[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

former political director of the European Policy Centre,

[i]A 1999 Report on secret European lobbying practices, singled Crossick's EPC out for condemnation saying: " Contrary to the image of neutral observer of the European Union, which the EPC seeks to cultivate, [the] institute has a clear bias towards the interests of large corporations.[/i]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/European_Policy_Centre

If so, why should the status of the "rump UK" be any different to that of Scotland?

Do we really need to answer that one?

Oh please no not Nigel

As someone pointed out on Twitter, the UK won't be a United Kingdom if Scotland leaves - Scotland and England are kingdoms, Wales is a principality and Northern Ireland is a province.

Anyhow, "definitely no currency union" didn't last long - Cameron on the BBC just said "Now that a currency union is in doubt", and Darling said "I don't believe there will be a currency union".

They don't sound quite so certain as they did a few days ago 😉

There is nothing actually new in what Osborne and co said in the past few days. In the House of Lords report almost a year ago, the same issues were examined with the conclusion that

77. Continued use of sterling by an independent Scotland in monetary union with the rest of the UK is the stated preference of the Scottish Government. But it would raise complex problems of cross-border monetary policy, multiple financial regulators and taxpayer exposure and could only come about, if at all, on terms agreed by the UK Government. Arrangements should be clear before the referendum. But the proposal for the Scottish Government to exert some influence over the Bank of England, let alone the rest of the UK exchequer, is devoid of precedent and entirely fanciful.

So hardly a new issue that yS has had to deal with. They just chose to ignore it. Trouble is this is not some fictional bogeyman, it's the real world and guess what it comes back less than a year later.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldeconaf/152/15202.htm

I have to admit, that not having followed the independence thing all that closely I always assumed that Scotland would continue to use sterling, but have no effective control over it. I suspect that's what most people expected - including lots of those in favour of independence (I note various comments from those on this thread using examples of places which have that sort of status as examples of why Scotland can do something different - and also the report Ben linked above which suggests something similar).

The question is, does the average man in the street actually understand the difference between that and being in a currency union? Is anything AS has said recently helping to clarify that issue?

epicyclo. I think that argument falls flat very early. You cannot expect the rUK to adopt the same status as iScotland without giving rUK a vote in the referendum. Most reasonable yes campaigners would probably accept this.

It would be the worst example of people being dictated to with no say at the ballot box that I can think of.

This article in the Guardian makes some very good points - especially about the issue of EU membership.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/scottish-referendum-independent-scaremongering-eu

athgray - Member
epicyclo. I think that argument falls flat very early. You cannot expect the rUK to adopt the same status as iScotland without giving rUK a vote in the referendum...

By the look of that article, it all depends on how the other members of the EU and NATO view the separation, not what an English government thinks.

It's pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

Which comes down to the same rules for both, ie both in or both out. Which is fair, isn't it?

As a Scot leaning towards the yes side, but still agonising, I welcome every constructive argument, but nothing infuriates me more than the rising torrent of unsubstantiated "facts" being presented by opponents of independence, serving no purpose other than to intimidate.

Again - the response to unsubstantiated facts from the no campaign seems to be to respond with a bunch of your own unsubstantiated 'facts'. That article is pretty badly written and full of factual errors.

It's pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

From which article? Aren't you now just cherry picking opinions that you like and claiming they are 'trending'? Never heard this view expressed elsewhere. And surely if this was the case then the rUK ought to get a vote?

Sounds like a tactic worthy of 'project fear'. There's so much BS being talked on both sides I don't know how anyone is meant to make an informed decision.

Anyway, who gets the royals? AS i understand it she takes decent from the House of Stuart, i.e. she is Scottish, can the rUK bill Edinburgh for the costs?

mrmo - Member
Anyway, who gets the royals? AS i understand it she takes decent from the House of Stuart, i.e. she is Scottish, can the rUK bill Edinburgh for the costs?

Good question. Seems fair if we are keeping the royals we pay for their Scottish residences.

Right up until the first election in Scotland, then bye bye royalty... 🙂

grum
...From which article? Aren't you now just cherry picking opinions that you like and claiming they are 'trending'? Never heard this view expressed elsewhere...

It's in here

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/17/barroso-scotland-ludicrous-remarks ]The Guardian[/url]

Don't know why you haven't heard the view elsewhere, but it seems logical that if you have a union of 2 sovereign entities, then on separation they revert to previous status. Neither can pretend to be the whole.

is it me or is the Yes campaign looking increasingly shaky?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/17/business-leaders-alex-salmond-currency-union ]Britain's two leading business organisations have dealt a blow to Alex Salmond in his fightback against the rejection by Britain's three main political parties of a currency union with an independent Scotland.

The leaders of the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors both warned that a currency union would be "unstable" as David Cameron said that the Scottish first minister was "now a man without a plan".[/url]

and their responses to the tough questions just getting all a bit bit denialist

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/feb/17/scotland-independence-sturgeon-united-kingdom-eu ]Earlier a distinguished former judge of the European court of justice, Sir David Edward, said if Scotland voted for independence, there would be a period of separation between Scotland and the EU. "During that period there is no entity called Scotland that can negotiate with the EU, so the UK would have to negotiate the terms on which the new Scotland at the moment of separation can be a member state or not be a member state."

He said it was arguable that at the moment of separation Scotland would fall out of the European Union with the extraordinary consequence that all its citizens were no longer members of the EU. In addition, thousands of commercial relationships would be under a different system of law.

He said it was grossly optimistic to suggest this negotiation could happen by March 2016, the timetable set out by the SNP.[/url]

Don't know why you haven't heard the view elsewhere, but it seems logical that if you have a union of 2 sovereign entities, then on separation they revert to previous status. Neither can pretend to be the whole.

Except rUK would be losing less than ten percent of its population. Hardly a fundamental shift is it. If you had a contract with a firm of solicitors and one of them left would your contract still be valid?

It's pretty tenuous to claim the scenario is the same for iScotland and rUK surely. I'm not sure where you've got the idea this view is 'trending'.

I started out broadly in favour of independence but the arguments seem less and less convincing by the day.

That Guardian article isn't the best for instance take the statement below, it wouldn't happen as you'd still be a UK citizen if you wanted. However, that doesn't prevent Scotland from being required post independence to join the EU.

Scots living in Europe (and Europeans in Scotland) would suddenly have no automatic right to be there.

As for rUK being kicked out of NATO don't make me laugh, you think with all that US/UK integrated infrastructure that they are going to kick them out. As for rUK and the EU they won't be kicked out, but I could see the countries that don't like the UK's stance in Europe using it is an excuse to re-negotiate and change the terms. Which is why Scotlands decision matters for all of the UK, as we could all end up worse off from it.

grum - Member
Except rUK would be losing less than ten percent of its population...

England is not the UK.

It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland.

The point raised in that article is there will be no UK as we know it after Scotland leaves, ie what England chooses to call itself after Scotland goes is up to itself, but it will not have the same status as the current UK.

It's unlikely to be a problem, because all this talk of Scotland being out of the EU and NATO is Westminster inspired scaremongering. They should be careful what they wish for though because we'll both have the same entitlement, ie both in, or both out.

t's pretty clear from that article that the thinking is trending towards looking at it as separation of two sovereign states, with England not being the rUK and simply as the other party to the split.

Its far from 'pretty clear' its an argument that is completely unsupported by anyone but a small group of nationalist campaigners surrounding the Scottish Govt.

The whole issue was looked into extensively by parliament, hearing extensive evidence from all parties and came to the conclusion that:

[i]With the exception of the Scottish Government, all our witnesses concluded that the RUK would be the continuing state while Scotland would start afresh internationally. [/i]

And, tellingly, [b][i]The Scottish Government has not issued a definitive view on this issue and indeed the Deputy First Minister confirmed in oral evidence that it had not sought official legal advice as to what position Scotland might find itself in[/i][/b]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/643/64306.htm

Whilst the same conclusion was drawn and published to the Office for the Advocate General for Scotland

With extensive legal advice

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79408/Annex_A.pdf

Further to this, both Barosso and Van Rompuy have made public statements in their official EU roles that their understanding is that the UK will continue as successor state, while Scotland will be a new state.

Its fanciful to suggest that the argument otherwise is 'trending' - its simply another attempt at obfuscating the truth by Salmond and his mates, there's no real support for the argument at all!

Some more tax statistics to go with IFS data above, this time from hmrc. I need to divide out by population as HMRC hasn't done this, on quick inspection it confirms IFS anecdote that Scots pay more per head in tobacco and spirit taxes. It less elsewhere. IFS data shows English pay about 20% more per head in income tax than do the Scots (£2,400pa vs £2,000), consistent with South East having a higher proportion of large company HQ's etc. Note per head calculation includes total population including children, pensioners etc. The IFS make reference to Scotland being more egalitarian as it has less well paid jobs (so less tax and less influential positions), I do find this perverse.

[url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-method.pdf ]HMRC data[/url]

On the EU Scotland is not currently a member, it is not recognised by the EU as an independent state and member because it isn't an independent state. The notion that it can separate from UK and somehow transport "it's" membership. I have to laugh at all the Yes campaigners deriding the EU president who has made his and therefore the EU's position clear, the EU position isn't a surprise to me. Scotland will reapply and be subject to the new member rules which is euro membership, full adoption of all legislation and an assessment of their net contribution to the EU (this like everything else will be a fresh calculation without reference to the UK's rebate)

On the Kingdom point as I posted before there where many Kingdoms within England, the United Kingdom will endure whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Further to this, both Barosso and Van Rompuy have made public statements in their official EU roles that their understanding is that the UK will continue as successor state, while Scotland will be a new state.

Given Barosso statements the other day misunderstanding the situation we're in I wouldn't take his views as gospel.

to be fair Baroso's comments were aimed at the sepratist mvement(s) in Spain as much as Scotland, but I could see them exercising their veto at Scotland joining the EU just to ram it home.

I think there are many EU members who will veto Scotland's application unless Scotland is writing a healthy cheque to Brussels.

jambalaya - Member
I think there are many EU members who will veto Scotland's application unless Scotland is writing a healthy cheque to Brussels.

What as a bribe?

Or as our share of the financial commitment? No problem with that surely?

@epicyclo, I think as a country of 5m money for the EU coffers is the thing most attractive to Brussels. I think the contribution will be larger than most in Scotland realise as Scotland's negotiating position is weak.

Ninfan this is from your own link

44. Specific guidance on what rules would apply to the Scottish situation has been difficult to extract from European Union institutions given their reluctance to become embroiled in what is currently perceived to be a domestic political controversy. The European Commission has stated that it would only be willing to respond to a specific request about a specific situation from an existing Member State and that so far, no such request has been forthcoming.[58]

"It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland."

You have it backward. Scotland will leave the UK. The UK is a single unitary country: it's not a federation or union of sovereign states. Those predecessor states don't exist any more. They are gone. You can't unmake an omelette - only cut it into slices.

Can't Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

Can't Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

No because it isn't and existing state. (see above)

[b]gordihmor[/b]
This guidance has been "difficult to extract" because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

England is not the UK.

It will be England and Scotland, the parties to the Union separating, not the UK and Scotland.

You seem to have completely forgotten about Wales and Northern Ireland? The rest of the UK (Englend/Wales/NI) will continue as before, as the UK with full EU/NATO membership. This has been confirmed 100% already.

Scotland will not get EU/NATO/UN membership easily or automatically. This has also be confirmed 100% already (despite the fact that Alex Salmond wants to pull the wool over the voters eyes by making them think that all the people who actually make the decisions/rules and who currently disagree with him are wrong, liars or big bad bullies). Simples 😛

Jambalaya thanks for the links I agree its no consolation to find that Scotland is more egalitarian because our top earners get less than those in London and the south east. The aim is to raise the standard of living for the least well off.
If you look at Ninfans link though you ll see that the EU commission gives the definitive EU position on membership and not the EU president.

Gordihmor - I note that you only partially quoted that paragraph, so here's the rest of it:

[b]When pressed, the Commission has restricted itself to re-stating the formal position under EU law[/b]: that the EU is founded on the Treaties which apply only to the Member States who have agreed and ratified them. If part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be part of that state because it becomes a new independent state, the Treaties would no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory.[59] In 2012, the President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso said that "a new state, if it wants to join the EU has to apply to become a member of the EU, like any state".[60] It is clear from these statements that there is no formal, automatic right to Scottish membership of the EU.

my bold!

Can't Scotland ask as an existing EU state?

rebel12 The UK government has not requested advice from those

who actually make the decisions/rules

gordimhor - Member
This guidance has been "difficult to extract" because the UK government has not asked for it. Why not?

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso's comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those "who are meant to serve us" deem necessary to reveal!

The whole issue is stitched up well in advance. Rightly or wrongly, the EU will have little time for independent states muddying the water at a time when they want and need to push for much higher levels of interdependence.

Spain as much as Scotland, but I could see them exercising their veto at Scotland joining the EU just to ram it home.

The Spanish have already said that Scotland is totally different from Catalonia and they have no problem with what's going on.

The rest of the UK (Englend/Wales/NI) will continue as before, as the UK with full EU/NATO membership. This has been confirmed 100% already.

Scotland will not get EU/NATO/UN membership easily or automatically.

I haven't seen either of these things stated and confirmed 100% anywhere. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
There's also been no indication or formal legal advice thats says it would be difficult. Can you even vote rebel12 or are you just trying to point score?

Gordimhor - I don't know if you noticed this particularly succinct question from Paragraph 22

"if Ireland's secession did not dissolve the United Kingdom, why would an independent Scotland have that effect?"

Says it all really!

Do you think this is true, Gordi? I would put money on the fact that these discussions have taken place in great detail and great length, behind closed doors of course. It would be somewhat naive to imagine that the timing and content of Barosso's comments in Sunday were random. All the interesting stuff takes place behind the scenes and the closed doors. We are merely left with the bland comments that those "who are meant to serve us" deem necessary to reveal!

I suspect you're right, but if that's the case, and the case was favourable to yS then there's not a chance that Westminster would release that advice.

Of course not, nor would the EU. But as his been pointed out lots of times above, the EU's stall looks pretty clear to me. And the tablecloths are not saltires!!!

I find myself agreeing with ninfan - urghhh.

They should be careful what they wish for though because we'll both have the same entitlement, ie both in, or both out.

Yet again - you state this as if it's a fact. Any evidence for it other than one person's opinion? It seems highly unlikely to me.

teamhurtmore - Member
2. No recognition of the counter argument of seperate currencies (tick). Not surprise there. Presenting one side of the argument and loading it with negative (and he talks about a positive story) and false descriptions

After "lecturing" those who know better and "bluffing" with a one-sided argument, wee eck gets the suitable feedback this morning. Must do better....F

In a direct challenge to the Scottish first minister, Salmond was told that his warnings of increased transaction charges for businesses on both sides of the border were outweighed by the disadvantages of creating a currency union outside a full political union.

But Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: "While businesses on both sides of the border would regret new transaction costs resulting from an independent Scotland adopting a new currency, this inconvenience would pale in comparison to the financial danger of entering an unstable currency union..

Heaven forbid that there are two sides to the story!!! And not even the hint of the word "tax" from those in the know. Still, they probably also know how to read a balance sheet and the difference between assets and liabilities!

1000!

But as his been pointed out lost if times above, the EU's stall looks pretty clear to me. And the tablecloths are not saltires!!!

Looks pretty fine from what I can see. 2 years ish to negotiate the terms of entry from within the EU as part of the UK otherwise you have a ridiculous situation which I'm sure they wouldnt let pass.

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/henry-mcleish-slams-claims-independent-3157395 ]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/henry-mcleish-slams-claims-independent-3157395[/url]

Even Henry McLeish has weighed in saying how wrong Barroso's comments were and how a solution will be found.

Ninfan yes I saw that paragraph. I don't think the UK would be dissolved I suspect there would be some renegotiation of the UK position within the EU should the UK vote to remain.I acknowledge that there's lots of other legal advice there but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?
The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.
Maybe whatnobeer has the right answer

2 years ish to negotiate the terms

How does that compare with other nations that are undergoing the accession process?

13 years so far for Macedonia
4 years so far for Iceland
9 years so far for Montenegro
5 years so far for Serbia

2 years ish to negotiate the terms

How does that compare with other nations that are undergoing the accession process?

13 years so far for Macedonia
4 years so far for Iceland
9 years so far for Montenegro
5 years so far for Serbia

May 2015 Westminster election will get in the way of any negotiations and the next Scottish election is May 2016. The chance of concluding anything politically or diplomatically between September 2014 and May 2016 is pretty close to nil.

but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?

Because it's the job of the YES campaign pushing for independence to ask the question, not for the UK to ask the question on the YES campaign's behalf.

Same if an employee leaves a company that's ISO 9001 approved to go self employed in competition with the employer - is it the job of the company to check whether the employee will still retain his ISO 9001 certification for his new business?

Anyway why should the question need to be asked? - the rules on EU membership are quite clear that Scotland would not be given automatic membership.

The worrying thing for Scotland is that the rest of the UK will still retain it's EU membership and as a result will have a say as to whether an independent Scotland can actually join. Scotland, outside of the EU will have very little say in the matter.

The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.

What silence? The UK and European Commission have recently made the situation quite clear to the people of Scotland about both EU membership and the Currency Union. What part of this don't you understand?

epicyclo. People in rUK should surely get a vote in the referendum if it will automatically have to reapply for EU membership following a yes vote?

Would you still assert that Spain would adopt a positive stance to Scotland membership if that was official position, knowing that Spain would be left out in the cold following possible Catalan independence?

Spain may currently be saying it is a matter for the people of Scotland, but if they were to learn that some Scots suggest they may be out of the EU following a Catalan breakaway their stance would undoubtadly change.

Our depleted fish stocks would have to be made of solid gold for them to even contemplate it. We are more likely to see detente between Spain and the UK, than Spain legitimising dear leaders politically naive assertions.

While it's fun to point out the possibilities of the consequences of an independent Scotland, the reality is the separation issues will be handled politically by the EU and NATO members and not on strictly legal grounds.

I could imagine the NATO powers would not be enthusiastic about a country like Scotland whose territorial waters and land mass project so much into the North Atlantic would be quick to reject Scottish membership.

The EU countries don't have an exact precedent to a separation like this. Do you really believe they'll want to exclude Scotland?

There are quite a few Scots who would welcome complete independence so that we were in a similar position to Norway. After all markets are world wide these days, and the world is much bigger than the EU. So exclusion from the EU is not seen as a deal breaker by many Scots.

So why has this issue not been legally clarified? Because only the only body that can ask the EU for clarification is a member state.

The UK is the member state at the moment, and it has not requested clarification.

If they had done so, and the opinion was that Scotland would be out, then you can be sure this would be getting trumpeted around the country and the legal opinion waved under Salmond's nose.

Edit:

athgray - Member
epicyclo. People in rUK should surely get a vote in the referendum if it will automatically have to reapply for EU membership following a yes vote?...

Your leaders obviously didn't think your opinion mattered or they would have insisted on it.

No advice sought. Really? From the government website

Independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK Government in the first paper in this series clarified that in the event of Scotland becoming a new, independent state, the rest of the UK would continue as before, retaining the rights and obligations of the UK as it currently stands, and its membership of international organisations and institutions would continue on existing terms.

In the event of a vote for independence, in the eyes of the world and in law, Scotland would become an entirely new state. An independent Scottish state would have to start afresh in terms of its formal alliances and links with every other sovereign state, including the UK.

When a new state comes into existence, it is of fundamental importance that it is recognised by other states. Recognition is a formal, political act, with important legal effects. The UK’s membership of key international organisations and involvement in treaties would be largely unaffected by Scottish independence. The UK would no longer have any obligation to represent Scottish interests as it currently does.

As a new state, an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the international institutions and organisations it both wished and was eligible to join. In some cases this wouldbe straightforward; in others, notably the EU, it would not

The yS would not want anyone to read on, but the report goes on to explain why the interests of Scotland are best served under the current structure in a "positive and constructive manner."

Rebel 12 the yes campaign can not ask the question I quoted from Ninfans link above but heres the relevant part again

The European Commission has stated that it would only be willing to respond to a specific request about a specific situation from an existing Member State and that so far, no such request has been forthcoming.[58]

larified that in the event of Scotland becoming a new, independent state, the rest of the UK would continue as before, retaining the rights and obligations of the UK as it currently stands

I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

rebel12 - Member
but the point is that the existing state the UK has not requested the advice from the commission. Why not?
Because it's the job of the YES campaign pushing for independence to ask the question, not for the UK to ask the question on the YES campaign's behalf.

Same if an employee leaves a company that's ISO 9001 approved to go self employed in competition with the employer - is it the job of the company to check whether the employee will still retain his ISO 9001 certification for his new business?

Anyway why should the question need to be asked? - the rules on EU membership are quite clear that Scotland would not be given automatic membership.

The worrying thing for Scotland is that the rest of the UK will still retain it's EU membership and as a result will have a say as to whether an independent Scotland can actually join. Scotland, outside of the EU will have very little say in the matter.

The silence is deafening. It seems that markets deserve clarity from the UK government but not us voters.
What silence? The UK and European Commission have recently made the situation quite clear to the people of Scotland about both EU membership and the Currency Union. What part of this don't you understand?

Scotland will get into the EU no bother, might not be automatic, but it will happen. Your scaremongering is complete nonsense.

You seem to have Scotland as leaving the UK. But that's not exactly what is happening. If scotland votes to split it will be an amicable split agreed in law. Ie. 2 successor states.

Why does England automatically assume the right of successor state?

Strikes me that's a big massive legal argument you seem to be ignoring.

Junkyard - lazarus
...I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

Simple to answer.

The independence movement is over 100 years old.

We will not stop until it is achieved.

As the Financial Times points out

[img] [/img]

So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs

rUK has already accepted that, but it is also expected that iScotland would then pay the treasury for their share.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts that iScotland will get into the EU it's just on what terms and conditions e.g. Euro, rebate.....

To be honest after all these pages the real point of argument appears to be whether Scotland is a country or not, and importantly whether the rest of Europe / the World thinks it is.

So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs

I am wondering how many pages /years of hypothetical debate you lot can sustain

Wasn't that dealt with 20-something pages ago, the debt would legaly be with the rUK, but Scotland would have to pay its (lets call it moral rather than legal) share in order to convince creditors it was safe to lend to. If they didn't pay it, no bank in it's right mind would lend them money.

dragon - Member
So they accept that international law says the debt is theirs
rUK has already accepted that, but it is also expected that iScotland would then pay the treasury for their share.

Exactly dragon, but sadly the yS BS makes it hard for some folk to understand what is happening and/or what will happen. A deliberate ploy that clearly works.....

You can't split the debt. Debt is issued under precise terms. You cannot just say ok for 10% (for sake of argument) of bond holders, your debt is no longer being honoured by the rUK but by another new country. Not only would that be absurd and unworkable, but it WOULD BE a DEFAULT. And at least one party in all this is not threatening that in practice or theory. There are some grown ups left in the play house.

If they didn't pay it, no bank in it's right mind would lend them money.

There seem to be two totally contrary opinions on this:

- No-one would lend Scotland any money because Scotland refused to pay the rUK a share of the rUK's debt.

- Banks would be falling over themselves to lend Scotland money, because Scotland would have zero debts, loads of assets, and had prudently not encumbered themselves with an agreement to pay a share of another country's debt.

Now obviously both those can't be true 😉

You can't split the debt.

I think we both know that debt splitting is being talked about in those terms because it's an easy concept to understand even if the exact way that the debt would be paid off is not a split, but an agreement to pay a %. Ben has it right imo.

On the contrary, it's neither easy to understand nor obvious as this thread shows.

Obviously Ben, the first is almost 100% correct, the second is almost 100% incorrect. The serious commentators on the yS side don't even talk about it. It's only those who need bluster to hide behind and even then they have to lie about the status of currencies etc to see if people are silly enough to swallow the BS. Sadly, they are.....

I disagree with THM _ legally the debt [ as your link showed]is not scotlands so they have not walked away from anything/defaulted/done anything.
They have negotiated shrewdly and wisely to the best benefit of their citizens would a business be punished for doing this? Seen as risky? seen as not to be trusted?

TBH it is fanciful to think that the nefarious forces of capitalism wont be willing to lend to them /anyone

To claim your view is obvious and 100% is misleading.

Sudan and South Sudan haven't yet been able to decide who carries which share of the debt, so as far as I know it currently all remains with the North. The South currently has a better credit rating. Given that most of the funds are owed not to banks but other investors that may have no bearing on this argument, but I found it interesting.

- Banks would be falling over themselves to lend Scotland money, because Scotland would have zero debts, loads of assets, and had prudently not encumbered themselves with an agreement to pay a share of another country's debt.

Simply won't happen, iScotland will be paying for it's debt end of, so can we end this dead end point. You seem to think that rUK don't have friends in high places, iScotland would be so screwed over by the international community it wouldn't be funny. SNP are only saying they wouldn't pay the to try and bolster their position when negotiating, they don't really mean it, to think otherwise is twp.

SNP are only saying they wouldn't pay the to try and bolster their position when negotiating,

I suspect it depends on how "helpful" rUK are to their wish list

Both sides will have the opportunity to bite of their nose to spite their face but I doubt either will do it.

Some interesting facts and discussion around the idea that an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to bail out big failing banks:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/why-did-the-banks-only-become-scottish-after-they-failed/

One additional question yet to be answered (in fact I havent even seen it asked) is what will happen to UK's EU contribution. I expect the EU will say, certainly initially, the UK has to honour it's current commitment. This will be a side door way of abolishing/reducing our current rebate. How this impact's Scotland's application to join I'm not sure but it could be the EU sees Scotland's contribution as yet more gravy and thus worth having.

That banking article is laughable as it is based on Scottish banks having been regulated differently under iScotland which of course is an unknown.

Both sides will have the opportunity to bite of their nose to spite their face but I doubt either will do it.

Agreed, although don't think rUK won't hold the stronger hand both politically and in other ways.

That banking article is laudable as it is points out the fact that the so called Scottish banks were actually largely operating in England or internationally and there is no way Scotland would have been on the hook for them if it had been independent when they failed.

So the EU will only give the information about iScotland joining the EU to an existing member state. Has the UK asked for this information and is keeping quiet, or is it waiting for the Scottish Parliament to ask the question.
I suspect the Scottsh Parliament hasn't asked the question or otherwise the SNP would be very publicly telling us about further bullying from Westminster. Has anybody got any facts on this.

The Scottish Parliament can't ask, as it doesn't represent an existing member state. The UK government could ask, but have chosen not to.

However, as has been discussed, it's not a simple yes or no question - it'd be a matter for discussion and negotiation.

That banking article is laudable as it is points out the fact that the so called Scottish banks were actually largely operating in England or internationally and there is no way Scotland would have been on the hook for them if it had been independent when they failed.

Utter rubbish as see what happened with the Icelandic and Irish banks just for starters. It also ignores the fact that whether they are based in Scotland now, you are in effect saying you'd have been happy to overnight have 2 of the big 3 banks in Scotland wiped out, where would you and businesses be going to get money from to pay their bills? Sure rUK I suspect would have stumped up some cash as they did to the Irish banks, but it would be on their terms and with expectation that iScotland would put money in also. So go and take that article and flush it down the virtual toilet where it belongs.

Utter rubbish as see what happened with the Icelandic and Irish banks just for starters.

Did you even read the article? The point is that Irish and Icelandic banks were based in Ireland and Iceland, "Scottish" banks were really UK banks with the majority of their employees, assets and taxes paid outside of Scotland.

You seem rather angry about it.

bencooper - Member

The Scottish Parliament can't ask, as it doesn't represent an existing member state. The UK government could ask, but have chosen not to.

although don't think rUK won't hold the stronger hand both politically and in other ways

My view remains all this is just unknown and will be sorted after the event

the real reason it is unknown is because the UK refused to negotiate so that folk would not be sure what they were voting for hoping that fear and uncertainty would lead to them voting for the status quo - to be fair its a canny political strategy if somewhat dubiou sin terms of democracy.
Wee ecks policy of it will be brilliant if they just stopped bullying us is equally wise politically and poor democratically

I suppose the no can claim success in that a vote for independence is a leap into the dark - whether this attracts or repels voters remains to be seen

Dragon is correct. That is a ridiculous article not only because it mis-understands history and fails to understand how bank regulation currently works, but more importantly how it will work in the future particularly with banks with operations in different countries.

In fact it is hardly worth reading past the subtitle, since wee eck used to wax lyrical about the Scottish banks well before the crisis and was actively encouraging goodwin's hubris with the doomed acquisition of ABN Amro. Scottish banks did not become Scottish as a result of the crisis, so the central premise is falsifiable right from the start.

Among crocks, that article ranks up with the best of them.

[img] [/img]

Yup, saw that - though it has the usual problem of online polls in that it's self-selecting.

Lots of people might vote No, they just don't want to admit it.

Only 211 days to go before this thread expires... 🙂

You seem rather angry about it.

I'm not angry I just think it's sad some people are prepared to believe utterly wrong propaganda. By all means choose to vote YES or NO, but not based on lies.

I'm not angry I just think it's sad some people are prepared to believe utterly wrong propaganda

So you think Scotland would have been on the hook for RBS given that 90% of its creditors were outside of Scotland?

You have said the article is wrong but not really explained why

Leading question on the EU in that poll, 'should' Scotland be allowed into the EU not 'will' Scotland be allowed in.
And as has been said many times before, Scotland isn't in the EU, the UK is. An Independent Scotland will be a New Nation...