House buyers insist on 'No vote' clause for Scottish purchases

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

sss555s wrote: »

I had a quick look at the link but it's more nonsense.

You say that about every article warning of the dangers of independence.

Must be nice to live in a Utopian dreamland..

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What happened when Ireland joined the EU?

They knew which currency they were joining and the old currency ceased to exist, meaning all transactions could be exchanged at one point in time with no risk of ongoing divergence.

The also knew which central bank it would be governed by.

And the framework for transition was clearly laid out.

Scotland has no idea of any of that....

Nor do the lenders operating in Scotland.

To claim there would not be very significant disruption is frankly bonkers.

beecher2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To claim there would not be very significant disruption is frankly bonkers.

I often read your posts in an Alastair Darling voice and it is posts like this which make me do so. I take it you now believe Yes is a real possibility, and panic is setting in?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To claim there would not be very significant disruption is frankly bonkers.

There will be disruption, I've already stated as much in my first post on this thread.

But like I said, you seem to be going to the end of the spectrum of tin foil stuff here.

No one is going to let Scotland melt down. The currency issue will be sorted. It's not yet, granted, but it will be.

You make out the apocolypse is nigh. It's not.

The one thing that is annoying in these debates, and the TV debates is the focus on what might be lost. Wheres is the focus on what might be gained? Granted, I don't expect the wealthy to gain much. But I do believe there could be significant opportunities for the average joe on the street post independance.

Tourism, true Scottish farming etc etc could all be exploited very well.

beecher2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The one thing that is annoying in these debates, and the TV debates is the focus on what might be lost. Wheres is the focus on what might be gained?.

That's exactly what the grassroots yes campaign is talking about.

This gives you a tiny idea of what's going on - it is a festival this weekend in Glasgow

http://www.imaginationfestival.co.uk/#!schedule/c191

National Collective and the Jimmy Reid Foundation are all great places to look at too. Scotland's brimming with ideas just now but you'd never know from the tv debates.

System

Scottish conveyancing is different from English. In England either side can back out right up to exchange of contracts. In Scotland the contract is binding the moment the offer is accepted.
So it might be risky committing to a contract if the financial circumstances are liable to change.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by HAMISH_MCTAVISH
What about mortgages contracted in Sterling and tied to BOE base rates?

What about mortgages from English banks that don't have a presence in Scotland?

How do lenders and borrowers manage risk from exchange rate fluctuations after separation?

What if the Pound or Groat appreciate or depreciate markedly? The security of the house may no longer be worth the mortgaged amount when converted back into the lenders originating currency.

Scottish borrowers will have a mortgage to pay in a foreign currency.

UK only based lenders will either create an operation to manage the mortgages or sell the debt on or use a third party to manage the run down of their mortgage books.

Lenders can hedge their mortgage books. Borrowers will suffer the risk of a floating exchange rate. Along with the expense of buying GBP.

Lenders will respond by changing their mortgage interest rates accordingly to cover any risk.


All the debate and this issue has even been aired. Hence AS so dependent on retaining the £. Could be extremely expensive for Scotland.

Thrugelmir

beecher2 wrote: »

National Collective and the Jimmy Reid Foundation

A return to socialism. Sounds just like history beginning to repeat itself from a 100 years ago.

beecher2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Scottish conveyancing is different from English. In England either side can back out right up to exchange of contracts. In Scotland the contract is binding the moment the offer is accepted.
So it might be risky committing to a contract if the financial circumstances are liable to change.

No it is only binding when missives are completed. If you read the quotes on p1, it seems very unlikely this condition has been accepted on any transaction. Can't see a solicitor accepting it

CLAPTON

sss555s wrote: »

Ok Lloyds bank, based in London.


Are they going to let TSB sink?

I think I will counter that and join TSB.

They look pretty decent.

I had a quick look at the link but it's more nonsense.

Lloyds bank is registered in Scotland