Independence Referendum

[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

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).

i believe it to be true Rod, based off 15 years running these portfolios and investing in less developed markets (actually that sounds bad, its not meant to be...new markets/borrowers is a better term).

[DungBeetle]

S&P said that an independent Scotland might be rated BBB or above.  BBB isn't great shakes for a Sovereign (Colombia/Italy/Spain currently have this rating).  Ok, it might be above that, but S&P as far as I know wouldn't commit to any higher in their initial analysis.  There may be new information that I haven't seen from them though.

[Rod Paradise]

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. 

You analogies are getting worse. I know Tighty says not to use stupid but when the argument's been explained repeatedly & you just keep spouting ridiculous analogies that don't fit the situation at all, and deliberately misreading answers to you it becomes hard not to.

[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).

i believe it to be true Rod, based off 15 years running these portfolios and investing in less developed markets (actually that sounds bad, its not meant to be...new markets/borrowers is a better term).

So what happened in the most recent case , when the USSR broke up & the former states took none of the debt (despite having agreed to do so)?

I find it implausible that the International Banks will ignore legal status of debts for an ambiguous moral judgement, especially when hte idea of default is against international convention and due to rUK's intransigence over assets & their own decision to assume continuor status.

[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. 

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).

i believe it to be true Rod, based off 15 years running these portfolios and investing in less developed markets (actually that sounds bad, its not meant to be...new markets/borrowers is a better term).

So what happened in the most recent case , when the USSR broke up & the former states took none of the debt (despite having agreed to do so)?

I find it implausible that the International Banks will ignore legal status of debts for an ambiguous moral judgement, especially when hte idea of default is against international convention and due to rUK's intransigence over assets & their own decision to assume continuor status.

Large regions decided 20 years later Russia was better and defected

[DungBeetle]

To be fair - if the argument is that the debt was run up by the UK, not in Scotland's name therefore we won't pay, it does become a matter of honour.  You don't have to pay technically, but it's not very nice if you don't.

And I'm not sure where we are going with the asset argument - Scotland has plenty of infrastructure funded by UK debt?  The English aren't threatening to knock your hospitals down as far as I know.

[TightEnd]

When the Soviet Union broke up, Whitehall officials argued long and hard about how best to deal with the USSR's international debt. It was not fair to put the whole Soviet burden on Russia. On the other hand, the hassle involved in trying to share it out among the 15 republics would be horrible, plus Russia seemed more likely do pay back the debt. Eventually Russia did take on the whole debt, and in August 2006 finally paid it all off -- an impressive achievement. This simplification of the problem made it much easier for the other new countries to launch themselves on international financial markets and set up their own new currencies.

In Yugoslavia it was completely different. Belgrade not unreasonably demanded that if the other republics wanted independence they should take their fair share of the Yugoslav debt burden. Eventually a complicated apportionment was worked out.

We can look to history and argue it either way.

what i am suggesting is that not only should rUK not be intransigent (it is, whether as a scare position or not) but IndyScotland should take a share. After all, at BBB or above it will be able to service it, which was a main issue why the states newly independent from the USSR didn't take it....breadth and size of economies was an issue, and financial collapse a more likely issue than it is for Scotland

Scotland should do the right thing, it will long term pay off enormously in terms of borrowing costs

[Kmac84]

To be fair - if the argument is that the debt was run up by the UK, not in Scotland's name therefore we won't pay, it does become a matter of honour.  You don't have to pay technically, but it's not very nice if you don't.

And I'm not sure where we are going with the asset argument - Scotland has plenty of infrastructure funded by UK debt?  The English aren't threatening to knock your hospitals down as far as I know.

I agree, but the threat not to take a share of the debt was in response to the claim that we can't use the £. 

I'm pretty sure we all agree that an independent Scotland will use the £ and in that case we will do what is  morally right and pay our fair share. 

Its the rUK who have been playing the scaremongering game from the day dot.

[Rod Paradise]

S&P said that an independent Scotland might be rated BBB or above.  BBB isn't great shakes for a Sovereign (Colombia/Italy/Spain currently have this rating).  Ok, it might be above that, but S&P as far as I know wouldn't commit to any higher in their initial analysis.  There may be new information that I haven't seen from them though.

BBB or above, they then later state: "Scottish wealth levels are comparable to that of the U.K. ('AAA'), Germany
('AAA'), Ireland ('BBB+'), and New Zealand ('AA-'). Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP
only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment. Higher GDP per
capita, in our view, gives a country a broader potential tax and funding base to draw from, which supports
creditworthiness"

That's WITH a share of the debt, the figures are a LOT better without it.

Also Credit ratings are not the only thing that dictates international loans, Ireland recently (this year) got loans at a better rate than the UK, despite the difference in ratings. A new market will lead to competition from hte banks to get part of that market, as happened with the Baltic States.

Please note I do NOT think we'll not take a share of the debt, I also think the out of the question Currency Union would be very quickly back in the mix following a Yes vote, just like the  'there will be no more powers' stance disappeared with the first Yes poll.

[arbboy]

To be fair - if the argument is that the debt was run up by the UK, not in Scotland's name therefore we won't pay, it does become a matter of honour.  You don't have to pay technically, but it's not very nice if you don't.

And I'm not sure where we are going with the asset argument - Scotland has plenty of infrastructure funded by UK debt?  The English aren't threatening to knock your hospitals down as far as I know.

I agree, but the threat not to take a share of the debt was in response to the claim that we can't use the £. 

I'm pretty sure we all agree that an independent Scotland will use the £ and in that case we will do what is  morally right and pay our fair share. 

Its the rUK who have been playing the scaremongering game from the day dot.

If rUK decide you can't use the pound why wouldn't you still pay off your debts when you leave?  After all, it's not the rUK who are asking you to leave.  You are leaving to become a stronger country so why wouldn't you settle all balances in full prior to you leaving whether you can use the pound or not?

[Kmac84]

Scotland should do the right thing, it will long term pay off enormously in terms of borrowing costs

And so to should the current UK Government and stop the scaremongering.  

The stuff pepetuated by Better Together under the guidance of Whitehall has been outrageous and despite story after story being disproved they have continued with the state sponosred prooganda.  

You can't say one side should do the right thing but not acknowledge what the other side is doing is wrong.  (I'm not aiming that at you Tighty, just a general comment about some of the posts on here)

[DungBeetle]

But I don't see why using the £ is an asset really?  I think Scotland should get a share of the UK's reserves and keep the infrastructure it has built up.  In return it should take a share of debt and take on it's own pension liabilities going forward.  

I see the currency question as a seperate argument.

[Kmac84]

To be fair - if the argument is that the debt was run up by the UK, not in Scotland's name therefore we won't pay, it does become a matter of honour.  You don't have to pay technically, but it's not very nice if you don't.

And I'm not sure where we are going with the asset argument - Scotland has plenty of infrastructure funded by UK debt?  The English aren't threatening to knock your hospitals down as far as I know.

I agree, but the threat not to take a share of the debt was in response to the claim that we can't use the £. 

I'm pretty sure we all agree that an independent Scotland will use the £ and in that case we will do what is  morally right and pay our fair share. 

Its the rUK who have been playing the scaremongering game from the day dot.

If rUK decide you can't use the pound why wouldn't you still pay off your debts when you leave?  After all, it's not the rUK who are asking you to leave.  You are leaving to become a stronger country so why wouldn't you settle all balances in full prior to you leaving whether you can use the pound or not?

You can't be serious. 

Why do you think we should take a share of debt we never borrowed f we don't get our fair share of assetts? 

[doubleup]

Manuel, please understand before one of us dies

B Fawlty

Its a done deal.  The treasury says there will be no debt splitting.  There can be no default.

The primary determinant in interest rate setting is the ability to repay not the willingness.  You can be perfectly willing but have no money.  If you are unwilling but have money, there are courts to get at your money.  

If Scotland is paying vast amounts to rUK its ability to repay is impaired and its interest rates will be higher.

Those are the facts.

The practicalities are that Scotland will negotiate over debt, Gidiot and Millifanny have impaired these negotiations by setting pre-conditions on the currency issue.

 

[TightEnd]

You can't say one side should do the right thing but not acknowledge what the other side is doing is wrong.  (I'm not aiming that at you Tighty, just a general comment about some of the posts on here)

i wrote

"what i am suggesting is that not only should rUK not be intransigent (it is, whether as a scare position or not) but IndyScotland should take a share"

seems pretty even handed to me