merely indicates that there should be an equitable division of assets and liabilities.

Good. This is what the SNP deny though by falsely claiming that the pound is an asset.

My suggestion is merely that the proportion of debt we inherit should be broadly similar to the proportion of liabilities. In round terms if we do not share the Bank of England, there will be an equivalent impact on liabilities we inherit. We will, of course still take liabilities, just a smaller share.

But an equitable share of assets has absolutely nothing to do with institutions. The Bank of England is an institution not an asset. Scotland can get an equitable proportion of the reserves and sundry assets without a currency union. Whether or not there is a currency union has zero bearing on what is an equitable apportionment of assets, therefore it also has zero bearing on an equitable share of liabilities either.

2) The European convention on human rights is an international treaty adherence to which is mandatory for EU members. It is properly codified and overseen by the European Court of Human Rights and there is case law to back it up. There is no equivalent to it regarding separation of states and the Vienna convention was established to help deal with decolonisation. No two cases have been the same and the only recent peaceful split was the break up of Czechoslovakia which is far from comparable due to the vast economic differences between the two new states. Scotland and rUKs economies are far closer on most measures. In any event, any international conventions there are merely state that there should be an equitable split of assets and liabilities. There is, however, no court to refer to settle what equitable means.

Just because something isn't codified doesn't mean it isn't law. Just because something is called a convention doesn't mean it isn't law. Just because there isn't a single enforcement body doesn't mean something isn't law.

No one said there was a court to determine what specifically an equitable share is. There are however a set of principles and presumptions which apply and from which parties may only deviate by mutual agreement. These are clear: an equitable division of liabilities is not contingent upon the sharing of any institution.

You can't have international conventions all ways. The same conventions you correctly say oblige us to take an equitable share of liabilities also sees assets which fall into a new country geographically as belonging to it. Suggesting rUK would send in the Frigates is taking Project Fear to new levels.

Scotland does not yet exist in international law. It cannot acquire borders for the purposes of the international community without the acquiescence of the state from which it secedes. There is no such thing as Scottish waters until the UK consents to it or Scotland raises an army and navy forcibly to expel the British state from it and gets recognition by a multitude of states and international bodies. If Scotland refuses to take its equitable share of liabilities all the nuclear options are on the table.

[welshbairn]

Scotland does not yet exist in international law. It cannot acquire borders for the purposes of the international community without the acquiescence of the state from which it secedes. There is no such thing as Scottish waters until the UK consents to it or Scotland raises an army and navy forcibly to expel the British state from it and gets recognition by a multitude of states and international bodies. If Scotland refuses to take its equitable share of liabilities all the nuclear options are on the table.

rUK doesn't exist either. As with all these matters, distribution of assets, liabilities and how we deal with previously shared institutions will be up to negotiations, hopefully leading to what will be in both new nations' best interests.

[Blaven]

Good. This is what the SNP deny though by falsely claiming that the pound is an asset.

But an equitable share of assets has absolutely nothing to do with institutions. The Bank of England is an institution not an asset. Scotland can get an equitable proportion of the reserves and sundry assets without a currency union. Whether or not there is a currency union has zero bearing on what is an equitable apportionment of assets, therefore it also has zero bearing on an equitable share of liabilities either.

Just because something isn't codified doesn't mean it isn't law. Just because something is called a convention doesn't mean it isn't law. Just because there isn't a single enforcement body doesn't mean something isn't law.

No one said there was a court to determine what specifically an equitable share is. There are however a set of principles and presumptions which apply and from which parties may only deviate by mutual agreement. These are clear: an equitable division of liabilities is not contingent upon the sharing of any institution.

Scotland does not yet exist in international law. It cannot acquire borders for the purposes of the international community without the acquiescence of the state from which it secedes. There is no such thing as Scottish waters until the UK consents to it or Scotland raises an army and navy forcibly to expel the British state from it and gets recognition by a multitude of states and international bodies. If Scotland refuses to take its equitable share of liabilities all the nuclear options are on the table.

Are you saying that the UK is not made up of equal nations?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Internationally it is recognised that countries own the economic rights to their offshore waters up to 200 miles offshore or to the halfway point between that country and another country "across the water" if the halfway point is less than 200 miles.

Westminster did however work a flanker by changing the maritime border between Scotland and England. It used to go due East from the Tweed but they redrew it to follow a line running roughly North East from Berwick to follow the approx angle of the land border, thereby annexing thousands of square miles of formerly Scottish Waters.

I know this might sound silly but is there an exactly defined maritime border (not just land border)?

[Baxter Parp]

I know this might sound silly but is there an exactly defined maritime border (not just land border)?

Yes.