Oh dear, Willie Rennie

[Confidemus]

Do BTUKOK have a more hopeless, hapless politican than this utter fool?

[Casual Bystander]

Classic Bitter Together campaigning, sadly.

1) Make outrageous unsubstantiated claim

2) Repeat outrageous unsubstantiated claim

3) ???

4) Profit

[capybara]

Rennie is struggling along with what is left of his party. On the fringes of the debate. And now we know why.

[Killie Zenit]

"That's what the experts tell us."

Clearly doesn't have the tiniest clue what he's talking about. Genuinely forgot who this funny wee Play-Doh character was.

[Jamaldo]

Why will costs go up?

Because costs will go up.

[Tonsilitis]

Here's a bit of the No campaign I just don't get. Actually there is loads of their campaign I don't get but specifically the line that runs "Scotland's international reputation will be trashed if we don't take on our share of the debt" apparently irrespective of whether we get a fair share of the assets or not.

My background is that I am a CA and specialise in insolvency. My experience has always taught me that the interest rate you pay goes up in proportion to the risk of it not being repaid - hence payday loans being at rates well beyond anything Shylock envisaged whereas mortgage lending secured on a good property with a well heeled owner costs relative sweeties in interest rate terms. In commercial lending another factor that is taken into account is whether or not the borrower is regarded as financially astute or not.

In a business split, a de-merger or even a divorce, generally the liabilities follow the assets. If your share of the business takes over a car, you get any finance that attaches to it. Likewise if you split a country and one party says, I am keeping the Bank of England and you can't have it, the other is perfectly entitled to say that if that is the case, you can keep the attaching liabilities, in this case a big part of UK's borrowing. The Bank of England has reserves of around £400bn. If we can't share that, we don't take the liabilities. if we did our reputation with foreign lenders would suffer because they would see us as allowing ourselves to be done over by RUK. What Scotland needs to establish is a reputation of being fair but hardnosed and we will not get that by rolling over.

If we don't take the liabilities, it would seem that we would start "clean" and with huge natural resources. Seems to me that any lender is going to look at Scotland in those circumstances as a good risk. Why would they not?

Of course life is not as simple. RUK would not take us refusing our share of the debt lying down and would immediately look at matters such as refusing to pay Scottish pensioners. Ultimately that would only be a relatively short cash flow issue but for pensioners not getting their pension for even a couple of weeks, it could be major, maybe even life threatening. I expect and require the Scottish government to be prepared for that and able to deal with it.

[HaikuHibee]

I like him similing. Really makes the video. Looks total loony.

[The_Kincardine]

Here's a bit of the No campaign I just don't get. Actually there is loads of their campaign I don't get but specifically the line that runs "Scotland's international reputation will be trashed if we don't take on our share of the debt" apparently irrespective of whether we get a fair share of the assets or not.

My background is that I am a CA and specialise in insolvency. My experience has always taught me that the interest rate you pay goes up in proportion to the risk of it not being repaid - hence payday loans being at rates well beyond anything Shylock envisaged whereas mortgage lending secured on a good property with a well heeled owner costs relative sweeties in interest rate terms. In commercial lending another factor that is taken into account is whether or not the borrower is regarded as financially astute or not.

In a business split, a de-merger or even a divorce, generally the liabilities follow the assets. If your share of the business takes over a car, you get any finance that attaches to it. Likewise if you split a country and one party says, I am keeping the Bank of England and you can't have it, the other is perfectly entitled to say that if that is the case, you can keep the attaching liabilities, in this case a big part of UK's borrowing. The Bank of England has reserves of around £400bn. If we can't share that, we don't take the liabilities. if we did our reputation with foreign lenders would suffer because they would see us as allowing ourselves to be done over by RUK. What Scotland needs to establish is a reputation of being fair but hardnosed and we will not get that by rolling over.

If we don't take the liabilities, it would seem that we would start "clean" and with huge natural resources. Seems to me that any lender is going to look at Scotland in those circumstances as a good risk. Why would they not?

Of course life is not as simple. RUK would not take us refusing our share of the debt lying down and would immediately look at matters such as refusing to pay Scottish pensioners. Ultimately that would only be a relatively short cash flow issue but for pensioners not getting their pension for even a couple of weeks, it could be major, maybe even life threatening. I expect and require the Scottish government to be prepared for that and able to deal with it.

Frankly you have posted 5 paragraphs of undiluted manure. No one is arguing that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion.

Edited to add: CA, eh? Haste ye tae the BRALT and team-tag with a fellow professional who also revels in a two-letter title. The CA and The QC in tandem? Bollocks squared IMO.

[shiltrum]

Why will costs go up?

Because. costs will go up.

Fixed that seems more appropriate.

[Tonsilitis]

Frankly you have posted 5 paragraphs of undiluted manure. No one is arguing that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion.

Edited to add: CA, eh? Haste ye tae the BRALT and team-tag with a fellow professional who also revels in a two-letter title. The CA and The QC in tandem? Bollocks squared IMO.

Manure? If there is no currency union what that means is denying Scotland access the assets of the Bank of England. All of the Westminster old school time brigade arguing for that and will have egg on their faces when they have to climb down.

You make you points with the usual BT lack of detail or rational.

[TONTROOPER]

Frankly you have posted 5 paragraphs of undiluted manure. No one is arguing that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion.

Edited to add: CA, eh? Haste ye tae the BRALT and team-tag with a fellow professional who also revels in a two-letter title. The CA and The QC in tandem? Bollocks squared IMO.

The pertinent point though is the BOE have admitted full liability for the debt.Legally..Scotland could walk away from this but wont.Why?..because for all their bellicose statements rUK would start negotiating a common currency.

[HaikuHibee]

Manure? If there is no currency union what that means is denying Scotland access the assets of the Bank of England. All of the Westminster old school time brigade arguing for that and will have egg on their faces when they have to climb down.

You make you points with the usual BT lack of detail or rational.

Just ignore that guy. BOE has share of debt. He doesn't know that.

[Thumper]

I'm curious as to exactly how T_K has negotiated living in this country for the last three months without ever hearing claims "that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion". Official voices in the No campaign have literally claimed we won't be able to pay for our grocieries with pound coins any more in the event of a Yes vote.

[Confidemus]

I'm curious as to exactly how T_K has negotiated living in this country for the last three months without ever hearing claims "that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion". Official voices in the No campaign have literally claimed we won't be able to pay for our grocieries with pound coins any more in the event of a Yes vote.

BitterTogether have resorted to non stop lies in a last desperate fling of the dice.

[The_Kincardine]

The pertinent point though is the BOE have admitted full liability for the debt.Legally..Scotland could walk away from this but wont.Why?..because for all their bellicose statements rUK would start negotiating a common currency.

Neither I nor the guy I replied to mentioned currency union. He referred to the BoE's reserves and claimed that Scotland should get a share of those.

This has never been an issue, which is why his scaremongering dross was described as 'manure' by me. Indeed, the most sensible article I've read on the currency issue was in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2014/08/11/of-course-scotland-can-use-the-scottish-pound/

The last few sentences are the most salient:

They are laying claim to “part of” the Bank of England. Clearly, they want to have a central bank.

So let them have one. Because there aren’t any “Scottish” banks of any size, it would need to be a completely new institution. Create a “Scotland National Bank” which backs Scottish notes and produces Scottish coins (UK coins produced by the Royal Mint are currently the only form of legal tender in Scotland). And let its initial capital be Scotland’s share of the Bank of England’s gold and FX reserves. Let Scotland determine its own monetary policy, including pegging to sterling or some other currency if it wants to. And let it take the consequences of getting it wrong. That’s what independence means.

I'd reckon that had Salmond adopted a policy as outlined about then 'Aye' would now be ahead in the polls and looking like winning the referendum.

I'm curious as to exactly how T_K has negotiated living in this country for the last three months without ever hearing claims "that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion". Official voices in the No campaign have literally claimed we won't be able to pay for our grocieries with pound coins any more in the event of a Yes vote.

I have never heard, "that iScotland won't get a share of the BoE's reserves of £0.4 trillion nor, concomitantly, its share of UK PLC's debt of £1.3 trillion"

Neither have you.

[HaikuHibee]

Alistair Darling: BoE is the UK's. That's where this comes from.

[Casual Bystander]

Remember when Alistair Darling was the Chancellor and Gordon Brown was PM? Remember when it all went tits up? Pepperidge Farm remembers and so do the public. Neither men should be trusted when it comes to anything related to finance.

[Casual Bystander]

There is no such thing in Scotland as "legal tender".

There has to be, as "legal tender" simply refers to a legal recognised form of payment, that's all. Technically you don't need to accept English notes up here, and vice versa for Scottish notes outside the country, although all the banks obviously do.

[The_Kincardine]

Alistair Darling: BoE is the UK's. That's where this comes from.

Well of course it is. That is a sensible statement. It says nothing, though, about Scotland having a, say, 8ish% of government debt and a,say, 8ish% of BoE reserves. These are perfectly reasonable notions.

The aforementioned are non-contentious. I'd also remind you that the post I replied to didn't mention currency union.

[strichener]

There has to be, as "legal tender" simply refers to a legal recognised form of payment, that's all. Technically you don't need to accept English notes up here, and vice versa for Scottish notes outside the country, although all the banks obviously do.

Yes, I was just changing the post as you quoted it. No need for it now.