back to article Scottish independence: Will it really TEAR the HEART from IT firms?

Scots may vote to leave the United Kingdom, ending a union lasting 307 years, on 18 September. Until a few weeks ago, the referendum on independence looked like an easy win for those wanting to stay in the union - or to use the parlance of the campaign, "no" voters. But a surge in support has put those planning to vote "yes" …

Page:

  1. S4qFBxkFFg

    "There will also be specific government ICT issues: an independent Scotland may have to build its own communications intelligence and surveillance capacity - GCHQ's three main offices are all in England - and the same may be true for defence ICT. "

    This is an interesting one - what do those organisations do if next week they discover that within about ~2 years a certain percentage of their employees, with varying levels of security clearance, are possibly going to be citizens of another state?

    Maybe they could go on a fact-finding mission to Moscow and ask the KGB and GRU how they coped?

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Their citizenship won't change. More likely they'll find that their job has moved to stay within the UK, and they'll have the choice of following or taking a redundancy package.

      Of course the tinhatters will assume that GCHQ will know how all the Scots voted, and may decide to purge those of unsuitable allegiance...

      1. S4qFBxkFFg

        I realise I wasn't as clear as I could be - I meant Scots, possibly born in Scotland, currently working for GCHQ/MI5/MI6/etc., probably (based on how these entities are organised) living in England.

        If, in 2016, they decide to head back north, and seek employment helping set up the various Scottish equivalents of the above, you can imagine that the former UK counter-intelligence people might be a bit worried.

        Would, and to what extent, the Official Secrets Act (or whatever it's currently called) even apply?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Or should it be more worried that Scottish sympathizers could continue working undercover in the heart of Cheltenham as moles (or possibly Salmonds) ?

    2. Mage Silver badge

      Geneva Convention

      Even the current UK Nationals Grandchildren will be probably be UK citizens.

      All people who had parents or grandparents born anywhere in the Island of Ireland before 1922 are UK Citizens with right of abode in UK. (Under EU law any Irish Citizen has right of abode in UK even if they are not eligible for a UK passport).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Geneva Convention

        As a 'Foreigner' living in scotland I thought about similar issues - and looked it up :)

        If the people of scotland vote to become independent, then scotland would become an independent country, separate from the UK. However, it does not mean that anyone who is 'scottish' will suddenly become a non-uk person.

        As a foreigner with a foreign passport I will still be a foreginer with a foreign passport.

        A scottish peson with a UK passport will still be a scottish person with a UK passport.

        an english person living in scotland with a UK passport will still be an english person living in Scotland(tm) with a UK passport.

        There is also the option, should you want to, to obtain a scottish passport, either when your UK one runs out, or before that time if you want to.

        UK people won't need a visa to visit scotland, as it will already be full of UK people with UK passports. There will not be a certain time when you have to pick which side of the border to stand on when the clock strikes midnight.

        It gets more complicated than that depending on the scenario I'd imagine, but a scottish person (as in born in scotland) would not have any issues preventing them from working for GHCQ (on the basis of their passport/nationality alone at least).

        Anyone care to shed more light on this?

        1. Richard 12 Silver badge

          Only to begin with

          The UK won't take British Citizenship away from Scots who already have it.

          The position of those who currently have "work visas" in the UK is unknown - would Scotland honour them? If an independent Scotland granted this to a foreigner, would the Rest-of-UK honour it?

          However, people born after separation would only hold one passport or the other - so a lot of children would only be Scottish and would not be British.

          And finally, if Scottish and R-UK immigration policies drifted "too far" apart, then border controls would have to be put in place - for example, this would be required if either the R-UK or Scotland decided to join Schengen but the other didn't.

        2. Matt 21

          Re: Geneva Convention

          I would have thought that if Scotland decides to leave the UK and then applies to join the EU then once EU membership is granted (opinions vary but it looks like it won't be automatic) then they can live and work in the UK like any other EU citizen.

          The problem occurs if Scotland votes to leave the UK and hasn't yet got EU membership (should it choose to try to join). I don't think there's any legal certainty at this point and everything is up for negotiation. British passports held by Scottish citizens could arguably be deemed invalid, both sides may wish to quickly move to new passports. The practicalities of voiding so many passports might prove tricky... or not.

          On the other hand it's also likely that both sides will agree to honor existing UK passports and allow freedom of movement across the border for a period of time.

          On the other, other hand the Tories really like border patrols so who knows :-)

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: Geneva Convention

            British passports held by Scottish citizens could arguably be deemed invalid,

            I don't think that can happen. British citizenship that is acquired by birth cannot be removed or renounced, no matter where the citizen is currently living. Even if such a person were to acquire Scottish citizenship through new Scottish rules, they would still be a UK citizen as far as the UK government is concerned.

            The closest comparison is probably when the RoI left the UK. Ireland created its own citizenship and passport, separate from that of the UK, but existing passport holders were unaffected. I don't know if people born today in the RoI have any choice other than Irish citizenship, if they are born to Irish parents. Anyone born in N. Ireland has the choice of British or Irish citizenship, that was the case when both nations claimed the terroritory and it's been enshrined in law after the recent agreements.

        3. James Micallef Silver badge

          Re: Geneva Convention + EU considerations

          The only reason EU would not want Scotland is political BS. As mentioned in the article, Spain would want to block Scotland so as not to encourage Basques/Catalans etc. MB* might want to block out of sheer vindictiveness (though in the end I doubt it would).

          But if one were to think abut this practically, there would be no substantial reason for EU to refuse entry to Scotland. Culturally and economically much more integrated in Europe, Economically and politically already within EU norms. The EU can't really with a straight face allow Croatia entry and flirt with the idea of allowing Turkey, Ukraine etc in, while refusing Scotland.

          So bottom line there would still be free movement of people, and free movement of goods and services across the border. In fact I doubt there actually would be a 'proper' border, it will be like driving between say France and Germany where there are some old unmanned border posts but for practical purposes free movement. Scots would still have a UK passport allowing free movement in the EU and pretty much worldwide, and eventually a Scottish passport would be accepted by other countries round the world just like a British one is.

          *Currently GB = Great Britain, in future MB = Most of Britain?

      2. Slx

        Re: Geneva Convention

        Actually it's more than just that.

        Anyone born in Ireland up to 1949 can apply to be a British Subject and then for British Citizenship. However, the agreements between the two countries and the common travel area allowing passport less, ID free travel between the two jurisdictions and the full reciprocal voting rights for each other's citizens make it almost pointless.

        The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have a whole load of legislation that allows freedom of movement under the CTA (Common Travel Area) and treat each others citizens as locals / non aliens. A British citizen's rights in the Republic or an Irish citizens rights in the UK go way beyond EU rights. You've basically got full voting rights, residency rights etc etc. You're not really considered 'foreign'.

        We're even going to start cooperation on issuing visas later this year under what's almost like a mini-schengen visa system meaning that you'll be able to apply for a single visa for both counties.

        I would assume both the UK and Republic of Ireland would simply extend the Common Travel Area and similar rights to Scotland on a similar basis.

        The EU membership is a totally separate issue. For movement between Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales the CTA is what would matter.

        Bear in mind the border between the UK and Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland is not even marked. The only way you've any idea your crossed is because the Republic marks the roads with yellow outer lines, uses metric speeds and distances with US / Canadian style yellow diamond warning signs.

        I would also assume that the UK and an Independent Scotland could share +44 as a country code. Ireland uses +353 but we introduced that in the 1950s when direct international dialing was first developed. Changing Scotland to a new country code would be a bit pointless in 2014.

        We can even have the ability to apply penalty points to each other's driving licences.

        The Irish Pound was also linked at IR£1 = UK£1 until 1978 when Ireland broke the link and joined the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

        We haven't actually ever had a truely floating currency. It was always either tied to Sterling or to a basket of EU currencies before being replaced with the Euro.

        I honestly think a lot of the complications for Scotland are being completely over played.

        1. Ross K Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Geneva Convention

          I would assume both the UK and Republic of Ireland would simply extend the Common Travel Area and similar rights to Scotland on a similar basis.

          Bear in mind the border between the UK and Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland is not even marked.

          Please get your facts right - the name of the country is Ireland, not the "Republic of Ireland".

          1. Slx

            Re: Geneva Convention

            I'll just use a map next time and point as clearly some people can't even use accepted, non offensive descriptive terms without taking severe offence.

            The constitutional name is Éire or Ireland. The term Republic of Ireland is widely used, including on official documentation and even when referencing the national soccer team.

            I can't see how it's any more offensive than dating la République Française which also is a descriptive term.

            I also can't see how it undermines any wish for a United Ireland. I don't think that's ever likely to be a monarchy!

            1. Ross K Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Geneva Convention

              I'll just use a map next time and point as clearly some people can't even use accepted, non offensive descriptive terms without taking severe offence.

              @Six: Nobody's getting offended, I'm telling you to use the correct name without being a sarcastic twat when it's pointed out to you.

              What official documentation is "RoI" used on? I've never had a letter from the government of the Republic of Ireland, or seen a Republic of Ireland passport...

              1. Slx

                Re: Geneva Convention

                The front of a prepaid envelope for sending documents to the Irish Revenue Commissioners (Tax Office).

                It's in Irish but note the reference to "If posted from the Republic of Ireland" on the prepayment stamp.

                http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Envelope_from_Irish_Revenue_Commissioners.jpeg/440px-Envelope_from_Irish_Revenue_Commissioners.jpeg/

                I'm not the person who decided to lecture another poster about how they choose to describe their own country and place of residence

                So perhaps you might need to reconsider which of us looks like a "twat".

                1. Ross K Silver badge

                  Re: Geneva Convention

                  It's in Irish but note the reference to "If posted from the Republic of Ireland" on the prepayment stamp

                  That's all you've got? A prepaid envelope? Hardly an official document, is it?

                  Any other official government documents such as a passport, birth cert, etc that uses your choice of name?

                  1. Slx

                    Re: Geneva Convention

                    The term is commonly used on forms, documents, legal documents and contracts where any ambiguity in jurisdiction could be problematic or where being very specific is useful.

                    I'm not even sure why I'm wasting my time and energy replying.

              2. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

                General moderator comment

                Keep it civil, please, folks.

              3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                Re: Geneva Convention

                What official documentation is "RoI" used on? I've never had a letter from the government of the Republic of Ireland, or seen a Republic of Ireland passport...

                You're entirely correct that the state is called Ireland, however the term "Ireland" can refer to the Irish state, the 26 counties that make up the political entity, or to the entire island, the geographical entity. Since this discussion is about the political circumstances surrounding Scottish independence it seems quite reasonable to clarify that the term "Ireland" is being used to describe the political entity, which I presume you agree is indeed a Republic. "RoI" is a widely accepted way to make that distinction, and is neither incorrect not (usually) offensive.

        2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Geneva Convention

          We haven't actually ever had a truely floating currency. It was always either tied to Sterling or to a basket of EU currencies before being replaced with the Euro.

          I honestly think a lot of the complications for Scotland are being completely over played.

          Slx,

          The world has changed since then. Most of the time that the currencies were linked was during a global exchange rate system (Bretton Woods). Although there was admittedly a huge global war in there too... But also foreign exchange markets weren't quite the red-blooded beasts that they are today.

          Finally Ireland didn't have a large oil industry and a staggeringly huge financial services sector, which Scotland does. The oil introduces a lot of volatility into a currency. It's bounced the Pound around quite a lot since the late 70s, and that's an economy ten times the size of Scotlands for roughly the same amount of oil. Oil prices fluctuate so damned much. This year they've been as high as $140 a barrel (iirc), and there are predictions that they may drop as low as $80/b (at least temporarily). That kind of shift, over a couple of months could easily punt the Scottish currency 10-20% either way.

          Remember that Scotland should be taking on some share of the UK debt. I suspect a deal where Scotland takes on less than the full 9-10% and gives up some of its claim on the shared assets in return. But this is difficult. It's unlikely they can raise this on the markets in one go, so they're going to be paying off government debt in a foreign currency. This is courting disaster if the currencies diverge sufficiently, and however well the Scottish manage their economy the one thing they cannot control is oil prices.

          Sharing the pound is massively unpopular in the rest of the UK. See the Eurozone ongoing disaster for reasons. Also some hurt nationalist pride too I'm sure. Plus us Southern voters don't fancy underwriting Scotland's financial system (we're not very happy doing that for our own!) - and as the Euro has also shown, a single currency without a banking backstop is a huge fucking disaster area. That won't happen.

          For the same reasons of both sentiment and practical economics, Scotland is unlikely to join the Euro in the immediate future.

          Now we come to the other fly in the ointment. Financial services. The large debt in a foreign country is solvable. I'm sure the rUK can do a deal where if the Scottish currency plummets we forgive some of the debt. It'd be unpopular, but it's the only sane solution. Scottish financial services though, are 12x the size of their economy. In Cyprus it was only 7x, and the Eurozone decided to punish them for it. In the UK it's 5x. We nearly went bankrupt bailing that lot out. If the Euro collapses there's another financial storm coming. Scotland can only manage that properly with a central bank, and therefore a currency. And even then can't backstop a finance sector that large. Chances are that large chunks of it will move to London. That's a big hit to the Scottish economy, or a huge risk to the Scottish economy. Neither are nice choices. And that is going to be one of the biggest costs of nationhood.

          If Scots believe in it that's great. Politically if they feel so different to the rest of the UK then they should leave. Even if it's just England. England dominates the Union by being over 80% of it. I'm not sure that's a soluable problem.

          But there are costs. Huge ones. It won't be the paradise set out by the SNP. Scotland will almost certainly get a lot poorer, for at least a few years. Oil production is declining by 10% a year at the moment, and the financial services sector is currently huge in comparison the economy and will shrink quite rapidly. If it remains large it will distort Scottish politics (in a way it doesn't in a devolved assembly) and be a huge risk to the economy - but also give some nice benefits. But bits of it will probably always be asking for special favours or threatening to run off to London. Exports to rUK will be a large sector of the economy, and will probably fluctuate somewhat with exchange rates. And the relationship with the EU will probably be complicated and uncertain for 5-10 years. Plus I believe there'll be a massive Eurozone crisis in 2-3 years (Italian debt), which may lead to partial break-up.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: Geneva Convention

            @Spartacus - excellent post, cutting to the chase a lot of the BS that's been floated around this issue. One point to clarify re "Scottish financial services though, are 12x the size of their economy. In Cyprus it was only 7x, and the Eurozone decided to punish them for it"

            The problem with Cyprus wasn't so much that the financial services were 7X the economy, but how those financial services were structured. Both Luxembourg and Malta have financial services sectors many times their economy (Malta close to 8 times ), but neither of them had any problems.

            http://www.cnbc.com/id/100646028

            I don't know how the Scottish financial services are structured but I'd bet they are far less riskily structured than Cyprus.

            1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Re: Geneva Convention

              James Micallef,

              Cheers.

              Luxembourg were very upset with the Cyprus 'bail-out'. As their financial services are 20x the size of the economy. Cyprus had several problems. The last government had argued too long, so the new one got bounced into a truly craptastic deal. Cyrpus was also a victim of the Greek bail-out. While everything was done to protect German and French banks in this deal, it appears Cyprus only got kind words and promises. And then bail-out fatigue had set in, and Cyprus was full of Russian money. So an easy target to make an example of, without risking the Euro. It was only an argument over something stupid like €8 billion, for which they basically deliberately decided to destroy the Cypriot economy to make a point. An absolutely fucking shameful disgrace of an outcome. At least Greece were mostly at fault for the mess their country was in before the bail-out...

              I'd agree that Scotland's less at risk, as the rUK is more stable than Russia or Greece (two of Cyprus main trading partners). On the other hand, they'd have a separate currency, new government and institutions. That's a lot of uncertainty and instability. And being a petro-currency, when rUK no longer is, doesn't help either.

              But I think the important point is the Scotland will probably have a stable economy, and do OK. It's just that they'll have to have a central bank of their own, to keep any major financial services sector. And that means their own currency. Not sharing/using sterling.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > what do those organisations do if next week they discover that within about ~2 years a certain percentage of their employees, with varying levels of security clearance, are possibly going to be citizens of another state?

      Same as the Czechs and the Slovaks did: they broke up their security services into two independent (but closely cooperating) agencies, with the employees going to one or the other according to their place of residence and/or national allegiance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "What does Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom mean to businesses"

        I can briefly answer that question based on my experience on nearly a third of the 34 new countries that have popped up in the last 25 years (that's ~1.3 new countries per year, I note by the way). It will mean lots of opportunities for both new and established business, and consequently more wealth generation.

        Again, this is what I have seen in the last couple decades, with most of my experience relating to Central and Southern Europe, but also East Timor. It bothers me slightly that those who want to keep the status quo go spreading FUD without feeling the need to justify their "predictions", even when they're patently at odds with all existing evidence.

        1. Mark 65

          Re: "What does Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom mean to businesses"

          @AC: I think there will be some wealth generation but there is also a certain (large) element of broken window fallacy there too. All the things that will need to be duplicated that are currently shared amounts to a huge waste of money, money that could have been spent on other likely more fruitful endeavours.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            @Mark65

            "All the things that will need to be duplicated that are currently shared"

            I don't think there will be that many duplication. It's not like for every organisation there is a "British office" that is 100% in England or Wales, there will be branch offices in Scotland. Post-split you would just have the duplication at the highest level, with pre-existing offices reporting to their new chain of command.

            For example, Scotland does not need to build from scratch a new health system, new social services, new this new that, it already ha them, and just needs to have somewhere central to give leadership. Given they have had their own parliament for years I am sure they already have a 'scottish-only' civil service to deal with it that might need to be expanded.

            Same with companies, they just set a 'scottish' head office but their branches around Scotland won't just disappear and nee to be rebuilt. A lot of this 'command-and-control' is fairly flexible anyway (in business, not in Government)

            Independant Scotland would have 1 major problem - currently it gets a lot of incoming revenue from wealth redistribution from the rest of UK, so taxes need to go up or spending down or both. Frankly given that situation, I wonder why the rest of UK isn't happy to show them teh door.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "What does Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom mean to businesses"

            > All the things that will need to be duplicated that are currently shared amounts to a huge waste of money,

            That has not been the case in Czechoslovakia, nor between the Republika Srpska and BiH. The long and the short of it is that "things" do not really get duplicated, but rather split up, with little new overhead (in some cases, one or both of the new entities can end up being more efficient than their old counterpart, with a net saving). Where there has been additional State-building spending, it has not been obvious that it could be attributed to the division itself--an example is the modernisation of the Czech (and latter Slovakian) military after 1993, which is more to do with them revamping their capabilities and joining NATO than with the creation of those two new countries per se.

            Where did you hear about this "broken window fallacy" thing, btw? You are the second poster to mention it.

            1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              Re: "What does Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom mean to businesses"

              Where did you hear about this "broken window fallacy" thing, btw? You are the second poster to mention it.

              It's a reference to an 1850 essay from a French economist. If a child breaks a window, which takes very little effort, it creates work and money for a glazier, so destroying things might seem to be a way to stimulate an economy. In practice it's a fallacy since it just takes money that would probably be spent elsewhere, there's no net gain. Google it, there are bound to be thousands of references.

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: "What does Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom mean to businesses"

          >>"It will mean lots of opportunities for both new and established business, and consequently more wealth generation."

          There might be business opportunities resulting from a break-up, but wealth spent on resolving disorder and chaos is just a variant on the Broken Window Fallacy. Jobs resulting from repairing damage do not benefit society the same way as jobs providing a new service or product. Basic capitalism.

          Incidentally, I will support Scotland declaring independence (and keeping all their North Sea Oil) if immediately afterwards, they accept the Shetland Islands declaring independence (and keeping all their North Sea Oil). I'm sure Salmond wouldn't want to be hypocritical, after all. ;)

  2. Chris Tierney

    Registered office.

    I'm sorry but the other media outlets appear to be reporting that the banks would only "consider" moving their "registered" offices leaving scottish jobs intact. Why does El-Reg have a different slant to this?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Registered office.

      RBS have definitively stated they WOULD move HQ to London.

      http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/statement-in-response-to-press-speculation-on-re-domicile.html

      1. R 11

        Re: Registered office.

        Funny, the link contains no mention of Headquarters or the word HQ.

        RBS have said they expect the move to have no impact on functions or jobs.

        The RBS letter to staff sent this morning states:

        "'This is a technical procedure regarding the location of our registered head office, based on our current strategy and business plan. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs'."

        So, where do you get this statement about relocating the head office? Because it certainly didn't come from anything RBS has made public.

      2. Slx

        Re: Registered office.

        Moving debt laden banks to England might actually be positive for Scotland. Whether the jobs go with them however is the other question.

        If Scotland's financial sector were shut out that would be a very big issue as there's no guarantee that the EU will be open to instant membership either and I'm not sure if EEA membership would be instant either.

    2. william 10

      Re: Registered office.

      Not correct:

      Reuters: TSB Banking Group (TSB.L), which is part-owned by Lloyds, said it was likely to relocate some operations to England.

      One factors, that will effect the number of jobs moved south - will be how effectively the U.K. regulators can regulate banking business in Scotland.

      Please note the the North Sea Oil industries rely on Tax subsidies funded by English/Welsh tax pays, Scotland's tax take will be 1 / 10 of the current U.K's so the burden will be 10 times larger for the Scottish Tax payers. This same issue will effect most R & D work carried out in Scotland.

      One question never asked - is who is Scottish ? Will my wife born in Glasgow get a U.K. or Scottish passport ? would each person on main land Britain get a choice ? Please note many brit's from the north of England left for Scotland 3 months ago just so that they could vote Yes to independence - so if we can vote do we note get a choice also ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Registered office.

        > One question never asked - is who is Scottish ?

        I don't know if that question has ever been asked, but it has certainly been answered. Look in the white book, or the Scottish independence website, where that and plenty of other questions are thoroughly answered.

    3. DrXym

      Re: Registered office.

      It's less and "consider" and more "will". Banks and economists have already said why - banks need a central bank and they need a treasury and they need to protect their existing capital.

      Leaving themselves in a country which has no credible currency options in the short term, no central bank, no treasury, no foreign reserves would be corporate suicide.

      So they'll first move their domicile to the UK, move their assets and probably move their existing operations over too. All that will be left in Scotland are the things that can be left there - call centres perhaps (unless the English suddenly develop an extreme aversion to Scottish accents), regional branches, currency exchanges etc.

      I would not be surprised at all if in the days following a Yes if there is total chaos in Scotland as people attempt to move their life savings out of banks or drive to places like Carlisle to withdraw money in UK sterling notes.

      1. LucreLout
        Holmes

        Re: Registered office.

        "I would not be surprised at all if in the days following a Yes if there is total chaos in Scotland as people attempt to move their life savings out of banks or drive to places like Carlisle to withdraw money in UK sterling notes."

        The flood gates are already open. I've repatriated the portion of my savings & investments from Scotish institutions to head off the domicile & FX risk associated with a Yes vote next week. As the exodus gathers pace, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some form of currency controls may need to be enacted to prevent Scotland going bust between the vote and the farewell dance. I have no intention of getting caught up in any asset freeze, so have acted in advance.

        The returns elsewhere are directly comparable to what is on offer by the Scots institutions, and my only reason to have had assets in their keeping, was purely apathy. There seemed little to be gained elsewhere, but now the seem sizeable potential risks in staying.

        To win back my capital, the Scottish institutions will have to offer significantly better rates or lower fees, even in the event of a No vote. That will require efficiencies at HQ, and that will mean Scottish job losses even should they vote No. To fail to win it back will cost still further jobs as the size of the industry shrinks.

        As someone caught up in the Icelandic banking debacle, no way am I leaving it until next month to potentially watch Salmond freeze English accounts while allowing Scots to withdraw all the money in the way Iceland did.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Registered office.

          > The flood gates are already open. I've repatriated the portion of my savings & investments from Scotish institutions to head off the domicile & FX risk associated with a Yes vote next week

          Ah, yes. A "flood" of one, eh?

          Business transcends politics (for better or worse). Where there is an opportunity to make money, businesses will go. And nothing spells "opportunity to make money" like State-building. I've been there more than once. :-)

          1. LucreLout

            Re: Registered office.

            "Ah, yes. A "flood" of one, eh?"

            Really? You think I'm alone in this? Half the City has done the same already.

            By all means, leave your money where it is, but understand that you are taking an FX, political, and counterparty risk in doing so, for no reward. That doesn't add up in economic terms.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Registered office.

        > I would not be surprised at all if in the days following a Yes if there is total chaos in Scotland as people attempt to move their life savings out of banks or drive to places like Carlisle to withdraw money in UK sterling notes.

        Could you please point out where a scenario like that has ever happened in the recent past? Thank you.

        1. DrXym

          Re: Registered office.

          "Could you please point out where a scenario like that has ever happened in the recent past? Thank you."

          Sure there you go:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90swN5hCtjI

          Here's another:

          http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/mass-panic-in-cyprus-the-banks-are-collapsing-and-atms-are-running-out-of-money

          If I lived in Glasgow or similar. I would be very strongly inclined to make a trip down south and withdraw as much of that money from a machine that dispensed UK sterling. Or I would buy another currency, gold or some other tangible thing. And it would be an extremely sensible thing to do too - it's called hedging. I might also think of opening an offshore account in sterling on the Isle of Man or similar and moving all my savings to it.

          If you want a British example look at the Bradford and Bingley collapse where queues went down the road and the panic only stopped when the government stepped in. Incidentally the Bradford and Bingley highlights why a lender of last resort (i.e. a central bank) is important to guarantee savings and prevent a total collapse. Scotland won't have one of those which is why the banks are moving their domiciles - if a run happened they would be dead in days.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Registered office.

            > Sure there you go:

            I am not entirely sure how either relates to a peaceful division and subsequent State-building case. Could you please elaborate?

    4. LucreLout

      Re: Registered office.

      Where the RBS jobs will be located will depend upon where the company is headquartered, and whom owns most of the shares. If the UK continues to own most of the shares after independence, and this seems likely, then it would be politically impossible for UK taxes to pay Scotish wages - the jobs would have to be repatriated.

      The only way they would remain in place is if the Salmond (Scots currency) depreciates against Sterling to the point of being competetive with India, though that would hardly be a victory for the Plaid Piper.

      1. Mark 65

        Re: Registered office.

        @LucreLout: If the UK owns the RBS shares how are UK taxes paying Scottish wages? UK taxes bailed out a UK domiciled bank certainly but I'm pretty sure that operating cashflow (£2.6bn profit in first half) pays the wages. It's generally able to run itself, it just has a shitload of bad debt on its books. Do you similarly gripe about UK taxes paying other nations wages in all the other countries that RBS operates offices? What about the yanks' ability to complain about paying UK wages given the size of the credit facilities that were accessed at the Fed? These are global institutions.

        If we were talking about a token nameplate in the City and all the staff in Scotland it'd be a different matter but that simply isn't the case is it?

        1. LucreLout

          Re: Registered office.

          "If the UK owns the RBS shares how are UK taxes paying Scottish wages?"

          Right now, they aren't. Post independence, the English tax payer would be on the hook for RBS. Do you think there will be votes in keeping the jobs in Scotland, or do you think there will be more votes for English MPs in moving those jobs in the company the English people own, south of the border?

          "If we were talking about a token nameplate in the City and all the staff in Scotland it'd be a different matter but that simply isn't the case is it?"

          That is exactly what RBS have stated will happen if the vote is Yes. Now think through the ownersip chain, the electoral system, and realise that much of England are already firmly pissed off with the Scots behaviour of late, and certainly have no stomach for further largesse north of the border. In the event that Scotland goes independent, they will be the competition - effectively, France - and you don't have a bank in England pay most of its staff in France, so why would you think those jobs would stay in Scotland? They won't.

          1. Mark 65

            Re: Registered office.

            @LucreLout: I think you'll find RBS has a large office on Bishopsgate in London. It has never been and will not be post split "just a nameplate" in London. I would hazard a guess that they have and will continue to do rather a large amount of business in that location.

            "In the event that Scotland goes independent, they will be the competition - effectively, France - and you don't have a bank in England pay most of its staff in France, so why would you think those jobs would stay in Scotland? They won't."

            You really don't get how global businesses work do you, especially financial ones?

            Post split there will be a Scottish legal entity and a UK legal entity. The staff in Scotland will be paid by the Scottish legal entity and those in London by the UK legal entity. The reason they got bailed out wasn't because the headquarters was in Scotland and Scotland is in the UK but because if the UK domiciled part of the bank (the bit with the Bishopsgate office - head office is the holding company not a trading entity) went tits up it would have taken a rather large chunk of the City with it. If Scotland had split and the head office remained there, although RBS would not have been "bailed out with UK taxpayer funds" with the Government owning the shares (as it would be a Scottish company) the UK legal entity would no doubt have a rather large revolving credit facility at the BoE achieving much the same result but without the taxpayer control. Rather like how the US legal entities of the UK banks could tap into Fed funding when they were strapped. If the US bit went down chances are the UK bit would have gone too as there are always large cross entity trades floating around. Hence my comment about the yanks not complaining they are paying UK wages whereas you think all jobs will come back from Scotland if the HQ relocates to the UK. Have you maybe thought that Scotland might remain a cheaper location in which to source English speaking staff that aren't required to be located in any particular location because they provide call centre and other such functions?

            1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: Registered office.

              If that worked why didn't the government take advantage of it during the crash?

              It could have dropped an elite unit of SAS accountant Ninja into Frankfurt by black helicopter, have them nail up a brass plaque with "Northern Rock" written on it and let the Bundesbank pay for everything.

    5. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Registered office.

      Why should Scots be worried about bank HQs leaving Scotland anyway?

      Scotland won't be liable for the bill when things inevitably go tits up again and can focus on building their own properly-regulated banking sector.

      In fact, I wonder if it's the prospect of proper regulation that that banks fear most.

      Anyway, regarding RBS my understanding is that RBS Group (which includes RBS bank, NatWest and Ulster Bank) will move its registered office to London, but the RBS bank will be staying put.

    6. dotslash

      Re: Registered office.

      Scotland are in a lose lose situation: stay in the Union and continue to complain about Westminster for no reason; leave and lose all these companies, have no currency, create a doomed economy with a mass emigration problem at Gretna.

      If they do pack up and leave, then good luck to them: there's not much Oil left in the North Sea; Welsh whisky ain't that bad; and no one wears tartan skirts.

      I'm getting the popcorn ready, it's going to be comic either way.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Registered office.

        >>"Scotland are in a lose lose situation: stay in the Union and continue to complain about Westminster for no reason; leave and lose all these companies, have no currency, create a doomed economy with a mass emigration problem at Gretna"

        Now, now. I too think Scotland would be better off staying but lets not trot out extremist arguments. Everyone has reason to complain about Westminster, especially those of us in the North of England who don't even get the Scottish education system!

        Also, I think more likely they'd have a mass immigration problem seeing as Salmond is trumpeting how he'd like to encourage immigration massively. Salmond wants to use immigration to stimulate Scottish industry through and influx of foreign skills and a consequent depression / control of wage inflation. Sound from a GDP point of view, but I wonder if the Yes voters consider themselves to be signing up for substantially increased immigration. Then of course there's oil - the other pillar of Salmond's economic plan. Invite more people in, sell off the oil and rely on the English for currency and defence - Salmond's plans in a sentence.

        That's really bad enough - no need to start deploying the hyperbole.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon