Scottish Bank And Businesses To Use Or Not.

[DYLANGT7]

People are in for a tough life if they are being so incredibly petty that they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

[Maq]

People are in for a tough life if they are being so incredibly petty that they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

I'm not saying I'll only use a business with an HQ in Scotland. I'm not going to use a business which is trying to bully the Scottish people into voting one way or another.

Perfectly happy to use any company that remains neutral. I won't be coerced by a business when there are many, many other options

[Flure]

People are in for a tough life if they are being so incredibly petty that they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

I'll still be buying my Chablis and Camembert!

[runningtings]

These days a bank's HQ is just a paper exercise. The hype around this bank and that bank leaving Scotland is total scaremongering.

In other news, the CEO of John Lewis/Waitrose has indicated that prices may go up.

If that's generally the case does it not mean more chance for locally produced goods to be used, i.e. better for our farming industry?

[snoopyhill]

People are in for a tough life if they are being so incredibly petty that they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

I don't think anyone has suggested they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

It is all about choice surely folk can choose to give their business to companies domiciled in Scotland as a first preference so the taxes paid by these companies are spent in their home country. Seems perfectly sensible to me.

[Third Lanark]

I have a fairly significant pension currently with standard life. Small change to them but I am moving it. Disgraceful them getting involved in trying to influence a democratic process.

Me too. Mine is only a small one and i live in Eng. Should i contact them now?

[ShedTA]

People are in for a tough life if they are being so incredibly petty that they will only use a business with its HQ in Scotland.

and you have completely missed the point.

[Flure]

These days a bank's HQ is just a paper exercise. The hype around this bank and that bank leaving Scotland is total scaremongering.

In other news, the CEO of John Lewis/Waitrose has indicated that prices may go up.

If that's generally the case does it not mean more chance for locally produced goods to be used, i.e. better for our farming industry?

No he didn't. He said that in the long term there may be a price "divergence" between Scotland and the UK due to things like tax variations, pension costs etc.

That could equally mean that prices in iScotland "could" be less than rUK.

[Roscoe]

Dylang, I will be putting my money in another Bank whether it is English run or not. But I will NOT be leaving it in a bank that has come OUT against its own customers for having voted Yes . This is designed to sway voters into voting No. They don't give a flying about what is good for Scotland, only whats good for theirselves and the paymasters in London.

[Nobby]

Actually, not having a Lender of Last Resort leads to a more stable financial services industry.

Crack on then, but it would appear that a number of financial institutions would disagree

[ShedTA]

These days a bank's HQ is just a paper exercise. The hype around this bank and that bank leaving Scotland is total scaremongering.

In other news, the CEO of John Lewis/Waitrose has indicated that prices may go up.

If that's generally the case does it not mean more chance for locally produced goods to be used, i.e. better for our farming industry?

Exactly. RBS is actively moving operations out of england/ south east due to costs. It may move its registered office to england for ease with trading out of london but it will always base the majority of its operations where there are cheaper skilled workers. witness the level of jobs it has shipped out to India. it is total scaremongering.

However its very distasteful these organisations trying to influence a referendum. a real thank you to the scottish people who have worked hard to make the companies what they are.

[Alibi]

Article from oz, sent to me by an old school friend who has lived there since the mid-60s.

The Whisky Revolution
Thursday, 11th September 2014
Melbourne, Australia
By Greg Canavan

• The whisky revolution
• Aussie dollar breaking lower
• Bungy jumping on the trading floor

The birthplace of capitalism — and Adam Smith in particular — Scotland, is the latest region to give global equity and currency markets the wobbles.

On September 18, Scotland goes to the polls for an independence vote. Early polling suggests the Scots just might decide to ditch the UK. They joined the ‘Kingdom’ back in 1707.

Is this a big deal or not? Should you be worried about it?

I don’t know to be honest. If the Scots stick with the UK (and there’s a decent fear campaign going on to ensure that happens) then it will be business as usual.

But if Scotland decides to walk away, then things will get very interesting. It could well be a ‘fat tail’ event.

Why?

Well, in a globalised world, everything is connected. Especially the banking system. And this is where problems could emerge.

Let me explain…

The UK has a huge current account deficit. You can see the deterioration since the ‘recovery’ from the 2008 recession in the chart below. In the year to March 31 (the latest data available) the UK ran a current account deficit of £74.6 billion. That’s around 4.5% of GDP…which is pretty high.

(Graph here but not permitted to post link for some reason)

In other words, the UK relies heavily on foreign capital to sustain its standard of living.

The Scottish vote for independence threatens to blow the current account out further, which is why the British pound took a beating this week as some polls showed a ‘yes’ for independence vote.

If the Scots walk, they’ll take North Sea oil and gas with them (or a big chunk of it anyway). Along with a whisky export market worth £4.6 billion in 2012, Scotland would most likely run a trade surplus as an independent nation.

That would have a whole bunch of ramifications for the pound and the UK’s credit rating. It would result in a global shift of capital that would have many unintended consequences.

That’s why markets are on edge. And it’s why you’re seeing a scare campaign run by the vested interests in England. Check out this from the Telegraph:

‘Scotland could be forced to raise billions of pounds to maintain financial stability as an independent country, the Governor of the Bank of England implied on Wednesday.

‘Mark Carney told MPs that the estimated £15bn Scotland would inherit in sterling reserves in the event of secession would fall well short of the levels used by other countries that have adopted foreign currencies.

‘He added that Scotland would need to run a fiscal surplus for several years in order to build up the reserves, a task which he conceded could require imposing extra taxes or spending cuts on its population. "These are real fiscal costs," he said.’

England manages to get by just fine running massive deficits. Global capital would have no problem supporting a financially conservative Scotland (they’re Scots, of course they would be financially conservative!) especially if they run a whiskey and oil based trade surplus.

But the big banks and pension funds, reliant on the Bank of England as a lender of last resort, have said they will relocate if there is a ‘yes’ vote.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope the Scots go it alone. It would be good for future generations to leave the UK and their basket case economic model. The UK’s main export now is London property. That’s a slight exaggeration, but the fact is they’re pawning off their assets to live beyond their means.

But it’s likely the elites and the banks will win again. Fear campaigns work well when uncertainty is in the air. Better the devil you know and all that.

But it’s one to keep an eye on. In a week’s time we’ll know the outcome.

[Alibi]

These days a bank's HQ is just a paper exercise. The hype around this bank and that bank leaving Scotland is total scaremongering.

In other news, the CEO of John Lewis/Waitrose has indicated that prices may go up.

If that's generally the case does it not mean more chance for locally produced goods to be used, i.e. better for our farming industry?

I think he actually said that prices might be different - upon which the BBC presenter immediately claimed he had said prices would go up. no acknowledgement that "different" could equally mean prices would be lower. The BBC in particular has been disgraceful, and now they are not even attempting to conceal their bias.

[AbductedbyAliens]

What about the bank tax thoughh? Go to the country with the registered HQ address?

[Mee]

I shut my RBS accounts last year because of poor service and interest rates but if i still had them open i would be closing them today.

This is blatant election interference, if people are going to do shut down accounts they should do it anyway wither the vote is yes and the move or no and they don't move.

If they wanted to move after the vote thats up to them but they shouldn't be trying to influence the referendum before it takes place.

[ShedTA]

What about the bank tax thoughh? Go to the country with the registered HQ address?

well heres the thing - rbs is 80%+ owned by the tax payer. so on independence the scottish govt would still own circa 10% of that. so is that not pretty much equal to what we get anyway? all tax revenues go south and we get back what they want to give us. where is the difference?

[adamntg]

From the London Stock Exchange:

The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Head Office
250 Bishopsgate
London
EC2M 3AA
United Kingdom

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-detail.html?castMemberId=ALSE1A0003T5

I'm not sure what the actual threat is here?

[Solihull Scot]

250 Bishopsgate is RBS's investment bank

[Wine bibber]

well heres the thing - rbs is 80%+ owned by the tax payer. so on independence the scottish govt would still own circa 10% of that. so is that not pretty much equal to what we get anyway? all tax revenues go south and we get back what they want to give us. where is the difference?

You've nailed it.86% owned and Scotland has 8.6% of the population and we get less than 90% back of the total revenue that we give westminster.

No difference and we get the opportunity to challenge RBS for Scottish business.

[AbductedbyAliens]

You've nailed it.86% owned and Scotland has 8.6% of the population and we get less than 90% back of the total revenue that we give westminster.

No difference and we get the opportunity to challenge RBS for Scottish business.

Understand that but they wont be 86% government owned forever. Was just interested in where tax goes in these situations. I imagine it has to do with country specific revenues as well.

[ShedTA]

You've nailed it.86% owned and Scotland has 8.6% of the population and we get less than 90% back of the total revenue that we give westminster.

No difference and we get the opportunity to challenge RBS for Scottish business.

exactly on a carve up we retain a % of RBS. if they ever get to paying the govt back then fair enough we get a % of that. unless of course the Uk govt want to pay us for our % of RBS - that will be a few billion £'s that we could stick in a fund.

Is Lloyds not also still a % owned by the tax payer? dont think they have paid it all back yet have they?

[ShedTA]

Understand that but they wont be 86% government owned forever. Was just interested in where tax goes in these situations. I imagine it has to do with country specific revenues as well.

Yeh not sure. is it not based on where the companies operations are? so a % would still come here? or can they choose? either way are the snp not talking about reducing corp tax to encourage businesses? bit daft if RBS chose to pay more tax down south than up here.

[thorbotnic]

exactly on a carve up we retain a % of RBS. if they ever get to paying the govt back then fair enough we get a % of that. unless of course the Uk govt want to pay us for our % of RBS - that will be a few billion £'s that we could stick in a fund.

Is Lloyds not also still a % owned by the tax payer? dont think they have paid it all back yet have they?

Presumably the flip side of that is that the rUK taxpayer owns circa 90% of the 80% UK stake - if RBS continues to be headquartered in Scotland, are you going to pay us for our share?

[biffer]

I'm with two bank - TSB, owned by Lloyd's but being floated, and NatWest, part of RBS, but the part they're going to rebrand as Williams and Glynn and sell. No idea where either of these will be HQ'd, and frankly I couldn't care less. Finance is international whether we like it or not. what counts about it is where the jobs are - and we still will have these.

[EvilScotsman]

Crack on then, but it would appear that a number of financial institutions would disagree

Funny that.