Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote?

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I don't even know what post 7500 is. If it was one of your 200 paragraph epics, then I probably didn't read it. :lol:

It isn't difficult to look up, champ. I've asked you to answer it SEVERAL times now. If you refuse to read it, fine, but then your "none of the assets" trope carries no force as you necessarily acknowledge the fact that you don't have an answer to what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too big and rambling to answer.

Can you put the key questions forward please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

I've already done this. It doesn't prevent the quote being skipped over, and the lie repeated again the following day.

The UK government report states :-

“The continuing UK would need to seek to ensure that a fair settlement applied to assets and liabilities."

There is no debate here. No one has said, other than lunatic Nationalists, that a settlement will involve no assets, just debt. The matter ended here weeks ago. But you can't stop people deliberately lying I'm afraid, for whatever purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights. These are both, to use the legal jargon, "delectus personae" or in layman's terms, specific to an individual with legal personality. They aren't rights "in things" but rights to do things in relations with other people and bodies.

Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too big and rambling to answer.

Can you put the key questions forward please?

It's not too big to answer and it doesn't, by any coherent definition, ramble.

xbl asked what an asset was. I answered it.

Q: What is an asset?

A: "Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights."

I explained specifically why, by analogy, EU membership is not an asset.

Q: Why is EU membership not an asset

A: Because it isn't something that has intrinsic value, its corollary rights and obligations can't be "traded" and it's specific to a state with international legal personality.

I then explained why the Bank of England was an arm of a sovereign state, and not an asset.

Q: Is the Bank of England an asset?

A: Not the Bank itself, no. But its reserves and deposits are.

This equally applies to bodies like the DVLA

Q: Is the DVLA an asset?

A: No, but its buildings and other physical things are.

This then all feeds into the bigger question

Q: Does Scotland get "none of the assets but a share of the debt"

A: No. The settlement of both assets AND liabilities is subject to negotiation. There will be an expectation that that settlement is fair and equitable, but the specifics of each set of assets and liabilities will have to be individually agreed, or horse-traded off against one another. Scotland ought to get a share in the value of institutions not already replicated north and south of the border, so if the DVLA has a single HQ in Slough or whatever, we'd be entitled (politically speaking, in these negotiations, all else equal) to a pro-rata share of the value of that building, so that we can buy an office in Glenrothes from which to run the SDVLA. Alternatively, we could agree to share a DVLA across borders, and to set-up a funding formula between the governments to make appropriate contributions to it relative to use, and to take shared ownership in the assets.

xbl has completely failed to engage with this substance. It's in post 7500. It's completely readable. It makes complete sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigger Warning for Enraging, Vacuous Pish

Labour's effort at a campaign. If this sort of thing ends up winning the referendum then I despair for the level of debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise.

Not under International Law they can't.

Bad luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise.

States and international organisations do not have goodwill.

Membership of bodies is not in and of itself an asset. The benefits that are incidental to that membership, on the other hand, insofar as they are of a general nature upon which a monetary value can be placed, however, can be. That's the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigger Warning for Enraging, Vacuous Pish

Labour's effort at a campaign. If this sort of thing ends up winning the referendum then I despair for the level of debate.

They do realise that you're not supposed to stand in front of a projector screen, right? Facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

I've already done this. It doesn't prevent the quote being skipped over, and the lie repeated again the following day.

The UK government report states :-

“The continuing UK would need to seek to ensure that a fair settlement applied to assets and liabilities."

There is no debate here. No one has said, other than lunatic Nationalists, that a settlement will involve no assets, just debt. The matter ended here weeks ago. But you can't stop people deliberately lying I'm afraid, for whatever purposes.

Thats good news then. So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state?

Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise.

Indeed. I've heard intelligence described as an asset, but apparently it isn't! Essentially, an asset, for the purposes of p&b is anything that Ad Lib defines as an asset. Its how he avoids awkwardness, and the whole presentation of his post is fundamentally dishonest.

Still, its good to know that the CDU's membership of the UN security council is not an asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state?

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good news then. So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state?

Indeed. I've heard intelligence described as an asset, but apparently it isn't! Essentially, an asset, for the purposes of p&b is anything that Ad Lib defines as an asset. Its how he avoids awkwardness, and the whole presentation of his post is fundamentally dishonest.

Still, its good to know that the CDU's membership of the UN security council is not an asset.

For fucks sake! Of course intelligence, talent and a ten inch cock are all assets, but try defining that in law or in settlement. Why do you insist on being so deliberately obtuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigger Warning for Enraging, Vacuous Pish

Labour's effort at a campaign. If this sort of thing ends up winning the referendum then I despair for the level of debate.

"A home you can't be chucked out of"

Irony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For fucks sake! Of course intelligence, talent and a ten inch cock are all assets, but try defining that in law or in settlement. Why do you insist on being so deliberately obtuse?

Well it appears the CDU are. They might not "let" us use "their" currency.

What?

It isn't a hard question. Are we a successor state of the CDU? You say we are going to get a share of the assets, so therefore, are we a successor state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you quote that particular law?

I don't think you understand this do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't a hard question. Are we a successor state of the CDU? You say we are going to get a share of the assets, so therefore, are we a successor state?

No.

Quite why you have linked the two together, I have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...