You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
bigjim - MemberNo 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 - MemberThe 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
[i]Just announced: 97% of adults have registered to vote.[/i]
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.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/gordon-brown-snp-nhs-privatisation-scotland ]link[/url]
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 - MemberThey 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!"
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.
[quote=bencooper said]what percentage of the Children?
I'm assuming 0%.
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.
[url= https://audioboo.fm/boos/2469105-dale-from-pontypridd-makes-his-feelings-on-miliband-clear/embed/v2?image_option=none&link_color=%2355ACEE&source=twitter_card&utm_campaign=detailpage&utm_content=card&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter ]The Welsh opinion of Ed Miliband[/url]
😀
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.
16-18 years olds can vote so what % of them?
[i]
I saw something like 78%, not sure. I think if you get to decide the future of your country you're not a child.[/i]
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!
As the what on the scrotum?
So you're basically agreeing there could be economic problems for the rest of our lifetimes and our children's lifetimes!
No. Economics isn't a science, it's more a philosophy. We might have a few difficult years, most new countries do, but we've got the basis of being a very successful country. So it's not that the economics don't matter, it's that we should look beyond them.
ben already answered
But if we must talk about economics:
An independent Scotland would be a big success, according to the head of the country's largest asset manager.Martin Gilbert, chief executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, said Scotland could prosper regardless of the outcome of the referendum next week.
Gilbert said the Scottish government's preferred option of a formal currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be "highly likely", despite it being repeatedly ruled out by the three main pro-union parties.
but many people don't seem to care. Its Yes at any price
Tells you something about how a lot of people feel about the government in Westminster.
I still haven't seen an answer from anyone here, or in the media about why the powers being promised are only appearing now, and not before. It's almost like they don't want to admit that they really didn't want to devolve more power.
Tells you something about how a lot of people feel about the government in Westminster
Or it tells you something about the intelligence of a lot of people 🙂
whatnobeer - Member
...I still haven't seen an answer from anyone here, or in the media about why the powers being promised are only appearing now, and not before. It's almost like they don't want to admit that they really didn't want to devolve more power.
Or maybe it's a case of we fooled them like this before, let's see if they're stupid enough to fall for it again...
bencooper - MemberBut if we must talk about economics:
An independent Scotland would be a big success, according to the head of the country's largest asset manager.
Martin Gilbert, chief executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, said Scotland could prosper regardless of the outcome of the referendum next week.
Gilbert said the Scottish government's preferred option of a formal currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be "highly likely", despite it being repeatedly ruled out by the three main pro-union parties.
You missed the next paragraph which marks him out as a simpleton:
Scotland could also benefit by refusing to take on its share of the UK national debt if denied a currency union, he added.
Whatever your views on the referendum.
Is fantastic engagement.
@retro - indeed pretty stunning from a finance industry person to make such a statement given the potential downside of Scotland trying to do that. As I have said if Scotland don't agree to take their fair share of the debt there is going to be no independence. We'll have our own referendum on that thanks very much.
No. Economics isn't a science, it's more a philosophy. We might have a few difficult years, most new countries do, but we've got the basis of being a very successful country. So it's not that the economics don't matter, it's that we should look beyond them.
With an answer like that you could be a politician 😉
This 'few difficult' years will be an interesting one if independence actually happens, I wonder if everyone will then be so light hearted about the reality of five or ten years of recession, or as you say, 50, 100... Vote Yes, the rest of your life might be severely affected, but people you'll never get to meet in many decades time might once again enjoy the pre-independence quality of life!
Sadly, the numbers that make my salary, bank account and everything else to do with money, work in a more scientific style. 1+1=2 etc.
Think I've swung back to No again today!
Vote Yes, the rest of your life might be severely affected, but people you'll never get to meet in many decades time might once again enjoy the pre-independence quality of life!
It is interesting that Yes is ahead in every age bracket apart from the over-65s. People who are going to be around to see the long-term results are much more pro-independence than people who are not.
Sadly, the numbers that make my salary, bank account and everything else to do with money, work in a more scientific style. 1+1=2 etc.
That's accounting, not economics. Economics is not scientific.
The Noers on this thread seem to be raising a lot of important questions that no-one can answer. The Yessers seem to be ignoring them and focusing on hope.
The two things aren't necessarily incompatible, of course. Yes we all want change (on both sides of the border), but given the risks, perhaps this particular change isn't ideal.
The ideal situation would be a No vote, then a proper effort for the changes we all (Scot and Brit) actually do want.
bigjim - MemberThis 'few difficult' years will be an interesting one if independence actually happens, I wonder if everyone will then be so light hearted about the reality of five or ten years of recession
Are you expecting 5-10 years of recession?
5-10 years of complicated and messy detangling if nothing else. Personally that's 5-10 years of insecurity I don't want, and I don't want it for my kids either. So I guess I'm selfish!
FWIW I was in a cab yesterday with a passionate yesser, totally deluded about the currency issues but that's another story, and even he thought the 18 month timetable to independence was complete garbage.
The ideal situation would be a No vote, then a proper effort for the changes we all (Scot and Brit) actually do want.
If there was legislation before parliament now on fundamental change - a federal system of government based on PR and abolition of the Lords - I'd change to No right now.
But there isn't. There isn't even a promise of Devo Max. There's a few vague waffling promises of "more tax raising powers" which are a poison chalice. The Labour party seems to think that if we just vote Labour then they'll make it all okay - they won't we tried that before, and we got Tony Blair.
5-10 years of complicated and messy detangling if nothing else
It won't be that - didn't take anywhere near that long for Australia and Canada to leave the British Empire, and Czechoslovakia separated in 12 months.
Big stakes here though. If there was going to be a resounding No vote why would we give up more powers? I think that's why you didn't see any promises made sooner as it looked like it was going to be no by 60-40
Cameron granted a referendum on the basis it was yes/no as devo-max was always going to be the real favoured option of the SNP and probably a lot of Scots, independence with training wheels and a safety net. I suppose it was a game of bluff and the recent opinion polls called that bluff.
Australia and Canada left the British empire when?
The ideal situation would be a No vote, then a proper effort for the changes we all (Scot and Brit) actually do want.
I'd agree if it wasn't for the fact that the Westminster based government (of all colours) has proven itself completely incapable of, and institutionally opposed to the type of progressive change that is demanded by both Scotland and a large proportion of the rest of the UK. Scotland is lucky enough to have the opportunity to free itself of the Westminster roadblock. With independence they have some hope that this change can happen eventually, without it they have acceptance that it will never happen.
Australia and Canada left the British empire when?
When Britain was quite bit bigger and more important than it is now 😉
Look at them trying not to walk in time with the music 😀
Interesting take on a no vote
Australia and Canada left the British empire when?
When Britain was quite bit bigger and more important than it is now.
i.e. more than 100 years ago. Personally I fail to see how the confederation of a group of colonies in the 19th and v early 20th century is a case study for separation of Scotland from the UK in the 21st.
bencooper - MemberIt is interesting that Yes is ahead in every age bracket apart from the over-65s. People who are going to be around to see the long-term results are much more pro-independence than people who are not.
Or you could also spin that as more of those with the most experience have decided to vote no
No. Economics isn't a science, it's more a philosophy.
@ben there is some truth in this but having the money to pay the bills is very real
vintagewino - Memberi.e. more than 100 years ago. Personally I fail to see how the confederation of a group of colonies in the 19th and v early 20th century is a case study for separation of Scotland from the UK in the 21st.
What do you have that's a better example? And, how about Czechoslovakia?
Are you expecting 5-10 years of recession?
It's a possibility. I've been reading some really interesting stuff from friends on that facebook that have very shiny jobs I don't understand in finance, who understand this all much better than I do.
I'm expecting a no result at the moment based on current polls though
That's accounting, not economics. Economics is not scientific.
Economics is the most studied social science isn't it?
What do you have that's a better example? And, how about Czechoslovakia?
The best example is Quebec.
What do you have that's a better example? And, how about Czechoslovakia?
I'm not sure that anything is a reasonable example to draw comparisons with.
Far too many variables.
I don't have a better example, why should I? I think it will take 5-10 years and will be messy. I think this because of the highly integrated nature of the UK and becuase of the vested interests that will inevitably use the courts to try to guarantee themselves the outcome they want - regardless of the side they are on.
Re Czechoslovakia, wiki sez "Neither the Czech Republic nor Slovakia sought recognition as the sole successor state to Czechoslovakia." So that's not a valid case study either.
Economics is the most studied social science isn't it?
Social sciences aren't science either 😉
B Cooper BSc(Hons) Physics and Astronomy
Are you expecting 5-10 years of recession?
@Northwind In Scotland it's possible, the smaller number certainly I would expect the costs of independence to push the UK back towards a recession for a year perhaps and Scotland will be much worse. Of course whether a national statistical office setup by AS would actually ever release such a figure is another question all together.
social science
@bigjim - as a mathematician I don't think those two words should be used next to each other 🙂
vested interests that will inevitably use the courts to try to guarantee themselves the outcome they want
Yes I agree, the lawyers will be massive winners
Well if you want to be silly, I have more sciencey letters behind my name than you do 😉
I don't see how you can separate economics, especially that of these mooted 'few difficult years', from salaries, mortgages, company's finances, etc, etc. It's this kind of burying head in sand and semantic nonsense which puts me right off the Yes side of things.
having the money to pay the bills is very real
yep, sadly. I really want to buy a house but borrowing a six figure some of money isn't looking like a great plan just now.
I have more sciencey letters behind my name than you do
never mind the quality, feel the width ? 😯
Yes I agree, the lawyers will be massive winners
I think you missed the k out.
bigjim - MemberIt's a possibility.
Sure, many things are possibilities- there's a lot of unintended consequences in any major change after all. But you were talking about the reality, not the possibility, unless I misread...
vintagewino - MemberI don't have a better example, why should I? I think it will take 5-10 years and will be messy.
But you admit you're basing that on nothing but opinion. Meanwhile dismissing a real world, recent split between a large and small state as not useful. I think 18 months is optimistic at best but 10 years is a very long time, especially when there's already an existing and functioning government waiting to take on power.