Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) Are you not Scottish? Can you explain what you mean by tangible, not abstract or did you read it on a better together facebook page? Salmond has never threatened to default on the debt. The debt is a liability of UK, rUK wishes to be the continuation of current UK. So if a nation has no debt and wished to borrow with oil, whisky etc as good exports there will be plenty of people and organisations on the "international money markets" willing to do this. It's all explained by BoWSaint quite sensibly but you choose to ignore it. When going through a divorce assets and liabilities have to be split. As was explained by Andrew Neill last night those negotiations will break down into how many fighter aircraft Scotland thinks it could get. Tangible assets are ones that you can immediately put a value on and Scotland's share of the National Debt isn't in question. It's absolutely right that the Bank of England has guaranteed all Sterling bonds, but that doesn't mean Scotland can get off debt free - it simply means that it's debt is now owed to the Bank of England. John Swinney has previously admitted this and stated quite clearly that Scotland WOULD take on it's share of the UK National Debt. Salmond is now trying to use repayment of this debt as a negotiating tool to get his way. That would never play well in the International Currency markets or with the credit rating agencies. It's an act of extreme desperation and I'm surprised that those who would vote Yes are prepared to back Salmond on this issue - especially when the likes of Jim Sillars and Dennis Canavan have admitted that Salmond is quite simply playing this wrong. After all it's not supposed to be "all about Salmond" Edited August 13, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTony Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Your boss's wife, you say? That's me convinced, then, I'm changing to a No vote. There has been some vacuous shite spouted on here but that takes the biscuit...... Is that all you've got? No way of debating what she said about being part of something bigger, just comments about spouted shitey biscuits? On one hand, I'm a bit disappointed that was what you replied with to be honest but on the other you and your ilk are rather fond of just shouting loudly and throwing in abusive comments so I should have known better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintnextlifetime Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Oh joy, Maxi's back... Siddelly. .surely. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTony Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 As I said, you're no good at this trolling lark. You're not even debating the referendum anymore, Slarti. Is that because you fear for the "Yes" Campaign and as a result you've resorted to sticking your fingers up at people - I said "at people" not "up people" before you get all excited - and shout abuse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Yesterday John Swinney tried to claim that Westminsters one size fits all policies were failing Scots in terms of the jobs market. Well the results of Westminster's one size fits all policies on jobs clearly are working well for Scotland and the whole of the UK. In the period April 2014 - June 2014 the numbers of people in work hit new record highs in both Scotland and within the whole of the UK. 9,000 more people in Scotland are in work taking us to a new record high of 2,594,000 people in work 254,000 more people in the UK are in work taking that figure to a record high of 30,600,000 people in work. Across the UK unemployment fell by 132,000 to 2.08m In Scotland unemployment fell by 2,000 to 196,000. Both Scotland and the UK rates of unemployment are equal now on 6.4% Why risk all that progress with something as stupid as independence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Your boss's wife, you say? That's me convinced, then, I'm changing to a No vote. There has been some vacuous shite spouted on here but that takes the biscuit...... Bet she takes more than the biscuit....... Nudge, nudge......... Wink, wink........... Say no more....... Say no more........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTony Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Bet she takes more than the biscuit....... Nudge, nudge......... Wink, wink........... Say no more....... Say no more........ I think she prefers her Norwegian Blue Parrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTony Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 She apparently likes hobnobs but without the hob. Is that you volunteering your services, Slarti? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 (edited) When going through a divorce there are negotiations - assets and liabilities don't have to be split but if they are then the amount of each is determined by the negotiations - or is your wife just taking you to the cleaners? An iScotland would only have debt if that was what was agreed upon in the negotiations. Going by your argument then rUK would have no option but to give an iScotland its "share" of the pound sterling. How much is Sterling worth then? What's it's value? How much would Scotland be willing to pay to use it? And if the two parties can't agree on a value what happens? Who arbitrates? What happens in the meantime? What is Plan B? In a divorce the first priority is that the marital assets are calculated. The value of any property, savings in the bank, shares, the value of each others pension funds, etc, etc. From that figure you deduct the value of any liabilities. These are simple calculations. You then negotiate over who should get custody of the Sharon Stone DVD's and the Nolan's CD - unless of course I can produce the receipt proving that it was me who bought the Nolans CD and that it belongs to me. The National Debt being split by head of population seems fair to all - indeed Sillars and Canavan agree with this too, as does John Swinney. Sterling belongs to the UK and Scotland would be leaving that. They'd have no more claim to that than my ex-wife does my CD collection. Edited August 13, 2014 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iTony Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 As I said, you're no good at this trolling lark. Its just an internet forum, Slarti. No need to summon the SS to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 No it's not. Yes it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 Why risk all that progress with something as stupid as independence? WOW! Too wee, too poor, too stupid... Scottish cringe alert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 No it f**king isn't. Yes it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 WOW! Too wee, too poor, too stupid... Scottish cringe alert Just look at the SNP - certainly too stupid, too talentless, and too incompetent. And I don't see much amongst any of the other MSP's either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Is that all you've got? No way of debating what she said about being part of something bigger, just comments about spouted shitey biscuits? On one hand, I'm a bit disappointed that was what you replied with to be honest but on the other you and your ilk are rather fond of just shouting loudly and throwing in abusive comments so I should have known better. As Slarti keeps saying, you're no good at this trolling lark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Dreadful growth figures from Europe today proving why currency union doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 No it f**king isn't. Although I don't see any of SD's posts - this has been quoted a couple of times now, and rather than this issue trailing on for ANOTHER 350 pages of Cr*p, I thought I should nip it in the bud. I'm afraid SD is correct on this matter. The first thing a solicitor in divorce proceedings is supposed to do is note what's legally known as the 'relevant date'. This is the date that a married couple has split (not actually divorced, but the date they have effectively ceased to be a married couple). The sole purpose of the 'relevant date' is so that marital assets (such as the marital home) have a valuation taken and then all marital assets are split equitably based on the valuation on that date. There is a difference between what is a marital asset and what is individual property (for example, money left to somebody in a will is owned by the individual it was left to, and is not a marital asset). However, although I don't agree with the 'relevant date' principle (what if the housing market crashes between the date and the actual date of divorce?? The party who has sold the home stands to lose thousands of pounds in comparison to the other party), it IS the law. Hopefully I've explained the principle fairly clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoWSaint Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Although I don't see any of SD's posts - this has been quoted a couple of times now, and rather than this issue trailing on for ANOTHER 350 pages of Cr*p, I thought I should nip it in the bud. I'm afraid SD is correct on this matter. The first thing a solicitor in divorce proceedings is supposed to do is note what's legally known as the 'relevant date'. This is the date that a married couple has split (not actually divorced, but the date they have effectively ceased to be a married couple). The sole purpose of the 'relevant date' is so that marital assets (such as the marital home) have a valuation taken and then all marital assets are split equitably based on the valuation on that date. There is a difference between what is a marital asset and what is individual property (for example, money left to somebody in a will is owned by the individual it was left to, and is not a marital asset). However, although I don't agree with the 'relevant date' principle (what if the housing market crashes between the date and the actual date of divorce?? The party who has sold the home stands to lose thousands of pounds in comparison to the other party), it IS the law. Hopefully I've explained the principle fairly clearly. Why do we have to apply strict divorce laws to independence? It isn't 2 people divvying up their CD collection. That is just an analogy used by the NO campaign to make independence "sound" like a bad thing. Is Stuarts ex-wife not allowed to use Sterling now as well? Does he still want to keep her weapon mass destruction......ooer. Do you mean that debt is an asset and currency is an individual property? If so, why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Although I don't see any of SD's posts - this has been quoted a couple of times now, and rather than this issue trailing on for ANOTHER 350 pages of Cr*p, I thought I should nip it in the bud. I'm afraid SD is correct on this matter. The first thing a solicitor in divorce proceedings is supposed to do is note what's legally known as the 'relevant date'. This is the date that a married couple has split (not actually divorced, but the date they have effectively ceased to be a married couple). The sole purpose of the 'relevant date' is so that marital assets (such as the marital home) have a valuation taken and then all marital assets are split equitably based on the valuation on that date. There is a difference between what is a marital asset and what is individual property (for example, money left to somebody in a will is owned by the individual it was left to, and is not a marital asset). However, although I don't agree with the 'relevant date' principle (what if the housing market crashes between the date and the actual date of divorce?? The party who has sold the home stands to lose thousands of pounds in comparison to the other party), it IS the law. Hopefully I've explained the principle fairly clearly. I'd suggest that the above certainly applies where no amicable agreement is made between the parties to divvy things up based upon what they think is fair, what they need for themselves and what they would like the other party to have. i know people who have taken less than what they are due from marital assets because they want a less acrimonious break and want to feel they have done something that is good for the ongoing relationship (and maybe their conscience). That would be a mature position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Dreadful growth figures from Europe today proving why currency union doesn't work. The problem is the countries it let in. A currency union involving Benelux / Germany / Scandinavia would probably work- fairly equal standing and economic base. Adding weaker Mediterranean and perhaps the Eastern European countries was the madness. Germany and others are being dragged down by these economies. A UK currency union would easily work and wouldn't be as unequal or unwieldy as the Euro. I only see it as a stop gap in the event of a yes. I think it would end up moving to a Scottish currency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 The problem is the countries it let in. A currency union involving Benelux / Germany / Scandinavia would probably work- fairly equal standing and economic base. Adding weaker Mediterranean and perhaps the Eastern European countries was the madness. Germany and others are being dragged down by these economies. A UK currency union would easily work and wouldn't be as unequal or unwieldy as the Euro. I only see it as a stop gap in the event of a yes. I think it would end up moving to a Scottish currency. Of course, the currency union is only the SNP's suggestion and it is not certain that any government, commission or other body set up to establish the new way would plump for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Currency union to prop up the pound and save the rUK balance of payments and prevent them having another recession, which wouldn't be in Scotlands interest - certainly in the short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madball Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Although I don't see any of SD's posts - this has been quoted a couple of times now, and rather than this issue trailing on for ANOTHER 350 pages of Cr*p, I thought I should nip it in the bud. I'm afraid SD is correct on this matter. The first thing a solicitor in divorce proceedings is supposed to do is note what's legally known as the 'relevant date'. This is the date that a married couple has split (not actually divorced, but the date they have effectively ceased to be a married couple). The sole purpose of the 'relevant date' is so that marital assets (such as the marital home) have a valuation taken and then all marital assets are split equitably based on the valuation on that date. There is a difference between what is a marital asset and what is individual property (for example, money left to somebody in a will is owned by the individual it was left to, and is not a marital asset). However, although I don't agree with the 'relevant date' principle (what if the housing market crashes between the date and the actual date of divorce?? The party who has sold the home stands to lose thousands of pounds in comparison to the other party), it IS the law. Hopefully I've explained the principle fairly clearly. does the divorce law not depend also on where in the UK the divorce papers are filed. I agree that in the Scottish context the above is right, but I thought that in the rest of the UK the divorce is the dissolution of the marriage and that the financial settlement can be hammered out in isolation, and in some cases it's not even dealt with at all until much later down the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Start a "Divorce" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoWSaint Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 Correct me if I am wrong here..... - After a YES vote the UK will be entirely liable for all currently accrued UK debt. - An independent Scotland would take on part of this debt but pay it back to the Bank of England, rather than directly to whoever gave us the loan. - The Bank of England is an asset that is up for negotiation after the "divorce" (assuming no currency union). - Since we can't exactly physically have 10% of the BoE, rUK would have to buy us out for them to keep that asset. - Depending on the value of the BoE, this buyout would go towards/completely cover the inherited debt. - So even if we do agree to take on our share of debt with no currency union, we either owe money to ourselves (since we still partially own the BoE!) or rUK buys our share of the BoE thus wiping out our share of debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.