Forum menu
wanmankylung - Member
Oh I understand how it works.
Excellent, so I look forward to your explanation of why the poster is at best misleading ( the polite response )
...and please also explain why whoever made it couldn't be arsed to phrase it properly in English and use the correct currency.
A question.
Let's assume independence happens and the rUK decides not to "share" the £.
It looks like then Scotland won't accept responsibility for the debt.
From what I have seen in the financial press a lot of the faith in the £ is because of oil reserves which will then be predominantly in Scotland.
Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)
Or will it rise because the rUK has got rid of its subsidy junkies?
There would (hypothetically) be volatility due to the uncertainty and time it would take to sort the inevitable mess out. But it is largely irrelevant because there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default. It would have to raise substantial amounts from international markets and you don't start that programme by showing that your do not behave responsibly. Outside the deceitful one, there are few people (in the know) even mumbling the idea of not compensating rUK. Why should they, it's shooting yourself in the foot.
Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction - get the options handbooks out!
teamhurtmore - Member
...there is no way an iS would instigate a technical default...Best bet probably buy volatility rather than direction - get the options handbooks out!
Something I am not clear on. Who owes the debt? The Bank of England owned by the govt, or the actual govt?
If it is the BoE and we don't get our share, I can understand not taking its debts.
If it's the govt I don't understand the complexities involved, but feel we should take a share.
Volatility tends to be too exciting for me 🙂 I usually take long positions.
The government owes it. The actually debt is issued by the Debt Management Office (part of HM Treasury) on behalf of the government [b]not the BOE. [/b]. The BOE no longer plays any part in this process (since the last 1990s). The debt is a liability for the government - it ultimately has to pay the money back (or at least be able to) plus interest to the investors who lend the money.
The debt cannot actually be split between countries in the event of a separation - that would constitute a technical default and HM Treasury has been clear about this. The issue is quite simple. All parts of the UK have benefited from the services provided by the UK and paid for by the debt (the Fiscal Commission is also clear on this). An iS would compensate the rUK for this benefit, that is what would be negotiated in terms of how much and how ie a one off payment or staged payments. The rest is just noise designed to deceive.
You do have to wonder who is writing the DOs speeches and advising him at the moment. The latest BS today about wanting its share of the BOE is patent nonsense. The only good thing would be if, as part of the required due diligence, the DO looked at the balance sheet of the BOE to see which side the current sits on. So his argument becomes we won't take on your liabilities unless you agree to give us a share of your liabilities. You couldn't make it up.....
Is it worth putting some money on the £ collapsing? (ie what would George Soros do?)
Soros (or his successors) would be very interested in the proposal for a Scottish currency pegged to the pound.
Indeed especially the way Jim Sillars described in the week. Kerching for the speculators!!!!
Boris Johnson, who may well end up being the next PM, says there is no reason to give the Scottish parliament any more powers after a No vote.
In relation to other parts of the UK, he is probably right. As I said earlier, Pandora's box has been opened by all three parties promising more devolution. It will create an unbalanced democratic process across the UK.
Scotland could start by fully using the powers it already has....
Johnson is the same person who said that a pound spent in Croydon was worth a lot more than a pound spent in Strathclyde.
But more importantly it shows up the "more powers" thing for the lie it is - if there really were going to be more powers after a No vote, they would have been mentioned in the Queen's speech, there would be pending legislation in the works, there would be detail of exactly what powers are coming.
Since there's none of that, we can safely assume that if there's a No vote then Scotland goes back to being ignored again.
Ben that is clearly not the case. Remind us what role has at the moment? Then remind us what the current leaders of political parties have already promised? Then reconcile with the above.
Scotland ignored...c'mon...
You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today...
‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots[b] backed by the strength of the UK’[/b]
Ie, vote No. Brilliant.
No hint of independence at all....now there's a surprise
You have to love the yS summary of what they want in the Scotsman today...‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’
Ie, vote No. Brilliant.
The Scotsman? You mean this Scotsman article?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/yes-and-no-campaigns-reveal-september-battle-plans-1-3504618
Where that exact quote is used - except it was said by Danny Alexander of Better Together 😀
‘We are offering the best of both worlds: more power for Scots backed by the strength of the UK’Douglas Alexander MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary
Breaking News!!!!! Douglas Alexander has defected to the Yes side!!!
Either that or a fail by THM. Perhaps it's time to take a break THM?
Ahem It was Douglas Alexander of Better Together not Danny but an easy mistake to make .
Ha, yes, wrong clone 😉
I sometimes get the two Blairs mixed up too, that's worse as they're on opposite sides...
Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control. For example those controlled by international treaties, (eu, world trade, tafta), other countries and global corporations.
As a smaller country is there more or less chance of getting pushed around by these actors outside of the countries control?
Another question. What additional powers will an independent Scotland have outside the ones it already has and those that are not currently directly under its control.
We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.
Of course, like almost all countries, we'll give up some of that control via treaties and the like, but as an independent country we will have the ability to negotiate those treaties ourselves, instead of hoping that the UK government will act in our interests.
Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.
I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.
Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.
Nah, September 19th will be a tartan apocalypse. All will collapse into chaos and despair.
I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.
That [i]is[/i] what they've said, but that doesn't fit the "Project Fear" rhetoric quite so well.
This whole "you can't stop us using the £" nonsense is the greatest demonstration of a textbook strawman argument we're ever likely to see on a stage this big.
There is a problem in that it's always reported as "you can't use the pound" "you can't stop us using the pound" when in fact we all know that there's no way the rUK could stop iScotland using the pound - the discussion is all really about whether we have a currency union or not.
An independent Scotland will use the pound - whether that's with a currency union or not is up for negotiation after the referendum.
I'd prefer either of plans b,c or d to plan a.
Me too, actually.
I thought the no campaign was saying we couldn't have a currency union.
of course a CU is possible, and the terms and conditions would have to be agree, but why would the rUK agree to take such a risk on a new foreign economy without something in return?
and it's not exactly independence without your own bank, reserves, policy and governance - and that doesn't happen overnight (or in 18 months time) - it'd take over ten years to build up decent reserves to secure a new scottish currency, never mind all the SNP's spending promises and a potential deficit reduction programme
that is what is not being explained, and Alex keeps changing his mind over what currency he thinks is best - is it the euro, is it the pound, or something else?
of course a CU is possible, and the terms and conditions would have to be agree, but why would the rUK agree to take such a risk on a new foreign economy without something in return?
Because Scottish exports (including the oil) make a decent contribution to the strength of Sterling and the balance of payments. Because companies in the rest of the UK would benefit from having a seamless currency system with Scotland (to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, according to Ed Milliband). Because the rUK would get something in return - help with paying the massive national debt.
Because Scottish exports (including the oil) make a decent contribution to the strength of Sterling
That's a double edged sword though - it means that Sterling goes up in value and UK exports become relatively more expensive.
But of course if iScotland goes and uses Sterling anyway, but without full CU, the rUK gets this "benefit" anyway, whether we want it or not.
But of course if iScotland goes and uses Sterling anyway, but without full CU, the rUK gets this "benefit" anyway, whether we want it or not.
This is true. You're welcome 😉
from Moodys website
Overall, given the small size of Scotland's economy relative to that of the remainder of the UK and Scotland's likely investment-grade credit profile, any credit impact (negative or positive) from Scottish independence on UK sovereign creditworthiness is likely to be limited. In terms of credit positive elements, Moody's notes that Scottish independence would eliminate the current fiscal transfers between Scotland and the remaining regions of the UK, marginally improving fiscal dynamics for the remainder of the UK given higher Scottish per capita public expenditures and Scotland's older demographic profile. Any division of [b]revenues from North Sea oil would be largely credit neutral for the UK sovereign given that they are small, and declining, relative to the size the UK economy.[/b]
Potential risks to this assessment arise if Scotland refuses to assume a "fair and proportionate share" of its debt obligations, which would increase the UK's net debt burden and would be considered credit negative. [b]In addition, a potential currency union with the remainder of the UK would be credit negative if it were to materialise.[/b] However, cross-party opposition to such an outcome makes this unlikely. Scotland's adoption of an independent currency would be credit neutral for the UK.
It'd take over ten years to build up decent reserves to secure a new scottish currency, never mind all the SNP's spending promises and a potential deficit reduction programme
One wonders what new countries do in this scenario - how do they survive?
PS you forget they get their share of the assets which will include the reserves and the currency 😉
One wonders what new countries do in this scenario - how do they survive?
Australia was pegged to pound sterling for 56 years until they went their own way (edit: with the the australian dollar)
PS you forget they get their share of the assets which will include the reserves and the currency
guess that means a share of the debts as well then 😉
😳Either that or a fail by THM.
Oops, yep hands up to a big fail there. I am so used to yS arguing why independence is actually a bad idea, that I misread that one, even by yS standards it did seem a bit extreme. Too much speed reading before lunch!!
Almost right there Ben, lower transactions costs are the only benefit to the rUk but they are overshadowed by the disadvantages - hence thanks, but nae thanks.
piemonster - Member - Quote
Went out on the bikes with Scotroutes today.Good day out it was.
Tis true.
Here is [s]Cake[/s]Piemonster about to start inhaling the Pistachio and Custard Cake at Inshriach
[img] 
[/img]
guess that means a share of the debts as well then
I assume they will try a quid pro quo route tbh as will rUK
It is what negotiations are
neither side will come out with what they have said they will.
THM I think you mean main not only benefit.
There are a number of reasons why this would be the best arrangement, and there are a number of reasons why it would be to the benefit of both countries if such an arrangement was agreed.
It makes sense to retain Sterling as part of a formal monetary union. It will not only provide a workable currency from day one of independence but also a strong overarching framework for Scotland post-independence.
A commitment to retain Sterling would promote business certainty, reassuring businesses on both sides of the border that they would continue to trade in Sterling.
* Scotland and the UK engage in a significant amount of cross border trade. In 2011 an estimated £45.5 billion of Scottish exports were to the rest of the UK (with at least the same flow in the other direction). For both countries reciprocal trade represents a significant contribution to their respective economies.
* Scotland’s natural wealth would make a positive contribution to the Sterling Area economy. For example, Oil & Gas UK estimate that North Sea output, the large majority of which takes place within Scotland’s marine boundaries, boosted the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011.
* Scotland’s economy represents a significant share of Sterling Area output -approximately 10% of current UK GDP or around the same size as the entire UK financial sector.
* A shared currency would help facilitate an orderly transition. For example, it would facilitate the orderly transfer of assets and liabilities which the Working Group highlighted “would seem to be a sensible and efficient solution”. This would be more transparent if the debts of both countries were denominated in the same currency.
* A shared currency would help facilitate the orderly supervision and oversight of systemically important financial institutions which operate across both countries
Please ignore the troll of me disagreeing with you, without insults, and referencing my point.
You are Ole Gunnar solksjar and i claim my £5
[img] 
[/img]
I have seen Binners in the flesh and he is way more of a pie monster than you are
We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.
Of course, like almost all countries, we'll give up some of that control via treaties and the like, but as an independent country we will have the ability to negotiate those treaties ourselves, instead of hoping that the UK government will act in our interests.
Other similarly sized countries seem to do fine without being pushed around.
Except for all the things I pointed out before such as eu law, world trade agreements, big corporations. I live In Sweden and policies and laws seem pretty similar and drifting the same way so I would say don't expect too much from independence. The main difference between the UK and Sweden is that British people seem much more into self interest politics/ self reliance and somebody else's problem and the Nordics they want to do thing together, do not want to stand out from the herd and want a consensus.
Now you could see the yes side from both perspectives. That Scotland is more like the nordics in character or wanting to do their own thing is more like the British character. I would guess the yes voters would like to think they are more nordic in spirit but from my experience that's just not true.
Tis true.Here is CakePiemonster about to start inhaling the Pistachio and Custard Cake at Inshriach
****ing hell, if I'd have known I'd have turned to my good side. Somewhere behind that building, or some other camera proof object.
Still, if times get hard I can always turn my hand to advertising Tefal products.
PM - nice photo and cake, but Heinrich Himmler appearing on your knee is spooky 😉
So looks like the DO really is going jnto the final stretch with sterlingisation - 100 Cheapside anyone?
We'll have complete control of all taxes and all public spending. Complete control of immigration and defence. Complete control of everything.
Apart from control of interest rates or your currency !
...and fiscal policy and other peoples' nukes among other things
Anyone have any details on how/where [url= http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/scottish-independence-poll-shows-no-campaign-heading-for-lan ]THIS POLL[/url] was conducted?
No, but I enjoyed the article from the same site
Doubling up on a bad position is a classic way that traders go down in flames. Hopefully, the DOs latest tactics will have the same effect.
I wonder what sturgeon and Swinney are thinking now. Let his go down in flames so that they can pick up the pieces later. I guess they are more vocal in Scottish press, but very low key coverage elsewhere.
It has a link on your link to a sun link
I boycott that paper so cannot say what it says
you gov who say
YES at 35% (no change) and NO at 55% (+1)
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/
general
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/scottish-independence/