Billions of pounds wiped from value of Scottish firms after yes vote

a reply to: JiggyPotamus



As I understand it everyone in Scotland gets to vote. Even foreign

nationals residing in Scotland BUT........

Scots nationals living in England or indeed residing any where else

in the world don't get to vote on what will be a life changing event

for their native country.

Would that give a fair result?? ...Could be construed as vote rigging??

a reply to: eletheia

It isn't fair that a Polish / Indian / wherever Scottish resident that might have been there a few years has a say when the rest of the UK doesn't.

As for those of Scottish extraction in other places in the UK, would a new citizenship be required? need to use passports at the border? be allowed to return without having to reapply for citizenship? and English people in Scotland?

a reply to: criticalhit

Screw the money, Vote YES

You will be in 20 years or so....

1: Energy Independent

2: Have enough water

3: be Eating Healthier non GMO foods

4: Your local laws will be your own

5: Your education system will be modern and leave you competitive

6: Your culture will be intact, you will be Scotland not over run by Islam

7: You will not be bleed out by war

8: You will in the long run not be burdened by the political and Economic issues that will surely plague London

Those are some valid, viable points you've made. And something to be taken into consideration.

Smaller countries can and do function quite nicely, history shows us this.

I guess you'll find out soon enough what Scots really want.




To inject a little humour on such a pressing subject:

Maybe the royal family hates the idea of Scotland separating because that would mean they'd have to inconveniently stop for border checks to get to their little weekend getaways in Balmoral. I can't help but think about the queen getting asked for her 'papers'.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth


That's the sort of thing I was referring to, as I had heard somewhere

that there were many Germans, for some reason currently living

in Scotland and they were getting a vote.

I mean its 'Scotland' and there are many ex.pat Scots residing in all

corners of the world not having their say in what will be a life changing

decision on their country of origin.

Its Alex Salmond's secret fantasy.... himself as a reincarnated

William Wallace....LOL!

Er.. hey.. I'm in the USA.

My Mom is going to Ireland and Scotland in October with a group trip. She's 86 and this is her one and only chance to see another country abroad.

Should I be worried??

Whats it like over there? Is all this business causing rioting and stuff?

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
Er.. hey.. I'm in the USA.

My Mom is going to Ireland and Scotland in October with a group trip. She's 86 and this is her one and only chance to see another country abroad.

Should I be worried??

Whats it like over there? Is all this business causing rioting and stuff?

Scotland is very safe ... unless you are out nightclubbing in the city centers at 3am and get involved in a fight with drunk revellers. I always cross to the other side of the street at any time of the day just in case.

a reply to: Kester

The 'elite' chose Scotland as a refuge several generations ago.

Hmm, only several generations ? It was all planned at least since the Templars

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
Er.. hey.. I'm in the USA.

My Mom is going to Ireland and Scotland in October with a group trip. She's 86 and this is her one and only chance to see another country abroad.

Should I be worried??

Whats it like over there? Is all this business causing rioting and stuff?

Nope, don't be worried. I hope your mum has a great time.

a reply to: crayzeed
I think you have a point there. As well as the the fact that in spite of oil revenues/royalties the British taxpayers subsidise Scotland to a large degree apparently. Maybe it is the English who want to be rid of Scotland. Dunno. But Scottish people should be aware that when politicians push for something they are usually up to no good. Isn't that Salmond bloke a bankster?

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Kester

Boris Johnson has his detractors but in this article he says a lot of things that needs saying.

www.telegraph.co.uk... er.html

Interesting article, though it really annoys the pedant in me when he says that Britain will no longer exist.

Britain = England + Wales
Great Britain = Britain + Scotland
UK = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If the Scots vote "Yes", then Britain will still be Britain, Great Britain would cease to exist as a political entity (though the expression may remain as a geographical term, similar to "British Isles" which includes the Republic of Ireland), and the UK would still be the UK (although UK would now be short for United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland).

Now I've got that off my chest, I can relax...

originally posted by: grumpy64
a reply to: crayzeed
I think you have a point there. As well as the the fact that in spite of oil revenues/royalties the British taxpayers subsidise Scotland to a large degree apparently. Maybe it is the English who want to be rid of Scotland. Dunno. But Scottish people should be aware that when politicians push for something they are usually up to no good. Isn't that Salmond bloke a bankster?

In 1978 he entered the Government Economic Service as an Assistant Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, part of the now defunct Scottish Office. Two years later he joined the staff of the Royal Bank of Scotland where he worked for seven years, initially as an assistant economist. In 1982 he was appointed Oil Economist, and from 1984 he worked as a bank economist as well as continuing to hold the position of Oil Economist.[12] While with the Royal Bank, he wrote and broadcast extensively for both domestic and international outlets. He also contributed regularly to oil and energy conferences. In 1983 Salmond created a "Royal Bank/BBC oil index" that is still used.

wiki

originally posted by: criticalhit
Scotland should vote YES!!!!

The future of the world and a good life style is mainly in small, energy efficient, culturally intact, modern nations.

The day of the Large Nation State offering a good quality of life is OVER, Small nations with small populations are going to be able to make the shift to sustainability fairly easy, the technology for food, water, power from renewable and sustainable methods exists, it's the "cost" for large nation states and the raw monetary power of embedded multinational energy companies in the tax base that makes it impossible for them to escape from expensive, polluted methods....

Another factor which regards energy is continued involvement in wars for these resources, be a part of a mega state consider it a given your sons will be dying for it maybe your daughters as well.

Another major issue is technology, the education system of large nations is very difficult to shift to take advantage of the modern world, poverty will exist where ever stupidity does, wiring 90 million people for 1 gig a second bandwith is a lot more difficult than wiring 12 Million for example...

And then of course being a major player in "globalism" means "multiculturalism" has to abound and that brings with it a lot of issues...

So here is what i'm saying Scotland...

Screw the money, Vote YES

You will be in 20 years or so....

1: Energy Independent

2: Have enough water

3: be Eating Healthier non GMO foods

4: Your local laws will be your own

5: Your education system will be modern and leave you competitive

6: Your culture will be intact, you will be Scotland not over run by Islam

7: You will not be bleed out by war

8: You will in the long run not be burdened by the political and Economic issues that will surely plague London

Couple of reasons on that list makes me agree with you. Large cumbersome empires are no longer an advantage in this day of age.

And...as all empires do...perhaps it's Britains time to dissolve and start fresh. It's not the end of the world. A change is always difficult...but in the end...always needed.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Couple of reasons on that list makes me agree with you. Large cumbersome empires are no longer an advantage in this day of age.

And...as all empires do...perhaps it's Britains time to dissolve and start fresh. It's not the end of the world. A change is always difficult...but in the end...always needed.

Britain isn't the one at most risk here.

Britain still has the EU and the Commonwealth as partners for trade and financial services. Scotland is not guaranteed access to either; the Commonwealth is likely to accept them, but the EU seems very unlikely to accept them. That might be a blessing in disguise, of course, as the EU would bring a lot of obligations with it. The UK shielded them from some of the worst of it. I doubt Scotland would be able to negotiate that kind of deal, if they are accepted at all. That leaves them on their own, unless they can engage with some of the other economic communities. Not sure what the criteria or benefits are for those, though.

Scotland's currency is still in doubt. I would be staggered if the UK agree to back their currency (which is effectively what they are asking) and there would be significant concerns over them backing their own currency, even with access to Oil. They can buy in quantities of Stirling (Stirling for discounted oil seems a likely route, in fact) but that leaves them at the mercy of England's monetary policy without any say as they no longer have representation in Westminster.

A number of firms (including the Royal Bank of Scotland) are preparing to abandon Scotland and move entirely to England in the case of independence. Investors will be very wary of an independent Scotland in the short term.

Both England and Scotland will suffer in the short term, I just have a suspicion that Scotland will find it much, much harder to recover.

If they want to go their own way, I wish them all the best and I hope they will be very successful. I'm not betting money on it, though.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Only on ATS. She'll be safe.

a reply to: EvillerBob

The UK shielded them from some of the worst of it. I doubt Scotland would be able to negotiate that kind of deal, if they are accepted at all.

You're over thinking it. There are many nations that aren't a part of the EU and are doing just fine. You seem to think that joining the EU is some kind of paradise.

Also...whatever you might think...the EU wants as much nations as they can get. It's all about the numbers for the market. I'm willing to bet if Scotland secedes, the EU will beg them to join. If they begged Iceland...surely...Scotland is a much sweeter cake for them.

originally posted by: crayzeed
A question in The Mail today. Scotland spent £65.2 billion in 2011 to 2012 yet Scotland s payment was only £47.6. That makes a shortfall of £17.6 that was paid to Scotland from Westminster. Just a thought for the Scottish people who say they owe nothing to Westminster.

I believe the figure was Scotland 57 million, we got 64 back...but here's the kicker...7 million was in the form of a loan that we need to pay back...with interest. And remember, the Mail is pro union so i would take whatever the mail says with a pinch of salt.

We could go round and around with these facts and figures until we are all Blue in the Face..(cheeky Braveheart reference maybe)
The Fact is, if Scotland becomes independent, regardless of what we are being told by the pro unionist side. Scotland wont implode, the stars wont fall from the sky, the price of bread wont go through the roof, Zombies will not be wandering the streets on the 19th and ...I lol'd at the one.
And as far as not getting to use the pound, does anyone have any idea how petty and childish that sounds. toys out the pram time from Gideon.
it benefits all if Scotland continues to use the Pound.

Westminster charges Scotland Billions in service costs

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
And as far as not getting to use the pound, does anyone have any idea how petty and childish that sounds. toys out the pram time from Gideon.

It's not petty or childish at all, it's a very realistic problem. Currency issue and control is a major part of economic strategy.

If Scotland continues to use the pound, where would it get it from? The UK aren't going so simply issue more money, because it is backed by the strength of the UK's economy so just creating more would dilute and devalue the currency. The Bank of England is not going to underwrite the banks of a country over which it has no control, any more than you would give me your cheque book with all the cheques pre-signed. That would be economic stupidity.

Scotland could trade oil for sterling and use the currency "unofficially". This would leave Scotland without any control over the currency or the economic policies that determine its strength. They would be dependent on the UK to maintain the currency and would have no say in the matter. That is a major blow to their ability to manage their own economy. It also leaves them without a lender of last resort (one of the essential roles of a central bank) so Scottish banks run a real risk of collapse at the first financial wobble.

The other option is for Scotland to issue its own currency on the basis of its own economic strength. Realistically, that will be tied very closely to oil. Their economy will be incredibly sensitive to any price fluctuations in the market. It will have significant impact on their ability to trade and borrow. There is also a major question over the impact on exports, with the majority of current trade occurring within the UK.

This is a very serious issue, and it is certainly not a matter of people "throwing their toys out of the pram".

An ignorant, but honest question.

The only comparative to this vote that I know of would be Quebec and it's separation from the rest of Canada.

While I'm probably out of date on that one as well, my understanding was if Quebec did vote to separate, it would be only granted if they assumed their portion of the national debt and settled first nation issues.

I believe they planned, back in the day, of using U.S. currency, instead of Canadian. Again, this is probably out of date, but is there similar issues for the Scots re debt?

Could they not just use Euro dollars as their base? Members or not?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I believe they planned, back in the day, of using U.S. currency, instead of Canadian. Again, this is probably out of date, but is there similar issues for the Scots re debt?

Could they not just use Euro dollars as their base? Members or not?

The debt issue is up for debate and everyone has their own opinion. Several keys Scots claim that the debt remains with the UK - the Scots might have spent the money, but it was the UK that borrowed it in the first place and is responsible for repaying it. The UK are saying - you spent it, you repay it.

There does not appear to be any clear legal framework for answering the question, it will come down to negotiations.

Scotland could use any free floating currency. Kosovo uses the Euro despite not being in the EU and not having any currency agreement in place. The problem is not the currency itself, but what it means to be using the currency of another country. There are two aspects. The first is control, the second is support.

First of all, they have no control over the currency, and the issuing country is going to make fiscal decisions based on their own best interests which might be detrimental to Scotland. Managing money is an important aspect of economic strategy, and using the currency from another country is also going to damage it's financial reputation because it is seen as lacking control over a central aspect of the economy. This can make it harder to attract investment and also make it very expensive to borrow - which is a major problem for a country that spends more money that it makes.

The second issue is support. Most nations with their own currency have a central bank - for the UK this would be the Bank of England. As well as controlling the currency, they act as a lender of last resort. If a high street bank is having difficulty meeting financial obligations, the central bank can loan them emergency money. This keeps the market stable and reduces risk of a bank collapse - both very important to an economy. If Scotland uses the currency from another country, they will not have access to those loans so if Scottish high street bank wobbles financially, there is no one there to help it. Would you want to do business with a bank that might collapse at the first sign of a stiff breeze?

The same applies whether you are talking about the Pound Sterling, the US Dollar, or the Euro. Using the currency of another country is seen as a sign of economic weakness or instability. It's hard to trade with, on invest in, a country if there is a significant risk of default for whatever reason. It's also likely to mean than borrowing money is a much more difficult and expensive task.