No, that isn’t over generalisation, it’s talking nonsense. The No argument is based on “better together”, better is not a pessimistic term. Nor is it anything which anyone should fear. And there’s nothing short term about it.

Spoken like an advertising man – they use the word “better” so they’re optimistic? I’m guessing you don’t remember any of the pessimistic stuff – we’ll be international outcasts, we’ll aid terrorists and enemies, we’ll lose the BBC, we’ll have guards along the border, etc etc. The No campaign has been one scare story after another, their big problem is that they struggle to say anything positive – Alastair Darling keeps saying “we must make the positive case for the union” without actually making one.

It’s as if he seems to think that, if he says there’s a positive case, people will believe him.

And there’s so much short-term about it. Why are so many Westminster MPs and Lords on the No side? Because they like their perks and expenses and guaranteed directorships, with independence they’d be out on their ears. Why are some rich company directors so vocal on the No side? Because they like the status quo which let them get so rich without asking too many questions.

We should welcome the deceitful one opening up with “we will make no financial transfers in recognition of UK debt” and “FO from Faslane now”. The immediate reaction would be obvious domestically and internationally

Domestically, everyone would be very happy to see those hellish weapons gone, internationally investors would be very interested in a country with huge material resources and no debts. No?

No ( the ? wasn’t needed)

What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.

An independent Scotland may not be perfect, but it will be a damn sight better than that corrupt system.

we’ll be international outcasts, we’ll aid terrorists and enemies, we’ll lose the BBC, we’ll have guards along the border, etc etc.

Well it sounds like staying in the Union will be a very positive thing to do then ! 🙂

I don’t know what it’s like in Northern Britain today but here Down South it’s bathed in glorious sunshine….so I’m off on a bike ride. Toodle-oo

What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.

I must try and find that bit, it sounds unusual.

Have a nice ride Ernie! I thing I will do the same thing….

Hmm

, not quite, but hey why stick to what people actually say?

More suggesting people are misquoting you? If you have never said the Scottish Analysis was factual,why have you been posting them up as a “compelling argument” (your words) for why the union works?

Ernie,maybe get a improved example of “better” than the no campaign use,they seem to define it differently to you.

Hmm, not quite, but hey why stick to what people actually say? AS THM doesn’t do, so why should those unfortunate enough to swallow his guff?

FTFY 😉

internationally investors would be very interested in a country with huge material resources and no debts. No?

No, international investors would see a country that had declining material resources and an uncertain financial future (oil production going downwards), was currently running a deficit, and had a history if not paying its debts – plus the likelihood of the country you’ve just ripped off blackballing your EU membership!

Just imagine the outcome of negotiations if Scotland tries to ‘have its cake and eat it’ anyway – overnight you need to build computer systems to handle everything from benefits to child support to car registration, because the UK cuts off your access to all those institutions. Sorry Ben, I think you guys are really overestimating the strength of your negotiating position!

epicyclo – Member
What interests me in this debate is to see Ernie come out as a supporter of the UK method of government with entrenched privilege, aristocracy, Royalty et al.

that is particularly amusing! 😆

In all fairness,he hasn’t said he approves of the current system. Anyway as a Londoner,he would prob be more worried about the soaring cost of food if we left… 😆

Yes – debate about what the Edinburgh agreement actually says.

Still going? Solved anything yet?

duckman – Member
In all fairness,he hasn’t said he approves of the current system. Anyway as a Londoner,he would prob be more worried about the soaring cost of food if we left…

may not approve but he’s yet to provide any evidence that things will change! So he either lives in lala land or advocates the status quo! Which considering when we have the like of farrage paraded about on the tele in a blatant attempt to further shift the centre line to the right well it doesn’t look all that great from here.

For any politicians (in rUK) to accept CU would show a level of economic ineptitude that should immediately disqualify them from any senior office of state

So its still on the table then 😉

Yes argument appears to be based on faith, hope, and wishful thinking, I can’t see much evidence to suggest that assessment is far from wrong

Can you tell me if rUK will be in the Eu in 5 years time?
The argument works both ways though there is more uncertainity with iS

seem to remember the UK bailing out a few banks that are based in Scotland so it does not require an active imagination to see the rest of the UK having to bail out the banks of an independent Scotland should we join a currency union.

Its a debatable point how Scottish they were tbh but- as already mentioned- the UK bailed out Ireland because its economy was so important to the UK that it made sense., the same is likely to be true of an iS whether in a currency union or not. If it went totally tits up rUK would not be unaffected by this and its best interests are likely to be served by “propping it up” as you would no doubt call it. They are unlikely to just watch it collapse.
What duckman said – good post fella

The get out clause appears to be “we don’t know the political makeup of future Scottish governments” and is used every time anyone asks for details.

You have read political manifestos and heard polticians speak? is it really your claim that this is the only one full of vague aspirational pish thin on details?

The immediate reaction would be obvious domestically and internationally

I doubt the financial markets would go oh look their is a country with absolutely no debt whatsover we best not lend to them…which company looks best the one with zero debt or the one with shitloads as a lending risk?

was currently running a deficit, and had a history if not paying its debts

What debts it has none – they are not and never were her debts they are the UK’s and still are. As for running a deficit – yes just her and [almost]every other govt in the world then eh
The markets have no morals they will see that they will be fine and they will lend. There was certainly a few links to economists saying this earlier in the thread – I forget how impartial the analysis was but it is not as clear cut as they would all run away going not least because fiscally a debt free iS is clearly in a stronger financial footing that a debt ladden one – you cannot deny that FACT.

THM Could you at least try and reign in your AS stuff [ we have all got it[…the shouty farage accusation when you do this is irony of the highest lowest order.

Sorry been away for a bit and have cracked ribs so cannot ride today…enjoy all you lucky sods who can ….gentle spinning on the turbo for me 😕

Thanks for the link fnf . No access to a computer at the moment so I can’t read it today.

zokes – Still not a customer
Still going? Solved anything yet?

Nope

I’m not here to solve things, I’m here because I like a good argument 😀

The people I need to convince aren’t on STW. They’re people like my mother – she’s undecided at the moment, perhaps because she only recently got British citizenship. And people like her friends, who are worried that after independence they won’t be able to go on holiday to Scarborough.

People who are a bit more, well, normal – they haven’t read obsessively about it all.

Except Scotland is part of the UK, hence the debts partly belong to it. The fact that rUK has agreed it will honour the debts post independence (which is had to do to avoid market panic which would affect iS just as much as rUK) if iS walks away does not change that.

JY may technically be correct, but would be interested to see how international money lenders may feel about that legal technicality. As the rUK would also not be the UK that ran up the debt, could it argue that the debt becomes null and void? Doubt it.

athgray – Member …As the rUK would also not be the UK that ran up the debt, could it argue that the debt becomes null and void? …

The rUK is holding itself out as a continuing state and Scotland as a new state.

Hence the threats that Scotland would not be eligible for membership of the EU, NATO etc.

A continuing state keeps the obligations and memberships, but of course a new state has no debt or memberships…

There is also opinion that because the UK was formed by a treaty between 2 sovereign countries, then both will be continuing states when the treaty is undone.

I think most Scots would find not taking a share of the debt repugnant though, but if grandstanding rUK politicians try to prevent us having our share of the UK’s assets, then that attitude may change.

Exactly – the No campaign want it both ways. Either Scotland is a continuing state, in which case it inherits all the assets, obligations, debts and treaties of the UK, or it’s a new state in which case it inherits nothing, including the debt.

Now I’m all in favour of Scotland agreeing to fund a share of the rUK’s debt, but not without reciprocal sharing of the assets.

An iS would need to be a regular borrower in international capital markets. In that context, no sane politician would start life for an independent state by staging a “technical” default. Even by AS’s standards that would (beyond the rhetoric) be an act of extreme folly. Imagine starting life with a Panama solution to currency management and a technical default. Ridiculous in the extreme.

It would not be helpful to the rUK (the bit that many YES supporters conveniently like to forget) however we saw in January that AS nonsense led to a very clear declaration that the rUK would honour all outstanding debt irrespective of the result. At least one party is behaving responsibly and maturely. Who would have thought that from a posse of Tories, Labour and LDs!

It must be very embarrassing that the leaders of yS are able to make our terrible troika appear responsible and mature. Still there is always one silver lining.

The law is clear on this and it disagrees with you. I dont even think No argues they could not do this legally it is that clear cut.

Morally I doubt anyone disagrees that Scotland is as liable for this as she is liable to get a fair share of the assets. I assume it will be used as a bargaining chip but it is most unlikely she will refuse to take any but they would be daft to not pretend they might – why weaken your hand before you negotiate? How much depends on how rUK acts as much as their [iS] stubbornness I would imagine.

Currency, EU membership, debts, Nuke bases, NATO…I cannot see either side getting all they wish and i doubt either side will capitulate like a Clegg though. It will be a messy,terse, tense and shitty negotiation…not that unlike here 😀

On the contrary, a country that didn’t pay a debt that it was not its debt would be seen as sensible and prudent. And, just as importantly, more solvent.

Really, it’s Osborne et al who are being reckless and irresponsible by ruling out perfectly sensible options for political reasons. Remember that there’s no paper trail for the “no currency union” thing – it was made up on the hoof because Alastair Darling thought it’d help. Just like Theresa May declaring there would be border controls, it’s something they just make up on the spur of the moment to see if it scares people.

Luckily, most people aren’t that easily cowed.

Sorry Ben, not even close. It would reckless and irresponsible to accept a proposal that carries such obviously assymetric risk. Hence the unilateral position and the clear advice – not an option. The “be prepared to call their bluff advice” is equally obvious. I spent the bulk of my early career managing capital raisings for governments and institutions or investing in them. In all that time, I cannot remember one occasion where any new or existing state manged it’s debt management strategy in the way that seems to being imagined by the more radical (or ignorant) yS supporters.

Forget BT, the rUK should be resolutely clear in rejecting such nonsense and simply ignore it. If yS want to talk hogwash, let them get on with it. They will only have themselves to blame when the cold hard face of reality hits them as it inevitably would and AS knows. Despite behaviour and language that suggest the opposite, AS is not a fool, he is simply bluffing. Call his bluff and move on.

Ben it is not just “Osborne et al” that don’t want a currency union it is also the majority of people in the rest of the UK, can’t independence supporters just accept this and move on? The fact that a currency union is still an issue makes the independence movement look very weak.

It kinda undermines that when senior No politicians say a currency union might still happen, and when No advisers agree with them. Which makes sense when really a currency union would be good for the rUK as well.

But one should never underestimate a Tory’s ability to cut off someone else’s nose to spite their face.

I have always said this would not be the amicable divorce claimed by dear leader. I get ridiculed for suggesting a bleak outlook for iScotland. Few here get ridiculed for their nonsensical belief that things are so bleak now. If anyone wants to see forces of darkness just watch the yS promo video. Westminster is Mordor. If Scotland is being raped then I can’t see it.

I wonder what drives dear leaders beliefs. He has supported independence all his adult life, however most of his arguments did not stack up in the early 70’s during his student days. Scotland was still electing Tory MP’s, North Sea oil was in it’s infancy, we voted for the common market, we were getting traditional left leaning Labour governments, Scotland was not proving the region of choice for the vast bulk of UK immigrants. Margaret Thatcher and the miners strike had not yet happened. Renewable energy and the banking sector not yet on the scene. All the while he was earning temporary bans from his party. As far as I can see you could only really give him Trident/Polaris.

I would say he feels the same as a great many Scots in that he does not and never has felt any connection to the people of the UK. That is a shame.

Do I think the people of Lockerbie and Carlisle should be subject to the same treaties, members of the same international organisations, use the same currency? Of course I do, but that is because they come from the same country.

Do I think the people of Lockerbie and Carlisle should be subject to the same treaties, members of the same international organisations, use the same currency? Of course I do, but that is because they come from the same country.

What about the people of Dublin and Belfast?

Again, you’re assuming that independence is purely Alex Salmond’s personal crusade. It’s not – there are many non-SNP people in favour of independence, it’s so much bigger than Alex Salmond.

I think we’re all happy with that, and some of us don’t have the strange idea that the currency is an asset.

senior No politicians plural? No advisors? I thought it was just a lone wolf, who if the rumours are correct has a history of grinding axes.

Also as pointed out numerous times there are some quite serious disadvantages to that scenario for rUK – was that “la la la” I heard you saying as you put your fingers in your ears?

Ben the senior politician you refer to is supposedly Vince Cable, with the way the lib dems are doing in the polls he will be lucky to be in parliament let alone in a coalition come 2015 so his influence on any separation negotiations will be nill. So one minor lib dem politician undermines the chancellor and the what 58% of people in the rest of the UK think? I just do not see it.
Is the reason you can’t admit that a currency union is no longer an option for an independent Scotland because it couldn’t function without one?

I cannot remember one occasion where any new or existing state manged it’s debt management strategy in the way that seems to being imagined by the more radical (or ignorant) yS supporters.

What debt strategy ?they do not have any only the UK has debt. Your clear about other stuff say EU membership and[ lets call them assets] and who keeps them so why not just accept it here as well.
you like to be clear about facts so
Does Scotland have any debts legally post devolution?
How many of these states were anything like this and we were ones seceding from a union. I dont recall a situation like this so what are you comparing it to?

TBH its a pointless debate they could walk away legally but they wont. the only issue is how much they take and , like everything else, none of us know,

EDIT:

some of us don’t have the strange idea that the currency is an asset

GENUINE QUESTION – do you have a link to anything explaining the rational behind this -google ans THM were no help
ta

Is the reason you can’t admit that a currency union is no longer an option for an independent Scotland because it couldn’t function without one?

Why not? Loads of countries manage fine without a currency union with the UK.

fasternotfatter – Member

Ben the senior politician you refer to is supposedly Vince Cable, with the way the lib dems are doing in the polls he will be lucky to be in parliament let alone in a coalition come 2015 so his influence on any separation negotiations will be nill.

It’s not relevant whether or not he’d be in the negotiations- it’s relevant that he confirmed what so many people believed, that the official line was a lie, told purely for short-term political reasons to mislead the public and sabotage the democratic process, as part of the very positive No campaign.

If scotland was not in a currency union with rUK would this not be worse for scotland re the debt?
They would be obliged to pay out in pounds I assume and therefore this would , I assume, affect the currency.
Does it make it stronger or weaker?
What are the risks?
Is it asymmetrical?

Thats some more genuine questions.

I doubt ben is actually that keen on a currency union, but I’m sure he’s aware that some people who might vote yes would be put off if there wasn’t going to be one. That’s fundamentally what this is all about and why the Yes campaign is so worried by it.

Don’t forget that they can’t be prevented from using the pound as currency (or having their own currency directly linked to the pound), one or other of which seem the most likely options if they become independent.

On the contrary, a country that didn’t pay a debt that it was not its debt would be seen as sensible and prudent. And, just as importantly, more solvent.

This is just yet more wanting to have your cake and eat it. ‘We want all of the advantages of the union and none of the disadvantages of being independent, and if we don’t get everything we want we’re going to throw our toys out of the pram’.

Repeatedly claiming iS will have no debt is disingenuous at best.