Why it's time to accept the fact that Brexit may never happen

[Shadowmelded]

Because to address such a large deficit you would either have to raise taxes or cut spending, the idea that cutting those expenses would be enough is fanciful, and the idea Scotland could just take no responsibility for any of the debt is ridiculous.

A deficit based on current expenditure, not taking into account the reduction through not having to pay for the things previously mentioned. As for not having to service the debt being fanciful;


There's precedent too; Ireland.

The IFS points out that a deficit “anything like that in our projections” would have meant the Scottish government being forced to cut spending or raise taxes to shore up the public finances.

Again, a deficit predicated on current expenditure.

Remain voters told us all throughout the referendum campaign that we needed to start listening to the experts, maybe Scots Nats should start doing the same.

And in the end you didn't, so to even adopt this stance is extremely hypocritical, especially considering I'm not ignoring them

[Deleted]

I don't know why you think we will remain in the single market. If we do we probably have to continue to accept immigration and either way it will be seen as an anti-democratic betrayal.

because if UK would leave single-market it would mean 10-15 years of drastic recession in UK maybe 5 years of recession in drastic form and after that few years in stagnation ?

[Koyoti]

I don't know why you think we will remain in the single market. If we do we probably have to continue to accept immigration and either way it will be seen as an anti-democratic betrayal.

I'll post this link again (and yes I know it the Guardian but what the hell)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-seven-years

It appears that may not be the case at all and after that length of time it may just prove that being in the single market doesn't need the free movement of people or it may prove the exact opposite, but who knows?

But it is being considered.

[Tinch]

And in the end you didn't, so to even adopt this stance is extremely hypocritical, especially considering I'm not ignoring them

I listened to them, I just felt other areas were more important to me.

My original point was that it is hypocritical of Scottish independence supporters to call brexiters stupid based on the economic arguments, when there are potentially worse economic implications for Scotland if it broke away from the UK.

[Tinch]

I don't know why you think we will remain in the single market. If we do we probably have to continue to accept immigration and either way it will be seen as an anti-democratic betrayal.

I'm not sure if we will, but I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where we would stay in it.

[Shadowmelded]

I listened to them, I just felt other areas were more important to me.

My original point was that it is hypocritical of Scottish independence supporters to call brexiters stupid based on the economic arguments, when there are potentially worse economic implications for Scotland if it broke away from the UK.

And where are they calling you stupid? Given there's only two Scottish posters I'm aware of in this thread, it seems like you're tilting at windmills.

[Tinch]

And where are they calling you stupid? Given there's only two Scottish posters I'm aware of in this thread, it seems like you're tilting at windmills.

Just look through this thread.

You don't have to be Scottish to support their independence. There is no doubt that a large percentage of those who think brexit was a terrible idea also support the prospect of Scotland having another independence referendum.

- - - Updated - - -

A deficit based on current expenditure, not taking into account the reduction through not having to pay for the things previously mentioned. As for not having to service the debt being fanciful;

Even Alex Salmond accepted that Scotland should be liable to take a share of the UK debt. And even if it was legal for them to do so, how would it look if Scotland were to just walk away from the debt? It would be disastrous for your future borrowing, nobody would want to touch you with a barge pole.

[Shadowmelded]

Just look through this thread.

You don't have to be Scottish to support their independence. There is no doubt that a large percentage of those who think brexit was a terrible idea also support the prospect of Scotland having another independence referendum.

That's a bit of a leap to make.

Even Alex Salmond accepted that Scotland should be liable to take a share of the UK debt. And even if it was legal for them to do so, how would it look if Scotland were to just walk away from the debt? It would be disastrous for your future borrowing, nobody would want to touch you with a barge pole.

No, Salmond's position was to take a share of the debt in return for a currency union. He made it quite clear that without a fair share of assets, we wouldn't be taking the liabilities. There's no question of legality; the Scottish government didn't incur the debt, it is incapable of doing so. As for borrowing, we wouldn't be defaulting on debt and our ability to service debt wouldn't be in question.

[Daws]

No, Salmond's position was to take a share of the debt in return for a currency union. He made it quite clear that without a fair share of assets, we wouldn't be taking the liabilities. There's no question of legality; the Scottish government didn't incur the debt, it is incapable of doing so. As for borrowing, we wouldn't be defaulting on debt and our ability to service debt wouldn't be in question.

And the global community at large made it quite clear that Scotland's credit rating would take a massive dent if they refused to honor there debts. Yes you can argue that it's not Scotland's debt but a great many would disagree. Added to this Scotland's oil is almost worthless at present and the Spanish will veto any move that could be used by Catalonia to push there agenda for independence. Beyond that the little matter of if the UK will allow another referendum and if they do will it be before or after Brexit is concluded. Scottish Independence really is facing a large mountain to climb before it can be a reality.

[Tinch]

That's a bit of a leap to make.


No, Salmond's position was to take a share of the debt in return for a currency union. He made it quite clear that without a fair share of assets, we wouldn't be taking the liabilities. There's no question of legality; the Scottish government didn't incur the debt, it is incapable of doing so. As for borrowing, we wouldn't be defaulting on debt and our ability to service debt wouldn't be in question.

How is it a leap? Would you dispute the claim that many people who were against brexit support Scottish independence?

I don't remember seeing any reputable sources at the time which argued that Scotland reneging on the debt would be seen as anything other than a default. Would be interested to see them.

[Shadowmelded]

And the global community at large made it quite clear that Scotland's credit rating would take a massive dent if they refused to honor there debts. Yes you can argue that it's not Scotland's debt but a great many would disagree. Added to this Scotland's oil is almost worthless at present and the Spanish will veto any move that could be used by Catalonia to push there agenda for independence. Beyond that the little matter of if the UK will allow another referendum and if they do will it be before or after Brexit is concluded. Scottish Independence really is facing a large mountain to climb before it can be a reality.

S&P during the last referendum stated that Scotland would be eligible for an investment grade rating (while acknowledging that there would be significant but not unsurpassable challenges). They can disagree all they want but Scotland is literally unable to incur debt, it has zero borrowing powers at present. Oil is and was a bonus, is rising in price now that the glut is reducing and the S&P report I mentioned earlier said:

"Even excluding North Sea output and calculating per capita GDP only by looking at onshore income, Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment,"

The Spain argument has been debunked so many times now it's amazing to me it's still brought up. Spain's position is that as long as separation occurs in line with the constitution, it wouldn't veto Scotland's accession. The reason for that is that Spain's constitution states that Spain is indivisible, so it wouldn't set a precedent for Catalonia (otherwise why didn't they veto Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, or Slovenia or the EU candidates Macedonia and Montenegro?).

Noone's saying it's going to be a cakewalk or a land of milk and honey right away but the argument that it's impossible for Scotland to go it alone is ridiculous.

How is it a leap? Would you dispute the claim that many people who were against brexit support Scottish independence?

Yes.

I don't remember seeing any reputable sources at the time which argued that Scotland reneging on the debt would be seen as anything other than a default. Would be interested to see them.

I mean I linked you an economist saying that, you even quoted the image. Scotland's only liable for the debt as a member of the UK as the debt is UK debt and Scotland is legally incapable of incurring debt due to having no borrowing powers (and the Scottish Parliament is obligated by law to run a balanced budget). Here's another for you though. Oh and the Treasury for good measure.

[Tinch]

I mean I linked you an economist saying that, you even quoted the image. Scotland's only liable for the debt as a member of the UK as the debt is UK debt and Scotland is legally incapable of incurring debt due to having no borrowing powers (and the Scottish Parliament is obligated by law to run a balanced budget). Here's another for you though. Oh and the Treasury for good measure.

So one professor, one of the Scottish governments own economic advisors and a statement from the Treasury which doesn't mean what you think it means? I'll raise you the Niesr, the IFS, the OBR and Moody's.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...lyTJoa07qOFeMA

The argument isn't that Scotland couldn't techincally renege on the debt, it's that the people who actually matter would by all intents and purposes consider it a default.

[Shadowmelded]

So one professor, one of the Scottish governments own economic advisors and a statement from the Treasury which doesn't mean what you think it means? I'll raise you the Niesr, the IFS, the OBR and Moody's.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...lyTJoa07qOFeMA

The argument isn't that Scotland couldn't techincally renege on the debt, it's that the people who actually matter would by all intents and purposes consider it a default.

The Treasury said they would be liable for all UK debt up to the point of Independence, implying Scotland would be liable for none (although expected to contribute but not obligated to). Your Niesr link clearly says that Sterlingisation while assuming none of the debt would be seen as a default but that says nothing to the scenario of a Scottish currency. The share of the debt is subject to negotiations and there is precedence in Ireland. Now personally I'd want us to assume a share of the debt, but if we don't receive a per capita share of the assets why would we be entitled to a per capita share of the debt?

[Tinch]

The Treasury said they would be liable for all UK debt up to the point of Independence, implying Scotland would be liable for none (although expected to contribute but not obligated to). Your Niesr link clearly says that Sterlingisation while assuming none of the debt would be seen as a default but that says nothing to the scenario of a Scottish currency. The share of the debt is subject to negotiations and there is precedence in Ireland. Now personally I'd want us to assume a share of the debt, but if we don't receive a per capita share of the assets why would we be entitled to a per capita share of the debt?

The Treasury said that because they had to alleviate investors, on numerous other occasions they stated that Scotland should be liable for some of the debt and supported the idea that it would be considered a default.

The Niesr say that reneging on the debt in general would likely be considered a default, I don't see any caveat in there. It also touches on the Ireland argument and points out that their borrowing costs were higher for a number of years after.

[Daws]

The Treasury said they would be liable for all UK debt up to the point of Independence, implying Scotland would be liable for none (although expected to contribute but not obligated to). Your Niesr link clearly says that Sterlingisation while assuming none of the debt would be seen as a default but that says nothing to the scenario of a Scottish currency. The share of the debt is subject to negotiations and there is precedence in Ireland. Now personally I'd want us to assume a share of the debt, but if we don't receive a per capita share of the assets why would we be entitled to a per capita share of the debt?

The treasury only stated that to assure the world that if Scotland refused to take a share of the debt the debt will still be paid. Vast implication of Scotland pulling this move though is that it would be seen as Scotland refusing to pay what in part is there bill and so therefore make others less likely to lend to them at favorable rates.

To put it in perspective though if England decided to voted on leaving the UK (and succeeded) by your definitions the remaining UK i.e. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be liable for the total debt of the UK and England would have no debt, do you think would that be fair?

[Shadowmelded]

The Niesr say that reneging on the debt in general would likely be considered a default, I don't see any caveat in there. It also touches on the Ireland argument and points out that their borrowing costs were higher for a number of years after.

Since Sterlingisation combined with reneging on debt seems to be a serious possibility,
we provide an assessment of this currency arrangement.
(...)
If Sterlingisation is combined repudiating
Scotland’s fair share of UK debt we expect this regime would fail within a year.

Emphasis mine, from the very first page of the report.

As for Ireland, your report mentions land bond default, not the share of the "Imperial Debt" which was waived in exchange for keeping the 1920 boundary.

The treasury only stated that to assure the world that if Scotland refused to take a share of the debt the debt who still be paid. Vast implication of Scotland pulling this move though is that it would be seen as Scotland refusing to pay what in part is there bill and so therefore make others less likely to lend to them at favorable rates.

To put it in perspective though if England decided to voted on leaving the UK (and succeeded) by your definitions the remaining UK i.e. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be liable for the total debt of the UK and England would have no debt, do you think would that be fair?

I know you've not referenced the Niesr report but since it's been brought up; their analysis seems to be that reneging while pursuing Sterlingisation would appear opportunistic and be considered a default. If Scotland doesn't pursue Sterlingisation and is expected to assume a per capita share of the debt without a per capita share of the assets, would this still hold true? And if we're talking Historical Debt, there's a case to be made that Scotland hasn't been treated equitably;

Early last year, in a written answer to John Swinney, the SNP's deputy leader and Treasury spokesman, William Waldegrave, former chief secretary to the Treasury, conceded that between 1979 and 1995 the UK was £27 billion in deficit to Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ion.devolution


Figure taken from the National Library of Scotland, although their website seems to have moved so feel free to discard this since it's difficult to verify. (Although I've found 1907 and it seems to line up.)

Anyway, to reiterate; I'm not condoning such a move, just highlighting that it would provide the Scottish government a fairly strong bargaining chip.

[Raldazzar]

Very well put by Dan Hannan -

[Deleted]

this thread is jst lickbait i think, brexit will happen, its already happening now as ourr new PM is making new trade deals etc, and all the people in EU parliment have said we need to leave ASAP. obviously the OP is a salty remainer who cant handle that they lost the referrendum, UK is big enough to stand on its own we dnt needthe EU to babysit us anymore UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and even after the referendum EDF ( a french owned company) have decided to invest in nuclear power in the UK