It's not Scotland's debt, it's the UKs debt.

Salmond's saying that if the UK allows Scotland to use the pound then it will acknowledge their share of the UK debt and pledge to repay it. If England takes its bat and ball home because it's butthurt then he'll just say the UK can keep its own debts.

If the UK is going to start defaulting on its debts just because little Scotland's left it then no wonder the Scots want out.

It IS Scotlands debt.

Have you ever had a partner, did you buy a house together, did you walk away because it suited you, did the bank just say "oh, never mind, it was a couples debt and you're not a couple anymore"

Social Joint tenants are responsible for their debts, even if they split, I can't see why countries should be any different.

But while Scotland was a partner in running up the debt, they were also a partner in the pound. England wants to keep the pound all to itself, but it wants Scotland to cover their part of the debt.

because it is the ENGLISH POUND

you really are obtuse at times.

It was both. Because countries with the $ and £ didn't crash anywhere near as badly as some of those with the Euro. Because the US and UK can control their own monetary policy to suit their own needs.
Greece/Spain etc couldn't do that. Because the Euro monetary policy is one that has to encompass the entire Eurozone and suit Germany & France as well as Greece.
Some Euro nations suffered significantly from not being able to control their currency.
Whilst Britain, despite illogical fiscal policy, benefitted from interest rates and QE.

That the Welsh and Northern Irish use as well.

Would you agree that the Bank of England and sterling are an asset? They clearly are. Now, as part of the United Kingdom didn't Scotland contribute to them while part of the union? You seem to be saying an absolute no, that if they are leaving the union then they leave them behind. Scotland are saying that if that's the case and their contribution to sterling is worthless well they'll let the UK cover all the debts too.

You want to keep the asset and share the debt. Scotland are merely saying that if England keeps all the asset they keep all the debts too.

no, they leave the benefit but pay their debt, it's not that complicated.

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Except it will be little or nothing to do with Cameron who will presumably be looooooooong gone and working in a bank or something way before any separation actually might happen.


What's a royalist? Only you could have missed the ironic tone. Having said which, I much prefer the constitutional monarchy that has served us so well to other models, and reckon Brenda does a cracking job.


It's not BS, it's just a historical legacy, which the majority have been happy with, and Parliament has never (in any flavour) really even considered changing. All i'd do is cut adrift those "royals" who do fsck all (which is most of them) but those who work at their jobs like proper Trojans put in a great shift for the country and I have no great problem in paying something for their services. From what I see of Presidents, they don't seem to come at bargain rates either.

However, back to the plot; the Scots if they vote Yes would have a big constitutional issue, and I have no idea whether the population of Scotland want a monarch of any description, or a republic. They could, of course, go back to having a King or Queen of Scotland, for one thing. So it would be a three-way issue; Queen Elizabeth; King Max or even Queen Elisabeth (which would need the 1701 Act of Settlement that outlawed Catholic monarchs to be repealed, which shouldn't be a problem as it is blatantly discriminatory anyway); otherwise King Franz; or maybe the Belgian, King Michael or any one of several other contenders. Finally there is the third option, a republic.

But you will however I'm sure be ecstatic to learn that the firm SNP policy is to remain a constitutional monarchy, with Brenda in charge, so it's not just me. And if the Scots wanted in the future a monarchy but with their own monarch, then I would bet a lot of money that if Princess Anne threw her hat in the ring, she would win a Scottish majority vote. Unless Tilda Swinton threw in her lot, she's descended from Robert the Bruce and critically already has Queen experience, even if it is only in Narnia.

Except they are keeping many assets. All the buildings built with public money in Scotland. All the people trained by public UK institutions. They are shared assets and they are keeping their share if them.

The currency is a UK currency. Yes it was contributed to by Scotland but the benefit of that contribution has been had and shared by Scotland.

Scotland is leaving the UK therefore it leaves behind certain things such as UK armed forces, the NHS etc and also the Pound. It is well within it's rights to setup it's own armed forces and Health Service etc but they will not be (eventually after a period of transition) shared Armed Forces or Health Services. The same is true of the currency.

As mentioned, they have 4 realistic options:
- Setup a Scottish Pound. Incredibly difficult, dangerous and unstable option, especially at the moment.
- Join the Euro. Which would mean joining the EU, which would take a long time and is far from certain they'd be approved. If they were, they're still handing over control of their currency to someone else.
- Keep using the Pound with a currency union. Best option, but demolishes the entire case for independence in the first place.
-Keep using the Pound without a currency union. Might work. Some Latin American countries use the US dollar without a Union. But it's still very risky. No lender of last resort and no control of monetary policy.

They are Scotland's options. None are ideal. But they don't appear to have thought that far ahead.

Quote ="Errlee Berd"Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.'" so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.

Quote ="Errlee Berd"Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.'" so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.

and by "Hull", I meant the City, not the rugby club.

I think that's part of the issue. Salmond should have had the answers set out years ago, but seems to have been caught out just recently in the TV debates. His party has been on a devolution/independence ticket for years, yet I do wonder if he or anyone has given thought to exactly what happens on day 1 of Scotland being independent.

I hope for the Scottish people that they aren't going to be left screwed over by Salmond/Sturgeon (or Darling/Brown) and political points scoring.

And while I'm thinking about it, WTF gives Gordon Brown the authority to start offering sweeteners on the basis of a "no" vote?

Sir Ian Mckellen for Queen of Scotland?

Quote ="Standee"so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.'" Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

Quote ="Standee"so, can I devolve "Number 6 Acacia Avenue" and make my own "regional" decisions, based on what suits, errm, me? Look at how poorly Hull has been "managed" up until recently, do we want that on a regional basis, I think not.'" Based on what suits the population that live there, of course. The population of Yorkshire isn't far off the population of Scotland, and much higher than Wales - who both currently manage certain parts of their own affairs. London have their own assembly too of course. There have been a number of articles published in the last couple of years showing the merits of the models that smaller countries (between 4m & 10m) have adopted. Their models aren't based on idealism (like Salmond's is) but on practicality. It'll never happen, but using devolution to split the rest of England into smaller blocks of say 5m-8m is regarded by many economists as the best route the governance of the UK could ever take. A few minutes on google brought up some interesting articles/papers discussing the subject, if you have chance to read them; www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/ori ... isbest.pdf www.investindk.com/News-and-even ... -the-world www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725

The decision isn't enacted immediately. Just as a No vote will bring through new negotiations on devolutionary powers, so would a Yes vote. Negotiations would take place during a period of status quo to reach the changeover.

Brown is in the Better Together campaign & simply delivering what he is told to. I would be amazed if anyone gives any credibility to anything that comes out of his mouth.

I'd kind of guessed that, but there would still be a Day 1 of independence

No they are not. The B of E is an Institution and Sterling is a currency. The currency has had no intrinsic value ever since the Gold Standard came to an end in 1971. You can't swap it for some tangible object (i.e. a lump of gold) and it is instead just used as a means of exchange. You can't have a share of that because its not an asset.

The pounds value which is based on how many of them there are in circulation and the world's perception of the strength of the UK economy (leading to countries tio want to buy or sell pounds) is just that. An exchange rate not something you can divide up. An asset can be divided so that would be the UK's currency reserves (for example) not the currency itself.

There is nothing to stop Scotland using it as a means of exchange as Panama uses the US dollar (and the US dollar is not something anyone would suggest Panama has a stake in as in it being an asset).

That it not what Salmond wants though. He wants to use the pound within a currency union so his banks are backed by not only Scottish but English, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers and because he doesn't want an exchange rate in force across the Scottish / English border.

His insistence it is an asset is purely political in that he thinks he can use it to walk away from a debt (as he doesn't get a share of this "asset"icon_wink.gif or threaten to do so.



How did Scotland "contribute" to the pound?

By walking away from the Union they reduce the size of the UK economy so this will reduce the value of the pound (not that this would be a particularly bad thing for exports....) and so their contribution to its value (which isn't that great a proportion anyway) disappears. That percentage is their contribution to the pound but it relies on them being part of an economic union for this contribution to exist at all.

Even in a currency union any perceived risks of the Scottish government breaking any of the inevitable fiscal rules that would have to be put in place would affect it's value.

But lets suppose it went the other way and the Scottish economy was a success, why would the rest of the UK want the value of the pound inflated when it wasn't receiving any of the revenue from the Scottish economy?

Also if the pound is a UK-wide asset so are all Scotland's assets such as the oil which they have no intention of sharing.



No, they are using the excuse of being denied a currency union to threaten to walk away from a debt.

It does if they are in a currency union with the test of the UK. If not and they use the pound regardless that has other very negative implications for Scotland he keeps quiet on.



That is not what he wants. The BBC currently is the National public broadcaster for the UK as a whole so produces regional programming. Yes Scotland could buy the latest episode of Sherlock or the Scots could even watch it on Netflix as the BBC sells it to them but all the jobs, regional programming and production would cease or it would have to be funded by Scottish taxpayers alone. Or they could just go completely commercial which is the exact opposite of the kind of society on offer.



How is the DVLA a money spinner and for whom? Scotland will have to fund its own road building and repair program. On the back of road tax from however many drivers in Scotland? The Barnett formula is set as it is supposedly to cater for the fact it costs a lot more to fund services and infrastructure in remote parts of Scotland than the more metropolitan and easier to access UK. If that goes then they have to pay for this themselves. As to the civil service however large or small it is it will result in duplication compared to retaining the UK civil service.



How is that relevant? Scotland, we are told, will be a successful economy so will be a net contributor to the EU in the same way Denmark is for example. There won't be any shipbuilding subsidies going towards the Clyde.

Listening to the radio today, it was confirmed that the Queen does actually own Balmoral and her other Scottish estates, so unless Salmond plans to steal all holiday properties of all non-Scots, then they can't touch any of her assets.

I suppose they could nail her (and others) with a huge council tax bill, but I doubt it would do Salmond's cute and cuddly public image much good being seen dragging a vulnerable OAP through the courts, because she couldn't stump up her tax bill??

The Bank of England was formed by a Scot and has had many Scots in charge over its time, they have contributed royally to the success of the UK, Commonwealth and Empire, Glasgow didn't get its name of the Second City of The Commonwealth for nowt.

That's not to say they are "entitled" to anything BTW.

Will the Union Jack have to be changed if the vote is YES?

Do you mean the Union Flag?

The "Jack" is the staff it flies from

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

Yep. You knew what I meant. I've only heard of it called the Union Jack. Learn something new every day. www.flaginstitute.org/wp/british ... nion-flag/ m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack Infact scrub that you pedantic sod. It is known as the Union Jack

If it is changed will it be easier to get it the right way up for sports fans?