Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

planteria

TCA wrote: »

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.

Barroso's comments were actually not news at all. he wasnt really stating an opinion, he was just observing. as you say, it will be the Council of Ministers that will make decisions. but Barroso knows how some of those decisions will go already. ie. it won't happen.

planteria

jamesd wrote: »

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.

totally agree. i don't bank with NatWest now. i'd be more likely to if NatWest was a stand alone bank based in England.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

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.

Yes, I think Salmond is attempting to portray Osborne as being unreasonable, unwilling to negotiate and acting contrary to rUK's interests. That obviously doesn't endear him to anyone in rUK - equal to some of the reaction in Scotland to Osborne's manner in which he ruled out a currency union. I agree it's not for Salmond to talk for rUK and they don't like it when he does. But that's of little relevance to him. It's how the Scottish voters view the situation that matters to him.

IMO, his stuff about fx transaction costs for English business doesn't stack up anyway. The Scots would face the same in far greater proportion.

All I'm saying is that he's put forward his preferred option for a currency union. Regardless of what statements come out of Westminster, he's hardly likely to just jump to another option. At least not yet........

TCA

planteria wrote: »

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.

Ah but it is a game. Politicians campaign for all sorts of things they can't get. Give it time. Plan B will emerge eventually.

black_taxi_2

but wouldn't England,Wales,n Ireland be a diff country if Scotland said yes,so they would have to reapply to EU.

TCA

jamesd wrote: »

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.

I don't know the real figures and can't recall if HM Treasury gave an exact proportion, but this below is the response from Scottish Finance Minister, John Swinney:

"The size of the Scottish financial services sector as a proportion of the overall onshore Scottish economy is 8.0% – similar to the UK – and smaller than the UK at 6.9% when a geographical share of oil and gas output is included. UK analysis overstates the size of the banking sector in Scotland - To obtain a figure of £1.89 trillion (equivalent to over 12 times the size of the economy) a large proportion of the assets 'allocated' to Scotland relate to activity based in London. This activity would not, under the UK Government's existing plans to split retail and investment banking, be covered by any future government bail out."

silverwhistle

jamesd wrote: »

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.

.. particularly after the examples of Iceland and Cyprus.

The fx issue is an interesting one. In the short term I could see a "scottish pound" with an exchange rate linked to sterling, although it wouldn't improve the acceptance of Scottish notes: "sorry mate" could become "you must be joking".. There are certainly examples of this elsewhere in the world, but they've never been particularly stable or long-term, it seems to me. Perhaps somebody else can enlighten us here? It might help border dwellers and some commercial transactions. Isn't that what happened to the Irish pound initially, with a divergence soon after? I seem to recall a holiday over there many years ago where they were quite happy to accept sterling as it had a small premium over the punt.

In the medium term before acceptance into the euro Scotland might have fx charges for all external transactions!

talexuser

TCA wrote: »

under the UK Government's existing plans to split retail and investment banking,"

What plans to split banking? It's 6 years on from the crunch and I've seen nothing substantial in the way of reform to make another crunch impossible, just bailout increasing of all bank's capital by printing money at the expense of savers and the wider economy. Business and bonuses as usual.

atush

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 am not 'south of the border', and can see scotland from my kitchen window. Yet I remain amused and mystified.

TCA

silverwhistle wrote: »

The fx issue is an interesting one. In the short term I could see a "scottish pound" with an exchange rate linked to sterling

That could well be the de facto plan B. And probably the outcome that would suit rUK best and what Osborne is hoping for. It's probably more palatable to the Scottish electorate than a scary new currency but could be put forward as a stepping stone to it.

talexuser wrote: »

What plans to split banking?

No idea. Didn't make much sense to me either. Don't shoot the messenger.

atush wrote: »

i am not 'south of the border', and can see scotland from my kitchen window. Yet I remain amused and mystified.

Which I would say puts you in the majority!