Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Will you vote for independence?

Scottish independence?

  • Yes please

    Votes: 99 56.6%

  • No thanks

    Votes: 57 32.6%

  • Dont know yet

    Votes: 17 9.7%
  • Total voters
    175
danny la rouge said:
There are also the negotiations. The rUK has given away its best card. They want to share the debt, how do they get the deal?

Furthermore, the SNP is bound to have a fallback position. But what kind of negotiator goes into a bargaining situation announcing "I'm asking £250 but actually I'd accept £175"? You'd be daft to do that. They'll offer the lower price straight away.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the rUK just veto Scotland's EU membership unless it accepted a share of the debt?
 
Combustible said:
Couldn't the rUK just veto Scotland's EU membership unless it accepted a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

Spain probably will anyway so no real card there, if they go down the proper Independance route and have their own currency the interest rate at which they can borrow money will be affected by how much of the debt taken. Don't take any and they might as well have Wonga as the main creditors
 
gosub said:
Spain probably will anyway so no real card there, if they go down the proper Independance route and have their own currency the interest rate at which they can borrow money will be affected by how much of the debt taken. Don't take any and they might as well have Wonga as the main creditors
Click to expand...

They may do but I can't imagine the EU or UK being happy about Scotland being permanently excluded and both parties (particularly the EU) could put considerable pressure on Spain not to. However if the UK were to threaten to veto as a bargaining chip until a deal on the debt was sorted I am not sure it would be such a problem.
 
Quartz said:
Can you explain your reasoning on that?
Click to expand...
You borrow money at the rate bond markets are prepared to cover. To prevent a brilliant idea of everybody declaring independence from the city of London and walking away making their existing bonds worthless, they will set punitive rates beyond covering any jeopardy, pour encourager les autres.
Also the risk factor will have gone up based past history, which will count some bond players out by nature of their t&cs. The bond market is very little c conservative. (before anyone thinks of making a cheap political point you have a lot of union and pension funds in there and the like)
 
Last edited:
Combustible said:
They may do but I can't imagine the EU or UK being happy about Scotland being permanently excluded and both parties (particularly the EU) could put considerable pressure on Spain not to. However if the UK were to threaten to veto as a bargaining chip until a deal on the debt was sorted I am not sure it would be such a problem.
Click to expand...

Can see where you are coming from and they probably will keep that nuclear card, but while I can see EU and Commission being sympathetic as it fits with a divide and rule, but you need Council unanimity and I think their would be a lot less sympathy there. Spain ain't the only country where national government could see this as a potential route to future atrophy.
 
Last edited:
weepiper said:
Feel the love, Scots!

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/n...ot-be-bonnie-or-brave-on-its-own-9128024.html

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


From that article:

Depressing stuff, but it reminded me of one of the great Victorian quirks of London. When Tower Bridge was commissioned in 1884 it enshrined the supremacy of river traffic over carts and carriages: today, any ship that requests passage can still stop road traffic dead. But the upper gantries of the bridge were included so foot passengers could continue their journey unimpeded.
Click to expand...

(Nothing to do with independence, but I thought it was sweet.)
 
gosub said:
When I go down south I do feel a genuine anger from mates of Scottish heritage down there, that I, a blow in, get a vote and they don't.
Click to expand...

I find that surprising. I know a lot of Scots who live in London. While we obviously have our views on independence -- and most are for or leaning towards it -- we all think it's fair enough that we can't vote given we don't actually live there. And, likewise, that people who do (of whatever nationality/origin) should obviously be able to have their say.
 
I find the other way, as with me , a Welsh name and English accent living in Scotland (and have only attended the festive 5 times :rolleyes:) feel British with a Welsh heart, they through where they have ended up feel British, with a Scots heart.

There is another dimension, the head bit, relating to the sovereignty issues and I get that. The sneering tone of that article does nobody any favours, but he is right on one thing, currency has just holed independence below the water line. That in itself wasn't handled particularly gracefully, the men from the Ministry flew in, made a statement then flew out without taking any questions. Ouch.But then there was a reciprocal determinism to it, the Scottish Government's negotiate on our terms or we walk away from debt responsibilities - there's bluff and bully, right there.
I don't think much of calibre of Westminster but on hearing that, their first step was to assure the Bond market all existing debts would be covered, before unleashing the counter volley. The Scottish Government's response counter attack before it had sunk in, with what was on the drawing board effectively binned, it would take over 2 years to unpick properly, from here a standing start. Hopefully a weekend rest will allow for a more grown up approach in the coming days.
 
Quartz said:
Can you explain your reasoning on that?
Click to expand...



This is an analysis that suggests that a state “welshing” on a national debt will cause a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to repay bonds. However, this is to confuse the issue of a possible effect on market confidence of an independent Scotland insisting it has no obligation to shoulder a share of a debt incurred by a separate legal entity, before it existed as an entity. [See posts above: should an entity which is said to be new and not able to inherit any agreements or treaties be expected to inherit any debts?] The argument is that by insisting that the debt was not Scotland’s but the rUK’s, Scotland’s credit rating with the so-called Big Three agencies would be damaged.

This is an assumption. First of all, national debt crises, such as Greece recently or Russia in the 90s, are based on debt those entities entered into themselves. Secondly, the calculations include the ability of a government to, theoretically, repay bonds on reaching maturity by through taxes if necessary. That means the number of bonds due to mature is included in the calculation (ie, not all of them). Furthermore, in reality, bonds work like insurance: they are actually issued against the other bonds in circulation.

In the cases of Russia and Greece, the problems were compounded because international bond holders were concerned that the currency of the bond issuer was declining to fast against their own currency. It’s an exchange rate loss. So, an American who held Russian bonds was concerned because the ruble was being kept artificially high, and worried that market pressure would cause it to plummet in relation to the dollar. An American holding Greek bonds would worry about the stability of the euro as against the dollar.

However, the underlying problems in both cases do not apply to a new Scotland seeking to open its accounts. The root Russian problem, for example, was a fiscal deficit caused by overreliance on the Asian market, which crashed impacting on Russian exports of crude oil and other minerals. This was added to the costs of the Chechen war.

These problems do not apply to the new Scotland. It is doubtful that the Big Three would downgrade the Scottish credit rating as much as that. Furthermore, the market does not slavishly follow these credit ratings, but makes up its own mind. It will take into account, for example, buying at the bottom, or the tax take of the new economy, and its balance of payments etc.

So it’s a consideration, but it really isn’t a case that refusing to accept a share of the UK debt would mean Scotland would be unable to raise bonds.

This is all hypothetical, though. And Salmond’s team do intend to accept a share of the UK debt, but it will – as one might expect – form a part of negotiations.

Anyway, if there are any more questions, I hope an actual SNP supporter, or someone who supports their policies, will take up the case in future. I’ve said quite enough.

Please remember that supporting independence is not the same as supporting the SNP. And furthermore, there is no such thing as a state that does not in some way relinquish or pool some degree of its sovereignty. Seeking to do so over currency does not mean that there would be no sovereignty left worth having. That is a stupid, reductive, and uniformed equation. If that were the case, the current UK may as well throw the towel in, as it pools sovereignty in a number of areas; it is impossible not to.
 
Here's a round up of websites and blogs relevant to the currency debate. I supply these for interest. I did not write any of them, and do not necessarily agree with their contents.

First, the Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission Working Group Report – Macroeconomic Framework. The section on currency, outlining how the Sterling union policy was arrived at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017/10

Second, an analysis of the UK debt and how the share is worked out:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-angels-share/

Third, Gerry Hassan and James Mitchell on the political storm, and how the parties come out of it:
(Hassan and Mitchell wrote a book together on independence. Hassan is broadly pro, Mitchell broadly anti).

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan-james-mitchell/political-storm-over-scotland’s-currency

These interventions beg the question of what kind of union it is where George Osborne with Labour and Lib Dem backing can lay down unilateral conditions. The tone, attitude and content is deeply worrying and damaging. The state of the British body politic and what passes for democracy are not exactly in robust health. Whatever the outcome of the September Scottish vote, Osborne has just dealt another significant blow to the union of the United Kingdom that he so fervently supports.


It is time for a different kind of union to be proposed by pro-union politicians, but that requires a different kind of unionism from what we have seen of late. A union and unionism have to have a politics and vision of the whole union. At the moment we seem to have one which not only does not represent or understand Scotland, but the North and most parts of England as well.
Click to expand...

Fourth, an Adam Smith Institute analysis published yesterday, suggesting that Scotland should dollarise (use Sterling without a formal currency union).

(Remember, it is a free market/neo-classical economic think tank).

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/money...ld-flourish-by-unilaterally-keeping-the-pound
 
danny la rouge said:
This is an analysis that suggests that a state “welshing” on a national debt will cause a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to repay bonds. However, this is to confuse the issue of a possible effect on market confidence of an independent Scotland insisting it has no obligation to shoulder a share of a debt incurred by a separate legal entity, before it existed as an entity. [See posts above: should an entity which is said to be new and not able to inherit any agreements or treaties be expected to inherit any debts?] The argument is that by insisting that the debt was not Scotland’s but the rUK’s, Scotland’s credit rating with the so-called Big Three agencies would be damaged.

This is an assumption. First of all, national debt crises, such as Greece recently or Russia in the 90s, are based on debt those entities entered into themselves. Secondly, the calculations include the ability of a government to, theoretically, repay bonds on reaching maturity by through taxes if necessary. That means the number of bonds due to mature is included in the calculation (ie, not all of them). Furthermore, in reality, bonds work like insurance: they are actually issued against the other bonds in circulation.

In the cases of Russia and Greece, the problems were compounded because international bond holders were concerned that the currency of the bond issuer was declining to fast against their own currency. It’s an exchange rate loss. So, an American who held Russian bonds was concerned because the ruble was being kept artificially high, and worried that market pressure would cause it to plummet in relation to the dollar. An American holding Greek bonds would worry about the stability of the euro as against the dollar.

However, the underlying problems in both cases do not apply to a new Scotland seeking to open its accounts. The root Russian problem, for example, was a fiscal deficit caused by overreliance on the Asian market, which crashed impacting on Russian exports of crude oil and other minerals. This was added to the costs of the Chechen war.

These problems do not apply to the new Scotland. It is doubtful that the Big Three would downgrade the Scottish credit rating as much as that. Furthermore, the market does not slavishly follow these credit ratings, but makes up its own mind. It will take into account, for example, buying at the bottom, or the tax take of the new economy, and its balance of payments etc.

So it’s a consideration, but it really isn’t a case that refusing to accept a share of the UK debt would mean Scotland would be unable to raise bonds.

This is all hypothetical, though. And Salmond’s team do intend to accept a share of the UK debt, but it will – as one might expect – form a part of negotiations.

Anyway, if there are any more questions, I hope an actual SNP supporter, or someone who supports their policies, will take up the case in future. I’ve said quite enough.

Please remember that supporting independence is not the same as supporting the SNP. And furthermore, there is no such thing as a state that does not in some way relinquish or pool some degree of its sovereignty. Seeking to do so over currency does not mean that there would be no sovereignty left worth having. That is a stupid, reductive, and uniformed equation. If that were the case, the current UK may as well throw the towel in, as it pools sovereignty in a number of areas; it is impossible not to.
Click to expand...

I assumed Scotland to be a net contributor to the UK, and its waltzing off having a detrimental effect on rUK meeting obligations previously entered into jointly, as must do the SNP thinking that it buys them leverage and they put the possibility of walking away on the table. But it is a market, turn up in a gang and start vandalising the stall holders stock,turn up on your own the next day and try and buy something off him, that there is a certain reluctance should come as no surprise.

Not all bond buyers follow credit ratings but you really don't want to be dealing with the wide boys that don't. The whole 2008 crash was down to manipulating bad debts into a position where it was an acceptable purchase for the reputable buyers. By getting toxic assets into the criteria of an acceptable buy, it was the promised higher yields that forced them to buy as the the bubble extended long enough that those sensibly weary were bludgeoned by not being able to match the returns of those who did. It was a cynical and criminal manipulation for which more people should go to jail, but to dismiss the credit rating agencies is to throw the baby out with the bath water - they are part of a check and balance system that theoretically stop your pension; council tax; whatever; being taken down Shawfield dog track and bet on trap 1,2&6
 
Last edited:
Combustible said:
Couldn't the rUK just veto Scotland's EU membership unless it accepted a share of the debt?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'd missed this. Yes, it could. However, there would be pressure from France and Germany for energy security reasons to allow Scottish oil and gas reserves back into the EU.

The truth is, there will be negotiations. George Osborne is no more going to pre-negotiate than is Alex Salmond. What is going on now is referendum campaigning, not pre-negotiations.
 
Combustible said:
Couldn't the rUK just veto Scotland's EU membership unless it accepted a share of the debt?
Click to expand...

There would also be pressure coming from places like Spain. If Scotland now goes down the lets join the EUro route, so while rUK could in theory block at European Council level until debt is sorted to its satisfaction,but clearing that obstacle wouldn't guarantee anything.

danny la rouge said:
Sorry, I'd missed this. Yes, it could. However, there would be pressure from France and Germany for energy security reasons to allow Scottish oil and gas reserves back into the EU.

The truth is, there will be negotiations. George Osborne is no more going to pre-negotiate than is Alex Salmond. What is going on now is referendum campaigning, not pre-negotiations.
Click to expand...

Putting a potential walk away on the table was a ham fisted agressive move that most likely alarmed the self styled Masters of the Universe in the bond market as much as it did Westminster. The come up, make statement, no questions. looks less like campaigning more Masters of the Universe pulling the chain. Salmand has to do a row back
 
Last edited:
My last word on the currency debacle:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/13/the-people-vs-the-british-state/

The rights and wrongs of currency union is really not the issue. The core of the matter is that the elite in Westminster have lost control of the argument, feel like they are slipping behind and must resort to a bulldozing strategy, drawing on their most precious resource – that everyone at Westminster wants the same result on September 18th.[...]

Underlying all of this is the need to maintain the current order at any cost. The British establishment is a very old one. The people change, but just as the labour movement has a history of struggles that we remember and learn from, so to do the establishment. Westminster is a university for the ruling class. The political institutions that interact with the economic elite in the City only partially live on an election to election basis. The system itself is permanent, and while managed by different political actors for largely the same, neoliberal ends.​

That's the crux.
 
This is apparently without irony. The Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...MENT-Is-Union-sleepwalking-poll-disaster.html

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Is Union sleepwalking towards poll disaster?

Only a few months ago, the received wisdom was that it was inconceivable the Scots would vote Yes in the September referendum on independence.

Now this paper is not so sure.The rancour between both sides is plumbing new and unedifying depths.

[...]
Complacency reigns in the pro-Union camp, which lacks energy, focus and eloquence. Alistair Darling may be an able man, but he does not have the vision or charisma to provide the campaign with the necessary leadership.

[...]what worries this paper is that the negative, threatening approach by the pro-Unionists is proving counter-productive.

The truth is that negative campaigning seldom works. The tragedy is that there is a gloriously positive message to be delivered, but the pro-Union politicians are utterly failing to articulate it.

[...]
Troublingly, there is a sneaking suspicion that many in the Tory Party would like the Union to break up.
 
Anyone have any ideas when the first post-currency debate polls will land?
 
JTG said:
Anyone have any ideas when the first post-currency debate polls will land?
Click to expand...
No, but I'd be interested to see not just the knee jerk, but also the next one once ideas have been allowed to brew. I think different people will react differently. It's hard to tell what the trend might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

farmerbarleymow
  • Poll
Which urban posters will be entitled to Scots citizenship?
2 3 4
Replies
119
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
danny la rouge
MSPs vote to allow tail docking of dogs
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Poi E
P
weepiper
Radical Independence Conference
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
neonwilderness
Fort William
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
danny la rouge
Pro-independence daily paper the National to launch in Scotland
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom