Scottish Independence thread

[Mr Mystery]

If Westminster block a currency union, I don't see how they can hold Holyrood to any amount of debt?

[Denzark]

It occurs to me that if a nation does NOT abide by the rule of international law (a la North Korea etc) the only way you can guarantee to get them to do anything is by force - an unlikely proposition in this case.

Assuming Holyrood would not take on any debt and the remnant UK took them to some international court, it depends on (assuming the finding is in the favour of the UK) whether or not Holyrood would comply with the ruling or not - and I don't know how such rulings are enforced if ignored - what sanctions maybe?

There are big ticket items which are in Scotland and that Salmond has said he expects a proportion of which the UK has influence over. RAF Planes and RN ships for a start (not counting nuke subs of course). In the event of a default being likely, the MOD - whose central funds pay the serviceman - could order them all South - Typhoons cost £64m each before you talk about maintenance and training.

I see denial of this stuff as a negotiating point?

[Mr Mystery]

No idea.

But my Bro, who is up on the debate and very much voting 'Yes' raised the following point regarding the debt.

If Westminster is determined not to share assets, how can they reasonably expect to share the liabilities? And as a completely new country, would a court reasonably expect and independent Scotland to be responsible for a debt it did not itself (in it's new form) create?

[AirHorse]

It's certainly complicated that's for sure!

I personally think both sides have taken very petty stands in public on these two issues! Ah politics, how I loathe thee

[Mr Mystery]

Trouble here is that Alex Salmond was wanting to open the negotiations prior to the referendum, so both positions knew what might happen going forward.

Of course, Westminster in a typical display of Old Boy Tory arrogance denied this.

[Denzark]

I did read or hear something (telegraph or R4) about how there was a precedent of something to do with ex Soviet Bloc countries taking or not taking a share of soviet era debt - but for some reason that precedent did not apply in this case. Possibly involved a UN ruling.

Sorry for the crap description - I suppose I can sum it up by stating I understand (as with everything in this) that someone had said one side had legal precedent and the other side said in this case it didn't apply.

But what is the definition of 'asset' and why/how can it apply to the country's currency? As the moment Britain would expect say, Spain, to insist on and receive a currency union. So why would a separate Scotland be able to insist upon it?

At the very least they would have to subordinate some fiscal decision making to the head bank for said union, in this case, BoE. Also the debt for said country is underwritten by its currency - why should Welsh/Northern Irish/English voters permit a foreign sovereign nation to have that backstop?

I don't think it is sensible or perhaps achievable, to view the currency union as an asset that can be split like a share of physical assets.

- - - Updated - - -

Trouble here is that Alex Salmond was wanting to open the negotiations prior to the referendum, so both positions knew what might happen going forward.

Of course, Westminster in a typical display of Old Boy Tory arrogance denied this.

All 3 parties and the Welsh first minister are united in saying an independent Scotland will not get currency union. The sheer cost and scale of such a negotiation means I think far from it being arrogant, I think it a sensible decision of government not to waste time and money on something before it actually happens.

[Mr Mystery]

It's general post-yes negotiations that Call Me Dave has thoroughly nixed, in a move to try to discredit Salmond as having no credible plan, and make it look like he's not bothered.

Whole No campaign is very fishy. Recent egging of a No Campaign MP? Egg thrower was wearing an earpiece. Which seems odd. And not a bluetooth one. One of those with the wiggly wire thing.

[Wolfshade]

No idea.

But my Bro, who is up on the debate and very much voting 'Yes' raised the following point regarding the debt.

If Westminster is determined not to share assets, how can they reasonably expect to share the liabilities? And as a completely new country, would a court reasonably expect and independent Scotland to be responsible for a debt it did not itself (in it's new form) create?

Is this the same sharing of assets like the north sea oil...

[Mr Mystery]

Buggered if I know. But probably.

All these things Salmond has been wanting to begin discussions about, but been told 'no' by Westminster. Which has oddly helped the Yes campaign more than the No it would seem.

[Denzark]

I've looked through the BBC coverage of that and I can't spot that (too far away). But whilst neither campaign is covering itself in glory I would be more likely to believe it is just an excitable yes campaigner (give Salmond the benefit of the doubt that he didn't personally sanction it) and not that it is a no smear campaign - do people in the business of using discrete comms equipment allow themselves to be filmed with it in?

A little too conspiracy for me.

- - - Updated - - -

On the subject of whether sterling is an asset...

"However, economists have said sterling is not an asset that can be divided between two countries as its value rests on the ability of UK taxpayers to stand behind it. A separate Scotland would no longer pay taxes to the UK Treasury."

[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11064526/Alex-Salmond-drops-pound-shared-asset-claim.html"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11064526/Alex-Salmond-drops-pound-shared-asset-claim.html[/URL]