I wonder if they could actually turn a profit on her and her Scottish estates, would be an interesting proposition when the Scottish Parliament take over the likes of Balmoral (how many properties does she "own" oop north ?), they could lease it to her for a peppercorn rent on a timeshare basis for, say, six weeks a year and then rent it out as a holiday home via a Scottish holiday web site like Unique Cottages, have a look, I can just see Balmoral in their, "Sleeps 200, not close to pub or supermarket though, lovely views"

Prince Charles got involved with the purchase and renovation and marketing at Dumfries House and while the recession almost caused him to declare bankruptcy due to his personal guarantees I believe that its operating as a commercial venture now ... rlhttps://www.architecturaldigest.com/decor/2012-02/prince-charles-dumfries-house-scotland-articlerl

So it was the euro that made economies crash? Or perhaps like those who have the $ & £ is was policies & not currency itself.

You are comparing England to Germany? The Scots could run a budget deficit at least as high as whatever their proportion of the national debt currently is, formal union or not.

As long as they can finance it, they can run a budget deficit as large as they like.

And their credit history is what exactly?

Or do they expect ther BoE to stand guarantor?

Salmond has already stated that unless they can keep the £ Scotland will simply walk away from its share of the national debt. That's a great way to start out, defaulting on a debt of £Bns

I doubt even Northern Rock would be willing to lend to them.

It's not Scotland's debt, it's the UKs debt.

Salmond's saying that if the UK allows Scotland to use the pound then it will acknowledge their share of the UK debt and pledge to repay it. If England takes its bat and ball home because it's butthurt then he'll just say the UK can keep its own debts.

If the UK is going to start defaulting on its debts just because little Scotland's left it then no wonder the Scots want out.

It IS Scotlands debt.

Have you ever had a partner, did you buy a house together, did you walk away because it suited you, did the bank just say "oh, never mind, it was a couples debt and you're not a couple anymore"

Social Joint tenants are responsible for their debts, even if they split, I can't see why countries should be any different.

But while Scotland was a partner in running up the debt, they were also a partner in the pound. England wants to keep the pound all to itself, but it wants Scotland to cover their part of the debt.

because it is the ENGLISH POUND

you really are obtuse at times.

It was both. Because countries with the $ and £ didn't crash anywhere near as badly as some of those with the Euro. Because the US and UK can control their own monetary policy to suit their own needs.
Greece/Spain etc couldn't do that. Because the Euro monetary policy is one that has to encompass the entire Eurozone and suit Germany & France as well as Greece.
Some Euro nations suffered significantly from not being able to control their currency.
Whilst Britain, despite illogical fiscal policy, benefitted from interest rates and QE.

That the Welsh and Northern Irish use as well.

Would you agree that the Bank of England and sterling are an asset? They clearly are. Now, as part of the United Kingdom didn't Scotland contribute to them while part of the union? You seem to be saying an absolute no, that if they are leaving the union then they leave them behind. Scotland are saying that if that's the case and their contribution to sterling is worthless well they'll let the UK cover all the debts too.

You want to keep the asset and share the debt. Scotland are merely saying that if England keeps all the asset they keep all the debts too.

no, they leave the benefit but pay their debt, it's not that complicated.

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Slightly OT: I stumbled accross this site a couple of days ago: yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/ Seems along with the Cornish, some Yorkies have started a movement of their own. Personally, I'd welcome a higher degree of decision making and autonomy over our regional affairs.

Except it will be little or nothing to do with Cameron who will presumably be looooooooong gone and working in a bank or something way before any separation actually might happen.


What's a royalist? Only you could have missed the ironic tone. Having said which, I much prefer the constitutional monarchy that has served us so well to other models, and reckon Brenda does a cracking job.


It's not BS, it's just a historical legacy, which the majority have been happy with, and Parliament has never (in any flavour) really even considered changing. All i'd do is cut adrift those "royals" who do fsck all (which is most of them) but those who work at their jobs like proper Trojans put in a great shift for the country and I have no great problem in paying something for their services. From what I see of Presidents, they don't seem to come at bargain rates either.

However, back to the plot; the Scots if they vote Yes would have a big constitutional issue, and I have no idea whether the population of Scotland want a monarch of any description, or a republic. They could, of course, go back to having a King or Queen of Scotland, for one thing. So it would be a three-way issue; Queen Elizabeth; King Max or even Queen Elisabeth (which would need the 1701 Act of Settlement that outlawed Catholic monarchs to be repealed, which shouldn't be a problem as it is blatantly discriminatory anyway); otherwise King Franz; or maybe the Belgian, King Michael or any one of several other contenders. Finally there is the third option, a republic.

But you will however I'm sure be ecstatic to learn that the firm SNP policy is to remain a constitutional monarchy, with Brenda in charge, so it's not just me. And if the Scots wanted in the future a monarchy but with their own monarch, then I would bet a lot of money that if Princess Anne threw her hat in the ring, she would win a Scottish majority vote. Unless Tilda Swinton threw in her lot, she's descended from Robert the Bruce and critically already has Queen experience, even if it is only in Narnia.

Except they are keeping many assets. All the buildings built with public money in Scotland. All the people trained by public UK institutions. They are shared assets and they are keeping their share if them.

The currency is a UK currency. Yes it was contributed to by Scotland but the benefit of that contribution has been had and shared by Scotland.

Scotland is leaving the UK therefore it leaves behind certain things such as UK armed forces, the NHS etc and also the Pound. It is well within it's rights to setup it's own armed forces and Health Service etc but they will not be (eventually after a period of transition) shared Armed Forces or Health Services. The same is true of the currency.

As mentioned, they have 4 realistic options:
- Setup a Scottish Pound. Incredibly difficult, dangerous and unstable option, especially at the moment.
- Join the Euro. Which would mean joining the EU, which would take a long time and is far from certain they'd be approved. If they were, they're still handing over control of their currency to someone else.
- Keep using the Pound with a currency union. Best option, but demolishes the entire case for independence in the first place.
-Keep using the Pound without a currency union. Might work. Some Latin American countries use the US dollar without a Union. But it's still very risky. No lender of last resort and no control of monetary policy.

They are Scotland's options. None are ideal. But they don't appear to have thought that far ahead.