to wonder how Scotland's decision will affect england?

[LEMmingaround]

Just that really? If they do go their ownway how will it affect england?

Also will it open a can of worms with wales and northern Ireland?

Fair enough.

It felt pejorative in context of other posts on thread wishing our downfall.

Fanjo I don't wish your downfall. I do think you will have a very tough time, with all the uncertainties about the currency and EU. But Scots are a very resilient people and you'll survive.

But this thread is about the effect on the UK, and I believe that all the jobs and money coming back here will be very good for us. I just worry about the housing market in the South East, with all the financial services relocating to London. It's going to push up prices even more.

Standard Life announced yesterday it would delicate south of the border in the event of independence, as it wanted to be located where the majority of its customers are.

Sallyingforth, you've said before about many financial services moving south if we say yes. I don't actually believe it, the same threats were made about devolution, but assuming it were true, why would they all head to London? As you say, property prices there are ludicrously high, wouldn't it be more financially responsible to relocate somewhere cheaper, like Hull? Or even Manchester or Leeds, where HS2 (which we won't have to pay for, hooray!) will put them just a couple of hours away from London... Surely it would be better for England as a whole?

Fanjo I wish they would move somewhere else, but most of them deal continually with the City and already have offices there, so the attraction is obvious.
As to why they will move I'll let them speak for themselves, but I personally can't see them wanting to work with a Central Bank located in a foreign country.

I thought it was a European law that says financial institutions must be based in the countries where they do most of their business? The idea being to stop banks doing 99% of their trade in London (for example), but basing themselves in some tax haven somewhere.

www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts TiggyD, I know bugger-all about international banking laws, except that when the crash happened and bailouts were required, it was the countries where business was done who did the bailout. Looking at the figures on the link, it's plain that where the head office was located made no difference; Bank of Scotland $181 billion from America, Royal Bank of Scotland $541 billion...

Tiggy I believe that comes into it as well, but I'm no expert.

For financial advice I rely on DP who is a banker. He tells me everyone he speaks to in Edinburgh knows that they will have to move to London. Some of them are open about it, others are not saying much at the moment because they are hoping for a No vote and in that event they don't want to have offended the SNP that they will have to work with.

A lot of Scottish financial services business is asset management so it won't be subject to the same rules as banks.

Whats going to happen to things like DVLA etc will they need to create a mirror of these or would UK and Scotland share them?

I think that we'll probably set up our own, but in the short term will share, paying appropriate costs, of course.

old lady That site is bollocks - if you look at the actual GAO audit, lending peaked at a total of $1 trillion in 2008. Balance at mid 2011 was less than $1 billion (see page 4 of the below link) The table which shows the amounts borrowed states these are not totals because For example, an overnightPDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days

The US govt provided immediate liquidity loans, the longer term equity support was provided by the govt of the banks home, except where is was unaffordable (such as Iceland), where the banks went bust and Ireland, where the Euro was supported.

An independent Scotland with its own currency and central bank would have been in the same psoition as Iceland see here and had a much worse time of it.
An independent Scotland using Sterling with out a central bank would have been bankrupt. No significant financial institution will remain headquartered in Scotland unless it has its own currency and central bank or is included in a sterling zone with rUK as lender of last resort. Salmond knows this very well which is why he will not discuss Plan B, because there isn't one, or not one tha avoids losing c£9 billion a year here

Countries are only responsible for the banking transactions carried out within that country, not for the total sum of banking for banks with a headquarter in that country.eg Despite being nominally a Scottish bank RBS primarily carries out business within rUK so an iScotland would hav

Would have been responsible for about 10% (I think) of the total, and rUK the rest.

Commenting on Alex Salmond’s refusal to name a ‘Plan B’ currency for Scotland if the Chancellor were to continue to oppose a currency union, Research Director of the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman, said:

“An independent Scotland could flourish either by using the pound sterling without the permission of the rUK (or by setting up a “ScotPound” pegged to sterling through a currency board, which would achieve a similar end). This ‘sterlingization’ would emulate a number of Latin American countries that use the US Dollar without an official agreement with the US government. Because Scottish banks would not have access to a currency-printing lender of last resort, they would have to make their own provisions for illiquidity, and would necessarily act more prudently.

“Scotland actually had this system of ‘free banking’ during the 18th and 19th centuries, during which time its economy boomed relative to England’s and its banks were remarkably secure. And Panama, which uses the US Dollar in this way, has the seventh most stable financial system in the world.

“Everyone says Mr Salmond needs a Plan B if the rUK does not agree to a currency union with Scotland. But unilateral adoption should be Plan A, making Scotland’s economy more stable and secure. The UK’s obstinacy would be Scotland’s opportunity.”
www.adamsmith.org/blog/money-banking/how-scotland-could-flourish-by-unilaterally-keeping-the-pound/

It was an analogy. I was merely pointing out that currently Scotland has all the benefits of making it own rules without the downside of having to pay for them

I live, work and pay tax in Scotland. I agree with this summing up.

Allgoing If that's so simple, why won't Salmond say that's what he'll do, instead of all the prevarication?
Of course by tying the Scottish pound to the UK one, their financial system will be controlled by the Bank of England but without any representation. I'm told that will make it very difficult for borrowing and investment (but I'm no expert on this).
BTW, DP who is across all this says the refusal of a currency union is not just a political point but it isn't actually practical. In his words, "currency union requires financial union requires political union", which is what we have now.

Alisvolatpropiis education results in Wales are the worst in the UK, and Wales has been sliding inexorably down the PISA rankings since 2007.

It is now (out of 67 total countries) 47th in Maths, 38th in reading and 38th in Science.

You can point the finger at Gove's "idiocies" all you like, but those English schools are doing, on the whole, better than the "untouched" ones in Wales.

I remember seeing that they were wondering whether the replace the blue in the Union flag to green for Wales.

Will they have Euros?

Didn't RTFT

Allgoing If that's so simple, why won't Salmond say that's what he'll do, instead of all the prevarication?

LOL!

allgoing No, anyone can provide equity capital to a failing bank, but the only people who will are the national governements because they suffer when it fails. RBS is an international bank, but only the UK footed the bill, the Icelandic banks all failed because the government could not afford the bill and no-one else cared.
As for sterlingisation, RBS in Scotland, with no lender of last resort will be forced to pay higher interest costs to borrow than if it was based in rUK, so would move. The financial world of the 18th and 19th century are slightly different than today.

Patrick, I believe Balmoral is a privately owned family home and not one of the palaces that belongs to the nation. It was bought by Queen Victoria and the Queen's father paid a vast sum to his brother for it on his abdication, so it would probably be no different to anyone else in the UK who owned a home in Scotland.