Tax implications for ISAs if Scotland becomes independent

feijoa

Sorry - don't know why there are huge gaps between my paras! Just put it down to old age and incompetence, I guess!:mad:

zagubov

feijoa wrote: »

The consequences of a vote for Scottish independence will be far-reaching for everyone in Scotland - and for many in the rest of the United Kingdom as well. Innovate makes the excellent point that the outcome of September's referendum will affect the future of our children and many generations to come. It is an issue which transcends party politics. We have been told - from the outset - that a vote for independence is irreversible.









Failing to lay before the Scottish electorate all the facts, positive and negative, relating to such a momentous decision is surely a dereliction of duty. And while I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the economics of trade and of the business world, I do know that what concerns the ordinary men and women in the streets of Scotland is how they and their families will fare in an independent Scotland. Crucial to this is what happens to their personal finances. While this may seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things, it is matters such as these - the minutiae of daily life - which preoccupies many of us.



I believe that instead of trying to score political points, both the Scottish and Westminster governments need to address these issues urgently and honestly. It is ridiculous for Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to insist that there will be a currency union, come what may - when Westminster has stated, repeatedly, that this will not happen. My opinion, or for that matter anyone else's, of the three chancellors' trustworthiness and integrity is beside the point. And I would be the first to say that both Westminster and Holyrood are far from perfect! However, I would not want to take a punt on whether or not the three of them are all bluffing re their stance on currency union. Come the general election in May 2015, the rUK elctorate will hold all three main parties to their promise of no currency union with an independent Scotland. So - having no 'plan B' re currency amply demonstrates the SNP's penchant for behaving in a head-in-the-sand manner when confronted with issues to which it does not wish to face.





And while it may be true that some in the rUK, as zagubov states, are barely aware this is happening - many of our friends and family in England are as troubled about the possible break-up of the union as we are. Sadly, others in rUK are seriously hacked off with Alex Salmond's constant belittling of the English. Hardly the way to win friends - or to keep those we already have.

I beg to differ. I've put in bold some of your comments that are worth further thought.

Firstly the trustworthyness of these three guys does matter. The electorate will have had thier say in 2015 and will be being ignored again by the time the negotiations of independence are finished in 2016. They'll be jeopardising their own parties chances in the Holyrood election too.

These guys if any of them are in power, will be tasked with defending rUK jobs and not jeopardising the ones that will be at risk from what could become increasingly expensive trade with their second-biggest trading partner.

And the bit about Alex Salmond belittling the English? Who what why where when how!
Find me an example, now I've wiped the coffee from all over my screen. :rotfl:
(There must be lots of examples for it to be "constant"!)

dunstonh

feijoa wrote: »

Sorry - don't know why there are huge gaps between my paras! Just put it down to old age and incompetence, I guess!:mad:

Or you could do what Alex Salmond does when he doesn't know something and blame the Westminster/English bullies.

Archi_Bald

zagubov wrote: »

And the bit about Alex Salmond belittling the English? Who what why where when how!

Every time he tells us that something "makes sense for the rest of the UK". We can think for ourselves, Mr Salmond, we do not need you to tell us what makes sense for us.

feijoa

zagubov, Alex Salmond, having previously stated that Scotland will be 'best pals' with England in an independent Scotland, constantly belittles the English. We up here have had to put up with his ill-concealed antipathy towards England for many long years. He seems to think that 'posh tory boy', 'posh Eton-educated toff', 'Westminster' and 'the English' are inter-changeable terms - all meaning much the same. With regard to Westminster, there are many of those in England living outside the M25 corridor who consider that the English regions get a pretty raw deal from those in the Westminster village.
This whole debate is becoming increasingly vicious - while at the same time failing, both in Holyrood and Westminster, to address the issues that matter to the electorate. Whichever way the vote goes, friendships - even inter-family relationships - will have been damaged irretrievably. This should be about what is best for all of the UK - and maybe Scotland will be better off as an independent nation. But we all need to have the issues laid clearly before us - warts and all - and in the spirit of honesty, before we vote in September. Now you may well say that there's no such thing as an honest politician, that they're all in it for what they can get - and I am tempted to agree with that view. That still doesn't alter the fact that we have precious little information relating to how our finances will be affected should Scotland vote for independence. The mudslinging needs to stop - and sensible debate needs to start. I raised the query about what would happen to ISAs and other tax-sheltered investments if Scotland votes for independence, as it would become a foreign country and not subject to UK taxation. It would be useful if either - or both - governments would answer this question.

Archi_Bald

You'll love this, feijoa - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297521/FInal_money_and_economy_pack.pdf

More "bullying", or as some of use would call it, facts. Would be nice to see something similar from the Nats.

zagubov

feijoa wrote: »

zagubov, Alex Salmond, having previously stated that Scotland will be 'best pals' with England in an independent Scotland, constantly belittles the English. We up here have had to put up with his ill-concealed antipathy towards England for many long years. He seems to think that 'posh tory boy', 'posh Eton-educated toff', 'Westminster' and 'the English' are inter-changeable terms - all meaning much the same. With regard to Westminster, there are many of those in England living outside the M25 corridor who consider that the English regions get a pretty raw deal from those in the Westminster village.
This whole debate is becoming increasingly vicious - while at the same time failing, both in Holyrood and Westminster, to address the issues that matter to the electorate. Whichever way the vote goes, friendships - even inter-family relationships - will have been damaged irretrievably. This should be about what is best for all of the UK - and maybe Scotland will be better off as an independent nation. But we all need to have the issues laid clearly before us - warts and all - and in the spirit of honesty, before we vote in September. Now you may well say that there's no such thing as an honest politician, that they're all in it for what they can get - and I am tempted to agree with that view. That still doesn't alter the fact that we have precious little information relating to how our finances will be affected should Scotland vote for independence. The mudslinging needs to stop - and sensible debate needs to start. I raised the query about what would happen to ISAs and other tax-sheltered investments if Scotland votes for independence, as it would become a foreign country and not subject to UK taxation. It would be useful if either - or both - governments would answer this question.

Feijoa, Salmond is criticising Westminster, not the English. The fact that Westminster is in England, and not say in Wales or Northern Ireland is irrelevent. It's the fact the government is far away from Scotland that makes it seem distant and remote eonough to adopt policies like parking the UK's nukes next to the biggest population centre in Scotland, dragging Scottish regiments into unpopular wars, and so on.

I know plenty of people down here in England who feel the same about Westminster as many Scots do. Many of them envy Scotland's potential ability to escape this mess. They don't see it as anti-English feeling.

I voted for devolution in my part of England. Many people wonder whether my part should in fact be separate from the whole UK.

sss555s

As a Scot who is in favour of independence, I have no gripe with any English people. The gripe is with Westminster and how they have been, continue and will run things.

Scotland will be better served governed from within. I also feel for the rest of the UK who feel let down by Westminster with all its eggs in one basket (London).

I'm happy enough with Salmond playing his cards close to his chest at this stage. If he blurted everything out then Westminster would throw everything at picking holes in every fine detail.

I'm pretty sure Scotland will honour ISAs. Why wouldn't they?

dunstonh

The gripe is with Westminster and how they have been, continue and will run things.

And you think the Scottish Parliament will be any better? The grass is always greener on the other side. Local and county councils make pigs ears of things at times. They have people that a capable and people that are not. Location of the building in which they sit doesnt change it. If you get independence, there will be a honeymoon period and then the same things you say about Westminster will apply to the Scottish Parliament.

I'm happy enough with Salmond playing his cards close to his chest at this stage. If he blurted everything out then Westminster would throw everything at picking holes in every fine detail.

And if it was good for Scotland, he could counter those things instead of shouting down the people that say it.

I'm pretty sure Scotland will honour ISAs. Why wouldn't they?

The probably will to begin with. However, there will be a divergence over time.

zagubov

dunstonh wrote: »

And you think the Scottish Parliament will be any better? The grass is always greener on the other side. Local and county councils make pigs ears of things at times. They have people that a capable and people that are not. Location of the building in which they sit doesnt change it. If you get independence, there will be a honeymoon period and then the same things you say about Westminster will apply to the Scottish Parliament.

Maybe you should check the Swedish postwar election results to see whether that always happens especially if you find the ideal right-left balance to keep the voters happy and prosperous - kind of like how things are now ( I don't know what post-war would mean to a neutral Swede so I mean post WWII).

dunstonh wrote: »

And if it was good for Scotland, he could counter those things instead of shouting down the people that say it.

With the non-Scotland-based media focussing on the No side's attacks on the Yes side, it wouldn't matter if he could counter those things- he'd be so busy doing it he'd have no time for anything else. He's a smart man for keeping his lips sealed for now.