NS&I say Scots won't be able to hold premium bonds or other accounts if independent?

CLAPTON

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Just mentioning this in the context of the Premium Bonds and other NS&I products, but ISA's can only be held by UK Residents. Since Scotland won't be a part of the UK (according to the SNP), Scottish residents will have to have their ISA's converted to ordinary savings accounts.


It's all a huge mess which will make two countries who currently work synergistically to mutual advantage, poorer.

my understanding is that existing ISA don't need to be closed if you become non-resident although you can't add any more money.

Archi_Bald

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Just mentioning this in the context of the Premium Bonds and other NS&I products, but ISA's can only be held by UK Residents. Since Scotland won't be a part of the UK (according to the SNP), Scottish residents will have to have their ISA's converted to ordinary savings accounts.

Not true - non residents can hold existing ISAs. They just can't open a new one, or deposit more into an existing one.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm#14

Archi_Bald

zaax wrote: »

Don't forget it will be an EC border with the controls that go with it.

Like the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border

jimjames

CLAPTON wrote: »

my understanding is that existing ISA don't need to be closed if you become non-resident although you can't add any more money.

Could be an advantage to Scots moving away from this ISA at all costs mantra that seems to exist on mse.

rpc

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Like the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border

Which is between two members of the CTA.

There is no reason to expect an independent Scotland to join the CTA - standard EU terms require joining Schengen. Even if rUK wanted, the border arrangements post-Yes are not within the competency of Westminster or Holyrood.

If Scotland is outside the EU, border controls are required. If Scotland joins on the "non-negotiable" standard terms, border controls are required.

The only way Scotland could join the CTA and have no controls on the Scotland-rUK border is by persuading every single EU state to agree to it. I doubt that is going to happen (some because it goes against what they think Europe should be, others because they won't see it as fair that Scotland gets better terms than they did).

jamesd

BarrBru wrote: »

existing holders will be allowed to hold their investments, of that I'm sure but it adds doubt to investors minds.

The British government is likely to allow it. A Scottish government may well not because it might prefer to see the money lent to itself instead of the UK government. It's also unclear I assume how an independent Scotland would tax the products. Maybe a Scottish government wouldn't want to give tax relief for holding an investment that funds the British government rather than the Scottish?

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

ISA's can only be held by UK Residents. Since Scotland won't be a part of the UK (according to the SNP), Scottish residents will have to have their ISA's converted to ordinary savings accounts.

Those who aren't UK residents can keep the ones they have, they just can't pay in more and have to pay whatever their local taxes are, since ISAs aren't tax exempt outside the UK.

Buzby wrote: »

Spare a thought too for Royal Mail who will find they lose a swathe of their infrastructure as it is taken public again (north of the border). Then were warned of this possibility, but didn't seem to think it worthwhile mentioning in their prospectus.

State appropriation of private sector assets is hardly going to create a favourable atmosphere for external investment into Scotland. It's the sort of thing that tin pot dictatorships and failing third world governments get up to. It'd be a great way to encourage a capital flight out of Scotland, force up local interest rates and down the value of its currency. A Scottish government might still be reckless enough to do it for political reasons, though.

Aside from that, it'd be a great deal for Royal Mail to be relieved of the obligations to deliver to much of Scotland that's currently receiving a large subsidy from the rest of the union. Whether that can be spun ins some way to stop a capital flight is an interesting question. Maybe some creative politician can persuade Royal Mail to pay to lose the Scottish part of the business instead of laughing all of the way to the bank by getting rid of it for the loss of some not huge assets.

Heedtheadvice

Bru wrote

reverse the brain drain by introducing tax incentives that will entice industries in areas Scotland is strong such as Fund management/financial services, Medical research, games industry, IT.

I appreciate where you are coming from BB, those are strong areas of business in Scotland but just a relatively minor in terms of employment numbers. To make such a difference there would need to be big tax breaks to offset the potential downsides and compete with the South East of England.

Most of the drained brains go down to the SE where London is the main draw. I am not sure what percentage is there of the 800,000 Scots in England but I would expect many of those that you might wish to see return. I assume 250,000. That's a lot of new employment hence the big tax incentive that will be required. Somebody will have to pay for it as well as all the promised popularist socialist promised in the Yes campaign.

We have yet to get any real idea how much all this will cost in the short term (say 10 years) and how it will be financed. I also doubt if 'we' could afford all the 'popular' ideas as oil revenue does, as it will, wind down. I then fear, on behalf of future generations, for the stability of the economy. The UK benefits will then have been 'bought and sold for a pot of gold' to some in the short term. Shades of the Darian scheme in reverse springs to mind.

However we have hijacked this thread. The imponderables make for very difficult planning, certainly in the short term, I do not underestimate the current benefits of UK Gov system investments (Bonds, NS&I/ treasury or otherwise and the favourable ISA tax treatment) as well as those same ones that, if continued in the future, will benefit my offspring. I prefer continuity to risk; notwithstanding there might be some opportunity - but that is only a potential one. There is also opportunity as part of the UK!

6022tivo

Elsewhere wrote: »

Presumably they'll be closing their Glasgow office too and moving the jobs out of Scotland.

Yes, there are a lot of UK government offices around Scotland, soon to all close and move south of the border if Scotland gain independence. Lots of jobs lost.

Also, you won't get your pounds back from NS&I, you will be paid back in Euros, or even bawbees or what ever currency you adopt.



All this because Alex Salmond wants to appear important!

rpc

6022tivo wrote: »

Also, you won't get your pounds back from NS&I, you will be paid back in Euros, or even bawbees or what ever currency you adopt.

There are only two ways this could be approached:

1 - all investments belonging to Scottish residents are redenominated into the new iScottish currency (an administrative nightmare)

2 - Investments remain in pounds and investors are left with the choice of withdrawing them or facing currency risk

IronWolf

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Bru wrote
I appreciate where you are coming from BB, those are strong areas of business in Scotland but just a relatively minor in terms of employment numbers. To make such a difference there would need to be big tax breaks to offset the potential downsides and compete with the South East of England.

Most of the drained brains go down to the SE where London is the main draw. I am not sure what percentage is there of the 800,000 Scots in England but I would expect many of those that you might wish to see return. I assume 250,000. That's a lot of new employment hence the big tax incentive that will be required. Somebody will have to pay for it as well as all the promised popularist socialist promised in the Yes campaign.

We have yet to get any real idea how much all this will cost in the short term (say 10 years) and how it will be financed. I also doubt if 'we' could afford all the 'popular' ideas as oil revenue does, as it will, wind down. I then fear, on behalf of future generations, for the stability of the economy. The UK benefits will then have been 'bought and sold for a pot of gold' to some in the short term. Shades of the Darian scheme in reverse springs to mind.

However we have hijacked this thread. The imponderables make for very difficult planning, certainly in the short term, I do not underestimate the current benefits of UK Gov system investments (Bonds, NS&I/ treasury or otherwise and the favourable ISA tax treatment) as well as those same ones that, if continued in the future, will benefit my offspring. I prefer continuity to risk; notwithstanding there might be some opportunity - but that is only a potential one. There is also opportunity as part of the UK!

I also thought about Royal Mail, the first thing they will do is stop delivering to remote areas in Scotland as there will no longer be a legal obligation. If Scotland is part of the EU, which it says it automatically will be, it will then be forced to set up its own universal mail system, or pay Royal Mail to do it for them.