Be Excellent To Each Other

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.

Just watched the second debate.
Really unimpressed by Salmond. The only times he looked like a leader rather than an undergraduate debating champ were when he was setting out his vision. It's just a shame he is unable to back it up with hard figures or a sense of political reality. And every time he knocked the Tories or bashed Darling for being 'in bed' with them I cringed. Might appeal to the base and work during an election campaign, but not exactly statesmanlike. It was interesting that Salmond rarely brought up his experiences as First Minister, whilst Darling kept on referring to having held high office in a sovereign state and what that taught him.

Darling was as impressive this time round as he was on the STV one. Coming across as a headmasterly figure calmly deconstructing the 'Yes' campaign is certainly not a sexy approach, but for a vote like this it's very effective. I've noticed that on WoS-that-isn't-WoS, some of the commentators are leaping with glee when Darling said that Scotland could use the pound. They seem to have missed his point that they could also use the dollar, the rouble, or the yen.

Three weeks to go. This thread is quite 'No': do any of our 'yes' people have any thoughts on the campaign, the debate, the vote, or Scotland's future?

Having been thoroughly wedged between yes and no since all this began and what with the inherent uncertainty that a proposition like this presents, I have decided that the only course of action open to me is to vote with my heart. This is not normally how I go about things but I feel it has been forced by the to and fro stalemate where anything anyone says can, and will, be countered by their opposition to a point where everyone just shrugs and says "well, that's just your opinion." So, on that basis I am currently leaning toward Yes and the reasoning is thus: I like change. Given the choice between something remaining stagnant and forever being unsure of what the outcome would be and taking the plunge and trying something different i will more often than not choose the latter. This is just my mentality and is, imo, a pretty poor thing to decide the future of an entire country on but my rational brainy bit is torn between the two options and so i must let something cast the deciding vote and just bloody hope it doesn't all go tits up.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable assessment. I would actually prefer more responses like that then the 'land of deep-fried milk and honey' promised by Salmond.

None of us know how independent Scotland* will work in the long term: I would rather people admitted that it's a hell of a risk and worth trying for richer and poorer rather than making promises that might be regretted.



*new rule: anyone who says 'iScotland' gets to meet Steve Jobs. And don't get me started on 'rUK'.

Yeah, pretty much .

The quality of the No campaign must really suck if the overall rationale for voting Yes is one of 'well, change might be good'.

This is not a general election. We're not giving the SNP 4-5 years to give independence a roll and see how that pans out, before deciding if we'd like it for 4 more. This is permanent and forever. If it goes tits up, it goes tits up forever.

Their arguments are not convincing, because they're not backed up by evidence. They're backed up by a wish for them to be true, and a lot of that wishing is trying to capitalise on the irrational heart where people would like a better world, and see this as the only choice that offers that possibility.

It's an illusion though, you're led to that conclusion because you see it as a binary choice. Change or no change. The actual proposition for No would see more devolved powers and greater local autonomy.

The overall movement is one where the Scottish government will eventually get control of damn near everything anyway, but without any of the severe risk of being apart from the UK with no central bank at worst, and no control or influence over monetary policy at best.

If I didn't live in Scotland, I'd fine the whole proposition charmingly aspirational, and since it wouldn't ever materially affect me I'd probably tell you all to go for it. That's why others in England feel that way - they know the outcome doesn't put them at risk. Living here though and being able to appreciate the position from the north side of the border, I think it's the absolutely worst possible idea imaginable.

Am I the only person in the world who has read the Scotland Act 2012? Even without further devolution, this will be a huge change when it comes into force.

But, whilst I think the 'Yes' campaign has utterly failed to make its case, I can't begrudge people wanting to go for it fully aware that it might all go wrong. I would wish Scotland well, but as I wrote in this thread 2 and half years ago: don't expect us to bail you guys out again when you blow all your treasure on an ill-conceived venture in the New World.

But we would.

Of course.

Well, I'd just say fair play to Wookie and Bamba here, you guys are Scottish and you live in Scotland, so you're infinitely better placed to make such decisions than someone like me.

To my mind it looks like a crazy risk with so many important details and plans unmade and unresolved, but like I said I'm not the guy who's lived there for 20, 30 years or whatever.

From my side I just desperately want the Union to stay together for a whole host of pragmatic and entirely emotive reasons, but Scotland must have her fair, unfettered, democratic chance to decide either way and the rest of us have to respect whatever choice is made.

Just out of interest Cavey, do you regard their opinions with more weight than mine? As I'm a mere English expat that has been here 'only' 4 years, am I trumped by the opinion of a 'trueblood' Scot?

Genuinely curious. Much has been said (and then quickly hushed because of the blatant racism insinuation) about how only 'true' Scots should get to vote, even if they no longer live here, preferentially over someone like me.

I regard their opinions with more weight than yours, but only because you're you

I think I want them to vote yes. In my opinion it's a crazy risk, but it'll be an interesting decade or so to watch, at least

Assuming a 'yes' vote, what's going to happen to the armed forces?