3 Comments

  1. Alasdair

    / Reply

    I don’t really understand what the argument for Scotland not assuming QE debt is in this article or the linked paper. Given the Scottish people would have voted to cede control over the BOE, I don’t see why it follows that the potential consequences of that should obviously be mitigated against? The argument seems to me to just be “it would be much worse for an Independent Scotland if this were to happen”, but it seems to me in this case you’d probably need something with quite a lot more legal backing to it?

    • Larred Macfarlane

      / Reply

      Thanks for the comment. For clarity, the article isn’t intended to be an argument for Scotland not assuming QE debt, but to highlight the reality of the situation and what the possible implications could be. So far the implications of QE haven’t been discussed much within the context of independence.

      If Scotland were to become independent the UK Treasury would be legally responsible for the entirety of the UK national debt, therefore I’m not sure what you mean by “you’d probably need something with quite a lot more legal backing to it”? Scotland’s servicing of the UK national debt post-independence would be a matter for negotiation, which is why I think that being aware of the QE dynamic is important.

  2. Fred

    / Reply

    I have never understood QE. Surely a debt is extinguished when the debtor and the creditor are effectively the same entity ie the UK state (or so I seem to remember from my Roman Law classes nearly 50 years ago).

Leave a Comment