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

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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

The SNP, strangely enough, while omitting a budget for paying back the Scottish share of the debt in the infamous "White Paper", did include a line for paying the interest on it, so they have explicitly acknowledged the debt. Their line for negotiation seemed to be that they would plunder the contents of the British Museum unless the debt was written off. So bottom line, the SNP acknowledges the debt is real, not optional.

It would indeed be negotiable, but not unilaterally disavowed by Scotland without severe repercussions.

Regarding the separation, the UK would be the Continuing State, Scotland a Successor State, see the link below, which also has information regarding the EU Membership situation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/factual-analysis-promised-as-legal-implications-of-scottish-independence-made-clear

Which is a good summary. Hope that makes you happy Shakey.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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

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

So Yes 40%, No 50% (rounding) with10% undecided.

Splitting the undecided 50/50 we end up with:

45% Yes
55% No

What a surprise!


So the conclusion remains, the SNP should stop bu******g around and get on with their Day Job.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The SNP, strangely enough, while omitting a budget for paying back the Scottish share of the debt in the infamous "White Paper", did include a line for paying the interest on it, so they have explicitly acknowledged the debt. Their line for negotiation seemed to be that they would plunder the contents of the British Museum unless the debt was written off. So bottom line, the SNP acknowledges the debt is real, not optional.

It would indeed be negotiable, but not unilaterally disavowed by Scotland without severe repercussions.

Regarding the separation, the UK would be the Continuing State, Scotland a Successor State, see the link below, which also has information regarding the EU Membership situation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/factual-analysis-promised-as-legal-implications-of-scottish-independence-made-clear

Which is a good summary. Hope that makes you happy Shakey.

There are several options. Both indeed can possibly be successor states. It's again dependent on negotiations.

As noted, the only way for Scotland and England to be free of one another is by the dissolution of the union that binds them. That requires that the signatories of that union reemerge as successor states.

You either have two successor states, each heir to the assets and liabilities of their former union,
OR
a single continuing state, heir to all of the assets and liabilities of the former union, AND a completely new state, heir to neither the assets nor the liabilities of the former union.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/

The SNP were clear that they wished to go forward as a successor state, and with that take fair share's of debt, liabilities, assets and treaties. You're right about that. It was actually BetterTogether's contention that Scotland would in fact go forward as a brand new state. With rUK being the continuator state.

The problem with BetterTogether's opinion, was that as a brand new state. Scotland would indeed have gotten no assets and no continuing treaty agreements etc. However, alongside that, a brand new state would've meant absolutely no share of the UK's debt. End of story.

HMG holds that Scotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too.

The above is never going to happen re debt and brand new states. It'll be one or the other should there be a vote in future. Based on cold hard realities, I'd bet my house on Scotland and rUK negotiating from similar positions in terms of 'statehood'. More so if there is a Brexit. I remember that study you linked to at the time. Absolutely ridiculous starting point for that particular report.

That is why the have adopted this convoluted argument that Scotland was “extinguished” when it was incorporated into England in 1707.

If Scotland was extinguished via the Union in 1707, England was too.

re the SSAS study. Independence support is at it's highest levels since those studies began. And whatever that means, it certainly doesn't bear any vague similarities to that Express headline.

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

So Yes 40%, No 50% (rounding) with10% undecided.

Splitting the undecided 50/50 we end up with:

45% Yes
55% No

What a surprise!


So the conclusion remains, the SNP should stop bu******g around and get on with their Day Job.

Well considering the dramatic drop in oil price & daily reminders of how catastrophic this would be it's quite amazing people haven't changed their view. Wonder why that is.....

They are getting on with the day job. Surely you can't possibly think we'd keep voting for them if they were a disaster?

.string.

@Shakey - the legal situation has been made very clear; no amount of barrack lawyer's arguments based on wishful thinking can change that.

.string.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Well considering the dramatic drop in oil price & daily reminders of how catastrophic this would be it's quite amazing people haven't changed their view. Wonder why that is.....

They are getting on with the day job. Surely you can't possibly think we'd keep voting for them if they were a disaster?

Votes for the SNP do not mean votes for Natland. We have been told that many times by acolytes here and by the SNP leadership.

But I would encourage the SNP to keep digging the hole they've fallen into.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

@Shakey - the legal situation has been made very clear; no amount of barrack lawyer's arguments based on wishful thinking can change that.

I'm not quite sure what you're failing to understand.

There are either two successor states Scotland + r UK. Both taking on their fair share's of debt, assets, liabilities and treaty agreements.

OR

There is one continuator state taking on ALL debt, assets, liabilities and treaty agreements. And one brand new state which starts off with none of assets from the former union, but also no debt.

BetterTogether tried to paint a newly independent Scotland as a successor state re the debt, but a brand new state regarding assets, and treaties. It was a ludicrous position as Scotland couldn't clearly be both. But it worked in terms of the EU etc. Though I doubt it will work a second time round since I'd guess there will be no currency or EU debate if there's a next time.

Your linked legal position is only one of many. However, there is no way Scotland was extinguished by virtue of signing up to the Union, but England somehow magically wasn't also. Not on this legal planet.

elantan

I reckon the SNP will do just fine ... eyes are currently on the Tories ... even Labour are having a breather and a laugh just now

Would've thought things would've been harder when they had to share the stage with Lib Dems ... but it appears not

It's so much fun to watch

Labour tearing itself apart the Tories tearing themselves apart ... LibDems not even getting a look in ...SNP standing firm ... every day a wee step closer to indy even if the polls are currently not showing it


Oh happy days and so much fun to watch

Leanne1812

.string. wrote: »

Votes for the SNP do not mean votes for Natland. We have been told that many times by acolytes here and by the SNP leadership.

But I would encourage the SNP to keep digging the hole they've fallen into.

Your post does not make sense to me.

You said they should get on with the day job and I responded they are. Do you think Scotland would vote for them if they were disastrous in government? 9 years in government so far, another term as majority looking likely. All down to those who want Indy or a mixture of those who do and those who see SNP as competent?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're failing to understand.


There are either two successor states Scotland + r UK. Both taking on their fair share's of debt, assets, liabilities and treaty agreements.

OR

There is one continuator state taking on ALL debt, assets, liabilities and treaty agreements. And one brand new state which starts off with none of assets from the former union, but also no debt.

BetterTogether tried to paint a newly independent Scotland as a successor state re the debt, but a brand new state regarding assets, and treaties. It was a ludicrous position as Scotland couldn't clearly be both. But it worked in terms of the EU etc. Though I doubt it will work a second time round since I'd guess there will be no currency or EU debate if there's a next time.

Your linked legal position is only one of many. However, there is no way Scotland was extinguished by virtue of signing up to the Union, but England somehow magically wasn't also. Not on this legal planet.

You are talking rubbish Shakey - read the links I gave you, the legal advice is all there and it is you that can't understand, or more likely don't want to understand.

Wise up.