New Currency for a new Country

IveSeenTheLight

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is absurd ......

Clapton, on the Independence referendum, most of your posts are absurd.
You make assertions which are clearly wrong and are clearly doing so to try an wind people up.

You've insinuated that I believe there are no downsides to independence, which is clearly wrong, I've said time and again there will be a short term impact and cost to going independent, however some of us believe that cost will be better for the long term future.

Think of it as changing gear. When you press down the clutch, you lose momentum before the new gear engages and you can accelerate faster.

Gangaweed

beecher2 wrote: »

Generali, I'm aware of the report. What I'm saying is that you can't compare the 73% rate with Denmark's 100% rate as one is looking at the internationally recognised level of literacy, the other looking at basic literacy. This was the point which zagubov was raising.

Scotland's basic literacy rate is 99%, as is the rest of the UK.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. Levels of functional illiteracy are really quite high in the UK - 25% in the Midlands (I know that because I have a family member working in adult education there).
I was surprised but it seems many are older folks in the working class who never learned, and immigrants, who can't read or write in English.

.string.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...Think of it as changing gear. When you press down the clutch, you lose momentum before the new gear engages and you can accelerate faster.

A better analogy would be to loosing the engine.

borntobefree

Does anyone else think it's wrong and irresponsible for the UK's financial regulators to allow the financial sector to stay so large in Scotland?

borntobefree

Generali wrote: »

A Yes vote would be interesting but at the same time mean chaos.

Which is why apparently RBS, along with other lenders, have attended meetings with U.K. Treasury and Bank of England officials to work on plans to ensure customers don't pull their deposits out of Scottish-based banks in the event of a 'Yes' vote. The plan apparently is to reassure the general public that the British government will continue to insure depositors in Scotland until the country formally separates from the rest of the U.K.

As you said - if you are going to panic - do it early

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

A better analogy would be to loosing the engine.

From your viewpoint.

I'm happy with the analogy as I gave it.

We'll certainly lose the engine over time remaining in the union, that's for certain.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Clapton, on the Independence referendum, most of your posts are absurd.
You make assertions which are clearly wrong and are clearly doing so to try an wind people up.

You've insinuated that I believe there are no downsides to independence, which is clearly wrong, I've said time and again there will be a short term impact and cost to going independent, however some of us believe that cost will be better for the long term future.

Think of it as changing gear. When you press down the clutch, you lose momentum before the new gear engages and you can accelerate faster.

do you see any long term adverse impacts from independence?


do you honestly believe that small companies do better than large companies?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

borntobefree wrote: »

if you are going to panic - do it early

Already done.

All my savings and pension funds are now out of Scotland and Scottish institutions.

mystic_trev

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Already done.

All my savings and pension funds are now out of Scotland and Scottish institutions.

Unfortunately no one in the Yes camp seems to bothered that an Independent Scotland's second largest Export will disappear rather quickly.

Exports were focused in oil and gas (at £24.4 billion), financial services (at £11.2 billion) and the food and drink industry (at £8.7 billion). Whisky exports alone were worth £4.6 billion in 2012.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

I've 2 points in response:

1. The markets aren't that upset. This isn't like Black Wednesday or anything.
2. There is uncertainty. It's hard to price risk at the best of times. What are the risks of holding Pounds at the moment? Some people think it's better not to calculate that and just dump them. That's going to be the first problem if there's a Yes vote. Most people won't think, they'll just dump British assets and Scottish ones in particular as they see the rise in risk.

I've a lot of years of experience in finance and this isn't some Little Englander thing. If Scotland votes Yes, the first thing that foreign investors will do is to dump Scotland-exposed assets. The next thing will be to look to finesse things and see if there are Scottish companies that have been 'over-sold' and buy back in.

Neither you nor I, who are really interested in this, understand the economic implications of Yes! A Portfolio Manager in New York is just going to dump and run. Ditto a Treasury Manager who has cash in a bank that sounds vaguely Scottish or perhaps British.

Yes means chaos, short term.

Before when this sort of thing was pointed out on threads like these ( market's starting to panic ) ? It was dismissed out of hand as 'nonsense' and would never happen. As even if there was a Yes vote rUK's economy wouldn't notice the difference and the markets wouldn't react anyway.

Only it will. The rUK isn't looking in the healthiest shape either in terms of 'market's'.. and some of the figures provided make eye watering reading ( although again they have been pointed before and dismissed )..

it hasn’t happened in the UK because we have an economy that has been extremely effective at covering for its deficit by borrowing from the rest of the world. Today, the UK holds the world’s second-largest external debt, behind only the US. The UK, collectively, owes 406% of its GDP to its overseas creditors.

This deficit has been sustained, so far, because we have an extraordinarily large financial sector, a key part of the global financial system. The City depends on a high value pound for its own operations. Financial assets (and property) denominated in pound sterling are much more appealing when the value of the pound is high, and stable. (Never mind, of course, the consequences for those seeking to export.) One result of this is that the UK has the largest financial sector liabilities of any developed economy, relative to its size, at an extraordinary 1,634% of GDP.


The average deficit, over that time, was 2.3% of GDP. Without oil, this drops to an average of 4.1% - and the situation is clearly worsening. It is one thing to borrow from the rest of the world to cover a 2-3% deficit, over many years. But at 4-5%, and worsening? The volume of borrowing required would be astronomical;


It is not due to Scotland leaving that a “sterling crisis” may threaten. It is due to the UK’s economic problems...

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/scottish-independence-uk-dependency

During the course of the run up to this debate, there has been far, far too much focus on what would, or wouldn't happen to Scotland in various scenarios.. most of them it has to be said painting terrible pictures of financial doom. With far too little said and published in terms of what happens to rUK in each of those sceanrios' too.

This is the first time I've certainly ever heard you admit it will be chaos. And not all rosy going south of the border either. If not worse. After all, rUK risk being stuck with a rather large debt, no oil/food exports propping up the £ and 9% ish taxpayers down in one fell swoop.

It will be in everyone's interests to conclude the financial and currency questions very quickly indeed if there's a Yes vote. Huge shame BetterTogether/NoThanks chose to stalemate them before they even hypothetically started.