NHS is a devolved body which didn't go for all that internal market bollocks.
Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes
- Thread starter newbie
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The one thing you notice about independent countries: there are no banks.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
well, independant countries where no one knows what the currency is, or who backs it, or who regulates it...
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Your information on the currency obviously comes from the unionist side. (I'm not sure where your information on how to spell independent comes from).
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
my information comes from the Bank of England - both the lender and the regulator - and all of the potential UK Prime Ministers who will be in office while the matter is decided. anyone who thinks they won't be the people who decide whether an independent Scotland can have a currency union with the (R)UK is obviously getting their information from Unicorns.
If there's one thing I've learned over my lifetime, it's that I can always trust the statements of party leaders - especially in the run up to a General Election
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I don't think they suggested that they were closing their retail branches. Or maybe they did - I haven't followed it that closely. I thought the issue was the significant number of job losses that would result from relocating the headquarters, and that concerns about that might influence the DKs.
aren't you the indepedant?
I don't see why any private companies would relocate? If anything given Salmonds promise to slash corporation tax, they might move their headquarters to Scotland
Quotes ;
Somewhere, emanating from the old crypts and burrows in which Britain was founded, I fear a hideous force may emerge to crush the Scottish people’s desire for self-determination, if only because that desire is a major threat to some very rich and powerful entities who found themselves as unprepared as Downing Street 10.
Still, there’s an added dimension in Scotland: the fact that the City of London is the number 1,2 or 3 (take your pick) most important finance center on the planet. If and when anybody rattles that kind of cage, other forces come into play. It’s no longer about politics, but about money (and no, I’m not too think to see how the two are linked).
And there’s something in all of that which is definitely scary. London, and the Queen, will do all they can not to lose part of their ‘empire’. The City of London will do even more not to lose a substantial part of their wealth. And this time around I don’t think they properly hedged their bets: the surge of the Yes side is as close to a black swan as we, and the City of London, have ever seen.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-10/black-swan-scotland
Somewhere, emanating from the old crypts and burrows in which Britain was founded, I fear a hideous force may emerge to crush the Scottish people’s desire for self-determination, if only because that desire is a major threat to some very rich and powerful entities who found themselves as unprepared as Downing Street 10.
Still, there’s an added dimension in Scotland: the fact that the City of London is the number 1,2 or 3 (take your pick) most important finance center on the planet. If and when anybody rattles that kind of cage, other forces come into play. It’s no longer about politics, but about money (and no, I’m not too think to see how the two are linked).
And there’s something in all of that which is definitely scary. London, and the Queen, will do all they can not to lose part of their ‘empire’. The City of London will do even more not to lose a substantial part of their wealth. And this time around I don’t think they properly hedged their bets: the surge of the Yes side is as close to a black swan as we, and the City of London, have ever seen.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-10/black-swan-scotland
newbie
undisambiguated
and compete with Ireland for offshore taxdodging companies? Maybe so, although it's a bit marginal.
Surely the company issue revolves around companies based in rUK with banking currently based in Scotland, and v-v, and those based in Scotland with the vast majority of their customer base in rUK. Customers who may not wish to do cross-border trading, particularly financial trading- banking, pensions, mortgages, savings and so on.
Last edited:
cantsin
Well-Known Member
and fecking "Totnes"
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
Surely all this stuff from the banks is posturing anyway - it's a negotiation.
They just want to make sure that whatever happens they get a good deal out of it. If they don't threaten to leave they have nothing to bargain with.
They just want to make sure that whatever happens they get a good deal out of it. If they don't threaten to leave they have nothing to bargain with.
newbie
undisambiguated
again, the banks have millions of customers in rUK who will, individually, have to consider whether or not they want to have cross border banking, or get their pension or mortgage from a foreign institution that may or may not be as well protected as we have come to expect.
Whichever way you want to look at it, the new Scottish state will have a fledgling, untried and tested, economy and I can't see any real reason why I, or any other rUK inhabitant, would want to take a risk with something that matters to me. So if the vote is yes I, and I suspect millions like me, will move the pension I have with Standard Life to an rUK based provider, unless they move it into this jurisdiction themselves. I won't do it the day after the referendum, there's no panic involved, but there is a perfectly reasonable caution, that I don't want to get caught up in someone elses experiment from which I gain no benefit and might suffer an important (to me) loss.
Whichever way you want to look at it, the new Scottish state will have a fledgling, untried and tested, economy and I can't see any real reason why I, or any other rUK inhabitant, would want to take a risk with something that matters to me. So if the vote is yes I, and I suspect millions like me, will move the pension I have with Standard Life to an rUK based provider, unless they move it into this jurisdiction themselves. I won't do it the day after the referendum, there's no panic involved, but there is a perfectly reasonable caution, that I don't want to get caught up in someone elses experiment from which I gain no benefit and might suffer an important (to me) loss.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Considering you can't use or spend NI or Scottish bank notes in much of England I think the pound is half way towards independence. Or at least a quarter.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
This is not a new story, it’s just the London media catching up with old scares we’ve heard before. You might be new to this, but we’ve been discussing it for 2 years.
The Big Thread in the Scotland forum has thoroughly discussed all of this already, so forgive me if I treat it perfunctorily.
1. The media is conflating HQs and Registered Offices. What is being talked about is the possibility of moving brass plaques, not losing jobs or significant operations.
2. Before we heard this story the first time, we were told that having the brass plaques in Edinburgh meant the Scottish economy would be financial sector top-heavy, and we’d be responsible for bailing out the banks if they came to that again. Leave aside the fact that that isn’t how it works (c/f big thread for how it does work). You can’t have it both ways. If it’s Bad News that the brass plaques are in Edinburgh, then it’s good news that they’re in London; that means rUK would be responsible for bailing out the banks. (Although, I reiterate, it’s not where the plaques are that really determines where the bailout would be financed from).
3. Many of these companies said they’d move to London if we voted for devolution. They didn’t. I’m not aware of any company that moved because of devolution. (“Wolf!”).
4. The bank I use doesn’t have its brass plaque in Edinburgh or London. My debit card still works in ATMs, at check outs, and on websites.
5. The Bank of England has not said it won’t facilitate a currency union. The exact opposite is the case; it says it will.
6. There is a huge discussion on currency on the Big Thread, but there are some important points to be aware of:
Interest rates are currently set by the Bank of England - the Chancellor has no control over them as things stand.
I think some people get misled by the name of the institution - the “Bank of England”. It is currently the Bank of UK, in fact. It is a UK-wide institution, and is separate from government. Were it to become the central bank for both an independent Scotland and the rUK, then it would be deciding interest rates for both countries. It would not be a case of the rUK government setting Scottish interest rates, but rather both being set by the same institution.
(As it happens, here, too, I disagree with the SNP. I think Scotland should have its own currency, pegged at first to Sterling - as indeed Ireland’s was right up until it began the process to join the Euro. But I can see the logic of currency union, and it certainly isn’t a deal breaker for me).
The rUK has a trade deficit with Scotland (in other words, the net flow of products - whisky, oil, gas, electricity, foodstuffs etc - is largely from Scotland to the rUK, rather than the other way round, and the net flow of payments is the other way). This is one reason that the Westminster government will want currency union after independence.
The market nerves over Sterling were instructive. This wasn’t a market judgement on an independent Scotland, as the media is spinning it. It can’t be - there is no independent Scotland yet. It is a judgement on Sterling currency uncertainty. This is caused by the No camp’s bluff that they won’t join a currency union. In effect, with no currency union, the UK economy would be re-priced as if it had the trade deficit we talked about above. If that deficit is outside of the Sterling Zone, then the economy has to be revalued. This is obvious. That’s one reason why currency union is actually in rUK’s interests more than it is in Scotland’s.
Furthermore, it isn’t logical to have the liabilities that come with Sterling without the assets. If Scotland no longer shares the use of the Bank of England, then it no longer shares the UK debts. This is another reason that a week tomorrow, if we have voted Yes, the currency bluff will be called.
(Please note that the UK Treasury has said it would continue to honour debts amassed by the UK if Scotland becomes independent. It has said as the successor state to the debt, it alone is responsible for the debt. Now, the SNP Scottish government has said it will pay its share of that debt. It has never said it wouldn’t. All it has said is that it doesn’t have to, and that with liabilities come assets).
If you want a fuller discussion, go to the Big Thread. But excuse us for yawning. This is all old hat.
And lastly, if you think that a bunch of Tory-financing CEOs, bankers and Eton-educated toffs telling me that I should vote No in an way persuades me I’m making the wrong decision, then you’re very, very much mistaken.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
The Irish Times says that is Scotland breaks free, it will effectively destroy the rUK as a military power:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/defence-central-to-changes-if-scots-go-independent-1.1921047
Not that UK is the swaggering superpower it was back in days of yore, but according to the IT story, it won't even be able to 'punch above its weight' on the world stage, as I recall either Tom King or Douglas Hurd saying a few years ago.
And the Torygraph says:
The White Paper spells out Scotland’s precise demands. The RAF would be asked to hand over one squadron of 12 Typhoon fighters for the new Scottish air force. That may not sound much – until you remember that the RAF only has two squadrons of air defence jets. So the rebirth of an independent Scotland would deprive the RAF of 50 per cent of its strength in air-to-air combat.
Scotland would also demand two frigates from the Royal Navy. Again, that may not sound much – until you remember that the Navy only has 13 frigates. Along with six destroyers, that means Britain possesses 19 big warships. So Scotland would demand 10 per cent of the core of the surface fleet.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...d-would-think-weve-taken-leave-of-our-senses/
I can't see any London government blithely handing over that kind of kit without controversy, in fact the very suggestion is one for the "it is to laugh" file. So watch out for some major skin and hair flying over this one, once the saltire is raised over a Free Edinburgh.
I would also imagine that the average Scottish soldier (Sasaferrato to the white courtesy phone, please) is more likely to be fonder of the Union than his compatriots, and London could easily stir the pot by saying, "well, our kilted wonders will be entirely welcome to stay in HM forces should they so wish".
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/defence-central-to-changes-if-scots-go-independent-1.1921047
Not that UK is the swaggering superpower it was back in days of yore, but according to the IT story, it won't even be able to 'punch above its weight' on the world stage, as I recall either Tom King or Douglas Hurd saying a few years ago.
And the Torygraph says:
The White Paper spells out Scotland’s precise demands. The RAF would be asked to hand over one squadron of 12 Typhoon fighters for the new Scottish air force. That may not sound much – until you remember that the RAF only has two squadrons of air defence jets. So the rebirth of an independent Scotland would deprive the RAF of 50 per cent of its strength in air-to-air combat.
Scotland would also demand two frigates from the Royal Navy. Again, that may not sound much – until you remember that the Navy only has 13 frigates. Along with six destroyers, that means Britain possesses 19 big warships. So Scotland would demand 10 per cent of the core of the surface fleet.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...d-would-think-weve-taken-leave-of-our-senses/
I can't see any London government blithely handing over that kind of kit without controversy, in fact the very suggestion is one for the "it is to laugh" file. So watch out for some major skin and hair flying over this one, once the saltire is raised over a Free Edinburgh.
I would also imagine that the average Scottish soldier (Sasaferrato to the white courtesy phone, please) is more likely to be fonder of the Union than his compatriots, and London could easily stir the pot by saying, "well, our kilted wonders will be entirely welcome to stay in HM forces should they so wish".
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The post you replied to was sarcasm, borne of boredom with the re-surfacing of something that's been discussed over and over and over here in Scotland. For us, this is not a new scare, but an old one that London has only just heard of.
See my subsequent post for the non sarcastic response.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It's the first time I'd heard it as an announcement as opposed to a rumour/whisper/maybe.
In your subsequent post you didn't say anything about how the concern over job losses might influence the DKs. What're your views on that?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
We've strayed again from the thread topic. I apologize for my part in that; there are plenty of more appropriate threads.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
well, RBS has only said it believed it would be "necessary to re-domicile the bank's holding company". (IE, move the brass plaque).
"In a letter to staff, the bank's chief executive said there was no intention to move operations or jobs."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798
So there is no job threat. But of course the reason for the story re-surfacing is to cause fear & concern to voters, and it may well work, especially if they listen to Radio Scotland, which was just astonishing this morning. It was like a North Korean version of some sort of state controlled Daily Mail trying its damnedest not to be found guilty of committing thoughtcrime.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It isn't quite separate from government. The governor is appointed 'by the queen', which means by the Prime Minister. This is one of the things I think you are a little unrealistic about. Officially the governor is a civil servant working for the UK government, as are others in the BoE.
This is the kind of language they use about appointments:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/057.aspx
In other words, all major appointments are made by the government. The BofE isn't really independent, and I think it's far from obvious that the UK government will give the Scottish govt any kind of formal role in the appointment of UK civil servants. More likely, I would think, that Scotland would have as much say over the BofE as Ireland used to. IE zero.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
The Chancellor has exactly the same say over interest rates: zero. (This was a lever of government given away by Brown. But more importantly, the democratic control over interest rates is zero. Even if we vote No).
Now, I actually oppose currency union. (For a full discussion see the other thread). But the idea that Westminster has any control over interest rates is wrong. It has the same control that Euro zone countries have over interest rates. None.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The UK government has huge influence over every aspect of the BofE. For instance, it is the govt that sets the inflation target. And there is no way the BofE would ever do quantitative easing, for instance, without govt approval.
In practice, the bofe does what government wants it to do. It is accountable to parliament, and also
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/framework/framework.aspx
In other words, the bank of England remains 'independent' as long as it does what the govt wants it to do, but can lose that independence if it fails to do that.
And here's the rub - there are provisions for action in the 'national interest' such as taking the bank of england back under direct govt control. Where will an independent Scotland stand here? I think I can guess.
In practice, the bofe does what government wants it to do. It is accountable to parliament, and also
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/framework/framework.aspx
In other words, the bank of England remains 'independent' as long as it does what the govt wants it to do, but can lose that independence if it fails to do that.
And here's the rub - there are provisions for action in the 'national interest' such as taking the bank of england back under direct govt control. Where will an independent Scotland stand here? I think I can guess.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
What's your point, LBJ? That currency union isn't the best deal for Scotland? I agree. I've always said that. It's the best deal for the rUK, but not for Scotland. The rUK will not turn down CU after the vote; they'd be daft to.
But as I've also said all along, there is no such thing as total independence. No country has that. All have treaties, agreements, and obligations.
So, yes, I think we should be launching our own currency. (And perhaps Salmond plans to, 5 years down the line). But the reasons for supporting Yes still stand.
But as I've also said all along, there is no such thing as total independence. No country has that. All have treaties, agreements, and obligations.
So, yes, I think we should be launching our own currency. (And perhaps Salmond plans to, 5 years down the line). But the reasons for supporting Yes still stand.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Depends who stands to lose the most at that point. There will obviously be negotiation between the two parties so I think it might become brutally clear quite quickly whether the newly-independent Scotland feels keeping the pound is a higher priority than getting rid of the nukes.
Similar threads
