Osbourne says no to currency union.

I’m British. I speak English.

Personally I’d rather we all did without regional assemblies, including the welsh and scots, as they’re just another tier of politicians feeding in the trough which ultimately we all have to pay for.

+10

The less of them the better.

TBH, if I was a Scot I’d be very concerned about AS – he doesn’t appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he’s going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..

mrlebowski – Member
TBH, if I was a Scot I’d be very concerned about AS – he doesn’t appear to have your best interests at heart & I think he’s going to end up shafting you on the altar of his ambition/ego..

How can he do that? Can you give an instance?

You realise we will be having regular elections, and it’s unlikely the SNP will survive as a party past the honeymoon period.

Ok links not working that’s what I get for trying to post links from a mobile

Mainly as he’s offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..

He does not strike me as being remotely trustworthy.

Mainly as he’s offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..

He can’t offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or ‘pre-negotiate’ (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The ’empty’ threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.

He can’t offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or ‘pre-negotiate’ (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The ’empty’ threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.

Ah ok, so it’s all Westminsters fault that he’s offered no other options?

So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.

So far as EU membership goes it certainly is all Westminster s fault as the Uk govt is the only one that can askthe EU for a definitive statement on Scotland joining. The Westminster govt has refused to do so.

& financial union? I think Westminster has made their stance fairly clear.

I would like to see the no campaign grab the greater powers for Holyrood (devo Max) option and beat dear leader at his own game.

He keeps expecting the no camp to legitimise his position by pre negotiating on independence. I firmly believe that the majority of Scots would vote for increased powers, and would welcome debate on possible options. Darling should not meekly mummble out a press release on this, if sincere and meaningful he should use it as his main weapon. The no camp can claim to have it’s finger on the pulse of most Scots, and if Cameron shows support he might find even his ratings in Scotland improve slightly.

They can even reach out to dear leader to discuss it on amicable terms, knowing he won’t touch it with a barge pole, unless devo max is what he is after.

If currently the polls are 40%, 40%, with 20% undecided, I reckon all the undecided become no and possibly 10% of the yes side becomes no.

It is important to stress that to sway some of the yes voters, commitment has to be given and powers have to be meaningful. Dear leader will squirm then.

In addition, Milliband needs to stand up and say more. Labour really need to speak out more to its core support. He recently called for introduction of 45p tax rate. The pros and cons can be debated, however that tends to go down well in Scotland. For once when asked to comment on Millibands suggestion on radio, nobody from the SNP was available for comment.

The ’empty’ threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.

Yes, but the balance of the negotiations has been fundamentally shifted – Salmond has put his ace on the table, and rUK have raised.

i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds – the keys are all in the rUK’s drawer, and if Scotland don’t take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth

ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?

ii) if Scotland tries to create a precedent of walking away without the debt, how do you think the other European nations with homegrown independence movements like Spain are going to respond to their EU application?

Also, would you really want a country that’s happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?

Yep, and from day one of Independence, Scotland are going to have to raise capital from the markets (they, like rUK, are still running a budget deficit) – and I don’t think that Wonga offer loans that big…

He can’t offer anything definite as Westminster refuses to ask for the advice or ‘pre-negotiate’ (though they were happy to state a position on a currency union). The ’empty’ threat of not taking debt is an option as the debt belongs to the UK, not Scotland, even though it is unlikely to pass, it is still an option.

What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if “we” want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?

What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if “we” want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?
Same with the pound. Until we actually do gain Indy then all questions are hypothetical and it will take years to go through the courts?

You’re a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it’ll entail.

]ninfan

i) Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds – the keys are all in the rUK’s drawer, and if Scotland don’t take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth

That wouldn’t look particularly fair or even democratic the yes scotland stance is we want a fair share of all the assets and would accept a fair share of the debt. We contributed to those assets. I see the question of whether currency is an asset as moot point and agree that rUk taxpayers should have a say in any negotiations. That is what both Mr Osborne and Mr Salmond have set out though negotiating positions.

But its ‘Yes Scotland’ who have been throwing around the threat of not paying – they’ve played their only card and Osborne has said ‘so what’, now Salmond has got nothing left to play!

We contributed to those assets.

So, if you want to keep them, then you’ve got to take on your share of the debt!

You’re a braver man than I voting for something without the knowledge of what it’ll entail.

And a lot of the debate comes down to that. If you believe the Scotland would be better governed from within Scotland then you’ll vote Yes no matter what.

What has this got to do with Westminster? It has`nt happened yet! Is it not the case that we have to wait till after the event and if Indy is declared we then have to apply for EU membership if “we” want it? Do we want it? will that be another vote required?

AS is criticized for not offering facts on what will happen if there is a Yes vote. They’ve published what they want to happen but cant give anything firm as Westminster refuse to play ball. I’m sure you can see why they’re doing this.

Also, would you really want a country that’s happy to default on a debt as any kind of trading partner?

Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK’s debt.

Scotland still wants their share of the other assets, everything from fighter planes to ships to pension funds – the keys are all in the rUK’s drawer, and if Scotland don’t take on their share, then the rUK can happily play scorched earth

I cant imagine why a scorched earth style approach would be in the best interests of the UK. A strong trading partner and economy in Scotland would surely be better for everyone involved.

Scotland would have no debt to default on, it is all the UK’s debt.

If you want a share of the assets then you’d better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt – after all some of it is yours…just like the asserts…ergo if you don’t accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..

If you want a share of the assets then you’d better take a share of the debts too.Also, as I understand. Scotland is legally bound to take a share of the UK debt – after all some of it is yours…just like the asserts…ergo if you don’t accept the debt surely you are then defaulting on it..

The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.

The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that’s always been the position. One of an open and fair negotiation as set out in the Edinburgh agreement. It’s only been a response to the extreme non pre-negotitating that’s being going on that it’s been floated.

…Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’. …

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/currency-reflections-legal-issues

The Yes campaign want to take the debt as well as the assets, that’s always been the position.

No problem, but the position last week was that they wanted the assets and currency union in return for shouldering their share of the debt

Now they’re playing for just the assets

The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.

Well, as suggested, you can wait and see what the markets think of that argument, and then see what Spain thinks of it when you negotiate for EU membership – I’m sure the prospect of walking into the moonlight without any debt would appeal to Catalonia as well

Oh, and guess who you’ve got to rely on to do your EU negotiation for you 😉

The debts were run by the UK so they remain with the UK. So no debt to default on.

Ok fine, then we’ll keep your share of the assets too. Surely thats equally fair.

Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what’s the legal position on any assets?

Surely Spain’s vote is not the one they should worry about, I assume the UK will have a say.

If only there was a precedent of a country getting it’s Europe entry vetoed.

Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what’s the legal position on any assets?

Must fall under the same remit, thats just common sense.

If only there was a precedent of a country getting it’s Europe entry vetoed.

Macedonia?

Legally the debt is not Scotlands, what’s the legal position on any assets?

The link I posted on the last page does a good job of explaining the situation. Also goes over some of the EU stuff from the last few days on another post. Shame not many people seem to be reading it.

I can’t see Spain vetoing tbh, they’d lose access to fishing waters which is a huge thing for them. The situation with Scotland is very different legally speaking to the Catalan one, so they don’t really have anything to worry about.

I assume the UK would get vote, but again, what would they gain by vetoing? Guaranteed higher education fees? Point scoring? I can’t see why it would be in rUK’s best interesting to block membership.

Mainly as he’s offerng nothing but vagauries & weak assurances seemingly backed up by nothing more than empty threats..

He does not strike me as being remotely trustworthy.

This reminded me of a quote about Robert Maxwell from a guy that worked for him:

“He was a bastard, but at least he was OUR bastard”

Macedonia?

I was thinking of France, EEC, UK.

Shakes fist in the direction of Paris.

If only there was a precedent of a country getting it’s Europe entry vetoed.

where are we with Turkey and north Cyprus these days?

And obviously there is Morroco.

I can’t see Spain vetoing tbh, they’d lose access to fishing waters which is a huge thing for them.

I keep hearing this and I think “yeh, that sounds about right, Spain’s access to Scottish fishing waters is more important to them than an entire region of Spain. Yep, sounds spot on”

The link I posted on the last page does a good job of explaining the situation. Also goes over some of the EU stuff from the last few days on another post. Shame not many people seem to be reading it

I went & had a read & TBH theres no more clarity there than there is here. Rather, just a lot of wishful thinking which brings us back to the start which is a lack of clarity from both sides..

Yep read it too but dont agree Mr L. There was a comment by Bill Fraser there which in turn linked to this

“The 1983 Vienna Convention provides that unless the successor states otherwise agree, immovable and
movable state property connected with the territory of a particular successor
state shall pass to that state,’ while movable state property not connected with the territory of a particular successor state shall pass to the successor
states in equitable proportions”

EDIT
Seems a good deal more clear. Though it depends on whether independent Scotland is governed by article 16 or article 34

Lovely bit of subterfuge from wee eck re the Vickers report, ring fencing and it’s implication for Scottish exposure to financial services today. It’s breathtaking in its deceit yet again. So in addition to his failure to recognize the details of central banking accounting, we now have to add that he doesn’t understand the difference between a branch and a subsidiary and how that effects who is responsible. More likely that he does undertanding but as with assets and liabilities, he is deliberately mixing terms and misusing them in a way that sounds vaguely plausible. He has no shame.

@gordihmor the following for the IFS seems to show what I would expect that per head the English pay the most tax (ie generate most revenue for government), this is reversed with Scots paying more if north sea oil taxes are divided on a geographic basis. Note in another paper from hmrc it showed how much more the scots pay in duty on spirits and cigarettes than do the English 😉 The scots pay more fuel duty per head which as its a big spread out country makes sense. The English as a whole,pay much more in property taxes due to high stamp duty collections in the SE, stamp duty now exceeds fuel duty revenues which are falling

IFS tax/revenue breakdowns

Just watching the flabby-jawed one on Newsnight. does he do any research at all before he unilaterally announces stuff as fact?

Instead of you English chaps worrying about Scotland, here’s something for you to get your teeth into.

John Palmer, former European editor of the Guardian, former political director of the European Policy Centre, visiting practitioner fellow at Sussex University’s European Institute and a member of the Governing Council of the Federal Trust writes in The Guardian.

In the hullabaloo created by English Tory and Scottish unionist politicians, one critical question has been overlooked. Without Scotland could the present UK state be regarded it as the same state it was? A United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it would no longer be. If so, why should the status of the “rump UK” be any different to that of Scotland?

So it looks like if we’re out of the EU and NATO, so are you. 🙂

So it looks like if we’re out of the EU and NATO, so are you.

You will have Nigel Forage doing a tour of Scotland with statements like that 😉