Tax implications for ISAs if Scotland becomes independent

MumOf2

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.

Brilliantly put. Thank you.


Mumf2

MumOf2

Back to the original topic, the fate of ISAs and other tax sheltered savings and investments is a real concern. Especially to those who are getting closer to retirement as this will significantly affect lifestyle and longevity when earned income isn't coming in any more. Voters need more information not more electioneering.


MumOf2

ColdIron

sss555s wrote: »

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.

What a remarkable point of view, as in worthy of remark

Your assertion is that Oily Al's apparent inability to answer fundamental questions, asked by the people he wants to vote for the dissolution a centuries old union, is motivated purely by a desire to deny the other party in the union the ability to respond to them?

I suppose if he can pull that off then he deserves to win and the people that vote for him have no-one to blame but themselves

dunstonh

zagubov wrote: »

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).

Scotland doesn't appear to have that balance between right-left. It appears much more left.

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.

He is a smart man. That I do not deny. He has realised that a large number of Scots are quite happy to vote with their heart and not their head and that it is better to stoke up anti-westminster feeling than it is to appeal to those voters who are using their heads. People in Scotland should be voting on the basis of the positives and negatives that have been explained to them. Every negative is slammed by the Nats. Usually by slagging off the person saying it rather than actually explaining what the alternative view is.

The No camp may have some things right and some things wrong. However, we don't know as the Nats rarely give anything to explain what they are going to do.

Herbalus

dunstonh wrote: »

(Salmond) has realised that a large number of Scots are quite happy to vote with their heart and not their head and that it is better to stoke up anti-westminster feeling than it is to appeal to those voters who are using their heads.

I assumed it was because there isn't a lot of appeal to those voters who are using their heads....

feijoa

Again, my thanks to those of you who have replied to my original query. As dunstonh says, we need to be voting with our heads - for the decision that we make in September will have ramifications for generations to come. It is incumbent upon all politicians in both Westminster and Holyrood to state the facts to the people of Scotland - simple as that. This is not the time to be playing silly party political games with the electorate.
Thank you, Archi Bald, for the link. I've printed the document and shall read and inwardly digest! Essential reading for all those who will be voting in the referendum, I should say.

sss555s

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.

No one is saying everything will be perfect, but the current set up is creating an ever increasing split in UK "prosperity".

A self-governed Scotland can address Scottish affairs better than Westminster can.

ColdIron wrote: »

What a remarkable point of view, as in worthy of remark

Your assertion is that Oily Al's apparent inability to answer fundamental questions, asked by the people he wants to vote for the dissolution a centuries old union, is motivated purely by a desire to deny the other party in the union the ability to respond to them?

I suppose if he can pull that off then he deserves to win and the people that vote for him have no-one to blame but themselves

The important time is closer to the vote. There is a lot of "bluster from the rump" and the Westminster media machine (BBC Scotland) so he has to play smart.
If there are still a lot of doubts come polling day then the YES may struggle to win the vote.

Scotland can be a prosperous independent country on it's own but will keep falling behind while under Westminster control.