Be Excellent To Each Other

EBG - I have to ask, seeing as you appear to be voting No. If 'Devolution Max' was on the card, in addition to Yes/No, would you vote for that?

Hell yeah. In no way am I opposed to greater devolved powers to the Scottish Government. I think that's an excellent thing.

As much as I bloody hate the phrase, 'best of both worlds', i.e. benefits of the UK and near-total local government autonomy, easily seems to be the best option to me.

I subscribe to the rallying cry of the old Liberal party: 'Home Rule All Round! '

The UK is far too centralised. Devolution has helped, but we need to bring powers closer, especially in England.

As of tomorrow, I no longer have any opinion on this subject, due to where i'm working.

See you on the other side in our new nirvana, people!

The University of Edinburgh has launched a 6 week course on Understanding the Independence Referendum today... which will finish on October 6th, two weeks after the referendum.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2014/150814-referendum

Erm.

I assume (hope) it's a course on understanding the sociopolitical impact of the referendum, rather than understanding it with a view to knowing how to vote.

It says it'll follow the result and help you comment and understand on it, as well as conducting polls to see how those taking the course are being affected.

Seems both odd and pointless to me. Are you studying the referendum, or are they studying you learning about it?

This time it seems Salmond did his homework, and tossed in the nuclear, taking-the-ball-home argument of 'if we don't get a currency union, we won't take any of the debt' option. Thoughts?

Utterly impractical and would murder their credit rating.

NEXT!

From a lender's point of view, wouldn't an entity not carrying a shitload of debt be less of a credit risk?

So what collateral would you be lending against?

Who would you rather lend £100 to? Someone who has debt and a track record of paying off the interest on time and in full, or someone who has just defaulted on a loan and now has no debt because of that?

You could argue that Scotland never defaulted on the debt, and that they can't go independent a second time round.

Yeah, a supposed iScotland "doing an Argentina" and simply defaulting on all its debts is about as credible as the rest of the SNP's economic prospectus, and has been comprehensively debunked multiple times already.

As I've said before, this ludicrous (and irresponsible, quite dangerous) sabre-rattling might go down a storm on one-dimensional cybernat blogs and/or after a few drams down the local, but for ordinary, working, tax-paying people at least (i.e. those with plenty at stake - and plenty to lose), it all looks pretty shocking the morning after. They'll not want to be waking up to any prospect of any of this ludicrous nonsense actually being played out for real come 20th Sept, which is why most polls put No at anywhere between 10-20 points ahead mere weeks now before the final poll.

Economic credibility or total lack thereof has been, and will be, the SNP's downfall in all of this (well, that, and their more vociferous, unpleasant cybernat "colleagues" whom they've been desperately trying, unsuccessfully, to variously rein in and/or disassociate themselves from). "It's the economy, stupid"...

That said... if Scotland were to threaten to walk from any notional debt obligation, I dont think rUK would really have to do very much about it. There are enough concerned observers in other EU states alone (Spain, France, Belgium and more) about the outcome of a succesful yes vote and what self determination would mean in their countries that if Scotland were to 'default' then I think they themselves would be pushing for blocking EU membership and even economic sanctions in response, to warn their home independence supporters.

That would be fun.

Also, one article I read this morning said that Salmond was more prepared and ready last nightas evidenced by him dropping the debt bomb. Was he fuck. He knew full well that he couldn't say it last time around as there would be a second debate. This time he knows there won't be another debate so he can just dodge the question from here on in.

I'd potentially rather lend to the third person: the guy who hasn't defaulted and has no debt because he's walked away from some due to political reasons which, as someone who makes money lending to entire countries, I'm aware of and understand.

I don't see how that's a response to my post?

I'd be staggered if the countries selling bonds saw it that way. Not to mention that the banks, powerful as they are, would have pressure put on them by several of the larger EU countries to tell Scotland to fuck off.

Not nice, but more likely.

Well, yes, I'm not saying there won't necessarily be other political shenanigans going on but if it's boiled down to a straight financial transaction, as you did in your question to me, then the lender would selfishly look at the financial risk alone and not whether the borrower has maybe been a bit of a dick to an unrelated third party. In reality it's probably unhelpful to use the term 'default' as it's not what would actually be happening and wouldn't be the actual reason that Scotland might have trouble borrowing; which would in fact be political nonsense as you talk about above.

You've just worded a statement as a question and now I don't know how to respond?

Also, in this instance Scotland doesn't use Sterling OR the Euro, so they'd be borrowing whilst using a totally untried and new currency, which sets off warning bells.

And financial institutions really will see it as a default.

I'm not entirely sure that telling scotland to fuck off under the scenario that they walk without assuming any debt (assuming it were so black or white) would fall into the category of 'political nonsense'

How is it an unrelated 3rd Party?

It was intended to elicit an explanation from you about how your post, which talked about collateral, was related to my post, which was about debt. If you think an independent Scotland would have a collateral problem then I'm interested to hear it, but the discussion hadn't been about that so I honestly don't know what point you were making.

What's rUK's involvement in a loan agreement between an independent Scotland and a lender?

But as Scotland has run up a debt as being part of the current UK, to walk away from it, still makes it their debt.

If they've walked away from it then no, it is no longer their debt. That's sort of the whole point here.

If I walk away from my debts, I can't go borrowing money as if I have an excellent credit rating, even assuming I create a brand new identity.

Yes but surely you can't walk away from a debt. I know that if I decide I don't want to pay my credit card, it will adversly effect me.

Perhaps I am too naive

Also, there's no way an independence bill would ever make it through Westminster without Scotland taking on its share of the debt in the text, I'd have thought.

A country can - they can just state that they are not going to be repaying the debt and that's that. Of course, they may end up in a billion huge court cases, and with no one else willing to lend to them ( and a new Scottish Government is going to need to borrow money straight away, just to keep the country going ).

It's almost like they haven't thought this through at all. But they must have, surely?

Isn't it less like you, as an individual, simply refusing to pay back money you owe and more like one party in a divorce ending up legally liable for the couple's combined debts while the other party walks away? The latter situation isn't much fun for the other party in the divorce and they'd be unhappy about it but it does mean technically, and for the sake of future financial transactions, the second partner is debt free.

I'm assuming this to be the case, and financial analysis pieces my company have produced back that up, because if rUK could genuinely somehow force debt onto the books of an independent Scotland then obviously the whole threat of just 'walking away' wouldn't even be on the table as it wouldn't work. As morally questionable as it might be I think it's the case that Scotland would need to actually agree to take on X amount of debt as part of the 'divorce settlement' and if they didn't there's not a lot rUK can do directly to enforce that. Obviously it would create bad blood and thus potentially endanger other stuff Scotland might want out of the situation but it's something they can certainly technically threaten.

Only if signed off by the court and both parties agree.

I've gone back and read the financial research I mentioned just to make sure I wasn't misremembering and yeah, apparently there's no legal basis under which Scotland needs to accept any of the current UK debt. Not doing so could cause other issues but there's nothing actually stopping Scotland not giving shit. Annoyingly I can't link to or quote what is quite an interesting piece because I'm not sure if it's actually available outwith our research site paywall. Let me see if I can find a legit link to it as I realise all my chat here is worthless without that...

In an actual divorce between two individuals, yes. This isn't that; it's just a bit more like that than the other situation Curiosity used as a comparison. It's still not exactly the same.

We don't really have any law covering secession, so there's no real legal requirement for anything at all. Getting away with it with respect to your position with the international community and financial industry is the problem Scotland would face.

I suppose we could always annex them again afterwards if they don't pay up.

Bollocks, no, it seems you need to pay for access to all our research and I'm not sure whether quoting chunks of it would be a good idea. So, yeah, feel free to ignore my arguments then as I can't back them up it seems.

In the scenario we were talking about Scotland was debt-free (whether rUK liked it or not) and other countries not lending to them wasn't because of financial risk and it certainly wasn't because they gave a shit about Scotland screwing over poor England et al; it was because they didn't want putative separatists in their own back yard getting any bright ideas. So, 'political nonsense' as opposed to a technical or risk problem with the financial transaction itself. Was all I meant.

It's probably worth noting here that I don't support the idea of Scotland doing this* or anything, I just find it interesting that it's even possible.

*Unless Westminster are such hard-asses during divorce negotiations that Scotland was forced to play this card, but that seems unlikely and I can't see how it wouldn't create more problems than it solved as folks here observe. A swift and as-amicable-as-possible agreement would be best for all parties concerned.

The thing is, if Scotland votes Yes and then tries to walk out on the debt, Westminster can just tell them to go fuck themselves in all other matters, can't they? I'm not sure of the exact wording of the agreement that they have to Scotland re: the referendum, but I'm pretty sure they still need to ask nicely or something.

If Scotland votes No, can we just kick them out anyway for being whiny Scotches?

Yeah, the whole thing will have to be an accord between the two countries so it'll be compromises and trade-offs across the board; as it should be. Which is exactly why Scotland walking away from the debt is even a discussion. Doing so would fuck Westminster off to the point they'd screw Scotland on other shit as you say making it unlikely, but if Westminster were already being utter dicks about everything else Scotland could conceivably feel pushed into taking this 'nuclear option'. In reality I don't think either of those extreme positions is likely because it's in no one's interests for such negotiation to be drawn-out and unpleasant.

Aye. Hopefully if there's a Yes vote then everyone will be grown up about it. I don't think it serves the rUK to be dicks out of principle, but that's not to say they won't be.

There's a big difference between what an iScotland COULD do, as compared to what it WOULD do, in a given sane, realistic scenario.

An iScotland COULD default on its shared debt(thereby walking away from its assets as well, incidentally) , just as it COULD do any other number of ridiculous things. Back in the real, grown up world, though, it ain't gonna happen - for any number of eminently sensible reasons that even the most cursory Googling of non-frothing, independent information resources with no axe to grind one way or another will tell you.

You'd think, wouldn't you, that the SNP would've worked this most fundamental shit out (or at least have a number of currency options that are NOT predicated on getting unwilling third parties to do stuff they're absolutely not going to do, is not in their interests to do, and couldn't actually deliver even if they wanted to). Same goes for an iScotland's EU membership/status for that matter - but then, we mustn't forget the non-existent "legal advice"...

The fact is this: whatever you may think about Cameron and/or the Conservatives, they are, at least, savvy, grown up, pretty clever politicians. On every turn, it is no doubt dawning on the SNP that every single one of their hapless foxes has been shot, keeping "DevoMax" off the ballot paper being key, together with the aforementioned EU Gate, the most basic currency considerations/risks of a run on banks, the needs of big business and employers' (most notably oil and finance sectors, the very lifeblood of Scotland's economy).

It's just all so bloody half-arsed?
I seriously, seriously expected so much more than this.

I deliberately avoided the debate as I knew it wouldn't be anything new, and would instead be pitched at the standard lowest denominator of cheap wordy tactics aimed at the simple-minded.

Salmond's rhetoric annoys No voters for insulting their intelligence, and gives YesNPers new material for their brave heart spankbank, but I'm not sure if any of it is convincing anyone else. There is always the most dreary and predictable crowing when the nats think Salmond has put in a good show, but there's little to show it getting past more than 40% support.

I'm also not convinced that it will have occurred to most if these thick twats to even register to vote. I wonder how many will just turn up on the day demanding their vote.

I'm still amazed that the No vote is winning, tbh.

I thought that a combination of nationalism, the sense of responsibility and promises given would easily be enough to win the day for Yes (and it still might). More to the point, people on the Yes side seem more likely to vote than people who are largely 'Nah, it's okay at the mo'. I can't see too many rabid anti-independence voters in the same way people get excited by the Yes possibility.

Also, most of my Scottish friends, if not all, seem likely to vote Yes, for a variety of reasons. The most compelling one seems to be, "Yes, it might be tough, and no, I don't necessarily believe that everything Salmond says is true, but I think we should try anyway, and succeed or fail on our own two feet." And that's a persuasive argument, to be honest.

I would vote No personally because I'm English and like the union (and Yes would cause more work for me). I'm just surprised that there appear to be more No voters, and wonder what the defining characteristic of the movement is (as I don't buy that they're intrinsically more intelligent or whatever).

Straw poll of driving through the highlands reveals the signage to be overwhelmingly in favour of 'no'.

I'm slightly worried that I won't have a vote for the referendum because I moved flat not long ago and sent off the form to register to vote at my new address but haven't heard anything back. If I don't get a voting card does that mean I'm totally fucked or is it still worth rocking up to the polling station?

You have til the 2nd to register I believe, so plenty of time.