Osbourne says no to currency union.

Crikey! I’ve just realised that the one thing I do love about Scotland would have massive implications.

All the great golf courses that are currently used on the Open Championship rota, suddenly wouldn’t be! That would devalue them massively.

Scotland will get to keep the things that the UK bought that are located in Scotland

super so they get the subs?

LOL imagine if iS roams in to rUK and start taking any movable asset citing UN law 😆
I am ooot this is just silly

All the great golf courses that are currently used on the Open Championship rota, suddenly wouldn’t be! That would devalue them massively.

The Open is controlled by the R&A right? Don’t think it would be an issue and can’t see anything changing.

It’s the British Open in all but name, so reckon it will be something else for the English to get ‘petty’ about!

Faslane would have to remain soverign UK territory until a suitable alternative site could be found.

you forgot to say that is what UN law says 😉

It certainly has to be haggled over and the only viable solution is to give[lease] the base to rUK in the short run [ possibly for the length of a currency deal???]making it rUK territory – given SNP say iS will be nuke free.

Its certainly an area that has to be debated like so many others with many of them having no obvious solutions.
Again if iS refuse it will be a mess hence why both sides need to discuss maturely. I doubt many us have much hope of that happening given the entrenched views on here and from the politicians involved.

From The Herald

😉

Throughout this campaign the DO has very deliberately misrepresented the issue of debt (1) the real reason why Scotland has an obligation (2) how debt works – the share of debt issue is irrelevant, it can’t be broken up, it’s a financial transfer, (3) that it has nothing to do with assets (4) even if it did that still would not involve a currency since it’s not an asset.

And yet he’s has developed the false narrative that if we dontget to use our (sic) pound we will walk away from the debt. Complete and utter bllx on every count, other than confirming that he is happy to frame the debate around deceitful lies and people swallow it.

Just played tennis with a senior man at RBS – any takers on the earlier wager? But be careful of betting against assymetric information.

I hadn’t thought about the open championship – I guess using the correct title would easily get round this possible eventuality though

I don’t think we lease our bases in Cyprus do we. It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it. iScotland will be nuke free. Faslane will remain part of the UK until it is no longer needed. So strictly speaking the SNP pledge would be met. I doubt the UN would object to a permanent UN security council member keeping hold on to it’s nuclear arsenal.

It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it

I assume you would be delighted to see iS and wee eck tell rUK how it is gong to be and just take a part of rUK as their own
The UN could not object as you would veto it I assume but it is ridiculous to think that you can annex/steal /take/part of their country to keep your nukes there and think
1. they will comply
2, it helps negotiations
3. it is legal

Really this is a nonsensical debate where there is no way on earth you would respect AS /SNP/iS if they proposed doing this to sovereign rUK territory or just tol;d you how it was going to be
I am oot till the grown ups come back to debate.

fasternotfatter – Member
…It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it. iScotland will be nuke free. Faslane will remain part of the UK until it is no longer needed.

No bloody way.

Any Scottish govt that agreed to that would be out of power quick smart.

They won’t have a House of Lords or tame media to cower behind.

They simply hide behind “don’t ask, don’t tell” instead.

Transparency anyone?

Epic – ditto on currency union without monetary and fiscal union. It doesn’t work. For a rUK to negotiate on any basis other than this – laid out clearly by BOE, HMT and by the parties themselves – would be their own version of suicide.

Currency unions do not work without monetary AND fiscal union. SImple. Now if an independent country wants to hand over control over both, then so be it…..

Any Scottish govt that agreed to that would be out of power quick smart.

Is there going to be some sort of procedure for removing a government “quick smart”?
Or will it have to wait until the next election?

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane. There are soverign bases in Cyprus so there is already a legal precedent Link

JY is that adult enough for you? 😉 Realistically iScotland would not be able to make the same demand of the rUK, iScotland just wouldn’t have the same clout as the country with the 6th largest economy on the planet, permanent seat on the UN security council, guaranteed EU member etc. iScotland need to appreciate the weak negotiating position they will have.

That is not adult in any way shape or form.

Would rUK still have the 6th largest economy on the planet without Scotland?

My guess, it’s not really a guess, is that the rUK economy would slip down a couple of places to be behind Brazil and Russia.

So what? You guys are arguing that small is beautiful – Luxembourg not the US. C’mon get the story straight. That is grown up.

Come back when your guess contains some facts. 😕

So what? You guys are arguing that small is beautiful – Luxembourg not the US. C’mon get the story straight. That is grown up.

Come back when your guess contains some facts.

Eh?

Eh, indeed.

Hardly relevant or grown up to say without us you will be smaller “nah, nah, ni nah nah.” 😉

The NATO summit, European views about should rUK stay in Europe tell is what we need to know about status – again the the extent that’s relevant

Aye – the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place. A barrage would soon stop any further sub movements. What about Coulport? What about the warhead convoys traipsing through Glasgow? Do you envisage some sort of regular parachute drop of supplies?
🙄

Hardly relevant or grown up to say without us you will be smaller “nah, nah, ni nah nah.”

I didn’t know that you’d turned against Better Together.

Aye – the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place.

So threats are the way to open discussions with future NATO partners. Brilliant!

The biggest-hitter weighs in

Like the one above to retain Faslane as part of rUK you mean? I agree.

The whole debate is Irrelevant anyway – nukes will be at Faslane either in an open and transparent way or in an opaque don’t ask, don’t tell way. So why waste time on it.

The maths behind polling and current odds is more interesting IMO

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2014/09/13/scottish-independence-polls-margin-of-error/

Aye right so they will. 🙄

Glad you are learning. Remember they are copying the Danes and they make explicit reference to the elephant in the room

But what of another area of contention – nuclear weapons?

Ole Kværnø says it is “the elephant in the room, we just don’t discuss it at the moment.” The Danish government oppose nuclear weapons but do not question whether their Nato allies sail nuclear armed submarines in their waters.

[transparency anyone?]

That was one of the controversies at the last SNP conference which saw the party adopt a pro-Nato stance. Mr Kværnø says that ignoring the issue is a matter of military practicality.

John Dyrby Paulsen represents the Social Democrats who lead the current Danish government. He says Denmark cannot interfere in the nuclear policies of other nations. He said: “We are a small country. We can’t decide what big countries want to do. “Nuclear disarmament for instance, we have to say that we support it but we can’t decide on nuclear policy. Especially not in France, US or England, on what they want to do.

[independence anyone?]

“We have a certain point of view on that one but we don’t interfere with big countries.”

And there is absolutely no difference between foreign warships visiting a country and having them stored permanently there. Honestly, you are getting more desperate as the days count down

It’s a fair bet that Faslane and Coulport will remain operational for at least 10 years if not longer.

To think that in the event of a Yes vote, they will pack up and ship out in a couple of years is not realistic.

No Scotroutes – I just don’t have to lie to my children that voting yes will result in a nuclear free Scotland.

The Danes in contrast are honest about the contradictions and the practicalities. Alex Salmond has a week to show he could do this just for once….don’t hold you breath.

Aye – the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place.

If only there were some way to produce your own power and fresh water. Oh, wait…

The Flying Ox – Member
“Aye – the rUK could keep Faslane but without access, power, fresh water etc. it would be a pretty desperate place.”

If only there were some way to produce your own power and fresh water. Oh, wait…

Going to breed your own sailors and servicemen as well?

How are you going to get the subs in and out? Go to war?

Would rUK still have the 6th largest economy on the planet without Scotland

Isn’t sixth largest economy with Scotland, more like 25th-ish

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane.

Going to breed your own sailors and servicemen as well?

How are you going to get the subs in and out? Go to war?
this is all pish. Faslane will be the subject of a treaty between iScotland and rUK; it will make provision for rUK to keep using it for a certain period of time; Faslane will not be UK territory. Imagining rUK sovereign exclaves in iScotland is just as comical as imaging iScottish blockades of them. It will not happen. the only real negotiation question will be how many years the lease is for.

JY is that adult enough for you?

No

The Sovereign Base Areas were created in 1960 by the Treaty of Establishment, when Cyprus achieved independence from the British Empire.

OH look a treaty between them where they agreed You are suggesting that you just take the base. This is tantamount to an act of war and hardly going to help negotiations or the relations between the two states. Your suggestions of

The rUK will not be asking for permission to keep Faslane, when they grant independence they will just retain Faslane.

or

It is more a case of the rUK saying it is how things will be rather than Scotland getting to negotiate about it

Its not realistic to say this,Its Dr Strangelove type diplomacy and action.

Realistically iScotland would not be able to make the same demand of the rUK, iScotland just wouldn’t have the same clout as the country with the 6th largest economy on the planet, permanent seat on the UN security council, guaranteed EU member etc. iScotland need to appreciate the weak negotiating position they will have.

Ah right you are big so International law does not apply as you have “clout”
That does indeed seem a principled and reasonable way to negotiate with your nearest neighbour and shows AS quid pro quo and his nonesense about bullying westminster ot be the lies you have said it was ..well done.
Its laughable that you suggest this and worrying that you believe it.

threats are the way to open discussions with future NATO partners. Brilliant!

Brilliant 😆
You are aware what you are defending with that statement?
THM you are better and brighter than this. C’mon you know it is not realistic what he suggests and that if rUK took scottish land by force and scotland respond it is not iS being the baddies here.
It is never ever going to happen and if it did iS refusal to consent would not be the “threat”
When KB drops his [ excellent] sarcasm and to be the voice of reason you know the thread has taken a strange turn

All you noers really imagine what you would be saying were AS saying this about UK territory and really engage your rational mind rather than just bicker

So the rUK are going to allow the national nuclear deterrent to be under the control of the SNP? I would not be surprised if Faslane permanently remains UK sovereign territory. The land would not be ever be Scottish to take, it would simply remain part of the UK.

Oh and the UK remains the 6th largest economy in the world without iScotland. I am sure we will miss you in some ways…I just can’t think of any at the moment.

So the rUK are going to allow the national nuclear deterrent to be under the control of the SNP?

*facepalm*

Where on the ballot paper does it have the words ‘SNP’ on it? Which part of the referendum means we’re voting in the SNP for ever? I swear that a lot of people arguing about the referendum are being deliberately thick.

I swear that a lot of people arguing about the referendum are being deliberately thick.

Indeed…..imagine believing half/any of what the DO says.

You can’t keep hiding behind its not about the SNP. They are setting the yS agenda, it’s their proposals under debate and don’t forget their tactic about focusing on Westminster Tories. This is bare arsed politics for better or worse as many yS posters keep reminding us.

or any other Scottish party for that matter. You do want the rUK to allow you to be independent don’t you? iScotland is going to need to use a lot of rUK facilities after independence and can’t function without them. If you do as you are told regarding Faslane then we just might continue to collect tax for iScotland and let them use the DVLA as well as use any IT systems that you won’t have on day one of independence.

Which part of the referendum means we’re voting in the SNP for ever?

Probably the same bit that says voting NO is a vote for the Tories/NHS privatisation/Bankers/Boris/UKIP

It’s hard to argue it’s not about the SNP

If it wasn’t, the moral thing to do following a yes vote would be to hold a Scottish general election to allow voters to decide who they want looking after the accession negotiations or leave the discussions until after the 2016 election.
Instead, they seem quite keen to set a timetable to have it all done and dusted before the 2016 election, during which time they’ll be pushing their agenda.