What IF they vote YES.... Will it effect us??

qwert_yuiop

Cotta wrote: »

I'm not scaremongering the realities are that Scotland's wish list of availing of the UK defence structures, keeping the sterling and accepting UK interest rates are pie in the sky requests. The only thing they will get is the Queen remaining head of state as it will still be within the Commonwealth.

If anything is negatvie I find the agressive nature of the "Yes" camp to be such, shouting down and calling anyone against independence a "traitor".

The most ridiculous one is Nicola sturgeon -

- we need independence to save the nhs. That's the same nhs they've been responsible for since 1999

- the Royal Navy will continue to have their ships built on the clyde. Rubbish. Everyone from here knows the Belfast shipyard workers were so unionist in 1912 for that very reason. H and w was ready to move to Liverpool.

- thatcher and the Tories have wrecked the Scottish economy/ Scotland is a wealthy country. Which is correct today, Nicola? Which will be correct tomorrow?

Mistral001

The drop in the value of the pound today is significant I think. Commentators say that it is because of the fear of the loss of North Sea oil if Scotland votes for separation, but is that really the whole story. For instance, is Scotland going to accept its share of the national debt? I suppose they could say that they did not create the debt and are not going take any responsibility for it. If they insist on keeping the pound there will be no separate Scottish currency to be devaluated and since defaulting on debt would probably make investors run for the hills and a big devaluation would probably take place after separation and a new pound. Looks like Alex has played his hand well.


I suppose that is off topic. How will it affect us? Well people in south east Down and parts of Antrim who have a strong Scottish accent might have to show proof that they are not Scottish when applying for a loan!!

RikM

Mistral001 wrote: »

The drop in the value of the pound today is significant I think. Commentators say that it is because of the fear of the loss of North Sea oil if Scotland votes for separation, but is that really the whole story. For instance, is Scotland going to accept its share of the national debt? I suppose they could say that they did not create the debt and are not going take any responsibility for it. If they insist on keeping the pound there will be no separate Scottish currency to be devaluated and since defaulting on debt would probably make investors run for the hills and a big devaluation would probably take place after separation and a new pound. Looks like Alex has played his hand well.


I suppose that is off topic. How will it affect us? Well people in south east Down and parts of Antrim who have a strong Scottish accent might have to show proof that they are not Scottish when applying for a loan!!

Or the UK could continue to offer "British" nationality to people born on the island, regardless... There's precedent for that, after all... :eek:

Mistral001

RikM wrote: »

Or the UK could continue to offer "British" nationality to people born on the island, regardless... There's precedent for that, after all... :eek:

Actually my point was that if Scotland did not accept its part of the national debt the big lenders outside of Scotland might not want to lend to people/institutions/businesses from an independent Scotland. they might be a little frosty towards the Scottish accent.

qwert_yuiop

Just checked out this dive in the value of the pound. At a rough guess I'd say it's dived more than that on a thousand occasions in my lifetime.
So the significance is - not very much really. The loss of any oil wealth has been factored into the pound by the markets for years, now that production is only half what it was in 2000.

saverbuyer

Mistral001 wrote: »

Actually my point was that if Scotland did not accept its part of the national debt the big lenders outside of Scotland might not want to lend to people/institutions/businesses from an independent Scotland. they might be a little frosty towards the Scottish accent.

Can't see it having much of an effect. Ireland was bailed out and can now borrow at 1.75% over 10 years. The UK has defaulted at least 4 times. The money markets don’t seem to have long memories.

A.L.D.A

saverbuyer wrote: »

Can't see it having much of an effect. Ireland was bailed out and can now borrow at 1.75% over 10 years. The UK has defaulted at least 4 times. The money markets don’t seem to have long memories.

The only time I am aware of would possible be the war debt in 1932 but in truth that was a cut in rate rather than a default. It is difficult for a country, with its own currency, to default for obvious reasons. The UK has historically been exemplary when compared to say Germany.

If there is a Yes vote there is likely to be a run on the pound, (it really has not set in yet) simply people, leveraging up and taking positions to make a quick kill (they hope). Hopefully the chancellor will not make the same mistakes as Lamont. Let it fall, and let it find a floor, don't waste money trying to support. They could even take positions against the currency (is that legal?) Now there is a thought! Take positions against your own currency to make profit whilst devaluing its value and your liabilities in that currency. When the dust has settled buy back with dollars or whatever you have speculated in. Should be plenty of expertise in the City for that sort of venture.

From the point of view of us mere mortals, if you have money consider getting out of Sterling for a while. See that is how it all starts, first a trickle then a flood and fear becomes a reality.

RikM

A.L.D.A wrote: »

They could even take positions against the currency (is that legal?) Now there is a thought! Take positions against your own currency to make profit whilst devaluing its value and your liabilities in that currency. When the dust has settled buy back with dollars or whatever you have speculated in. Should be plenty of expertise in the City for that sort of venture.

I suspect this would be termed "insider trading" or something like that. Or maybe just "fraud"...

A.L.D.A

RikM wrote: »

I suspect this would be termed "insider trading" or something like that. Or maybe just "fraud"...

Of course it is insider trading. I doubt if any government would get away with it. Would make a country a pariah. I was exaggerating to make a point.

However if there is a potential currency crisis consideration needs to be given to how low before intervention. In preparation and early support they could say buy gold etc. (and I am not one of those invest in gold fanatics.) Now is that insider trading or prudent planning and would such action help to create the problem you seek to avoid? Perception is everything (almost) in such matters.

RikM

A.L.D.A wrote: »

Of course it is insider trading. I doubt if any government would get away with it. Would make a country a pariah. I was exaggerating to make a point.

However if there is a potential currency crisis consideration needs to be given to how low before intervention. In preparation and early support they could say buy gold etc. (and I am not one of those invest in gold fanatics.) Now is that insider trading or prudent planning and would such action help to create the problem you seek to avoid? Perception is everything (almost) in such matters.

Well the main difference, is whether you act on information which is generally available, or whether it's knowledge you have from internal sources.
If general opinion is that the currency would tank on a "yes" vote, then hedging on that would probably just be prudent. On the other hand, if they had good knowledge pointing to a high likelihood of a "yes", which was not publicly available, then that may be a problem...