President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?

[Purple]

On pensions, for clarity, in the event of a United Ireland a new 'owner' would take over the NI Public Service, NI Public Servants would not be moving to a new employer. It would be a TUPE type scenario.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

On pensions, for clarity, in the event of a United Ireland a new 'owner' would take over the NI Public Service, NI Public Servants would not be moving to a new employer. It would be a TUPE type scenario.

My understanding is that TUPE applies to existing employees and not retired employees. But your use of the word "owner" is very interesting. The comparison between Scottish IndyRef and NI joining a UI highlights some misconceptions. In the case of Scottish IndyRef there is no analogy to some corporate transaction. Scotland is up and leaving, it therefore takes with it its accrued unfunded pension liabilities and its share of the UK National Debt irrespective of their legal form. No one seriously debates this though they do debate what the share of National Debt should be. (see next post)
When it comes to NI joining a UI Prof SF Doyle seems to think along M&A lines. If NI has legacy obligations then these should either stay with the "seller" or the "buyer" should be compensated for them. If NI was simply going out on its own like Scotland there would seem to be no question that it should be stuck (as a starting point to negotiations) with its accrued responsibilities including unfunded liabilities for public service pensions.

 

[Purple]

My understanding is that TUPE applies to existing employees and not retired employees. But your use of the word "owner" is very interesting. The comparison between Scottish IndyRef and NI joining a UI highlights some misconceptions. In the case of Scottish IndyRef there is no analogy to some corporate transaction. Scotland is up and leaving, it therefore takes with it its accrued unfunded pension liabilities and its share of the UK National Debt irrespective of their legal form. No one seriously debates this though they do debate what the share of National Debt should be.
When it comes to NI joining a UI Prof SF Doyle seems to think along M&A lines. If NI has legacy obligations then these should either stay with the "seller" or the "buyer" should be compensated for them. If NI was simply going out on its own like Scotland there would seem to be no question that it should be stuck (as a starting point to negotiations) with its accrued responsibilities including unfunded liabilities for public service pensions.

We'd have to work on the basis that the Brits would have to pay us handsomely to take the Nordies off their hands.
In my view they'd have to agree to keep the National Debt, keep subsidising the massive over-staffing of the public sector there, agree to take anyone who wants to leave and pay us €10-15 billion a year for the next 20 years just to get us to the negotiating table.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have been researching further this question of the NI share of the UK's National Debt. It really only shows up in the calculation of the subvention and is the allocated share of interest payments on the debt. UK pays about £100bn interest p.a. on its National Debt and NI is allocated £2.4bn of that. Although I can't source the actual calculation anywhere this would seem to be precisely in the same proportion as GDP.
So it is not as if NI has a separate National Debt account which is debited and credited with its revenue and expenditure. In this regard Prof SF Doyle is correct. NI has never actually paid this amount not even in terms of accumulating it as part of its share of the National Debt. But his conclusion that therefore NI's share of the UK National Debt is an illusion is entirely wrong as we can see from the Scottish IndyRef debate.
I have read an article by a supporter of Scottish independence which debates what would be the fair share of the National Debt to be owed by an independent Scotland to Westminster. He starts by considering by proportion to population and correctly dismisses this as unsatisfactory. More satisfactory he suggests is in relation to income tax take as this would reflect a progressive allocation amongst the populace - the richer would own proportionately more.
But as an advocate of independence he argues that we should actually look back historically and work out how much Scotland actually spent more than it received in taxes. And this is where oil comes in. He argues that the North Sea oil tax revenues were not properly allocated to Scotland and if they had been Scotland would in fact have no National Debt, surprise, surprise!
Now cross from Stranraer to Larne and let's work out historically how much more has been spent on NI than has been taken in taxes. No oil complication here; instead a basket case economy and society which has been a constant drain on Westminster.
Split the National Debt in proportion to population. Please!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

We'd have to work on the basis that the Brits would have to pay us handsomely to take the Nordies off their hands.
In my view they'd have to agree to keep the National Debt, keep subsidising the massive over-staffing of the public sector there, agree to take anyone who wants to leave and pay us €10-15 billion a year for the next 20 years just to get us to the negotiating table.

Agreed. If this was a corporate M&A the shareholders of the acquiring company would demand no less. But everybody seems to believe, as I do, that if there was a border poll in the morning with none of this on the table the "shareholders", being the people of these 26 counties, would blindly give the go ahead.

 

[Baby boomer]

Once more I must point out that it is far from a "given" that NI or Scotland departing the UK would take its share of the National debt with it. Again I must point to the example of Russia taking the entire debt of the former USSR when that entity collapsed. (In fairness, a counter example is the former Yugoslavia, where Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and North Macedonia mutually agreed to carve up the debt.) In fact, not alone did Russia take on the entire debt, it additionally honoured the outstanding debt from the Tsarist era that had been repudiated by Lenin. But that's a different story....

In a future UI scenario, the remaining British state will be the internationally recognised successor state to the present UK. Creditors will look to the successor state rather than the seceeding bit for debt repayment. Perhaps, it might be agreed that a UI would take on some of that debt. But that's optional and a matter for negotiation. Anyway, the default position is no debt assumption without agreement.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Once more I must point out that it is far from a "given" that NI or Scotland departing the UK would take its share of the National debt with it. Again I must point to the example of Russia taking the entire debt of the former USSR when that entity collapsed. (In fairness, a counter example is the former Yugoslavia, where Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and North Macedonia mutually agreed to carve up the debt.) In fact, not alone did Russia take on the entire debt, it additionally honoured the outstanding debt from the Tsarist era that had been repudiated by Lenin. But that's a different story....

In a future UI scenario, the remaining British state will be the internationally recognised successor state to the present UK. Creditors will look to the successor state rather than the seceeding bit for debt repayment. Perhaps, it might be agreed that a UI would take on some of that debt. But that's optional and a matter for negotiation. Anyway, the default position is no debt assumption without agreement.

Nobody is denying that the UK will remain the legal owner of the full National Debt. The idea of negotiating with bondholders to switch some of its debt for Tartan Bonds or Paddy Bonds is just not on. Scottish Indies (whom you brought into the discussion) accepted that they would owe to Westminster their fair share of the legacy National Debt, albeit some argued that if proper recognition of oil tax revenues were brought into account their share would be nil! The Scottish Government did not argue that and accepted they would owe a proper fair share The default position by any process of international arbitration is that the seceding entity would owe that part of the National Debt that was spent on it. Of course negotiation could lead to a completely different arrangement. Mind you if the 26 counties had overwhelming voted in a Border poll to take on NI debts and all, the negotiating position would be weak.
As for the Soviet Union, can you show me that any country was allowed to leave with Russia having spent lots of money on it historically without owing that back? Note that these countries were nominally sovereign entities and probably raised their own debt. I am sure you are right that the Soviet bonds reverted to Russia as would be the case with UK bonds; anything else would be extremely messy and probably regarded internationally as a default by Russia. Taking East Germany as an example. historically the Soviet Union had extracted massive amounts by way of war reparations; hard to see them arguing that East Germany owed them anything, or East Germany agreeing that they did.
Anyway I am still waiting for that source that Westminster offered Scotland the option of using its own currency and therefore being absolved of any share of National Debt. Or will you admit that you misinterpreted that?

 

[Baby boomer]

Nobody is denying that the UK will remain the legal owner of the full National Debt. The idea of negotiating with bondholders to switch some of its debt for Tartan Bonds or Paddy Bonds is just not on.

Good. At least we agree on that. Now, just go the little step further and recognise that it stays with the UK unless a different arrangement is agreed.

Scottish Indies (whom you brought into the discussion) accepted that they would owe to Westminster their fair share of the legacy National Debt, albeit some argued that if proper recognition of oil tax revenues were brought into account their share would be nil! The Scottish Government did not argue that and accepted they would owe a proper fair share

There were many negotiating positions adopted on all sides. Personally, I got the distinct impression that the Indies thought their fair share would be nil, or even negative!

The default position by any process of international arbitration is that the seceding entity would owe that part of the National Debt that was spent on it.

Really? So why didn't Russia pursue arbitration cases against the former constituent SSRs?

Of course negotiation could lead to a completely different arrangement. Mind you if the 26 counties had overwhelming voted in a Border poll to take on NI debts and all, the negotiating position would be weak.

I suspect that position won't make it to a ballot paper......

As for the Soviet Union, can you show me that any country was allowed to leave with Russia having spent lots of money on it historically without owing that back?

You're shifting the goalposts now. ALL the constituent SSRs left without owing Russia any share of the USSR debt. Whether "Russia" (which was merely just another SSR within the USSR) spent lots of money on them is an interesting but irrelevant point. Based on Soviet ideology, I suspect they actually did.

Note that these countries were nominally sovereign entities and probably raised their own debt.

Huh? Nominally sovereign entities? You appear to be a bit conflabulated here. The USSR was a single sovereign entity consisting of the so-called Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, Belarus, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Central Asian Stans and so on. None of these had any individual national sovereignty, nominal or otherwise. The Soviet Bloc, (aka Warsaw Pact) countries, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on were indeed independent sovereign nations although de facto under the Soviet thumb.

I am sure you are right that the Soviet bonds reverted to Russia...

I am. Although in an earlier post you thought I wasn't!

...as would be the case with UK bonds; anything else would be extremely messy and probably regarded internationally as a default by Russia. Taking East Germany as an example. historically the Soviet Union had extracted massive amounts by way of war reparations; hard to see them arguing that East Germany owed them anything, or East Germany agreeing that they did.

There was never any question of East Germany owing any of USSRs debt. They were completely separate entities, recognized as such by the UN and virtually every other nation.

Anyway I am still waiting for that source that Westminster offered Scotland the option of using its own currency and therefore being absolved of any share of National Debt. Or will you admit that you misinterpreted that?

Keep waiting. You are twisting what I said and then demanding a source for YOUR interpretation of MY words! Nice try, but I'm not diving down that rabbit hole.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Good. At least we agree on that. Now, just go the little step further and recognise that it stays with the UK unless a different arrangement is agreed.

Agreed and as per Indyref the Scottish Government accepted it would owe its "fair" share of the National Debt even though legally it could walk away from it.

There were many negotiating positions adopted on all sides. Personally, I got the distinct impression that the Indies thought their fair share would be nil, or even negative!

The point is they accepted the concept of a "fair" share. They did not argue that because Her Majesty had signed all the bond contracts she was stuck with them.

Really? So why didn't Russia pursue arbitration cases against the former constituent SSRs?

I misinterpreted your point. I thought you were referring to the break up of the Soviet "empire". Obviously you meant the Soviet Union itself. Of which say Ukraine is an example. Russia could have argued that Ukraine owed its "fair" share of any Soviet debt incurred on its behalf as per Scottish IndyRef. Did Russia waive Ukraine's fair share? Very generous given the animosity between the two nations. I suspect Russia spent precious little on Ukraine during the Soviet set up except maybe on nuclear capability which was dismantled.

I suspect that position won't make it to a ballot paper......

Of course you are right on this.

You're shifting the goalposts now. ALL the constituent SSRs left without owing Russia any share of the USSR debt. Whether "Russia" (which was merely just another SSR within the USSR) spent lots of money on them is an interesting but irrelevant point. Based on Soviet ideology, I suspect they actually did.


Huh? Nominally sovereign entities? You appear to be a bit conflabulated here. The USSR was a single sovereign entity consisting of the so-called Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, Belarus, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Central Asian Stans and so on. None of these had any individual national sovereignty, nominal or otherwise. The Soviet Bloc, (aka Warsaw Pact) countries, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and so on were indeed independent sovereign nations although de facto under the Soviet thumb.

I have admitted I misinterpreted your point in this regard.

I am. Although in an earlier post you thought I wasn't!

Don't recall, but must be a misinterpretation. Of course the legal contracts reverted to the Russian Federation.

There was never any question of East Germany owing any of USSRs debt. They were completely separate entities, recognized as such by the UN and virtually every other nation.

The misinterpretation again.

Keep waiting. You are twisting what I said and then demanding a source for YOUR interpretation of MY words! Nice try, but I'm not diving down that rabbit hole.

Can you please clarify what you meant by this:

Interestingly, this came up during the Scottish IndyRef debate. At the time, Scotland's pro-independence side wanted to keep the Pound (yeah, I know...me neither) and Westminster made it clear that the price for that would be an independent Scotland taking on a share of the debt. They could have the Pound and the debt, or neither. Obviously in a UI, it'd be neither.

Anyway I take it that you now accept that such an offer was not on the table.

 

[Baby boomer]

Agreed and as per Indyref the Scottish Government accepted it would owe its "fair" share of the National Debt even though legally it could walk away from it.

The key point is that legally they could walk away from it. As could a UI. For their own reasons, they appeared willing not to. Although, as I said, I suspect that might be somewhat illusory.

The point is they accepted the concept of a "fair" share. They did not argue that because Her Majesty had signed all the bond contracts she was stuck with them.

Well, Her Maj would be stuck with them. The Scots Indies were of course willing to horsetrade and voluntarily assume a "fair" share, no doubt in return for a suitable quid pro quo.

I misinterpreted your point. I thought you were referring to the break up of the Soviet "empire". Obviously you meant the Soviet Union itself.

Why on Earth did you think that? I never gave the slightest hint that I meant the Soviet Empire rather than the Soviet Union.

Of which say Ukraine is an example. Russia could have argued that Ukraine owed its "fair" share of any Soviet debt incurred on its behalf as per Scottish IndyRef. Did Russia waive Ukraine's fair share?

You accept that legally the debt would remain with Indy Scotland. Likewise Ukraine. There was nothing to "waive."

Very generous given the animosity between the two nations. I suspect Russia spent precious little on Ukraine during the Soviet set up except maybe on nuclear capability which was dismantled.

True enough, Ukraine being one of the richer SSRs. Might be different for some of the Stans.

Anyway I take it that you now accept that such an offer was not on the table.

Formally, nothing was on the table. As London didn't want indyref to succeed, they weren't going to tee up a concession like that in advance. Given that the very existence of certain "discussions" at Bank of England level was controversial, and denied by Westminster, it's hardly surprising that matters are murky. However, we can say that in the event of Independence, Scotland wanted to keep Sterling, London didn't. By default, London gets that one. And London wanted to offload a significant chunk of debt, Scotland didn't. (Or was ambivalent, at best, while publicly seeming otherwise.) By default, Scotland gets that one. The default position, therefore, denies both sides something they want.

The potential for mutual horsetrading is obvious!

 

[Purple]

The potential for mutual horsetrading is obvious!

That's what it comes down to. In that scenario the Nodries, and us in Ireland/ Doyn Soyth/this Joyer-y-stick-shun, are much more reliant on the Brits for trade than they are on us. In any negotiation, even with the EU on our side, the Brits will have a much better hand to play. The hope is that they will want the metaphorical turd off their lawn and be generous (that's also my fear).

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well,

Formally, nothing was on the table. As London didn't want indyref to succeed, they weren't going to tee up a concession like that in advance. Given that the very existence of certain "discussions" at Bank of England level was controversial, and denied by Westminster, it's hardly surprising that matters are murky. However, we can say that in the event of Independence, Scotland wanted to keep Sterling, London didn't. By default, London gets that one. And London wanted to offload a significant chunk of debt, Scotland didn't. (Or was ambivalent, at best, while publicly seeming otherwise.) By default, Scotland gets that one. The default position, therefore, denies both sides something they want.

Your original post was categorical that Westminster had stated that a condition of Scotland having the Pound would be it taking its share of the National Debt. There was nothing nuanced about your conclusion that since NI would be adopting the Euro Westminster would not be looking for it to take any share of the debt. I take it from that very contorted reply that you have back pedalled from that position.
Your basic premise is that the default position is the status quo. But the whole point is that the status quo is about to have a huge change. By your argument Her Majesty would by default still be responsible for the salaries of the public servants she recruited. Moreover the default position would be that NI taxes are sent to Westminster. This is all patent nonsense. Even Prof SF Doyle didn’t go that far.

You raised the precedent of the Soviet Union. I googled the following:

The debt-sharing agreement among the 11 Commonwealth members allocates 61.34% to Russia and 16.37% to Ukraine, its largest members, but makes all responsible for total repayment. The former Soviet Bank for Foreign Economic Affairs, Vneshekonombank, will handle the repayments.

Admittedly Ukraine tried to welch but from pressure from the international community it caved in rather than see itself denied international credit. Your original post was very selective and misleading in citing the Soviet precedent. Russia was merely remaining as the administrator of the collective debt. Given your undoubted knowledge of these factors the mind boggles that your conclusion was that Prof Doyle was right and in a UI NI would be free of legacy debt and would not be responsible for existing public service pensions.

 

[Baby boomer]

Your original post was categorical that Westminster had stated that a condition of Scotland having the Pound would be it taking its share of the National Debt. There was nothing nuanced about your conclusion that since NI would be adopting the Euro Westminster would not be looking for it to take any share of the debt. I take it from that very contorted reply that you have back pedalled from that position.
Your basic premise is that the default position is the status quo. But the whole point is that the status quo is about to have a huge change. By your argument Her Majesty would by default still be responsible for the salaries of the public servants she recruited. Even Prof SF Doyle didn’t go that far.
You raised the precedent of the Soviet Union. I googled the following:

Admittedly Ukraine tried to welch but from pressure from the international community it caved in rather than see itself denied international credit. Your original post was very selective in citing the Soviet precedent. Given your undoubted knowledge of these factors the mind boggles that your conclusion was that Prof Doyle was right and in a UI NI would be free of legacy debt and would not be responsible for existing public service pensions.

As I'm sure you well know, that 1992 agreement was an agreement in principle only. Ukraine never ponied up. It was superceded in 1993 when Russia agreed to take on the whole lot. If you're going to clutch on straws you should really find stronger ones!

As to the possible outcome in NI, the absence of any wish to use sterling removes a negotiating lever that might otherwise have led to an assumption of national debt. And a pretty big lever at that.

BTW it is normal in a debate for subsequent statements to clarify initial ones, to explore related issues, to provide more detail, nuance and explanation. It is facile to equate nuance with backpedaling. My basic premise remains that a UI doesn't have to, and almost certainly won't, assume a share of UK national debt.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

As I'm sure you well know, that 1992 agreement was an agreement in principle only. Ukraine never ponied up. It was superceded in 1993 when Russia agreed to take on the whole lot. If you're going to clutch on straws you should really find stronger ones!

I am completely new to the Soviet precedent. I accept your word that Russia took on the lot in the end. A very different situation with huge geopolitical ramifications.
The point is that it is clear that the "moral" default position is that a seceding country should bear its "fair" share of the debt that was accrued partly on its behalf. The legal position is irrelevant as is most obvious in the case of current public service pay. By definition a completely new legal order is being established.
Maybe if NI was a complete stand alone and given its very complicated history, the Brits might as a compromise or even as an act of compensation for past failures (not that they need to so compensate IMHO) make big concessions on the National Debt but the implications for Scottish independence would be an inhibiting factor.
But no way can it be argued as Prof Doyle, and apparently yourself, does that a clean slate on debt is the "natural" finishing place. For a modern state with its huge infrastructure to find itself with no national debt and no liability for accrued unfunded pensions would be an enormous bonanza; I think only Norway is anywhere near that position.

As to the possible outcome in NI, the absence of any wish to use sterling removes a negotiating lever that might otherwise have led to an assumption of national debt. And a pretty big lever at that.

I am sure you are fully familiar with what this actually means but then again you thought I was fully familiar with the Soviet precedent. But for the clarity of our listeners what the Indies wanted was to avail of London's credit rating post independence. There was never any problem in having a Scottish Pound pegged to sterling as with the Free State. The Taliban could peg their currency to sterling if they wanted, doesn't need London's consent.

BTW it is normal in a debate for subsequent statements to clarify initial ones, to explore related issues, to provide more detail, nuance and explanation. It is facile to equate nuance with backpedaling.

Agreed, I have "backpedalled" myself whilst digging this rabbit hole.

My basic premise remains that a UI doesn't have to,

Agreed, though if you mean that it can dig in on the legals of the matter that would very seriously backfire as per Ukraine in 1992, not least with the US who would be expecting a negotiation based on common sense and fairness.

and almost certainly won't,

Disagree, but clearly a matter of very subjective opinion.

The bottom line is that of course all these matters will be up for negotiation and even very generous concessions. But to argue that as a matter of entitlement (coz we have Her signature, gotcha!), NI should bear no legacy share of the National Debt and that accrued unfunded public service pensions are the responsibility of HM government will convince no neutral observer (thinking US here) and will be counter productive.

 

[Baby boomer]

But no way can it be argued as Prof Doyle, and apparently yourself, does that a clean slate on debt is the "natural" finishing place. For a modern state with its huge infrastructure to find itself with no national debt and no liability for accrued unfunded pensions would be an enormous bonanza; I think only Norway is anywhere near that position.

I am sure you are fully familiar with what this actually means....

Yes, I am, no need for snark.

but then again you thought I was fully familiar with the Soviet precedent.

Well, you did speak authoritatively about it.

But for the clarity of our listeners what the Indies wanted was to avail of London's credit rating post independence.

Indeed, and they also wanted a share in the governance of the Bank of England. Not surprisingly, England baulked!

Agreed, though if you mean that it can dig in on the legals of the matter that would very seriously backfire as per Ukraine in 1992, not least with the US who would be expecting a negotiation based on common sense and fairness.

Hmmm, you mean like the Brexit negotiations? It's not really going to comedown to fairness or "moral" duty. Both sides will hardball, as happens in most international negotiations. As happened in Brexit. As happened post USSR. As happened in post former Yugoslavia. As happened in the recent corporation tax row. If we are heading for a UI, it behoves us to start from a high opening position, and disclaim the debt. A bit like our stance on the 12.5% thing. We may eventually horsetrade and cut a deal, but it would be negotiating folly to offer it up gratis in the first place.

Of course, if one is implacably opposed to a UI in the first place, one would seize on any opportunity to argue that it's unaffordable, eh?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Hmmm, you mean like the Brexit negotiations? It's not really going to comedown to fairness or "moral" duty. Both sides will hardball, as happens in most international negotiations. As happened in Brexit. As happened post USSR. As happened in post former Yugoslavia. As happened in the recent corporation tax row. If we are heading for a UI, it behoves us to start from a high opening position, and disclaim the debt. A bit like our stance on the 12.5% thing. We may eventually horsetrade and cut a deal, but it would be negotiating folly to offer it up gratis in the first place.

Of course, if one is implacably opposed to a UI in the first place, one would seize on any opportunity to argue that it's unaffordable, eh?

As explained before, the purpose of this rabbit hole is to expose Prof SF Doyle's argument that the "rational" position was that NI would be free of legacy debt and that HM government would continue to pay unfunded public service pensions. I think I am with the vast majority of the academic and diplomatic community in rejecting that.
But of course it now transpires that Prof Doyle's supposedly academic piece was in fact, as you say, "a high opening negotiating position" in line with SF orthodoxy.
I was just surprised that you, and I mean this, a very well informed commentator, found it necessary to also adopt a negotiating position on AAM. Who are you negotiating with? surely not me! For avoidance of doubt if NI was offered in the morning free of legacy debt and with public service pensions paid by a foreign country, from a purely selfish financial perspective I'd bite your hand off.

 

[Baby boomer]

For avoidance of doubt if NI was offered in the morning free of legacy debt and with public service pensions paid by a foreign country, from a purely selfish financial perspective I'd bite your hand off.

Fair enough. I think the negotiations will end up with no legacy debt and a complicated fudge on public service pensions. Hard to see a UI paying UDR pensions, for instance!

Now, to matters more directly affecting individual taxpayers up there. Would there be an equalisation of taxes? How would they (of Unionist or Republican persuasion both) feel about paying an extra 20 to 30% for their cars. Or doubling the cost of a bottle of sparkling wine. Or paying the high rate of tax at €35k rather than €60k. Any takers for USC I wonder? Or a far more punitive CAT regime?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Fair enough. I think the negotiations will end up with no legacy debt and a complicated fudge on public service pensions. Hard to see a UI paying UDR pensions, for instance!

Now, to matters more directly affecting individual taxpayers up there. Would there be an equalisation of taxes? How would they (of Unionist or Republican persuasion both) feel about paying an extra 20 to 30% for their cars. Or doubling the cost of a bottle of sparkling wine. Or paying the high rate of tax at €35k rather than €60k. Any takers for USC I wonder? Or a far more punitive CAT regime?

Yes given the day that is in it, those are very valid questions. We note that this didn't arise at the formation of the Free State and wouldn't arise in Scottish Independence. I presume similar issues arose in the uniting of the Fatherland and I presume it was mostly one way traffic with the East coming to more favourable West arrangements. I think for example the government guaranteed parity of the Ostmark with the D-mark, effectively overnight quadrupling the value of East Germans' deposits.

 

[Baby boomer]

Yes given the day that is in it, those are very valid questions. We note that this didn't arise at the formation of the Free State and wouldn't arise in Scottish Independence. I presume similar issues arose in the uniting of the Fatherland and I presume it was mostly one way traffic with the East coming to more favourable West arrangements. I think for example the government guaranteed parity of the Ostmark with the D-mark, effectively overnight quadrupling the value of East Germans' deposits.

Yes, the Ossies did well out of that. But there were swings and roundabouts. All in all, it was a difficult economic transition and cost West Germany a fortune.

The Free State and Indy Scotland are quite different as prior to those events, taxes, wages, pensions etc, were harmonised. Between North and South here, though, they're radically different. I've never seen any studies of how (or even whether) they would be aligned. It would be interested to get the SF / Prof Doyle take on it. Personally, I think there would have to be some kind of federal arrangement will be needed to make it work. Bit like the United States where there are State taxes as well as federal taxes. Also the US States have different arrangements on public pay, health and social welfare.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Bit like the United States where there are State taxes as well as federal taxes. Also the US States have different arrangements on public pay, health and social welfare.

Yep, I was thinking along those lines. And currency would be an issue even for Taigs.
By the way, I don't think I was being snarky on the currency issue on IndyRef. I know you understand it completely but our listeners, if we still have any, might think that what was at stake was Scots being able to use pounds. The Indies were really on a bit of a try on if they thought they could be independent and still have London stand behind their currency, not even Michael Collins tried that one on.