Independence Referendum

[doubleup]

^^
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.

This isn't a big issue.  I know the way the system works.  Laws don't have copyright and the Scottish Government can cut n' paste with the best of them.

Over time there might be a case for a separate regulatory structure but virtually all financial regulation is introduced on a consensus basis anyway and in response to failures of the previous regime or EU directives, so its quite difficult to envisage an issue where Scotland would diverge dramatically from rUK in pension protection issues.

[Kmac84]

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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

[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.

This isn't a big issue.  I know the way the system works.  Laws don't have copyright and the Scottish Government can cut n' paste with the best of them.

Over time there might be a case for a separate regulatory structure but virtually all financial regulation is introduced on a consensus basis anyway and in response to failures of the previous regime or EU directives, so its quite difficult to envisage an issue where Scotland would diverge dramatically from rUK in pension protection issues.

I don't want a government that needs to cut and paste laws.

It's not a big issue, it's one of hundreds of small unknown issues which create a big issue.

[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?

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!

You're deliberately being obtuse.

The UK treasury clearly stated they would honour all UK debts whatever happened in the Scottish referendum. Scotland can't legally default on them. rUK can (and would moan) but the rest of the world won't care if the negotiations over assets & liabilities favour one side or another, so long as they don't break international law.

[OverTheBorder]

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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

What's to stop the uk government offsetting your debt against commitments such as historical state pensions? All comments to date would have been made without considering Scotland may abandon the share of national debt.

[TightEnd]

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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

because the interest rate lenders will require on the debt you need to raise (scottish government bonds) will rise, costing Scotland more money, increasing real interest rates and lowering the standard of living in an independent scotland

this is why an Independent scotland will do a deal on a share of the debt and cannot walk away

to do so would cost far more long term than any short term PR again

and please don't use the word "stupid"

I know you go right up to and over the line in some of your arguments but we all sit here and view them, without insulting you, so do us the kindness of behaving in kind please

thank you

[Kmac84]

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?

Owned. 

[Rod Paradise]

^^
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.

This isn't a big issue.  I know the way the system works.  Laws don't have copyright and the Scottish Government can cut n' paste with the best of them.

Over time there might be a case for a separate regulatory structure but virtually all financial regulation is introduced on a consensus basis anyway and in response to failures of the previous regime or EU directives, so its quite difficult to envisage an issue where Scotland would diverge dramatically from rUK in pension protection issues.

I don't want a government that needs to cut and paste laws.

It's not a big issue, it's one of hundreds of small unknown issues which create a big issue.

You must be struggling for an argument if you're trying that one. Scotland has managed to make our own laws from before the Act of Union, as you well know. Where laws are UK wide we would sensibly continue with them until such point as they are changed or written into Scottish Law.  If you can't be arsed debating sensibly just say so, you're the one who tried to criticise Yes for being intractable while you're arguing into absurdity.

[Kmac84]

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!

UK have already guaranteed payments.  Aso the debt wasn't Scotland's what bit of that are you not getting. 

[Kmac84]

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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

because the interest rate lenders will require on the debt you need to raise (scottish government bonds) will rise, costing Scotland more money, increasing real interest rates and lowering the standard of living in an independent scotland

this is why an Independent scotland will do a deal on a share of the debt and cannot walk away

to do so would cost far more long term than any short term PR again

and please don't use the word "stupid"

I know you go right up to and over the line in some of your arguments but we all sit here and view them, without insulting you, so do us the kindness of behaving in kind please

thank you

How do you suggest I say an arguement is stupid if it is?

As has been pointed out by Rod the rUK has already underwritten the debt.   Scotland may morally owe a share, again debatable, given what that borrowing has been spent on but we have no legal obligation. 

[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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

because the interest rate lenders will require on the debt you need to raise (scottish government bonds) will rise, costing Scotland more money, increasing real interest rates and lowering the standard of living in an independent scotland

this is why an Independent scotland will do a deal on a share of the debt and cannot walk away

to do so would cost far more long term than any short term PR again

Do you believe that to be a fact or do you hope it is? Because I've already shown precedent where the lenders did not use punitive rates to punish newly independent nations for the 'moral' default that is being claimed here, what makes you think they're going to make an example of Scotland, rather that fight to get business from a country with more exports than imports & a significant GDP that is debt free.

If anything being debt free with Scotland's GDP should ensure a preferential rate (as Standard and Poors have already said).

[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?

Owned. 

Who is owned? You or me?  The fact you don't even grasp how Scotland will be charged a higher interest rate to borrow as tighty has indicated and the implications for this for Scotland would suggest that you should get out and chap some doors down and bark at some more people and let the economics lads continue with this discussion.

[TightEnd]

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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

because the interest rate lenders will require on the debt you need to raise (scottish government bonds) will rise, costing Scotland more money, increasing real interest rates and lowering the standard of living in an independent scotland

this is why an Independent scotland will do a deal on a share of the debt and cannot walk away

to do so would cost far more long term than any short term PR again

and please don't use the word "stupid"

I know you go right up to and over the line in some of your arguments but we all sit here and view them, without insulting you, so do us the kindness of behaving in kind please

thank you

How do you suggest I say an arguement is stupid if it is?

As has been pointed out by Rod the rUK has already underwritten the debt.   Scotland may morally owe a share, again debatable, given what that borrowing has been spent on but we have no legal obligation. 

"incorrect in my opinion" is fine

describing my argument as stupid just insults me

legal obligation or not, to NOT do a deal on a share of the debt will cost an Independent Scotland enormously in higher required lending rates from capital markets

A Scottish government will not do it

that argument is not Stupid.

[arbboy]

also even if Scotland could 'get away' with not paying their % of their debts off and it wouldn't affect their cost of future borrowing why wouldn't they just do it the old fashioned way and pay off what they are due without being forced to?  It's like swapping a % with someone in a poker event and then saying i don't have to legally pay you so i won't.  How easily do you think you will be able to swop %'s with fellow players aware of this situation in future events?  ( the answer is you won't - ie your cost of borrowing in this example will go up because of the increased risk)  All pretty obvious to me.  Hardly degree level stuff here more common sense.

[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

I never said that did I? 

But if the rUK don't want to deal fairly and squarley then, yes we don't take a share of the debt.  Why should we?

How does it cost Scotland long term?  That's stupid to suggest. 

What's to stop the uk government offsetting your debt against commitments such as historical state pensions? All comments to date would have been made without considering Scotland may abandon the share of national debt.

EU laws, and the fact that again pensions have been guaranteed by the  DWP. You're still missing the point - Scotland are quite rightly playing hardball in return for Westminster doing the same thing (Economic Vandalism I think it was described as), Scotland's position is that a fair division of assets & liabilities is what we should be negotiating, if the rUK wishes to withdraw some assets form the negotiating table they can keep some liabilities.