Law Society asks some questions....

[H_B]

1. Yes Scotland - Scotland would continue to be members of EU but would require to renegotiate terms. Scotland would have increased representation at EU and terms would be more directly related to what Scotland provides and recieves from EU. Overall this would benefit Scotland.

BT - Scotland's membership of EU is at huge risk and terms of iScotlands membership would be substantially worse than what Scotland currently receives from the combined UK deal.

2. Yes

3. None, The timetable is adequate for concluding negotiations.

4. Following a No Vote and the 2015 UK General Election.

5. Prior to Referendum there will be no joint agreement on further devolution.

6. Yes Scotland - We will continue to use the pound as it is our currency. Independent Financial experts have advised that the best scenario for all is a formal currency union which, in the event of a yes vote, will be the most attractive option for both rUK and iScotland.

BT - There will be absolutely no chance of a currency union and Scotland, if it continues to use the pound iScotland will be like Panama. It will need to set up it's own currency or use the Euro.

1. It's not in the gift of BT or the SG to provide the answer to this. Therefore it is unknown. These are not answers.

2. I agree with this actually, though again it's probably unanswerable as the membership terms Scotland would be willing to accede to wouldn't be known. Broadly speaking, it's a fair answer.

3. I don't think you understand what contingency means. This is a dreadful answer by you.

4. "Following an event" isn't a timescale. Try again.

5. Fair enough - where is the source for this answer?

6. Yes Scotland's answer isn't explicit or detailed enough. It does not make it clear that iScotland's backup position is to use the Pound a la Panama. I've never seen the SNP acknowledge this either.

Very possibly because their own advisers have told them it's a terrible idea.

[ayrmad]

1. It's not in the gift of BT or the SG to provide the answer to this. Therefore it is unknown. These are not answers.

2. I agree with this actually, though again it's probably unanswerable as the membership terms Scotland would be willing to accede to wouldn't be known. Broadly speaking, it's a fair answer.

3. I don't think you understand what contingency means. This is a dreadful answer by you.

4. "Following an event" isn't a timescale. Try again.

5. Fair enough - where is the source for this answer?

6. Yes Scotland's answer isn't explicit or detailed enough. It does not make it clear that iScotland's backup position is to use the Pound a la Panama. I've never seen the SNP acknowledge this either.

Very possibly because their own advisers have told them it's a terrible idea.

Bullshit, Salmond & Co have stated this on numerous occasions, the fact they've never given it the tag of plan B doesn't mean they haven't said regularly.

I don't believe any advisers would tell them it's a terrible idea, like the other options it has it's downside but I don't think they'd say it was a terrible idea.

[H_B]

Bullshit, Salmond & Co have stated this on numerous occasions.

Where? A link would be nice...

[ayrmad]

Where? A link would be nice...

They have openly asserted we'd be using the pound on many TV programmes, the fact that you chose to shout fcuking liars at the screen every time they talked isn't my problem.

[Double Jack D]

1. It's not in the gift of BT or the SG to provide the answer to this. Therefore it is unknown. These are not answers.

2. I agree with this actually, though again it's probably unanswerable as the membership terms Scotland would be willing to accede to wouldn't be known. Broadly speaking, it's a fair answer.

3. I don't think you understand what contingency means. This is a dreadful answer by you.

4. "Following an event" isn't a timescale. Try again.

5. Fair enough - where is the source for this answer?

6. Yes Scotland's answer isn't explicit or detailed enough. It does not make it clear that iScotland's backup position is to use the Pound a la Panama. I've never seen the SNP acknowledge this either.

Very possibly because their own advisers have told them it's a terrible idea.

1. Why is the Law society asking it then? I have given the position of both camps, generally.

2. Its the obvious answer, again why are the Law Society asking such a stupid question

3. It is not my answer. There are no contingencies as they are not deemed to be required. Does this introduce a risk to independence? No. Whilst neither camp has answered this it's obvious that negotiations would continue until independence could formally take place. The contingency would, by default be a later independence day. For a third time, why are the Law Society so concerned by this?

4. In your opinion. This is all that has been offered by any of the parties. I agree it's a poorly detailed timescale, probably because the motivation to implement this is dependant on their need for Scottish votes in the 2015 GE.

5. I'm not trawling for a Source, this has been widely reported.

6. Yes's plan is to use the pound and negotiate a currency union. Plan B is to do a Panama. We all know this, The law ociety are trying to get them to confirm it but that won't happen. Their advisers have told them this isn't ideal for either Scotland or rUK.

[H_B]

They have openly asserted we'd be using the pound on many TV programmes,

Yeah? Even if a Currency Union is rejected, Salmond has said we'll use the pound anyway?

Lies. Sorry, slips.

[H_B]

3. It is not my answer. There are no contingencies as they are not deemed to be required.

You really don't understand contingencies.

"Where are you going to University?"

"I've applied to Glasgow to do Law"

"What if you don't get in? What's your contingency plan?"

"I will get in - it won't be a problem"

"Yeah, but what if you don't?"

"I don't need a contingency plan - I will"

Do you see the stupidity of this?

[Baxter Parp]

Do you see the stupidity of this?

Yes indeed, it's clear that Glasgow Uni is shit.

[ayrmad]

Yeah? Even if a Currency Union is rejected, Salmond has said we'll use the pound anyway?

Lies. Sorry, slips.

It's more honest than saying there will be no negotiations regarding a CU after independence.

[Blaven]

Yeah? Even if a Currency Union is rejected, Salmond has said we'll use the pound anyway?

Lies. Sorry, slips.

You do have proof that it was a lie, dont you cretin?

[H_B]

You do have proof that it was a lie, dont you cretin?

The non-existence of the evidence claimed in the post above is the proof that it is slips.

Salmond has not stated that we will use the pound in a Panama situation, following rejection of a currency union by rUK.

[Double Jack D]

You really don't understand contingencies.

"Where are you going to University?"

"I've applied to Glasgow to do Law"

"What if you don't get in? What's your contingency plan?"

"I will get in - it won't be a problem"

"Yeah, but what if you don't?"

"I don't need a contingency plan - I will"

Do you see the stupidity of this?

I'm not arguing there is a contingency. I said quite categorically there wasn't. I'm saying there is an answer to the question the Law Society asked.

It's up to us as individuals to deem the answer as acceptable or not.

I would've thought the Law Society could brought more to the table than this.

[H_B]

I would've thought the Law Society could brought more to the table than this.

Like what?

And the SG have absolutely not been honest with the public on this, and their complete lack of a Plan B.

If they had been, the LS wouldn't have had to ask the question. What we have is people like yourself surmising things on their behalf.

[AUFC90]

The only people whining about a plan B are no voters. I'm quite happy for SG to continue not giving them what they want.

[HardyBamboo]

Like what?

And the SG have absolutely not been honest with the public on this, and their complete lack of a Plan B.

If they had been, the LS wouldn't have had to ask the question. What we have is people like yourself surmising things on their behalf.

If you are suggesting that the Scottish government don't have a plan b you are talking nonsense. They aren't articulating their plan b at the moment as they believe that would harm their negotiating position.

[H_B]

They aren't articulating their plan b at the moment as they believe that would harm their negotiating position.

Uh huh. I am certain they have a contingency - they don't want to tell people what it is because it's a rubbish one.

In which case the LS's question is unanswered.

And it's actually the opposite. By putting their eggs in the CU basket they have harmed their own negotiating position. They've made it completely evident that they are screwed if this isn't followed through with.

They are basically fucked on this issue. They can't say they will start their own currency as they know it's a vote loser, and they can't say they will use the Pound a la Panama as thats a bonkers solution that would subject them to ridicule.

[Double Jack D]

Like what?

And the SG have absolutely not been honest with the public on this, and their complete lack of a Plan B.

If they had been, the LS wouldn't have had to ask the question. What we have is people like yourself surmising things on their behalf.

Well, as lawyers, maybe they could provide some clarification on legal matters.

I would argue that the SG/ SNP have been honest, in this matter. They are going to use the pound, preferably in a Currency Union which they believe will happen. I'm not summising this, that is the plan.

If there is no Currency Union then, they plan to not accept any of the debt of the UK treasury. Call that a plan B if you will, they haven't but it doesn't make them dishonest just because they haven't given it a label.

That is the answer, either outcome is acceptable to me. I don't need any further clarification. Perhaps the law society could give their inerpretation of the legalities of this rather than asking questions that have already been answered as fully as they can be at this stage given the stance of both camps?

Out of interest, and I want your genuine answer. Do you think there will not even be a discussion about a currency union between rUK and iScotland following a yes vote? I can accept there may not eventually be a CU but I cannot accept that it is the rUK policy not to even negotiate at this time. For me, the Better Together have been a lot more disingenuous on currency than Yes Scotland.

However, if you believe the polls, they probably won't have to worry about being called on it.

[H_B]

Well, as lawyers, maybe they could provide some clarification on legal matters.

I would argue that the SG/ SNP have been honest, in this matter. They are going to use the pound, preferably in a Currency Union which they believe will happen. I'm not summising this, that is the plan.

If there is no Currency Union then, they plan to not accept any of the debt of the UK treasury. Call that a plan B if you will, they haven't but it doesn't make them dishonest just because they haven't given it a label.

Where to start with this.

Firstly your belief that the SNP have been honest here is laughable, bit not surprising. Let's leave that to the side for a second.

1) You are surmising. They have categorically not stated that if the CU is rejected that they will use the Pound a la Panama.

2) What does the debt have to do with anything? whether the SG seeks to avoid taking on a portion of debt on secession is completely irrelevant to what currency we will use. We'll still need one - what is it going to be if the rUK government chooses not to enter into a CU?

Do you think there will not even be a discussion about a currency union between rUK and iScotland following a yes vote? I can accept there may not eventually be a CU but I cannot accept that it is the rUK policy not to even negotiate at this time. For me, the Better Together have been a lot more disingenuous on currency than Yes Scotland.

Better Together aren't the UK government. And Yes Scotland have previously on their website (now amended) claimed that there would be a currency union. Not that the SG was going to ask for one, but that there would be one.

Extraordinarily arrogant.

I could foresee there being discussions on a CU. But the terms the UK government who have the SG over a barrel on this) would seek to extract to agree to one would be far too much for iScotland to agree to. Especially if they were to maintain their stance on removal of submarines, which is also really just a starting point for negotiations.

I do not believe that there would be a CU following a Scottish secession. I don't even think this would be in iScotland's best intrests at any rate. It's a bad policy chosen only because it is politically expedient.

[Double Jack D]

Where to start with this.

Firstly your belief that the SNP have been honest here is laughable, bit not surprising. Let's leave that to the side for a second.

1) You are surmising. They have categorically not stated that if the CU is rejected that they will use the Pound a la Panama.

2) What does the debt have to do with anything? whether the SG seeks to avoid taking on a portion of debt on secession is completely irrelevant to what currency we will use. We'll still need one - what is it going to be if the rUK government chooses not to enter into a CU?

Better Together aren't the UK government. And Yes Scotland have previously on their website (now amended) claimed that there would be a currency union. Not that the SG was going to ask for one, but that there would be one.

Extraordinarily arrogant.

I could foresee there being discussions on a CU. But the terms the UK government who have the SG over a barrel on this) would seek to extract to agree to one would be far too much for iScotland to agree to. Especially if they were to maintain their stance on removal of submarines, which is also really just a starting point for negotiations.

I do not believe that there would be a CU following a Scottish secession. I don't even think this would be in iScotland's best intrests at any rate. It's a bad policy chosen only because it is politically expedient.

How have they been dishonest? They will use the pound and want a Currency Union. You say yourself that you think there will be negotiations so a stance of absolutely no currency union is the more dishonest one.

I would agree that their assertion that there would be a CU is arrogant and I'm glad they've climbed down from that rhetoric. However, the SG acceptance of UK debt is conditional on a CU agreement, the two are linked you cannot deny that whilst trying to claim that Submarines would be part of the discussions.

I am in total agreement with your last sentence. Our own Currency debt free would be the best for me.

[H_B]

How have they been dishonest? They will use the pound and want a Currency Union.

Sigh.

Where have they stated that they will use the Pound a la Panama if there is no CU?

All I have seen the SG say on this is that they want a Currency Union and there will be one cos rUK is bluffing.