Forum menu
In general it is neither - hence my missing $ analogy. It sounds close enough to be plausible but it is simple a distortion and a deceit.
In theory, however, it can be a liability (wonder why notes used to say, "I promise to pay the bearer" - bit of a giveaway when "this is a liability" is written on the actual note!!!! Doh, Alex, did you forget all you were taught? I doubt it as we had the same prof and he was very good.)
But it is useful as a red light warning - alert, alert, here comes Alex with yet more BS.......he really doesn't need to flag it any more, that should be obvious to all by now.
the hustler - Member
I can see only one way to sort this, ala russia and ukraine method, bring all those who want to stay in UK into [i][b]the southern part of Scotland[/b][/i] and send all the seperatists further north to play braveheart
Och, we'll still let you call England "England". No need to rename it Southern Scotland although we'd understand the desire to do some social climbing... 🙂
Ninfan your definition of the pound seems pretty close to the accounting cleartion of goodwill . From wiki
[quoteWhile a business can invest to increase its reputation, by advertising or assuring that its products are of high quality, such expenses cannot be capitalized and added to goodwill, which is technically an intangible asset. Goodwill and intangible assets are usually listed as separate items on a company's balance sheet
Ps I still prefer to do without currency union, but am not convinced that the pound us not an asset.
Whether it is an asset is not the point. Salmond is trying to force the UK into a currency union with an independent Scotland and we don't want one. It doesn't matter whether the pound is an asset or not the UK is not going to be forced to be a lender of last resort.
Billboard adverts starting to appear, by the way - this was brilliant:
It's brilliant is it? Saying 'vote yes so we get more money'. Which is a pretty tenuous claim.
What a wonderful positive message.
Because every time people hear the facts (or opinions or balancing arguments or whatever) they move towards Yes.
Difficult to even know where to start with this... 😕
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10701331/Andrew-Marr-accused-of-bias-over-Scottish-independence.html
I wonder what "consequences " the nationalists are referring to?
The SNP "bullying" Marr now!
Oh the sgeigeach 😉
To be fair to Marr, Salmond makes me want to spout pro-union remarks. And I'm voting Yes.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]Doh, Alex, did you forget all you were taught?
I doubt very much the problem is that he's forgotten it...
Stewart Maxwell MSP, convener of the Scottish Parliament's culture committee, said the Scottish Parliament had heard a number of "incredibly eminent witnesses" explain how and why Scotland would continue as a member of the EU on independence.
Can anybody provide me a linky to anybody (who actually knows what they're talking about, rather than SNP bluster) saying that Scotland would remain part of the EU, rather than having to rejoin?
Can anybody provide me a linky to anybody (who actually knows what they're talking about, rather than SNP bluster) saying that Scotland would remain part of the EU, rather than having to rejoin?
No, because it isn't going to happen, Scotland will be a successor state so will have to re-negotiate membership of EU, Nato etc. One of the things that keeps being brought up is that why doesn't the whole of the UK get a vote, and that is exactly why, if only a small part gets a vote to leave (rather than a UK wide vote to dissolve the union) then the remainder is the continuing state and keeps the current treaties (EU, Nato memberships) and the successor starts from scratch. There is no precedent for Scotland to be anything other than a successor state.
That's what I thought, irelanst, but I reckoned I should check before accusing Stewart Maxwell MSP of lying (let's call a spade a spade).
[url= http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25965703 ]bbcnews graham avery[/url]
[url= http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591167/Independent-Scotland-could-be-allowed-to-stay-in-EU.html ]Telegraph Sir David Edward[/url]
[url= http://http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-barroso-incorrect-on-eu-1-3313437 ]Former EC director general[/url]
Some people do think independent Scotland could join the EU pretty quickly. Some think Mr Barosso is wrong.
Did I mention that the UK govt could clear up the issue of independent Scotland joining the EU by formally asking the EU commission what the position would be? The UK govt has refused to do so. Why?
[quote=gordimhor ]Some people do think independent Scotland could join the EU pretty quickly.
That wasn't the question being asked, and only one of your links suggests somebody providing the opinion I was asking for - in an article where that opinion was counterbalanced by somebody equally (if not more) eminent who disagreed. Both providing evidence to the Scottish parliament. So I'm still standing by my assertion that Stewart Maxwell MSP is lying.
Why won't the UK government ask the question? ask Nicola Sturgeon, who believes the right time to negotiate is following a Yes vote?
The Scottish government asked Westminster to approach the EU commission last year.
The Scottish government asked Westminster to approach the EU commission last year.
And the answer was, computer says no
The UK keep telling us that all the experts say Scotland wont get into the EU without renegotiating membership completely so why not go to the actual body that makes the decision then the No campaign would have a stronger case. Or are they worried that the EU commission might say yes.
If it's so easy why don't the Yes campaign come up with a compelling argument that they will remain in the EU?
Only governments of member states can approach the commission for its advice.
Hence the scottish govt asked Westminster to approach the commission.
And all precedents and EU commentary would indicate that Scotland as a successor state would have to apply for membership, so surely the onus is on the Yes campaign to prove otherwise?
Which precedents?
[url= http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/cms/files/events/programmes/2012-13/speaker_notes/Avery_ScotlandEU.pdf ]Avery evidence to the foreign affairs committee[/url]
[url= http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu ]scottish independence and eu[/url]
I say again the relevant body to present your arguement to/ or to seek advice from is the EU commission which can only hear arguements from or give advice to the government of existing member states. The Uk government claims it wants clarity on the issue and then refuses to get the definitive advice which it can get not from third parties but straight from the horses mouth
Which precedents?
Ireland, Russia, Netherlands, India etc....
Name one example where a minority left a union and became a 'continuing state'
If only there were some 'Yes' friendly people in the European parliament that could ask the question, people who represented a member state but were members of a party who were pro independence, perhaps MEPs who were members of the SNP, if only there were two of those eh!
Thats the point there are no precedents within the EU for this situation as Avery said in my first link page 1 para 4
It has to be the member states government that approaches the EU commission. Not MEPs or for that matter ordinary MPs.
The EU has no historical precedent for dealing with Scottish independence.
For sure - I have no historical precedent for dealing with the wife finding me in bed with Cheryl Cole, but I'm fairly sure it won't end well (the Cheryl bit withstanding obviously)
Good luck with that :-)If I dont go to bed now I will need UN help just to negotiate my way out of the doghouse.
There are currently around 100,000 EU citizens living, studying and working in Scotland. The idea that the EU would make them all come home, and lose access to Scottish waters for European fishing vessels into the bargain, is silly.
There's no precedent for this, therefore a sensible resolution will be reached by the grown-ups once the children have stopped posturing.
The idea that the EU would make them all come home
Why would the EU be interested in making them all 'come home' ?
If Scotland no longer wanted to offer them residence then that would be for Scotland to deal with.
I agree it seems preposterous that the EU would refuse membership to Scotland though.
But then I could never have predicted that the EU would fully support the violent overthrow of an elected government because it had refused to sign a trade deal with it, so who knows ?
The EU thing is a total irrelevance - the EU has been grasping desperately to find some way to get Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia to join, which are obviously futile and far to difficult (hence Euromaidan). They would not hesitate to let Scotland in when it would be almost frictionless.
All of these comments about "Scotland wouldn't be a member after independence" are stupid too - there will be an interval between any successful vote and independence, and that period would be used to negotiate seamless EU membership.
Bencooper: Scotland would be in charge of its own immigration policy, if it chose to deport EU citizens because it was not a member of the EU, that would be its decision, not the EU's. (I don't see it as a plausible scenario anyway seeing as there is no accurate record of where those citizens live, even if there were enough officers to drag them out of their homes).
so surely the onus is on the Yes campaign to prove otherwise?
its unfaitr to put the onus on the Yes campaign when the only ones who can ask are the yes campaign
It seems reasonable to assume that if they thought they would support their view then they would ask so I would imagine they dont ask because
1. They want to use the uncertainty for political gain- rather naughty but you can see why it helps them
2. They think the answer will be Yes they can join
Its all one big we dont know but the issue is the EU will be able to "fast track" them if they wish or refuse if they wish so none of us know what will really happen at the 18 month long negotiations
If i had to bet I would say they will be in the EU, NATO and not the pound
its unfaitr to put the onus on the Yes campaign when the only ones who can ask are the [s]yes campaign[/s]UK government
FTFY
Its realpolitik
Behind the scenes, the reason the UK govt won't ask for a formal opinion on the status prior to the referendum, as requested by 'Yes' is because they've been asked not to by Spain, as it would lead to unacceptable pressure on their own domestic front to approach for a prospective opinion on behalf of Catalonia.
You need to see the bigger picture!
Given whats happened in the Crimea, I would suggest Scotland's task has just become a whole load more difficult, there will be some very twitchy arses round the table when it comes to recognising independence referenda.
For me at least, this is pertinent to my decision making.
What's the EU issue other than another red herring? The Scot Gov is perfectly clear, according to AS's sidekick....
From the SG website.The Scottish Government recognises that membership of the EU will require negotiations with other Member States and the EU institutions in order to agree the terms on which an independent Scotland will become a full member of the EU.
Of course there is the syrup (as always) that a "little birdie" said that this would be done within 18 months, but by yS standards they are close to being straight on this one. Of course, the fact that those in the know suggest that it will take longer can just be dismissed as more bluster.
Any links thm?Of course, the fact that those in the know suggest that it will take longer
Or did you get that from
😉a "little birdie"
No, just need to follow the news, Gordi.
If the news is followed by any of the "3Bs", you know it's going to be pretty much "on the button."
For me at least, this is pertinent to my decision making.
I'm not sure why that report should be pertinent to your decision making. Increasing economic inequality is not a uniquely British thing it is a phenomena that has become prevalent throughout the world as a direct consequence of the emergence of the neo-liberal economic model.
Back in the day when Richard Nixon famously declared that he was Keynesian the advanced industrialised world was much more equal. But since then neo-liberal policies of mass unemployment, privatization, and weak trade unions, has driven wages down whilst inevitably increasing the accumulated of wealth of a small privileged minority. Indeed this lies at the root cause of the currant financial crises affecting the US and Europe - consumers with poor purchasing power were encouraged to accept easy credit to top up their low wages.
So what would an independent Scotland do about it ? Introduce Keynesian state intervention policies ? Illegal under in EU rules, and apparently an "independent" Scotland independent of the EU isn't on the cards. Higher taxation on the super rich ? How would you stop them crossing the border, even if they were in Scotland in the first place ? Stronger trade unions and higher wages ? How would you stop the labour market being flooded by workers crossing the boarder in search of better wages ?
The widening gap between rich and poor isn't going to be reversed because Scotland gains independence. So just put up with it. Or, if you really want to do something meaningful about then it look at the bigger picture, much bigger picture. The first step before you could actually do anything would be to seek independence from the EU.
There's so much energy going in to pin down what Scotland should do after independence.
The current campaign is for independence, not membership of another Union. Anything else is a red herring.
Shortly after independence we will be electing our choice of government, and that's when these sort of decisions are appropriate to be made.
There is no reason Scotland could not be an independent and neutral country.
Ernie, apologies that wasn't an invitation to debate. It was a statement, it's also not the only reason.
Ernie's 3rd and 4th paras are right though, nothing is going to miraculously change because Scotland is independent. In fact it could be the opposite and get worse, you think the Aberdonian oil industry and Edinburgh financial services industry are going to bankroll the rest of the country without wanting something back?
dragon - Member
...nothing is going to miraculously change because Scotland is independent. In fact it could be the opposite and get worse...
Indeed. That is the ad nauseum message of the Proud Scots in the Better Together mob.
After our airfields have been bombed (apparently it may be necessary) and the new border controls set up, the oil is going to dry up immediately, all the banks are going to go south, and we will not get to watch Dr Who.
We're feart.
I get the imression epicyclo that you reckon Scots in the Better Together campaign are not really proud for not subscribing to your vision of Scotland. If at all possible you may have to reconcile yourself with the fact that a significant number of Scots in iS did not vote Yes however still feel proud to be Scottish.
I disagree with Yes voters profoundly, and think Scotland will be heading down a darker path, but understand their motives. No more or less deserving of calling themselves proud Scots.