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

bowlhead99

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Triodos, a dutch "ethical" bank, is "authorised by the Dutch Central Bank and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority". They are not part of the UK FSCS, i.e. they do not participate fully in the financial framework of the UK.

If they got bust, I need to apply to the dutch compensation scheme, and I can't rely on getting any help from the UK government, or from any EU body (and particularly not if the UK left the EU). Even if Triodos had any attractive offerings, I would not put a single penny into their accounts, not after the Icesave debacle.

Iceland is a tiny island nation outside the EU with a population of 350k and their own obscure currency. It only had a small compensation scheme (~20k Eur?) which ran out of cash when all the banks collapsed at once. The country only had a GDP of about $11bn in 2007 and its tiny population faced with economic collapse didn't want to take on billions of loans from the UK and the Netherlands to allow its government to pay a compensation bill to UK and Netherlands savers.

By contrast the Netherlands has a human population of double digit millions rather than a few hundred thousand and some reindeer and arctic foxes. They have a GDP of $840bn rather than $11bn and operate in the same currency as the rest of the EU. They are a major financial centre with a network of tax treaties making them a domicile of choice for international investors deploying capital around Europe.

IMHO, while having access to the Dutch €100k compensation scheme is not quite as handy as the UK £85k one, I would not really be too scared about depositing some cash into Triodos. While the Netherlands has had to deal with failing banks (e.g. Fortis, ABN Amro), it doesn't seem to be in great danger of having a systemic financial collapse or failing to cooperate with the EU of which it is a part since the 50s.

At the moment there isn't too much incentive to look into Triodos with their rates on offer and me not being on the lookout for ethical focussed investments... I do take the point that it pays to look into what and whom you are dealing with when you're trusting someone with your money, so if Scotland votes for independence and shakes up the UKFSCS I'll be all ears.

atush

My own opinion is, say it is a foreign perspective, as a non UK citizen living in the british isles I will not be supporting an independent scotland with any of my hard earned cash.

I find the BOE, the financial independent view providers ie journalists and academics and the economists to be worth more to me than Alex salmond's pie in the sky dreams of having sterling to back up his vanity project.

i am am not invested in the yes or no situation, but I know what I dont' like and that is ignorance, vanity, lack of factual basis and mostly financial uncertainty. which is death to markets.

I should have a vote, given I can see scotland outside my kitchen window but I don't. So am giving my own independent financial no,

I will not be lending my money to an independent scotland and or it's banks and institutions. Which is a shame as I have used them up to now.

Thrugelmir

Marazan wrote: »

Whilst, for example RBS has it's registered office in Edinburgh its tax paying office and location for regulation is London - if you don;t believe me then look at the dis-aggregated accounts for the uk as produced by HMRC ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246077/disagg-method.pdf )

In table 9 on page 10 Scotland's contribution to onshore Corporation tax is listed. In 06-06 and 06-07 Scotland had approx 2.7 billion in corp tax receipts. RBS, in it's 2005 accounts, had a net Corp tax bill of 2.3 billion,

RBS itself is a small entity in balance sheet terms. RBS grew 10 ten times over when it acquired NatWest. When Citizens bank in the US gets sold off. There'll be little left of the straw house that Fred built.

Archi_Bald

Feel free to put your money into any of the passport schemes. I am just saying I myself will never, ever again put any of mine into any of them - I didn't lose anything financially in the Iceland crash but I don't want to re-live the anxiety of whether I get any or all of my money back if there is some crisis (such as the Euro crisis).

I fully understand the financial safety schemes throughout the EU (do you, bowlhead99?), and they are all goodness for the people in the respective countries such as the UK **if** you are a resident in the country the default happens in when you have money at risk in that country. It is critical people understand the limitations of the passport schemes. I personally don't care whether the passport scheme is provided by a tinpot nation or a behemoth nation, or anything in between the two extremes. Passport schemes are inherently unreliable, and you might end up high and dry. Others might relish in trying to chase their luck by putting their cash into other countries with passport schemes that may or may not protect your rights.

Archi_Bald

atush wrote: »

I will not be lending my money to an independent scotland and or its banks and institutions. Which is a shame as I have used them up to now.

awwe how can you (and I) be so nasty to that nice Mister Salmond

atush

I cant remember him ever being nice to me lol.

rpc

kangoora wrote: »

I have to laugh at the conclusions

Conclusion
Next time you hear someone say an independent Scotland could not have afforded the banking bail out, remember how the US Federal Reserve bailed out Barclays to the tune of £552.32bn. Ask them if they think Scotland would have made the same bank regulation mistakes as the city of London led Westminster government?

So, their conclusion is that omniscient, superior Scottish bankers and politicians would never make the same mistakes as those crass, useless politicians and bankers in London.

Aside from the misrepresentation of the Fed's liquidity scheme (very different to the capitalisation that went on in this country), the SNP and Alex personally were campaigning for less regulation so that the "Scottish" banks could be more successful.

System

Essentially, Lloyds TSB Scotland was renamed TSB Bank with non-Scottish branches transferred to it. Lloyds never setup TSB Bank with a licence - it always operated a separate banking licence from Lloyds TSB in England & Wales.

Lloyds Banking Group is registered in Scotland.
Lloyds Bank is registered in England/Wales.

RBS Group is registered in Scotland.
National Westminster Bank is registered in England/Wales.

Deposits are held with the bank not the group...

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

System

Halifax and Birmingham Midshires are (brands of) Bank of Scotland and don't exist as legally separate institutions.

Whilst HBOS still (legally) exists, you never 'banked' with it nor do you now 'bank' with Lloyds Banking Group.

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?

libra10

Thank you Heng Leng

We have accounts with Birmingham Midshires and Halifax; also some Lloyds shares which were what we were offered when the Halifax Bank crashed several years ago, and the Halifax windfall shares became almost useless.