Before I disappear, the main thing I took from last night's debate, an Independent Scotland's first act if it doesn't get a currency union will be to default on its liabilities.
As Sir Humphrey would say, that's a very courageous thing to do, and the money markets will reward an Independent Scotland for such courage.
You really are not too bright then. If you had listened he clearly said if you keep all the assets you obviously keep all the liabilities. Basic economics for dummies.
The really basic thing is that for there to be a successful negotiation both sides have to agree. Why would the rUK agree to Scotland walking away from its share of the debt? And how does Scotland prevent the rUK from levying tariffs on the 70% of Scotland's exports that go to the rUK? Sadly for the Scots the divorce negotiations will be very unequal. Scotland has no leverage. The cards are all stacked in rUK's favour.
SO , I agree it will be interesting but I do not think it will be as one sided as you believe. The world will be watching and they will need to be careful they don't spook the markets, it will not be all big tough George giving out orders for sure. There are some big ticket items that will not be easy.
Hmmmm
got to say malc currently the PB Nat debate is a one man show and sort of has been from the first debate. The usual suspects Divvie, Stuart, Carnryx etc. are leaving you to it.
Someone has to educate the plebs Alan. Carnyx and TUD are not up to the rough and tumble of dealing with fools and comic singers. I am more than capable.
My tuppence worth - the debate last night did no one any credit. From the participants who just shouted at each other, to the broadcaster who got the tone wrong, the questions wrong, and the audience wrong.
TV debates are starting to grate. I'm going to back David Cameron if he scuttles any pre GE debates.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
Thus, the English should not have the Scots helping to make English-only decisions.
Maybe if you were remotely as clever as you think you are you would realise that England make 100% of Scotland's decisions.
If you feel that way why do you want the Bank of England controlling the currency in your newly foreign country? Man up indeed.
Monica, away and play with your dolls, this is grown ups talking
Bank of England, Malcolm. The clue is in the name.
Not too bright are we Monica, I live near Moscow but I am not Russian, it is all in the name.
You've lost me there. Are you feeling well?
Yes and as I thought your knowledge of Scotland and capability to think are not up to the task. Try harder, it is in the name.
Your joke would work if the Bank of England weren't in England. The clue's in the name.
OK, so you are stupid and unlikely to comprehend. It is the UK central bank belonging to Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and England. Is that simple enough for you. I know you think England = UK = Britain , but when you grow up you will find out that your geography is a bit iffy.
The UK central bank, the clue's in the name. Hint "United".
On the other hand these were Scotland debts before the divorce.
Put it another way. I marry someone. We run up hundred's of thousands of pounds of debt together buying fast cars, big house's,etc...
Then I walk out of the marriage. I leave my partner with the cars, the house's, etc... (which probably get repossessed in the end anyway) and because I've walked out, I think I can wash my hands of the debts we ran up together?
That's not fair either.
Your not getting the GBP. It's up to you whether you default on your share of the debt you helped create, but Huck is right. If you do Scotland will be a basket case and an international "no go zone" as far in investment is concerned, for years.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks.
As long as acceptable overall terms are negotiated. If not - well see my 'cashflow' post below.
If it's a YES I hope we can agree a way to make Sterlingisation work before the Groat or the Euro come into being for Scotland. But a CU is just not on the table and Sterlingisation will require a significant degree of support / agreement from London. That will not be there if they try to renege on the debt share.
Firstly, well done for taking on all comers virtually alone. I might not agree with very much you are writing, but I'll admire the fact you are doing it.
Secondly, if Scotland defaulted on its debt to rUK; yes I think it would be perfectly fair to seize as many assets as we can get our hands on. However, "fairness" also has bugger all to do with it, it's Realpolitik. If foreign relations were "fair" there's be no Common Agricultural Policy to use one example - but that was the price a desperate Ted Heath had to pay to get us in the EEC in 1973. You will be a foreign country, you will be dealt with accordingly. Now that's not to say anything lurid would be on the cards and the real brake on rUK's excellent hand in any negotiations would be the national need for a stable, friendly neighbour, but frankly Scotland's real room for manoeuvre short term is very very limited on this. Constrained not least by what I firmly believe is a pretty rock solid desire south of the border not to share a currency. "Sovereign will of rUK's people" to borrow a phrase, and as there's about 59M v 5M that's going to have a slanted outcome to say the least.
A person is intending to move to Scotland on 7th September 2014, from which date they expect to be resident in Scotland for at least three years. However, the deadline for registration for the referendum is on 2nd September 2014, on which date our, er, hypothetical voter will still be resident in England.
Is it legal for this person to register to vote before the deadline, before they are resident in Scotland, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the 18th, when they anticipate being resident in Scotland?
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
They may well use sterling for an interim period, although there certainly won't be a currency union.
A person is intending to move to Scotland on 7th September 2014, from which date they expect to be resident in Scotland for at least three years. However, the deadline for registration for the referendum is on 2nd September 2014, on which date our, er, hypothetical voter will still be resident in England.
Is it legal for this person to register to vote before the deadline, before they are resident in Scotland, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the 18th, when they anticipate being resident in Scotland?
Could well be.
Can I vote?
You can vote in the referendum if you are registered to vote in Scotland, and are 16 or over on 18 September 2014 and are:
· a British citizen living in Scotland
· a European Union citizen living in Scotland, or
· a qualifying* Commonwealth citizen living in Scotland
Service personnel posted outside of Scotland along with their spouse or civil partner and any 16 or 17 year old children may also vote in the referendum if they are registered to vote in Scotland.
To vote in this referendum, you must be registered to vote. You must be registered by 2 September 2014.
OK, so you are stupid and unlikely to comprehend. It is the UK central bank belonging to Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and England. Is that simple enough for you. I know you think England = UK = Britain , but when you grow up you will find out that your geography is a bit iffy.
The UK central bank, the clue's in the name. Hint "United".
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
"The story of this summer holiday season is one the media won’t be reporting because it doesn’t fit their narrative about Ed Miliband and Labour – that Labour had a good summer and used what is traditionally the political off-season to consolidate its position.
Traditionally the summer is the “silly season” when the press are short of stories and seize on minor gaffes and squabbles to fill pages. The classic example of this is when John Prescott was left in charge while Tony Blair went on holiday and decided to entertain the nation by introducing the media to a crab in a jar – which he compared to Peter Mandelson. Perhaps because the news was dominated by extremely serious events overseas in the Middle East, or perhaps because Labour has been disciplined, this didn’t happen this year. The nearest we got to a silly season story was Austin Mitchell’s attention-seeking attack on Labour’s efforts to get more women MPs.
Another favourite summer media story is to have a go at politicians going on holiday, as though they are supposed to work 24/7, 52 weeks a year.
The Tories walked right into this elephant trap, with David Cameron appearing to take, and break off from, multiple different summer holidays, all of which involved photo opportunities of varying degrees of awkwardness. The only Tory politician who didn’t seem to be on holiday was the leader of the internal opposition, Boris Johnson, whose future career is as predicated on David Cameron losing the General Election as Ed Miliband’s is.
If any frontbench Labour politicians did take a summer break they were remarkably discrete about it.
Instead we saw the summer break treated as a month long campaign opportunity, with the lack of domestic news being used as an excuse to get worthy Labour messages slipped into the press.
Shadow front benchers have been out and about campaigning in marginal seats, including Jonathan Ashworth and Gloria De Piero going where the voters are in August and campaigning in seaside marginal constituencies (presumably meeting both local electors and visiting holiday-makers).
A glimpse as social media will show that around the country, particularly in marginal seats, August was treated as a normal month for canvassing and other campaigning at a local level, not as a month off, and some CLPs even ran summer festivals of campaigning. This makes a lot of sense – if the are only eight months until the short campaign starts, you can’t afford to waste one of them.
The net result has been extremely positive for Labour."
Mr. Pulpstar, Scotland, if Yes wins, should take its share of liabilities and assets. The currency is neither. It's a system. Individual pounds Scotland has a right to a share of, but the currency itself is backed up by the central bank and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
I'd rather Scotland refuse its 8% or so of debt (vile as that would be) than enter a currency union. Why should English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers prop up the Scottish financial sector if the Scots vote to leave?
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
The compromise is that Scotland get's a share of the UK's debt in exchange for a share of the UK's assets. The currency union doesn't need to come into it. If Scotland refuses to take its share of debts, then the UK can government assets as necessary to pay for it.
Before I disappear, the main thing I took from last night's debate, an Independent Scotland's first act if it doesn't get a currency union will be to default on its liabilities.
As Sir Humphrey would say, that's a very courageous thing to do, and the money markets will reward an Independent Scotland for such courage.
You really are not too bright then. If you had listened he clearly said if you keep all the assets you obviously keep all the liabilities. Basic economics for dummies.
The really basic thing is that for there to be a successful negotiation both sides have to agree. Why would the rUK agree to Scotland walking away from its share of the debt? And how does Scotland prevent the rUK from levying tariffs on the 70% of Scotland's exports that go to the rUK? Sadly for the Scots the divorce negotiations will be very unequal. Scotland has no leverage. The cards are all stacked in rUK's favour.
SO , I agree it will be interesting but I do not think it will be as one sided as you believe. The world will be watching and they will need to be careful they don't spook the markets, it will not be all big tough George giving out orders for sure. There are some big ticket items that will not be easy.
ed into a basket case.
Making up an imaginary completely different situation to try and support your mistaken opinion does not cut it. Answer this, If you take all the assets should you also take the liabilities, YES or NO. Scotland have offered to pay part of the UK's debts if they get a share of the assets, very fair indeed of them given it is the UK's debts. Greedy old UK want help with their debts and want to keep all the assets , is this fair.
You still seem to think that sterling (a monetary instrument of the UK) is an "asset" - amounts of sterling, are, but the instrument itself is not. It is a device of the UK government. A UK you want to leave. Leave the UK, leave its institutions (eg Bank of Engkand) and leave the pound. And if you are seen to renege on your debts you'll pay dearly for that in the money markets and will struggle (to put it mildly) to get into the EU.
The difference between Salmond's bluster and the alleged bluster of those saying no currency union is that the noes have their electorate firmly opposed too - and after September 18, it's what 65 million people think that matters.
OK, so you are stupid and unlikely to comprehend. It is the UK central bank belonging to Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and England. Is that simple enough for you. I know you think England = UK = Britain , but when you grow up you will find out that your geography is a bit iffy.
The UK central bank, the clue's in the name. Hint "United".
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
Very true.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
They may well use sterling for an interim period, although there certainly won't be a currency union.
Those Scotch who imagine there will be a currency union need to look at what the UK's experience and observation of currency unions has actually been over the last 25 years or so.
Lawson's unofficial shadowing of the DMark in 1987-8 triggered a bout of inflation that led to 15% interest rates. Joining the ERM kept those rates needlessly high for needlessly long. Leaving the ERM enabled economic recovery and wrecked the Tories' reputation for economic competence. The euro has gone on to inflict grotesque misery on many European countries.
British aversion to currency unions is thus well-founded and adamantly-held across all three parties, which is why they've categorically ruled it out. The Nits either genuinely don't get this, in which case they are stupid; or they do it, in which case they are lying about it.
OK, so you are stupid and unlikely to comprehend. It is the UK central bank belonging to Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and England. Is that simple enough for you. I know you think England = UK = Britain , but when you grow up you will find out that your geography is a bit iffy.
The UK central bank, the clue's in the name. Hint "United".
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
It's remarkable. Imagine the UK leaving the EU but demanding that it could still use EU institutions because it had contributed to them in the past.
My tuppence worth - the debate last night did no one any credit. From the participants who just shouted at each other, to the broadcaster who got the tone wrong, the questions wrong, and the audience wrong.
TV debates are starting to grate. I'm going to back David Cameron if he scuttles any pre GE debates.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
It does look as if plan B is indeed for Scotland to use the pound (at least for some interim period) without an agreement about a currency union. This will cost Scotland thousands of jobs and a significant share of its higher rate taxpayers as the financial services industry moves en masse to England so they can continue to sell their wares. That was the point Darling failed to make last night and for an MP from Edinburgh it was pretty inexcusable.
I also agree that he needed to focus much more on the positive message of why to vote no. In fairness I was saying this well in advance of the debate. Salmond is a distraction. He is slippery, dishonest and willing to say anything at all to obtain his objective. The temptation to attack him personally and seek to call him on his lies is hard to resist. But this turned Darling into a pointing Mr Angry when he should have been speaking to the Scottish people.
Canvassing again at 5.00pm tonight. It will be interesting to see what sort of feedback I get from the good burghers of Dundee.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
They may well use sterling for an interim period, although there certainly won't be a currency union.
They'll be free to use Sterling, in the same way that a Middle Eastern market trader is free to use the Dollar should he so desire.
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
Very true.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
The government property in Scotland is also officially owned by the United Kingdom, as is the entirety of the UK's precious metal reserves. If Scotland wants to get any of the UK government assets, then they will need to take on a fair share of its liabilities. The rUK will not need to be blackmailed into a currency union to do it.
Even if, for some barmy reason, the rUK did agree to the deal suggesting, what's to stop the rUK government pulling out of the currency union twelve months down the line, after Scotland has already signed up to all the liabilities.
OK, so you are stupid and unlikely to comprehend. It is the UK central bank belonging to Scotland , Northern Ireland , Wales and England. Is that simple enough for you. I know you think England = UK = Britain , but when you grow up you will find out that your geography is a bit iffy.
The UK central bank, the clue's in the name. Hint "United".
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
Very true.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
Indeed - if iScotland were to argue that the UK'd debts belonged to a still-existing entity called the UK, that did not mean themselves - well, the same would be said of the oil and gas, which were partitioned between the UK and other countries in the 1960s.
It's all academic because No will win and it won't even be close. It has though been a very illuminating insight into the sheer nastiness and entitlement of the typical angry Scotch Nit.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
They may well use sterling for an interim period, although there certainly won't be a currency union.
They'll be free to use Sterling, in the same way that a Middle Eastern market trader is free to use the Dollar should he so desire.
Indeed. But the entirety of the financial sector in Scotland would quickly wake up to the fact they don't have a lender of last resort, and would move countries accordingly.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each - that is your "compromise", and there is no justification for throwing a currency union in as an extra sweetener. And sterling is not in any relevant sense an asset.
As far as the outside world is concerned, it has the right to be paid on existing uk debt by the uk which issued it, without having to concern itself with any shenanigans subsequent to the issue of the debt. rUK will pay it in full in order to protect rUK's future credit; if Scotland doesn't respond to a claim for indemnity for 8% of it the consequences for Scotland are obvious.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name..
Correct. UK public debt will remain a liability of the UK. In fact the Treasury have already explicitly made this 100% clear so as not to spook investors, who bought sound AAA or AA+ rated bonds and would be distinctly dischuffed if they suddenly found the obligation to pay their bond had been transferred to a small country with no credit history and with a much less good credit rating.
However, that does not of course mean that Scotland will be able to walk away from its share of the debt. This will become a debt from the new Scottish nation to the UK treasury.
Obviously any arrangement has to be by agreement, but it is self-evident that the UK parliament wouldn't pass a Scottish Independence bill (which is what would be required to create the new Scottish state) unless it was happy with the settlement.
As for Scotland reneging on any such arrangement after independence: a completely mad idea. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, if they want to be an advanced Western economy, let alone apply to join the EU.
On the other hand these were Scotland debts before the divorce.
Put it another way. I marry someone. We run up hundred's of thousands of pounds of debt together buying fast cars, big house's,etc...
Then I walk out of the marriage. I leave my partner with the cars, the house's, etc... (which probably get repossessed in the end anyway) and because I've walked out, I think I can wash my hands of the debts we ran up together?
That's not fair either.
Your not getting the GBP. It's up to you whether you default on your share of the debt you helped create, but Huck is right. If you do Scotland will be a basket case and an international "no go zone" as far in investment is concerned, for years.
Hmmm, poor analogy again and poor interpretation of the outcome. If your partner wants to keep the house , the cars , etc then they should not expect you to be funding them. The grown up thing would be to sell them and share the proceeds or losses equally and go your own way. If your partner could not act like an adult why should you subsidise their lifestyle.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 13h Alistair Darling showed once again tonight that Alex Salmond has absolutely no answers on key questions around independence. #BetterTogether
Ross Hardie @TheRosscoSays 11h @Ed_Miliband my great, great grandad founded the Labour Party & would be embarrassed by the state of the party in Scotland & by this tweet
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
On the other hand these were Scotland debts before the divorce.
Put it another way. I marry someone. We run up hundred's of thousands of pounds of debt together buying fast cars, big house's,etc...
Then I walk out of the marriage. I leave my partner with the cars, the house's, etc... (which probably get repossessed in the end anyway) and because I've walked out, I think I can wash my hands of the debts we ran up together?
That's not fair either.
Your not getting the GBP. It's up to you whether you default on your share of the debt you helped create, but Huck is right. If you do Scotland will be a basket case and an international "no go zone" as far in investment is concerned, for years.
Hmmm, poor analogy again and poor interpretation of the outcome. If your partner wants to keep the house , the cars , etc then they should not expect you to be funding them. The grown up thing would be to sell them and share the proceeds or losses equally and go your own way. If your partner could not act like an adult why should you subsidise their lifestyle.
Right. You get a share of the proceeds from the house, not a right to keep using the house for a share of the time. In the same way, Scotland gets to have a share of the value of the Bank of Englnad, but it doesn't get to keep using the Bank of England.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 26/08/2014 09:44 Story this AM on #Ukip targets is intelligent guesswork based on existing (@Survation) polls. But the party has not yet decided its targets.
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
It's the system the people overwhelming backed three years ago.
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 13h Alistair Darling showed once again tonight that Alex Salmond has absolutely no answers on key questions around independence. #BetterTogether
Ross Hardie @TheRosscoSays 11h @Ed_Miliband my great, great grandad founded the Labour Party & would be embarrassed by the state of the party in Scotland & by this tweet
Rather presumptuous of Ross Hardie to state what his more eminent and less divisive ancestor would have thought. A brat with a famous name but nothing else.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
It does look as if plan B is indeed for Scotland to use the pound (at least for some interim period) without an agreement about a currency union. This will cost Scotland thousands of jobs and a significant share of its higher rate taxpayers as the financial services industry moves en masse to England so they can continue to sell their wares. That was the point Darling failed to make last night and for an MP from Edinburgh it was pretty inexcusable.
As I said earlier today. What surprised me in the plans I've heard is not that companies will be moving south of the border but the number of jobs I assumed would remain in Scotland that will be going with them. I wasn't expecting call centre workers to be affected but across 2 of the 3 companies all their call centres would be moving South..
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
It's the system the people overwhelming backed three years ago.
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
It's the system the people overwhelming backed three years ago.
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
It's the system the people overwhelming backed three years ago.
If the party that's second gets more seats than the party that's first, and the party that's fourth gets more seats than the party that's third, it will show just how bankrupt our electoral system has become.
It's the system the people overwhelming backed three years ago.
In a two-way choice on 40% turnout.
So the turnout was higher than the Euros, that'll do me.
Although it would probably lead to one of the most emotionally charged threads in pb.com history, I would be fascinated by a 'Consequences of a Scottish Yes for an EU referendum thread'.
Would the departure of Scotland from the UK mean that those in rUK feel concerned about the future and thus hug closer to the EU? Or would they take it as an opportunity to start afresh outside of the EU on a new trajectory?
On last night's debate, I find a good night's sleep helps ensure perspective. Yes Salmond won in the sense of dominating discussions and making some sneaky points obscuring things on the currency, but he did not address some fundamental issues. I don't think it will move many votes. It does serve as a reminder though that if it is a 'No', and I hope and think it will be, we have a generational campaign amongst Unionists to re-shape and re-sell the UK for the 21st century.
My tuppence worth - the debate last night did no one any credit. From the participants who just shouted at each other, to the broadcaster who got the tone wrong, the questions wrong, and the audience wrong.
TV debates are starting to grate. I'm going to back David Cameron if he scuttles any pre GE debates.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
It does look as if plan B is indeed for Scotland to use the pound (at least for some interim period) without an agreement about a currency union. This will cost Scotland thousands of jobs and a significant share of its higher rate taxpayers as the financial services industry moves en masse to England so they can continue to sell their wares. That was the point Darling failed to make last night and for an MP from Edinburgh it was pretty inexcusable.
I also agree that he needed to focus much more on the positive message of why to vote no. In fairness I was saying this well in advance of the debate. Salmond is a distraction. He is slippery, dishonest and willing to say anything at all to obtain his objective. The temptation to attack him personally and seek to call him on his lies is hard to resist. But this turned Darling into a pointing Mr Angry when he should have been speaking to the Scottish people.
Canvassing again at 5.00pm tonight. It will be interesting to see what sort of feedback I get from the good burghers of Dundee.
I feel for you DavidL. Salmond knows exactly what he's doing. And he is doing it very well. He only has three more weeks to hold the line, then it's job done and game over. Across the UK the Westminster machine is loathed and distrusted. The Scots get to do something about it. Observing them discover they have been sold a pup will be no consolation to those of us who have lost our country. But for you it will be even worse, because you'll be materially affected too. It's almost too painful to watch.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Scotland would not be "taking on" part of the UK's debt, but agreeing to fund a share of the the cost of servicing and repaying it (at the Treasury's actual cost?) - as the Treasury has confirmed, legal responsibility for the debt has to remain with the rUK.
Of course, all part of the debt could be legally shared out if rUK was willing to concede that an independent Scotland would be a successor state to the present UK....
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
The key argument no one has picked apart Salmond properly on yet is that (in practice) "currency union = political union", as the people in the Euro are painfully learning.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
Would the departure of Scotland from the UK mean that those in rUK feel concerned about the future and thus hug closer to the EU? Or would they take it as an opportunity to start afresh outside of the EU on a new trajectory?
My feeling on this is that an assertion of Scottish Nationalism would find its counterpart in a strengthening of English Nationalism which would make an EU exit more likely.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
Not sure what you mean.
Scotland can have it's own currency and call it the Pound if it wants. Everyone is agreed about that.
What Scotland can't have is a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use the GBP backed by the Bank of England.
All the party leaders have made it quite clear that's a non starter.
Opinion polls quite clearly show that the British people have no intention of entering into a currency union with Scotland so even if it turned out a Prime Minister or Parliament wanted to enter into a currency union with Scotland, the rest of the UK would obviously veto the idea in a referendum. Realistically it will never come to this because Westminster will know they can't get consent from the public.
A currency union with the UK and an independent Scotland is not happening.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
Unfortunately for Prof Tomkins's argument, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts which embodied the above principles has not entered into force as it needed 15 states to ratify it and only 7 of the original 14 signatories have done so.
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
Indeed. He really wants DevoMax. Always has.
Which is why he wanted a 2 question referendum.....but lost that one......we'll see if he loses his second one.....
Spoke with a number of people this morning following the debate and the main comment was not who won but the embarrassment felt. This was not the kind welcoming Scotland we pride ourselves on but a petty bitter argumentative country. If Independence comes then we can look forward to this for years to come.
So many key questions were not asked and so few answers given. Darling looked nervous and missed many good opportunities. The crowd was aggressive and the lady who laid into Darling shows just why so many good people will quit Scotland if independence comes.
The event certainly did not convince me or anyone at our company to switch votes. I think the battle lines have been set and today the voting starts. I predict turnout will be high which will help the no campaign.
LOL, Tory shocked, shocked I tell you , those damn peasants did not tug their forelocks. You are obviously a joke astroturfer.
It may not be much Malcolm but your arrogance has raised me to action. I sent a round email to all our staff at the company today and after a discussion we have decided to block vote No. This may only be 40 votes but as they say every vote counts. By the way my dad was a Lib Dem Councillor in Aberdeen when I was young and my allegiance has remained.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
Unfortunately for Prof Tomkins's argument, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts which embodied the above principles has not entered into force as it needed 15 states to ratify it and only 7 of the original 14 signatories have done so.
Tonnes of legal argument ahead I forsee.
Champers all round for DLA Piper, Linklaters & Allen & Overbury.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
Tomkins is a unionist patsy , what else would you expect him to say. He supports robbing Scotland of its rightful share of assets, that is the mark of the man.
A person is intending to move to Scotland on 7th September 2014, from which date they expect to be resident in Scotland for at least three years. However, the deadline for registration for the referendum is on 2nd September 2014, on which date our, er, hypothetical voter will still be resident in England.
Is it legal for this person to register to vote before the deadline, before they are resident in Scotland, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the 18th, when they anticipate being resident in Scotland?
No, they would be lying on their application as they need to be resident by the closing date for applications.
UK Gov't will have first dibs on which law firms they want in their corner, if there is a conflict on party representation (Say both want Linklaters or some such) then the bigger corporation/gov't/whatever will usually win.
Rather presumptuous of Ross Hardie to state what his more eminent and less divisive ancestor would have thought. A brat with a famous name but nothing else.
Yes, it's like the people who say "The people who died in the D-Day landings would turn over in their graves if they realised they'd fought for [some policy I don't agree with]" - it's ridiculous to lay unevidenced claim to support from the dead.
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
Tomkins is a unionist patsy , what else would you expect him to say. He supports robbing Scotland of its rightful share of assets, that is the mark of the man.
I expect that's why he's a Professor at Glasgow University....
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dead wrong, and that is the mistake malcolm is making. A currency union is about future relations. Existing assets and liabilities will be dealt with on the basis that Scotland is allocated 8% of each
Actually looks like we are both wrong on the debt/asset point:
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas Professor Adam Tomkins But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
Unfortunately for Prof Tomkins's argument, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts which embodied the above principles has not entered into force as it needed 15 states to ratify it and only 7 of the original 14 signatories have done so.
Do you think it will much bother the negotiator with 92 cards to the other parties 8?
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
Indeed. He really wants DevoMax. Always has.
But those petty unionists gambled the house on all or nothing , not a good move.
A person is intending to move to Scotland on 7th September 2014, from which date they expect to be resident in Scotland for at least three years. However, the deadline for registration for the referendum is on 2nd September 2014, on which date our, er, hypothetical voter will still be resident in England.
Is it legal for this person to register to vote before the deadline, before they are resident in Scotland, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the 18th, when they anticipate being resident in Scotland?
No, they would be lying on their application as they need to be resident by the closing date for applications.
You mean like Alan Cumming you assured us would get the vote?
Spoke with a number of people this morning following the debate and the main comment was not who won but the embarrassment felt. This was not the kind welcoming Scotland we pride ourselves on but a petty bitter argumentative country. If Independence comes then we can look forward to this for years to come.
So many key questions were not asked and so few answers given. Darling looked nervous and missed many good opportunities. The crowd was aggressive and the lady who laid into Darling shows just why so many good people will quit Scotland if independence comes.
The event certainly did not convince me or anyone at our company to switch votes. I think the battle lines have been set and today the voting starts. I predict turnout will be high which will help the no campaign.
LOL, Tory shocked, shocked I tell you , those damn peasants did not tug their forelocks. You are obviously a joke astroturfer.
It may not be much Malcolm but your arrogance has raised me to action. I sent a round email to all our staff at the company today and after a discussion we have decided to block vote No. This may only be 40 votes but as they say every vote counts. By the way my dad was a Lib Dem Councillor in Aberdeen when I was young and my allegiance has remained.
You scared your 40 employees with threats to tell you they were voting NO. You sound as if you could not run a bath , never mind a business. Those 40 employees will be thinking , what an arsehole telling me how I should vote. Dear Dear , take a long hard look in the mirror you stupid twunt. How fitting that you are a duplitious lying Lib Demmer, sell your soul for a penny.
And post independence Scotland *will* use sterling whatever Better Off Together thinks. Darling may have got his hit in in debate 1, but focusing on that last night was a mistake. He should have gone for the hearts of those thinking of voting Yes instead.
Not sure what you mean.
Scotland can have it's own currency and call it the Pound if it wants. Everyone is agreed about that.
What Scotland can't have is a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use the GBP backed by the Bank of England.
All the party leaders have made it quite clear that's a non starter.
Opinion polls quite clearly show that the British people have no intention of entering into a currency union with Scotland so even if it turned out a Prime Minister or Parliament wanted to enter into a currency union with Scotland, the rest of the UK would obviously veto the idea in a referendum. Realistically it will never come to this because Westminster will know they can't get consent from the public.
A currency union with the UK and an independent Scotland is not happening.
Calm down George, you know you are just fibbing and Dave will instruct you accordingly once he has made the u-turn.
Spoke with a number of people this morning following the debate and the main comment was not who won but the embarrassment felt. This was not the kind welcoming Scotland we pride ourselves on but a petty bitter argumentative country. If Independence comes then we can look forward to this for years to come.
So many key questions were not asked and so few answers given. Darling looked nervous and missed many good opportunities. The crowd was aggressive and the lady who laid into Darling shows just why so many good people will quit Scotland if independence comes.
The event certainly did not convince me or anyone at our company to switch votes. I think the battle lines have been set and today the voting starts. I predict turnout will be high which will help the no campaign.
LOL, Tory shocked, shocked I tell you , those damn peasants did not tug their forelocks. You are obviously a joke astroturfer.
It may not be much Malcolm but your arrogance has raised me to action. I sent a round email to all our staff at the company today and after a discussion we have decided to block vote No. This may only be 40 votes but as they say every vote counts. By the way my dad was a Lib Dem Councillor in Aberdeen when I was young and my allegiance has remained.
You scared your 40 employees with threats to tell you they were voting NO. You sound as if you could not run a bath , never mind a business. Those 40 employees will be thinking , what an arsehole telling me how I should vote. Dear Dear , take a long hard look in the mirror you stupid twunt. How fitting that you are a duplitious lying Lib Demmer, sell your soul for a penny.
If you're trying to mount a charm offensive, you have definitely got 50% of it cracked.
Scotland can have it's own currency and call it the Pound if it wants. Everyone is agreed about that.
What Scotland can't have is a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use the GBP backed by the Bank of England.
It can. And it will, should the referendum be won by Yes.
What the rest of the UK electorate thinks is irrelevant.
I'm not saying this is the best position to be in - the nationalists ought to have been planning to issue its own currency given the disasters we're still witnessing in the eurozone.
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
The key argument no one has picked apart Salmond properly on yet is that (in practice) "currency union = political union", as the people in the Euro are painfully learning.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
I don't think Darling made that clear enough.
Ha Ha Ha , back to first year politics , lesson 1 page 1
Rape, slavery, beheadings, appalling and sadistic cruelty for the sake of it, bloodcurdling threats to wipe out all of the west - and this is the same as silly lefties fighting Franco?
"So why is it that just because some Muslims, youngsters, wrongly go out to fight a cause that they think is the right cause, like for example we had in Franco's fascism [sic] we had young men in this country who went there to fight against him"
The Conservatives should be ALL OVER THIS. Miliband should be forced to disown her, and throw her out of the party.
GET ON THE CASE, USELESS TORIES. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.
Nothing will happen, nothing at all... it's always the same, and utter pathetic.
Rape, slavery, beheadings, appalling and sadistic cruelty for the sake of it, bloodcurdling threats to wipe out all of the west - and this is the same as silly lefties fighting Franco?
"So why is it that just because some Muslims, youngsters, wrongly go out to fight a cause that they think is the right cause, like for example we had in Franco's fascism [sic] we had young men in this country who went there to fight against him"
The Conservatives should be ALL OVER THIS. Miliband should be forced to disown her, and throw her out of the party.
GET ON THE CASE, USELESS TORIES. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.
Her point is that people should not be vilifying all muslims for the actions of a tiny minority. She probably had people who call for the internment without trial of muslim men in mind.
Was just chatting with a friend who lives in Glasgow. He used to think a clear NO. Now thinks it is close - but still NO. He's very clear though that this whole thing has absolutely split the country in two - and not in a good way. 'Half the country's going to be severely pissed off in a month'.
So...we came up with a great idea: Literally split Scotland in half. The southern half gets to stay in the UK, the northern half gets their lefty bankruptopia. What's not to like?
Rape, slavery, beheadings, appalling and sadistic cruelty for the sake of it, bloodcurdling threats to wipe out all of the west - and this is the same as silly lefties fighting Franco?
"So why is it that just because some Muslims, youngsters, wrongly go out to fight a cause that they think is the right cause, like for example we had in Franco's fascism [sic] we had young men in this country who went there to fight against him"
The Conservatives should be ALL OVER THIS. Miliband should be forced to disown her, and throw her out of the party.
GET ON THE CASE, USELESS TORIES. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK.
Rather presumptuous of Ross Hardie to state what his more eminent and less divisive ancestor would have thought. A brat with a famous name but nothing else.
Yes, it's like the people who say "The people who died in the D-Day landings would turn over in their graves if they realised they'd fought for [some policy I don't agree with]" - it's ridiculous to lay unevidenced claim to support from the dead.
This whole 'turning in graves' thing was found to be total hogwash when King Richard 111's grave was found in a car park . If Richard did not turn in his grave after that upstart's son Henry 8th changed the country's religion then I am afraid nobody turns in their grave
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
The key argument no one has picked apart Salmond properly on yet is that (in practice) "currency union = political union", as the people in the Euro are painfully learning.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
I don't think Darling made that clear enough.
Monarchs reign. Darling got a doing as he was not good enough. Only losers blame the venue, the referee , etc.
Scotland can have it's own currency and call it the Pound if it wants. Everyone is agreed about that.
What Scotland can't have is a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use the GBP backed by the Bank of England.
It can. And it will, should the referendum be won by Yes.
What the rest of the UK electorate thinks is irrelevant.
Not to the politicians who want to get elected to Westminster.
It will be a very "brave" politician who stands up and says "we lied, yes you should underwrite the risks of the banks of the country that has just rejected us"
Was just chatting with a friend who lives in Glasgow. He used to think a clear NO. Now thinks it is close - but still NO. He's very clear though that this whole thing has absolutely split the country in two - and not in a good way. 'Half the country's going to be severely pissed off in a month'.
So...we came up with a great idea: Literally split Scotland in half. The southern half gets to stay in the UK, the northern half gets their lefty bankruptopia. What's not to like?
The fact that most Scots are not in the N or the S, but the middle. For one thing.
''Another ISIS lover, this time another Labour MP - who would have guessed.''
The shape of things to come?
Labour may have a difficult time keeping both the muslim vote and the white working class vote onside.
I really loathe the assumption that to keep the Muslim vote you have to be in favour of - or at least not critical of - ISIS.That is to fall into the ISIS way of thinking - that they represent all Muslims round the world and are the true face of Islam. I expect most Muslims here feel the same way.
Of course EdM should slap down this silly woman and the other who was urging the trashing of stores stocking Jewish goods. But Labour will find itself in a dangerous cul de sac if it holds back on criticism of or action against ISIS for fear of alienating Muslim voters. Does it really want to be seen as the pro-ISIS party?
Just to be clear, I don't think that it is. But it does need to be more proactive in (a) criticising those of its MPs and supporters who come out with such grotesque statements; and (b) making it clear that being attractive to Muslim voters does NOT mean being supportive of or turning a blind eye to barbarism committed by Muslims here or abroad.
Was just chatting with a friend who lives in Glasgow. He used to think a clear NO. Now thinks it is close - but still NO. He's very clear though that this whole thing has absolutely split the country in two - and not in a good way. 'Half the country's going to be severely pissed off in a month'.
So...we came up with a great idea: Literally split Scotland in half. The southern half gets to stay in the UK, the northern half gets their lefty bankruptopia. What's not to like?
The fact that most Scots are not in the N or the S, but the middle. For one thing.
Yes, it looks like it may be the western half of the central belt that swings it - the eastern half and much of the rest (except Dundee) I'd keep.....
The moderator failed to reign in the debate properly last night, and allowed the one who shouted loudest (Salmond) to win. If that's what political debates are going to be like, then there is little point in them.
The key argument no one has picked apart Salmond properly on yet is that (in practice) "currency union = political union", as the people in the Euro are painfully learning.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
I don't think Darling made that clear enough.
Ha Ha Ha , back to first year politics , lesson 1 page 1
Was just chatting with a friend who lives in Glasgow. He used to think a clear NO. Now thinks it is close - but still NO. He's very clear though that this whole thing has absolutely split the country in two - and not in a good way. 'Half the country's going to be severely pissed off in a month'.
So...we came up with a great idea: Literally split Scotland in half. The southern half gets to stay in the UK, the northern half gets their lefty bankruptopia. What's not to like?
The fact that most Scots are not in the N or the S, but the middle. For one thing.
Yes driving the Bankruptopia/ UK border right through the middle of the populated bit was designed to minimise the necessary personal relocations. And if you were to make pro UK/pro independence a geographical thing from south to north we could all enjoy the spectacle of Malcolm manning a rock just north of John O Groats and ranting at the seagulls!
Comments
PS, it is fun as well, they are easy taken in.
On the other hand these were Scotland debts before the divorce.
Put it another way. I marry someone. We run up hundred's of thousands of pounds of debt together buying fast cars, big house's,etc...
Then I walk out of the marriage. I leave my partner with the cars, the house's, etc... (which probably get repossessed in the end anyway) and because I've walked out, I think I can wash my hands of the debts we ran up together?
That's not fair either.
Your not getting the GBP. It's up to you whether you default on your share of the debt you helped create, but Huck is right. If you do Scotland will be a basket case and an international "no go zone" as far in investment is concerned, for years.
If it's a YES I hope we can agree a way to make Sterlingisation work before the Groat or the Euro come into being for Scotland. But a CU is just not on the table and Sterlingisation will require a significant degree of support / agreement from London. That will not be there if they try to renege on the debt share.
Firstly, well done for taking on all comers virtually alone. I might not agree with very much you are writing, but I'll admire the fact you are doing it.
Secondly, if Scotland defaulted on its debt to rUK; yes I think it would be perfectly fair to seize as many assets as we can get our hands on. However, "fairness" also has bugger all to do with it, it's Realpolitik. If foreign relations were "fair" there's be no Common Agricultural Policy to use one example - but that was the price a desperate Ted Heath had to pay to get us in the EEC in 1973. You will be a foreign country, you will be dealt with accordingly. Now that's not to say anything lurid would be on the cards and the real brake on rUK's excellent hand in any negotiations would be the national need for a stable, friendly neighbour, but frankly Scotland's real room for manoeuvre short term is very very limited on this. Constrained not least by what I firmly believe is a pretty rock solid desire south of the border not to share a currency. "Sovereign will of rUK's people" to borrow a phrase, and as there's about 59M v 5M that's going to have a slanted outcome to say the least.
Debates are a good idea, The "game show" versions we currently have are a waste of time.
Populus @PopulusPolls · 29s
Latest Populus VI: Lab 38 (-1), Con 32 (-1), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 15 (+4), Oth 7 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140826
A person is intending to move to Scotland on 7th September 2014, from which date they expect to be resident in Scotland for at least three years. However, the deadline for registration for the referendum is on 2nd September 2014, on which date our, er, hypothetical voter will still be resident in England.
Is it legal for this person to register to vote before the deadline, before they are resident in Scotland, in order to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the 18th, when they anticipate being resident in Scotland?
Sterling is the UK's currency, upon independence Scotland will cease to be part of the UK so it is up to the UK to decide whether or not it wants a "currency union" with Scotland.
BUT
The UK's debt is the UK's debt, Scotland will cease to own this debt upon independence. International investors will not however be prepared to take an 8% haircut on their gilts, that would be a default...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scotland taking on part of the UK's debt for a currency union would seem a sensible compromise, amongst other compromises of course.
It seems to my mind that BOTH sides in this debate are trying to have their cake and eat it.
Can I vote?
You can vote in the referendum if you are registered to vote in Scotland, and are 16 or over on 18 September 2014 and are:
· a British citizen living in Scotland
· a European Union citizen living in Scotland, or
· a qualifying* Commonwealth citizen living in Scotland
Service personnel posted outside of Scotland along with their spouse or civil partner and any 16 or 17 year old children may also vote in the referendum if they are registered to vote in Scotland.
To vote in this referendum, you must be registered to vote. You must be registered by 2 September 2014.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/the_independence_referendum/guide_to_voting.aspx
Piss poor for the Tories
I can't work out if the nats are knowingly misusing language to defend what they know is an indefensible position, or they actually believe the crap Salmond is talking on this issue. They don't get a voting share in the Bank of England post-independence any more than they get a voting share in a shared ministry of defence. When you leave a state to form a new one, you don't get any input into your old state's institutions. That's what leaving means.
"The story of this summer holiday season is one the media won’t be reporting because it doesn’t fit their narrative about Ed Miliband and Labour – that Labour had a good summer and used what is traditionally the political off-season to consolidate its position.
Traditionally the summer is the “silly season” when the press are short of stories and seize on minor gaffes and squabbles to fill pages. The classic example of this is when John Prescott was left in charge while Tony Blair went on holiday and decided to entertain the nation by introducing the media to a crab in a jar – which he compared to Peter Mandelson. Perhaps because the news was dominated by extremely serious events overseas in the Middle East, or perhaps because Labour has been disciplined, this didn’t happen this year. The nearest we got to a silly season story was Austin Mitchell’s attention-seeking attack on Labour’s efforts to get more women MPs.
Another favourite summer media story is to have a go at politicians going on holiday, as though they are supposed to work 24/7, 52 weeks a year.
The Tories walked right into this elephant trap, with David Cameron appearing to take, and break off from, multiple different summer holidays, all of which involved photo opportunities of varying degrees of awkwardness. The only Tory politician who didn’t seem to be on holiday was the leader of the internal opposition, Boris Johnson, whose future career is as predicated on David Cameron losing the General Election as Ed Miliband’s is.
If any frontbench Labour politicians did take a summer break they were remarkably discrete about it.
Instead we saw the summer break treated as a month long campaign opportunity, with the lack of domestic news being used as an excuse to get worthy Labour messages slipped into the press.
Shadow front benchers have been out and about campaigning in marginal seats, including Jonathan Ashworth and Gloria De Piero going where the voters are in August and campaigning in seaside marginal constituencies (presumably meeting both local electors and visiting holiday-makers).
A glimpse as social media will show that around the country, particularly in marginal seats, August was treated as a normal month for canvassing and other campaigning at a local level, not as a month off, and some CLPs even ran summer festivals of campaigning. This makes a lot of sense – if the are only eight months until the short campaign starts, you can’t afford to waste one of them.
The net result has been extremely positive for Labour."
I'd rather Scotland refuse its 8% or so of debt (vile as that would be) than enter a currency union. Why should English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers prop up the Scottish financial sector if the Scots vote to leave?
The difference between Salmond's bluster and the alleged bluster of those saying no currency union is that the noes have their electorate firmly opposed too - and after September 18, it's what 65 million people think that matters.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
Lawson's unofficial shadowing of the DMark in 1987-8 triggered a bout of inflation that led to 15% interest rates. Joining the ERM kept those rates needlessly high for needlessly long. Leaving the ERM enabled economic recovery and wrecked the Tories' reputation for economic competence. The euro has gone on to inflict grotesque misery on many European countries.
British aversion to currency unions is thus well-founded and adamantly-held across all three parties, which is why they've categorically ruled it out. The Nits either genuinely don't get this, in which case they are stupid; or they do it, in which case they are lying about it.
It's remarkable. Imagine the UK leaving the EU but demanding that it could still use EU institutions because it had contributed to them in the past.
I also agree that he needed to focus much more on the positive message of why to vote no. In fairness I was saying this well in advance of the debate. Salmond is a distraction. He is slippery, dishonest and willing to say anything at all to obtain his objective. The temptation to attack him personally and seek to call him on his lies is hard to resist. But this turned Darling into a pointing Mr Angry when he should have been speaking to the Scottish people.
Canvassing again at 5.00pm tonight. It will be interesting to see what sort of feedback I get from the good burghers of Dundee.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
The government property in Scotland is also officially owned by the United Kingdom, as is the entirety of the UK's precious metal reserves. If Scotland wants to get any of the UK government assets, then they will need to take on a fair share of its liabilities. The rUK will not need to be blackmailed into a currency union to do it.
Even if, for some barmy reason, the rUK did agree to the deal suggesting, what's to stop the rUK government pulling out of the currency union twelve months down the line, after Scotland has already signed up to all the liabilities.
On the flip side the instruments of debt issued in the UK, gilts are all issued by "The Bank of England"...
Scotland/Edinburgh so far as I know legally has no sovereign debt in it's name.
The flip-flip legal side to this are the oilfields in the North Sea.
Indeed - if iScotland were to argue that the UK'd debts belonged to a still-existing entity called the UK, that did not mean themselves - well, the same would be said of the oil and gas, which were partitioned between the UK and other countries in the 1960s.
It's all academic because No will win and it won't even be close. It has though been a very illuminating insight into the sheer nastiness and entitlement of the typical angry Scotch Nit.
As far as the outside world is concerned, it has the right to be paid on existing uk debt by the uk which issued it, without having to concern itself with any shenanigans subsequent to the issue of the debt. rUK will pay it in full in order to protect rUK's future credit; if Scotland doesn't respond to a claim for indemnity for 8% of it the consequences for Scotland are obvious.
However, that does not of course mean that Scotland will be able to walk away from its share of the debt. This will become a debt from the new Scottish nation to the UK treasury.
Obviously any arrangement has to be by agreement, but it is self-evident that the UK parliament wouldn't pass a Scottish Independence bill (which is what would be required to create the new Scottish state) unless it was happy with the settlement.
As for Scotland reneging on any such arrangement after independence: a completely mad idea. Not a snowflake's chance in hell, if they want to be an advanced Western economy, let alone apply to join the EU.
What's going to happen if Labour and the Conservatives are neck-and-neck in May?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/26/your-do-it-yourself-election-prediction-kit/
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 13h
Alistair Darling showed once again tonight that Alex Salmond has absolutely no answers on key questions around independence. #BetterTogether
Ross Hardie @TheRosscoSays 11h
@Ed_Miliband my great, great grandad founded the Labour Party & would be embarrassed by the state of the party in Scotland & by this tweet
Professor Adam Tomkins, the John Millar Professor of Public Law at the University of Glasgow, said a separate Scotland would only keep UK assets located in Scotland.
Scotland would have no claim on a share of assets like military bases and embassies outside its territory.
He said Scotland would be entitled to a share of all liquid assets, as well as debt.
First Minister Alex Salmond has claimed Scotland would be due an 8.5 per cent share of all UK assets, including the contents of the British Museum.
Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas
Professor Adam Tomkins
But Professor Tomkins said: “The UK’s fixed property in Scotland would become the property of the new Scottish state. Conversely, Scotland would have no claim on the UK’s fixed property in the rest of the UK or overseas.
“International law provides that State property would remain the property of the continuator State (the UK) unless it was located in the territory of the new State (Scotland).
“The consequence of this is that institutions of the United Kingdom would automatically become institutions of the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of Scottish independence.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/457842/Breakaway-Scottish-state-could-not-claim-a-cut-of-UK-assets
Bit lawyerish.
26/08/2014 09:44
Story this AM on #Ukip targets is intelligent guesswork based on existing (@Survation) polls. But the party has not yet decided its targets.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734238/Block-taxman-s-raid-bank-accounts-New-powers-return-cash-mattress-warn-experts.html
More cracking publicity for our carbon monoxide chancellor.
His final paragraph (or the final one you quote) looks a bit non-sequiturish to me.
Nothing safe from the Gov't !
Alex Salmond compared to a Die Hard villain.
Can you guess which one? Features one scary ass photoshop
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100284048/scottish-independence-dont-believe-alex-salmonds-nationalist-campaign-is-dead-until-you-see-the-corpse/
Thus Salmon was able to win a debate but not address the independence issues.
Would the departure of Scotland from the UK mean that those in rUK feel concerned about the future and thus hug closer to the EU? Or would they take it as an opportunity to start afresh outside of the EU on a new trajectory?
On last night's debate, I find a good night's sleep helps ensure perspective. Yes Salmond won in the sense of dominating discussions and making some sneaky points obscuring things on the currency, but he did not address some fundamental issues. I don't think it will move many votes. It does serve as a reminder though that if it is a 'No', and I hope and think it will be, we have a generational campaign amongst Unionists to re-shape and re-sell the UK for the 21st century.
Of course, all part of the debt could be legally shared out if rUK was willing to concede that an independent Scotland would be a successor state to the present UK....
The key argument no one has picked apart Salmond properly on yet is that (in practice) "currency union = political union", as the people in the Euro are painfully learning.
If Salmond wants a currency union then he wants a political union, so he doesn't want independence at all really.
I don't think Darling made that clear enough.
' Salmond knows exactly what he's doing. And he is doing it very well.'
Not according to the polls.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/26/Sick-Yasmin-Qureshi-On-IDF-and-ISSI/
Scotland can have it's own currency and call it the Pound if it wants. Everyone is agreed about that.
What Scotland can't have is a currency union with the rest of the UK and continue to use the GBP backed by the Bank of England.
All the party leaders have made it quite clear that's a non starter.
Opinion polls quite clearly show that the British people have no intention of entering into a currency union with Scotland so even if it turned out a Prime Minister or Parliament wanted to enter into a currency union with Scotland, the rest of the UK would obviously veto the idea in a referendum. Realistically it will never come to this because Westminster will know they can't get consent from the public.
A currency union with the UK and an independent Scotland is not happening.
The shape of things to come?
Labour may have a difficult time keeping both the muslim vote and the white working class vote onside.
It may not be much Malcolm but your arrogance has raised me to action. I sent a round email to all our staff at the company today and after a discussion we have decided to block vote No. This may only be 40 votes but as they say every vote counts. By the way my dad was a Lib Dem Councillor in Aberdeen when I was young and my allegiance has remained.
Champers all round for DLA Piper, Linklaters & Allen & Overbury.
Dear Dear , take a long hard look in the mirror you stupid twunt. How fitting that you are a duplitious lying Lib Demmer, sell your soul for a penny.
Dave's on holiday while the world burns, mate. Chillax!
What the rest of the UK electorate thinks is irrelevant.
I'm not saying this is the best position to be in - the nationalists ought to have been planning to issue its own currency given the disasters we're still witnessing in the eurozone.
So...we came up with a great idea: Literally split Scotland in half. The southern half gets to stay in the UK, the northern half gets their lefty bankruptopia. What's not to like?
You have lambasted many on this site for not knowing Scottish politics.
Comments like this show you to be entirely ignorant of English politics.
Yasmin Qureshi @YasminQureshiMP · Aug 24
For avoidance of doubt Isis is evil. Not Islamic in any way form or shape.
It will be a very "brave" politician who stands up and says "we lied, yes you should underwrite the risks of the banks of the country that has just rejected us"
Mr Slack, its hard to tell which is more depressing - the events of this summer or our leaders' reactions to them.
Of course EdM should slap down this silly woman and the other who was urging the trashing of stores stocking Jewish goods. But Labour will find itself in a dangerous cul de sac if it holds back on criticism of or action against ISIS for fear of alienating Muslim voters. Does it really want to be seen as the pro-ISIS party?
Just to be clear, I don't think that it is. But it does need to be more proactive in (a) criticising those of its MPs and supporters who come out with such grotesque statements; and (b) making it clear that being attractive to Muslim voters does NOT mean being supportive of or turning a blind eye to barbarism committed by Muslims here or abroad.
Why David Cameron has kicked John Bercow in the groin
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100284062/why-david-cameron-has-kicked-john-bercow-in-the-groin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Damn the telegraph, damn you to hell, it was a metaphorical kick