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

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Uk treasury has recently announced that it will guarantee the entire debt in the event of independence.

Osborne is to definitively announce there will be no monetary union (or will he?)

Scottish Government has already pointed out that if the UK takes this position there would be no reason for them to take on a share of the national debt.

But surely Osborne et al are cutting off their noses to spite their faces? Just one example - rUK gets loads of oil/gas from Scotland, surely they would have to pay more if it were in a different currency?

And that's still the SNP position, and I agree. But, no assets, (in this case, use of the £ in a currency union) no debt.

Have we crossed wires?

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

Now you are saying that it is true?

GERS figures show 9.9% revenue, 9.3% public spending for Scotland.

Scotland is a partner in the UK, that means that we have equal rights with the other countries to assets/debts/institutions/etc. Everything will have to be divided up if the country votes Yes.

There are assets other than the £.

Here is an attempt at a helpful clarification regarding questions about "assets".

1. The reason why the pound sterling (as opposed to holdings in sterling) is not an asset is because it is simply a unit of exchange. I live in New Zealand. There is nothing stopping me from selling my house to an Australian and denominating the price in Australian dollars if I choose. I could require payment in Australian dollars, or payment in New Zealand dollars at an agreed exchange rate.

Is Salmond claiming that iScotland's right to continue in a currency union with the rUK is a UK asset? I doubt it. What then, is this asset of which he speaks?

1. Scotland would be left without assets. The point here is that the Scottish state would begin without assets. At law, only something the law recognises as a person may hold property (or liabilities). The most obvious example of something recognisable at law as a person is someone like you or me. Another example is the limited company. A third, more complicated example is the State, a sort of uncomfortable mix of the person of Elizabeth II in her capacity as the Queen of the UK, plus powers conferred by Parliament on people appointed by her, typically government ministers. I will call this conglomeration "the Crown". Ironically enough, the Crown currently includes the Scottish government and parliament.

The UK currently has one Crown. Until 1801, there were two Crowns: first, Great Britain and second, Ireland. The Crown of Great Britain was created by the acts of Union passed by the Scottish and English Parliaments, which abolished the Scottish and English crowns respectively and created a new one (a similar thing happened in 1801).

What this means is that Scotland is not, constitutionally speaking, a "member state" or in "partnership". The personality of the crown of Scotland ended in 1707. Scotland is just, like England, an area that forms part of the dominions of the UK Crown.

On independence, therefore, a new legal person - a Scottish state (or Crown, as the nationalists now want to keep Elizabeth II as their head of state) would have to be created. Without agreement to the contrary, no assets or liabilities owned or owed by other people would pass to it - a comparable example is the incorporation of a company.

What this also means is that "the Scottish people" do not own UK assets in anything like a legal sense. No one owns UK state assets except the UK state - that is the UK Crown. "The Scottish people" or "the English people" aren't a person at law.

If anyone wants me to cite sources, I recommend them to the standard texts on UK constitutional law.

None of this affects the property rights of private citizens of course, which would remain as before. But as for anything owned by the UK state - schools, hospitals, the Parliament building in Edinburgh, leases on buildings owned by others, foreign investments, gold and so on - the question is who owned them before? And the answer is the UK Crown. So the next question is - has there been any agreement to transfer them? If the answer is no, well then, the answer is that the newly-created Scottish state doesn't own them.

GERS figures show 9.9% revenue, 9.3% public spending for Scotland.

Yep. GERS is really complicated though- Better Together and the Yes Campaign used the same set of statistics to come to different conclusions. The professor in charge of it also has said that 'the figures are only useful in the “very short term” – and reveal very little about the long-term health of a nation with a different constitutional set-up'. Here.

This is a really good explanation of the currency issue. The basic conclusion is that ^The UK pound is not an asset subject to division and an independent Scottish state would have no legal right to decide on or benefit from the functions of the Bank of England (as an institution of the continuing UK). The equitable division of the UK’s assets and liabilities is
a completely separate issue. There is no basis for an independent Scottish state to refuse to take its share of liabilities simply because the continuing UK did not agree to form a currency union.^

Toad you are saying that id Scotland votes yes we won't own our hospitals? Of course many things can only be negotiated after the referendum.

And of course GERS is far too complicated for me to understand. Probably noone in Scotland understands it.

Not an economist or expert and so won't be arguing with anyone on here but a few thoughts:

1. If Salmond succeeds (and I don't feel he will) there will be a huge backlash in rUK. He is characterising rUK as "the English" and "the Tories" but he is wrong. Someone mentioned newspaper campaigns. I think it will be worse than that. rUK politicians will have to enact economic and political policies to protect the economic interests of their own citizens. This will be divisive.

1. I am English, married to a Scot and we all live in Scotland. We are British, as are our Scottish born children. We will leave. Now we are not huge earners or assets. (Teacher and Small Business owner) but others are likely to feel the same. Salmond will have told us to Fuck Off and the crowing will be unbearable. His white paper tells me that I will be considered Scottish on Independence Day. I don't want to be Scottish. I don't want to live in a Nationalist state as nationalism makes me very, very uneasy. How many others will leave too?

1. No one is talking about this anywhere privately. Nowhere that I have been. Only the most rabid are out in the open. The rest of us are a bit scared of the Nats and so are just keeping quiet. If I speak, I am an English Cameron-loving Tory so what do I know. If I stay silent I can do what all of my kind will do (hopefully the majority) and tell him to fuck off with a bit fat X in the No box.

Thanks for this thread, it is really interesting and about something that I don't hear much about as I am not in Scotland. My sister has already moved from Scotland as she had concerns about the way Scotland is becoming nationalistic!

bideyinn

Not quite. I am saying that the iScottish state would own no assets unless a deal had been negotiated which transferred such things from the rUK state to the iScottish state.

The point to note is that such things must be negotiated and that means give and take. It does not mean acceding to a list of demands presented by Salmond, and I think one can expect the bargaining to be tough. The rUK's bargaining cards might include (apart from the schools and hospitals) things like trade deals, EU membership veto, joint military force, residency rights for Scottish citizens (who would, de facto be out of the EU at least to start with), and so on. iScotland's cards might include be non-liability for debt, and anchorage for rUK warships and nuclear subs. All these are cards that can be traded, although it is quite clear that a currency union is off the cards.

Minor question, but if saying no to debts means saying no to assets (and both separate from currency), does this mean closure of all oilfields? The natural reserves might be closest to Scotland but the rigs were paid for by UK, so not automatically Scottish by that reckoning.

"The natural reserves might be closest to Scotland but the rigs were paid for by UK, so not automatically Scottish by that reckoning."

They weren't paid for by the UK, they were paid for by the companies that own them.

"Thanks for this thread, it is really interesting and about something that I don't hear much about as I am not in Scotland. My sister has already moved from Scotland as she had concerns about the way Scotland is becoming nationalistic!"

Hmm. Personally, I'm finding the vast bulk of the nationalism is coming from the No side. The Yes side isn't saying vote for independence because you're Scottish and that's great, but the No side is firmly and strongly saying vote for the union because you're British and that's great.

Roseformeplease, just picking up some of your points:

"1. If Salmond succeeds (and I don't feel he will) there will be a huge backlash in rUK. He is characterising rUK as "the English" and "the Tories" "

Yes, for me and for a lot of people in Scotland, a big attraction is not having Tory governments. The Tories haven't won an election in Scotland since 1955 and they were a different party in a different country then. It's perfectly reasonable to want to get away from rule by a party that is a very minor one now here. But the clincher for many is how lame New Labour are. I started supporting independence in 1997 because I thought, if this is the best Labour government I can get in the UK, I'd rather we weren't in it any more.

As for "the English", I'm sorry, but I'd be grateful if you could point out to me anywhere he's talked in those sorts of terms. Is it possible you're ascribing views to him because you disagree with him?

"This will be divisive."

I'm not sure it could be more divisive than Scotland getting the policies of parties it didn't vote for. I think that's the biggest source of division at the moment.

"Salmond will have told us to Fuck Off and the crowing will be unbearable."

I think this is extremely unfair and not based on anything other than your feelings. Seriously, please quote me things he has said that make you feel this way.

Both sides dread the crowing of the other if they lose. But reasonable people like us need to remember that there will be a 19th of September.

"His white paper tells me that I will be considered Scottish on Independence Day."

It doesn't. It says you'll have the choice.

"I don't want to live in a Nationalist state"

You already do. Scotland is certainly no more nationalistic than the UK.

"How many others will leave too?"

And how many will come? A lot of left-leaning people in England have been talking about moving to Scotland if it were independent. I think it'd be very attractive to many.

"The rest of us are a bit scared of the Nats and so are just keeping quiet."

As what you would probably describe as a "Nat", I'm horrified you feel that way. I know plenty of English people voting Yes. My closest friend, godfather to my children, is voting no and we talk about this stuff a lot. I think if you actually engaged with people on the Yes side you'd be pleasantly relieved.

To be scared of people in favour of independence is pretty silly.

"tell him to fuck off with a bit fat X in the No box."

"Him? By "him" I assume you mean Alex Salmond?

There's a lot more than him in favour of independence. Billy Bragg. Sir George Mathewson. Denis Canavan. Lesley Riddoch. Ruth Wishart. Alan Cumming. Brian Cox. Do you hate these people? Do you fear them?

"And of course GERS is far too complicated for me to understand. Probably noone in Scotland understands it."

The Financial Times probably does. And in a week-long series earlier this month they said that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, that it has a smaller fiscal deficit than the UK, that its GDP per capita is higher than that of France and if it were independent it would be 11% per head better off overnight.

There's less and less arguing about these figures, because there's now a consensus that Scotland doesn't take out proportionately more than it puts in. That's why the Better Together campaign have moved on to other issues.

meditrina

I think there are special rules relating to natural resources - I think they automatically belong to the state in which they are found - so the oil would be iScotland's.

not sure - tricky area that one.

takingparentsseriously

From my time in Scotland I don't remember Alex Salmond or the SNP once making Anglophobic references. There were, however, lots of references to how "we" do things and how "they" do things and, particularly back then, plenty of references to the fact that Scotland didn't have the government it voted for.

It all added to a sort of mood music that I really grew to hate. Glasgow is the only place I've lived where I felt in physical danger after dark. I hated the awful Mexican stand-offs with the neds. An English accent was a good enough excuse for them. However, it wasn't just that - it was also the academics at the universities with their surveys about what were authentic Scottish characteristics versus English ones (the former typically being more positive), Scottish voting habits versus English, Scottish pop music, Scottish law versus English law: everything was defined in opposition to those wicked English down south.

Also, frequent references to Scottish victimhood versus English imperialism, which bugs me to this day as Scots were hugely involved in the empire. Heck, my own colonial ancestors are Scottish, Ulster-Scots and Welsh. My English ancestors stayed in England, doubtlessly the result of their English parochialism and insularity, some might say.

I got sick of meeting people and getting the impression that a little voice inside their heads was constantly saying "he's English English! An English Bastard!.

It gave me a real insight into what it is like to be the victim of racism. It is the sense of unease that is really unsettling, which makes the odd remark, act or circumstance seem sinister.

Clearly it wasn't the place for me, so I left. And in case you think I might be sensitive (because I've wondered that too) I should note that I've spent most of my life since then outside the UK and married someone who isn't British.

Now I live in NZ. No one gives two hoots that I'm English. I love it.

I will add that in the mid to late 90s I saw some English waking up to the constant sniping from north of the border and actually beginning to behave the same way. Now I see it all over the Internet - not, I should add, that I think the Scots are less likely to engage in it. I expect plenty of Scots are now made to feel damn uncomfortable south of the Border too, and the very thought of this really gets my goat.

Just to add that Scotland is not presently a net contributor to the UK. No region is. And as you note, while the FT says Scotland would presently have a higher GDP than France, that remark has widely been reported to mean it would continue to be higher. It has been pretty widely pointed out that Scotland's wealth would, at present, depend substantially on North Sea oil receipts.

Personally I think this (as with the currency and the EU) is besides the point. Independence isn't really about economics but national identity, no matter how the debate is framed.

Sorry, one more thing.

Hmm. Personally, I'm finding the vast bulk of the nationalism is coming from the No side. The Yes side isn't saying vote for independence because you're Scottish and that's great, but the No side is firmly and strongly saying vote for the union because you're British and that's great.

Really? Because that's not the arguments I'm reading in the papers. Rather, the No campaign has - quite reasonably, one would have thought - concentrated on the dangers of independence and how it might make Scotland worse off.

If those points are made on a reasonable basis, it is a thoroughly illegitimate debating tactic to label it "scaremongering".

What I find disturbing about the debate is the Yes campaign's attempt to dumb the debate down into name calling about the English government. I suppose that the calculation is that the more emotive they can get people feeling the more likely they are to vote Yes. As has been noted before, calls to patriotism are the last refuge of a scoundrel.

The latest example of this was Salmond's use of the term 'The George Tax' when talking about transaction costs if Scotland had its own currency. All 3 major UK political parties have stated that they would not have a currency union with iScotland - so why call it the George Tax? IMO it is because Osborne represents something that many Scots (and English as well) detest - the class system. I was half expecting Salmond to label Barroso as an English Tory after his latest intervention!

The No campaign is raising important and very real issues that an iScotland will have to face - to dismiss them with petty insults and accusations of bullying really does the Yes campaign no credit at all. On a personal note, I have little truck with nationalism in any form and the Yes campaign is one manifestation of nationalist sentiment. Generally nationalism always appeals to base instinct more than reason and is by its nature exclusive rather than inclusive.

Toad hopefully there will be no rUK sub's remaining in Scotland after independence.

I was actually being ironic saying that I, nor the rest of the Scottish nation,understood the GERS figures, was feelings bit patronised.

I must say that I don't recognize the Scotland being portrayed in this thread? Stand offs with Ned's in Glasgow? Surely a stereotype

That's very insulting and not actually true. I am not rascist to English people (or any other nationality) but you say that because I am Scottish I am rascist?! Nice

I don't want nuclear subs because they are weapons of mass destruction. I hope the rUK finds somewhere else to put them. I don't personally care about the jobs.

I must say that I don't recognize the Scotland being portrayed in this thread? Stand offs with Ned's in Glasgow? Surely a stereotype

Are you suggesting that I'm making this stuff up?