Actually if you read the reports rather than the red top headlines you will find that you are speaking nonsense.
Did he not refer to Westminster politician's as Lord Snooty's?
Did he not make the threat over European fishing boats?
Has he not made threats over UK debt?
He could have made a case for using a different currency without resorting to slagging of the pound, but he can't resist cheap political point scoring.
no share of assets would basically mean Scotland cannot operate as an independent country
even the Dunleavy report which YES supporters have held up repeatedly regarding costs and timescales for transition says that Scotland will be dependent on the rUK for up to ten years for a number of core services and will have to lease those services until such time they can be implemented as a separate Scottish function
so what sort of lease arrangements do you think the rUK will offer for these core services when salmond has refused to take any share of debt and waived a share of assets
I mentioned something similar earlier. If Scotland refuses to pay any debts then rUK can refuse to give Scotland any assets or support to set up a Revenue office. No Revenue office means not being able to collect tax from individuals or from oil companies. It would take many months to set up a new Revenue office so during that time Scotland would have no money. No money to pay for infrastructure, no money to pay for wages. No money to pay the MSPs.
Is Salmond really an Economist, because he doesn't seem to have thought this through.
That's really not a good way to start a Country off on a good start.
Why should a new country be saddled with debt from the continuing state. It is their debt afterall.
And a big part of that debt was built up rescuing Scottish banks. If the debt belongs to the UK then does the majority shareholding in the RBS. Maybe we should rename it the Royal Bank of the Rest of the United Kingdom?
It also means that the UK owns anything else in Scotland built or paid for with that debt. Hopefully Gordon Brown will have kept a record of what he spent the money on.
Salmond's Plan B is clear - Scotland will use the pound without a currency union, but instead of taking the opportunity to explain to the voters what this actually would mean in practise, he kept bleating on about the referendum being a mandate for Scotland to demand a currency union.
He can demand all he likes, it's not going to happen because any Westminster party which caved in to such demands would be held to account in the forthcoming general election by the rUK voters.
I simply don't understand how the Yes voters can put their faith in such a man 'negotiating' on their behalf. He comes across as a belligerent, intransigent bully to those looking on.
Salmond's Plan B is clear - Scotland will use the pound without a currency union, but instead of taking the opportunity to explain to the voters what this actually would mean in practise, he kept bleating on about the referendum being a mandate for Scotland to demand a currency union.
He can demand all he likes, it's not going to happen because any Westminster party which caved in to such demands would be held to account in the forthcoming general election by the rUK voters.
I simply don't understand how the Yes voters can put their faith in such a man 'negotiating' on their behalf. He comes across as a belligerent, intransigent bully to those looking on.
And a big part of that debt was built up rescuing Scottish banks. If the debt belongs to the UK then does the majority shareholding in the RBS. Maybe we should rename it the Royal Bank of the Rest of the United Kingdom?
It also means that the UK owns anything else in Scotland built or paid for with that debt. Hopefully Gordon Brown will have kept a record of what he spent the money on.
The assets in Scotland would becomes Scotland's . The UN is quite clear on this
The assets in Scotland would becomes Scotland's . The UN is quite clear on this
Those nuclear subs (at least the ones currently in Scottish waters) and missiles are all yours then. Be careful with them and don't go selling them to the Russians or Chinese behind our back.
The SNP want their cake and their halfpenny. Assets, as they put it, would be divvied up if Scotland becomes independent, thereafter both are on their own. The SNP want alimony too.
The SNP want their cake and their halfpenny. Assets, as they put it, would be divvied up if Scotland becomes independent, thereafter both are on their own. The SNP want alimony too.
I'm currently watching the BBC Scotland debate from last night (iplayer link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04g487x/the-referendum-debate-26082014) and John Swinney is promising the moon on a stick - increased public spending, no austerity, no tax rises and reducing the deficit. He's making Ed Balls look economically competent.
Charles Kennedy is excellent. He really should have run the No campaign.
The business leaders said: "As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made.
The business leaders said: "As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made.
The business leaders said: "As job creators, we have looked carefully at the arguments made by both sides of the debate. Our conclusion is that the business case for independence has not been made.
Complete and utter guff, The Tory government changed the law to benefit London to the detriment of the devolved governments.
So you actually have no answer to the real evidence that Scotland isn't paying for the London sewer system other than a two year old unfounded article that you cannot back up?
So the plan is to build a 25km tunnel to discharge untreated sewage into the sea? Wouldn't it be worth investigating how much it'd cost to treat the sewage, possibly extract fertiliser from it, possibly recycle the water content and potentially save both money and the environment?
It might just be your right. However, it doesn't deflect from the fact that were not paying for it?
Why should a new country be saddled with debt from the continuing state. It is their debt afterall.
In your case, perhaps Westminster should get in quick and declare the rest of the UK independent from Scotland, let us have the BOE and declare the whole debt ours?
Comments
Did he not refer to Westminster politician's as Lord Snooty's?
Did he not make the threat over European fishing boats?
Has he not made threats over UK debt?
He could have made a case for using a different currency without resorting to slagging of the pound, but he can't resist cheap political point scoring.
I mentioned something similar earlier. If Scotland refuses to pay any debts then rUK can refuse to give Scotland any assets or support to set up a Revenue office. No Revenue office means not being able to collect tax from individuals or from oil companies. It would take many months to set up a new Revenue office so during that time Scotland would have no money. No money to pay for infrastructure, no money to pay for wages. No money to pay the MSPs.
Is Salmond really an Economist, because he doesn't seem to have thought this through.
That's really not a good way to start a Country off on a good start.
And a big part of that debt was built up rescuing Scottish banks. If the debt belongs to the UK then does the majority shareholding in the RBS. Maybe we should rename it the Royal Bank of the Rest of the United Kingdom?
It also means that the UK owns anything else in Scotland built or paid for with that debt. Hopefully Gordon Brown will have kept a record of what he spent the money on.
unfortunately , as proved on these forums, people fall for it
He can demand all he likes, it's not going to happen because any Westminster party which caved in to such demands would be held to account in the forthcoming general election by the rUK voters.
I simply don't understand how the Yes voters can put their faith in such a man 'negotiating' on their behalf. He comes across as a belligerent, intransigent bully to those looking on.
Just pointing out that the assets will be shared unless rUK refuses to share the assets. The ball is in their court
the UK haven't refused to share the assets
a currency union is not an asset
The assets in Scotland would becomes Scotland's . The UN is quite clear on this
Intangible assets are nonphysical resources and rights that have a value to the firm because they give the firm some kind of advantage in the market place. Examples of intangible assets are goodwill, copyrights, trademarks, patents and computer programs,[4] and financial assets, including such items as accounts receivable, bonds and stocks.
does Wikipedia have a page for the phrase "grasping at straws"
Why? Do you have a need for one?
when your level of debate descends to this level I think its time to put you on ignore ...
I'm sure that's how the 1m Yes voters see him - but that's not how he comes across to the 63m other people in the UK.
Those nuclear subs (at least the ones currently in Scottish waters) and missiles are all yours then. Be careful with them and don't go selling them to the Russians or Chinese behind our back.
But we'll keep the RBS.
I'm currently watching the BBC Scotland debate from last night (iplayer link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04g487x/the-referendum-debate-26082014) and John Swinney is promising the moon on a stick - increased public spending, no austerity, no tax rises and reducing the deficit. He's making Ed Balls look economically competent.
Charles Kennedy is excellent. He really should have run the No campaign.
And try getting a loan without a credit record!
Works for soverign states just as well as people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11057905/Scottish-business-leaders-say-case-for-independence-has-not-been-made.html
thms must have missed that link ;-)
Clearly they are all "spivs and speculators" so their opinion should be disregarded and we should listen to the ramblings of anonymous blogs.
So you actually have no answer to the real evidence that Scotland isn't paying for the London sewer system other than a two year old unfounded article that you cannot back up?
It might just be your right. However, it doesn't deflect from the fact that were not paying for it?
In your case, perhaps Westminster should get in quick and declare the rest of the UK independent from Scotland, let us have the BOE and declare the whole debt ours?