no they have said they will guarantee the whole debt should Scotland renege ...
which was necessary to ensure no issues with the financial markets
Scotland doesn't have any debt to 'renege' on - it is all UK debt & was necessary to make the statement to avoid those issues as tactics of No campaign were planned well in advance which would include suggestions Scotland wouldn't be contributing to paying some of the UK debt
Where has it been suggested that they would renege on a debt that they are not obliged to take?
you are going around in circles here
you are saying Scotland isn't responsible for a share of the debt because Westminster said they are , but that wasn't what was said, Westminster gave an assurance to the markets that they would guarantee the whole of the debt AFTER the SNP had threatened not to take on their share of it
and you still have not answered the question you have been asked on multiple occasions , how can Scotland not be responsible for a share of the debt but take ownership of their share of the assets ?
it says that the treasury made that statement to give assurances to the markets over concerns Scotland would not take on its share of the debt but still expects Scotland to do so in exchange for its share of assets
you are saying Scotland isn't responsible for a share of the debt because Westminster said they are , but that wasn't what was said, Westminster gave an assurance to the markets that they would guarantee the whole of the debt AFTER the SNP had threatened not to take on their share of it
and you still have not answered the question you have been asked on multiple occasions , how can Scotland not be responsible for a share of the debt but take ownership of their share of the assets ?
paying towards UK debt depends entirely on status of an independent Scotland, if a new country then Scotland cannot be forced to contribute to it, the debt of another state (UK) - something no campaign has twisted to imply Scotland would be liable for any of it as a new country & be a new country (not legal under signed treaties) -- as a successor state Scotland has pledged to compensate towards % of UK debt after UK has already paid it.
you are saying Scotland isn't responsible for a share of the debt because Westminster said they are , but that wasn't what was said, Westminster gave an assurance to the markets that they would guarantee the whole of the debt AFTER the SNP had threatened not to take on their share of it
and you still have not answered the question you have been asked on multiple occasions , how can Scotland not be responsible for a share of the debt but take ownership of their share of the assets ?
I think you will find that I have answered your question, you have just chosen not to accept the answer.
Here we go again just for you - I personally think that Scotland should take a share of the debt that they are not obliged to take and that they should take assets that are geographically theirs. Any other assets are down to negotiations between both parties.
it says that the treasury made that statement to give assurances to the markets over concerns Scotland would not take on its share of the debt but still expects Scotland to do so in exchange for its share of assets
Alex Salmonds position has always been to do just that.
paying towards UK debt depends entirely on status of an independent Scotland, if a new country then Scotland cannot be forced to contribute to it, the debt of another state (UK) - something no campaign has twisted to imply Scotland would be liable for any of it as a new country & be a new country (not legal under signed treaties) -- as a successor state Scotland has pledged to compensate towards % of UK debt after UK has already paid it.
i give up , its like banging your head off a brick wall trying to explain share of assets is dependent on share of debt
no agreement to pay share of debt = no share of assets
paying towards UK debt depends entirely on status of an independent Scotland, if a new country then Scotland cannot be forced to contribute to it, the debt of another state (UK) - something no campaign has twisted to imply Scotland would be liable for any of it as a new country & be a new country (not legal under signed treaties) -- as a successor state Scotland has pledged to compensate towards % of UK debt after UK has already paid it.
Any businessmen or foreign governments out there please take no notice of this. Scotland will pay its debts.
Scotland doesn't have any debt to 'renege' on - it is all UK debt & was necessary to make the statement to avoid those issues as tactics of No campaign were planned well in advance which would include suggestions Scotland wouldn't be contributing to paying some of the UK debt
So we can just walk away ? Wont this cause great offence in the UK, our biggest customer ? Wont such a callous act destroy our credit worthyness in the eyes of the world ?
Where has it been suggested that they would renege on a debt that they are not obliged to take?
Cameron said that the UK govt would honour our share of the debt in the likely event we find it unafordable. He did not say he would automaticaly assume responsibility for it just because we are leaving the UK if we vote to separate. In the eyes of the UK we would still be responsible for it so expect cross-border recriminations if we default.
So we can just walk away ? Wont this cause great offence in the UK, our biggest customer? Wont such a callous act destroy our credit worthyness in the eyes of the world ?
I think it would cause genuine outrage in the rest of the UK and produce one of those situations which quickly spiral out of control.
and you still have not answered the question you have been asked on multiple occasions , how can Scotland not be responsible for a share of the debt but take ownership of their share of the assets ?
The issue of pensions is a liability inccured by the UK at a personal level with those who paid into it. If Scotland and the rUK were treated as equally being successor states then it follows that both would inherit a share of that liability with responsibility being divided either on a simple residency at time of independence or even when contributions were made. That's the scenario illustrated in the White Paper.
It's also a scenario where the topic of Bank of England is an asset to be properly addressed. By far the simplest solution would be Scotland retaining a 10% share and a seat on the board. There wouldn't be a formal CU or a tail wagging the dog scenario. Personally, my main concern would be how Scotland would be affected if/when Westminster wanted another round of quantitative easing. I could very well see Scottish coinage being introduced to compliment the notes in preparation for a rapid move to a pegged currency.
The issue of pensions is a liability inccured by the UK at a personal level with those who paid into it. If Scotland and the rUK were treated as equally being successor states then it follows that both would inherit a share of that liability with responsibility being divided either on a simple residency at time of independence or even when contributions were made. That's the scenario illustrated in the White Paper.
It's also a scenario where the topic of Bank of England is an asset to be properly addressed. By far the simplest solution would be Scotland retaining a 10% share and a seat on the board. There wouldn't be a formal CU or a tail wagging the dog scenario. Personally, my main concern would be how Scotland would be affected if/when Westminster wanted another round of quantitative easing. I could very well see Scottish coinage being introduced to compliment the notes in preparation for a rapid move to a pegged currency.
Sorry, but we don't want someone with any interest outside the UK sat on the board of the BoE. Thanks for the offer though. It would be like Carney keeping one eye on what's best for Canada.
Reading about all these Scottish companies that are allegedly drawing up plans for a relocation to the rest of the UK following independence sans currency union: this could be really good for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Lots of extra jobs and industries could head south of the border which would be excellent news for our economy. It's perhaps another reason for saying 'no' to a currency union. What's best for the rest of the UK is all that will matter post-independence.
"Scottish independence would be a victory for the enemies of freedom and justice, the Australian prime minister has said in the most pointed intervention yet by a foreign leader in the independence debate.
A win by the Yes campaign would be cheered abroad by countries that opposed British values and influence, while an independent Scotland would make little positive impact on the world stage, Tony Abbott told The Times."
Comments
No they didn't,
i'm not getting into a pantomime act with you here , but yes they did ...
But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…
Wrong. On January 13, 2014, the UK Treasury issued a statement to the money markets, saying it would honour all the UK debt if Scotland voted Yes.
you are going around in circles here
you are saying Scotland isn't responsible for a share of the debt because Westminster said they are , but that wasn't what was said, Westminster gave an assurance to the markets that they would guarantee the whole of the debt AFTER the SNP had threatened not to take on their share of it
and you still have not answered the question you have been asked on multiple occasions , how can Scotland not be responsible for a share of the debt but take ownership of their share of the assets ?
according to FT
I suggest you read the whole article
it says that the treasury made that statement to give assurances to the markets over concerns Scotland would not take on its share of the debt but still expects Scotland to do so in exchange for its share of assets
I think you will find that I have answered your question, you have just chosen not to accept the answer.
Here we go again just for you - I personally think that Scotland should take a share of the debt that they are not obliged to take and that they should take assets that are geographically theirs. Any other assets are down to negotiations between both parties.
Alex Salmonds position has always been to do just that.
i give up , its like banging your head off a brick wall trying to explain share of assets is dependent on share of debt
no agreement to pay share of debt = no share of assets
Any businessmen or foreign governments out there please take no notice of this. Scotland will pay its debts.
So we can just walk away ? Wont this cause great offence in the UK, our biggest customer ? Wont such a callous act destroy our credit worthyness in the eyes of the world ?
Cameron said that the UK govt would honour our share of the debt in the likely event we find it unafordable. He did not say he would automaticaly assume responsibility for it just because we are leaving the UK if we vote to separate. In the eyes of the UK we would still be responsible for it so expect cross-border recriminations if we default.
An oil field, described as one of the biggest untapped resources in the North Sea, is set to produce oil until 2050, it has emerged.
The Bentley Field, which is due to be drilled by Xcite Energy, has up to 777 million barrels of oil reserves, the company has revealed
I think it would cause genuine outrage in the rest of the UK and produce one of those situations which quickly spiral out of control.
The issue of pensions is a liability inccured by the UK at a personal level with those who paid into it. If Scotland and the rUK were treated as equally being successor states then it follows that both would inherit a share of that liability with responsibility being divided either on a simple residency at time of independence or even when contributions were made. That's the scenario illustrated in the White Paper.
It's also a scenario where the topic of Bank of England is an asset to be properly addressed. By far the simplest solution would be Scotland retaining a 10% share and a seat on the board. There wouldn't be a formal CU or a tail wagging the dog scenario. Personally, my main concern would be how Scotland would be affected if/when Westminster wanted another round of quantitative easing. I could very well see Scottish coinage being introduced to compliment the notes in preparation for a rapid move to a pegged currency.
Sorry, but we don't want someone with any interest outside the UK sat on the board of the BoE. Thanks for the offer though. It would be like Carney keeping one eye on what's best for Canada.
BLUNDERING axeman Danny Alexander let slip yesterday that half-a-million jobs will go under Con-Dem plans to slash the public sector.
The figure was revealed in a dossier lying open on the minister's lap as he drove into the Treasury.
Up to 50,000 of the jobs will disappear from Scotland - one in 10 public sector jobs north of the Border.
You do know that story is from 2010?
Have they, what share of assets are they denying us?
Interesting bit on BP winning an award for new ground breaking technology. Shows how It will work on Clair Ridge.
"Scottish independence would be a victory for the enemies of freedom and justice, the Australian prime minister has said in the most pointed intervention yet by a foreign leader in the independence debate.
A win by the Yes campaign would be cheered abroad by countries that opposed British values and influence, while an independent Scotland would make little positive impact on the world stage, Tony Abbott told The Times."
ds needs a vomit smiley