Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

planteria

i agree with ColdIron, the Scots will vote to remain part of the union.

ColdIron wrote: »

You say this as if it's a bad thing

:laugh: it most certainly would not be a bad thing, if it were to happen. we could do with some proper financial management for the long-term... the problems are much deeper than can be tackled properly within a parliamentary term. if Labour can sneak back in, even as part of a Lab-Lib coalition, they'll be causing populist damage that we, and our children, just can't take. proper lessons ought to have been learned, but they certainly haven't been amongst the shadow cabinet.

back to laser707's original question, i am slightly biased in favour of England-based financial institutions, especially with the potential for change ahead. The Share Centre's Buckinghamshire / III's Glasgow:think:

planteria

innovate wrote: »

Agree, it makes a lot of sense for the scots. Unfortunately, the Yes campaign hasn't fully clicked that it makes next to zero sense for the rest of the UK, and that therefore it won't ever happen. The rest of the UK won't let themselves bully by a minority vote.

In answer to the OP's question: even if they did vote for independence, which I don't think they actually will, but if they did it would take years for the split to actually getting implemented. Some companies, particularly financial ones, would most likely set themselves at least partly up with a UK headquarters before the split. You'd also have ages to transfer your investments onto home territory, probably at no direct cost to you. This is just my personal view - as ColdIron already remarked, oily Al doesn't appear to have thought this through.

agree entirely. if there is a split there will be lots of companies that still cover the whole of the island of Britain, based both sides of the border, that will ensure that they can do so without their customers, based both sides of the border, are looked after properly.

CLAPTON

on the precautionary, I would move all my own financial products out of scottish institutions unless the UK government has specifically guaranteed them.

I would do it now as if a yes vote becomes very likely others may want to follow suit

DaveTheMus

I really scratch my head at the whole 'RBS would've bankrupted them'.....

Surely, true free-market capitalism would've run it's course and RBS would have been consigned to histories rubbish tip, rather than bankrupting the entire country, look at Iceland, the economies growing and the guilty bankers are in jail.

atush

As I am effectively an outside observer with no stake, I see no bullying from Cameron but see bloodymindedness by those seeking independance.

I can't see an independant Scotland has any right to use GBP and can't see it being in the interests of the UK to allow it. I personally think independance would be an economic disaster for Scotland.

planteria

innovate wrote: »

We have also seen, and can still see it every day, what a currency union without a fiscal union, can do to countries (Ireland, Greece, Spain) and a whole economic area

entirely agree, currency union without fiscal union doesn't make sense at all. there will, eventually, be fiscal union in the EU. thank the Lord we are outside of it.

Thrugelmir

GingerFurball wrote: »

How would RBS have been solely Scotland's responsibilty, when the largest constituent part of the RBS Group is NatWest?

Seriously? Ultser Bank, ABN Amro, Citizens bank......... After all RBS was the largest bank in the world for a short time.

NatWest was probably one of the better parts!

Suggest you read an excellent book.

Making It Happen: Fred Goodwin, RBS and the Men Who Blew up the British Economy by Iain Martin

planteria

dunstonh wrote: »

...You would likely have seen it broken up with some parts losing their money with the UK protecting its depositors and Scotland unable to protect its depositors. It is messy and complicated and there are multiple ways it could pan out.

However, one thing that is almost certain is that the RBS would be relocated to London with job losses in Scotland.

if only they could have voted for indepedence prior to the crunch;)

CLAPTON

DaveTheMus wrote: »

I really scratch my head at the whole 'RBS would've bankrupted them'.....

Surely, true free-market capitalism would've run it's course and RBS would have been consigned to histories rubbish tip, rather than bankrupting the entire country, look at Iceland, the economies growing and the guilty bankers are in jail.

If Scottish companies, local authorities, private individuals had been foolish enough to use RBS as their banker and RBS went bankrupt and assigned to the rubbish tip, then all those depositors would lose their money;

Half of scottish industry and commerce would them be unable to pay their staff and their suppliers and any private depositors would be unable to access their own money and be unable to pay their bills.

This maybe would have caused some concern.

Remember, the banks weren't bailed out, it was the depositors that were bailed out.

planteria

GingerFurball wrote: »

How would RBS have been solely Scotland's responsibilty, when the largest constituent part of the RBS Group is NatWest?

is NatWest the 'largest constituent' of RBS Group? with Ulster Bank, ABN Amro and the Investment Bank? does NatWest have most branches?...perhaps it does, but i'd be interested to know what percentage NatWest represents in the whole of the RBS business.