Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

jamesd

TCA wrote: »

The mass outrage from south of the border at his apparent bullying is hilarious.

You really need to get a grip. There's no mass outrage. It's a sideshow and perhaps some sadness if the Scots in Scotland, but not outside it, choose to do something silly. If they want to go for it and deal with the consequences, that's fine.

TCA

planteria wrote: »

he's just told the truth. appreciated or not.:)

I think Osborne more took a position, than told the truth. A week ago it was "unlikely" or "improbable" that a currency union would take place. Then it was a definite no. It would be foolish to assume it's a campaign tactic and I doubt that it is. Salmond is saying such outwardly but he cannot carry forward his independence proposition saying that it's a bluff.

planteria wrote: »

but that is how it should be, surely, TCA? If Scotland leaves the UK, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not going to agree to a currency union with Scotland. So it is right for George Osborne to say so. What is wrong is for Alex Salmond to try to convince the Scots that he's wrong.

This is politics. Politicians put forward a position and try to back it up. The truth rarely comes into it. A currency union would undoubtedly be a good result for Scotland and Salmond will fight his corner for that. Whether achievable or not. I'm just saying he can do and say what he wants. Calling him a liar is up to you. We could call them all liars.

planteria wrote: »

on the contrary. no annoyance, just amusement. it seems it's the Scots that are annoyed.

If you read any recent stuff on the internet (especially the BBC), there's plenty directed at Salmond, but it's all par for the course. It's the business he's in. Some Scots will be annoyed to be told what they can't have. Despite vowing to keep out the independence debate, Tory ministers keep popping up in Scotland just to tell people what they can't have. They're never seen at any other time. That doesn't help their cause.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

You really need to get a grip. There's no mass outrage. It's a sideshow and perhaps some sadness if the Scots in Scotland, but not outside it, choose to do something silly. If they want to go for it and deal with the consequences, that's fine.

OK, mass outrage was OTT. Very OTT actually. That's a result of me reading a lot on the subject over the weekend and being bored with the relentless negativity from posters south of the border. I imagine the whole debate is a non-issue for many in England but for those who do engage, it's tedious to read their endless diatribes of doom and gloom at the prospect of Scotland going it alone.

Your own sentence "If they want to go for it and deal with the consequences, that's fine" is qualified by many saying those consequences will inevitably be disastrous.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

It's how the current passport system works, the system of the EEA country which authorises the firm has the liability:

And of course, a foreign institution, whether in a newly foreign Scotland or not, could choose to try to join the FSCS even if eligible for the passport system. I assume that most would try to do that.

Not sure if you're just pontificating or missed my point. We weren't discussing how it could work, we were talking about how it actually works right now. The suggestion was that the Scottish government should have picked up the tab for the RBS debacle. I was refuting that.

TCA

macman wrote: »

For me though, what will sway the undecided is the announcement from Baroso that Scotland will have to apply for EU membership like any other new state (which I'd assumed to be the case anyway). So that will take a minimum of 2 to 3 years, require Scotland to join the euro zone, and require them to join the Schengen agreement (no opt-outs are possible now for new members). So, no possibility of a sterling currency union, and the introduction of border controls between Scotland and the remainder of the UK.

Barroso retires in May and is head of the EU Commission. They don't make the decisions on EU membership. That's down to the Council of The European Union (Council of Ministers), the representatives of each member nation. Barroso has an opinion and countless others have been given by so-called experts backing up both positions.

Scotland would only theoretically be required to agree to adopting the Euro. See previous the post by grey gym sock in this thread regarding Sweden.

jamesd

I don't see a lot of negativity, just considering consequence and how various groups may act.

Negative from the viewpoint of the leader of the SNP, I suppose, since it's not telling him what he wants to hear. Sad for him. He doesn't get to decide what the other fifty (Britain and Northern Ireland) and five hundred million (EEA) are willing to agree to.

planteria

jamesd wrote: »

You really need to get a grip. There's no mass outrage. It's a sideshow and perhaps some sadness if the Scots in Scotland, but not outside it, choose to do something silly. If they want to go for it and deal with the consequences, that's fine.

James is right TCA.

jamesd

TCA wrote: »

Not sure if you're just pontificating or missed my point. We weren't discussing how it could work, we were talking about how it actually works right now. The suggestion was that the Scottish government should have picked up the tab for the RBS debacle. I was refuting that.

In that case, no, because it was in the UK and the responsibility lay with the FSCS and the UK government. But in the future it may end up being the responsibility of the government of an independent Scotland. I found it more useful to discuss how it might be handled in that future situation. Relocating HQ to Britain and Northern Ireland and being part of the FSCS seems most likely, though splitting the NatWest business to handle south of the border operations is another possibility. Whatever its owners the shareholders, majority currently the UK government, decide.

Not really realistic to expect a high percentage of existing Britain and Northern Ireland customers to rely on the guarantee of an independent Scotland government because of the size of the economy relative to the size of the financial institutions. But that size can be made moot easily enough, so it would just take some hassle and some business reorganising to deal with it.

planteria

TCA wrote: »

Calling him a liar is up to you.

it is a lie to suggest that he can win. an independent Scotland will not be awarded a currency union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. there's no game.

planteria

TCA wrote: »

OK, mass outrage was OTT. Very OTT actually. That's a result of me reading a lot on the subject over the weekend and being bored with the relentless negativity from posters south of the border. I imagine the whole debate is a non-issue for many in England but for those who do engage, it's tedious to read their endless diatribes of doom and gloom at the prospect of Scotland going it alone.

fair play for being so honest. and you are absolutely right. i think there will be doom and gloom for Scotland if they vote for independence and then make a porridge of running their country. but the potential to do very well remains. as a Eurosceptic, i may finish up slightly envious of Scotland being refused entry to the EU while we remain in it;)