The Dirty Independence Question

[Buff124]

and Baz, don't listen to Neil. We're just 2 blokes arguing about something that hasen't happened.

[eFestivals]

If I'm figuring this out correctly, then the Scottish Government believe..

I was more after what you believe is the case.

.... a currency union is the fairest and best option.

And they're allowed to conclude that for Scotland.

But on what basis do they think it "fair"?

And why do they think that it's right and proper to issue threats around what they'd like ("if you don't give us CU, we'll welch on our part of the shared debt").

They've been advised this by their economic advisors, but who knows whether their economists are as good as the UK Government's ? Its all back to opinions an assertations, so no change there.

That tho is a purely economic perspective. Not a political one (is it acceptable to parties, politicians and the public), nor a "we have a right" one.

And it's only an economic perspective from Scotland's position. The view from rUK has good reasons to be different, because the rUK's interests are different to Scotland's.

But as you say, these are all economic opinions at the end of the day, and there's no mainstream economists left with any real shred of credibility left anyway after 2007/8. They closed ranks to protect their own positions, and by doing so kept the economists with a good record of predictions on the outside.

It's not the economic opinions I'm after anyway, it's why iScotland believes it has a right to demand CU with a foreign sovereign state and to issue threats if it doesn't get it.

[eFestivals]

and Baz, don't listen to Neil. We're just 2 blokes arguing about something that hasen't happened.

when you've been around here a little longer and got to know Barry better, you'll regret that post.

[eFestivals]

wow, gratuitous and tenuously linked music opportunity ! thanks !

Roddy Frame once claims to have taken huge amounts of LSD.

I'd say his music proves that as a lie.

[kaosmark2]

when you've been around here a little longer and got to know Barry better, you'll regret that post.

I was fairly nice and polite to Barry for about 12 months after I resumed posting in the discussions section regularly. I'm kind of amazed I managed to last that long now

[philipsteak]

Buff

I though Barry was trying to resurect a Victorian insult.

'You sir are talking absolute Buff'

[lost]

I believe there were two north sea oil windfall taxes in 2003 and 2005 under a certain visually impaired politician from Dumfermline.

[Buff124]

And why do they think that it's right and proper to issue threats around what they'd like ("if you don't give us CU, we'll welch on our part of the shared debt").

Again, it appears to be a case of them believing their advisors, in this case international law. Here's one of them, Prof Christine Bell of Edinburgh Uni

Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’. It can be argued that international law does, however, contemplate that on dividing, the two resulting states share out assets and liabilities equitably. However, it has no hard and fast formula for what constitutes equitable division. Tangible natural assets such as oil go with the territory they are in. But other matters – in particular debt - must be negotiated. What is equitable will depend on the overall result and context of the negotiation.

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

Edited March 6, 2014 by Buff124

[eFestivals]

I expect you'll come back with a big list of all the beneficial policies.

There doesn't need to be a big list, there just needs to be a list with a very big item on it.

Currency.

Salmond likes to suggest that the UK has nothing to offer Scotland.

Either he's bullshitting the Scottish people because he knows that the UK has a currency that Scotland desperately wants to be able to use as it currently does but he needs to pretend otherwise to mug his own voters, or he is able to give justification for why Scotland has an unshakable right in international law to that CU.

Reading newspaper comment sections has me in stitches. One moment it's all about "what does the union offer us?" and the next moment it's all about threats to not pay Scotland's part of the shared debt if what the union is able to offer Scotland isn't given freely to an independent Scotland.

[Buff124]

I believe there were two north sea oil windfall taxes in 2003 and 2005 under a certain visually impaired politician from Dumfermline.

Yep, forgot about them. Just what we needed up here

[Buff124]

The knee jerk inclusion of 'Salmond' in comments arguably belittles the contribution made to Scottish civic life by 1000s of ordinary people of all political hues (except blue of course )

[Buff124]

I though Barry was trying to resurect a Victorian insult.

'You sir are talking absolute Buff'

Yeah, it was a hastily chosen username. Short for Buffalo, as according to Chinese philosophy I was born in the Year of the Ox (element Metal).

Very stubborn, never change mind.

[eFestivals]

Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money.

That's absolutely true.

But it's also absolutely true that Scotland is a part of UK, and therefore itself is morally liable for its share of the debt (whatever that might be; the actual amount of debt is not of importance to this moral principle).

Salmond has made speeches in the past accepting Scotland's share of that debt, btw (in case that's passed you by).

Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’.

In legal terms it cannot. In effect onto Scotland, it certainly can.

The people who lent the including-Scotland-UK money will not view iScotland as a good borrower who will repay the debts it's responsible for if it does not accept its share of all-UK debt.

In all effects it will be like Scotland has defaulted (tho perhaps not to the same extent as a true defaulter). It will find it hard (not impossible; harder than it would otherwise be) to borrow, and it will pay a big premium to borrow.

There is no law which can take Scotland past that default-in-effect. It is an issue for the money markets, not law.

It can be argued that international law does, however, contemplate that on dividing, the two resulting states share out assets and liabilities equitably.

Absolutely. But only things which are possible to share out in that way can be shared out in that way.

It's not possible, for example, for iScotland to 'share' rUK's Foreign Office (FO) policies unless rUK and iScotland are able to agree a working method for how to do that.

iScotland can have a share of FO staff, buildings, even 'official secrets' if that's how it goes. But it cannot share the rUk's foreign policy (unless it creates an identical one implemented by itself for it's new sovereign state).

But other matters – in particular debt - must be negotiated.

The things of a sovereign state that cannot be shared (see the Foreign Office example above) cannot be a part of that negotiation.

Those 'sovereign things' are what an iScotland leaves behind by its independence, to instead create its own.

---

You're still a mile away from saying what a currency is and how iScotland gets a right in international law to it.

You can't answer the 2nd part without first addressing what a currency actually is, BTW - this is what I'm trying to push you into saying, what a currency is. It's what Salmond will not answer, because he knows he loses if he does.

I'd much prefer your own view than you parrot some opinions of others as you've posted so far, but I'll accept the opinions of those others if that's all you'll do.

I'm not trying to trap you into anything btw. I'm trying to lead you to a point where you're able to understand why Salmond is talking crap about CU (and I might fail; you might still not accept the argument tho you'd be wrong to do so as you'll discover as the process plays itself out [if it does]).

Edited March 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The knee jerk inclusion of 'Salmond' in comments arguably belittles the contribution made to Scottish civic life by 1000s of ordinary people of all political hues (except blue of course )

It's Salmond who is saying Scotland has a right to a currency union. NOT the yes campaign (there's plenty who don't want CU), and not Scotland (unless they first understand what they're asking for).

I'm working on the basis that Salmond is smart enough to know what he's saying. Anyone else might only be repeating Salmond.

But if those thousands have a contribution to make on why iScotland has a right to CU, I'll be happy to for them to first tell me what a currency is and then tell me what iScotland's right to CU is.

Edited March 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

You've fairly ripped into Prof Bell's analysis there Neil. I don't pretend to know how the international money markets will react - if Barry's a moron then so am I (bit of moron solidarity never goes amiss)

But wait !

Let the arguments cease. Rick Wakeman has spoken, though I fear he got it spectacularly wrong with the Calvin Harris decision.

"David Bowie's a great friend. I've got lots of Scottish connections so I try to look at the arguments on both sides.

The point is that whatever is chosen, it will have been chosen by the people of Scotland and it will be a decision that works. There's no right or wrong with it - whatever happens in September we'll all still be part of the British Isles and we'll all come together and make it work."

"Golf or curling? Golf, but I must say was glued to the curling this year. An immense amount of precision involved in it, I believe.

Paolo Nutini or Calvin Harris? Calvin Harris.

Dave Moyes or Sir Alex Ferguson? Sir Alex, for sure. He has this incredible reputation - he's a proven manager of all these mad footballers."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts-ents/music/rick-wakeman-on-the-journey-scots-and-getting-drunk-with-jim-white.1394017940

Never been a fan of Paolo, but the new stuff is on a different level

[eFestivals]

You've fairly ripped into Prof Bell's analysis there Neil.

I've agreed with the factual parts of all it.

Those factual parts are not where everything about those points ends tho. Just about every choice has consequences (both good and bad) that come from it.

The fact that Scotland cannot legally default means sod all to the money markets; the fact that UK assets and liabilities will be shared says nothing of the bits which cannot be shared. Etc, etc.

The point is that whatever is chosen, it will have been chosen by the people of Scotland and it will be a decision that works.

Nope, that's missed the point entirely.

Scotland can chose what it wants, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN IT GETS IT. Scotland could be voting to go to the moon, but it couldn't happen.

Scotland will have to live with it's decision - and they'd be nothing of that decision that means Scotland can't be a viable independent nation - but basis that the actual decision itself is made on only "works" if the decision has been made on a rational basis and not bullshit (such as about a CU).

There's no right or wrong with it - whatever happens in September we'll all still be part of the British Isles and we'll all come together and make it work."

PMSL

When Scotland gets independence, the rest of the UK ceases to have any interest in anything about making that independent Scotland work. It's not our business, nor to our benefit.

The rest of the UK will only be interested in making the rest of the UK work, exactly the same as an iScotland will have voted to put its own interests above those of the rest of the UK.

I'm astounded.

Yes, there will be things where both countries will work together for mutual benefit, but that will not be everything (over very much at all). iScotland will have chosen to put itself in competition with the rest of the UK, and that part won't be ignored by either rUK or iScotland.

iScotland have already laid out *exactly* how they plan to compete against rUK to rUK's detriment. That plan colours how rUK responds.

----

But none of that says why iScotland believes itself to have a right to CU.

Why does Scotland believe it has that right? Why will no one from the 'yes' side justify the claim they are making on the sovereignty of another independent state?

Edited March 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[Paul ™]

Good debate on this thread for a change, it's still not making me interested in the whole thing apart from I like the iScotland name Neil is using

[eFestivals]

Good debate on this thread for a change

I'm pleased you think so, I had worries it might be taken a different way.

There's a lot to discuss and clarify within the various claims of each side, but unfortunately on other platforms (newspapers comments, etc) I've looked at it appears to be impossible for any meaningful debate to happen. If anyone disagrees with any claims of the 'yes' campaign, the standard response is the same as Salmond's - that it's bullying or bluster, and all discussion is shut down. That does no one on either side any favours.

I've not met (of those who care) anyone in England who doesn't accept Scotland's right to choose nor understand why they might chose independence, but nothing of that means that all of the yes campaign should be beyond comment - especially when one of their major claims impacts as a supposed "right" onto those who would be in a different independent sovereign nation.

I've yet to find out what the basis of the "right" supposedly is. No one wants to say, or seems to know.

Which makes it beyond ridiculous as a claim.

(Of course, the likes of Salmond does know - that it's an empty claim. That makes it all the more important that it's outed, so that the people of Scotland aren't fooled into voting the opposite way to how they might otherwise. The best decisions are the ones made on the best information - choose whichever way you like, but make that choice on the reality and not a politician's lies for their own benefit and not the people's).

I like the iScotland name

it's become the standard way of differentiating in this debate, just as "rUK" has come to symbolise "rest of the UK" (or "rump" if you're a Scottish Nat, it seems ).

Edited March 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[kk1977]

There's no right or wrong with it - whatever happens in September we'll all still be part of the British Isles and we'll all come together and make it work."

The British Isles is a geographic term. If Scotland does vote for independence, it will still be part of the British Isles but not of the United Kingdom of GB and NI. The RoI is still part of the British Isles. I think what Buff means that he would expect some cooperation between an iscotland and an rUK because of a common history.

Scotland has no right to a currency union. If it was beneficial to both sides then it should be considered. Obviously the BoE acting as a lender of last resort would be a major problem and hence it is highly unlikely that the rUK wod agree to it.

There is bullshitting from both sides. Salmonds utopian vision wod never happen. I do think that Osbournes speech about voting independence and loosing the pound was a bad move as it could be construed as blackmail.

I agree with Paul too. It's a good discussion for a change with differing views being expressed rather than the usual name calling.

Ps. I'm not particularly keen on independence. It would be a way to hopefully create a fairer country. There's no guarantees it would benefit the people of Scotland. It would've good to distance ourselves from the extreme greed and self protection associated with old Eton network.

[eFestivals]

I do think that Osbournes speech about voting independence and loosing the pound was a bad move as it could be construed as blackmail.

That's a difficult to handle for the rUK side. In theory they shouldn't interfere, but when a campaign is being made around something that the rUK has a veto* on and says is unlikely to happen then I think it's right that the people of Scotland should be made aware of that rUK view.

(* if it's not got a veto, the yes campaign needs to say why not, for it to be argued out; in international courts if necessary)

The yes campaign asked for a BoE view of possible currency union, and then spun that BoE view with bullshit. "BoE says yes to currency union" was the sort of thing they said; nothing like that was said.

When it was pointed out to the yes campaigners by general commentators that Carney said nothing like that, there was a general challenge that govt should come out and say it then - so Osborne did. And the others.

And then the retort back from (some in) Scotland was that rUK should keep their noses out.

That sort of round-and-round where some way is always found to avoid a discussion on the actual issues is what goes on in every newspaper comments section I've read, and is a big part of why I've found them to be so amusing over the past few months.

It would've good to distance ourselves from the extreme greed and self protection associated with old Eton network.

while that's a sentiment I fully subscribe to for where anyone might live, I'm far from sure that's really too much of anything. After all, Blair & Brown didn't go to Eton.

One thing Scotland can be sure of on the first day of independence and forever-afterwards is that politicians will still be in charge of Scotland just as they are today.

And when the politician with most say over the lives of the people of Scotland has a far cosier relationship with Murdoch than the Etonian tory PM of the UK, are things really going to be so massively different in an independent Scotland? Are you sure?

One of the first laws on the table from the SNP post-independence will be tax cuts for the richest. It's an integral and openly stated part of the yes campaign, the same yes campaign that is also being presented as being a social-democracy dreamland by some.

(and just as aside, it was the SNP that put Thatcher in power, as an attempt at their own power-grab .... it failed, and caused the SNP to lose half of their seats instead. People tend to forget that they are not only the nice guys and that they act like all politicians).

Edited March 7, 2014 by eFestivals

[Buff124]

You've fairly ripped into Rick Wakeman's analysis there, Neil. Did 'Journey to the Centre of the earth' mean nothing to you ? The man is a behemoth of prog ferchrissakes

[eFestivals]

You've fairly ripped into Rick Wakeman's analysis there, Neil. Did 'Journey to the Centre of the earth' mean nothing to you ? The man is a behemoth of prog ferchrissakes

Rick has bored me for over 30 years since I've known all his secrets from someone who worked for his family.

But currency... why do you think you have a right to it? You can't say you have without knowing why you have, surely?

[Buff124]

Its more of a question of it being a sensible idea for both parties, rather than a right. Here's the inevitable quote from a group of economists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The fiscal commission working group, chaired by Crawford Beveridge issued its comments after meeting in Edinburgh for the sixth time since its formation in March 2012.

In a statement, the group said: "While we have noted the statements from the Chancellor and other political parties, our remit remains concentrated on economic merits.

"In this regard, we believe that the analysis to date by the UK government overstates the risks of a formal monetary union, for example, their analysis of Scottish financial sector risk is overplayed.

"At the same time, it fails to fully capture the benefits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26474715

--------------------------------------------------

Quite a few pages back, I posted a clip from In the Loop. Watch it again. Ignore the throwaway quip at the end. Focus on Malcolm Tucker daring General Flintstone to punch him in the face, in public, in front of the international media and diplomatic community

[eFestivals]

Its more of a question of it being a sensible idea for both parties, rather than a right.

So if it's not a right, how come Salmond is issuing threats* if he doesn't get it?

(* the threat of not taking on Scotland's share of the UK national debt).

Issuing a threat is fine in standing up for your rights. It's not fine in trying to reach mutual agreement with another party who is fully entitled to say 'no' if they wish to.

So if is not a right, why is Salmond issuing these threats?

[Buff124]

Good grief Neil, you know better than that. Neither side is making threats. They're pre-negotiation positions.