Effect of Scottish Independence Vote

Scottish_Referendum_-_Gov

Hi everyone,
Here are some key facts from theUK Gov’s ‘Money and Economy’ factsheet

• Nations within the UK have strong, important and beneficial trade links - in 2012, Scotland sold £48 billion worth of goods and services to the rest of the UK and bought £60 billion worth of goods from the rest of the UK.
• The UK Government supported the injection of over £45 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008 and offered the bank a further £275 billion of guarantees and state support to protect our financial systems. This total level of support would have been more than double the total size of Scotland’s economy in that year.
• Greater financial protection for savers and pensioners through the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
• With 63m people in the UK we share risks and spread costs.

The full factsheet can be foundhere; gov.uk/government/collections/scottish-independence-referendum-factsheets

TCA

Scottish_Referendum_-_Gov wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Here are some key facts from theUK Gov’s ‘Money and Economy’ factsheet

• 1) Nations within the UK have strong, important and beneficial trade links - in 2012, Scotland sold £48 billion worth of goods and services to the rest of the UK and bought £60 billion worth of goods from the rest of the UK.
• 2) The UK Government supported the injection of over £45 billion into the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2008 and offered the bank a further £275 billion of guarantees and state support to protect our financial systems. This total level of support would have been more than double the total size of Scotland’s economy in that year.
• 3) Greater financial protection for savers and pensioners through the UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The full factsheet can be foundhere; gov.uk/government/collections/scottish-independence-referendum-factsheets

Thanks for even more useless unionist sound bites and propaganda.

1) Nice stats. Are you insinuating that trade links would evaporate after independence? They won't. That would be in nobody's interests.

2) Fed up hearing about RBS. It was a UK bank operating in a UK banking system and was bailed out by the UK. Did you expect the Scottish government to cough up all the money just because the bank has a head office in Edinburgh?

As a point of reference, by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country and get into these sorts of difficulties, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries. In the case of RBS, roughly 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland, the result being, by that convention, therefore, that the rest of the UK would have to carry 90% of the liabilities of RBS and Scotland 10%.

The precedent for this is Fortis Bank and Dexia Bank, two banks which were shared between France, Belgium and the Netherlands, at the same time were bailed out in proportion by France, Belgium and the Netherlands. So if Scotland went its own way, Scotland wouldn't be tasked with bailing out the English operations of the bank.

Also remember 80% of all losses generated by RBS came from their London based investment banking division. Under new potential EU legislation a business may have to have its headquarters where its centre of business lies. For RBS, that's obviously England. That might clear the thinking a bit. And let's not forget who got all the tax revenue from RBS anyway over the years.

Lastly, perhaps an independent Scotland might have regulated its banks a bit better and avoided any collapse. This happened on the watch of UK regulators! Don't forget to take the credit for that. Better together? I don't think so.

3) Greater protection than what? An independent Scotland would offer equal protection for bank deposits. When has anybody said otherwise?

grey_gym_sock

Scottish_Referendum_-_Gov wrote: »

...

this kind of post is a very strange role for an "official organisation representative". it's not giving assistance for how to deal with a public agency - unlike, for instance, some helpful posts i've seen from the land registry. it's just arguing the unionist case.

this happens to be a case i agree with (though it's not been very well argued here by the "official representative", IMHO), but why is an official representative arguing this case? it's a political debate.

and is the official representative a civil servant? if so, why are they advocating a controversial government policy?

this would not be the first time during this debate that civil servants' supposed neutrality has been overridden by the "no" campaign.

chucknorris

I'm really glad that I sold my Infinis shares, I managed to get out flat (no loss, but obviously no profit either). I think a yes vote would result in the share price collapsing.

Archi_Bald

TCA wrote: »

Also remember 80% of all losses generated by RBS came from their London based investment banking division.

Amazing. You make it sound as if it was the fault of their London based investment division, and you completely ignore that the strings were all pulled by some scottish megalomaniac, from his HQ in Edinburgh.

At least oily Al had the good sense to distance himself from the megalomaniac, after the vast damage the guy had done became apparent. Although any sane person must wonder whether Salmond is in fact capable of assessing the magnitude of huge decisions (not that he is the only person this applies to).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16835023

TCA

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Amazing. You make it sound as if it was the fault of their London based investment division, and you completely ignore that the strings were all pulled by some scottish megalomaniac, from his HQ in Edinburgh.

I used to work for RBS, so I know exactly where the likes of the ABN Amro deal was done. And it wasn't Edinburgh. Yet again you're quick to point to the head office. Try reading my last post regarding main geographical areas of business activities and EU Council Directive 95/26/EC. If you think RBS is a Scottish bank in anything other than name and where the company is registered, you're kidding yourself.

Archi_Bald

TCA wrote: »

I used to work for RBS, so I know exactly where the likes of the ABN Amro deal was done. And it wasn't Edinburgh. Yet again you're quick to point to the head office. Try reading my last post regarding main geographical areas of business activities and EU Council Directive 95/26/EC. If you think RBS is a Scottish bank in anything other than name and where the company is registered, you're kidding yourself.

LOL. As an ex-RBSer, you should then know better than anyone else who was behind the RBS expansion efforts. It wasn't somebody anonymous, it was one person by the name of Fred Goodwin. Megalomaniac extraordinaire. Fuelled by all sorts of ill-advised other individuals, amongst them Alex Salmond. None of these guys I would now trust as far as I can throw them.

TCA

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It wasn't somebody anonymous, it was one person by the name of Fred Goodwin. Megalomaniac extraordinaire.

Doesn't matter a jot. The insinuation by our new poster (and the No campaign) is that the UK was somehow magnanimously saving a Scottish business that an otherwise independent Scotland wouldn't have been able to. For the reasons I responded with above, that's just rubbish. I think you know this, so I'll stop biting. Happy fishing!

Ainsley1

Joining this debate rather late but well before the vote....

...but a fairly valid point made (that seems to have been overlooked) is that there is a reduced risk to us all (irrespective of where in the UK we live) by the pooled (and therefore greater and more diverse) assets, ...twas made was it not?

However the down side of the larger unit is more difficulty keeping everyone happy or even representing them. Cannot help but wonder if the beneficiaries of an independent Scotland will be centered on Edinburgh or Aberdeen? Many things seem to be going there already (centralised police force, fire service, infrastructure spending, house price rises, jobs, highest wages...)

On the 'debate'...
I find it odd how well the Yes camp politicians ( as well as the Nos too) manage to twist statements. One that struck me this week was the Defence Minister's statement (about Defence orders) "....there is no guarantee....." and the weasel word response from the First Minister " ...oh yes there is!" - I paraphrase obviously, but the meaning is there!

...and also that the people of Scotland would decide the future policies of Scotland (just like the UK pop does for the UK??) and not the SNP. So, where's the value in the SNP's Manifesto ( sorry, White Paper) - just a wish list for the party, not what we will get 'cos we might demand something different...??
A pity in many respects that the No campaign cannot get their act together as well as the Yes who seem to have come up with a popular 'promise'
, groundless or not. The No parties just seem incoherent with no structured positive argument!

planteria

how are the polls looking now?
i'm still hoping for a "Yes":wave: