An Independent Scotland?

lost said:
Hi All
This makes an interesting read On the EU side of things
http://kslr.org.uk/blogs/europeanlaw/2014/08/01/scottish-independence-and-eu-membership/
If Scotland votes to go it alone I say good luck. But don't kid yourself things will be easy they won't be.
Regards
Richard
Click to expand...

A quick scan through that shows some errors I believe,

The author states that "Several EU states, including the Czech Republic, Ireland and Spain, have expressed the opinion that if Scotland becomes independent it will have to apply for membership."

To date no European State has expressed an opinion on the subject, with the possible exception of Spain and that wasn't actually an official statement either (see below). Some politicians and ex politicians from various nations have however come out on either side. When specifically asked by the BBC, the Spanish foreign minister (interviewed on Scotland2014) said "Spain has no interest in blocking an independent Scotland's membership of the EU"

I realise that the document you've linked to is not an official one, I'm not sure quite what it is, but I do question the authors sources for her 'facts', that being the UK Gov website, the BBC and the Guardian newspaper, none of whom are exactly known for being impartial in this.
 
Steep said:
Any particular experience?

Clearly the UK hasn't been involved in this specific kind of negotiation for some time but recently I can think of the NI peace talks where both sides put aside any differences to come up with solutions. Not quite the same obviously but an example of negotiations where politicians were only peripherally involved as I expect would be the case in any indy talks.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess the NI example is a good example. Obvious to all concerned that the best for everyone was settle things peacefully even if you don't get all that you want. But it took decades of sectarianism, murder/mayhem and bloody mindedness before the violence ended. Even now the violence continues at a reduced level when any sane sensible person can see it's madness.

Personally, I would not depend on politicians being sensible about negotiations if the Scots vote to break away from the UK.
 
That's the point I'm making, politicians will not be the ones doing it, any involvement by any of them will be peripheral. There's even opinion that politicians should not be allowed to pick the negotiators, that a transitional council led by civil servants should do it (Jim Sillars)
 
politicians will be the ones approving it though.

All the negotiations have to be agreed by both parliaments before they can come to fruition
 
Steep said:
That's the point I'm making, politicians will not be the ones doing it, any involvement by any of them will be peripheral. There's even opinion that politicians should not be allowed to pick the negotiators, that a transitional council led by civil servants should do it (Jim Sillars)
Click to expand...

It WILL be the politicians in charge. How can it be otherwise? They are the elected representatives. All treaties and international agreements have to be agreed by the elected politicians. Anyway, civil servants etc also have their fair share of blinkered, awkward and partisan people.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
And if it goes wrong you'll be looking at the international community to bail you out. Reminds me of the bank of mum/dad. Without control over your own currency you'll be at the mercy of others. It will guaranteed give you less independence that you are enjoying today.

Fine by me, just not nice for those that will have to pick up the pieces again.
Click to expand...
We don't have control of our own currency today. Money goes to Westminster, gets showered like confetti over the square mile, and some is given back as benefits. In terms of bailouts, I think you have it the wrong way round - it's the "international community" that WANTS to do the bailouts, as control of the debt issuance gives them de facto control of the country. Iceland fought tooth and nail to stop that (at least the Icelandic people did), so too did the Malaysians when they were offered bailouts to resolve the 1997 crisis. Bailouts are the "international community" giving a gift from the people of a country to the financiers. That's precisely what we need to put a stop to.
 
Let's add in another line: spending.

6a015393ec64ea970b0191042a56ae970c-pi


Source: http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com.../has-scotland-already-spent-its-oil-fund.html
 
Not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make with those graphs, @gman.

So in recent years the Scottish government has been spending more than it gets in tax receipts. Why does that matter? The UK has been doing it since forever, and so have many other countries. So long as people are willing to lend money to you, it's fine.
 
I would really like independence, after all who wouldn't want to have more say over who runs their Government? But I still don't think we can afford it at the moment unless this Clair Ridge Field comes up aces but I can't stress the importance that if we go Independent and also have considerable surplus from new oil discoveries, they have to work very hard during this time at being very self sufficient without oil in order to prepare for the day when the oil does eventually run out. An oil fund alone is no good because it will also run out, we need to build on continuous sources of lucrative revenue streams and that will need people with a hard working mentality.
 
StewartR said:
Not quite sure I understand the point you're trying to make with those graphs, @gman.

So in recent years the Scottish government has been spending more than it gets in tax receipts. Why does that matter? The UK has been doing it since forever, and so have many other countries. So long as people are willing to lend money to you, it's fine.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So long as people are willing to lend to us after defaulting on the National Debt and even if they are, at what interest rate?

My point is that Scotland isn't some huge profitable surplus making country.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
And the people donating less than £7500 each?
Click to expand...

It's included in the figures. "More than 11,000 donors have each given up to £7,500, totalling £473,000" This makes up the difference between the sub-total and the total and my percentage rounded up from 79.x% to 80% for easy reading sake is based on the total and not the sub-total.

So 80% from one couple and technically speaking the majority of their winnings would have come from England! lol
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Exactly. So long as people are willing to lend to us after defaulting on the National Debt and even if they are, at what interest rate?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I genuinely don't understand. Who has defaulted, or will default, on their National Debt?
 
Salmond is threatening not to take on any of the National Debt liability if he doesn't get a currency union. Whether he thinks this is right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is what international lenders think.
 
gman said:
Salmond is threatening not to take on any of the National Debt liability if he doesn't get a currency union. Whether he thinks this is right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is what international lenders think.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Sorry for not understanding - we don't get as much coverage of the issues down here.

Salmond knows full well that, even if 100% of Scots vote Yes, independence won't happen unless the Westminster government agrees to it. He also knows that the Edinburgh Agreement binds him to act in the best interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK. So at the end of the day everything has to be negotiated and there can be no lines in the sand.

An independent Scotland could not default, because Westminster wouldn't agree to it; and would not default because everyone knows it would be suicide in the global financial markets. What he's doing with pronouncements like that is ratcheting up the pressure on the Westminster government. And as a neutral I think he's doing it pretty well. The two really big issues are Sterling and Trident. He'll probably have to give some ground on Trident, and that makes it more likely he'll get the result he wants on Sterling.
 
I agree fully and also reckon he'll do a deal with Trident. The currency is too important.
 
gman said:
I agree fully and also reckon he'll do a deal with Trident. The currency is too important.
Click to expand...
From an English point of view: I agree fully and also reckon we'll do a deal with the currency. Trident is too important (to the politicians).
 
So anyway: Scotland won't default on their debt, they have an industrious and well educated population and more natural resources than most countries. Why wouldn't anyone want to lend to them? And then why does it matter if the economy runs a modest deficit?
 
According to recent information which I cannot find again sorry (I will keep looking), there can be no defaulting on the debt in that situation.

Look into my eyes and I'll explain...
The BofE owns 25% of the national debt and guarantees the rest.
Scotland owns roughly 8.9% of the BofE and consequently 8.9% of the debts.
If Westminster says you cannot have use of the BofE or it's assets then Scotland has no legal responsibility to cover any of the debts the BofE owns or guarantees.
This is international law, not political gamesmanship, it's not Scotland defaulting because you can't default on a debt you don't own. Ergo: no BofE = no debt.

This sounds completely plausible to me and as far as I recall is what I read but it might not be accurate.
 
P.S. There can be no deal on Trident, no nukes will be written into the constitution.
 
How can anyone see positives in last nights debacle? it was two politicians behaving like spoilt children on TV.
in fact I would go so far as to say it was a disgraceful advert for both politics and the UK in general.
 
arclight said:
Salmond has not offered an EU referendum. Countries are not leaving because all but 5 of the 28 get more out than they pay in financially.

That is actually an aside to your point that you want control of your (Scotland's) destiny. That concept is entirely incompatible with EU membership where the policy on everything major is there to be complied by member states with and not negotiated.
Click to expand...

So there are no independent countries in the EU?
 
Steep said:
P.S. There can be no deal on Trident, no nukes will be written into the constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course that can be written into the constitution. The issue is the timescale. If Scotland tries to insist on a timescale which isn't compatible with the UK developing alternative sites to Faslane/Coulport, there won't be independence. It really is as simple as that. The UK government will not allow a foreign country to force it into disarmament.

So the constitution might say "no nukes from (say) 2036" instead of "no nukes from 2020". Would that be a deal, or not a deal?
 
Steep said:
The BofE owns 25% of the national debt and guarantees the rest.
Scotland owns roughly 8.9% of the BofE and consequently 8.9% of the debts.
If Westminster says you cannot have use of the BofE or it's assets then Scotland has no legal responsibility to cover any of the debts the BofE owns or guarantees.
This is international law, not political gamesmanship, it's not Scotland defaulting because you can't default on a debt you don't own. Ergo: no BofE = no debt.

This sounds completely plausible to me and as far as I recall is what I read but it might not be accurate.
Click to expand...
It sounds plausible to me. It might or might not be accurate, and I'm sure you agree the source of this analysis is critical.

But even so, I suspect it could easily turn out to be one of these awkward issues (like EU membership, NATO membership, etc) where the existing legal framework isn't black-and-white because nobody ever planned for this possibility. For example, what does "Scotland owns 8.9% of the BofE" actually mean? The UK owns the BofE. It has never issued shares. There is undoubtedly a common sense view that Scotland "owns" 8.9%, but in the absence of hard legal facts it feels like yet another issue to be negotiated....
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
From an English point of view: I agree fully and also reckon we'll do a deal with the currency. Trident is too important (to the politicians).
Click to expand...
But not to the public. There will be no formal currency union, that really is a line in the sand for the rUK electors and any Westminster politician that argues otherwise is staring into the political wilderness. Attitudes to Scotland are hardening already and I can only see it getting worse should Scotland vote for independence.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes
 
Steep said:
According to recent information which I cannot find again sorry (I will keep looking), there can be no defaulting on the debt in that situation.

Look into my eyes and I'll explain...
The BofE owns 25% of the national debt and guarantees the rest.
Scotland owns roughly 8.9% of the BofE and consequently 8.9% of the debts.
If Westminster says you cannot have use of the BofE or it's assets then Scotland has no legal responsibility to cover any of the debts the BofE owns or guarantees.
This is international law, not political gamesmanship, it's not Scotland defaulting because you can't default on a debt you don't own. Ergo: no BofE = no debt.

This sounds completely plausible to me and as far as I recall is what I read but it might not be accurate.
Click to expand...

I'd already posted the link to it in an article in the Daily Record - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182
 
jakeblu said:
But not to the public. There will be no formal currency union, that really is a line in the sand for the rUK electors and any Westminster politician that argues otherwise is staring into the political wilderness. Attitudes to Scotland are hardening already and I can only see it getting worse should Scotland vote for independence.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/20/scottish-independence-referendum-english-attitudes
Click to expand...

I refer you to this - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182

Which says :

" Q: But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.

A: The Bank of England is a publicly owned asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to. If Westminster grabs all the assets of the central UK bank then, under international law, it also gets lumped with the liabilities, ie the UK’s £1.3trillion debt.

Q: So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?

A: Absolutely scot free.

Q: How much will we save?

A: Scotland’s share of debt interest is calculated at £5billion a year.

Q: But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…

A: 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 cannot default on debt that is not yours."
 
Steep said:
I refer you to this - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182

Which says :

" Q: But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.

A: The Bank of England is a publicly owned asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to. If Westminster grabs all the assets of the central UK bank then, under international law, it also gets lumped with the liabilities, ie the UK’s £1.3trillion debt.

Q: So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?

A: Absolutely scot free.

Q: How much will we save?

A: Scotland’s share of debt interest is calculated at £5billion a year.

Q: But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…

A: 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 cannot default on debt that is not yours."
Click to expand...
Sorry Hugh, not sure why you've quoted me in that post?
 
StewartR said:
So anyway: Scotland won't default on their debt, they have an industrious and well educated population and more natural resources than most countries. Why wouldn't anyone want to lend to them? And then why does it matter if the economy runs a modest deficit?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Scotland run a modest deficit, so long as they get the currency union or can borrow (plus at good rates). I think it's a realistic view point to assume we will continue to run a deficit without any improvement for at least a while. But the Yes Campaign don't seem to see this and seem to think it's going to rain money in Scotland. Of course we'll survive, but as said unless we get some large bonus from somewhere I think it's going to be very tough for a while, especially if Salmond tries to keep all his promises of giving.
 
Steep said:
P.S. There can be no deal on Trident, no nukes will be written into the constitution.
Click to expand...

lol, oh I really wouldn't believe that they are capable of keeping their word. Any of them that is.
 
AHILL said:
How can anyone see positives in last nights debacle? it was two politicians behaving like spoilt children on TV.
in fact I would go so far as to say it was a disgraceful advert for both politics and the UK in general.
Click to expand...

A sneak preview of what could be a very long, very messy and very costly "negotiation" process should Scotland gain independence. As it was once beautifully said, "Nest o' schemin' b******s; they couldn't agree on the colour o' s**te
 
jakeblu said:
Sorry Hugh, not sure why you've quoted me in that post?
Click to expand...

It was reference the post you made about no currency union. For WM to refuse an iScotland currency union they would have to take full ownership of the bank, if they do that they also take on the full debt. CU is by far the cheaper and more logical option.
 
gman said:
lol, oh I really wouldn't believe that they are capable of keeping their word. Any of them that is.
Click to expand...

I assume by 'they' you mean the SNP, thing is it's not up to them.
 
Steep said:
It was reference the post you made about no currency union. For WM to refuse an iScotland currency union they would have to take full ownership of the bank, if they do that they also take on the full debt. CU is by far the cheaper and more logical option.
Click to expand...
But I wasn't arguing otherwise :)

Whether or not Scotland takes it's fair share of the debt should it vote yes will probably make little difference other than perhaps hardening public opinion
 
gman said:
Exactly. So long as people are willing to lend to us after defaulting on the National Debt and even if they are, at what interest rate?

My point is that Scotland isn't some huge profitable surplus making country.
Click to expand...
Based upon most recent WTO data, just over 50 countries worldwide are in surplus or break even - which makes about 150 running deficits. That's just what countries (and the financial system) is designed to do. The whole point of independence is to break out of that system - the debt creates the serf.

As for the point on the debt, fundamental to ANY independent country is that you issue and service debt denominated in the currency you control. That's what did for Iceland, taking on debt in Euros rather than in Krone (rather similar to what is doing for Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece, and may shortly do for France if current trends continue). If Scotland cannot use GBP, no way should debt denominated in GBP be accepted.
 
gman said:

A: 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 cannot default on debt that is not yours."
Click to expand...

Semantics. The markets may well consider that we have defaulted.
Steep said:
I refer you to this - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-youre-money-you-4043182

Which says :

" Q: But the Westminster parties are saying they won’t let us share the Bank of England if we vote Yes.

A: The Bank of England is a publicly owned asset that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to. If Westminster grabs all the assets of the central UK bank then, under international law, it also gets lumped with the liabilities, ie the UK’s £1.3trillion debt.

Q: So with no currency union, there’s no debt for us?

A: Absolutely scot free.

Q: How much will we save?

A: Scotland’s share of debt interest is calculated at £5billion a year.

Q: But the No campaign say Scotland would be considered a defaulter and our interest rates would go up…

A: 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 cannot default on debt that is not yours."
Click to expand...
That article is absolute nonsense and is actually a strong argument for establishing a new currency. Why bother taking on the debt, just walk away Scot free ;)
 
dod said:
Semantics. The markets may well consider that we have defaulted.

That article is absolute nonsense and is actually a strong argument for establishing a new currency. Why bother taking on the debt, just walk away Scot free ;)
Click to expand...

That's the thing, nobody wants to do that. My personal philosophy is you take responsibility for yourself and your actions, in other words you pay your debts and I'm sure iScotland would much prefer to pay it's share. It all comes down to what WM decide they want to do, I believe that the yes campaign are right in saying that there will be a CU because that's what is best for all parties (also as I've said many times "in the short term at least"). If WM really do decide to block CU then on their heads be it and the financial markets won't give a damn, as long as the debt is covered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top