Scottish independence

zeupater

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Firstly, any debt issued by the UK treasury is the legally the responsibility of the same. It has already confirmed it will meet any repayments, so no default.

Independence wouldn't invalidate any legislation already passed; it would simply remove the ability of Westminster to amend, repeal or pass new legislation in Scotland. For an idea, look at the Canada and Australia Acts passed in the 80s.

As part of the single EU/EEA market firms operate across the entire market without special provisions or negotiations. Safe Harbors etc relate specifically to EU / US agreements.

Hi

I believe that in each case the point has either been missed, or conveniently & intentionally avoided.

The situation regarding the 'UK treasury' is/was simply to provide assurance, and thus stability, to the lending markets that the current UK position regarding debt is and will be unchanged. In the case of separation the apportionment of accumulated UK debt won't be on an itemised basis, it'll almost certainly be a transfer of debt via block loans from rUK to Scotland, which would be recognised by both financial institutions and international regulative bodies as a sovereign loan between nations. The current position therefore is that the UK government and BoE have provided assurance to UK creditors that, in the case of separation and subsequent Scottish default, their UK investments are safe, guaranteed by rUK, and any Scottish default would fall as an increased debt obligation upon the population of rUK, with all of the obvious implications for cross border trade & cooperation which resentment on an individual basis would bring ...

Regarding "Independence wouldn't invalidate any legislation already passed; it would simply remove the ability of Westminster to amend, repeal or pass new legislation in Scotland" .... if existing UK legislation hasn't been specifically approved by the Scottish 'government' it will need to be as part of the separation process and will logically need to be done prior to final separation. This has nothing to do with Westminster at all, it's simply a case that legislation passed to apply to the UK will cease to apply to an independent Scotland unless action is taken. There's obviously a plan to do this because it's not something which a separatist would miss, so what has been published regarding the detail and costs involved? ... anything? ...

Regarding "As part of the ..." ... having held the responsibility for developing the procedures and introducing the relevant processes into a £multi-billion organisation in the run-up to the DPA(1998) coming into force, it could be said that I well understand the provisions. The point being missed or avoided here is that without guaranteed inclusion in the EU or EEA prior to final separation, the best remaining option would be to be accepted and classified as being a 'safe harbour' by all member nations concerned. As previously mentioned, if this isn't guaranteed to be in place prior to full separation, the administrative costs to all businesses with a requirement for cross-border data sharing will be immense, as would be the associated cost. We're not only talking about the likes of banks and other organisations with existing international business profiles, but also any small business with cross-border transactions who would not currently consider themselves as having an international presence .... it's not insurmountable, but again, what has been published regarding the detail, costs and potential economic disruption involved? ... anything?

jimjames

I'm sure the one company and shareholders that will be happy with a Yes vote is Royal Mail.

To be able to offload the costs associated with delivery to Scotland will presumably cut their costs substantially at a stroke. But on the flip side how much will it cost to post a letter in Scotland after independence? Has that been considered? If it stays the same then someone will have to provide a subsidy to cover the higher costs - another call on the limitless pot of money that Alex Salmond seems to be able to use and amazing how far oil revenues can be stretched. In addition any letters & parcels to England and Wales will then be international and at much higher rates, has that been factored into any trading costs?

I wonder if there is scope in buying shares like RM that could positively benefit from independence and may rise on a Yes vote or shorting those that will be negatively affected?

zeupater

Hi Jim

I don't know why, but just looking at your post & the signature "Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is." reminded me of high speed rail plans in an independent Scotland as it was reported months ago ... made me chuckle at the thought of a deserted terminus at (nearly) Carlisle and/or (nearly) Berwick, totally silent apart from the wind, and of course, the obligatory tumbleweed rolling down the track (B&W western style) ...

As usual, mind wondering, which is normally a sign that it's time for a cuppa !! .... :coffee:

Z

rpc

jimjames wrote: »

I'm sure the one company and shareholders that will be happy with a Yes vote is Royal Mail.

The current Holyrood government is committed to re-nationalisation. They haven't specified the method - although you would usually expect it to be buy share purchase at/above market price. At least one Yes group is effectively seeking to have Royal Mail confiscated from shareholders and leave them high and dry.

Archi_Bald

rpc wrote: »

At least one Yes group is effectively seeking to have Royal Mail confiscated from shareholders and leave them high and dry.

Sounds highly illegal to me, in any civilised country.

scott_lithgows

jimjames wrote: »

I'm sure the one company and shareholders that will be happy with a Yes vote is Royal Mail.

To be able to offload the costs associated with delivery to Scotland will presumably cut their costs substantially at a stroke. But on the flip side how much will it cost to post a letter in Scotland after independence? Has that been considered? If it stays the same then someone will have to provide a subsidy to cover the higher costs - another call on the limitless pot of money that Alex Salmond seems to be able to use and amazing how far oil revenues can be stretched. In addition any letters & parcels to England and Wales will then be international and at much higher rates, has that been factored into any trading costs?

I wonder if there is scope in buying shares like RM that could positively benefit from independence and may rise on a Yes vote or shorting those that will be negatively affected?

Think you should worry about DHL.Yodel etc than Scottish Mail

scott_lithgows

rpc wrote: »

Aside from the fact that we have surface ships (just smaller ones more suited to littoral patrols), your first choice of platform to take on a Ruskie destroyer would sit a few thousand feet above the water.

You do know that sailing time from Portsmouth (current arrangement) is less than the sailing time from Faslane (proposed arrangement)? It is a loooong way over the top.

Only using Russia as an example,think one of the Scots tridents might be up there.
Can see the wee patrol ships from here,no match for even for a few nutters taking over an oil rig lol

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Sounds highly illegal to me, in any civilised country.

The USSR* would not be a civilised country.....

*(Uncle Salmond's Socialist Republic)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

InvestInPoker wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH