The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, SectionN said:

Independent Scotland cannot walk away from the debt but also expect the UK government to allow Scotland to use the pound. 

Out of interest, how exactly do you reckon the UK government could prevent Scotland from using the pound?

[kingantti1874]

15 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

It is though. 2019 gdp quoted at £168.14 Billion and public spending around £80 billion.

😂 an £88billion pound surplus making us one of the wealthiest countries on earth. We can look forward to schools with Gold doors and can get the police some nice Bugatti’s to replace the fords .

 

Do you really think that equation is correct? Or do you maybe think it’s missing something.

 

embarassing nonsense 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

If you believe in devolution, you need to hold your nose and vote for anyone other than the SNP. The SNP are anti-devolution.

So are the Tories...

 

Which leaves Lib Dem, Labour or Green.

 

Yay democracy! 😉

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Out of interest, how exactly do you reckon the UK government could prevent Scotland from using the pound?

 

I don't think it can. That would be the Bank of England. But that is regulated by the UK Government. 

[jambomjm74]

58 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Yes, that's the way it's always done, with one exception in the many many examples in the last century that I'm aware of, in Africa years ago.

 

We had no say in building the debt and aren't legally responsible for it, whether you like it or not.

Sorry that’s just not true. 
Scotland would have legal and moral obligations and a bit like Brexit, Scotland would look for a soft-Scexit. 
It’s a bit like Hearts, as much as you wouldn’t like those shafting you, you’d have to play ball or you wouldn’t be able to play....

 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I don't think it can. That would be the Bank of England. But that is regulated by the UK Government. 

How exactly do you reckon the bank of England, or anyone else for that matter, could prevent Scotland from using the pound?

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

How exactly do you reckon the bank of England, or anyone else for that matter, could prevent Scotland from using the pound?

 

Seems no one can. But then you are not independent which was the key point in the 2014 debate.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-44256059

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Sorry that’s just not true. 
Scotland would have legal and moral obligations and a bit like Brexit, Scotland would look for a soft-Scexit. 
It’s a bit like Hearts, as much as you wouldn’t like those shafting you, you’d have to play ball or you wouldn’t be able to play....

 

No need to apologise, but it's absolutely true.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Seems no one can. But then you are not independent which was the key point in the 2014 debate.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-44256059

I'm just answer ing the guy who said "Independent Scotland cannot walk away from the debt but also expect the UK government to allow Scotland to use the pound."

 

Yes it can.

[coconut doug]

12 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

😂 an £88billion pound surplus making us one of the wealthiest countries on earth. We can look forward to schools with Gold doors and can get the police some nice Bugatti’s to replace the fords .

 

Do you really think that equation is correct? Or do you maybe think it’s missing something.

 

embarassing nonsense 

 

Why don't you check it out before i check it again? it's not an equation. You have revealed that you have a fundamental misunderstanding and yet you are happy to decry Indy supporters as not being able to understand the costs.

[jambomjm74]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

No need to apologise, but it's absolutely true.

Not apologising really, just being polite. 
You are correct that Scotland could say no, to a share ok U.K. debt, but this would come with consequences and an agreed settlement would be the way forwards. Look at Brexit and this is a much smaller scale union than U.K. 
You must recognise that you can’t just walk away, Scot Free,  although your response doesn’t indicate that you do. 

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, jambomjm74 said:

Not apologising really, just being polite. 
You are correct that Scotland could say no, to a share ok U.K. debt, but this would come with consequences and an agreed settlement would be the way forwards. Look at Brexit and this is a much smaller scale union than U.K. 
You must recognise that you can’t just walk away, Scot Free,  although your response doesn’t indicate that you do. 

 

 

Scotland had no say in building the debt, and as an entirely different legal entity after independence would have zero obligation to it.

 

This is a precedent that has been standard across the globe for a long, long time.

[jambomjm74]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Scotland had no say in building the debt, and as an entirely different legal entity after independence would have zero obligation to it.

 

This is a precedent that has been standard across the globe for a long, long time.

I’d check up with your legal and economic sources.. every action has a reaction. 

Scot Free doesn’t work, the U.K. are Scotland’s biggest market so a soft Brexit would be the desired outcome to ensure trade continues, this would include a proportion of U.K. debt. 
I read some of these crazy arguments about Brexit and not agreeing a deal and walking away without the massive exit fee, we know that didn’t happen... 
What you are proposing is possible but highly costly and so totally unlikely.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, jambomjm74 said:

I’d check up with your legal and economic sources.. every action has a reaction. 

Scot Free doesn’t work, the U.K. are Scotland’s biggest market so a soft Brexit would be the desired outcome to ensure trade continues, this would include a proportion of U.K. debt. 
I read some of these crazy arguments about Brexit and not agreeing a deal and walking away without the massive exit fee, we know that didn’t happen... 
What you are proposing is possible but highly costly and so totally unlikely.

There's no reason it would include a proportion of the UK debt except unionists keep saying it.

[jambomjm74]

Just now, Smithee said:

There's no reason it would include a proportion of the UK debt except unionists keep saying it.

Sorry, I’m not really sure what a unionist is... 

I’ve stated facts and these facts are either legal or expected obligations. Not honouring these would be an option but come with impacts. 
This isn’t really a discussion, you don’t want to agree with anything, so I’m away to do something else. 
have a good day. 

 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Sorry, I’m not really sure what a unionist is... 

I’ve stated facts and these facts are either legal or expected obligations. Not honouring these would be an option but come with impacts. 
This isn’t really a discussion, you don’t want to agree with anything, so I’m away to do something else. 
have a good day. 

 

Taking a share of the debt is neither a legal nor expected obligation, the opposite is the norm across the globe.

Why would I agree with you when you're fundamentally wrong?

[jambomjm74]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Taking a share of the debt is neither a legal nor expected obligation, the opposite is the norm across the globe.

Why would I agree with you when you're fundamentally wrong?

Sorry conversation does stop as we cannot agree on what are the facts. 
Please remember the U.K. is a union, leaving a union would have costs and benefits.  Settling of U.K. debt would be part of that discussion, walking away from obligations an option but one with costs. 
I actually think you are trolling me?
 

[kingantti1874]

38 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Why don't you check it out before i check it again? it's not an equation. You have revealed that you have a fundamental misunderstanding and yet you are happy to decry Indy supporters as not being able to understand the costs.

 

 

Scotland does not have an £88bn surplus. And the reason is the costs you’ve quoted are incomplete.
 

earlier on this thread I was told we could walk away without taking our share of the debt
 

This is a great example of why the independence question is flawed.  This is the level of garbage we are dealing with . 

[Unknown user]

Just now, jambomjm74 said:

Sorry conversation does stop as we cannot agree on what are the facts. 
Please remember the U.K. is a union, leaving a union would have costs and benefits.  Settling of U.K. debt would be part of that discussion, walking away from obligations an option but one with costs. 
I actually think you are trolling me?

Think what you like mate.

 

Why don't you go and find a few examples that back up your view?

[XB52]

Pretty sure these same arguments were in play years ago so nothing  changes. Here are some Facts. Scotland can use whatever currency it wants after independence, Fact. Scotland has no legal reason to accept a part of the UK debt, Fact. 

Now in the real world I'm sure there will be a trade of between a share of debts and a share of assets as it will make sense to start our lives as an independent nation on good terms with our neighbour. 

[kingantti1874]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Taking a share of the debt is neither a legal nor expected obligation, the opposite is the norm across the globe.

Why would I agree with you when you're fundamentally wrong?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28541393

 

from 2014. 

[jambomjm74]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Think what you like mate.

 

Why don't you go and find a few examples that back up your view?

Not thinking. Just facts of what’s being discussed. 
U.K. is very much a standalone entity. But what happened in Czechoslovakia 

[kingantti1874]

3. The Vienna Convention of 1983
1. In 1983, a convention drafted in Vienna by the International Law Commission, under the auspices of the UN, set out important principles on how debt should be divided when states split up. This convention has never fully come into force, since it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states. Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that its basic principles could be ignored in any negotiation on the partitioning of UK debt.
2. The relevant part of the convention is set out in Article 40 as follows:
“When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State, and form a State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, the State debt of the predecessor State shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion, taking into account, in particular the property, rights and interests which pass to the successor State in relation to that State debt.”
3. This establishes a number of important principles: in particular,
• That the provisions can be over-written by mutual agreement: in other words, negotiation is inherent in the process – there is no automatic rule.
• That equity should be integral to the process.
• And that the way the debt is split up should relate, among other things, to the way in which property is divided between the States. But importantly, this is not just any

property, but property which relates to the debt in question. The intention is clearly that it is not property like natural assets which should be taken into account, but the type of property, like state infrastructure, which will have been created by public expenditure in the first place, and hence will have involved the creation of state debt.
4. In the specific case of negotiation between Scotland and rUK, application of these principles would mean that Scotland should not take over any debt in relation to state assets which it is not going to own or utilise. Obvious examples would be Trident, or UK embas

[kingantti1874]

http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Debt.pdf
 

there is no scenario where Scotland walks away from debt. Other than on the head of social media nationalist fantasists who love perpetuating lies

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Debt.pdf
 

there is no scenario where Scotland walks away from debt. Other than on the head of social media nationalist fantasists who love perpetuating lies

I'm not on social media, but tell you what, how about a few examples of where this has happened?

[XB52]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

http://reidfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Debt.pdf
 

there is no scenario where Scotland walks away from debt. Other than on the head of social media nationalist fantasists who love perpetuating lies

You repeating lies doesn't make it true. Once again, there is no legal obligation for Scotland to take on part of the UK debt. As I posted however, I'm sure negotiations would end in us taking a share of the debt for a share of the assets. But I repeat, there is no legal obligation to do so

[jambomjm74]

10 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

3. The Vienna Convention of 1983
1. In 1983, a convention drafted in Vienna by the International Law Commission, under the auspices of the UN, set out important principles on how debt should be divided when states split up. This convention has never fully come into force, since it has not been ratified by a sufficient number of states. Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that its basic principles could be ignored in any negotiation on the partitioning of UK debt.
2. The relevant part of the convention is set out in Article 40 as follows:
“When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State, and form a State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, the State debt of the predecessor State shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion, taking into account, in particular the property, rights and interests which pass to the successor State in relation to that State debt.”
3. This establishes a number of important principles: in particular,
• That the provisions can be over-written by mutual agreement: in other words, negotiation is inherent in the process – there is no automatic rule.
• That equity should be integral to the process.
• And that the way the debt is split up should relate, among other things, to the way in which property is divided between the States. But importantly, this is not just any

property, but property which relates to the debt in question. The intention is clearly that it is not property like natural assets which should be taken into account, but the type of property, like state infrastructure, which will have been created by public expenditure in the first place, and hence will have involved the creation of state debt.
4. In the specific case of negotiation between Scotland and rUK, application of these principles would mean that Scotland should not take over any debt in relation to state assets which it is not going to own or utilise. Obvious examples would be Trident, or UK embas

I find it draining trying to talk sense to some people... it’s just an obvious conclusion that an action has a consequence... whether legal or morally or enforced.  
 

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

I find it draining trying to talk sense to some people... it’s just an obvious conclusion that an action has a consequence... whether legal or morally or enforced.  
 

No real argument here. You agree there is no legal imperative

[coconut doug]

21 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

 

Scotland does not have an £88bn surplus. And the reason is the costs you’ve quoted are incomplete.
 

earlier on this thread I was told we could walk away without taking our share of the debt
 

This is a great example of why the independence question is flawed.  This is the level of garbage we are dealing with

 

I never claimed Scotland had a surplus never mind one of £88 billion That's what you did albeit sarcastically as can be seen from your post below. I never quoted anything incomplete only the Scotland's GDP figure and its public expenditure figure which are the 2 figures you used to domonstrate to yourself and the other Daily Mail readers could not prosper without RUK as demonstrated in the bottom post.

 

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

😂 an £88billion pound surplus making us one of the wealthiest countries on earth. We can look forward to schools with Gold doors and can get the police some nice Bugatti’s to replace the fords .

 

Do you really think that equation is correct? Or do you maybe think it’s missing something.

 

embarassing nonsense 

 

2 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

We know our GDP, we know our spending. We can offer and make assumption on the pros which independence would bring as well as the constraints and costs it would introduce and this estimate the impact. 
 

I absolutely hate debating the technicalities of who physically executes the borrowing.  It is a deflection pure and simple. 
 

You have demonstrated absolutely that you don't know any of these things never mind understand them. I can totaly understand why you hate discussing the technicalities though. Quite simply you do not understand what these things are what they mean and how they are derived. You probably don't even see the irony in your telling us that this is where the indy question is flawed and in expressing your exasperation at "the level of garbage we are dealing with"
 

 

 

[Don Dan]

 

Here's an excellent article on Scotland using the pound. 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/can-scotland-be-independent-sterling

Edited March 19, 2021 by Boy Daniel

[jambomjm74]

40 minutes ago, XB52 said:

No real argument here. You agree there is no legal imperative

No exact legal match, the U.K. is unique..  so that means Scotland could be completely Scot Free of U.K. debt ? Total Rubbish and does the argument for independence no favours, it’s simply not credible. 
What happened to Czechoslovakia ? If you’ve read you will know the debt was shared on a fair basis between the two new entities. 
Whilst you could walk away to do so would be madness and result in a new Scotland facing massive economic sanctions with the U.K. it’s largest partner and only real way to trade into Europe. 
I honestly think I am being trolled here. 

 

[Don Dan]

The Scottish government's White Paper on the issue says that in the event of independence, Scotland would be liable for some of the current national debt, and Mr Salmond would negotiate to pay the interest on a portion of debts. 

Essentially, says BBC business editor Robert Peston, Scotland would become a "debtor" to the Treasury in London.

[luckydug]

21 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

No exact legal match, the U.K. is unique..  so that means Scotland could be completely Scot Free of U.K. debt ? Total Rubbish and does the argument for independence no favours, it’s simply not credible. 
What happened to Czechoslovakia ? If you’ve read you will know the debt was shared on a fair basis between the two new entities. 
Whilst you could walk away to do so would be madness and result in a new Scotland facing massive economic sanctions with the U.K. it’s largest partner and only real way to trade into Europe. 
I honestly think I am being trolled here. 

 

I thought the argument was whether Scotland could legally walk away from UK debt. 

You appear to be agreeing it could. 

Why do you think you are being trolled ? 

Are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you ? 

[jambomjm74]

3 minutes ago, luckydug said:

I thought the argument was whether Scotland could legally walk away from UK debt. 

You appear to be agreeing it could. 

Why do you think you are being trolled ? 

Are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you ? 

Could or would. 
What do you think is the outcome ? 

[kingantti1874]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

 

 

Sorry you misinterpreted me not wanting to get into a debate around the validity of GERS.  I really can’t be bothered 

I made a point which suggests we can within reason estimate the size of our deficit. You posted 2 figures, one of which blatantly omits cost in order to perpetuate a myth that we would have a material surplus. 
 

the fact that you seem to have done so deliberately is not lost in me, and doesn’t surprise me. Misinformation Straight out the SNP handbook

[luckydug]

2 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

Could or would. 
What do you think is the outcome ? 

I think there would be a negotiated settlement. 

However several posters were aggressively stating that there was 'no way' that Scotland could walk away from UK debts. 

Turns out that we could although it would be inadvisable. 

[kingantti1874]

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

You repeating lies doesn't make it true. Once again, there is no legal obligation for Scotland to take on part of the UK debt. As I posted however, I'm sure negotiations would end in us taking a share of the debt for a share of the assets. But I repeat, there is no legal obligation to do so

What lies - my posts were showing there was a precedent to be followed ? My point, is and always has been that we would need to take our fair share of U.K. debt.  Despite lies and nonsense to the contrary. 

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

I think there would be a negotiated settlement. 

However several posters were aggressively stating that there was 'no way' that Scotland could walk away from UK debts. 

Turns out that we could although it would be inadvisable. 

If you go back to the beginning the poster made the Point that we “would” walk away.  That we would be saving something like £2k per head.

 

There is “no way” we could walk away.  The consequences would be more than “in advisable” 

 

anyway  semantics aside 

Glad we all now agree, Scotland WILL NOT be able to walk away from our share of the debt.  Thus, as pointed out hours ago.. the poster who made the point was wrong on the savings 

[luckydug]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

If you go back to the beginning the poster made the Point that we “would” walk away.  That we would be saving something like £2k per head.

 

There is “no way” we could walk away.  The consequences would be more than “in advisable” 

 

anyway  semantics aside 

Glad we all now agree, Scotland WILL NOT be able to walk away from our share of the debt.  Thus, as pointed out hours ago.. the poster who made the point was wrong on the savings 

Ah so you agree Scotland will become an Independent nation 😏

 

[kingantti1874]

9 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Ah so you agree Scotland will become an Independent nation 😏

 

I’ve never said it wont, but i don’t believe it will.
 

100% transparency. If we do I’ll be relocating abroad. Those who vote for it can deal with the shit storm which will follow. I won’t be paying a penny. 

[coconut doug]

21 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Sorry you misinterpreted me not wanting to get into a debate around the validity of GERS.  I really can’t be bothered 

I made a point which suggests we can within reason estimate the size of our deficit. You posted 2 figures, one of which blatantly omits cost in order to perpetuate a myth that we would have a material surplus. 
 

the fact that you seem to have done so deliberately is not lost in me, and doesn’t surprise me. Misinformation Straight out the SNP handbook

 

Gdp has got nothing to do with Gers. You said our spending is much greater than our GDP. That statement is totally and obviously wrong. Do you now deny that is what you said? The 2 figures i quoted were the two entitities you stated. GDP and public spending. You are now suggesting that i omitted to include a figure for another entity which you did not quote. You claim i have deliberately not included this figure because it blatantly omits cost - but what cost and why didn't you mention it if it is so important to your argument. Is it the cost of GDP or the cost of public spending? 

I'd say that is because you don't have a clue about this topic. I can't be bothered and snp misinformation handbook are standard insults designed to hide your ignorance and allow you to feel offended and run away. 

  I'lll discuss the topic with you honestly and respectfully but i doubt you can do the same. You could start by telling me what gers has to do with GDP and tell me which cost i omitted.

 

Scotland does not have a deficit. Gers attributes a deficit to Scotland but in no way can this be regarded as Scotland's deficit since most of the spending decisions are taken on our behalf. The way Gers is calculated means that everywhere o/s the SE runs at  a notional deficit. Gers is an accounting manipulation not a reflection on how well an independent Scotland would fare. 

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

The Scottish government's White Paper on the issue says that in the event of independence, Scotland would be liable for some of the current national debt, and Mr Salmond would negotiate to pay the interest on a portion of debts. 

Essentially, says BBC business editor Robert Peston, Scotland would become a "debtor" to the Treasury in London.

 

Just like the UK. We borrow the money from ourselves - just like Mr Romanov.

 

We would of course be entitled to some our and the rUKs repayments as we would have a share of the assets and income of the B of E. 

[JackLadd]

7 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Just like the UK. We borrow the money from ourselves - just like Mr Romanov.

 

We would of course be entitled to some our and the rUKs repayments as we would have a share of the assets and income of the B of E. 

 

Why would the 1/10th junior party seeking the divorce be entitled to anything when it's not in the Act of Union. What court is going to hand you B of E assets?

[XB52]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

What lies - my posts were showing there was a precedent to be followed ? My point, is and always has been that we would need to take our fair share of U.K. debt.  Despite lies and nonsense to the contrary. 

Another one that can't read. We would not need to take a share of UK debt, end of story, Fact. Will we end up taking a share of the debt for a share of the assets? Very likely but not legally required 

[kingantti1874]

48 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Gdp has got nothing to do with Gers. You said our spending is much greater than our GDP. That statement is totally and obviously wrong. Do you now deny that is what you said? The 2 figures i quoted were the two entitities you stated. GDP and public spending. You are now suggesting that i omitted to include a figure for another entity which you did not quote. You claim i have deliberately not included this figure because it blatantly omits cost - but what cost and why didn't you mention it if it is so important to your argument. Is it the cost of GDP or the cost of public spending? 

I'd say that is because you don't have a clue about this topic. I can't be bothered and snp misinformation handbook are standard insults designed to hide your ignorance and allow you to feel offended and run away. 

  I'lll discuss the topic with you honestly and respectfully but i doubt you can do the same. You could start by telling me what gers has to do with GDP and tell me which cost i omitted.

 

Scotland does not have a deficit. Gers attributes a deficit to Scotland but in no way can this be regarded as Scotland's deficit since most of the spending decisions are taken on our behalf. The way Gers is calculated means that everywhere o/s the SE runs at  a notional deficit. Gers is an accounting manipulation not a reflection on how well an independent Scotland would fare. 

My apologies, you are quite right I should have said our spending is greater than the revenues available. 

The fact that decisions on  spending are WM and not Holyrood does not mean the spending would not be valid or absolute necessary if Scotland were independent. 

[XB52]

1 hour ago, luckydug said:

I thought the argument was whether Scotland could legally walk away from UK debt. 

You appear to be agreeing it could. 

Why do you think you are being trolled ? 

Are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you ? 

He lost that argument so just changed it

[XB52]

2 hours ago, jambomjm74 said:

No exact legal match, the U.K. is unique..  so that means Scotland could be completely Scot Free of U.K. debt ? Total Rubbish and does the argument for independence no favours, it’s simply not credible. 
What happened to Czechoslovakia ? If you’ve read you will know the debt was shared on a fair basis between the two new entities. 
Whilst you could walk away to do so would be madness and result in a new Scotland facing massive economic sanctions with the U.K. it’s largest partner and only real way to trade into Europe. 
I honestly think I am being trolled here. 

 

You obviously can't read or understand. I originally argued against a poster who stated we couldn't use the pound and that we had to accept debt. Both these statements are false. If you can read you would see that I agree that, in negotiations, an equitable debt for assets swap would be worked out

[jack D and coke]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/new-northern-independence-party-cause-for-concern-among-labour-ranks-in-hartlepool-259190/
If this ever gains traction in the north (and god only knows how it hasn’t happened) then Labour will be ruined in England as well. 
Labour took Scotland, Wales and the north for granted for half a century and now have no idea what they are or who they’re supposed to represent. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by jack D and coke

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, XB52 said:

Another one that can't read. We would not need to take a share of UK debt, end of story, Fact. Will we end up taking a share of the debt for a share of the assets? Very likely but not legally required 

you weren’t here when the debate started now you wan to tell us we are missing the point. 😂

 

we would have to take our fair share of debt, we won’t be walking away from anything, debt is an irrelevant point in the context of this debate .

 

That was the discussion, that was the point. Glad you agree
 

 

[XB52]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

you weren’t here when the debate started now you wan to tell us we are missing the point. 😂

 

we would have to take our fair share of debt, we won’t be walking away from anything, debt is an irrelevant point in the context of this debate .

 

That was the discussion, that was the point. Glad you agree
 

 

Last reply as obviously wasting my time. You said and I quote

"point, is and always has been that we would need to take our fair share of U.K. debt." 

 

Glad that you now agree that we would not NEED to take our share