Scottish nationalists- a dodged bullet

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

david37 said:

TheBigBean said:

elbowloh said:

To be fair, you can't blame the SNP for selling this independence, join the EU, keep the pound nonsense. The rest of the UK bought the "have your cake and eat it" / have a better deal outside of the EU story.
It would seem that facts don't win elections.

I think Scotland would end up with its own pound and would be able to join the EU without giving it up as demonstrated by all the EU countries that haven't given it up, but are working towards it on an infinitely long timetable.

I also think the UK will underwrite Scottish debt for a few years until it has established itself in the capital markets.

I don't know why everyone always focuses on these bits.

Why on earth would the UK (England) underwrite the debts of a third party??????? genuine question

And the Scottish pound as opposed to the uk pound would be a hiding to nothing

Plenty of small countries have currencies that are stable. Even in the EU. In fact, there aren't that many countries that don't have their own. Examples include Panama, Ecuador, Zimbawe, CFA countries and the Eurozone.

The rUK would underwrite the debt, because it would otherwise be a chaotic transition. Plus, a lot of the debt would be UK debt where the gilt holders were expecting the whole of the UK to be the counter-party. So, I presume that both the rUK and Scotland would continue to underwrite all gilts in issue, but that payments for some would come from Scotland. Perhaps via rUK. This would give Scotland a load of debt in a foreign currency which really isn't optimal, so at some point this would need to be addressed and wound down.

My main point is that I expect the rUK to help and to make it orderly.

How many brand new currencies of tiny and massively indebted countries are stable?

Pretty sure Eurozone participation is now a condition of EU entry, as are the economic conditions required to do so. Even the SNP admit as quietly as possible that it will be at the very least a decade before they do. So the reality would be longer.

Venezuela, that's another one.

It is is a condition of entry. It is just ignored by a lot of counties, and Scotland would just be one more ignoring it.

So are the economic requirements, which is the main issue. If we could be back in Europe with the Euro within a reasonable period, I might even vote leave. The prospect of being in Europe within a reasonable period would be a huge plus point.

But it is a pipe dream because the SNP overspend gratuitously on free tampons, tuition fees, prescriptions, dental, taxis for children to get to school, you name it. Each policy is popular, of course, but unfortunately we can't actually afford them all.

And despite all the overspending, the services here are still sh7t, and we still have A-roads between major cities and rely on military roads built in the 1700's when some of them have landslides.

It is pathetic.

@rick_chasey will explain why they can not only keep over spending forever but why it is their constitutional duty to do so.

I am guessing they could set up their own central bank and buy the debt off the treasury.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

david37 said:

TheBigBean said:

elbowloh said:

To be fair, you can't blame the SNP for selling this independence, join the EU, keep the pound nonsense. The rest of the UK bought the "have your cake and eat it" / have a better deal outside of the EU story.
It would seem that facts don't win elections.

I think Scotland would end up with its own pound and would be able to join the EU without giving it up as demonstrated by all the EU countries that haven't given it up, but are working towards it on an infinitely long timetable.

I also think the UK will underwrite Scottish debt for a few years until it has established itself in the capital markets.

I don't know why everyone always focuses on these bits.

Why on earth would the UK (England) underwrite the debts of a third party??????? genuine question

And the Scottish pound as opposed to the uk pound would be a hiding to nothing

Plenty of small countries have currencies that are stable. Even in the EU. In fact, there aren't that many countries that don't have their own. Examples include Panama, Ecuador, Zimbawe, CFA countries and the Eurozone.

The rUK would underwrite the debt, because it would otherwise be a chaotic transition. Plus, a lot of the debt would be UK debt where the gilt holders were expecting the whole of the UK to be the counter-party. So, I presume that both the rUK and Scotland would continue to underwrite all gilts in issue, but that payments for some would come from Scotland. Perhaps via rUK. This would give Scotland a load of debt in a foreign currency which really isn't optimal, so at some point this would need to be addressed and wound down.

My main point is that I expect the rUK to help and to make it orderly.

How many brand new currencies of tiny and massively indebted countries are stable?

Pretty sure Eurozone participation is now a condition of EU entry, as are the economic conditions required to do so. Even the SNP admit as quietly as possible that it will be at the very least a decade before they do. So the reality would be longer.

Venezuela, that's another one.

It is is a condition of entry. It is just ignored by a lot of counties, and Scotland would just be one more ignoring it.

So are the economic requirements, which is the main issue. If we could be back in Europe with the Euro within a reasonable period, I might even vote leave. The prospect of being in Europe within a reasonable period would be a huge plus point.

But it is a pipe dream because the SNP overspend gratuitously on free tampons, tuition fees, prescriptions, dental, taxis for children to get to school, you name it. Each policy is popular, of course, but unfortunately we can't actually afford them all.

And despite all the overspending, the services here are still sh7t, and we still have A-roads between major cities and rely on military roads built in the 1700's when some of them have landslides.

It is pathetic.

@rick_chasey will explain why they can not only keep over spending forever but why it is their constitutional duty to do so.

I am guessing they could set up their own central bank and buy the debt off the treasury.

Only if the markets are confident they can pay it off etc.

First.Aspect

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

as TBB suggests the UK issued the debt so it is the UK's problem

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

as TBB suggests the UK issued the debt so it is the UK's problem

So goes the argument.

But it becomes Scotland's problem when they need to borrow, because it would have a horrific credit rating and a huge deficit to service.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

Still using reasoned argument and economics, I see. Have you not realised after the last 4 years, that what the Nats say doesn't need to be true or even coherent, it just needs to 'feel' right and play to almost subconsciously held prejudices.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

Still using reasoned argument and economics, I see. Have you not realised after the last 4 years, that what the Nats say doesn't need to be true or even coherent, it just needs to 'feel' right and play to almost subconsciously held prejudices.

it is inconceivable that they would not roll out the Brexit play book, right down to not giving a damn about the consequences so long as you win.

Talking sh1t in a referendum has no consequences whereas in an election it will catch up with you and that is why it needs legislation.

pblakeney

People still trying to apply logic to this debate. 🤣🤣🤣
Did Brexit teach you nothing?

david37

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

as TBB suggests the UK issued the debt so it is the UK's problem

and by the same flawed reasoning, the UK wouldnt be the UK without Scotland so the other countries could ditch it too.

or a;ternately the Scotts wouldnt leave with a share of UK assetts. and why should they. the country was bankrupt when it came into the union it could leave in the same way.

surrey_commuter

david37 said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

as TBB suggests the UK issued the debt so it is the UK's problem

and by the same flawed reasoning, the UK wouldnt be the UK without Scotland so the other countries could ditch it too.

or a;ternately the Scotts wouldnt leave with a share of UK assetts. and why should they. the country was bankrupt when it came into the union it could leave in the same way.

Talk us through how you think that England walking away from all UK debt would play out.

david37

surrey_commuter said:

david37 said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

By using the leaf as currency, yes.

One strategy floated the last time around was to renege on all UK debt and start from scratch. But you would think that with a 10% budget deficit, no doubt hugely exacerbated by needing to set up a country and having one's own new currency, that borrowing would be a bit on the high side and interest on it a bit steep. "Why should we trust you, you defaulted on your share of the UK debt?" "Oh, well that was to stick one up the English, but this is different." "Okay then, here is some money, we know you are good for it."

How long would it take to get to 100% GDP and beyond? A decade?

as TBB suggests the UK issued the debt so it is the UK's problem

and by the same flawed reasoning, the UK wouldnt be the UK without Scotland so the other countries could ditch it too.

or a;ternately the Scotts wouldnt leave with a share of UK assetts. and why should they. the country was bankrupt when it came into the union it could leave in the same way.

Talk us through how you think that England walking away from all UK debt would play out.

it wouldnt in the same way as scotland doing the same wouldnt

though if Scotland did, China might give it a bit of a bung just to take control. Now that would be interesting. China setting up shop in an independent Scotland, and Scotland having all the legal social and economic crtiteria for EU membership.

Now that WOULD be fun watching.

womack

Four parts.