The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, SNP supporters are not left leaning - as the happiness with Scotland being compared with HK and Singapore gets to prove. 

It *IS* about "me me me", as the lies designed to push the 'me' agenda prove.

That only changes when you and other Nats reject the me-agenda.

So, why did you talk about a "left-leaning" Scotland?

You really need to make your mind up.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So what do you say? Nothing at all, because you know it's lies but can't bring yourself to say it.

But if it's not lies, you'll be able to refute the analysis by Kev with real facts, won't you? Yet it never happens.

The significance of the GC report is that it draws a line under the overly optimistic claims made by some in the indyref and offers a far more sober assessment of Scotland's economic prospects.

Which particular set of small countries they chose to compare us with is a subject that won't generate much interest on the streets of Scotland.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So "independence" means the hated UK taking on Scotland's responsibilities for foreign aid (without a contribution)?  

Meanwhile, Growth Commission report page 38:
"The UK Treasury confirmed in 2014 that existing UK debt instruments remain the responsibility of the continuing UK government. The UK’s debt will therefore remain the responsibility of the UK Government after Scotland becomes independent. By definition, an independent Scotland will start with zero debt. The strength of that position should not be underestimated. However, an independent Scotland could choose to agree to contribute to the servicing costs of a fair and reasonable share of UK debt (net of a share of assets)."

That's a rejection of Scotland's responsibility for its share.

The 2014 statement by the UK is merely saying that the UK won't welch on it if Scotland does - and that statement makes clear that SNPcotland does welch on it!

 

It is the UK's debt. Unless the rUK does not wish to be the continuing state, it will legally be the rUK's debt. This is not new. 

Scotland would have a moral obligation to pay a share of that debt. 

That is far from welching on it.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Kev took a while to write his stuff.

I'd noticed the inclusion of HK and Singapore on the day of publication - and knew Scotland is nothing like them (and nats claim it would never be like them).

So why the strange inclusion of two high-performing countries that are nothing like Scotland? To fiddle the figures.

Cos without including those two countries, guess what? There's no exceptional performance by small countries at all - making the whole basis of the whole report one very big whopper.

 

Every single country has significant differences to Scotland. Clearly you & choccy think we are only fit to be compared to impoverished ones.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

because the report is the rubbish he points out.

Get back to us all when you have something to support indy which isn't a big lie by the SNP treating the Scottish population as stupid.

It's far worse than anything Farage, Gove, or Boris lied about to further brexit.

But according to you, it shows Scotland is doomed. Again, you need to make up your mind. 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

all of the UK was happy with immigration until immigration was happening at a massive rate.

Was it?

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland has yet to have immigration that's anywhere near similar, and when an indy Scotland is promising immigrants a better deal than Scots themselves would get with indy that support for immigration won't hold.

yet again, you want to have your cake & eat it.

You regularly claim we are as anti immigration as everyone else. When it's pointed out that's wrong, you invent the excuse that we don't really know what immigration is.

Make your mind up, man!

[gary1979666]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

It is the UK's debt. Unless the rUK does not wish to be the continuing state, it will legally be the rUK's debt. This is not new. 

Scotland would have a moral obligation to pay a share of that debt. 

That is far from welching on it.

....

yet again, you want to have your cake & eat it

Ah, so if you don't think that iScot would have any of the UK's liabilities, then you'll be fine with rUK holding all of the UK's assets?  Fairs fair, eh?  Or is iScot having it's cakey idiom?

 

 

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, why did you talk about a "left-leaning" Scotland?

because that's what you and others say an indy Scotland would be, with just-about the same claim (with what it says of policy spends) within the Growth Commision report.

Which makes comparison with 2 of the world's most rampantly-capitalist economies rather strange.

 

Quote

The significance of the GC report is that it draws a line under the overly optimistic claims made by some in the indyref and offers a far more sober assessment of Scotland's economic prospects.

It finally gives up on the discredited and proven-lies of the SNP from the past, yep.

And then just throws in a whole bunch of new lies.

 

Quote

Which particular set of small countries they chose to compare us with is a subject that won't generate much interest on the streets of Scotland.

Then what was the point of the Growth Commision report, &/or the comparisons it made?

It's suggesting what an indy Scotland might be, and using ridiculous comparisons in order to make claims that would never be the reality.

 

Quote

It is the UK's debt. Unless the rUK does not wish to be the continuing state, it will legally be the rUK's debt. This is not new. 

It's the UK's debt. The UK doesn't welch on its debts, moral or legal.

You and the growth commision are just using weasely words to avoid the moral responsibility for Scotland's share.
 

Quote

Scotland would have a moral obligation to pay a share of that debt. 

yet the GC says it doesn't have that moral responsibility, and it can be used as negotiation position.

It's the same "we can threaten not to pay our obligations as a negotiating tactic" which you rightly condemned when championed by the brexiters.

 

Quote

Every single country has significant differences to Scotland. Clearly you & choccy think we are only fit to be compared to impoverished ones.

Not at all.

Right now you're compared a prosperous nation. What the GC did was made some comparisons against that prosperous nation and only succeeded in coming up with something better by including HK and Singapore.

You're smart enough to know that's trying to use lies to con the Scottish people.

And unless you use your brain and help to to expose that lie, you think the Scottish population is thick as pigshit as well as the SNP thinking that.

 

Quote

But according to you, it shows Scotland is doomed. Again, you need to make up your mind. 

Not doomed, just poorer.

Something the GC uses lies to avoid admitting.

 

Quote

Was it?

at least as happy as you say Scotland is now.

Get back to me when Scottish youth can't find housing, your NHS is badly backed up, and all of the other consequences of big immigration without the money to spend on the infrastructure to match it.

 

Quote

yet again, you want to have your cake & eat it.

do I? How's that then?

It's the growth commission that cherry picks, not me. It cherry picks the countries to compare to, and it cherry picks what are Scotland's obligations, etc, etc, etc.

 

Quote

You regularly claim we are as anti immigration as everyone else. When it's pointed out that's wrong, you invent the excuse that we don't really know what immigration is.

Survey after survey has shown that general attitudes to immigation are just about identical for the UK.

Where those attitudes change is with the consequences of immigration, where some people start to feel that too many immigrants seem to be getting a better deal than them and theirs, or wages go down, or job competition goes up, or housing gets harder to get, or schools get over-crowded, or hospitals get overworked.

These are all real things that happen due to immigration.

But if you want to keep up with the idiot bollocks that Scots are somehow intrinsically better towards it, you'll have to explain how come that better Scotland is so very keen to be united with countries taking a MUCH more extreme view towards it than the horrible nasty more-racist-than-scotland England does.

 

Quote

Make your mind up, man!

Make up yours. 

If you hate cosying up to racist so much, why does iScotland plan to distance itself from a less-racist country to align with more-racists ones?

Meanwhile, there's all that awkward social survey evidence which is by-far the best proof of those same attitudes.

Edited July 5, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Ah, so if you don't think that iScot would have any of the UK's liabilities, then you'll be fine with rUK holding all of the UK's assets?  Fairs fair, eh?  Or is iScot having it's cakey idiom?

 

 

Assets & liabilities would both be the subject of negotiation.

No one sensible is saying otherwise.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

Assets & liabilities would both be the subject of negotiation.

I agree.

But before that negotiation an honourable negotiating partner would fully accept their moral share without need of putting a final-settlement number on it.

Even May managed to do that toward the EU. 

But the SNP via its GC? Nah, let's refute that moral obligation in black and white.

 

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

No one sensible is saying otherwise.

It's there in black and white in the GC report, saying otherwise!!!

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I agree.

But before that negotiation an honourable negotiating partner would fully accept their moral share without need of putting a final-settlement number on it.

Even May managed to do that toward the EU. 

But the SNP via its GC? Nah, let's refute that moral obligation in black and white.

 

It's there in black and white in the GC report, saying otherwise!!!

It's also there in fucking black and fucking white suggesting we pay our share.

Do you dispute that the legal responsibility for the debt would lie with the rUK?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's also there in fucking black and fucking white suggesting we pay our share.

while saying you don't accept it's your share and that it'll be used to turn the screws.

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Do you dispute that the legal responsibility for the debt would lie with the rUK?

Weasley words, weasley words. :rolleyes:

The debt is the UK's. That means a share of that debt is rightfully Scotland's, dependent or independent.

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

while saying you don't accept it's your share and that it'll be used to turn the screws.

 

Weasley words, weasley words. :rolleyes:

The debt is the UK's. That means a share of that debt is rightfully Scotland's, dependent or independent.

Would you like to try answering the question?

Here it is again...

Do you dispute that the legal responsibility for the debt would lie with the rUK?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

No weasels were harmed in the production of this post.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Would you like to try answering the question?

Here it is again...

Do you dispute that the legal responsibility for the debt would lie with the rUK?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

Do you dispute that the moral responsibility for the debt lies with Scotland?

Actually, I don't really give a fuck what you think, and you'd probably tell a fib anyway.

What really counts is the official view of the SNP, which is laid out in black and white, that they don't accept that moral responsibility.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Yes.

Yes , you dispute that the legal responsibility lies with the rUK?

On what grounds?

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Do you dispute that the moral responsibility for the debt lies with Scotland?

Not all of it, no.

I have however consistently over the past 4 years and more stated that an independent Scotland should contribute it's fair share towards the UK's debt. I am totally at a loss how you don't know this. Perhaps it's because you make shit up?

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Actually, I don't really give a fuck what you think, and you'd probably tell a fib anyway.

Love you too. x

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

What really counts is the official view of the SNP, which is laid out in black and white, that they don't accept that moral responsibility.

I'm not sure the growth commission report is the "official view of the SNP"

However it clearly suggests that Scotland could (& by implication) should contribute towards the repayment of UK debt.

No one sane has ever suggested otherwise.

Except you.

But then maybe you're not sane.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Yes , you dispute that the legal responsibility lies with the rUK?

On what grounds?

I meant the opposite.

 

Quote

Not all of it, no.

I have however consistently over the past 4 years and more stated that an independent Scotland should contribute it's fair share towards the UK's debt. I am totally at a loss how you don't know this. Perhaps it's because you make shit up?

but you've just free-passed the GC report that doesn't accept that.

And further, you've lied about what the GC report says. It does *NOT* accept Scotland's share of the debt. It's 100% clear.

 

Quote

I'm not sure the growth commission report is the "official view of the SNP"

It's been deliberately ddetached from the SNP so that they can deny responsibility.

The GC was appointed by the SNP and funded by the SNP, and looked at what the SNP told it to look at in the way the SNP wanted it looked at.

Because it's not like the SNP could allow the GC to be honest, is it? 

Cos admitting the truth that indy will be economically worse for Scotland than brexit will be for the UK would be a little bit inconvenient for the indy campaign.

 

Quote

However it clearly suggests that Scotland could (& by implication) should contribute towards the repayment of UK debt.

"Could", like it's doing rUK a favour.

It clearly rejects Scotland's moral responsibility, otherwise it would have clearly said it was Scotland's moral responsibility.

 

Quote

No one sane has ever suggested otherwise.

Except the commission report; WoS (the biggest indy supporters site, don't forget!); a million Nat supporters; etc, etc, etc.

It's not like this is the first time we've discussed this subject, is it? 

Plus how you've been happy to give the GC a free pass for it, the SNP hasn't slagged the GC down for it , and it's helped feed the idea that Scotland can and should tell rUK to do one along with other false ideas it's deliberately fed - with Sturgeon even repeating some of the lies in Holyrood.

 

Quote

Except you.

But then maybe you're not sane.

that's it. I'm insane and the GC report has Scotland take moral responsibility for the debt.

I agree, just as soon as you show me where it does.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I meant the opposite.

 

but you've just free-passed the GC report that doesn't accept that.

And further, you've lied about what the GC report says. It does *NOT* accept Scotland's share of the debt. It's 100% clear.

 

It's been deliberately ddetached from the SNP so that they can deny responsibility.

The GC was appointed by the SNP and funded by the SNP, and looked at what the SNP told it to look at in the way the SNP wanted it looked at.

Because it's not like the SNP could allow the GC to be honest, is it? 

Cos admitting the truth that indy will be economically worse for Scotland than brexit will be for the UK would be a little bit inconvenient for the indy campaign.

 

"Could", like it's doing rUK a favour.

It clearly rejects Scotland's moral responsibility, otherwise it would have clearly said it was Scotland's moral responsibility.

 

Except the commission report; WoS (the biggest indy supporters site, don't forget!); a million Nat supporters; etc, etc, etc.

It's not like this is the first time we've discussed this subject, is it? 

Plus how you've been happy to give the GC a free pass for it, the SNP hasn't slagged the GC down for it , and it's helped feed the idea that Scotland can and should tell rUK to do one along with other false ideas it's deliberately fed - with Sturgeon even repeating some of the lies in Holyrood.

 

that's it. I'm insane and the GC report has Scotland take moral responsibility for the debt.

I agree, just as soon as you show me where it does.

 

A few quotes from the GC report should help you out here....

Quote

• An agreement should be sought for a mechanism for Scotland to pay a reasonable share of the servicing of the net balance of UK debt and assets. • This same mechanism could also include payment for continuing shared services and co-operation for example in the area of international aid for a limited or extended period.

Quote

we recommend that a fair and proportionate division of assets and liabilities should be negotiated. The UK  made clear that such a division of assets and liabilities would be negotiated with the Scottish Government and a contract agreed 

Quote

We do not as yet know the negotiated outcome but we anticipate that it would mean a payment by Scotland to the UK Government to finance on-going shared services, and to meet an agreed share of debt-servicing costs. We provide an initial estimate in the sections to follow for planning purposes but obviously without seeking to prejudice the outcome of any such negotiations.

seems pretty clear to me 

 

also seems you have been making shit up 

 

again

Edited July 6, 2018 by LJS

[LJS]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:21 AM, eFestivals said:

So "independence" means the hated UK taking on Scotland's responsibilities for foreign aid (without a contribution)?  

Meanwhile, Growth Commission report page 38:
"The UK Treasury confirmed in 2014 that existing UK debt instruments remain the responsibility of the continuing UK government. The UK’s debt will therefore remain the responsibility of the UK Government after Scotland becomes independent. By definition, an independent Scotland will start with zero debt. The strength of that position should not be underestimated. However, an independent Scotland could choose to agree to contribute to the servicing costs of a fair and reasonable share of UK debt (net of a share of assets)."

That's a rejection of Scotland's responsibility for its share.

The 2014 statement by the UK is merely saying that the UK won't welch on it if Scotland does - and that statement makes clear that SNPcotland does welch on it!

 

I was interested in this so I found it in the GC report. For some strange reason you omit the point that follows this one..

I wonder why..

Quote

A negotiated balance to be serviced by the Scottish Government should take account of the balance of assets and liabilities as the UK currently argues in its negotiations with the European Union. We recommend a balance is paid annually to service UK debt instruments and set out our assumptions based on the data we have available. However, we would expect the true value of assets and liabilities to be examined and debated with greater rigour in advance of agreement being reached.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

seems pretty clear to me 

only by ignoring the bit where they explicit make clear they don't accept the debt.

If they did accept the debt they'd have no need to include the words about the UK taking full responsibility for it, because if Scotland accepts its share that is meaningless.

And they'd have no need to claim the possibility of welching on the debt as strengthening Scotland's negotiating position. As i've already said, even May hasn't been that much of a c**t towards the EU, despite lots of tories telling that's what she should do.

You're defending something that's worse than what the tories do.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

I was interested in this so I found it in the GC report. For some strange reason you omit the point that follows this one..

I wonder why..

 

none of it accepts Scotland's moral obligation.

It makes 100% clear that the fact of the UK national debt should be used to extract a better settlement for Scotland than it might otherwise get.

You're defending something even the hated tories weren't c**tish enough to do.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

only by ignoring the bit where they explicit make clear they don't accept the debt.

If they did accept the debt they'd have no need to include the words about the UK taking full responsibility for it, because if Scotland accepts its share that is meaningless.

And they'd have no need to claim the possibility of welching on the debt as strengthening Scotland's negotiating position. As i've already said, even May hasn't been that much of a c**t towards the EU, despite lots of tories telling that's what she should do.

You're defending something that's worse than what the tories do.

You have agreed that legally the debt will belong to the rUK.

We both agree there would be a moral obligation on an independent Scotland to make a contribution to repayment of UK debt.

I have provided 4 separate quotes from the growth commission recommending that an independent Scotland should do just that.

You have selectively quoted the GC to try & make your point. 

And now you won't admit you were wrong.

 

dearie me.  

[eFestivals]

By definition, an independent Scotland will start with zero debt.

BTW, this is factually incorrect.

An independent Scotland will come into legal existence at the same precise moment as the terms (and obligations) of its creation.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

You have agreed that legally the debt will belong to the rUK.

Yup.

But which is 100% irrelevant to an indy Scotland which accepts its share of that debt.

The *only* reason for mentioning the legal situation is to suggest Scotland is free of obligations.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

We both agree there would be a moral obligation on an independent Scotland to make a contribution to repayment of UK debt.

Yep.

But the GC do not, because if they do there's no need to mention rUK's statement about the legals.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

I have provided 4 separate quotes from the growth commission recommending that an independent Scotland should do just that.

None of which recommend that Scotland takes its fair share.

Instead, it says Scotland can use the threat of welching on the debt to get a better deal.

You're defending something which was too immoral for the tories to do.
 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

You have selectively quoted the GC to try & make your point. 

says they guy who adds his own invention to what the GC have said.

They do not accept Scotland's moral share. It is not said anywhere.

If they did accepting the moral share they'd have said it, and not said about how it strengthens their negotiating position.

You're defending something which was too immoral for the tories to do.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yup.

But which is 100% irrelevant to an indy Scotland which accepts its share of that debt.

The *only* reason for mentioning the legal situation is to suggest Scotland is free of obligations.

 

Yep.

But the GC do not, because if they do there's no need to mention rUK's statement about the legals.

 

None of which recommend that Scotland takes its fair share.

Instead, it says Scotland can use the threat of welching on the debt to get a better deal.

You're defending something which was too immoral for the tories to do.
 

says they guy who adds his own invention to what the GC have said.

They do not accept Scotland's moral share. It is not said anywhere.

If they did accepting the moral share they'd have said it, and not said about how it strengthens their negotiating position.

You're defending something which was too immoral for the tories to do.

how do we determine what is a fair share?

why, by negotiation of course.

Quote

An agreement should be sought for a mechanism for Scotland to pay a reasonable share of the servicing of the net balance of UK debt and assets

This is clear. It is a recommendation from the GC that Scotland pay a reasonable share of UK Debt.

What more should they be saying exactly?

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

how do we determine what is a fair share?

It doesn't really matter, for all the while both sides are (if they are) agreeing to their fair share.

At the moment there's only that nasty Westminster saying they'll do the fair-share thing, while they oh-so-much-better Scotland wriggles around looking at how it might advantage itself.

Oh, and not only do Westminster say they do the fair-share thing, there's the proof of following thru in the EU negotiations - so you can't throw it off as a tory lie.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

why, by negotiation of course.

There's a big difference between trying to screw every penny to your advantage, to accepting your obligations and then pitching arguments for why 'fair' should be in a particular way.

But anyway, for Scotland it's pretty easy. It could either be via proportion of money spent on Scotland (the worst outcome for Scotland) or by population share (the most advantageous to Scotland), or somewhere in between.

I'm quite comfortable with a population share outcome, tho I'd be interested to hear any arguments for something different, just because there might be factors in there to justify something else better for rUK (I'm not aware of any, which is why I'd be interested to hear about something I've missed, to then make a judgement on it).

And i think, given the difficult circumstances iScotland would be in for decades from birth, we might as well cut iScotland some slack at the start as we'd end up bailing it out anyway if need be.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

This is clear. It is a recommendation from the GC that Scotland pay a reasonable share of UK Debt.

but it says 'reasonable' and not 'fair share', and there's a reason why.

Because elsewhere it says the possibility of welching the debt should be used to  get a better settlement for Scotland than it would otherwise get.

And so 'reasonable' is meaning for the reasons agreed with England after a negotiation, and not for the reason of it being your fair share.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

What more should they be saying exactly?

"fair share".

Not "a share we agree to after using it as leverage", which is what the doc essentially says.

 

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

how do we determine what is a fair share?

why, by negotiation of course.

This is clear. It is a recommendation from the GC that Scotland pay a reasonable share of UK Debt.

What more should they be saying exactly?

 

PS: the GC report says it assumes "an annual debt servicing charge of £3 billion".

And that is for both historical debt (owed to rUK) as well as any new debt iScotland takes on.

The UK is currently spending approx £50Bn servicing debt, which puts what the GC says at around a 6% share (if iScotland took on none of its own debt).

Fair share? Get out of here.

[eFestivals]

PPS: there's no need to cut iScotland a deprived-region deal, because as we all know Scotland's economy performs at just about the UK average* - so it's not a deprived region needing deprived-region terms.

(* a bit inconvenient when put alongside the Nat claim that the UK fucks over Scotland)

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It doesn't really matter, for all the while both sides are (if they are) agreeing to their fair share.

At the moment there's only that nasty Westminster saying they'll do the fair-share thing, while they oh-so-much-better Scotland wriggles around looking at how it might advantage itself.

Oh, and not only do Westminster say they do the fair-share thing, there's the proof of following thru in the EU negotiations - so you can't throw it off as a tory lie.

 

There's a big difference between trying to screw every penny to your advantage, to accepting your obligations and then pitching arguments for why 'fair' should be in a particular way.

But anyway, for Scotland it's pretty easy. It could either be via proportion of money spent on Scotland (the worst outcome for Scotland) or by population share (the most advantageous to Scotland), or somewhere in between.

I'm quite comfortable with a population share outcome, tho I'd be interested to hear any arguments for something different, just because there might be factors in there to justify something else better for rUK (I'm not aware of any, which is why I'd be interested to hear about something I've missed, to then make a judgement on it).

And i think, given the difficult circumstances iScotland would be in for decades from birth, we might as well cut iScotland some slack at the start as we'd end up bailing it out anyway if need be.

 

but it says 'reasonable' and not 'fair share', and there's a reason why.

So your argument boils down to the difference between fair & reasonable  - I think most fair & reasonable people would think there's not much difference.

And funnily enough "fair" is part of what reasonable is. How inconvenient.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Because elsewhere it says the possibility of welching the debt should be used to  get a better settlement for Scotland than it would otherwise get.

I can't find this bit, can you help me? Or is it one of your special paraphrases?

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And so 'reasonable' is meaning for the reasons agreed with England after a negotiation, and not for the reason of it being your fair share.

This is entirely your interpretation

The truth is it can be both, you numpty.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"fair share".

Not "a share we agree to after using it as leverage", which is what the doc essentially says.

The word "essentially"  is crucial here. What "essentially" means according to the Brist0il English Dicktionary is...

Quote

 

Essentially (ess-ent-ee-all-ee)

adverb

1: Placing an interpretation on a phrase or statement which is not entirely clear to anyone else.  

2: making shit up

 

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

So your argument boils down to the difference between fair & reasonable

No, it doesn't.

The GC report mentions rUK's legal obligation for the debt. That's only required if you're not accepting a fair share.

The GC reports mentions using the debt as leverage for a better deal. That's not accepting a fair share.

In the context of *everything* the GC report says about the debt, it is 100% clear that a fair share is NOT accepted. What is accepted is that you'll have to pay something, but a something that will be negotiated downwards from fair share.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

I can't find this bit, can you help me? Or is it one of your special paraphrases?

Page 36.

When talking about the UK's debt, it says...
"The UK Treasury confirmed in 2014 that existing UK debt instruments remain the responsibility of the continuing UK government. The UK’s debt will therefore remain the responsibility of the UK Government after Scotland becomes independent. By definition, an independent Scotland will start with zero debt. The strength of that position should not be underestimated."

It's clearly talking about using a threat of not paying because it's rUK's debt, in order to get a better deal.

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals