[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Wow, so the DO really is pushing the panama option this afternoon. That really is desperate and silly. Just go back and read what Stiglitz and Mirlees said. It really is very simple.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/07/scotland-pound-independence-alex-salmond

Of all the choices available, he now ends up with the worst of all!

@tmh how I laughed, I only read a news piece but I'd love to hear him actually say it. It's Scotlands pound, just fantastic.

His "if we can't have the pound we'll not take any debt" line will end very badly if he pursues it, an onward spiral of retaliation over what assets do or do not belong to Scotland. If we, in the UK, had to take the extra debt we could. I very much doubt an independent Scotland could proposer with the consequences of not doing so. BTW a Scotland with no debt would certainly qualify for the euro but a country which had effectively reneged on its share of a national debt isn't going to be a very attractive candidate for membership, but perhaps I forget Scotland is already a member.

So the AS fantasy is complete

Scotland is independent but uses the British pound, does so without a central bank or any of that troublesome and expensive treasury infrastruture. Its automatically a member of the EU with all the opt outs that the UK has and its totally debt free. Nirvana.

Meanwhile back in the real world the No campaign trails 45 to 55.

It's breathtaking incompetence - as some of the comments in the FT and elsewhere say, WTF are his advisors doing? It's truly embarrassing to have a first minister talking such gibberish.

BTW a Scotland with no debt would certainly qualify for the euro but a country which had effectively reneged on its share of a national debt isn't going to be a very attractive candidate for membership, but perhaps I forget Scotland is already a member.

No debt means less assets. iScotland wants to join the EU??? Well they better play ball with the rUK as we have a veto. Have I not mentioned that little boys can't bully big boys!

Have I not mentioned that little boys can't bully big boys!

Have I not mentioned that bullying is what nasty children do?

I think the DO has been in regression therapy. He's going back to arguments discredited long ago. So much for going out with a bang. More like a whimper and resignation.

Tell that to AS. He is trying to bully the rUK into propping up an independent country. The UK doesn't have a currency union with any other country it trades with so there is no need to have one with iScotland.

No debt means less assets.

Bearing in mind I'm not an economist, can you explain this please?

Scotland doesn't take any debt it gets less assets. Try being an independent country with no embassies etc.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28691840

It's 3:01 jamba's and he says it without a wink. It's amazing

A least Sillars at the start of the clip is a little more honest and make as stab at explains a fixed peg. Poor man gets a but lost when he claims that you can have a pegged currency with very differnt BoP situations but we will let him off that. He can get a C+ effort with a C- for content.

Poor old Sillars watching the DO make a horlicks of all this. Must make him v sad.

He is trying to bully the rUK into propping up an independent country.

Try being an independent country with no embassies etc.

Big deal - embassies - wow that's a real deal breaker.

BTW a Scotland with no debt would certainly qualify for the euro

Not without a central bank running as part of ERMII for two years it wouldn't...

Big deal - embassies - wow that's a real deal breaker.

No functioning benefits, passport system, DVLA or tax collection facilities is a bit more of an issue... you may remember that part of the planned 'we can set up a new country for three groats and a half packet of penny chews' relied on years of continued access to rUK's administration agencies... Scotland is in no position to play hardball!

How much does the £1bn Trident maintenance bill we'd save get us?

How much does the £1bn Trident maintenance bill we'd save get us?

I don't know, go get your own currency, work out the exchange rate and get back to me.

continued access to rUK's administration agencies...

My tax office is in East Kilbride. There is also a tax office at Haymarket in Edinburgh. There are DVLA offices all over Scotland. I do believe that there is a passport office in Glasgow. They'd be scottish assets and easily converted to deal with scottish issues.

I don't know, go get your own currency, work out the exchange rate and get back to me.

Fasternotfatter - He might also want to work out how a total annual running cost of about £2.3 billion. (approx 5% of total UK defence budget) gives Scotland a £1bn Trident maintenance bill?

My tax office is in East Kilbride. There is also a tax office at Haymarket in Edinburgh. There are DVLA offices all over Scotland. I do believe that there is a passport office in Glasgow. They'd be scottish assets and easily converted to deal with scottish issues.

But the taxypayer database, software licences and computer systems are all rUK assets... oops 😳

But the taxypayer database, software licences and computer systems are all rUK assets... oops

Eh naw - how can they possibly be rUK assets when there is as yet no rUK? Your argument is bobbins.

It's very like a "it's ma baw, an i'm takin it hame" response.

Has any body had a laugh at this yet. [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11018994/Alex-Salmond-declares-its-our-pound-and-were-keeping-it.html ]It's our poond![/url]

Salmond is becoming a bigger joke by the day. The SNP have no answer for a plan b but keep rattling on about a currency union that is never going to happen.

Wanmankylung - Lets see what professor Dunleavy (he of the £200 million figure) told us:

[i]
In the Scottish case the government has actually set out in its White Paper a reasonable timetable for
implementing changes, shown in Figure 4. The key decision that Salmond and colleagues have made is to move rather briskly from a Yes vote to independence, but to focus on just the key tasks already set out above. By 2016 Scotland will have policy control of some of the biggest issues, but even in defence its capability will only just be beginning, and no complete separation from UK systems is envisaged

Even in important areas like defence planning, back office and procurement, and some taxes, it will take a considerable time for Scotland to build up its own systems. And in some technical areas, that matter a lot less for Scottish policymaking, the transition will take more than seven years. For instance, Figure 4 shows that the registering of vehicles and licensing of drivers carried out by DVLA and three other UK agencies will continue to be based in Swansea until at least 2021.

So what would happen with things that have not been moved over to full Scottish control? The Scottish government will obviously want to brand and manage all its communications with citizens – so websites and forms would now carry the Saltaire and contact details for staff based in Scotland. But behind the scenes, for some years the ‘back office’ systems for both tax systems and benefits would need to run through the existing, very complicated computer and IT set-ups in the HMRC and DWP. And only when these systems were fully replaced with new Scottish ones would ministers in Edinburgh gain the full freedom to vary benefits for Scottish citizens (planned for 2018) and personal taxes in Scotland (planned for 2020).

Throughout these longer transition periods then, how would Scotland continue to get the continuing services it needs from Whitehall? The details would need to be negotiated with the rUK, but in every case Scotland would have to pay the existing costs for these services, plus a small addition:

- Either via a financial agreement between the two governments for whole sets of services to be provided. This would be the cheapest to agree on.
- Or by Scotland contracting with the UK to get specific tasks carried out. This could be somewhat more expensive, since writing contracts in detail and then monitoring performance adds to costs.
- Or by Scotland leasing whole sets of equipment, and even associated operating staff and support staff, for defined periods of time.[/i]

Eh naw - how can they possibly be rUK assets when there is as yet no rUK? Your argument is bobbins

Have you looked at the polls there is never going to be a rUK. So why do you keep dreaming about an iScotland that will never be.

The SNP have answers for plans A, B, C and D which they have published. Namely pound flexible, pound pegged, new scottish currency and euro.

Have you looked at the polls there is never going to be a rUK. So why do you keep dreaming about an iScotland that will never be.

And you are complaining that Alex Salmond doesn't answer questions - is your name Alistair Darling?

So why couldn't he answer live on TV what plan b is and why is he still sticking to his guns in the link I have provided a moment ago. The guy is turning the independence movement into a joke. You need to distance yourselves to get some credibility back.

My tax office is in East Kilbride. There is also a tax office at Haymarket in Edinburgh. There are DVLA offices all over Scotland. I do believe that there is a passport office in Glasgow. They'd be scottish assets.

They'd be UK institutions, just like they are now.

So why couldn't he answer live on TV what plan b is and why is he still sticking to his guns in the link I have provided a moment ago.

They'd be UK institutions, just like they are now.

Yes the rUK would definitely be the lender of last resort to a foreign country wouldn't it. You are welcome to dream about a currency union as that is all it will ever be.

Personally, I dont really see currency as being a massive issue. I'd happily take a new scottish currency as my first choice.

The referendum is about far more important things than cash.

I agree that there are other important issues but currency was one of the most important issues to Scots in a poll that I saw. Admittedly it was back at the start of the year.

Personally, I would be happy to pay a lot more tax and have less cash if it meant that we could have a fairer society. That's what I believe a yes vote will achieve.

Nope he's proposing a "competitive tax" policy nasty those nasty English, so you won't even (at the corp level) have the chance to pay more tax 😉

Currency...massive issue...he who contro...err may be not again!!!!

There is no rUK and never will be. In the event that Scotland votes yes then it is choosing to leave the UK. The UK will continue to exist now and in the future.

If the vote is yes then the discussions will have to work which assets and debt needs to be transferred to Scotland, and remember that the UK will be aiming to get the best value for the UK. If AS is charge of the discussions then I hope he is better than he was the other night or Scotland may end up with nothing!

There is no rUK and never will be. In the event that Scotland votes yes then it is choosing to leave the UK. The UK will continue to exist now and in the future.

Of course, but it makes it a lot easier to differentiate who you're talking about.

Nope he's proposing a "competitive tax" policy nasty those nasty English, so you won't even (at the corp level) have the chance to pay more tax

He is indeed (though I'm sure the white paper doesn't use the phrase 'nasty nasty english - you can't help yourself can you), but that's something that can and will change as governments come and go.

wanmankylung - Member
The SNP have answers for plans A, B, C and D which they have published. Namely pound flexible, pound pegged, new scottish currency and euro.

Are you sure about that. Yes, others arrangements were considered but then rejected because (sshh, remaining part of the UK and it's) currency union is in YS' opinionin the best interest is Scotland. It's perfectly clear.

The Scottish Government is clear that sterling will continue to be the currency of an independent Scotland. This decision is based on an analysis of the potential impact of the alternative currency options on Scottish people and businesses, including the ease with which they can conduct their business with people and companies across the rest of the UK and beyond.

You can stop the English being nasty too? His magic never ceases.

Personally, I would be happy to pay a lot more tax and have less cash if it meant that we could have a fairer society. That's what I believe a yes vote will achieve.

Will it be any fairer for some of rUK's worst off? No? Thought not.

that's something that can and will change as governments come and go.

"Will change" ? You're predicting future Scottish government taxation policy with some certainty ? That's impressive, specially as it clearly contradicts SNP taxation policy.

So presumably you think that the SNP will have no significant role to play in future Scottish governments. What do you base that prediction on ?

Or are you simply certain that the SNP will change their taxation policy, in which case again what to you base that prediction on ?

Will it be any fairer for some of rUK's worst off? No? Thought not.

I don't trust the westminster government to create a fairer society and there aren't enough scots to force the issue. My yes vote is as said aimed and me getting to live in a fairer society.

So presumably you think that the SNP will have no significant role to play in future Scottish governments.

That is exactly what I predict.

wanmankylung - Member

The referendum is about far more important things than cash.

agreed.

Personally, I dont really see currency as being a massive issue. I'd happily take a new scottish currency as my first choice.

it would pose a teeny tiny problem for the tourism industry though - it would turn an easy, impromptu, weekend jolly into a teeny, tiny, pain in ar53.

"(thursday night) Peebles this weekend love?"

"great idea darling, can you make it to the bereau de change during Lunch tomorrow?"

"er, no."

"oh sod it, we'll just go to North Wales instead"

I'm an Englishman, living in England. fwiw (not a lot), i'm a supporter of an Independant Scotland.

That is exactly what I predict.

That's impressive, but I did ask what do you base that prediction on ?

Is there any evidence of an imminent post-Yes vote collapse of SNP electoral support ?

it would pose a teeny tiny problem for the tourism industry though - it would turn an easy, impromptu, weekend jolly into a pain in ar53.

"(thursday night) Peebles this weekend love?"

"great idea darling, can you make it to the bereau de change during Lunch tomorrow?"

"er, no."

"oh sod it, we'll just go to North Wales instead"

I see no problem with that. 😉 Empty trails are a good thing.

Is there any evidence of an imminent post-Yes vote collapse of SNP electoral support ?

I base it on the idea that Labour would shift position back to where they should be which is the position that is taken up by the SNP at present. Scots would vote for a proper Labour party rather than the SNP any day of the week.

Is there any evidence of an imminent post-Yes vote collapse of SNP electoral support ?

I would have thought not. I reckon other party's will flounder about for a fairly long period, whilst trying to adjust. People will rally around the SNP until everything is sorted out.

I can't imagine a labour led government at Holyrood trying to divide the assets and liabilities with a labour led government at Westminster.

Only when we are settled and Salmond has no scapegoat for Scotland's problems, can I see other parties getting a look in.

Ah, another one who has fanciful notions that the Labour Party can once again become the mass party of the working people.

Are the SNP not going to be in power during that period anyhow? Given that they have a couple of years to go still with this election cycle. By the time the next election is done all the negotiations will be finished.

Ah, another one who has fanciful notions that the Labour Party can once again become the mass party of the working people.

Stranger things have happened. It would never happen to the english labour party, but it would happen to the scottish one. A comment that I heard the other night was pretty interesting and probably bang on - When it comes to political ideology you couldnt fit a fag paper between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling....

I would be happy to pay a lot more tax and have less cash if it meant that we could have a fairer society. That's what I believe a yes vote will achieve.

it would pose a teeny tiny problem for the tourism industry though - it would turn an easy, impromptu, weekend jolly into a teeny, tiny, pain in ar53.

Europe is filled with people that go shopping in their neighbours' countries with different currencies. I think if millions of English booze cruisers could successfully make it to the Auchan at Calais, buy a hatchback of fizzy lager and make it back to Dover all in a foreign language and with a different currency, then most people will be able to wrap their head around buying a cup of tea in Peebles with groats ffs.

Are the SNP not going to be in power during that period anyhow? Given that they have a couple of years to go still with this election cycle. By the time the next election is done all the negotiations will be finished.

There will be little over 18 months from referendum to Scottish General Election. I doubt everything will be sorted in that time. As to labour floundering, take the important currency issue. If Salmond gets a currency union he will be hailed a hero, if he does not then he can keep blaming the UK. Other parties can hardly step into the breech to put forward a case for sterling since they are now reasoning it is a bad idea to share currency.

konabunny - Member

How will a yes vote achieve that?

Scotland would be more likely to have the kind of government it actually votes for, which would probably mean a left-leaning/socialist government.

Oh, don't talk pathetic bloody rubbish.

need a hug?

if you're not convinced that a seperate currency would have a negative impact on tourism, then you deserve a medal for optimism.

oh - the government Scotland votes for - that old gag. Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP get re-elected and somehow this will make Scotland radically different from the last 20 years when the same parties were in the ascendant.

don't need a hug - do need less stupid waffling about bureaux de change on this thread.

It would never happen to the english labour party, but it would happen to the scottish one.

Now there's an example of a statement with no actual facts/evidence to back it up, it's at best a hunch and at worse wishful thinking.

The problem with the Labour Party isn't that it's got all the wrong policies, ie, right-wing policies, if that was the problem then there might be a half reasonable chance of fixing it.

The problem with the Labour Party is that it no longer has democratic structures, it operates as a one man fiefdom, there is no input from its core supporters.

No party which is a one man show and whose higher cadres are expected to show unstinting loyalty to the leader can ever be a mass party of the people. It is divorced from the people. It can't represent ordinary working people even if it wanted to.

For the Labour Party to once again become a democratic vibrant party connected to the people would require a complete restructuring of the party. But this is completely unobtainable because of the existing undemocratic structures.

After Tony Blair won the Clause 4 battle he made it very clear that having done so his next battle, the one which really mattered, was to "change the structures", as he put it.

Not many people paid attention to what he was saying deeming unimportant relative to Clause 4. I was listening because like Tony Blair I realised just how important the structures are with regards to control of the party.

Tony Blair ripped the soul out of the Labour Party and disconnected it from its core supporters, [i]that's[/i] Tony Blair's real lasting legacy.

It would be easier to build a new party, no mean feat, than to successfully rebuild the Labour Party.

I predict post Yes vote, if the electoral system remains as is then no party is likely to have a majority for quite some time.

Labour will split into several factions (this looks to be already starting) as Westminster based Scottish MP's look towards Holyrood and the more left leaning factions who have been campaigning for Yes vote take them on for seats.

SNP will begin to break up over some of the decisions that will have to be taken during independence negotiations. What remains as the bulk of the party will regroup and probably form a minority government for first term or two. Alex Salmond will step down as leader and retire after first term. Not much longer after that I can't see them continuing as the SNP, I think a new smaller political party will emerge.

The radical independence folks, and some of the other similar movements, who haven't had much of the media attention may surprise a few people. They have been campaigning heavily out of the spotlight and picking up quite bit of support (mainly from the long term disengaged, those who don't usually vote, can they keep this up?) - how will this group get on when up against the more known socialist groups? (will Tommy Sheridan and crew make a comeback post court case review?).

Lib Dems and Greens - don't see much changing here, Lib Dems will bounce back after initially losing votes as punishment for coalition. Greens will plod along as they have done.

Tories will need a re-brand, slowly but surely they will come back into play, but not to the point where they will be able to form any sort of Government (not for a long time anyways).

I look forward to an interesting period post Yes watching all this unfold and seeing who emerges as the leading party.

My tax office is in East Kilbride. There is also a tax office at Haymarket in Edinburgh. There are DVLA offices all over Scotland. I do believe that there is a passport office in Glasgow. They'd be scottish assets.
They'd be UK institutions, just like they are now.

What the **** is a fairer society?!

What the **** is a fairer society?!

It's where a government uses it's influence and power to support policies that benefit the whole population not just a few rich men.

Alex Salmond is pretty good at spotting these opportunities

"Yours for Scotland"

http://www.cityam.com/article/alex-salmond-backed-rbs-s-abn-disaster

One with lots of highlights?

What the **** is a fairer society?!

Well, if others are chipping in...

A fairer society is a sales pitch from politicians designed to get your vote. Delivery not guaranteed.

Feel free to swap "fairer" with "big" if your feeling cynical.

Theres one thing I hate and thats political soundbites. They are almost ignorable and often repeated to avoid this. When the populace repeats such a soundbite it gets my back up.

What the **** is a fairer society? Mental. wanmankylung go on use your vote. Hes promised you a brighter future. Politicians promises, gotta love em. I'd rather plumb with economics and worsecase than a politicians promises.

@ernie - the current Labour Party, lets call it New Labour if for no reason as to distinguish it from the older more union centric party, is the one which has the best chance of returning to Government. IMO the older style party is dead forever and rightly so as it would be un-electable. UK society has changed moving away from the mass employment manufacturing style industries which where the core of Labours support. Those people now work in smaller service lead companies and would not associate themselves with Old Labour, hence to survive Labour has changed into the body we see today. New Labour has a chance to win to the next election, old Labour would have none, zero.

I actually believe an independent Scotland would be much more likely to have a centerist government than one leaning towards the left. Centerist = New Labour if you like

Currency.

Plan B, C, D. I've posted this before but AS and the SNP dare not speak about a currency other than the pound as that guarantees the euro, sooner or later and they know that will be a big vote loser. Not least because of the disaster that that currency has become but because of the transfer from sovereignty from the "English" to Brussels/Strasbourg, who will feel that is an improvement ? I was surprised to see a senior Yes campaigner on the BBC news last night imploring AS to speak of a pegged Scottish Pound, he clearly doesn't understand the transition to the euro that would imply.

@hora, perhaps a fairer society is one where all the rich people leave and therefore everyone else is more average.

We live in one of the fairest societies in the world as do all those in the core members of the EU. If people cannot see that they need to spend some time looking at the US, China, India etc.

I'd really like to see how the SNP are going to deliver this fairer Scotland, its not going to be via tax cuts to keep companies in Scotland or by paying large amounts to replicate existing UK government infrastructure. I don't see too many wealthy Scots who chose to base themselves there, perhaps thats why Scotland is and will be fairer ?

What 'worries' me is those people who have shit, dull, average lives who think a independent Scotland will give them opportunities etc etc rather than what will really happen is they'll still have a shit, dull and average life in any economy because of one common denominator' themself. Not listening properly at school, not being self-motivated etc.

I'm worried these type will vote yes because they see no future for themself and think well nowt to lose. These are the dangerous type. Idiots.

jambalaya - Member

@ernie - the current Labour Party, lets call it New Labour if for no reason as to distinguish it from the older more union centric party, is the one which has the best chance of returning to Government. IMO the older style party is dead forever and rightly so as it would be un-electable.

Thank you for your valued opinion from a Tory/right-wing perspective of the best electoral prospect for a party to defeat the Tories.

I shall carefully put it in the same bin as your opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If there was a genuine as opposed to a sepia-tinged view demand for Old Labour, it's odd that no one has done anything about it - not even the unions or those betrayed by our "unequal" society.

But actually the Scottish vote does give "some" perspective on all of this in that it seems to be spilt pretty much along class/income (sorry that's clumsy) lines. There was an article in the n N Statesman a while back arguing that working class Scots are more likely to support independence but less likely to vote than middle - class Scots. Is that the DO's lifeline? He certainly needs one.

Jambalaya, was that Sillars? He certainly doesn't understand how pegged exchange rates work but it was a better stab than the DO. Perhaps the latter is doing a Novak Djokavic and appearing (cough) injured and resigned to defeat while preparing for a late rebound. Otherwise it's a sad (but justified) resignation of the inevitable.

konabunny,

someone (me?), possibly a bit dim (yup, me), pops up with their concern, which might just have an effect on an £11billion industry*, and your response is to simply dismiss it as "pathetic bloody rubbish"

you are Alex Salmond, and i claim my 5 [s]pounds[/s] new Scottish Sceats.

(*it certainly does in other parts of the world)

Banking groups will also have to decide which side of the financial border to register. Where banks are registered (incorporated) matters for which government provides the deposit insurance, who regulates the banks, who is likely to receive emergency liquidity support and which taxpayers pay for any losses in the case of future failures.

From

http://niesr.ac.uk/publications/scotlands-lender-last-resort-options#.U-SVT3-9KSM

I wonder if there is any contingency planning going on!?!

[url= http://radicalindependence.org/ ]Radical Independence Campaign[/url]
[url= http://www.allofusfirst.org/ ]The Commonweal[/url]
[url= http://www.labourforindy.com/faq ]Labour for Indy[/url]
All of the above links are to grassroots organisations which are politically to the left of UK Labour. The Common Weal in particular has made initial moves to form a political party.Labour for indy would prefer a that the current Scottish Labour Party move to the left.
So given that and the high level of support for the SNP devolved government it seems there is a demand for social change in Scotland at least.

We'll let's see if they prosper.

someone (me?), possibly a bit dim (yup, me), pops up with their concern, which might just have an effect on an £11billion industry*, and your response is to simply dismiss it as "pathetic bloody rubbish"

In fact, people in Derry seem to have been smart enough to use three currencies simultaneously for a while: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1737671.stm There are probably a few outliers (you've identified one yourself) but you can't go through life catering to them...

40 days left.

Better get those goodbye streamers sorted...

🙂

All of the above links are to grassroots organisations which are politically to the left of UK Labour. The Common Weal in particular has made initial moves to form a political party.Labour for indy would prefer a that the current Scottish Labour Party move to the left.
So given that and the high level of support for the SNP devolved government it seems there is a demand for social change in Scotland at least.

The British public are to the left of the Labour Party on many economic issues, eg, opinion polls show public support for renationalisation of the privatised utilities and railways, but there is zero chance of Labour Party adopting those policies.

The only possibility of a fully democratic political party which is responsive to the wishes of the people is through the establishment of a new party, or more likely imo, an electoral alliance representing various groups with social change agendas. The most likely scenario to spawn such a development is a successful protest movement.

But as long as people continue to place faith on "changing the Labour Party" no progress will be achieved imo. The Labour Party is the problem, not the solution.

No debt means less assets.

Bearing in mind I'm not an economist, can you explain this please?

Sorry for dragging this up from the past, but I’ve typed it all out now!

My understanding of the debt / asset / liabilities distribution post-independence is that it depends upon the definition of iScotland under international law (Vienna Convention on Succession of States). There seems to be two ‘categories’ that the creation of iScotland can fit into either a [I]“newly independent State”[/I] or [I]“Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State”[/I]

Both of these categories carry pros and cons for Scotland and the UK,

Newly independent state would seem to be a good option for Scotland in terms of debt;

Article 38
Newly independent State
1.When the successor State is a newly independent State, no State debt of the predecessor State
shall pass to the newly independent State, unless an agreement between them provides otherwise in view
of the link between the State debt of the predecessor State connected with its activity in the territory to
which the succession of States relates and the property, rights and interests which pass to the newly
independent State.

Although there is the get out of jail free card in there for the UK “unless an agreement between them provides otherwise…..” so as long as the UK could show that the debt was used in Scotland and for Scotland then presumably they can request some compensation. The newly formed state also has advantages in terms of the assets (referred to as ‘property’ in the Vienna Convention)

Article 15
Newly independent State
1.When the successor State is a newly independent State:
(a) immovable State property of the predecessor State situated in the territory to which the succession
of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(b) immovable property, having belonged to the territory to which the succession of States relates,
situated outside it and having become State property of the predecessor State during the period of
dependence, shall pass to the successor State;
(c) immovable State property of the predecessor State other than that mentioned in subparagraph (b)
and situated outside the territory to which the succession of States relates, to the creation of which the
dependent territory has contributed, shall pass to the successor State in proportion to the contribution of
the dependent territory;
(d) movable State property of the predecessor State connected with the activity of the predecessor
State in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State
(e) movable property, having belonged to the territory to which the succession of States relates and
having become State property of the predecessor State during the period of dependence, shall pass to the
successor State;
(f) movable State property of the predecessor State, other than the property mentioned in
subparagraphs (d) and (e), to the creation of which the dependent territory has contributed, shall pass to
the successor State in proportion to the contribution of the dependent territory.

So not only would Scotland get to keep the assets located on Scottish soil, but would be entitled to some of the properties located within other areas of the UK. This seems to be the premise behind the white paper claims of sharing embassies and the pound etc.

But it does put a spanner in the works in respect to treaties and as the SNP refer to it “continued membership” of organisations such as the EU and NATO. A newly independent Scotland would be considered a new state which didn’t exist before independence day, so continuation of anything would be implausible.

The second option puts more weight behind the UKs claim for debt compensation;

Article 40
Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State
1.When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a State, and
unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, the State debt of the predecessor
State shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion, taking into account, in particular, the
property, rights and interests which pass to the successor State in relation to that State debt.

Article 17
Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State
1.When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a successor
State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree:
(a) immovable State property of the predecessor State situated in the territory to which the succession
of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(b) movable State property of the predecessor State connected with the activity of the predecessor
State in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(c) movable State property of the predecessor State, other than that mentioned in subparagraph (b),
shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion.

There are other pros and cons in terms of treaty obligations based on the two categories – it would appear that the “Newly independent state” option is pretty much a clean slate whereas the “Separation of part or parts of the territory of a State” option would allow Scotland to inherit some of the UKs treaties.

What the white paper seems to assume is an improbable mix and match of the two categories and of course it can be highlighted that the UK hasn’t signed up to the Vienna Convention (and obviously Scotland hasn’t) so it’s not relevant – but if during negotiation arbitration by the UN is required then it would be plausible to think that their first reference would be that document.

@ernie, if the British pubic where to the left of Labour then they or any other political party would move left to capture those votes. The fact is Labour won 10 years in prior by moving right to the center to reflect British public opinion. To move back left again would be fatal to their election chances as you are wrong about the British public being left of Labour. As I posted I suspect an independent Scotland will have a centerist government with Scottish Labour left out in the cold. Politicians are quite straightforward, they follow where they think the votes are. If Labour move back to the left I won't vote for them again.

As for ignoring my views that is consistent of your approach of not giving any credence to people who disagree with you whether that's on Ukraine, the Middle East or any other topic I've seen you post on.

40 days left.

Better get those goodbye streamers sorted...

However I suspect a Yes vote will be like a divorce, the arguing before the divorce will be nothing like the bitter fighting once the decision has been made.

jambalaya - Member

@ernie, if the British pubic where to the left of Labour then they or any other political party would move left to capture those votes.

Nah... What Blair realised was that the best place for Labour to be, electorally speaking, is 0.00001mm left of the Tories. The people further left will mostly still vote for you (and most of those who don't become nonvoters or vote for niche undamaging alternatives) and in return you pick up people from the right of where you would naturally be.

It's like guessing numbers, if the first person guesses two you say three, even if you think the answer's 10- because that way you still win if it's 10, you also win if it's 3. Sound tactics, in Westminster.

jambalaya - Member

@ernie.....To move back left again would be fatal to their election chances as you are wrong about the British public being left of Labour.

You seem to think my claim that the British public is to the left of the Labour Party on some basic economic polices is based purely on my personal opinion, it isn't.

Numerous carefully conducted and highly credible polls of British public opinion has shown that there is strong support for the renationalisation of the the untilities and railways, policies well to the left of the today's Labour Party.

If you are claiming that I am wrong then you are claiming that respected independent polls are wrong, despite their findings being well beyond their margin of error.

Here's one :

[url= http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/ ]Nationalise energy and rail companies, say public[/url]

[i]The majority of the British public – including the majority of Conservative voters – support nationalising the energy and rail companies.

68% of the public say the energy companies should be run in the public sector, while only 21% say they should remain in private hands. 66% support nationalising the railway companies while 23% think they should be run privately. [/i]

As Northwind points out Labour doesn't adopt more left-wing policies simply because it doesn't need to. That's why it's so important not to vote Labour if you really want to see change.

Labour also lacks the guts to embrace more left-wing policies as it would create a hostile reaction from industrialists, the rich, the powerful, and the Tory dominated press.

Better for the self-serving New Labour politicians so epitomized by Tony Blair to repackage Tory policies and say "essentially we agree with Tory policies but would implement them in a slightly different way", in other words that they are better Tories than the Tories themselves.

The difference between Labour and the Tories is presentation, not ideology.

EDIT : Another reason for Labour not adopting economic policies which would enjoy wide public support is because they would invariably fall foul of EU rules, something which the Nats in Scotland choose to ignore.

Labour will not attack or criticize the EU (despite in its more left-wing past having an official party policy of withdrawal from the EEC) it considers that to be the domain of the Tories and UKIP, despite conservatives dominating the EU and therefore EU policies.

jambalaya - Member
40 days, phew thank goodness !
However I suspect a Yes vote will be like a divorce, the arguing before the divorce will be nothing like the bitter fighting once the decision has been made.

Ooh, divorce? Does that mean we get maintenance too?

Irelanst, according to the vienna convention,

[i] (f) "newly independent State" means a successor State the territory of which immediately
before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international
relations of which the predecessor State was responsible; [/i]

I don't see how this could apply to Scotland, as it is an integral part of the United Kingdom (as per the act of union) - it would however refer accurately to the Channel islands, Isle of Man, Barbados etc which as dependent territories are unable to enter into international treaties, their international relations are handled by the United Kingdom, so as an example the hague convention on child abduction was signed by the UK, and separately extended to its dependencies like Bermuda - it was not extended to Scotland as its already part of the UK, rather than represented internationally by the UK.

So, if the Channel Islands as Crown Dependencies decided to go fully independent, then they could avail itself of those parts of the vienna convention, whereas Scotland would have to use the other one you pointed out, as a part of the existing state that was seeking separation.

Put simply

1. A currency is not and cannot be an asset in the sense that AS pretends
2. They cannot be a physical passage of debt - that would be a technical default
3. There is no link between the use of the pound and an iS compensating rUK even though AS likes to pretend that there is
4. The UK has provision to stand behind the existing debt
5. iS has now provision to deal with the non-compensation of the rUK (even they know that would be stupid)

It's bluff and bluster by yS - nothing else.

Ooh, divorce? Does that mean we get maintenance too?

If yS are to be believed, that is the last thing you would need. Having doubts?

I don't see how this could apply to Scotland

I don’t think there is much credibility to the ‘Newly independent state’ claim either but it’s the only definition which fits in with some of the claims (walking away from the debt etc.) – Scotland existed before the Union, and has continued to exist during the union – letting sport be the judge; they are a separate team at the commonwealth games and seven nations and I think they had a football team once.

It's a bluff. They cannot walk away and their advisors have already highlighted the on-going obligation.

HM Treasury has also already clarified the position on the debt and ruled out any form of sharing as this would represent a technical default. What will happen in the unlikely event of a yes, is that iS will compensate rUK for being relieved of its share of outstanding UK debt (there is no debate here incl. Scotland's advisors). There are then only questions about the amount and the method (clean break or IOU).

It would be helpful if the DO explained this to people instead of deceiving them into thinking that iS would/could be debt free. The reason he refuses to do so is simple - Scotland will have a high debt/GDP burden still but he likes to pretend that he can magic it away. He can't under any scenario. It's clear and simple unless you listen to the DO.

This may be of interest:

In a press release from the Adam Smith Institute, champion of liberal capitalism and no friend to the Social Democracy favoured by Scots, Kate Andrews, Research Director, demolishes Better Together's suggestion that the SNp's lack of a plan B matters so much. She writes:
"An independent Scotland could flourish either by using the pound sterling without the permission of the rUK (or by setting up a "ScotPound" pegged to sterling through a currency board, which would achieve a similar end). This 'sterlingization' would emulate a number of Latin American countries that use the US Dollar without an official agreement with the US government. Because Scottish banks would not have access to a currency-printing lender of last resort, they would have to make their own provisions for illiquidity, and would necessarily act more prudently.
"Scotland actually had this system of 'free banking' during the 18th and 19th centuries, during which time its economy boomed relative to England's and its banks were remarkably secure. And Panama, which uses the US Dollar in this way, has the seventh most stable financial system in the world.
"Everyone says Mr Salmond needs a Plan B if the rUK does not agree to a currency union with Scotland. But unilateral adoption should be Plan A, making Scotland's economy more stable and secure. The UK's obstinacy would be Scotland's opportunity."

I linked to that earlier, and was told that it was rubbish as the Adam Smith Institute were a bunch of nationalists and of course couldn't be trusted to be impartial because they're Scottish 😉

(I might have paraphrased slightly)