Scottish independence

Doshwaster

Buzby wrote: »

Pay for the shares? You're really giving a laugh! There will be a settlement where the assets in Scotland will be transferred to the new SPO. The Royal Mail will continue as before but within its own territory - no need to 'buy shares' as at the time of the sell-off, it was well known Scotland was going to vote for independence but the promoters declined to advise purchasers in the prospectus. In which case, you have a claim for misselling.

I know this site promotes money saving but I didn't know that it advises the best way to save money is theft.

Archi_Bald

It's quite funny really how some people seem to have bought into the "more prosperous once independent" message but at the same time are talking about nationalisation (of companies that aren't even HQed in Scotland) and about expropriation.

An independent Scotland would be the first country on the planet in which nationalised companies would contribute to increased prosperity. But I suppose pigs could fly, too.

Doshwaster

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It's quite funny really how some people seem to have bought into the "more prosperous once independent" message but at the same time are talking about nationalisation (of companies that aren't even HQed in Scotland) and about expropriation.

That just shows the unholy alliance of the Yes campaign between those who are more sensible and the lunatic socialists.

No wonder businesses (and the rest of us) are getting nervous.

jimjames

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It's quite funny really how some people seem to have bought into the "more prosperous once independent" message but at the same time are talking about nationalisation (of companies that aren't even HQed in Scotland) and about expropriation.

And how adding additional costs by setting up new institutions, spending more and lowering taxes without any more borrowing are all possible. Although by defaulting on debts more borrowing is unlikely to be possible anyway.

If you listen to the SNP then Scottish independence will be the first divorce in history where both parties walk away with more than they had beforehand.

The article listed previously in post #384 seems a pretty good description of the Yes campaign - say Yes to anything without actually thinking if it is possible. Anyone who questions it is automatically scaremongering or biased. http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/

Suggesting that RBS were politically motivated to declare what would happen in the event of independence is biased in itself. If the banks like RBS had waited till Friday to announce that they were moving HQ to London then withholding information like that from the electorate is far more serious I think.

irm

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Personally I am not going to sell up all my ISAs and pension assets and sit in cash and then somehow try to buy it all back again the next day. I'd have a lot to sell and it would be a big gamble. I do have some bets on the referendum outcome and FX rate movements but those are just a bit of fun on the side.

A balanced and reasonable discussion of the points as always, thanks.

Shame we haven't had more of that from a certain camp.

rpc

jimjames wrote: »

And how adding additional costs by setting up new institutions, spending more and lowering taxes without any more borrowing are all possible. Although by defaulting on debts more borrowing is unlikely to be possible anyway.

Those new institutions will cost less than the construction cost of the parliament building. The big fish said so!

And of course we will be able to borrow. Just because the high yield and junk bond markets aren't as appealing as an issuer doesn't mean that we can't borrow. Clearly, that is far better than accepting our share of debt and being an investment grade issuer (albeit with a higher cost of finance than the UK). Wonga will be our central bank and LOLR and their interest rates are more than reasonable.

jimjames

Now even other EU governments are saying Salmond is lying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11100406/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-lying-over-EU-talks.html

Bit like Emperors New Clothes with claims that everyone else is scaremongering and telling lies and only Alex tells the truth.

an independent Scotland would be forced to wait at least five years to join the EU and would then have to sign up to the euro.

Archi_Bald

What is even more scary than Salmond being very liberal with the truth is that something like half of the scottish electorate seem to think that's ok.

scott_lithgows

Archi_Bald wrote: »

What is even more scary than Salmond being very liberal with the truth is that something like half of the scottish electorate seem to think that's ok.

Blame project fear for that.Coming soon to a EU referendum near you....

Archi_Bald

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Blame project fear for that.

I think it must be a first in history that the leader of a european nation has been identified as a liar by official representatives of 5 different EU countries on the same day. To suggest this is the fault of the no campaign would be really hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

Alex Salmond is the only one responsible if he is economical with the truth and if he makes promises he would be unable to deliver. People believing him are the only ones responsible for not seeing through his stories.

But I hear what you and Salmond say - everything that doesn't go Salmond's / the nationalists way is the fault of somebody else.