[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

surely you must agree that an impartial broadcaster taking money from one side during a campaign looks pretty dodgy?

Have you proof that they refused to take money from both sides ?

Since the BBC helps parties to make party political broadcasts at election times then I don't see how this is any different.

UK elections and the legislation under which they operate are widely seen as free and fair, the only reason I see for some nats to cry foul at every conceivable opportunity is, firstly because they would rather do that than actually discuss the supposed benefits of "independence", endlessly whingeing "it's not fair" has to be preferable than remaining embarrassingly silent, and secondly, it prepares the excuse for possible defeat....[i]"it wasn't fair, it's the BBC what done it, blah, blah, blah"[/i]

But whatever is fair or isn't fair these are the conditions which exist. Politics in the UK isn't always fair, for example almost all the national newspapers support the Conservative Party - do you expect the Labour Party, or any other party for that matter, to spend entire election campaigns complaining "it's not fair" ?

So stop whingeing and get on with it - why should Scots vote for "independence", what are the compelling arguments in favour ? Your time is running out.

It is an absolute lie* to claim they cannot walk away from the debt and you know this.

Junkyard, I've never seen such a heroic effort to miss the (every) point in an argument before. No-one has said that it is impossible for Scotland to walk away from the debt. The point is that it would be suicidal from a credit rating perspective and entirely self destructive to any new nation. Furthermore, the fact that the UK government guaranteed all extant debt says nothing about a future independent Scotland's obligation to remain a guarantor. All it demonstrates is that someone in the civil service realised that the borrowing ability of the entire UK was at risk due to the posturing of AS.

You get used to it bainbridge. TBF I should have put " " around the comment. Of course, there is no "actual debt" to walk away from but any capital market participant knows that we are tacking about a "technical default" rather than an actual one, since an actual one by defintion cannot happen.

The consequences are the same and therefore the argument should be dismissed by the BBC and others. Arguments of that level should be given air time equivalent to there worth, in this specific case almost zero other than the fact that AS is happy to deliberately deceive those who he has a duty to serve. That is worth highlighting. Beyond that, no need for comment.

Freaking amazing!

Just watch what happens when the Nationalists start hearing proper expert evidence on the issues and don't like what they're hearing:

[b]THM, you will love this:[/b]

1h 23m onwards:

Already saw that, ****ing atrocious!

All it demonstrates is that someone in the civil service realised that the borrowing ability of the entire UK was at risk due to the posturing of AS

PS the original quote was

the false argument on currency/asset/walk away from debt etc is obvious and clear BS,

Ninfan - nice link but it is interesting that legally rUK want all the assets that are yours [ treaties and institutes] as legally that is the case but you do not want the entire debt that is ALL yours as well. Having your cake and eating it position as well. You either take a legal line or you do not. you cannot take it when it suits you and the talk of "technical defaults" when it does it not suit you.

I also agree that was not acceptable at all and I am surprised they did not flounce off and other members there should have spoken up.

FWIW as far as i am aware AS/Yes has only threatened it and only a poor negotiator would not threaten this /use the ability to walk away to negotiate hard for a favourable position for them.

Ninfan - nice link but it is interesting that legally rUK want all the assets that are yours [ treaties and institutes] as legally that is the case but you do not want the entire debt that is ALL yours as well. Having your cake and eating it position as well. You either take a legal line or you do not. you cannot take it when it suits you and the talk of "technical defaults" when it does it not suit you.

But thats not what he said, in fact Its pretty clear that you didn't actually listen to what he said

He said that as a matter of law, the institutions remained part of the UK - he drew a pretty clear distinction between on the one hand assets and liabilities, which would be an issue [i]entirely[/i] for equitable distribution through negotiation, and the [b]completely different[/b] issue of UK government institutions such as embassies, DVLA etc. that [i]by law[/i] remained with the UK, and Scotland had no claim to, and that this was in direct contravention to the assertions made in the independence white paper.

I did listen and i said what the law said [ about debt] just like he did about everything else.
Yes he was very clear - till he was stopped- about the need for negotiation - ho could i argue otherwise?

which would be an issue entirely for equitable distribution through negotiation,

To be clear Yes also want this to be clear
My point is both sides are full of shit/lies/deceit/spin etc 😉

so why does rUK want to keep the stuff legally it can [embassies etc] and yet have iS take the stuff [debt]legally it can walk away from?

No

The point is Its an [b]entirely[/b] separate issue

The debt and assets are one issue, everyone agrees that this is for equitable division, if iS want to walk away from the debt (which in theory they can) the counter balance to that is that they don't get any of the assets, if they want their share of the assets, they have to accept their share of the debt, simples

Thats [b]nothing[/b] to do with the UK institutions

They are [b]not[/b] assets - its not the rUK 'keeping the stuff legally it can' whilst saying that iS have to take the debt - its just not even part of that equation, its not even part of the negotiation, its simply nothing to do with assets and liabilities

The point is Its an entirely separate issue

So its legal all the way when it suits your side [ embassies] and negotiation [ not legal over debt] when that suits your side. That is my point having your cake and eating it.

Either go legal or negotiate. When , either sides picks, its does so to serve its own interest.

Folk only want to apply the legal stuff when they win and not when they loose hence your insistence debts is different ie legal stuff does not apply here.

Lets defer to the written evidence:

[i]In the event of independence, Scotland would be a new state, and the rest of the
United Kingdom (“rUK”) would be the continuator state. I understand that Scottish
Ministers sometimes seek to resist this, but they have yet to put forward any
convincing legal argument to challenge it. As the continuator state, the public
institutions of the UK would, as a matter of law, automatically become the
institutions of the rUK: thus the UK Parliament would become the Parliament of
the rUK and the UK Supreme Court would become the Supreme Court of the
rUK. In contrast, the assets and liabilities of the UK would fall to be apportioned
equitably between an independent Scotland and the rUK. Again, this is a matter
of law. What “equitably” means depends on the nature of the asset.

Fixed assets belonging to the UK and located in Scotland would become the
property of the new Scottish state (this includes Government buildings in
Scotland and, of course, the Scottish Parliament). No compensation would be
due to the rUK or to rUK taxpayers. (Likewise, fixed assets in the rest of the UK
would become the property of the rUK.) Moveable assets and liabilities would be
apportioned most likely on the basis of share of population but possibly in some
instances on the basis of share of GDP. The precise apportionment of such
assets and liabilities would be a matter of negotiation.

Overseas assets, including the UK’s Embassies etc, would become the property
of the continuator state: the rUK. As the UK Government correctly explained in its
Scotland Analysis paper on EU and International Issues (January 2014), “an
independent Scottish state would not be entitled by right to any UK diplomatic
premises, equipment or staff”. This is because bodies that support the UK now
would continue to operate on behalf of the rUK in the event of Scottish
independence. Again, I stress that this is a matter of law. The relevant legal
position was fully and authoritatively set out in an opinion co-authored by
Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle, which was published in its entirety
by the UK Government in its first Scotland Analysis paper in February 2013.
Thus the statement quoted above from p.211 of the White Paper is legally
inaccurate. [/i]

Seems pretty clear that the 'Scotlands future' white paper is just plain wrong!

You mean they did a politically motivated piece.Amazingn politicians doing politically motivated "facts". I am stunned. I wonder if i can find anything from the UK doing the same
What do you think?

FWIW I would imagine, on that point, what they [ iS /scottish white paper] say is incorrect

Then again they probably hope, like rUK does over debt, that they can negotiate where the law is clear 😉

Even the BOD doesn't come out with such BS - the technical default is obvious hence the BOD is completely clear - "On Independence, Scotland will accept a fair share of existing UK debt."

So time to wrap up the crap. Scotland cannot under any circumstances walk away. Of course the freedom of speech allows those who want to continue to show their own ignorance to carry on.......for he rest, move on to real issues and facts.

Seems pretty clear that the 'Scotlands future' white paper is just plain wrong!

Pretty obvious even on the day of publication that it was simple wrong or deliberately misleading in many areas including the most substantial. But even the BoD doesn't get the debt issue wrong!

Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will. Is there anything that iScotland won't be keeping apart from nuclear weapons and a share of the national debt. In iScotland the oil will never run out and based on what I have heard from the yes campaign it would seem that they are never going to run out of blind optimism either.

Bloody hell, we might lose the national lottery.

Well, that's a game changer.

Keep the lottery what a ridiculous. idea.! I mean that would require charging the. same price wherever a ticket is sold, à network of lottery machines and a fair method of sharing lottery funding. That's just impossible.

It would also mean smaller prizes and less lottery funding for charities, the arts etc.It is almost as ridiculous as expecting the UK to act as a lender of last resort to iScotland.

That doesn't necessarily equate to less money spent in Scotland. As it would be a pot for Scotland and not the UK.

Of all the reasons that should enter the decision making process of a yes or no vote. The lottery really should be utterly irrelevant.

I've no doubt politicians will be total pricks and use it for cheap points scoring on both sides though.

I agree with piemonster the lottery is irrelevant.

Well there's gratitude for you - your whole campaign is being financed from a lottery win.

I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.

So, Ruth Davidson is in favour of a currency union then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27840189
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/jun/ruth-davidson-backs-currency-union
This one? Will have a listen later.

It really doesn't matter how many Scottish politicians/businessmen/AN Other favours currency union, its essentially down to the UK electorate and their politicians post Scots Independence. The UK holds all the cards on this particular issue & no party will be going into a general election saying to the electorate "vote for us and we'll use your money to bail out the Scots if they drop a clanger".

I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.

Oh was it - the UK national lottery not good enough for them ?

Presumably an independent Scotland will be deemed to have left the EuroMillions Zone and will have to apply for membership ? I hope they're sent to the back of the queue . Not that I do the lottery, which is clearly a mug's game.

Spitting the dummy ernie 🙄

What, are you denying that an independent Scotland will have to apply to be included into EuroMillions Zone ?

I expect that you probably also think that an independent Scotland will automatically qualify for the Eurovision Song Contest don't you ? I suspect that Scotland won't even be allowed to televise the Eurovision Song Contest until all the formalities have been completely. Not that I reckon you stand any chance of winning it anyway. It's been 45 years since Lulu won it.

What is the "euromillions zone"? As far as I know the euromillions is a commercial enterprise run by a number of lottery companys.

What is the "euromillions zone"?

This is the Euromillions Zone :

The blue countries are the original members and the red ones are the ones which joined later.

I can see that this is another consequence of voting Yes that you haven't thought about. Sterling, NATO, the EU, the BBC, Euromillions Zone, Eurovision, it's all starting to stack up.

I read the wiki article and saw the map of participating countries. There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.

[quote=fasternotfatter ]Is there anything that iScotland won't be keeping apart from nuclear weapons and a share of the national debt.

They won't be keeping governments formed by parties they didn't vote for, sitting in a parliament 100s of miles away.

(this doesn't apply to Shetland, obviously)

There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.

All new participating countries must meet the Euromillions Convergence Criteria (ECC). According to the Euromillions President it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the Euromillions Zone. You haven't even established your own currency and Westminster says it won't permit Scotland to use the pound, so how would prizes be paid ?

But ernie, what about all those Scottish people who are currently Euromillions members - surely Euromillions can't just kick them out?

Ok I fell for that one 😳

Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will.

[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-keener-than-english-to-keep-trident-on-clyde-1-3446204 ]The Scotsman Trolls Bencooper[/url]

(Faslane content)

And the [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/blow-for-snp-after-new-poll-reveals-support-for-trident.24514174 ]Heralds[/url] take on it.

The Lottery has been a huge success. It would make sense for Scotland to continue with euro-millions. I don't think with a 5m population a Scottish National Lottery makes sense though, so either Scotland negotiates an ability to buy UK tickets (currently illegal as they can only be sold in the UK so if Scotland leaves the rules/law will need to be changed). The Wier's lottery win has provided virtually all SNP's funding for their yes campaign.

Trident. I know there are those here that wish the weapons be removed from Scotland but I cannot help but think that the SNPs position is more political than conscientious, Trident is very British and the SNP think there is political and negotiating capital in the topic (ie those nasty English put their dangerous weapons in our country). The base is somewhat symbolic as the submarines and their weapons are generally at sea

I don't know if anyone noticed that the Scottish Government outlined their draft interim constitution yesterday? Its a pearler:

24. [b]Incorporation of European law: [/b]

(1) Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law.

(2) Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law.

(3) In this section—
(a) “EU law” means—
(i) all those rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to
time created or arising by or under the EU Treaties, and
(ii) all those remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or
under those Treaties,
(b) EU law is directly effective if, in accordance with the EU Treaties, it is to be
given legal effect or used in Scotland without further enactment.

How's about that for independence? 😆

what a bunch of F'ing mugs!

piemonster - Member

The Scotsman Trolls Bencooper

(Faslane content)

That's a brilliant bit of Scotsman writing. "40% of Scots want to keep Trident" becomes "Scots keener than English to keep Trident".

Thought you'd like it

Edited following the edit

I thought this thread had died a happy death 😉

All that story shows is that the lie that thousands of jobs depend on Trident has some people worried. People don't want Trident because they like nukes, they want it because they've been told (wrongly) that tens of thousands of jobs depend on it.

How's about that for independence?

How's that much different from what the UK is currently signed up to with the EU?

It's independence because, in the future, Scotland could decide to change it's constitution and leave the EU if it wanted. Independence is being free to do what you want, even if what you want is to agree to be part of a larger union.

And of course this is only a first draft of the constitution.

"40% of Scots want to keep Trident" becomes "Scots keener than English to keep Trident".

Since it goes on to say that only 37% want rid, doesn't that actually become "Scots keener to keep Trident than get rid of it"