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

[Baxter Parp]

"Nothing in international law requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the continuator state"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Yes.

Which is?

A Parpian Yes doesn't exactly help here.

[Blaven]

Which is?

A Parpian Yes doesn't exactly help here.

You not got google like?

[chomp my root]

"Nothing in international law requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the continuator state"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

I'm pretty sure Salmond is threatening not to take on 'our' share of this debt as long as we get our share of the assets, its tacitly agreeing that we're partially liable for the debt. Its not worth getting into an argument over, it's unlikely to become an issue.

[Ad Lib]

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.

However, rUK will retain the legal personality of the United Kingdom as it currently is in international law. Scotland will not.

Even Lawyers for Yes accept this position.

How assets and liabilities are dealt with is fundamentally different from how institutions are dealt with. The function of independence is to withdraw from all UK institutions. That's what it *is*.

If Scotland wants to create very similar institutions like a monarchy with the same line of succession or a pegged Scots pound that is its prerogative.

If Scotland wants to share any governmental institutions with the United Kingdom, then in accordance with the principles of international law you need the explicit consent of both of the participating parties (which is why Treaties are a thing). Scotland cannot unilaterally force the UK to share a single organ or instrument of law or government, whether it is the DVLA, the Bank of England or the Department for Marsipan Dildos.

What the Scottish Government certainly cannot do is attempt in some way to render the wholly separate issue of what is an equitable share of assets and liabilities relevant to the question of whether or not the two newly independent states are to share a central bank in a currency union.

[Ad Lib]

"Nothing in international law requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the continuator state"http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

David Scheffer. Null points.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

"Nothing in international law requires Scotland to pay one sterling pound of UK debt if the rUK is deemed the continuator state"

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/02/flaw-osbornes-pre-emptive-strike-against-currency-union

That will be Professor David Scheffer whose legal expertise lies in Criminal Law not International Law.

[strichener]

That will be Professor David Scheffer whose legal expertise lies in Criminal Law not International Law.

Much like your economics without numbers.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You not got google like?

I'm on my mobile and I'm a lazy git.

I meant is there a legally defined maritime boundary and where can I find it.

[Blaven]

I'm on my mobile and I'm a lazy git.

I meant is there a legally defined maritime boundary and where can I find it.

Google.

[Baxter Parp]

I'm on my mobile and I'm a lazy git.

I meant is there a legally defined maritime boundary and where can I find it.

Fucking hell Google scotlands maritime boundary. Took me 2 seconds on my phone.

[welshbairn]

What the Scottish Government certainly cannot do is attempt in some way to render the wholly separate issue of what is an equitable share of assets and liabilities relevant to the question of whether or not the two newly independent states are to share a central bank in a currency union.

Of course they can, it's all up for negotiation. You've failed to come up with any International Law that governs it.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Fucking hell Google scotlands maritime boundary. Took me 2 seconds on my phone.

I did - the articles mainly relate to disagreement over the maritime border - also apparently contradiction between legislation in 1987 and 2009 which have the boundaries in different locations.

Which one is the correct one?

[Father Ted]

First we had Osborne trumpet it from Aberdeen, in a staged managed meeting, then hid and ran away from Bernard Ponsonby. Then we had the three stooges trumpet it from Westminster, "no currency union". No Thanks pick up the baton from BT, and the calls grow louder.

Meantime many respected ecomonic experts and politicians saying "there will be currency union". The Scottish Government remain staunch in their stance and quite rightly so. It's farcical that No Thanks tried to make a huge issue out of Plan B. Are these clowns really going to cut their nose off to spite their face? The fall out from this will not be pretty.

It's like "If I repeat a lie enough people will believe it", this shows mental issues and tactic of many a dictator.

I find it insulting the way Westminster is handling this referendum, I am concerned though that enough people buy this bullsh*t from No Thanks.

[Confidemus]

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.

Principles and presumptions do not equate to law. Law has to be written down and be referred to in a court of law. If it can't be, it isn't law. And unless you can come up with a specific law, feel free to shut it.

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

HTH

That will be Professor David Scheffer whose legal expertise lies in Criminal Law not International Law.

Lolwut? A law professor and you and Libbers are slating him. Beautiful.

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28740329

Majority of Scots back using the pound.

[Confidemus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28740329

Majority of Scots back using the pound.

That'll be because:

a) We can

and

b) It's common fucking sense

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Principles and presumptions do not equate to law. Law has to be written down and be referred to in a court of law. If it can't be, it isn't law. And unless you can come up with a specific law, feel free to shut it.

HTH

Lolwut? A law professor and you and Libbers are slating him. Beautiful.

Where did you get the map from?

Any idea if it is legally defined?

I found contradictory (quelle surpris) maps/evidence when I googled "scotland's maritime borders".

[Quentin Taranbino]

Is there any oil on the west side? We own loads of sea 2 let's build some islands and dim crease the size of Scotland

[Tonsilitis]

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.

1) The Bank of England is an institution not an asset! Call it what you want but that institution amongst other things:

• Is owned by the treasury solicitor
• Holds Britain's Foreign Currency and Gold reserves. In 2012, even after Gordon Brown's sale, the gold reserves amounted to £150-160 billion
• Owns all manner of assets purchased from banks to help their liquidity
• Acts as the banker to banks and holds huge deposits from them
• Holds deposits from Scottish and Irish banks that issue their own notes broadly equivalent to £1 for every Scottish/Northern Irish back note I. Circulation.

it may be an institution by your definition but it is stuffed with national assets and is, incidentally a limited company complete with shares. I am not sure there are any corporate structures with the monarchy which is a genuine institution.

2). Re your international law, where is the court or independent arbiter who will settle disputes between Scotland and RUK about assets and liabilities? We, I.e. Both parties will require to settle matters between us. Nobody else is going to intervene. That's not to say there will be no consequences and the settlement, on both sides will require to be seen to be fair internationally.

3). Like most in the No campaign, you only use situations when they suit your argument. There is no doubt regarding Scotland's land borders. The international law you cite defines that countries are entitled to the economic benefit of maritime areas up to 200 miles offshore. As far as I am aware, it is conceded by Westminster that the bulk of the Oil bearing UK continental shelf will belong to Scotland.