Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[McWigglebum4th]

pcvdriver said:

mcdjl said:

pcvdriver said:

.....and by that I take it you mean a UKIP Utopian Scotland?.... But, for that to happen, first UKIP will need to pass the milestone of retaining one single deposit, just one, Then advancing from there. As yet, they have miserably failed to even get one deposit returned to them.....

wikipedia said:

In the 2010 UK general election UKIP Scotland's candidate Robert Smith saved his deposit in the seat of Orkney and Shetland, winning 6.3% of the vote. In 2013 UKIP candidates came fifth narrowly losing their deposit in the Aberdeen Donside by-election and also fifth in the Dunfermline by-election. However, at the start of 2014 in the Cowdenbeath by-election for the Scottish Parliament, UKIP came 4th, outpolling the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the first time.

The plain facts are that Ukip attracted less than 1% of the vote in the 2010 Holyrood elections and no Ukip candidate has ever retained his deposit in a Scottish election.

Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/... and if their statement is erroneous, then why haven't UKIP sued for libel? I'd suggest that wiki may be wrong in this instance.

Meanwhile these lefty idiots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Socialist_Pa...

have won seats in parliment

So

again

What is your problem with UKIP

Is it because they represent a right wing liberal vision of the UK while you want basically a left wing state

As you belive like all left wing idiots that large parts of society are too stupid to get by without the government holding their hand

[McWigglebum4th]

pcvdriver said:

McWigglebum4th said:

What the fk have UKIP got to do with anything?

They have zero MPs up here

So what the fk have they got to do with anything up here?

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH THEM?

Or are you deeply against the idea of a right wing liberal scotland



And drop your bullst about UKIP not retaining any deposits

It is 100% irrelevant

Why don't you move into new grounds for YES idiots and answer a question

Ooooooh, aren't we touchy this morning? I was just wanting you to clarify if you meant UKIP, or not?...

Or did you have another right-wing liberal party in mind? If so, please tell us which one....

see the bits in bold


And to answer your answer about which right wing party

The McWiggleparty

total membership = 1

[toppstuff]

pcvdriver said:

Ooooooh, aren't we touchy this morning? I was just wanting you to clarify if you meant UKIP, or not?...

Or did you have another right-wing liberal party in mind? If so, please tell us which one....

I think people are bored of your disingenuous role in the thread. Taking part but not taking part. Engaging on the irrelevant stuff as a deflection, so as not to engage on the important stuff where you clearly have no answers. Disappearing from the thread when people ask proper questions and seek some understanding, only to return and clutter up the thread with BS deflection when it suits.

If you offered your perspective on the REAL ISSUES rather than the fluff, you'd be taken seriously. But you don't and, therefore, it is very hard to respect anything you say.

[simoid]

pcvdriver said:

simoid said:

What is it you want to achieve by leaving the UK and joining a currency union, again?

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

As Blib says, do you want a currency union?

Then we'll need to ask Westminster every time we want to borrow a fiver.

[Alfa numeric]

pcvdriver said:

simoid said:

What is it you want to achieve by leaving the UK and joining a currency union, again?

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

My understanding is that a currency union would come with rules that would have to be agreed in advance between both parties. These rules would, like those governing the Euro, dictate maximum borrowing levels and debt as a total percentage of GDP. And if the UK doesn’t like Scotland’s proposed conditions regarding a possible union it’s going to say no and walk away, so for any agreement to happen it’s going to have to be largely on Westminster’s terms.

This agreement would also probably mean that Scotland’s budget would have to be approved by the other members of the currency union. So you’d still have to get Westminster’s permission if you wanted to do something.

But before you’ve even got that far you’ve got to convince the UK government that currency union is a good idea despite their advisors telling them that it isn’t, you’ve got to convince the Welsh First Minister to drop his (quite vocal) opposition to the idea, and most importantly you’ve got to convince the UK public- who have already rejected a currency union with one of the world’s largest economies (the Euro) and are currently very opposed to the idea of sharing Sterling. Because if you can’t win them round, no politician hoping to win an election is going to consider the idea.

[Siscar]

Alfa numeric said:

My understanding is that a currency union would come with rules that would have to be agreed in advance between both parties. These rules would, like those governing the Euro, dictate maximum borrowing levels and debt as a total percentage of GDP. And if the UK doesn’t like Scotland’s proposed conditions regarding a possible union it’s going to say no and walk away, so for any agreement to happen it’s going to have to be largely on Westminster’s terms.

This agreement would also probably mean that Scotland’s budget would have to be approved by the other members of the currency union. So you’d still have to get Westminster’s permission if you wanted to do something.

But before you’ve even got that far you’ve got to convince the UK government that currency union is a good idea despite their advisors telling them that it isn’t, you’ve got to convince the Welsh First Minister to drop his (quite vocal) opposition to the idea, and most importantly you’ve got to convince the UK public- who have already rejected a currency union with one of the world’s largest economies (the Euro) and are currently very opposed to the idea of sharing Sterling. Because if you can’t win them round, no politician hoping to win an election is going to consider the idea.

Even given all of that rUK would still need to take the financial risk for what would then be a foreign country. We do it for some small places, such as Isle of Man, but they have to run a balanced budget and hold sterling to at least the value of any of their own currency they issue. I can't see Scotland being able to do that.

[mcdjl]

pcvdriver said:

mcdjl said:

pcvdriver said:

.....and by that I take it you mean a UKIP Utopian Scotland?.... But, for that to happen, first UKIP will need to pass the milestone of retaining one single deposit, just one, Then advancing from there. As yet, they have miserably failed to even get one deposit returned to them.....

wikipedia said:

In the 2010 UK general election UKIP Scotland's candidate Robert Smith saved his deposit in the seat of Orkney and Shetland, winning 6.3% of the vote. In 2013 UKIP candidates came fifth narrowly losing their deposit in the Aberdeen Donside by-election and also fifth in the Dunfermline by-election. However, at the start of 2014 in the Cowdenbeath by-election for the Scottish Parliament, UKIP came 4th, outpolling the Scottish Liberal Democrats for the first time.

The plain facts are that Ukip attracted less than 1% of the vote in the 2010 Holyrood elections and no Ukip candidate has ever retained his deposit in a Scottish election.

Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/... and if their statement is erroneous, then why haven't UKIP sued for libel? I'd suggest that wiki may be wrong in this instance.

That quote seems to have stemed from that pervey of fact Alex (towards the bottom http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-o... , though since the criteria for retaining your deposit is 5% of the vote http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary... which they got http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/orkneyandsh... On that basis I can only believe that Alex thinks that Orkney and the Shetlands aren't Scottish. So they won't be heading off into the sunset with an indpendent Scotland.
Edit to fix links

Edited by mcdjl on Thursday 24th April 11:17

[Neonblau]

pcvdriver said:

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

According to your own logic the UK, which you want to leave, must then have ceded "Scottish" powers to Brussels. So again by your own logic that wasn't voluntary.

Do you believe that the EU will allow iScotland to voluntarily cede a different set of powers (of its own choosing) to all the other member states? Or do you see it as being mandatory that iScotland would have to "voluntarily" cede exactly the same powers that the UK did on your behalf(and every other member state did) to gain membership?

[Neonblau]

Siscar said:

Even given all of that rUK would still need to take the financial risk for what would then be a foreign country. We do it for some small places, such as Isle of Man, but they have to run a balanced budget and hold sterling to at least the value of any of their own currency they issue. I can't see Scotland being able to do that.

For God's sake don't mention the Isle of Man again. It's not a foreign country it's a Britsh Crown Dependency. I can't think of any three words more guaranteed to wind up the nats!

[Siscar]

Neonblau said:

Siscar said:

Even given all of that rUK would still need to take the financial risk for what would then be a foreign country. We do it for some small places, such as Isle of Man, but they have to run a balanced budget and hold sterling to at least the value of any of their own currency they issue. I can't see Scotland being able to do that.

For God's sake don't mention the Isle of Man again. It's not a foreign country it's a Britsh Crown Dependency. I can't think of any three words more guaranteed to wind up the nats!

Well if you are talking countries in a currency union we only have Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories who are in one with us... There's a reason for that.

[Neonblau]

Siscar said:

Neonblau said:

Siscar said:

Even given all of that rUK would still need to take the financial risk for what would then be a foreign country. We do it for some small places, such as Isle of Man, but they have to run a balanced budget and hold sterling to at least the value of any of their own currency they issue. I can't see Scotland being able to do that.

For God's sake don't mention the Isle of Man again. It's not a foreign country it's a Britsh Crown Dependency. I can't think of any three words more guaranteed to wind up the nats!

Well if you are talking countries in a currency union we only have Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories who are in one with us... There's a reason for that.

Don't get me wrong I'm in complete agreement, they, along with Jersey, Guernsey etc even have interesting pictures on their coins.

I'm just enjoying the thought of the nats incandescent with rage when Scotland becomes a British Crown Dependency. Will there also be a Governor General? It's as realistic as some of the rubbish spouted on this thread.

[Mrr T]

alock said:

The definition of 'mortgagee' is the lender. Is this what you meant?

I would have thought the mortgagee would rather keep the book value in the more stable currency? They're more likely to lose money by transferring the debt to a new currency. The borrower is more likely to want to change to the currency they are now being paid in.
Unfortunately this is plan B which the SNP don't want to discuss. I wonder why?

Yes I meant the lender. A lender would rather the loan was in the same currency as the underlying property since it eliminates FX risk. You can get Euro loans on Uk property but the LtoV and rates are very different to a sterling mortgage.

[Siscar]

Mrr T said:

alock said:

The definition of 'mortgagee' is the lender. Is this what you meant?

I would have thought the mortgagee would rather keep the book value in the more stable currency? They're more likely to lose money by transferring the debt to a new currency. The borrower is more likely to want to change to the currency they are now being paid in.
Unfortunately this is plan B which the SNP don't want to discuss. I wonder why?

Yes I meant the lender. A lender would rather the loan was in the same currency as the underlying property since it eliminates FX risk. You can get Euro loans on Uk property but the LtoV and rates are very different to a sterling mortgage.

They might on a new loan but if they have already lent you pounds sterling they will want pounds sterling back

[blinkythefish]

pcvdriver said:

simoid said:

What is it you want to achieve by leaving the UK and joining a currency union, again?

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

Yes, I remember sad day when the tanks rolled into Edinburgh and took over by force.....

[Mrr T]

Siscar said:

Mrr T said:

alock said:

The definition of 'mortgagee' is the lender. Is this what you meant?

I would have thought the mortgagee would rather keep the book value in the more stable currency? They're more likely to lose money by transferring the debt to a new currency. The borrower is more likely to want to change to the currency they are now being paid in.
Unfortunately this is plan B which the SNP don't want to discuss. I wonder why?

Yes I meant the lender. A lender would rather the loan was in the same currency as the underlying property since it eliminates FX risk. You can get Euro loans on Uk property but the LtoV and rates are very different to a sterling mortgage.

They might on a new loan but if they have already lent you pounds sterling they will want pounds sterling back

Why?

They would convert the loan to the new currency and hedge any FX risk between their borrowings and the loan with na FX forward. That's much better for the bank than having the property and loan in different currencies which would give a real FX risk if the borrower defaults.

[Neonblau]

Mrr T said:

Siscar said:

Mrr T said:

alock said:

The definition of 'mortgagee' is the lender. Is this what you meant?

I would have thought the mortgagee would rather keep the book value in the more stable currency? They're more likely to lose money by transferring the debt to a new currency. The borrower is more likely to want to change to the currency they are now being paid in.
Unfortunately this is plan B which the SNP don't want to discuss. I wonder why?

Yes I meant the lender. A lender would rather the loan was in the same currency as the underlying property since it eliminates FX risk. You can get Euro loans on Uk property but the LtoV and rates are very different to a sterling mortgage.

They might on a new loan but if they have already lent you pounds sterling they will want pounds sterling back

Why?

They would convert the loan to the new currency and hedge any FX risk between their borrowings and the loan with na FX forward. That's much better for the bank than having the property and loan in different currencies which would give a real FX risk if the borrower defaults.

I would think most would set up a Scottish subsidiary purely for those assets/liabilities. That would have the effect of what you describe - one consolidated FX position and would also allow a completely separate P&L to take account of any future differences - tax, tax relief etc.

[Siscar]

Mrr T said:

Siscar said:

Mrr T said:

alock said:

The definition of 'mortgagee' is the lender. Is this what you meant?

I would have thought the mortgagee would rather keep the book value in the more stable currency? They're more likely to lose money by transferring the debt to a new currency. The borrower is more likely to want to change to the currency they are now being paid in.
Unfortunately this is plan B which the SNP don't want to discuss. I wonder why?

Yes I meant the lender. A lender would rather the loan was in the same currency as the underlying property since it eliminates FX risk. You can get Euro loans on Uk property but the LtoV and rates are very different to a sterling mortgage.

They might on a new loan but if they have already lent you pounds sterling they will want pounds sterling back

Why?

They would convert the loan to the new currency and hedge any FX risk between their borrowings and the loan with na FX forward. That's much better for the bank than having the property and loan in different currencies which would give a real FX risk if the borrower defaults.

So they are guaranteeing themselves taking the FX cost or paying the cost of hedging it (which could be huge) as opposed to only being hit by it if the borrower defaults? Why?

[Moonhawk]

pcvdriver said:

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

The act of union was entered into entirely voluntarily by Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Tr...

[Einion Yrth]

Moonhawk said:

pcvdriver said:

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

The act of union was entered into entirely voluntarily by Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Tr...

Not, in fairness, the most democratic of procedures.

[Neonblau]

Einion Yrth said:

Moonhawk said:

pcvdriver said:

Self-rule......instead of having to ask Westminster everytime we want to do something. Before you chirp on about Brussels. Any power Brussels has, has been ceded voluntarily by it's member states, this is not the case with Holyrood and Westminster.

The act of union was entered into entirely voluntarily by Scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707#Tr...

Not, in fairness, the most democratic of procedures.

In that respect not unlike much of the EU.