bigjim – Member

No idea, I asked something similar and epicyclo on here said he has moved his money overseas, and he is a frothing yes voter. I’ve not got much but I still don’t want to lose it. I can’t even figure out if my bank is actually scottish, or british, or what!

Banking wise they’re all british until actual independence- FSCS will still protect any “scottish” banks in the meantime. So it’s basically business as usual as far as savings in banks.

@Northwind RBS, Lloyds are being defensive, protecting themselves. They don’t want a bank run either in Scotland or UK, by moving HQ to London they retain the BoE guaranty and of course actually have a regulator there being none in Scotland. There have been a number of articles suggesting there could be a large deposit withdrawl in Scotland if banks remained domiciled post a Yes. RBS/Lloyds had to do something as their shares where on the slide as investors where worried about a Yes vote.

What this shows is that Scotland will need a central bank/treasury if it is to have any banks or financial services companies post independence. This is a statement of the obvious in my view but one the Yes campaign hasn’t addressed. The alternative is Scotland has no banks or financial services companies based there, they would just be a service center and how could he government borrow money ?

jambalaya – Member

The alternative is Scotland has no banks or financial services companies based there, they would just be a service center and how could he government borrow money ?

Governments don’t borrow money by nipping into the local branch, is the short answer. About 9% of the UK debt is held by UK banks. Overseas investors make up the single largest body of lenders.

@Northwind, how attractive to international investors do you think a country without a central bank, financial services regulator and thus any of it’s own banks is going to be ? Also small countries borrow relatively more from banks. This is partly why AS was a currency union and he hasn’t budgeted for any of this, that and the fact he wants to dodge the euro.

jambalaya – Member

@Northwind, how attractive to international investors do you think a country without a central bank, financial services regulator and thus any of it’s own banks is going to be ?

I think it’s less important than you’d think, since we’ll effectively be borrowing in a foreign currency- the pound (or conceivably euro or dollar, it all works out the same) already being supported by its own central bank. The currency risk to investors should be the same if we borrow in the pound, as it is if they lend to the UK (possibly less- it removes the potential risk of a country devaluing its own currency to reduce debt) Course, that’s just one risk consideration.

@Northwind, I understand you have greater knowledge of the University application/funding world and the history of nuclear weapons / capability for example. However I have been an investment manager (mainly debt) for most of the past 30 years. Scotland will be able to borrow but there will be a high price for the factors I have mentioned. If it borrows in a foreign currency inc the euro it will still need a central bank and investors charge “extra” for foreign currency borrowing (not just in terms of rate but the amount they will lend). The central bank isn’t just supporting the borrowing currency but also the financial health of the borrower. IMO there isn’t a snowballs chance in hell Scotland will run a budget surplus given all the promises and the costs of setting up independently, so it’s going to need to borrow quite a lot.

I am sure AS will tell you that Scotland will have 10% of the assets of the BoE to kick start its own Central Bank. Hopefully you can see the chances of that are slim to none.

Oh, sure- thought I’d covered it by limiting my post to currency risk alone, but then I also thought you were originally suggesting that Scotland would struggle to borrow, rather than facing increased costs (which is inevitable frankly). So probably made for a bit of a confused post.

Re Bank of England- the reserves discussion there isn’t one I’ve paid any real attention to, interested in your reasoning… In principle, the BoE reserves are a shared UK national asset.

Just announced: 97% of adults have registered to vote.

Incredible.

Just look at all the announcements by companies of moving their headquarters and its all Sir this and Sir that. If you run a bank it seems you get a knighthood and it is just the old boy network working together.

They might move their nominal headquarters to London and therefore pay profits to the Uk government but I would be amazed if they moved the 1000’s of processing and admin staff. Lots and lots of banks have their nominal headquarters in London but there actual processing headquarters elsewhere. Lloyds for instance is in Bristol.

It’s certainly an interesting strategy – one minute we’re told that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be able to cope if RBS collapsed again. Then we’re told that RBS is leaving. Can’t have it both ways.

Of course the jobs themselves aren’t moving, it’s just a paper exercise.

its all Sir this and Sir that

Have we done this yet?

http://www.tatler.com/news/articles/september-2014/the-future-of-scotland

😯

BP and Shell urging for a No vote again too, no surprise there!

In principle, the BoE reserves are a shared UK national asset.

They are an asset of the UK, the Scots are leaving the UK.

@ben Scotland is going to need some banks. They will have to be smaller sized as Scotland is small. RBS is far too big so has to stay in the UK. If it where broken up the Scottish part could re-locate back up there. Ditto bits of Lloyds/HBOS. It is credbile that Scottish banks could be experts in financing oil industry for example (in the same way the Scandis are heavily focused on industires like forestry/paper). But big global multi functional banks don’t really make sense / cannot be supported.

Have we done this yet?

@ben, the piece makes perfect sense. Given all the promises being made about spending and a fairer society (see my comments yesterday about what that means) anyone with above average wealth has to be nervous. Further “management” of private land by and for the state. Wealth distribution. Taxes on the rich as they can afford it. etc etc

Just announced: 97% of adults have registered to vote.

what percentage of the Children?

They might move their nominal headquarters to London and therefore pay profits to the Uk government

not how it works.

not how it works.

It is really.

I thought Gordon Brown spoke well and passionately the other day. He is now saying if the SNP don’t stop scaremongering on the NHS he’ll stand for election in the Scottish Parliament in 2016. He would be a very powerful candidate and crowd the SNP out of the left politically.

link

BTW RBS pays a very significant “deposit/liability tax” to the BoE based upon balance sheet size

He is now saying if the SNP don’t stop scaremongering on the NHS he’ll stand for election in the Scottish Parliament in 2016.

Do you think that is sufficient to scare people?

I’d love to see Gordon Brown in the scottish parliament tbh- independent or not. He’s wasted on the back bench but I’d thought he was basically done with it all.

Mind you he’ll face awkward questions from Scottish people like “Why is it you thought the time to offer further devolution was 2 weeks before the referendum, not 4 years earlier when you were prime minister”

jambalaya – Member

They are an asset of the UK, the Scots are leaving the UK.

So, the same as every other UK asset then? Am I wrong, I was assuming you thought there was a specific difference for the BoE reserves/assets.

He is now saying if the SNP don’t stop scaremongering on the NHS he’ll stand for election in the Scottish Parliament in 2016.

This has been his masterplan all along. Screw up the no campaign, then stand for election and be el presidente of an independent Scotland.

Northwind – Member
I’d love to see Gordon Brown in the scottish parliament tbh- independent or not. He’s wasted on the back bench but I’d thought he was basically done with it all…

Aye, unemployed Westmister MP who betrayed his socialist ideals seeks preselection for Labour seat.

Labour won’t be taking their orders from London anymore, I don’t like his chances.

But once outside they were greeted by pro-independence hecklers. One rode alongside them through the streets in a rickshaw with a sound system playing The Imperial March, made famous by Star Wars.

He kept up with the group as they walked through the city centre  booming into a megaphone “Welcome to our imperial masters! Our imperial masters have arrived!”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/stand-off-at-buchanan-street-steps-yes-campaigners-confront-100-westminster.1410437305

I’d just like to make it clear that this wasn’t me 😀

what percentage of the Children?

I’m assuming 0%.

@Northwind, yes basically. Everything is left behind. Clearly when it comes to the actual land, buildings and equipment (hospital and school) I would expect Scotland to retain what is currently there. Why would you offer Scotland more devolution unless there was a reason to do so. You have the referendum as the SNP got a majority. I am sure Cameron regrets that now, with hindsight Scotland should have been offered a few more powers and nothing else.

@ben, I like that story as I imagine it must have been quite funny. What is less amusing is that is the basis on which many people will vote Yes.

Latest poll is 48 No, 42 Yes, 10 undecided.

Aye, unemployed Westmister MP who betrayed his socialist ideals seeks preselection for Labour seat.

Labour won’t be taking their orders from London anymore, I don’t like his chances.

@epic as has been posted elsewhere a truly socialist party would never have been elected to government. Not then and not now.

What is less amusing is that is the basis on which many people will vote Yes.

No less valid than deciding how to vote based on narrow, short-term economic reasons. People have many different reasons for deciding how they’ll vote, and it’s patronising to assume that your (or my) reasons are better than theirs.

16-18 years olds can vote so what % of them?

16-18 years olds can vote so what % of them?

I saw something like 78%, not sure. I think if you get to decide the future of your country you’re not a child.

you cannot of met many voters 😉

No less valid than deciding how to vote based on narrow, short-term economic reasons.

@ben the reasons many of us have been raising are neither narrow nor short term. We are worried about the economic impact on the UK and the negative impact on Scotland will be far greater but many people don’t seem to care. Its Yes at any price.

The Welsh opinion of Ed Miliband

😀

Oh my God that Tatler piece is awesome.

the reasons many of us have been raising are neither narrow nor short term.

Worrying only about the economic impact is narrow, and talking about which individual businesses might or might not leave or what interest rates will do in the next few months or years is short term.

We’re thinking of 10, 50, 100 years down the line here.

@ben, I like that story as I imagine it must have been quite funny.

There’s video

😀

16-18 years olds can vote so what % of them?

I saw something like 78%, not sure. I think if you get to decide the future of your country you’re not a child.

Not quite how the law tends to see it.

I agree with ben there

Is that tatler piece comedy or not?

Not quite how the law tends to see it.

You can get married at 16, so the law seems to think 16-year-olds are adults.

Oh my God that Tatler piece is awesome.

I enjoy observing them in their natural habitat at the House of Bruar

We’re thinking of 10, 50, 100 years down the line here.

So you’re basically agreeing there could be economic problems for the rest of our lifetimes and our children’s lifetimes!