So, no share of national debt for an independent Scotland then..

How about if England, Wales, and Northern Ireland declare independence and become a new country and leave Scotland with the debt.

Works for me.

£ is presently a petrocurrency. If no currency union, it won't be a petrocurrency any more, even if we keep using it.

And do stop with the "no assets" nonsense, it simply isn't true.

London has never defaulted. Everyone knows this, and its reputation is still strong. iScotland has no reputation to fall back on.

What do you mean by an indy Scottish £? If you mean using the pound regardless, no central bank in the world will underwrite a currency for a country which doesn't control that currency.

Scotland does not run at a deficit
Figures please?

we'd be in profit from day one,
Not with no assets.

we cannot renege on a debt we don't owe.
It's not quite as simple as that.

How could an English £, in a massively indebted rUK, be worth more than an indy Scottish £, backed by our natural resources? Scotland does not run at a deficit, we'd be in profit from day one, and we cannot renege on a debt we don't owe.

The assets will have to broken up if we decide to leave

The currency is not an asset.

Of course we have assets, there are more assets than just BoE, stuff we've already paid for over 300 years of union, as well as our oil, gas, whisky etc. We have a balance of payments surplus, why would we have a terrible reputation?

Secession tends to be accompanied by the sharing of debts and assets. If Scotland doesn't take up the debts, they don't get the assets. This would reflect badly on Scotland on the international stage, particularly re credit scores. The interest on any loans made to Scotland would be huge. rUK would probably also be more likely to use their EU veto.

Actually we are as entitled to the pound as the rest of the UK,
No you are not. Sterling is an institution, the gold reserves backing it are the assets. Assets should be shared, institutions cannot.

we already are part of the EU and (I don't think they'll want to let us go)
By voting for independence you take yourself out of the EU.

We pay in more than we take out financially.
False.

Scotland has 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population
Scotland generates 9.4 percent of its annual tax revenues.

Now look at the Public Expenditure Statistics.

Scots get an average of £10,212 per person spent on them every year.
English folk get £8,588.

That's £1,624 less than the Scottish person.
= a heavy subsidy for Scotland.

Plus Scotland is running, like all countries, at a deficit.

But why is that a fact? The assets will have to broken up if we decide to leave, just as we'll take a share of debt. A sterling zone makes sense and has been done before without problem. The EU will not want to lose all the fishing areas around Scotland at the very least. I'm puzzled as to why the UK govt wants us to stay as we're such a drain :)

Bideyinn - the fact is that you are not 'entitled' to be in the pound as an independent Scotlad - that is just a fact. And an independent Scotland is not already a part of the EU - that is also a fact. Pointing these facts out is not an attempt to make Scotland stay (not for me in any case) - I don't actually care. But they are the facts which Salmond and co must address to be taken seriously.

The BoE is always seen to be politically neutral in England, there is no reason to believe Carney would be anything else to the UK’s Scotland – but few would believe that a BoE governor just given sole responsibility for watching UK financial bubbles, with the tools given to fix them, would look forward to monitoring an independent Scotland’s influence on Sterling.

‘No debt’, penal domestic interest rates, as being seen to the international capital markets as a dodgy credit who might walk away from its obligations, you’d pay much higher interest rates to borrow money from outside Scotland - as a government looking for cyclical deficit sending, as a Scottish bank in the interbank markets and therefore as individuals, for daily needs.

In trade what would be a stronger English pound to a Scottish pound, Scotland would no longer be such an important market for the England as our goods and services would become too expensive for you (potentially raising domestic Scottish inflation) and like any period of currency volatility, we’d have to find new markets.

You on the other hand, trying to find your independence feet, would have to rely on England buying your goods when totally peed off with you for (trying to) renege on your debt. I can see the Sun, Mirror, Mail et all mounting national campaigns to boycott Scottish goods. Silly, maybe, but so is denial, we are not asking you to leave, vote how you will because WE are now getting mightily hissed off listening to Scottish threats.

You needed the facts before you voted, I’m sorry the SNP don’t like that, and stage managing a Westminster plot helps no one, but do your worst as its . IMO.

This thread reads like the Better Together campaign, terrible statements about what will befall Scotland if we don't decide to do what the rest of the UK purportedly wants. Actually we are as entitled to the pound as the rest of the UK, we already are part of the EU and (I don't think they'll want to let us go) and we pay in more than we take out financially. The No campaign is full of negativities, I don't hear anything about the postives of staying in the UK, it's all threats.

A currency union could work if the political systems of both countries are moving towards convergence (this is what the Euro is based upon). Salmond wants a currency union whilst moving in the opposite direction.

Personally I don't care very much what Scotland does. They are a small country whose presence or absence will not make very much difference to the rest of the UK. But independence actually means independence - the rest of the UK will make decisions in the interest of the UK regardless of Scotlands desires or interests. The same with the EU. The Salmond speech today was pretty lame, an attempt to personalise a very serious hole in the yes vote's campaign. To have no plan B for the currency or EU problems is amateurish to say the least.

Of course we have assets, there are more assets than just BoE, stuff we've already paid for over 300 years of union, as well as our oil, gas, whisky etc. We have a balance of payments surplus, why would we have a terrible reputation?

5 mill may be a drop in the ocean, but it's a drop that pays in more than it takes out.

And yes, maybe it's childish and petulant, but it's also true.

Damn, bold fail.

they won't want to lose 5 million citizens living in a country which is already fully EU-compliant.

no currency union, no debt

No assets and a terrible international reputation too, don't forget.

they won't want to lose 5 million citizens living in a country which is already fully EU-compliant.

The EU compromises 500million (slightly over, I believe). 5 million is a drop in the ocean.

As for the three unionist parties agreeing re the £, they have already sent many, many Scots towards a yes vote.

I genuinely don't understand this. It's so childish and petulant.

Absolutely agree Carney was neutral, he said BoE would make it work. Don't have a problem giving up a little sovereignty in a currency union, atm we have none so giving up "some" actually puts us in a stronger position, and it's worth it for the convenience/less hassle/cost for business both sides of the border. But y'know, no currency union, no debt...

EU president may have no interest in UK politics, but there is the Catalan issue... We are net contributors to the EU and they won't want to lose 5 million citizens living in a country which is already fully EU-compliant. And Spain won't want to lose access to our fishing grounds, so however much he grumbles, that's all it is. And he's out of office come September anyway.

As for the three unionist parties agreeing re the £, they have already sent many, many Scots towards a yes vote. There's not much in MSM, but alt media is full of Scots saying, "I was going to vote no, but now I'm voting yes" - and Labour supporters are particularly pissed off that they've been sold out. It's being seen as WM uniting against Scots, and NuLab will have a job to do to restore their reputation after indy.

Salmond does not say yes to euro, because that's not possible.

Westminster says NO Sterling, Salmond says YES.

The EU says NO Euro, Salmond says YES.

If Scotland says NO, god help Scottish democracy and all that has to listen within.

I don't pretend to know a great deal about politics but my tuppence worth is this:

I don't think that the three Westminster parties uniting with regards the pound will make lots of Scots run towards the Yes Campaign. I think it will have the opposite effect, in fact, as it makes Salmond et al look like a bunch of amateurs. All of the fiscal arrangements, monetary policies etc should all have been worked out (my God, the Nationalists have been wanting this for years) before we even got to the stage of setting a date. It is a complete bloody farce in my view and just makes the Scots look like toddlers having a strop everytime things don't go our way.

When we say yes is when the real negotiations start, the rest is so much posturing (from both sides...)

I can see why you'd think the Scottish/UK politician's are posturing. But what about Mark Carney? I thought his analysis of the facts were pretty spot on. Namely:

"The Bank of England governor has said an independent Scotland would need to give up some power to make a currency union with the rest of the UK work."

A treasury analysis paper concluded that there's no evidence a currency union would work.

Top civil servant Sir Nicholas MacPherson also warned against the arrangement. (source)

And the EU president who has nothing to do with UK politics at all so can't see why he'd be biased has said that Scotland joining the EU would be pretty much "impossible"

OK I don't trust words that come out of Cameron & Milliband's mouth. But I do trust Mark Carney who has an outstanding reputation.

And the response from iScotland campaign is simply "Ahhh it's all lies & rubbish!" What? Everyone is lying? Really?

Or could it be you've overplayed the benefits of independence without really examining what's in it for everyone else.

I'm sorry you had a shitty time (well, some of it) when you lived here. I actually understand what you mean about your accent marking you out; when I moved from Montrose, Angus to Cupar, Fife in 1971 (aged 9) the locals decided I was "English" and treated me accordingly. I'll never live there again either.

As for the rest, as you say, we'll see. When we say yes is when the real negotiations start, the rest is so much posturing (from both sides...)

I see now José Manuel Barroso is in the firing line for stating what I thought was pretty clear: an iScotland would have to apply for EU membership and this might be opposed by some members.

Nicola Sturgeon is flat wrong when she says Scotland has been a member of the EU for 40 years. Scotland has never been a member of the EU any more than Helensburgh or Pitlochry has been.

Hi OldLady

1. The issue is not who gets to use the pound, but whether there will be a currency union with the BoE as lender of last resort after the union would broken up. This is an issue the nationalists, not Osborne, raised. They "prenegotiated".

1. I agree. However, the point is that Westminster has no need to panic, and I don't believe this was a panic move.

1. Civil servants open their gobs all the time - to advise government ministers. There is nothing controversial about ministers making that advice public - it happens from time to time.

1. OK. I apologise if the following answer is overly technical. For the last 300 years, Scots have paid taxes to the Crown of UKGB and (after 1801) the Crown of UKGB&I (ignoring the 1922 name change). Over this time, the Crown has built up assets and also liabilities ("the national debt"). These assets and liabilities are not owned or owed by the people of the UK, but by the Crown. Accordingly, it is not possible to say that and iScotland would "owe" 10% of the debt - it would continue to be owed by the Crown of UKGB&NI. Hence Salmond's threat. Similarly, UKGB&NI assets would continue to be owed by that Crown. I believe there are separate rules relating to natural resources, so the oil would vest in iScotland.

1. Not all of you aren't actually, no. My abiding memory of living in Scotland during the 90s was the enormous amount of stereotyping of English people that went on - both by academics in the universities, in the media, and more alcoholically in the pub. I really do not miss being painfully aware that, being English, I was liable to get a kicking by the neds if I got caught in the wrong place, due to my English accent. I felt frankly unwelcome and have never desired to live in Scotland since I left. It is my opinion that Anglophobia is pretty deeply rooted in Scotland. I am aware that these days Scotland had a substantial English population, and thought that might have changed the nature of the nationalists' tactics - but having followed the debate for the last year, my view is that it hasn't.

I will add that since leaving Scotland I have spent most of my life outside the UK. I will make two points.

1. I have felt much more welcome where I've been than I ever did in Scotland.
2. Compared with everyone else, Scots and the rest (English, Welsh NI) are really are more ore less the same in terms of culture, views on politics and so on.

1. We'll see. But I don't agree that a currency union is in rUK's best interests. I also - as it happens - don't believe the rUK would need to give a reason why. It would be an independent country and not responsible for Scotland.

Toadinthehole, thank you for your comments. I have to disagree with some of them, though.

1 If stating, clearly, (if wrongly) and with no room for negotiation, that an iScotland could not use the pound isn't "prenegotiation", what is it?

2 The polls do still show a majority "no", but this is no cause for complacency. The polls also show movement is towards "yes", and there are months to go yet.

3 Granted, but wtf was a civil servant doing opening his gob in the first plae? Absolutely against protocol.

4 The Treasury have agreed that rUK will take responsibility for the whole of the debt, they have no alternative, as it was they who issued the gilts and the Scottish Gvt have no borrowing powers at present. However, your assertion that iScot would have no assets is jawdropping! You do know we too pay taxes, and have done for the past 300 years? We already own circa 10% of BoE, of every piece of military equipment, of international embassies, even of the London sewerage system!

5 I'm happy to take your word on that.

6 When we vote yes, there wll be no need for bitterness from us. We're a forgiving lot. :)

7 The tactic has already backfired. Yes gains new converts every time a Tory opens his mouth, and Alexander and Balls haven't made the situation any easier.

A currency union is in the best interests of everyone, including rUK. But there are alternatives, it's not the be-all and end-all.

Oldladyknowsnothing

There are some problems with the article you cited. I will mention some.

1. I don't think Osborne was "pre-negotiating" the break-up of the Union. It was not him that put a currency union on the table. Furthermore, how the Union might break up is one thing. What rights and independent Scotland would have afterwards is quite another. The article is unfair in levelling this charge at Osborne.

2 . Polls might have shown a slight move towards independence, but they still show pro-Unionists comfortably in the lead. There is no reason for pro-Unionists to panic.

1. A position taken on the advice of the BoE's senior banker and a senior civil servant should not be characterised as "sound bites". This is also unfair.

1. I agree that as the successor state, the rUK would, as a starting point, be responsible for all UK debt, and iScotland wouldn't. What the article doesn't mention is that iScotland would not, as a starting point own any assets nor be a signatory to any treaties. This is why iScotland would be outside the EU and have to apply for entry. The article notes that the UK has agreed to guarantee all sterling debt up to independence. This was responsible. Salmond pointed out that Scotland could refuse to pay any proportionate amount. That was irresponsible. Legally, legislating for independence is something only within the power of the Westminster parliament, which is not bound legally by the referendum result. Morally, it would be well within its rights to refuse to legislate until the nationalists adopted a more reasonable position.

As an aside, it seems that iScotland also wouldn't own any non-territorial assets. So, the Parliament building in Edinburgh would, I'm guessing, continue to be owned by Her Majesty's Government - of the rUK.

1. The article notes that the Irish Free State eventually paid no debt. What the article doesn't say is what was given in return. The IFA, despite its hostility to the UK, allowed the UK to maintain military bases on Irish soil up to WW2, in which it remained significantly neutral.

1. The article notes that bitter words spoken in the referendum will linger on. So they shall. That's too bad - but once again the implication that the Unionists are fighting dirty is unfair. It is not unfair for leaders of big business to point out that they would prefer the Union to continue. Nor can it be fair for Westminster politicians to remain absolutely silent while Nationalists increasingly presume what special arrangements will be made and which rules bent in order to suit iScotland to the disadvantage of everyone else.

1. The article says the tactic might backfire. Now, I am English. I used to live in Scotland, but don't any more. I hope Scotland remains in the Union. But I am exasperated at this constant chorus of "Bully! Bully!"whenever something happens that the Nationalists don't like. The debate should not be stymied by oversensitivity to the sensibility of nationalists. For twenty years now I have been watching them make claims about what true Scots are like, what they believe, how much a poor victim Scotland is and has been, and how anyone who disagrees with them is a sort of class enemy. It is that sort of cheap rhetoric that has enabled them to make it a real possibility that a small island full of people who are more or less the same might divide in two.

The was a comment made to the article that I liked:

I think that some level of pre-negotiation became inevitable after I read the White Paper - it made so many assertions that couldn't be guaranteed, the unionists were always going to respond. I agree with them - Salmond's assertion that a currency union was in both sides [sic] best interest is manifestly nonsensical

This is the problem. The Yes camp makes unsubstantiated assertions - removal of Trident, continued EU membership and now a currency union, and when the No camp cough politely and say "well actually..." the Yes camp responds with a metaphorical shriek.

This issue is being seriously mischaracterised. It is not at all about how an asset (in this case, sterling) is divided up.

What Osborne and co have ruled out is the possibility of a currency union. Everyone has assumed this means the rUK gets to "keep the pound", for obvious reasons. However, it would be completely within the rUK's power to issue its own entirely new currency - the rUK dollar say - and leave sterling for Scotland to continue with should it choose. It would affect the rUK's national debt - it would simply be denominated in a new currency.

Contrary to some remarks made on this thread, debt and assets aren't carried with a currency. A currency is just a unit of exchange. The Greeks didn't dispose of their liabilities once they adopted the Euro - far from it, as they are aware.

For reasons that should be immediately obvious, a currency union is not a current asset of the UK. It doesn't even exist yet, for Pete's sake. Unfortunately, this point has been completely obscured in the argy-bargy. The real question is the extent to which Scots voters should be allowed to assume that everything promised by the Nationalists will come to pass. Now, most of these things are a matter purely internal to Scotland, and are no one else's business. On the other hand, a currency union is very much the business of the rest of the UK, and I for one am finding it really hard to understand why the Nationalists are so outraged at Osborne, Alexander and Balls pointing out that they have the interests of people others than Scots to consider and weigh up.

I am English, and some time resident in Scotland. I hope Scotland stays, but I don't see that Scotland is entitled to the special treatment that Alex Salmond and co have come to expect.

On trade, back in 2010 I saw what I thought was a disturbing economic stat; that the rest of the Uk did more trade with Ireland (Dublin), that the rest of the emerging B.R.I.C. (Brazil, Russia, India & China) nations combined, with probably around 2.5 billion citizens between them.

Now I’m hearing how much we depend on trade with Scotland, it just confirms to me that we need to widen our trade substantially.

Cameron needs to fly a few more trade delegations to those places and others, as we seem to have been content trading with ourselves, and all that all-eggs-in-one-local-basket risks, that narrow focus keeps throwing up, including the still recession hit EU.