"As the second largest financial hub in the UK and developed over three centuries, Scotland is recognised as one of Europe’s leading financial centres, offering key strengths within banking, insurance, investment management and asset servicing. It has a long history of innovation and a flexible and highly skilled workforce.
Around 60% of the industry’s jobs are in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where several UK banks are headquartered including Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tesco Bank and Virgin Money. With a strong reputation in general insurance, life assurance and pensions, Scotland employs 25% of the total UK workforce employed in these specialisms."
Continues..
I can only assume your point is... look how well we're doing in the union.
"As the second largest financial hub in the UK and developed over three centuries, Scotland is recognised as one of Europe’s leading financial centres, offering key strengths within banking, insurance, investment management and asset servicing. It has a long history of innovation and a flexible and highly skilled workforce.
Indeed, Edinburgh is a fine financial centre but that is built on being part of the UK and EU. Scotland doesn't have its own stock market so that would need to be created from scratch and are those banks and insurance companies really going to leave the LSE to move to Edinburgh?
"As the second largest financial hub in the UK and developed over three centuries, Scotland is recognised as one of Europe’s leading financial centres, offering key strengths within banking, insurance, investment management and asset servicing. It has a long history of innovation and a flexible and highly skilled workforce.
Around 60% of the industry’s jobs are in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where several UK banks are headquartered including Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tesco Bank and Virgin Money. With a strong reputation in general insurance, life assurance and pensions, Scotland employs 25% of the total UK workforce employed in these specialisms."
Continues..
What does the location of the head office of some companies (and some of those e.g. Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale are subsiduaries of non-Scottish domiciled banks and Virgin Money is hq'd in Gosforth) have to do with the Bank of England?
Is the Yes campaign reduced to saying "Look we've lots of oil and lots of bankers - don't worry about the details"?:D
"As the second largest financial hub in the UK and developed over three centuries, Scotland is recognised as one of Europe’s leading financial centres, offering key strengths within banking, insurance, investment management and asset servicing. It has a long history of innovation and a flexible and highly skilled workforce.
Around 60% of the industry’s jobs are in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where several UK banks are headquartered including Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Tesco Bank and Virgin Money. With a strong reputation in general insurance, life assurance and pensions, Scotland employs 25% of the total UK workforce employed in these specialisms."
Continues..
All very true - it will be a shame when much of that sector leaves after Independence. Is there any plan to replace the jobs lost?
What does the location of the head office of some companies (and some of those e.g. Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale are subsiduaries of non-Scottish domiciled banks and Virgin Money is hq'd in Gosforth) have to do with the Bank of England?
Is the Yes campaign reduced to saying "Look we've lots of oil and lots of bankers - don't worry about the details"?:D
Nothing at first sight. However as you've mentioned a lot of those are, or will be, multinational branches part of which do business in the rUK. Which leads you to the interesting concept that lacking a formal Lender of Last Resort, and it's worth repeating that isn't a blank cheque and has nothing to do with bail outs, the parent banks could feasibly provide funding themselves or indirectly via the BoE.
As far as bail outs are concerned, from recent history, each state is responsible for the business that takes place in their own territory hence the pertinent fact that a significant, in some cases the majority, of funding in the last crash actually came from the USA.
As far as the staffing goes the official HQ and the place where the lower level management take place don't have to be the same. The alleged mass exodus of banks might simply consist of the minimum needed to satisfy EU regulations and ensure a link to the BoE. The majority of staff would still be based in Scotland as long as operating costs made that financially more attractive.
I've seen mention of organisation uprooting and HQ'ing in London. The silliest of the lot being oil firm. The problem with that "scare" is that corporation tax is due to the state where it's incurred. Nor would the dodge involving paying the parent company for a franchise as allegedly used in some coffee chains work. One thing that would improve as far as Scotland was concerned is that profits from supermarket and other chains officially HQ'd in London would start being credited to Scotland. Swings and roundabouts really we'd loose some of the revenue from banking but gain some from elsewhere. Who knows we might even come ahead in the deal.
I wasn't bigging his report up I was comparing his glowing confidence in forecasting the benefits of future North Sea oil reserves to the UK economy, in February, with his dire forecast for North Sea oil to Scotlands economy, 6 months later, one month from the referendum, within weeks of the growing optimism surrounding rumours of new finds, secret visits to Shetland from the PM, the NHS scares, growing support for independence in the most recent polls. All coincidence of course.
The mere fact that you are asking the question shows how reckless and irresponsible you are. These are key issues that should have been ironed out years ago, and yet here we are with a month till decision time and nobody knows the answer. Why would anyone in Scotland trust their fate to Alex Salmond, the Pied Piper of Hamilton?
Reckless I am?
had the UK sigend up for the Vienna Conventions there would be no issue.
Westminster is the reckless one.
But if you want to get into the scenario the factthat rUK expects Scotland to take a share of the debt means they see rUK and Scotland both as continuing states.
As such that means Scotland keeps the pound, EU membership etc etc as it is already signed up.
I wasn't bigging his report up I was comparing his glowing confidence in forecasting the benefits of future North Sea oil reserves to the UK economy, in February, with his dire forecast for North Sea oil to Scotlands economy, 6 months later, one month from the referendum, within weeks of the growing optimism surrounding rumours of new finds, secret visits to Shetland from the PM, the NHS scares, growing support for independence in the most recent polls. All coincidence of course.
What "Secret vists"? Or are they so secret that you can't tell us about them?
A Prime Minister can't do anything without it being in the news so the suggestion that he has made "secret" visits to Shetland is laughable. The visits may not have been arranged at the last minute and not pre-announced but that's often the case with a PM's schedule. It's not as if he' be smuggled onto the islands under a blanket.
Besides, as the PM of the UK he has every right to visit Shetland. Why shouldn't he?
Nothing at first sight. However as you've mentioned a lot of those are, or will be, multinational branches part of which do business in the rUK. Which leads you to the interesting concept that lacking a formal Lender of Last Resort, and it's worth repeating that isn't a blank cheque and has nothing to do with bail outs, the parent banks could feasibly provide funding themselves or indirectly via the BoE.
As far as bail outs are concerned, from recent history, each state is responsible for the business that takes place in their own territory hence the pertinent fact that a significant, in some cases the majority, of funding in the last crash actually came from the USA.
As far as the staffing goes the official HQ and the place where the lower level management take place don't have to be the same. The alleged mass exodus of banks might simply consist of the minimum needed to satisfy EU regulations and ensure a link to the BoE. The majority of staff would still be based in Scotland as long as operating costs made that financially more attractive.
I've seen mention of organisation uprooting and HQ'ing in London. The silliest of the lot being oil firm. The problem with that "scare" is that corporation tax is due to the state where it's incurred. Nor would the dodge involving paying the parent company for a franchise as allegedly used in some coffee chains work. One thing that would improve as far as Scotland was concerned is that profits from supermarket and other chains officially HQ'd in London would start being credited to Scotland. Swings and roundabouts really we'd loose some of the revenue from banking but gain some from elsewhere. Who knows we might even come ahead in the deal.
I'm not sure what your first para is getting at but if you mean to say that personal bank accounts will not be affected in the case of a Yes vote then I agree with you - the rUK will still be issuing banking licenses to the rUK arms of RBS et al and I can't see the Scottish government objecting. Assuming Scotland is still using the rUK pound on an informal basis.
However the corporation tax arising will go to rUK not Scotland.
Re the lender of last resort - it's not required but without it the Scottish banks will have to cover their own risks without access to the pooling of risk that BoE currently provides.
On bailouts - if the Royal Bank of Scotland was domiciled in Scotland and it required a bailout then Scotland would be liable for all its debts. Iceland is a good example of this. Sure the national governments would cover personal accounts under the banking regulations but they would be looking for compensation from Scotland - or Scotland does an Iceland and has a referendum to refuse to pay the debt.
Iceland's credit rating went from A to BBB after the banking debacle. That is what would happen to Scotland in a similar circumstance if RBS went belly up as it did recently.
The RBS was rescued by the UK taxpayer and currently owns (through the UK Financial Investments holding company) about 80% of the bank. Does that mean Scotland's share of the RBS is 9% of that 80% = 7.2%?
All very true - it will be a shame when much of that sector leaves after Independence. Is there any plan to replace the jobs lost?
Don't worry, after independence every child in Scotland is going to get 30 hours of state childcare a week, so there will be plenty of highly-paid jobs for hundreds of thousands of Scots working in kindergartens and child protection.
These will be financed by taxes levied on people working in the highly-paid and highly profitable financial sect....errrr......ah, um, can you wait a minute and I'll get back to you?
Don't worry, after independence every child in Scotland is going to get 30 hours of state childcare a week, so there will be plenty of highly-paid jobs for hundreds of thousands of Scots working in kindergartens.
More likely Poles and Lithuanians though I'm not sure how "highly paid" they would be.
Comments
I can only assume your point is... look how well we're doing in the union.
Indeed, Edinburgh is a fine financial centre but that is built on being part of the UK and EU. Scotland doesn't have its own stock market so that would need to be created from scratch and are those banks and insurance companies really going to leave the LSE to move to Edinburgh?
What does the location of the head office of some companies (and some of those e.g. Lloyds Banking Group, Clydesdale are subsiduaries of non-Scottish domiciled banks and Virgin Money is hq'd in Gosforth) have to do with the Bank of England?
Is the Yes campaign reduced to saying "Look we've lots of oil and lots of bankers - don't worry about the details"?:D
Oil is not an asset, it's a resource. You'd be as well asking if we'd like to give up part of our landmass.
So how are you going to value the BoE?
Or are you going to do an Alex Salmond and pluck a figure out of the air
All very true - it will be a shame when much of that sector leaves after Independence. Is there any plan to replace the jobs lost?
OIl and banking. What two fine industries to build a Scottish socialist paradise.
Oh and whisky too. Another industry which causes a lot of social problems.
At least it is two items.
BT campaign seem to be reduced to only ever mentioning CU.
Nothing at first sight. However as you've mentioned a lot of those are, or will be, multinational branches part of which do business in the rUK. Which leads you to the interesting concept that lacking a formal Lender of Last Resort, and it's worth repeating that isn't a blank cheque and has nothing to do with bail outs, the parent banks could feasibly provide funding themselves or indirectly via the BoE.
As far as bail outs are concerned, from recent history, each state is responsible for the business that takes place in their own territory hence the pertinent fact that a significant, in some cases the majority, of funding in the last crash actually came from the USA.
As far as the staffing goes the official HQ and the place where the lower level management take place don't have to be the same. The alleged mass exodus of banks might simply consist of the minimum needed to satisfy EU regulations and ensure a link to the BoE. The majority of staff would still be based in Scotland as long as operating costs made that financially more attractive.
I've seen mention of organisation uprooting and HQ'ing in London. The silliest of the lot being oil firm. The problem with that "scare" is that corporation tax is due to the state where it's incurred. Nor would the dodge involving paying the parent company for a franchise as allegedly used in some coffee chains work. One thing that would improve as far as Scotland was concerned is that profits from supermarket and other chains officially HQ'd in London would start being credited to Scotland. Swings and roundabouts really we'd loose some of the revenue from banking but gain some from elsewhere. Who knows we might even come ahead in the deal.
I'd say it's worth the entirety of the national debt. What's your bid?
This.
The reports are inconsistent.
Lord Wood post Spetember you reckon?
Really - you think the BoE is worth 1.3 Trillion pounds
Reckless I am?
had the UK sigend up for the Vienna Conventions there would be no issue.
Westminster is the reckless one.
But if you want to get into the scenario the factthat rUK expects Scotland to take a share of the debt means they see rUK and Scotland both as continuing states.
As such that means Scotland keeps the pound, EU membership etc etc as it is already signed up.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/ireland-osborne-tax-irish
Writing in the Times (pre-paywall, folks), the then shadow chancellor declared:
"Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking."
Funny how Osborne isn't pulled up about this to the same extent Salmond is.
What "Secret vists"? Or are they so secret that you can't tell us about them?
A Prime Minister can't do anything without it being in the news so the suggestion that he has made "secret" visits to Shetland is laughable. The visits may not have been arranged at the last minute and not pre-announced but that's often the case with a PM's schedule. It's not as if he' be smuggled onto the islands under a blanket.
Besides, as the PM of the UK he has every right to visit Shetland. Why shouldn't he?
http://tablet.scotsman.com/face-up-to-painful-decisions-to-save-nhs-1-536215
I think you are becoming as deranged as Mr Salmond.
I'm not sure what your first para is getting at but if you mean to say that personal bank accounts will not be affected in the case of a Yes vote then I agree with you - the rUK will still be issuing banking licenses to the rUK arms of RBS et al and I can't see the Scottish government objecting. Assuming Scotland is still using the rUK pound on an informal basis.
However the corporation tax arising will go to rUK not Scotland.
Re the lender of last resort - it's not required but without it the Scottish banks will have to cover their own risks without access to the pooling of risk that BoE currently provides.
On bailouts - if the Royal Bank of Scotland was domiciled in Scotland and it required a bailout then Scotland would be liable for all its debts. Iceland is a good example of this. Sure the national governments would cover personal accounts under the banking regulations but they would be looking for compensation from Scotland - or Scotland does an Iceland and has a referendum to refuse to pay the debt.
Iceland's credit rating went from A to BBB after the banking debacle. That is what would happen to Scotland in a similar circumstance if RBS went belly up as it did recently.
Errr. that was from 10 years ago.
Must be true then.
Yes campaigners can quote from as far back as they like - providing no campaigners don't do the same.
Don't worry, after independence every child in Scotland is going to get 30 hours of state childcare a week, so there will be plenty of highly-paid jobs for hundreds of thousands of Scots working in kindergartens and child protection.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25114249
These will be financed by taxes levied on people working in the highly-paid and highly profitable financial sect....errrr......ah, um, can you wait a minute and I'll get back to you?
More likely Poles and Lithuanians though I'm not sure how "highly paid" they would be.
Lol that's twice today he's been caught out typing words into Google and attaching the first link that comes up.;-)