Independent Scotland's FIAT currency - when should I move my savings?

libra10

Therefore savers with funds in financial institutions such as Halifax and Birmingham Midshires, part of HBOS (Lloyds Banking Group), should be alright in the event of a 'YES' vote for Scottish independence?

Chadsman

Linton wrote: »

They werent "Scottish" Banks. They were UK banks that happened to be registered in Scotland, a part of the UK. As UK banks they were rescued by the UK government using UK money.

If the UK splits the two governments will need to sort out regulation. If it turns out that there are two separate regulatory authorities any current UK bank will need to end up with two separate companies each regulated locally. It doesnt matter whether an English regulated bank has head quarters in Scotland or vice versa. Just like Santander and Spain.

I would be willing to support a policy of compensating customers of Scottish banks who banked at rUK subsidiaries but I would not support rUK providing any funds to a Financial Services Compensation Scheme that was trying to bail out customers in any foreign country- neither iScotland nor anyone else.

The UK FSCS is a sort of insurance policy this countries banks pay for. If Scotland votes to leave the UK that insurance policy will no longer be available to them.

CLAPTON

libra10 wrote: »

Therefore savers with funds in financial institutions such as Halifax and Birmingham Midshires, part of HBOS (Lloyds Banking Group), should be alright in the event of a 'YES' vote for Scottish independence?

We don't know that Lloyds and RBS will do in the event of YES.


Lloyds (registered in Scotland) have already set up TSB as a separate London registered company with a separate banking license.

masonic

CLAPTON wrote: »

Who bailed out the UK savers in the Icelandic banks?

It's interesting you should mention the Icelandic banks. That whole debacle demonstrated that the Treasury can fight quite dirty when it is faced with losing money due to economic problems in a foreign country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsbanki_Freezing_Order_2008

Chadsman

CLAPTON wrote: »

We don't know that Lloyds and RBS will do in the event of YES.

EU rules say banks should be HQed in states where they do the majority of their business...

Linton

libra10 wrote: »

Therefore savers with funds in financial institutions such as Halifax and Birmingham Midshires, part of HBOS (Lloyds Banking Group), should be alright in the event of a 'YES' vote for Scottish independence?

"HBOS plc is a direct subsidiary of Lloyds Bank plc and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Lloyds Banking Group plc." Lloyds is currently registered in Scotland which means I believe it is subject to Scottish Law at the corporate level. However it is regulated by the UK government.

Lloyds have said....

The scale of potential change is currently unclear, but we have contingency plans in place. In the event of a 'yes' vote in the referendum, there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.

There will be a period between the referendum and the implementation of separation, should a 'yes' vote be successful, that we believe is sufficient to take any actions that we believe necessary.

Presumably any actions deemed necessary will include sorting where the master company is registered, where its subsidiaries are registered, and how regulation will be handled. They are very unlikely to take actions that cause any loss of confidence it any of its businesses.

CLAPTON

Chadsman wrote: »

EU rules say banks should be HQed in states where they do the majority of their business...

so lets say a bank does 30% of its business in state 'A'
and 30% of its business in state 'B'
and 25% in state 'C'
and 5% in state 'D'


where is HQed


and take standard chartered which is London based but does most business in asia




and what does HQed mean?

Chadsman

CLAPTON wrote: »

so lets say a bank does 30% of its business in state 'A'
and 30% of its business in state 'B'
and 25% in state 'C'
and 5% in state 'D'


where is HQed


and take standard chartered which is London based but does most business in asia




and what does HQed mean?

In the situation you assume the EU would want the bank to have its head office in the state where it does more business than any other state on a sort of 'first past the post basis'.
BY HQed I meant having their Head Office.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655

As for Standard Chartered being based in London but doing most of its business in Asia I assume the EU isnt going to object to it having regulation over a bank doing business elsewhere- its the opposite situation they would worry about- a bank with a head office in Asia doing most of its business in EU.

CLAPTON

Chadsman wrote: »

In the situation you assume the EU would want the bank to have its head office in the state where it does more business than any other state on a sort of 'first past the post basis'.
BY HQed I meant having their Head Office.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655

As for Standard Chartered being based in London but doing most of its business in Asia I assume the EU isnt going to object to it having regulation over a bank doing business elsewhere- its the opposite situation they would worry about- a bank with a head office in Asia doing most of its business in EU.

a somewhat unclear directive

lr1277

Slightly off topic.


Chadsman: are you aware the £50 note featuring Sir John Houblon is no longer legal tender? I suggest you also need to save James Watt and Matthew Boulton.


End of diversion, carry on.