jonc

So there you have it, after several pages of denial, it now turns out it is not impossible to move a registered office from Scotland to England/Wales (and vise versa), all it needs is a just change in the law, and I'm sure there will be many that will be required since there will be a fundemental change to the make up of the UK.

Devildog

Are you really that dumb?

There's no "there you have it" here.

It's currently impossible - which Peston completely ignored. Which was my point and is all I've said all along.

Changing the law isn't as simple as "just changing it" which I've also pointed out.

Lets say they change the law (after having changed all the other ones - because lets be honest, where's the real benefit to England in doing it at all?). Amongst other things, all the RBS/LBG lends/contracts/agreements that are written according to the law of Scotland (of which there will be many, given thats where they are currently registered) will probably need to be changed to reflect the law of the Juristiction in which they are now registered, in order to be fully enforcable in Scotland.

It will therefore be, whatever happens, a massive undertaking (as I've pointed out)

What part of that is so hard for you to understand

jonc

But we are not talking of the current situation, Preston's article wasn't about the present!!! This whole thread is about Scottish Independence and what hurdles/possibilities Scotland and RUK will face post independence in the future!! Even if you insist on the present law, unless you have intimate knowledge of EU law, there really is a real probability that our current laws could be superceded by the Council Directive 95/26/EC.

You stated that "an independent Scotland would no more be held by any UK law than any other Country would be, given that Scotland would no longer be part of the UK" and therefore have no legal obligation to adhere to UK law. By your very statement, the law would have to change if obligations have to be maintained in the interest of both sides and also to obligations we are bound to by the EU (eg. Council Directive 95/26/EC). New laws would also have to be drawn up to replace UK laws that may no longer be applicable in an independent Scotland.

Devildog

And relax

Agreed - Peston's article was about the future. And he categorically failed to mention in any way shape or form what difficulties might be faced in that particlar future *if* the banks had to relocate.

That's a one sided, sensationalist and **** poor editorial which ever way you look at it.

This whole thread is based on speculation. You expect that from Scoobynet. We should, however, expect, and receive more from the BBC.

ScottishRayman

Cheers for brief reply, and to add if a yes vote did get through fundamental changes is simply to be expected IMHO given the huge impact it will have on UK.

Rather amusing that some companies have already started to address some basic changes from within such as the registration of 'paper companies' to England, and before anyone gets jumpy I am not suggesting this is a potential tactic or indeed option to get the ease of registrations completed for large companies but shows you how some are thinking about the possible changes the yes vote could have on their specifc industry type and making sure of their overall positioning.

BikerDarren24

Update guys!!!

Got my Henry Hoover delivered today

Dead excited to use it

hodgy0_2

Oh whatever happens it will be a field day for consultants, lawyers, business analysts, project managers, advisors blah blah blah

No one actually generating wealth - just inflationary inducing jobs

ScottishRayman

Totally agree mate - "field day" very appropriate wording. Might even get some new roles if it ever happens like 'Independance business co-ordinator/specialist'

hodgy0_2

Roll on the parasitic "non jobs"

This country is built on them

jef

iTrader: (13)

100% No vote from me. Just imagine the next stage the 2 egotistical maniacs will dream up.
They shouldn't be in any position of authority and are playing with millions of peoples futures to satisfy there power trip and ego's. If it all goes t*ts up im sure there massive pension pots and financial dealings will see them and there families sorted. They can retire to wherever they want and potentially leave the rest of us to rot.

JTaylor

Anybody see the debate last night? Who came out on top?

jonc

Alex Salmond, who was the favorite to come out on top, loses the first round of TV debates and still fails the to answer the fundemental question of currency and has no "plan B" which underpins the future of the Scottish economy, and resorts to personal attacks and misquotes rather than discuss the issues.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...blood.24965560

neil-h

That seems to be the theme for most of Salmonds discussions on independance.

Hopefully the Scottish population will see sense and the no vote will win, simply on the basis the SNP clearly haven't thought it all through properly.

jonc

Well with names like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon leading the call for Scottish independence, you would have thought the Scot's might have picked up some fishy goings on.

JTaylor

Apparently they left the studio on a motorpike and sidecarp.

AndyBaker

That's me fookin tea gone again

RA Dunk

Yes the majority of us have picked up on fishy goings on, like the way the UK government (Cameron) have tried to cover up the biggest Oil find in Scottish history of the west coast till after the referendum.

I've been on the fence with this but I'm prety sure I'll be going Yes because of the lies & bullsh1t from the Uk Government over all of this.

neil-h

in comparison to the equal amount of bollocks spouted by the SNP? Interesting thing to base your decision on.

jonc

Well then you can thank Cameron for not doing a great job of hushing it up since you know about this. Funny thing is, how come the SNP don't know about it? You'd think they would sing and dance about this "find" and use it to promote his cause, unless of course they found nothing substantial. But then again, they don't even know for certain what currency iScotland will use.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

If I had a vote that is exactly the way I'd feel. The more Cameron and his cronies open their mouths the more the referendum swings towards a yes vote. All Salmond has to do is keep them talking

Martin2005

No Dunk is right, only he and Cameron know about this

And this is the reason he's voting yes - beggars belief really

RA Dunk

A typical Martin answer, looking for a bite no doubt.

Tidgy

its all very well having oil, but what currency will you be selling it in? wont be £'s,,, lol (yes i know, oil traded in dollars)

all the background stuff going on is all well and good, but hasn't scotland spent more than tax is't earnt for the past few years bar one odd year?

Salmond still hasn't got a clue about what currency scotland will have and how scotland will get into europe. Not to mention that he claims the bank of england will backstop scotlands finances, um hang on they said they wouldn't.

TBH i cant see scotland going alone being anywhere near a viable idea. Right now theres too much BS and half truth's for people to make up a properly educated decision that are all about getting people to vote how each side wants them to vote.

Scotland will prob be best off going the way of wales.

jasey

If anything Cameron would have been preparing the annexation of Shetland should there be a Yes Vote.

You're allowed to do that in modern politics .

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No, he just doesn't like people digging at Cameron. Since Martin revealed himself to be a Tory and, particularly, a fan of the PM he has felt the need to defend him, his party and our corrupt political system all the more

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Get Scotland gone....if we don't, they same question will come up again and again. Costs us £££££ every time.

Get them gone, and make sure they CAN'T come back

Full works: passport controls, no use of the £, no backing for their currency, no hrlp they don't pay big time for.

Tidgy

If they want independence then fine, but i totaly agree with the last bit, if they go, they go. not expect us to pick them up if they fall on their ***.

jonc

This is exactly why, if they want independence, they can't use the Pound. It doesn't matter whether Salmond thinks "it is our Pound too" or not, how can Scotland be independent if their currency and monetary policy is governed by the Westminster and the Bank of England? Does Salmond seriously think that the Bank of England will bail them out if the iScotland's economy faulters. All the main parties in Westminster states a firm NO to an unworkable currency union. iScotland need their own currency and their own central bank if they want to be truely independent otherwise it's all a load of bollox.

Tidgy

also prob so he can use BOE as something to blame for his plan going **** up lol

Devildog

On the Currency point (which is a non issue - the rest of the UK simply can't afford NOT to continue with the status quo):-

(its a long read but worth it) - Key points and summary in bold


We heard Alistair darling say this a number of times during the debate, then of course we heard him say “tell us about plan B” to the First Minister.

Now it is important to mention here that Alex Salmond was not dodging the Question. The currency question is a very complex one and Alistair Darling was deliberately trying to prevent Alex from talking about anything else by badgering him on this. More time wasted equals less time to talk about anything else. That is not to say that it is not important, in fact it is the most important question in the debate but there is just no way on this earth to go into detail in a 5 minute slot on this sort of thing.

Don’t take Alex’s answer as dodging the question because he was categorical in the way he gave his answer.

As First Minister (and baring in mind that the white paper is only one vision of what an independent Scotland could look like – there are others) it is his responsibility to argue for the plan A, the plan that is best for Scotland and the people of Scotland. In a strange strike of coincidence he has been very neighborly as well. The plan that he presents is one which is also in the best interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and don’t you let anyone else tell you otherwise.

You need to understand some cold hard facts about the currency situation. The currency we will use is not in question – union is.

The Better Together campaign would have you believe and infact try to make you believe that Currency Union and the pound are the same thing. They are not!

A currency is nothing other than a promissory note but that is another argument for another day. For the purposes of this article we will describe it as a vehicle to pass money from one person or company to another for the purposes of making and receiving payment for goods and services. The currency is the money in your pocket.

A currency union or what is referred to as a sterling zone in this case is the linking of two countries with a shared currency that both can use in each others countries – or in the case of the Euro, it is a large number of countries.

The two are completely different. You do not need a currency union in order to use the same currency which I will explain in more detail shortly. It is also important to point out that the UK government cannot stop Scotland using the pound if we so choose. All currencies are internationally traded and as such any country may adopt any currency at any time of their choosing.

Now when it came to Alex Salmonds argument he made clear, he is arguing for Plan A – the pound in a currency union because it makes sense for Scotland and it makes sense for the rest of the UK. If he argued for anything else then he would not be doing his job to go represent the best interests of the Scottish people.

You need to also understand that in 2013 Mr. Alistair Darling himself said on a newsnight programme and we quote: ““Of course – of course it would be desirable to have a currency union . . . If you have independence or separation, of course the currency union is logical”.

This was in January 2013. This was him speaking as head of Better Together. As Better Together have become more panicky, Westminster at the insistence of Mr. Darling issued the statement about no currency union. So it shifted from a Yes to a No to scare the people of Scotland

“If Scotland walks away from the U.K., it walks away from the U.K. pound.” said George Osborne.

If the Scots believe him, his pronouncement sounds like a scary proposition. Or it would be, if only he was correct.

The problem for Mr. Osborne and Mr. Darling is that the UK pound as they call it is infact a shared currency. Scotland contributes approximately 9.6% of UK tax despite having 8.4% of the UK population (2012/13). We have been contributing to the pound for 3 centuries. That is a long marriage.

When Osborne and Darling announced this it immediately panicked the markets and Osborne was forced to issue a statement to the markets in writing. This statement said that the UK Government assumed all liability for all UK national debt because it issued it in the first place. He basically said that whatever happens with the referendum the UK has assumed all debts and would therefore ensure that it paid and serviced them regardless of what happened with Scotland. This immediately put the shoe on the other foot for Scotland. He has effectively backed the UK into an untenable position and believe you me, the markets will hold him and the UK Government to that pledge.

So what did that mean for Scotland?

Well! To use a Better Together analogy, independence would be like a mutual divorce between both countries. Anyone knows that an amicable divorce means no at fault from either side so they have in effect an equal claim based on proportion of the shared assets but also a shared responsibility for any liabilities (loans) that they both took out while together.

What Osborne effectively did was said that the UK would take full response for the liabilities regardless of what happened with the assets side of things.

Now! The Yes campaign have not been unreasonable about this, in fact quite the opposite. The Yes campaign and indeed the SNP (in the white paper) have said that in return for 8.4% of the assets of the UK, it will assume responsibility and pay the rest of the UK for 8.4% of the shared national debt. That is a reasonable arrangement by any standards.

As for oil, well that is a totally different argument because that is governed by international law under UNCLOS (UN Constitution on Law of the Sea). UNCLOS dictates that what is known as the Exclusive Economic Area of a country extends from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important.

That effectively means that all oil, tidal energy, natural resources and fishing rights within 200 miles of Scotland are owned by Scotland on Independence. Where is is between two countries less than 200 miles apart then the EEZ is from the midway point between the two countries. This means that within Scotland‘s waters, a minimum of 90% of all oil reserves currently operated by Westminster would have to be transferred to Scotland, outside of any arrangement on assets and liabilities.

Scotland has been paying into Sterling for over 300 years and for all intents and purposes, any nation in the world classifies the currency they use as an asset for the purposes of division.

If you get a divorce with no fault then the arrangement of a fair split takes place. What Osborne is arguing, quite wrongly in fact is that we cannot use the pound, an asset we have paid into for over 300 years. No divorce lawyer on the planet would find that fair. If that is the case the legal ruling would be simple. If we cant have our fair share of the assets then the other party must assume the liabilities, the UK Government by law cannot have it both ways, particularly considering they have already assumed liability for the debts with the international markets.

So the Yes campaign are saying categorically that the best thing to do would be to form a currency zone with sterling and allow both sides to use a shared asset. In return, Scotland would assume 8.4% of the total UK liability (per head capita) and everyone is a winner.

There are a few other facts that you should be aware of that will mean a script change by the UK after a Yes Vote:

1. The UK is Scotland‘s biggest trading partner and Scotland is the UK’s second biggest trading partner. To create a situation where their were two different currencies would mean transaction charges for businesses in England and Wales of around 500 Million pounds per year. Comically named the George Tax. A sterling zone would stop that. Scotland would print money, England and wales would do the same as we do currently. You would still be able to use a £20 note in Scotland or England – no doubt you still get the funny look from a London shop wondering if your Scottish note was real money and that other Scotsman who conveniently pops up from the queue behind you yelling “I THINK YOU WILL FIND THAT IS LEGAL TENDER!”.

Ultimately a currency union would be better for both sides of the border. If they didn’t, well give it a few years until the next UK general elections when the government gets kicked out by the taxpayers and the new guys get in on the promise of a currency union.

2. I like to call this the seesaw effect.b Now I will apologise for the language I am about to use but this is very important and the UK population have continuously been misled about this for years. People are not interested in the details of the difference between deficit and national debt but it is probably the most single important factor in the whole argument about independence. It is also the single most important thing that effects everything in your life and underlines everything to do with currency. Being tactful about this in the past doesn’t seem to have drummed the message home so I am going to use language that is extremely blunt.

If the UK finances were a horse it would have been taken out back and been shot by now. If the UK finances were a patient on life support the doctors would have advised pulling the plug years ago. And if the UK national finances were a business, the liquidators would have been called in to put it out of its misery by now. But the UK national finances are none of these, they are what underpin the entire economy and as a result no matter how bad it gets it must be stimulated at all costs. It cannot be allowed to fail because rather than having 1 million people at food banks you would have the entire population starving and food banks wouldn’t exist because nobody would have any money to donate to them. It is that serious.

National Debt: The deficit and UK national debt are two entirely different things. The national debt stands at around 1.4 Trillion pounds expected to hit a whopping 1.5 Trillion by next year. That is the entire amount of debt that the UK government has gotten all of us as a union into. The deficit on the other hand is the difference between the amount of money the UK Government receives in tax and how much we pay each month on those debts.

So! In terms of a credit card. Say you take a credit card and each month you use £1000 on that card but your wages are only £800 for that month. By the end of the month you would have a debt of £1000 and a deficit of £200.

In otherwords you are taking on more debt than you can actually pay by £200 each month. By month 2 you have a debt of 2000 and a deficit of 400. So if you were to pay your entire wages to the card in both months you would still owe £400. Obviously you would continue to have to pay interest on that sum so you would probably actually still owe about £440 if it was a high interest card.

Public Finance Initiative: This was the brainchild of the Last labour government. Think wonga for councils. Some idiot got it into his head (a real thatcher mentality) to spend today and screw tomorrow. PFI was basically taking high interest loans in order to build public buildings now and worry about paying it later.

I will give you an example. Queen Anne High School got a shiny new building. The building itself was £100 Million if it was built using hard cash. But the Labour council in Fife decided rather than saving it would use PFI. It signed up to a High interest loan for the building over 20 years. By the time that building is paid for it will have cost them £260 million. But other conditions are normally added to PFI agreements like the cleaners and the domestic staff and canteen staff must be hired from the PFI company funding the building, that adds more costs. Then the councils wonder why they cannot afford to pay for other things. The answer is simple. They just lost £150 million pounds that could be used for other initiatives.

The UK government took the same approach in everything it did. Spending money it did not have, most of it on projects the Scottish people will never see value in. But you contribute to that at a rate of about 9.6% (last year). As such the UK is in such a state that the amount of tax it receives is not enough to pay the debts it owes. The result is that the UK debt goes up by £127 a second.

Austerity in my view never works. The only way to effectively build an economy is to stimulate it. The Westminster government has plunged millions straight into banks, money that will never have any value to you. The result is rich people getting richer and 1 million people using food banks – they call that economic progress – my ar**!

But they hammer on about how they need to bring the deficit down – and they do! but they could have used something like Quantative Easing for the People (google it – I wont go into it now) instead of Quantative Easing for the Rich. The deficit needs to be brought down to a point where the income to the government is more than the amount it needs to pay out for debt. Only then will it actually start paying back its debts. But at that point the UK will still be in over 1.5 Trillion pounds worth of debt and again you will pay 9.6% or more towards that as part of the Union.

As far as the seesaw is concerned, at the minute the UK has a population of 64 million people (including Scotland) – Scotland has 8.4% of that population but contributes 9.6% of taxation (2012/13) – in each of the last 30 years we have put more into the system than we get back. The No campaign will always tell you that we have 8.3% of the UK population and get 9.3% of all UK spending which is totally 100% true. That lets them say that we get higher spending than the rest of the UK and subsequently we would be screwed if we left the UK. But look again at those figures and what better together say. At times we have contributed 9.9% of UK tax and only received 9.2% of UK finance (2013/14) – do you see it? The No campaign always leave out the 9.9% (9.6% in some years) so it looks like we couldn’t make it. In fact if we left the UK we could sustain all spending at current levels on services and end up 0.3% to 0.6% better off. Now that might not sound much and in the grand scheme of things in the UK that would be true. But when you share out 0.6% of the UK’s tax revenues between a reduced population of 5.4 million (an independent Scotland), take into account other factors, the Scottish Government would end up over £1000 better off per person in Scotland than it is currently.

Even without oil we would be richer than we are now.

But now you are saying to yourselves several things:

1. God this guy just goes on and on.

2. This guys keyboard must be melted.

3. What the hell does all of the above text in point two have to do with a currency union?

Well! I’m glad you asked.

You see the difference of payments in and out for the UK (the deficit) is underwritten by two things. The amount of money it gets in revenues and the number of people contributing.

The UK government as I said above have taken responsibility for all UK debt, they dealt it – they are responsible for it.

In other-words, if Scotland was refused a currency union and we refused to take the 8.4% of the national debt (which we would be entitled to do – no asset – no debt) then immediately on independence the rUK would be stuck with a national debt of over £1.5 Trillion, less of a population size (by 5.4 million people) and would instantly lose 9.9% of its taxes to pay for the UK national debt.

So from dot one the rUK would end up with more debt and an instant increase in their deficit by 9.9%. That would be devastating. I am not even including the loss of North Sea Oil Revenues. Who would be stupid enough to screw themselves to the wall like that.