The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

Not really I don't think as these would be negotiations between two sovereigns. I guess the UN would step in.

I doubt that; unless the UN is empowered by a resolution of its security Council, it can only act as a facilitator.

The rUK would have no reason to bargain away assets which it has on its territory and under its physical control when there is the legal position I referred to in my post above which states that they belong to the rUK by right. So there are no reasons I can see to bargain away the debt applicable to Scotland as a balance to assets transferred. The only avenue for negotiation I see is the matter of Trident being on the negotiation table. In a situation where Scotland was in desperate need of borrowed money I can't see a demonstrable unwillingness to pay debts owed being conducive to a low borrowing rate, except maybe by ceding territory to, for example, the Chinese or Trump.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

elantan

Do we really expect anything else from the express ?

Generali

.string. wrote: »

I doubt that; unless the UN is empowered by a resolution of its security Council, it can only act as a facilitator.

The rUK would have no reason to bargain away assets which it has on its territory and under its physical control when there is the legal position I referred to in my post above which states that they belong to the rUK by right. So there are no reasons I can see to bargain away the debt applicable to Scotland as a balance to assets transferred. The only avenue for negotiation I see is the matter of Trident being on the negotiation table. In a situation where Scotland was in desperate need of borrowed money I can't see a demonstrable unwillingness to pay debts owed being conducive to a low borrowing rate, except maybe by ceding territory to, for example, the Chinese or Trump.

To clarify, I meant the UN would possibly offer to host talks between Scotland and England in the event that the two sides couldn't see eye-to-eye.

South Sudan had independence negotiations facilitated by IGAD, a local trade bloc.

Yugoslav negotiations were largely facilitated by the EU (according to a Google).

Maybe the EU would be the responsible body for untying the UK if it ever comes to it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

elantan wrote: »

Do we really expect anything else from the express ?

That was the Scottish Government's own poll being reported.

The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey - funded by the Scottish Government - and by far the biggest, most comprehensive, and most expensive poll done in Scotland every year as it uses face to face polling.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Roughly translated. Scotland would leave with every single penny of debt accounted for and papped onto Scotland's accounts. But nothing much else ?

Well if that's what you think carry on I suppose. But do bear in mind that it's for rUK to negotiate what share it would 'like' Scotland to take. And everyone agrees it should be a fair amount. A newly independent Scotland would be under no obligation to accept what the Treasury would 'like'. Nor can they be forced. It will come down to negotiations.

Anyway, calm your pants. It was just an answer to a 'five point question'. There are a lot of assumptions being made and there is no referendum on the horizon right now.

We are discussing a very hypothetical question, that of Scottish separation from the UK, a subject dear to your heart and on which you dream on about all the time.

What I wrote is not my opinion, Shakey, it is legal advice given to the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Oh I should add that that the debt would be reduced by the available cash assets, apportioned population-wise. So maybe the SNP should wait until we have zero debt! Back in your box Sturgeon!

I point out, however, that the SNP's "New Oil" by which they hope to gain support for separation, namely a share of the UK's non-cash assets, is not the windfall your leaders proclaimed.

So I suggest less use of the couplet "Assets and Debt".

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Do we really expect anything else from the express ?

You may not like the messenger but the source seems impeccable: the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. 100% guaranteed Westminster free.

.string.

Generali wrote: »

To clarify, I meant the UN would possibly offer to host talks between Scotland and England in the event that the two sides couldn't see eye-to-eye.

South Sudan had independence negotiations facilitated by IGAD, a local trade bloc.

Yugoslav negotiations were largely facilitated by the EU (according to a Google).

Maybe the EU would be the responsible body for untying the UK if it ever comes to it.

I really doubt if a British Government would agree to what would be perceived as interference from an outside body. Were the bargaining positions of Scotland and rUK to be somewhat equal then just, but only just, maybe but Scotland would be in a terribly weak position, both territorially and financially and being stubborn is a British trait not confined to North of the Border.

Of the organisation you mentioned, the EU could perhaps play a role in an oblique way, if Scotland still wanted to join the EU, but that depends on whether the UK was still a member. Mischievously, I would suggest NATO!

By the way, in this hypothetical situation, I would put maximum effort into finding an alternative base for Trident outside Scotland, which I don't think would need to be as expensive as has been suggested. That would cut the ground from negotiations relating to any trade-off between debt and Trident and would be a good idea anyway in my opinion. This should be done during the period just before separation, leaving the SNP to deal with the economic issues in Natland that resulted from the relocation.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That was the Scottish Government's own poll being reported.

The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey - funded by the Scottish Government - and by far the biggest, most comprehensive, and most expensive poll done in Scotland every year as it uses face to face polling.

I hate to burst your bubble's Hamish and Generali but the study is showing an increase in independence support not a decrease..

Given the difficulty of obtaining a positive result for independence in this format, it's hugely encouraging to see that the latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows support for independence surging by 6% over the last two years, and reaching its highest level ever in the series (and by quite some distance). That's almost certainly a legacy of the Yes campaign's success.

Independence 39% (+6)
Devolution 49% (-1)
Full London Rule 6% (-1)

So an all-round good news story for the pro-independence movement. Spare a thought, however, for poor old Greg Christison of the Sunday Express, who humiliated himself yesterday by going through various contortions of pseudo-logic to try to portray the survey findings as somehow dreadful for both independence and the SNP. His basic approach was to strip out the Don't Knows and lump together supporters of devolution and full London rule, and then treat them as if they were all directly equivalent to "No voters" in a straight Yes/No opinion poll on independence. This voodoo method produces a split of Yes 42%, No 58%. What Greg mysteriously fails to tell you, however, is that the equivalent figures in the last survey were roughly Yes 37%, No 63% - which means there has been an enormous 5% swing in favour of independence over the last two years. The best result for independence appears to have been eleven years ago, when the equivalent figures were roughly Yes 38%, No 62%. So, quite literally, the new survey shows that support for independence is higher than ever (or at least higher than at any point since the series started in 1999).

Greg's readers, however, may have taken away a somewhat different story. They were presented with a fatuous apples-and-oranges comparison between the multi-option SSAS question and straight Yes/No public opinion polls, and were invited to believe that this means that support for independence has fallen to its lowest level since August 2014. What's particularly nonsensical about this claim, of course, is that the SSAS figures are always way out-of-date by the time we see them - some of the fieldwork dates back to last summer, and all of it was completed by January.That means we already have several independence polls that were conducted more recently than the SSAS - and the most recent one with a 'real world' methodology (either telephone or face-to-face) produced figures of Yes 52%, No 48%. That was the Ipsos-Mori poll conducted in early February - just six or seven weeks ago.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/bungling-sunday-express-left-red-faced.html

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I posted this on the old thread but it disappeared:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/the-old-case-for-scottish-independence-is-dead-long-live-the-new-case-for-scottish-independence/

I've been looking at the whole debt thing and under the Vienna Convention of 1983, Scotland would not have to take any debts with it except by negotiation. However, under the same convention, all movable assets would remain the property of England as the successor state (immovable ones in Scotland would remain the property of Scotland) except by negotiation. In effect that would mean that under the law, Scotland would keep the libraries but lose the books. She'd keep the military bases but lose the tanks. England would keep the embassies and overseas stuff.

The only problem? The Vienna Convention hasn't yet been ratified so isn't a part of international law yet. The opinions I can find online have suggested that it would still likely be used as it is the best (only) tool available.

I've referenced this regarding debt several times over the years on these forums. But no one took any notice so I gave up. It ultimately comes down to successor or continuator states.

But it does serve to highlight that Scotland taking all debt isn't something which is written in stone. Theoretically, Scotland could end up with none ( as the the breakup of the USSR showed ).. OR exactly what the sums say per capita if she leaves. It will all come down to negotiations.

That's why it's never any good apportioning debt to an independent Scotland, adding it in with everything else and labelling black holes. No one knows what those 'black holes' would be.

However, under the same convention, all movable assets would remain the property of England as the successor state (immovable ones in Scotland would remain the property of Scotland)

I think both can be successor states. It means both countries keep all their treaties etc intact. But happy to be corrected if wrong.