Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[AyrJambo]

16 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I posted last night to explain why Scotland leaving the UK would have no impact on NATO or the G7.

 

It would have no impact on the Security Council either.  An independent Scotland could of course seek a Resolution of the Security Council in relation to matters between it and the rUK - but I'd imagine that at least one of the five permanent members would be tempted to use its veto to block it.

I'll go back through earlier posts 👍

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

Arrogant and presumptions

 

For a start joining the EU would now involve adopting the euro not long after having launched our own currency. I'm sure everyone would love the idea of 2 currency switches in a decade. Our fiscal deficit would need to be 3% or less (don't tell the 750k non tax payers) and with England not being EU members we would then require a hard border between Scotland and our biggest trading partner.

 

 

 

 

 

None of which answers my question.

 

I didn't ask whether Scotland would join, or should join, or would meet the criteria for joining.  I explained that carefully in my post.

 

I asked you to explain why, if Scotland did apply to join, it wouldn't go ahead of the other countries already on the candidate list.

 

If an independent Scotland were to apply for EU membership it would go straight to the top of the list.  There are a handful of non-EU countries who would get in ahead of an independent Scotland if they were ever to apply. That doesn't mean they should apply or would want to apply either; it just means that applications from them would be looked at very favourably.  But crucially, none of those countries are in line for accession to the EU.

 

Park your dislike of independence for a moment, and just answer the question.

[TallPaul]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

None of which answers my question.

 

I didn't ask whether Scotland would join, or should join, or would meet the criteria for joining.  I explained that carefully in my post.

 

I asked you to explain why, if Scotland did apply to join, it wouldn't go ahead of the other countries already on the candidate list.

 

If an independent Scotland were to apply for EU membership it would go straight to the top of the list.  There are a handful of non-EU countries who would get in ahead of an independent Scotland if they were ever to apply. That doesn't mean they should apply or would want to apply either; it just means that applications from them would be looked at very favourably.  But crucially, none of those countries are in line for accession to the EU.

 

Park your dislike of independence for a moment, and just answer the question.

It wouldn't go to the top of the list as it doesn't meet the entry criteria. Our deficit is double the maximum

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

It wouldn't go to the top of the list as it doesn't meet the entry criteria. Our deficit is double the maximum

 

Who's on the list?

[TallPaul]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Who's on the list?

• Albania.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Georgia.
• Moldova.
• Montenegro.
• North Macedonia.
• Serbia.
• Türkiye.
• And others 

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Who's on the list?

 

I fired that question off in a rush.

 

It's definitely a fair point.  The criteria for entry have to be met, including any fiscal or economic criteria.  My reason for asking who's on the list is that a lot of those countries wouldn't meet the criteria either.  You don't have to tick a load of boxes to get on to the candidate list, and an independent Scotland would be a more attractive potential member than the others.  I think it would be a more attractive proposition than all of the others, but that's a matter for debate.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

• Albania.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Georgia.
• Moldova.
• Montenegro.
• North Macedonia.
• Serbia.
• Türkiye.
• And others 

 

Cheers. Sorry, I fired my question off in a rush.  I've posted again.

[AyrJambo]

39 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

It wouldn't go to the top of the list as it doesn't meet the entry criteria. Our deficit is double the maximum

What deficit? We have no borrowing powers as part of UK

The only deficit you can possibly be referring to is the nominal deficit highlighted and propagandised every year in the GERs figures

But these only show where Scotland is as part of the UK not where we would be if independent

 

And as I posted earlier if any rUK (England and maybe NI) wants to continue as the successor state to UK (to retain Nato Security Council permanent membership/G7 etc) then they have to take on all the UK debt

They can't argue it both ways - if they are the continuing UK state then they can't offload any UK debt to an independent Scotland (more accurately a restored sovereign state)

[TallPaul]

2 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

What deficit? We have no borrowing powers as part of UK

The only deficit you can possibly be referring to is the nominal deficit highlighted and propagandised every year in the GERs figures

But these only show where Scotland is as part of the UK not where we would be if independent

 

And as I posted earlier if any rUK (England and maybe NI) wants to continue as the successor state to UK (to retain Nato Security Council permanent membership/G7 etc) then they have to take on all the UK debt

They can't argue it both ways - if they are the continuing UK state then they can't offload any UK debt to an independent Scotland (more accurately a restored sovereign state)

We run at at deficit, would you be raising taxes or cutting services?

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

I posted last night to explain why Scotland leaving the UK would have no impact on NATO or the G7.

 

It would have no impact on the Security Council either.  An independent Scotland could of course seek a Resolution of the Security Council in relation to matters between it and the rUK - but I'd imagine that at least one of the five permanent members would be tempted to use its veto to block it.

 

Quote....

 

No it wouldn't.  As far as NATO goes, the UK is America's closest ally, and the Americans aren't going to turn round and put London under the cosh because Scotland has left.  This isn't even up for debate.  As for the G7, a 10% reduction in the rUK's GDP would still mean it would be bigger than Italy's and Canada's, and more or less the same as France's.  Are you proposing to chuck them out of the club too?

 

To reiterate, I'm not arguing about what the rUK would do or should do.  I'm simply pointing out that if you think Scotland has more negotiating "welly" than the rUK in negotiating a post-independence settlement then you are very definitely missing the point.....Endquote

 

If this is the earlier post you meant then I don't disagree with any of that

I was merely pointing out that for any rUK to assume the current UK memberships and status they would need to also assume all of the current UK debt and that situation could be leveraged by the Scottish negotiating team

[AyrJambo]

25 minutes ago, TallPaul said:

We run at at deficit, would you be raising taxes or cutting services?

That "deficit" is under the current constitutional framework of the UK where all revenues raised in Scotland go to the UK treasury and the Barnett formula determines how much of that we get back after deductions of course for our "share" of UK overseas representation, UK armed forces, UK diplomacy, UK infrastructure projects (Canary Wharf, HS2, Crossrail)

The "deficit" bears no relation to the finances of an independent Scotland

 

Here's a couple of views of London

 

Edited January 20 by AyrJambo

[frankblack]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

That "deficit" is under the current constitutional framework of the UK where all revenues raised in Scotland go to the UK treasury and the Barnett formula determines how much of that we get back after deductions of course for our "share" of UK overseas representation, UK armed forces, UK diplomacy, UK infrastructure projects (Canary Wharf, HS2, Crossrail)

The "deficit" bears no relation to the finances of an independent Scotland

 

Here's a couple of views of London

 

 

You seriously think that posting pictures 40 years apart on a city supports your premise?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

Quote....

 

No it wouldn't.  As far as NATO goes, the UK is America's closest ally, and the Americans aren't going to turn round and put London under the cosh because Scotland has left.  This isn't even up for debate.  As for the G7, a 10% reduction in the rUK's GDP would still mean it would be bigger than Italy's and Canada's, and more or less the same as France's.  Are you proposing to chuck them out of the club too?

 

To reiterate, I'm not arguing about what the rUK would do or should do.  I'm simply pointing out that if you think Scotland has more negotiating "welly" than the rUK in negotiating a post-independence settlement then you are very definitely missing the point.....Endquote

 

If this is the earlier post you meant then I don't disagree with any of that

I was merely pointing out that for any rUK to assume the current UK memberships and status they would need to also assume all of the current UK debt and that situation could be leveraged by the Scottish negotiating team

 

Indeed, but in the overall context it would be a very limited leverage.  It would also be, pardon the mixed metaphor, a double-edged limited leverage. The rUK can retain all the assets and liabilities of the UK, and Scotland could walk away debt-free.  And of course, asset-free.  So the Scottish government would have to acquire assets, which would cost money and therefore add to Scotland's deficit and debt.  Meanwhile, the rUK would have excess assets which it would sell, which would raise money and therefore reduce the rUK's debt.

 

I've no idea, by the way, how big UK government assets are compared to its liabilities, so this course of action might not be all that costly - but there would be a cost.

 

Another approach would be for Scotland to seek to keep whatever UK assets are geographically located in Scotland. But if Scotland asserts a right to the assets, then it de facto admits liability for a share of the debts.

 

In post-independence negotiations, Scotland would have some leverage advantages and other disadvantages. But there's no doubt in the wide earthly world that the rUK would have more negotiating clout, especially when it comes to trade.  That disparity wouldn't matter if all were to go well, but it would be a mistake to assume it would automatically go well.

 

The historical record says that Ireland took a proportionate share of both assets and debts in 1921, by the way.

[TallPaul]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

That "deficit" is under the current constitutional framework of the UK where all revenues raised in Scotland go to the UK treasury and the Barnett formula determines how much of that we get back after deductions of course for our "share" of UK overseas representation, UK armed forces, UK diplomacy, UK infrastructure projects (Canary Wharf, HS2, Crossrail)

The "deficit" bears no relation to the finances of an independent Scotland

 

Here's a couple of views of London

 

And we will still have a similar population and I would imagine income. Unless your suggesting we won't budget for instrasture or some sort of military. 

 

So would we have tax rises or public sector cuts to meet entry criteria to the EU?

 

Not sure what the relevance is with the pics of London either.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

What deficit? We have no borrowing powers as part of UK

The only deficit you can possibly be referring to is the nominal deficit highlighted and propagandised every year in the GERs figures

But these only show where Scotland is as part of the UK not where we would be if independent

 

And as I posted earlier if any rUK (England and maybe NI) wants to continue as the successor state to UK (to retain Nato Security Council permanent membership/G7 etc) then they have to take on all the UK debt

They can't argue it both ways - if they are the continuing UK state then they can't offload any UK debt to an independent Scotland (more accurately a restored sovereign state)

 

Ukraine took responsibility for a share of the USSR's debt after it became independent.

[milky_26]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ukraine took responsibility for a share of the USSR's debt after it became independent.

south sudan which is the newest country recognised by the UN still share its national debt with sudan

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ukraine took responsibility for a share of the USSR's debt after it became independent.

 

I haven't seen that, got a link? Ukraine became independent shortly before the USSR split up, who did they owe it to after that?

[AyrJambo]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ukraine took responsibility for a share of the USSR's debt after it became independent.

As a result of negotiations between all of the ex-Soviet republics on debt-share and how ex-Soviet assets would be divvied up

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, AyrJambo said:

As a result of negotiations between all of the ex-Soviet republics on debt-share and how ex-Soviet assets would be divvied up

 

And as a result of pressure placed on Ukraine by Western banks to accept the share allocated to it.

[AyrJambo]

Summarised here..

 

 

 

The only point I was ever making was that if England wants to be rUK  then debt share and asset division would become an area up for negotiation as happened in your example

How that negotiation will  pan out depends on a lot of factors not least the competence of any Scottish negotiating team as well as various external pressures - but still a negotiation

[AyrJambo]

4 hours ago, TallPaul said:

And we will still have a similar population and I would imagine income. Unless your suggesting we won't budget for instrasture or some sort of military. 

 

So would we have tax rises or public sector cuts to meet entry criteria to the EU?

 

Not sure what the relevance is with the pics of London either.

All states run a deficit that's what the international borrowing markets are for

Scotland doesn't have any debt because it has no borrowing powers

The UK's debt is currently around £2.5 Trillion

 

The notional "Scottish deficit" you allude to is a calculation of the difference between what Scotland contributes to the UK treasury and what it gets back through the Barnett formula and other mechanisms

As mentioned earlier this is paraded annually to demonstrate how much of an economic basket case Scotland is (which begs the question that IF Scotland is such an economic basket case after 320 years of union, what is the benefit of that union?)

This "deficit" is usually calculated to be around £8 - 10 Billion give or take a billion or two

The calculation does not however include revenues from the North Sea since in UK accounting terms they are not classed as Scottish

I wonder why?

 

As to your question on taxes or cuts these are policy decisions for any Scottish government but you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a state cannot operate effectively if it is carrying a deficit

This is patently untrue

You might as well ask the same question of the current UK - how is it going to address it's £2.5 Trillion deficit - by public sector cuts or by tax rises?

The answer is neither are required and the debt does not have to be immediately paid off as long as it can be serviced

The same would apply to an independent Scotland only none of it's resources or revenues would go to rUK

[Thunder and Lightning]

5 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

You seriously think that posting pictures 40 years apart on a city supports your premise?

Yes, it's well known all.buildings erected in London in the last forty years have been paid for with Scottish tax payers money. 😂 

[Dawnrazor]

11 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

What law did she / they break ?

 

No idea, just saying all her WhatsApp messages during covid have been deleted. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

Summarised here..

 

 

 

The only point I was ever making was that if England wants to be rUK  then debt share and asset division would become an area up for negotiation as happened in your example

How that negotiation will  pan out depends on a lot of factors not least the competence of any Scottish negotiating team as well as various external pressures - but still a negotiation

 

So Russia took all the debt because they didn't want to give up a share of assets?

That's a question I've asked, what percentage of UK assets do we get? If we're responsible for 8% of the debt we've been responsible for paying for 8% of the navy's ships, 8% of the RAF's craft, 8% of currency assets, embassy buildings, the king's hat, etc 

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

Summarised here..

 

 

 

The only point I was ever making was that if England wants to be rUK  then debt share and asset division would become an area up for negotiation as happened in your example

How that negotiation will  pan out depends on a lot of factors not least the competence of any Scottish negotiating team as well as various external pressures - but still a negotiation

 

 

Sorry to keep repeating this, but I'm not talking about the specifics of a negotiation process.  I'm talking about who has their hands on the most effective levers.  In a negotiation of the terms of a trade and co-operation agreement between Scotland and the rUK, that is without question the rUK.

 

Scotland's total share of the UK's debt is the equivalent (roughly) of somewhere between 3 and 5 months' worth of the tax receipts of the rUK.  In other words, very little as far as their economy is concerned.  So any leverage related to it is trivial, because the risk for the rUK in stonewalling Scotland is small.  On the other hand the risk to Scotland in not having full access to the rUK's markets is large - very large.  As I have repeatedly said, that does not have the slightest significance for whether or not Scotland should be independent.  But it has enormous significance for the balance of power between the two entities in negotiating an independence settlement, especially when it comes to a trade deal.

 

In any negotiation like this, there are two inescapable truths.  Negotiating clout always lies with the bigger economy - in this case the rUK.  And negotiating clout always lies with whichever side is the least exposed to damage if the two sides fail to reach agreement - in this case, also the rUK.  If the two sides have similar objectives and approaches it might never matter, but if they fall out, then the side who will suffer most damage is - without question - Scotland.

[Ulysses]

4 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

So Russia took all the debt because they didn't want to give up a share of assets?

That's a question I've asked, what percentage of UK assets do we get? If we're responsible for 8% of the debt we've been responsible for paying for 8% of the navy's ships, 8% of the RAF's craft, 8% of currency assets, embassy buildings, the king's hat, etc 

 

So what?  That'll all find its level.  Either you'll take on both assets and debts or you'll take on neither.   The point is that some people on this forum seem to think that it gives Scotland extra clout in negotiations, and it just doesn't.  

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

I haven't seen that, got a link? Ukraine became independent shortly before the USSR split up, who did they owe it to after that?

 

The banks and bondholders who had lent it to the USSR, as far as I know.

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

So what?  That'll all find its level.  Either you'll take on both assets and debts or you'll take on neither.   The point is that some people on this forum seem to think that it gives Scotland extra clout in negotiations, and it just doesn't.  

 

So what? So I was asking and got an answer.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, TallPaul said:

• Albania.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Georgia.
• Moldova.
• Montenegro.
• North Macedonia.
• Serbia.
• Türkiye.
• And others 

 

I've had a look at that list, and I took a look at the EU accession criteria.

 

First of all, the level of debt or deficit isn't a criterion, so Scotland's place on the list wouldn't depend on its level of government debt.  There are economic criteria, but debt and deficit aren't on the list.

 

There are political, economic and legal criteria.  An independent Scotland would meet all of the political criteria and almost all of the legal criteria (you can't actually meet 100% of the legal criteria unless you join).  Even if the Scottish economy took a massive trading hit from independence, it would still meet all or nearly all of the economic criteria.  These are less concerned with statistics, and more concerned with things like freedom, regulation and governance of labour and capital markets.

 

How does that compare to others in the accession queue?  I'm not analysing every one of the countries on the list, but according to EU assessments the two countries who are closest to being admitted are Serbia and Montenegro.  According to the EU's latest report, both are making progress but fall short of meeting the criteria.  Both currently meet many but not all of the economic criteria, but fall well short on the political criteria and very short on the legal criteria.  Yet almost every area where those countries fall short, Scotland doesn't.  That's simply because Scotland has continued to operate its political, judicial, public management and market regulation in the same way it did before the UK left the EU, and therefore has more or less 100% convergence with the EU's requirements.

 

I can bore you to death by posting all the report links if you like, but the summary is that if an independent Scotland applied to join the EU it would meet (or come very close to meeting) what the EU calls the Copenhagen criteria.  Serbia and Montenegro are currently at the head of the EU accession queue, and they would not come near to meeting the criteria, although both are making progress.  So an independent Scotland would be ahead of them, and none of the other candidate countries are at their level of convergence.  

 

Which in summary does mean that if an independent Scotland applied to join the EU, it would move ahead of all other applicants on the list.

 

As it happens, the countries I think would get ahead of Scotland if they applied are Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.  They're already members of EFTA, and have already demonstrated 100% convergence with all of the Copenhagen criteria.  But of course they are highly unlikely to apply.

[Ulysses]

19 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

So what? So I was asking and got an answer.

 

Sorry, I thought you were one of those doing the "all we have to do is threaten no Johnnie Walker and the English will fold" thing.  No offence meant.

[AyrJambo]

32 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

So Russia took all the debt because they didn't want to give up a share of assets?

That's a question I've asked, what percentage of UK assets do we get? If we're responsible for 8% of the debt we've been responsible for paying for 8% of the navy's ships, 8% of the RAF's craft, 8% of currency assets, embassy buildings, the king's hat, etc 

Suppose it depends on what criteria are used

The common assumption is population

In 1707 Scotland had 25% of what is now UK's population

Union has seen a steady decline and it's now around 8% as you mention

So population at the start or at the end? 😉

 

What about land mass? That hasn't changed substantially

% GDP?

 

I don't know

 

One assumption being made in all of this is that England will be rUK

However Scotland ending the union isn't like leaving a union like the EU

There are only 2 parties to the UK of GB and if one rips up the treaty then does the UK of GB still exist?

And if it is up for grabs which of the 2 equal signatories has the claim rights?

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, AyrJambo said:

 

There are only 2 parties to the UK of GB and if one rips up the treaty then does the UK of GB still exist?

And if it is up for grabs which of the 2 equal signatories has the claim rights?

 

I wonder does the sequence of unions and disunions matter, more out of legal interest than anything else.

 

Who enacted the 1707 Act of Union?  How was that superseded by the 1801 Act of Union, which itself was subsequently amended by a number of Acts at different dates in the 20th century.  In other words, who are now the contracting parties?  No doubt the lawyers will know.

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

 

 

One assumption being made in all of this is that England will be rUK

 

 

I'm assuming that for economic purposes it might as well be.  As for the politics, Wales has been a corner of England since forever, and NI is splintered anyway.

[AyrJambo]

So couldn't a dispute over who gets to be rUK be factored into the negotiation process?

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

So couldn't a dispute over who gets to be rUK be factored into the negotiation process?

 

How?

 

Anyone can start a dispute.  All you have to do is say "**** off, I don't agree".  But what happens next?  How do you make use of it?  Where do you make use of it?

 

One of the most important phrases a negotiator needs to know, to understand, and to constantly ask themselves is "and then what?"

[Unknown user]

18 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Sorry, I thought you were one of those doing the "all we have to do is threaten no Johnnie Walker and the English will fold" thing.  No offence meant.

 

I was surprised by you saying Ukraine took ussr debt. I knew about South Sudan although I couldn't remember which African country it was, and that's a small amount in comparison, but I wasn't aware of any other similar examples in even fairly recent years.

It was an interesting link posted.

 

The theme in all of these seems to be that a share of debt is actually normally assumed, then negotiated away for concessions.

[AyrJambo]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

How?

 

Anyone can start a dispute.  All you have to do is say "**** off, I don't agree".  But what happens next?  How do you make use of it?  Where do you make use of it?

 

One of the most important phrases a negotiator needs to know, to understand, and to constantly ask themselves is "and then what?"

England: We want to be rUK

Scotland: We have just as much right and we'll take it to  ICJ meaning all current international membership of the ex-UK are suspended until it's settled

England: OK what do you want to avoid that?

 

Edited January 21 by AyrJambo

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

The theme in all of these seems to be that a share of debt is actually normally assumed, then negotiated away for concessions.

 

Why does the level of debt matter?  I mean as a point of leverage in negotiations.  

 

For example, if Scotland wants to avoid starting out with a £250 billion government debt, then that gives leverage to the rUK in a negotiation. 

 

On the other hand, if Scotland doesn't really mind about that one way or the other, but the rUK wants to dump some of its accumulated debt on Scotland, then that gives a bit of advantage to the Scots.

 

Look at this another way, for the sake of analysis.  If Scotland lost 20% of its market access to the rUK in a "thin" trade deal (which is not an outlandish percentage) that would reduce Scottish GDP by at least 6%, in turn reducing tax revenues by at least that, and also increasing the cost of welfare programmes because of increased unemployment.  That would be more expensive for the government than the interest costs on the £250 billion debt.  So if the rUK said "sure, we'll hold the debt, but we want a hard border and a thin trade deal" would it be worth agreeing to it?

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, AyrJambo said:

England: We want to be rUK

Scotland: We have just as much right and we'll take it to  ICJ meaning all current international membership of the ex-UK are suspended

England: OK what do you want to avoid that?

 

 

Take what to the ICJ?

 

Before you answer, my apologies for being a pedantic boring ****er, but I've actually read the Statute of the ICJ.  Have you?

[Ulysses]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

One of the most important phrases a negotiator needs to know, to understand, and to constantly ask themselves is "and then what?"

 

I wonder sometimes if I'm just singing to my cat.

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, Jim_Duncan said:

 

Buried in the headlands.... 🎵

[Unknown user]

25 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Why does the level of debt matter?  I mean as a point of leverage in negotiations.  

 

For example, if Scotland wants to avoid starting out with a £250 billion government debt, then that gives leverage to the rUK in a negotiation. 

 

On the other hand, if Scotland doesn't really mind about that one way or the other, but the rUK wants to dump some of its accumulated debt on Scotland, then that gives a bit of advantage to the Scots.

 

Look at this another way, for the sake of analysis.  If Scotland lost 20% of its market access to the rUK in a "thin" trade deal (which is not an outlandish percentage) that would reduce Scottish GDP by at least 6%, in turn reducing tax revenues by at least that, and also increasing the cost of welfare programmes because of increased unemployment.  That would be more expensive for the government than the interest costs on the £250 billion debt.  So if the rUK said "sure, we'll hold the debt, but we want a hard border and a thin trade deal" would it be worth agreeing to it?

 

It's of interest because I didn't know. I've said before that ending up with a share of the national debt isn't the norm and that there's no reason to assume we'd be starting with massive external debt.

I'm well aware it would be a massively complex and nuanced picture in reality though and I'm nowhere near smart or knowledgeable enough to pretend I can see and understand the whole picture.

 

What I do know is that I'm 50 this year and I've watched England decide our national government my whole life. How many more generations?

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

It's of interest because I didn't know. I've said before that ending up with a share of the national debt isn't the norm and that there's no reason to assume we'd be starting with massive external debt.

I'm well aware it would be a massively complex and nuanced picture in reality though and I'm nowhere near smart or knowledgeable enough to pretend I can see and understand the whole picture.

 

What I do know is that I'm 50 this year and I've watched England decide our national government my whole life. How many more generations?

 

Ireland ended up with a share of the UK national debt in 1921, I think because we didn't have enough leverage to say no.

 

And you're bang on the money when you say it would be complex and nuanced in reality.  You'd think from my posts on this thread that I'm actually arguing one way or another.  I'm not, I'm just saying that it will not be that simple and people should avoid assuming that it will be.

 

Ultimately, this comes down to conviction.  If you're convinced it's time to go independent, or if you're convinced it's not, then you're convinced, full stop, and all the other stuff about economics and governance and politics is just detail and noise.  I'm saying that's true whether you're convinced you're for or against independence.  But if you're not convinced, if you're open to persuasion and to changing your mind, then the stuff about economics and governance and politics isn't detail and noise.  

 

So I suppose the question really is:  How many people are open to persuasion and changing their minds?

[Unknown user]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Ireland ended up with a share of the UK national debt in 1921, I think because we didn't have enough leverage to say no.

 

And you're bang on the money when you say it would be complex and nuanced in reality.  You'd think from my posts on this thread that I'm actually arguing one way or another.  I'm not, I'm just saying that it will not be that simple and people should avoid assuming that it will be.

 

Ultimately, this comes down to conviction.  If you're convinced it's time to go independent, or if you're convinced it's not, then you're convinced, full stop, and all the other stuff about economics and governance and politics is just detail and noise.  I'm saying that's true whether you're convinced you're for or against independence.  But if you're not convinced, if you're open to persuasion and to changing your mind, then the stuff about economics and governance and politics isn't detail and noise.  

 

So I suppose the question really is:  How many people are open to persuasion and changing their minds?

 

It was written off for concessions re NI as I recall.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

It was written off for concessions re NI as I recall.

 

In fairness it was conceded a few years later, but it also demonstrates the question of leverage.  People are well aware that the Irish regarded themselves as making a huge concession with regard to the North, but we also had to concede a British military presence in three locations in the Irish Free State as well.  That was entirely due to the power imbalance in the Treaty negotiations.

 

So of course the question arises: What price the debt?  That's the whole point about negotiating leverage.  It's about what you want, what you're willing to concede in order to get it, and what the best alternative the sides have in the event they can't reach agreement.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, AyrJambo said:

 

In 1707 Scotland had 25% of what is now UK's population

Union has seen a steady decline and it's now around 8% as you mention

 

 

In 1801 Ireland had about 35% of the Union's population.  Guess what happened after?

[Elljay]

2 hours ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

 

So Russia took all the debt because they didn't want to give up a share of assets?

That's a question I've asked, what percentage of UK assets do we get? If we're responsible for 8% of the debt we've been responsible for paying for 8% of the navy's ships, 8% of the RAF's craft, 8% of currency assets, embassy buildings, the king's hat, etc 

If we take a 8% slice out of each of the Navy’s ships, they’ll all sink😉

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

In fairness it was conceded a few years later, but it also demonstrates the question of leverage.  People are well aware that the Irish regarded themselves as making a huge concession with regard to the North, but we also had to concede a British military presence in three locations in the Irish Free State as well.  That was entirely due to the power imbalance in the Treaty negotiations.

 

So of course the question arises: What price the debt?  That's the whole point about negotiating leverage.  It's about what you want, what you're willing to concede in order to get it, and what the best alternative the sides have in the event they can't reach agreement.

 

Of course. The only reason this comes up is unionists' insistence that Scotland would be having to service massive inherited debt. I've taken all sorts for saying there's no reason to assume that, that in fact precedence suggests otherwise. That's all, although I have bridled at the suggestion of taking on debt from Westminster's incompetence and corruption in the past!

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Elljay said:

If we take a 8% slice out of each of the Navy’s ships, they’ll all sink😉

Ah, not if we take it off the top!

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

Ah, not if we take it off the top!