[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Latest Daily Record poll has Yes 47%, No 53%. Interestingly, if people are asked how they'd vote if David Cameron was going to be reelected, it switches to Yes 54%, No 46%.

So...the outcome depends on a few short-sighted numpties and David Cameron's electoral chances?

Ben, that says a lot (excuse the irony there) about how this whole narratative is being framed.

It's not about the man, on no wait...

The poll is here http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bombshell-daily-record-poll-shows-3678091 if you're interested.

A total of 39 per cent plan to vote Yes on September 18, with just 44 per cent saying No.

Dear leader thinks it is partly a popularity contest. In interview a couple of days ago he was saying that it is not all about the message, but rather the messengers. Stating that messrs Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins are far more popular than Darling, Cameron and someone else.

Well, they kind of are.

But as everyone knows, you shouldn't play the man.

The leading edges on both sides of this [s]debate[/s] statement of beliefs really are just a bunch of showers.

I would be far happier with a decisive majority result, but whatever happens. That seems extremely unlikely.

Stating that messrs Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins are far more popular than Darling, Cameron and [b]someone else[/b].

Go on, name them without google.

So...the outcome depends on a few short-sighted numpties and David Cameron's electoral chances?

Well, maybe - there are short-sighted numpties on both sides, though - worries about start-up costs and EU membership are pretty short-sighted.

I suppose the worry about Cameron isn't so much that he wins one more election - it's that the UK is the kind of country that looks at Cameron and all he's done and decides they want more. Whereas people in Scotland don't want to be part of that. He's a symbol for how the UK has shifted to the right.

Scots will back independence if they think David Cameron will remain Prime Minister

Well since when asked the straight question they don't back independence this presumably means that most Scots think that David Cameron won't remain Prime Minister, that's interesting, I can't say that I feel particularly confident that he won't remain PM, although I suspect that he probably won't.

It also suggests that with less a hundred days to go a convincing case for the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" hasn't been made. And to be fair nor has it on this thread.

So clearly the Yes camp's best tactic at this late stage would be to focus on the likelihood of a Tory victory next year and denigrate Labour's chances.

And of course if Labour do win in 2015 and Scots have opted for Yes it will simply add in the coming years to the woes of the nats, as they have to contend with a nation that were unconvinced of the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" and are disappointed by failed promises.

I suppose the worry about Cameron isn't so much that he wins one more election

The Daily Record who's poll results you posted suggests [i]exactly[/i] that, ie, they are concerned that he will remain PM**, beyond that they're not really that concerned. Are you disputing the findings of the poll you posted ?

** Presumably they are unhappy with Cameron because he is a Tory and would feel the same whichever Tory was leader ?

Well since when asked the straight question they don't back independence this presumably means that most Scots think that David Cameron won't remain Prime Minister

Um, no. It shifts by a few percentage points when asked how they'd vote if Cameron was definitely going to remain PM. That's in no way "most Scots".

It also suggests that with less a hundred days to go a convincing case for the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" hasn't been made. And to be fair nor has it on this thread.

Maybe it's not convinced you, but luckily it is convincing a lot of other people - getting rid of nuclear weapons, being able to control our own affairs for the benefit of people in Scotland, not being over-ruled by our larger neighbour matters to people. It remains to be ween whether it matters to enough people.

The Daily Record who's poll results you posted suggests exactly that, ie, they are concerned that he will remain PM**, beyond that they're not really that concerned. Are you disputing the findings of the poll you posted ?

No, read the rest of what I said.

worries about start-up costs and EU membership are pretty short-sighted.

SNH relocation. Announced Nov 2001. Achieved summer 2006. Holyrood committee examining it later condemned both the inadequate justification for the move and the cost.

Creative Scotland. Its creation announced Jan 2006. Delivered July 2010. For the effective merger of two bodies! The waste of money and the lack of clear political leadership was frigtening.

So go on, please do list examples of public sector change in Scotland which have been managed at speed and low cost to justify your confidence in both the 18 month transition timetable and the set up costs.

Oh ok 🙂

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too). I'm not a SNP supporter, but they haven't made any big mistakes like that, have they?

But, even if you're right and the start-up costs really are as bad as the Treasury's 10x too big estimate, that's still less than half what HS2 would cost Scotland. It's 1/3 what the Trident renewal would cost Scotland. In the absolute, never-going-to-cost-that-much worst case, it's still cheaper than staying part of the UK.

@ben the last Mori poll 10 days ago was No 56 Yes 34 Unknown 10. So those who have expressed a choice its approaching 2:1 in favour of No. If all the unknowns vote Yes the outcome is still No. Anyway polls can be quite fickle and no one is being complacent. Still a long way to go.

It's no surprise AS and the SNP are focusing on Cameron as an individual, he is quite an easy target for left leaning Scotland given his background. It is no surprise that the Yes vote is stronger with the scenario that there is another Conservative government in the UK.

On another topic raised earlier I do think a Yes vote is a vote for AS as Prime Minister and I can see that would hurt rather than help the Yes campaign.

I am surprised at the important of the nuclear issue. Does it really matter whether they are based at Faslane or 5 miles over the border for example.

Yes, of course all polls must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I am surprised at the important of the nuclear issue. Does it really matter whether they are based at Faslane or 5 miles over the border for example.

Yes, for several reasons. For one, we won't be paying for it, so can instead use the money for better things. For another, we won't have the moral responsibility of having them. They won't be 30 miles upwind of our largest city even if they are based 5 miles over the border.

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too). I'm not a SNP supporter, but they haven't made any big mistakes like that, have they?

They were decisions of the Scottish government of the day, you've already pointed out several times that this is a vote for Scottish independence, not an SNP administration, that the system was designed to avoid domination by one party, and that after independence the next government is most unlikely to be SNP led - so how is that supposed to reassure anyone that the huge mistakes and cost overruns are less likely to occur after independence?

So what's special about a Scottish parliament or the Scottish people that we get huge mistakes and cost overruns? Westminster's track record in that direction isn't brilliant either 😉

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too).

I live and work in Scotland in a Scottish Company which is proud of what it and its people achieve. Scots (and the Poles, English, Irish, Oz etc who are all part of the modern Scotland) are capable of wonderful things. But the capacity of the public sector change machine to get bogged down in procedure and consultation and decision avoidance should not be underestimated.

Anyhow, how about those examples to give us confidence it can be done quickly and cheaply?

So what's special about a Scottish parliament or the Scottish people that we get huge mistakes and cost overruns? Westminster's track record in that direction isn't brilliant either

the 18 month transition timetable

Is that remotely likely?

I reckon the UK 2015 General election will scupper that and I would have thought that they'd allow for it, I seem to recall Salmond asking for the election to be postponed 🙂 so they obviously knew there would be an impact but they've stuck with the 18 month time-scale

I can't imagine much parliamentary work going on with an Independence bill much before Q3 2015

I think the 18 month timetable was more about trying to do it before the next Holyrood election than any thoroughly assessed timetable of what could be delivered when.

I think your assessment of the impact of the UK election is about right, but with an added ability for UK manifestos to cover negotiation points on what rUK would or would not agree to with an iS as it is inevitable that in the event of a Yes vote, the negotiating positions of the UK parties will be a significant factor in the election.

As part of the UK, the 'shock' of cost overruns are insured against and absorbed by a much greater and bigger government machine - a £500m cost overrun on one project is fairly inconsequential against an overall £729 billion per annum government budget - whereas a £500m overrun on the one project has a pretty drastic knock on effect on a £65 billion annual budget!

@jota180 +100

Nothing material is going to happen in terms of transition until after the UK election and thereafter the new UK government is going to have many other priorities. I see a transition as being a 3-4 year project and so it should be. As I posted before if there is a Yes vote I expect UK parties will make the negotiations an election issue, effectively asking the UK voters what their stance should be. I can imagine the Tories manifesto could be quite robust in that regard.

It's no surprise AS and the SNP are focusing on Cameron as an individual,

for example you ended with

I do think a Yes vote is a vote for AS as Prime Minister and I can see that would hurt rather than help the Yes campaign.

You are THM and I claim my troll badge from you as well

You are THM and I claim my troll badge from you as well

The AS comment I was responding to what others had posted. I do believe the SNP would be the winner in an independent Scottish election and I think there are Yes supporters who won't vote for that outcome as a result. I fear for an iS with AS at the helm and in control of your tax and spending.

Duckman, I can't remember who Salmond mentioned. I chose not to google it the time as I could not be bothered.
You could Google it for me, and tell me how much more unpopular they are than Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins if you like.

less than half what HS2 would cost Scotland

Well that worked for ID cards 😉

Problem is all the money that's wasted before it's cancelled - Universal Credit is going that way too.

According to the Huffington post a majority of english people would prefer to have a no win in the referendum than have England win the world cup.
[url= http://survation.com/is-england-winning-the-world-cup-more-important-than-preserving-the-united-kingdom ]Huff post world cup survey[/url]

I wonder what would happen if the same question was posed here?

According to the Huffington post a majority of english people would prefer to have a no win in the referendum than have England win the world cup.

Well a majority of just 1.

What an incredibly silly poll btw, I can't imagine many of the respondents took it very seriously.

Meanwhile, how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on sending a leaflet to every home in Scotland telling us that there are no guaranteed further powers after a No vote?

(Okay, the leaflet doesn't quite say that, but it doesn't guarantee any more powers and the Scottish secretary has said any further powers would be a matter of negotiation.)

Small change when considered in the context of the total waste of money involved in the whole flawed process. Both sides proposing pretty much the same thing and yet we waste all this time and money pretending there is a genuine debate going on. A complete lot of tosh.

Both sides proposing pretty much the same thing

In what possible way is full independence pretty much the same thing as the status quo?

A sensible article in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/13/scottish-independence-change-england-more-jk-rowling

how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on sending a leaflet to every home in Scotland telling us......

I guess it's part of the free mailshot which both sides are allowed to have so that they can put their case directly and unhindered to Scottish voters to help them understand both side's argument and make a slightly more informed decision ?

Well I feel quite relaxed about it, I like the thought that Scottish voters can sit down in their homes and read the arguments put directly to them by both sides. Presumably you feel that this is the wrong emotion and people should feel outraged ?

I take it that you don't like the thought of Scottish voters being allowed to read unhindered the No campaigns views and feel particularly incensed because you don't like what the No campaign have put in their free mailshot ?

Correct, its worse, now you might get a foreign country running your economy!!

It's an expensive comedy show - typified by your own side proposing policies that are completely incompatible with the idea of independence.

Well a majority of just 1.

It's not the No campaign who have done it, it's the UK government, and it's not paid for from campaign funds the way Yes Scotland and Better Together leaflets are, it's paid for by UK taxpayers.

The UK government isn't bound by the funding limits either, though it has said it will voluntarily comply with them.

Are you saying that the Yes camp aren't allowed a free mailshot too, paid for by the UK taxpayer ?

If that's the case it's clearly unacceptable & must breach the rules laid down by the electoral commission.

EDIT : I've just checked and both sides are allowed one free mailshot which isn't "paid for from campaign funds the way Yes Scotland and Better Together leaflets are", it's paid for by UK taxpayers.

I think this is probably a non-story.

The rules say:

Costs would also include the posting of one neutral information leaflet about the referendum to every Scottish household, and one free mailshot to every household or voter in the poll for the designated campaign organisations.

Now the UK government isn't the designated campaign organisation. So is this the "neutral information leaflet"? If so then there have to be questions about how neutral it is.

I feel fairly certain that if the rules have been broken then the electoral commission will have something to say about it. In the final analysis this can be settled in the courts, the UK government cannot operate outside the law. As I say, I think this is probably a non-story. It's certainly isn't making the headlines as you would expect if the rules had been broken.

"Mistake and a misjudgement" 😀

The more important bit, though, isn't who paid for the leaflets.

It's that there have been two golden opportunities to announce a guarantee of more powers after a No vote - these leaflets and the Queen's speech - and neither of those opportunities were taken. So it's pretty safe to assume that this advert:

[img] [/img]

Is bollocks.

Scotsman tomorrow:

[img] [/img]

The more important bit, though, isn't who paid for the leaflets.

You asked : [i]"how do people feel about the UK government spending £750,000 of taxpayer's money on...."[/i]

It turns out that you're not really interested in what we feel about £750,000 of taxpayer's money being spent on a leaflet after all, which presumably means that you now accept that it was all done above board.

No, what you really want to know now is how we feel about the contents of a leaflet that not everyone has seen and which we only have your obviously completely unbiased opinion about what it contains.

Well based to the fact that you've seen the leaflet and I haven't, and that you don't like what you've seen, then you must be right.

You can download and read it if you like - or the contents are widely reported.

Feel about the same as I do about the white paper.

Propaganda.

Oh bloody hell, the Popes sticking his tuppence worth in.

I have seen no Better Together or UK leaflets. I was delivered a Yes leaflet a few months ago though. I was being urged to vote yes by the Proclaimers and Eddie Reader. How do I feel about Scottish government spending my money on the white paper? 🙁

The Pope agreeing with the Orange Order? That's a turnip for the books 😉

You can download and read it if you like - or the contents are widely reported.

But you would rather not provide a link to it, despite complaining of its contents and asking people how they feel about it.

A bit like the front page you've posted where you can see the headline but not read the article.

How about posting a readable link to an article whose attention you've drawn ?

Or do you prefer it when everything is a bit unclear and rather confused ?

Oh, good grief - here, let me use Google for you:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/uk-government-spend-720000-to-provide-every-household-with-booklet-on-facts.1402590417

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27817449

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/benefits-of-the-uk-booklet-going-to-every-household-in-scotland

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-staying-in-the-united-kingdom-means-for-scotland/what-staying-in-the-united-kingdom-means-for-scotland

The Scotsman article isn't on their website yet, because that's tomorrow's front page.

How about commenting on the lack of further guaranteed powers instead of nitpicking?

The Scotsman article isn't on their website yet, because that's tomorrow's front page.

So you're drawing our attention to an article you haven't even read ? I think one thing we can all agree on is that headlines don't necessarily give the whole story. Or do you make a habit of just reading headlines?

...instead of nitpicking

So you ask how people feel about a leaflet and it doesn't occur to you that they might want to see it before commenting ? You call that nitpicking ? Brilliant! 🙂

Thanks for the link btw, I'll have a look later.

I was drawing attention to the headline, which looks like it could be an interesting and relevant article.

I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.

I must stop making assumptions, evidently.

Scotsman article is now online:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/the-better-together-advert-made-in-bbc-studios-1-3444021

I also assumed that most people, would be capable of finding a widely-publicised leaflet on the internet.

So you think it would be reasonable for me to, say, complain about an article I had read in the Daily Telegraph, ask people how they felt about it, and then get annoyed when asked to provide a link ? 🙂

If it was so incredibly easy to find a link to the leaflet why didn't you do that when you first asked people's opinions about it ? I didn't even know what the leaflet was called, all I had to go by was that it was apparently sent by the UK gov to all homes in scotland, which is fairly vague.

Meh, you obviously don't want to actually comment on the important issues, so I'm off to bed 😀

Well I had a quick glance at the leaflet and it appears to be the UK government making the case for the "benefits of the UK".

I can't see a problem with that in the same way that I can't see a problem with the Scottish government making the case for the "benefits of independence".

Why have you got a problem with that.......because you don't agree with what the leaflet says ?

BTW apparently the leaflet "will start arriving through all Scottish letter boxes from June 23". Why didn't you wait until June 23 before getting upset ?

As far as the Scotsman's article is concerned I can't see much of a problem with that either, apparently : "There has been no breach of editorial guidelines as BBC facilities are made available to organisations and businesses who want to use them, including political parties, on a commercial basis". Which seems reasonable to me. I'm sure that if any breaches have been made the BBC will be held accountable, Yes Scotland will make sure of that no doubt.

But how about worrying less about leaflets and adverts that you don't agree with and focusing a little more on making the case for independence ? Time's running out and you apparently haven't convinced the majority of Scots yet. Too much whingeing and not enough getting on with it I reckon.

Why have you got a problem with that.......because you don't agree with what the leaflet says ?

It's what the leaflet doesn't say - it doesn't make any mention of any new powers for Scotland after a No vote.

Which means that that billboard advert, and all the Better Together comments that of course there will be new powers for Scotland, are looking distinctly untrue.

With the BBC, the Trust says that BBC Scotland say they haven't breached the guidelines so won't investigate - that's hardly a brilliant example of impartiality. But maybe no, maybe they haven't strictly breached their guidelines - surely you must agree that an impartial broadcaster taking money from one side during a campaign looks pretty dodgy?

Define impartiality Ben? Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points? How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face). Actually with UKIP, the BBC do this quite a lot and it's great to see Farrage made to look a fool under scrutiny. The sad thing is that the more he does, the more popular he becomes. Ditto the deceitful one. Funny old world. Anyway, storms over, suns out....happy riding!

Get ready to support the whites tonight 😉 !!!!

We've done this before - there have been academic studies showing that BBC Scotland is biased 2:1 in favour of No.

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?

I would rather they showed partiality on the facts and let that define their coverage than partiality to either BT or YS.

If you point out basics like the false argument on currency/asset/walk away from debt etc is obvious and clear BS, then that is not being biased with the facts but it is being biased against the perpetrators of BS. That is the standard that BBC should aspire to, not equal coverage of both sides per se. Just because AS likes to throw out the 3Bs with gay abandon does not mean that the BBC is in fact doing anything wrong. Perhaps ? it reflects the quality of the arguments put forward by the particular side under scrutiny?

Who paid for 'Scotland's future' to be published?

Thats hardly an impartial document is it? It seems it was OK for the taxpayer to pick up the bill for that, along with translation into Gaelic, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin, French, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish & Urdu...

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?

Like paying for an academic to write a [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10258486/Independence-campaign-admits-it-paid-academic-to-write-newspaper-article.html ]newspaper article[/url] on your behalf?

Nah, it's only one side that lies and deceives. The other one, always the other one.

Surely you must agree that taking money from one side to help them make an advert isn't impartial?

I did some work to get a UKIP office up and running recently, I invoiced the work and got paid for it.
Do I now have to do work at all the other parties offices or be labelled a UKIP supporter 🙄

Did Ozzy really say no to a currency union? I just ask as the chancellor is Osborne, not Osbourne as in the thread title. 😉

Just saying. 😀

That's some echo in here.

Does that mean giving airtime and analysis to nonsense points?

How can you give 50/50 coverage when one side has obvious contradictions at the centre of its arguments (and do it with straight face).

Its essentially an election it does not really matter whether one lot are complete loons or not they should have access to the method of transmitting their views to the electorate in just the same manner as the other. By definition anything else is BIAS and by definition that in unfair.

walk away from debt

As for coverage it shold clearly be roughly equal and it should challenge their claims equally robustly. to dod anything different is to take sides. Both sides think the facts support their view. Neutrals know both sides facts are politically motivated spin delivered by economists and would class this as someway short of a fact and a truth.

jota you are not regulated by law to present the news impartially so your comparison makes no sense in the context of what we are debating

A judge must be neutral as must the BBC - you can take work from who you please.

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.