1K.Orger
That would be because it was the UK which borrowed it, on behalf of the UK...and the UK which spent it to suit itself. So simples that even a meerkat could understand it! Scotland in the Union can't borrow......fact. It couldn't before devolution and it can't since devolution!Originally Posted by Mrs Bradey
If, as they continually claim, the rUK will be the successor state to the UK in every arena in world politics, and Scotland, by leaving the Union, will become a brand new state without the input of the previous 300 years....then even if it was not the case that the UK, under law, owns the debt because the UK contracted for it...the successor state claim would ensure the rUK gets it all anyway!
Scotland would, if required to do so under International Law, be due to shoulder £130 billion of the UK debt...but it is not required to do so under International Law....any more than Ms Scotland would be obliged, if Ms Scotland was Mr England's bidie-in or wife, (even if she was paying into the joint finances) to pay off all, or any part of, a large personal loan taken out by Mr England, signed for only by Mr England and spent by Mr England.
However, their relationship has run its course, and they intend to split up. Ms Scotland is going to be living next door to Mr England, and because Ms Scotland would prefer an amicable rather than a rancorous neighbour..and because, over the time of their relationship, there had been joint purchases made, some of which she would like to take with her, she offered to pay part of his loan provided they could come to some mutually acceptable agreement as to the amount she would pay and which joint purchases she would acquire in return.
And that is pretty much the state of play re the current situation.
Even Westminster says In the event of a Yes (vote), there would have to be bilateral negotiations involving the UK Government and the Scottish Government." Scotland will pay its fairly negotiated share of UK debt, as the Scottish Government has always said would happen.....and Scotland will get its fairly negotiated share of UK assets, as the Scottish Government has also always said would happen.....but the one is dependent on the other! We can't expect assets without accepting a share of debt..and we can't be expected to take any debt without a share of assets.
If you were Ms Scotland, would you pay off a chunk of the personal loan Mr England used to buy himself a flash car just out of the goodness of your heart?
1K.Orger
Grief, what were you on when you posted that?
The more I read and hear about The Independence Referendum, the more I am convinced that what I thought was a sensible, well educated populace have either been reading too many novels or have thrown common sense out of the window and that applies to both sides of the argument.
1K.Orger
Nothing! Why would you think I was on anything?
OK, so I had just read that Cameron via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been instructing the diplomats, whose salaries we help to pay, sitting in the Foreign Embassies we help to fund, to lobby host Governments against Scottish Independence. And that is what Westminster considers a UNION!!! And I was hacked off about it!
That's the same David Cameron who says the referendum has nothing to do with anyone but the Scots..........the same David Cameron who said in 2007 The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.
This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.
Second, this aggressive, negative tactic is one reason why people north of the border feel so disaffected with British politics. Instead, we need to continue to make the positive case for a united Britain by ensuring that the Union remains relevant to all English and Scottish people....and the same David Cameron who is encouraging and funding exactly the same kind of rhetoric he was so scathing about then.
Nobody minds too much losing a fair fight.....but this is not one....and into the bargain, we are paying from our taxes for Westminster to rubbish us all over the world. Partners in a Union? Like hell we are.......Scotland is England's last remaining totally controlled colony!!
Last edited by Oddquine; 15-Jan-14 at 01:08.
1K.Orger
Get a grip will you.
I moved here from over the border and you can take it from me that with a population in excess of 50 million, the English are just as fed up with politicians and that ilk,but in much bigger numbers.
Stop blaming Westminster for all your ills and take a look at the record of this country, it leaves much to be desired as I have frequently pointed out, especially with regard to matters fiscal, where there seems to be the attitude that if we don't keep records, then we can't be challenged and we'll dream up any others.
Any one with even a basic grounding in economics should be able to see the holes in the arguments.
1K.Orger
What particular holes Lizz?
1K.Orger
What were you on when you posted that? I said nothing about the economics of either the UK or Scotland. I did mention the fact that Scotland is legally not responsible for any of the debt accrued by Westminster and is not obliged to pay any of it. There is a case, which has been acknowledged by the Scottish Government for a moral obligation. Maybe you didn't like the way I put it..but I thought I'd explained it very simply.
Do you think it is fair that the Westminster Government should try to undermine Scotland’s international position ahead of them having one?
Banned
Its quite ok oddquine if Scotland does by some odd chance go independent and decide not to share the debt it would soon find out how the money markets treat countries that default on debt. You'd have no currency as ruk wouldn't allow you to use sterling,absolutely no assets as ruk wouldn't allow you any of those either and have to borrow money from whoever would be mad enough to lend you money at the interest rates that would make your pips squeak. EU membership would be out of the question and you'd soon find out how close to North Korea your living standards would become. Bravado is one thing stupidity quite another it seems the latter is getting a firm grip in your world
1K.Orger
Borrow, debt, spend,loan.
Just a few of the economic terms you used oddquine.
1K.Orger
So if you think that those words indicate economic arguments.......how's about you prove to me that my economic arguments in response to Mrs Bradey were wrong....and why you think that?
1K.Orger
Which part of "the UK can't stop us using sterling" have you still not got your head around? Being independent and using sterling informally without an agreement and no input into macro-economic policies in the UK, but with control of the tools of fiscal policy would put us in a better position than we are today.......because today, we have an agreement, but no input into UK macro-economic policies and no control over the tools of fiscal policy.
Which part of "we can't default on debt we did not contract" are you having difficulty understanding?
Which part of "we have a moral obligation to negotiate an appropriate level of input to the UK contracted debt.of course we do....but equally Westminster has a moral obligation to return to Scotland some part of the assets our taxes have helped fund" are you finding difficult to grasp? Perhaps you believe that at the end of a long marriage one of the partners has to pay a chunk of the debt and the other partner walks away with the house, furniture, car and all the other chattels purchased with joint income over the years? Really?
I do hope, if we do vote for Independence, that the rUK Government is less willfully obdurate than you are.
1K.Orger
I would really like to be able to prove that they are wrong but as I mentioned both here and on a previous thread, I have been unable to get accurate figures and costings even under The FIA.
I do however have a grounding in economics, mathematics and common sense and a keen sense of smell which means I can smell a rat from a fair distance.
Banned
Moral obligation is worthless under international law.And you seem to suggest that Scotland has not benefitted one jot from all the money that been spent which is pitiful ignorance of how the whole of the uk works.You can use sterling but you wouldn't be able to tax as you please and spend as you please which defeats the whole concept of being independent.
1K.Orger
Lololol! Oddaquine you really are comedy on this. Anyway, here is the answer, at least as far as we have one. Anyone can ask the question, its just can it be answered.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-21601242
For the record, Ireland, Czech republic and Slovakia's foriegn minsters said we would have to apply again. The rest refuse to comment or await official EU guidance.
Most tellingly, the EU commision says we need to re-apply. That, my dear, is as close to a slam dunk as you are gonna get on the issue so can you gracefully admit it looks like you (and your hero Salmond) were wrong, with the fat one looking like he deliberately mislead you.
How stupid of me actually.......no danger reality getting in the way of your delusions!
There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant
1K.Orger
Moral obligation is worthless under international law.......is that the best response you can come up with? Moral obligation, however is worth £130 billion to rUK (that's a wee bit more than the coalition is adding to the debt every year, btw......pretty much the cost of our current input to defence and debt interest payments more, actually!)!
Tell you what.......you give me a list of what has benefited Scotland in the Union (stuff they could never have accomplished for themselves without the Union)...and I'll give you a list of what the Union has cost Scotland........and then we can see which list is more in keeping with the aims and aspirations of Scots and which is all about the aims and aspirations of London and the Westminster politicians.
Bargain?
1K.Orger
Seems like even Better Together's new adviser thinks an Independent Scotland will join the EU
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...usion.23170949
"It's possible to make an educated guess about how things might turn out... For example, it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations. Precisely what the conditions of membership would be is not quite so clear, though immediate requirements to join the Euro or Schengen agreement can surely be avoided."
1K.Orger
To be fair, squidge.......he wrote that when he was an unbiased academic.......I believe he is backtracking now he is an official Better Together adviser.
1K.Orger
What???? REALLY?????To be fair, squidge.......he wrote that when he was an unbiased academic.......I believe he is backtracking now he is an official Better Together adviser.
Banned
You seem to miss the point its not what Scotland could of,should of, or may have done as part of the United Kingdom for the last 300 yrs its the fact it has been part of the United Kingdom and has benefitted just as much as any other part of the country or are you suggesting the entire infrastructure of Scotland along with the National Health service the benefits system etc etc etc has been all gratis and free of charge because Scotland deserves to have everything free unecumbered just because somewhere in your delusional philosophy its cost Scotland so much being part and its benefitted not one bit.
The reality is your assertions are pie in the sky woolly headed socialism based on zero fact as there are no facts to proven as to what Scotland could of achieved as it has been a part of the United Kingdom for 300 yrs.
Its like all the assumptions proposed about what Scotland may be if it becomes independent until it happens they are just assumptions, as yet unproven.
As for moral obligation the government has sent a clear signal out that if Scotland does become independent and refuses to pay its share of the money spent for and on behalf of the whole United Kingdom it will pay the bill, but god help and independent Scotland if it does takes that particular route.
You may hate international finance but unfortunately the world relies on it and a newly independent Scotland would require financing from somewhere. How much do you think a free health service all the pensions etc etc is going to cost.
The promises of Mr Salmond are very cheap the realities of paying for it all a harsh reality. You tell me where all the money's going to come from ? Expensive oil and gas rapidly diminishing ? Whiskey ? Tartan ? Beef and Lamb ? I guess youre just so wrapped up in some jingoistic nationalist socialist 60s mindset you miss the realities of the world
Last edited by RagnarRocks; 15-Jan-14 at 23:56.
1K.Orger
Didn't someone mention International Law?
Under International Law there are two options when a country becomes independent I think under the vienna convention.
1. They get a fair share of the assets and they take a fair share of the debt
2. They get NO assets and take NO debts.
The Scottish Government has stated clearly and unambiguously that the first option is the one that they want to pursue but that the second option is one which is available to them should the negotiations fail. Interestingly despite assertions to the contrary Alex Salmond has made no "threats". Also the financial and economic experts seem to be almost unanimous in saying the declaration by the government that they will guarantee the debts in the event of a YES vote is a clear indication that a currency union is likely. Of course politicians like Lord Fall on Newsnight Scotland the other night are doing their best to say the opposite but that doesnt seem to be supported by the experts.
Mores the pity - I rather think.
1K.Orger
I await with interest your list of benefits Scotland has received from the Union. I have never denied that the Union, forced as it was, aided Scotland at a time when England was restricting their ability to trade.
However, we are 300+ years past those times....and while times have changed, the attitude of the Westminster Government has not. There has been an ever-present wish among Scots, from the date of the Union, to regain their independence, as they had failed to secure the federal system they would have preferred. 306 years on, despite many efforts, we have still been unable to remove ourselves from colony status in the UK, which is what an incorporating Union is, and extremely limited devolution just doesn't cut it.
We are where we are because of the attitude of Westminster. If they had wanted to keep the Union together, it would have been so simple....a Federal System encompassing all four countries........but unfortunately, England (as in majority English controlled Westminster) is still living off past glories when most of the known world was coloured pink, and have not yet accepted that the UK is a pygmy in the world, only able to stride the world stage on the stilts provided by Trident.
If they could accept that even now......it wouldn't need the trashing of the poor, the sick and the unemployed to reduce the burgeoning National Debt.....it would just take stopping invading other countries and paying for their nuclear penis extension.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks