Independence Referendum

[doubleup]

Also to Doobs re regulators etc.  The various laws apply in Scotland as well as England and will continue to apply post independence unless they are specifically amended.

Regulators are financed by financial institutions not government, so there is no need for any arrangements to change immediately.

Really? The pensions regulator was established under statute and it's powers discussed and updated under the pensions acts.

So would you be happy Westminster set the terms of your regulation in Scotland would have no power to do so?

The regulator is funded by levies from schemes taken from funds or employers.

All UK arrangement would also have to consider cross border implications which will be a nice little earner for advisers.

Yeees and the Pensions Acts and all laws will continue to apply in Scotland.  Its not like the country has no laws the day it becomes independent.  

If something changes in the future there might be an issue, but there is no need for that at the moment.

[Rod Paradise]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments.  

Using this argument, you can say the oil was discovered by the UK and hence doesn't belong to Scotland.  

Before you keep running down this tack, have a look at the Westminster study on the referendum - it clearly states in it that the rUK considers itself the continuor state & also states that that means the debt belongs to rUK. Scotland could make an agreement to pay some of the debt/interest but the debt stays there. That does not mean the natural resources stay with the continuor state.

It's the UK's choice to take that stance - taking the stance of joint continour would leave both liable, but  ould screw the chance of No arguments about the EU/Nato etc etc.


https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

BTW quoting those studies down not mean I agree with all the findings, it's clearly a Westminster produced document and looking at the best case for the rUK, but when the starting points for Westminster's part in negotiations are publicly published I get pissed off at other what-if's or buts getting chucked into the mix.

[OverTheBorder]

Also to Doobs re regulators etc.  The various laws apply in Scotland as well as England and will continue to apply post independence unless they are specifically amended.

Regulators are financed by financial institutions not government, so there is no need for any arrangements to change immediately.

Really? The pensions regulator was established under statute and it's powers discussed and updated under the pensions acts.

So would you be happy Westminster set the terms of your regulation in Scotland would have no power to do so?

The regulator is funded by levies from schemes taken from funds or employers.

All UK arrangement would also have to consider cross border implications which will be a nice little earner for advisers.

Yeees and the Pensions Acts and all laws will continue to apply in Scotland.  Its not like the country has no laws the day it becomes independent.  

If something changes in the future there might be an issue, but there is no need for that at the moment.

So your happy with a London regulator?  The biggest shake up to DC pensions in 30 years is going through parliament in April. You just taking that? When they do something you don't like how long will it take you to set up a regulatory system? You need to plan this from day one.

[Woodsey]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments. 

You will be getting a share, not a chance in hell you will get away with it.

[doubleup]

^^
That "shake-up" has nothing to do with the Pension Regulator, it's an HMRC change.

[DungBeetle]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments.  

Using this argument, you can say the oil was discovered by the UK and hence doesn't belong to Scotland.  

Before you keep running down this tack, have a look at the Westminster study on the referendum - it clearly states in it that the rUK considers itself the continuor state & also states that that means the debt belongs to rUK. Scotland could make an agreement to pay some of the debt/interest but the debt stays there. That does not mean the natural resources stay with the continuor state.

It's the UK's choice to take that stance - taking the stance of joint continour would leave both liable, but  ould screw the chance of No arguments about the EU/Nato etc etc.


https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

BTW quoting those studies down not mean I agree with all the findings, it's clearly a Westminster produced document and looking at the best case for the rUK, but when the starting points for Westminster's part in negotiations are publicly published I get pissed off at other what-if's or buts getting chucked into the mix.

Which of these articles refers to Westminster's stance on debt split (or lack of it)?

[Doobs]

The veto on currency union was 100% a political ploy as it obviously causes enormous and unnecessary disruption on both sides of the border.  There are no disadvantages for Ruk in a correctly negotiated currency union.  The markets know that it is an idiotic position but can't see how Gidiot and Millifanny are going to get out of it. 

The large Scottish financial institutions are going to move their regulatory HQs south of the border anyway to prevent a loss of customers, so there is no issue over these and the threat to rUK economy. 

Also once and for all the Treasury is responsible for repaying all UK debt and let's face it they aren't actually going to be doing any repaying for a long time, so its obviously completely redic to expect Scotland to start repaying it.  And more than that it is obviously completely impractical to expect Scotland to raise borrowing in a foreign currency to make repayments.

A long term currency agreement where Scotland pays the interest on a portion of legacy debt and is allowed to raise its own bonds within pre-agreed limits linked to GDP to cover its own borrowing needs and a small amount to replace legacy debt is a straightforward solution.

 

There are clear possible downsides to currency unions, as evidenced from the Euro experience.  rUK will have to stand behind Scotland and bail them out if they get into difficulties or if the SNP/Scottish Labour Govern their country recklessly.  The Bank of England will have to act as guarantour to Scottish banks.  rUK wil have to support any Scottish financial institutions in trouble.  All the time we have a party in charge who have already stated they are wiling to walk away from their debts if they don't get their way.  You may not think these are as big an issue as I do, but to suggest these are not disadvantages for rUK is preposterous.  

I don't think anybody is suggesting Scotland has to start repayiing any debt, just take the share of it that is rightly theres.  I can't think of many practical difficulties in Scotland issuing sterling debt.  It will be exactly what will happen under sterlingisation.  The markets wouldn't like it much, and their will likely be a higher interest charge than rUK, expecially if they walk away from their previous debt, but I can't think of any thing that would make it impossible.  Maybe you can list the things that make it obviously completely impractical?  Amyway, this is Scotland's problem to solve should they vote for independence.  They will need to raise finance in Sterling at least in the short term, and any practical difficulties are there is to solve.  Presumably this is all covered already and has been exlained to the voters?  What people in England expect them to do is largely irrelevant, they can do what the hell they like as an independent nation, so I guess it is obviously completely rediculous to a some extent.

At least make an attempt to read my post, Doobs

I said that the currency union would include limits on borrowing, please explain how the recklessness requiring a bailout will occur?

I said that the large financial institutions would move their regulatory HQs south either way  - please explain how currency union will affect what the BoE has to do if these institutions get into difficulty?

I said that the Treasury has stated that it is responsible for rUK debt, please define a mechanism where a pension fund gets 1/10th of its gilts paid by Scotland?  (Please stop shouting about governments defaulting - it makes you sound like a UKIP dh.)

Your plan for the debt appears to be that Scotland can't use sterling as part of a currency union but will have to go through all sorts of hoops to use a version of sterling to raise bonds to pay rUK.  Obviously this will require selling the Scottish currency to buy the English version causing downwards pressure on the Scottish currency and higher interest rates than would normally be required.  Well, no country will accept that, particularly when there is an obvious solution.

 

Ironic that I am getting compared to UKIP by somebody supporting an independent Scotland.  I don't see all these bad things in our neighbours that necessitates me leaving any Union.  I manage to live without anybody in Whitehall significantly dictating to me how to do it, just as those do North of the border.  It is also fairly funny pointing fingers at the rest of the UK for causing disruption when Scotland are the ones noting for Independence.  If you want no disruption vote no, don't start pointing fingers at everyone else saying they are to blame for the consequences of your vote.

I don't know why you get the idea I am shouting, you are the one using petty insults, I am sat here calmly with my daughter just chilling.  I just find the whole thing terribly sad.  We are all from the same country now, what does it matter where the borders were drawn more than 300 yards ago.  Not only is part of my family from Scotland, my family isn't even all from the UK, it is just strange how others want to cause massive disruption to make their world smaller. 

To answer your question.  rUK will obviously continue paying interest on gilts for those that own them. Scotland should raise some of their own finance in whatever currency they choose to use post indrpendence.  I am sure there'll be a readily available exchange rate if it isn't in pounds.  I don't know what version of morality or socialism means you get a free run on your previous debts just because you have fallen out with your neighbour.  Certainly isn't something that is familiar to me.   We want all the oil, but none of the debt.  

Anyway we are still waiting for those things that makes it impossible for countries to raise money in different currencies and an explation of why yesterday's market moves were more to do with a policy announced months ago than a poll at the weekend?  

And just because an industry had just dropped a billion on something doesn't mean that another couple of hundred million isn't going to cause any damage.

FWIW I have no idea why you would want to be independent and have a currency union at all.  It seems like you are giving away many of the reasons for been independent.  Your main economic policies will forever be decided in London.  

PS for Rod, you can't regulate away bank failures, just make them less likely. 

[arbboy]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments. 

lol

So Scotland should just walk away from its share?

would cost it massively long term in terms of the cost of raising finance, and negotiations with the EU if it ever came to that

I am sure a deal will be done, but Scotland not taking a share won't be on the agenda, that's just pie in the sky

Agreed.  Have you ever defaulted on a credit card via an IVA/bankruptcy then gone back and tried to apply for the same credit card?  They will not be too keen to offer you similar terms and interest rates.  This is no different.

[DMorgan]

this made me chuckle

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8

Too good, Brooker and Coren-Mitchell crush this journalism thing pretty hard

[Rod Paradise]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments.  

Using this argument, you can say the oil was discovered by the UK and hence doesn't belong to Scotland.  

Before you keep running down this tack, have a look at the Westminster study on the referendum - it clearly states in it that the rUK considers itself the continuor state & also states that that means the debt belongs to rUK. Scotland could make an agreement to pay some of the debt/interest but the debt stays there. That does not mean the natural resources stay with the continuor state.

It's the UK's choice to take that stance - taking the stance of joint continour would leave both liable, but  ould screw the chance of No arguments about the EU/Nato etc etc.


https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

BTW quoting those studies down not mean I agree with all the findings, it's clearly a Westminster produced document and looking at the best case for the rUK, but when the starting points for Westminster's part in negotiations are publicly published I get pissed off at other what-if's or buts getting chucked into the mix.

Which of these articles refers to Westminster's stance on debt split (or lack of it)?

I read it when It came out - it's not a major part in it but it's there. If I get a chance I'll try and find it again. Seeing the Westminster stance is well worthwhile anyway.

[Rod Paradise]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments. 

lol

So Scotland should just walk away from its share?

would cost it massively long term in terms of the cost of raising finance, and negotiations with the EU if it ever came to that

I am sure a deal will be done, but Scotland not taking a share won't be on the agenda, that's just pie in the sky

Agreed.  Have you ever defaulted on a credit card via an IVA/bankruptcy then gone back and tried to apply for the same credit card?  They will not be too keen to offer you similar terms and interest rates.  This is no different.

Have you ever not paid someone else's credit card bill? Did it affect your credit, even if they told the banks you'd spent the money with them?

[arbboy]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments.  

lol

So Scotland should just walk away from its share?

would cost it massively long term in terms of the cost of raising finance, and negotiations with the EU if it ever came to that

I am sure a deal will be done, but Scotland not taking a share won't be on the agenda, that's just pie in the sky

Agreed.  Have you ever defaulted on a credit card via an IVA/bankruptcy then gone back and tried to apply for the same credit card?  They will not be too keen to offer you similar terms and interest rates.  This is no different.

Have you ever not paid someone else's credit card bill? Did it affect your credit, even if they told the banks you'd spent the money with them?

If someone else pays your CC bill then you haven't defaulted.  If the UK agree to write off Scotland's debt this will be the case.  Is this actually going to happen though?

To answer your question.  No i haven't ever paid off someone else's credit card!

[DungBeetle]

Why would it be daft?  In that situation Scotland would have tarnished their record by abandoning their responsibilities regarding the debt racked up as a joint nation.  If they then sought to borrow as an independent nation with their own currency then it seems logical that lenders would look on this action unfavourably and consider that it might be an indication of future attitudes to debt repayment.

As an englishman I used to be pretty indifferent to the outcome of the vote, but the more I read the views of the yes campaign the more I hope that they suceed so they actually have to follow through with their policies.

Scotland never took up any debt as part of a joint nation, the debt was taken out by the UK.  Therefore the UK is responsible for it.  Similar to a married couple taking out a mortgage and the wife isn't named on it but contributes to payments initially if they split up the husband (UK in this case) is still liable for all payments.  

Using this argument, you can say the oil was discovered by the UK and hence doesn't belong to Scotland.  

Before you keep running down this tack, have a look at the Westminster study on the referendum - it clearly states in it that the rUK considers itself the continuor state & also states that that means the debt belongs to rUK. Scotland could make an agreement to pay some of the debt/interest but the debt stays there. That does not mean the natural resources stay with the continuor state.

It's the UK's choice to take that stance - taking the stance of joint continour would leave both liable, but  ould screw the chance of No arguments about the EU/Nato etc etc.


https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/scotland-analysis

BTW quoting those studies down not mean I agree with all the findings, it's clearly a Westminster produced document and looking at the best case for the rUK, but when the starting points for Westminster's part in negotiations are publicly published I get pissed off at other what-if's or buts getting chucked into the mix.

Which of these articles refers to Westminster's stance on debt split (or lack of it)?

I read it when It came out - it's not a major part in it but it's there. If I get a chance I'll try and find it again. Seeing the Westminster stance is well worthwhile anyway.

ok cheers - wil be interesting to read.  I had a quick look at the fiscal one but couldn't see the debt aspect mentioned.

[OverTheBorder]

^^
That "shake-up" has nothing to do with the Pension Regulator, it's an HMRC change.

Will Scotland not want to shapes it's own powers? The Pensions Acts devised by the UK pensions minister decided at a parliament you will have no control of. DWP consults on this and provisions of tax shown in HMRC rules. You will need your own system to legislate future change and to protect from English change and you will need your own regulator to govern this.

[doubleup]

I don't know what version of morality or socialism means you get a free run on your previous debts just because you have fallen out with your neighbour.

There you go again

 

Anyway we are still waiting for those things that makes it impossible for countries to raise money in different currencies and an explation of why yesterday's market moves were more to do with a policy announced months ago than a poll at the weekend?  

It makes it far more difficult than it would be with a currency union - but at least you are now accepting that the two issues are connected. The markets thought that No was a shoo-in until the recent polls and are realising that the idiotic refusal to countenance a currency union will have a devastating effect on rUK and obviously the only way out is if Gidiot and prob Cameron fall on their swords.

FWIW I have no idea why you would want to be independent and have a currency union at all.  It seems like you are giving away many of the reasons for been independent.  Your main economic policies will forever be decided in London.  

All that would require to be ceded in currency union would be the limits on borrowing which isn't a bad thing as that is what fckd up the PIIGS in the eurozone.  Refusing a currency union makes no sense whatsoever.

You talk about minor pension regulatory issues - what do you think would be the cost of every mortgage in Scotland being converted to the Scottish currency?  Because that has to happen if a currency union is refused.