You're right. I don't see why Scotland would need a large functioning army. In reality the rUK would never allow Scotland to be invaded by a foreign power anyway so there's really no need. Far better to have an arrangement whereby the rUK defends Scotland in the event of an agressor attacking, and Scotland pays for the protection, with some sort of ongoing contribution acting as a retainer.
Maybe there could be some sort of organisation of countries that feel similarly on the topic and are located around the North Atlantic? They could record their agreement in some sort of treaty. 😀
What most surprises me is that there are still undecided voters! This has been discussed to death. Do any Scots know any undecided voters?
I'm not sure...
"We're keeping the pound" is meaningless? Is English your first language? The statement may be wrong but it certainly isn't meaningless. Still, that would explain why other simple English phrases like "fairer society" are beyond your comprehension.
oooooOOO[b]OOOOO[/b]OOOooooo!
My own personal feeling is that some companies may leave Scotland in the event of a yes vote, but that will be dwarded by the amount of financial companies ****ing on off up to Edinburgh if we hold a referendum on EU membership. That is, if Scotland gains a place within the EU.
Yup, Wall St banks are already making contingency plans to leave London if the UK leaves the EU.
No, I think it's extremely clearly worded.
Yes, as I pointed out before, extremely clearly worded so as not to appear that they are taking sides.
when in fact they don't say they would- they say they could. So the rest of your post is just based on a misreading/misrepresentation. Maybe the latter since you started quoting immediately after the bit you don't like?
My misreading/misrepresantation? 😯 You seem to be the one who is interpreting the "could" to apply to "ensure", when the extremely careful wording you point out actually says "to ensure". See my careful cutting also removed the crucial "to" (to avoid any doubt, I cut the bit referring to what they could do, because I was only referring to the aims and it would have been confusing). They list all the things they could do "to ensure" those things - I don't think there is any doubt over their intentions to ensure them. Or do you actually think that with all this planning they're doing they might think "nah, we won't bother ensuring that"?
Oh, and just in case there was any doubt, the very last sentence goes:
"The plans we have put in place will help to ensure continuity"
aracer - Member
Wowsers? Surely the banks relocating HQs was one of the most obvious thing to happen - as explained many hundreds of pages back, the regulatory systems pretty much require them to do that.
Indeed and confirmed from the horses mouth many pages back, but this of course is mere bluster according to yS supporters.
The grown ups are coming out of the shadows now and being v clear on consequence and yet this is all dismissed as "nonsense" by the DO. The one good thing about him is that he is nearly always looking in the mirror when talking so when comments like nonsense, bullying etc are made you know the real reason - it is a simple reflection of himself.
The FT editorial this morning sums it up well
The?case?for?union is overwhelming. The path of separation is a fool’s errand
Quite.
[i]RBS and Lloyds are off!
How many jobs is that?[/i]
Probably very very Few. Being legally based in London, and having your offices, call centres, processing, etc etc somewhere else isn't a massive issue.
Just over 3,000 for RBS (assuming this architecture website is correct)
http://www.edinburgharchitecture.co.uk/rbs
but the point is that you don't need to have the workers anywhere near where the company is formally headquartered.
Probably affects where you pay corporation tax though.
Reported in the i today that Salmond will fast track Scotland's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest.
Nice to see he has his priorities right, no idea of what currency will be used, Capital Flight already happening but hey, you're going to be in Eurovision!
Probably affects where you pay corporation tax though.
And which government has to bail you out when it goes pear-shaped again.
Given the scale of the buildings being looked out, there will be a "reasonable" number re-locating.
The tax issue is important too. The highly paid, high tax payers tend to be more mobile and couple that with reducing corporate tax and the DOs numbers soon fall over - not that they were their in the first place. As we have already seen, he may well end up out austeritying, austerity george! But then again he does like getting on the RW of Thatcherites every now and again.
KB is correct about the theory, the key things are location of HQ and whether you are a branch or a subsidiary. The intangible is whether clients perceive a difference in physical location. Judging by the contingency planning they do hence the Grossart sensitivity yesterday!
Probably affects where you pay corporation tax though.
you pay tax where you earn profit - and evil multinationals amazingly seem to earn money in completely different place to their employees and sales and suppliers. funny huh?
bencooper - Member
Probably affects where you pay corporation tax though.
And which government has to bail you out when it goes pear-shaped again.
Free riding again, Ben?!? 😉
I think the banks know a compliant tax and regulation regime when they see one.
Exactly and where did they locate - remember AS view on heavy handed regulation in the UK? Or was "Mr Light Touch come and play in my back yard" just flapping in the wind once again. The serpent twists that one very well, doesn't he?
Flip, flop, flip, flop....
Who made the announcement about RBS and Lloyds? The Treasury. Who owns most of RBS and a lot of Lloyds? The Treasury. Who does the Treasury work for? George Osborne.
This isn't some impartial business decision, it's as political as it gets. The big guns are going all out to prevent a Yes vote, and the media are doing their best to help.
Actually might have to re-think the dirty digger conspiracy theory (someone else is manipulating the polls). The Times leading with Financial Turmoil hits Scotland on the front page.
Perhaps, he just long currency vol like me and making mischief to suit his position?!? 😉
This isn't some impartial business decision, it's as political as it gets.
I think you fail to understand the very onerous obligations on listed companies in relation to information provision. This sort of stuff has a high degree of share price sensitivity and investors know what it means. It can only be published if it genuinely is what current management will do. Unlike the politicians, directors of such companies face very serious consequences for misleading.
[quote=muddydwarf said]Reported in the i today that Salmond will fast track Scotland's entry into the Eurovision Song Contest.
Nice to see he has his priorities right, no idea of what currency will be used, Capital Flight already happening but hey, you're going to be in Eurovision!
Aye it is just not possible that the media , and your good self, has an agenda. It is quite unlikely that this is the prime issues that he has been wrestling with.
Its about the weakest and most pointless personal attack there has been on AS and that is some achievement.
Can I ask a question re the currency union? If understand it correctly then the UK debt is non transferable to another country and if Scotland becomes independent then the only way Scotland could pay it's share is via a union. Is this right enough?
I think you will find that CEOs need no encouragement to defend their interests and those are clear. The neutrality is slipping for sure. Why? Because this is serious and there is a real risk of an outcome that is not in anyone's eventual interest. Even E2R has intervened with a subtlety that only the palace knows how, ditto the Bank of England. This is more than squeaky bum time (although he's there as well), it's serious politics and business. The stakes have been raised.
The business community are saying WTF, people may well be stupid enough to swallow this BS and are belatedly reacting. But emotions have always overwhelmed reality and truth as they did with the euro project. Reality comes back to bite you on the backside at some stage though.
Can I ask a question re the currency union? If understand it correctly then the UK debt is non transferable to another country and if Scotland becomes independent then the only way Scotland could pay it's share is via a union. Is this right enough?
Scotland would never be paying a share of the debt, as the debt is in the UK's name - Scotland would be paying the UK in exchange for assets, and those payments would assist the UK to pay off the debt.
You are correct - Ben isn't (edited for cross post*) - you cannot physically separate outstanding debt obligations. HM T made that clear earlier in the year. The rUK would stand behind the outstanding debt. This is why it is a technical issue. An iS would make a financial contribution that is equivalent to the debt (ie, principal and interest) the only question is how much (tbc) and how to structure it (a big break one-off payment (unlikely) or a series of payments). Off to meetings now, but may dig out links explaining how this will work.
Essentially you replace debt with a loan and financial transfers.
Even yS has published stuff explaining this - it's not hard to find with google.
* settling the debt is nothing to do with assets (at least in the strict sense) that is a yS smokescreen and part of the BS debate. Everyone has received a benefit from the debt outstanding and therefore have an obligation towards repaying it. A country that takes the benefit but then reneges on the obligation to pay back, is in effect defaulting. The FC knows this, AS knows this, the rest is smoke and mirrors.
Junkyard - I want you to bugger off remember?
I just think AS and Co are selling a very dodgy package. Considering this is the SNP's lifes work it really appears to be built on smoke and mirrors & you deserve more Tha that before you make your choice.
Most of the majors have contingency in place for a Yes, some of it is around company structures and some of it is job related. These aren't, as AS would have us believe, idle threats - I helped write one of them and they are doing it as the period of uncertainty will debase their business so they are shoring it up. You can't argue that a 2 year negotiation period will not be healthy for anyone. And this is a non government owned business and large employer. The mood is dark, very much more so after being tainted with the view that if you are minded to No then you are essentially siding with Westminster. WTF, no means I disagree with the breakup of the union, i spent 5 hours driving listening to the Yes camp claim it wasn't about politics. Next day, its about politics.
Aaargh, I go for a wee coast to coast ride in the Highlands, and when I come back we still haven't decided how many angels fit on a pinhead.
What does stand out is the paucity of No signs and the profusion of Yes. I did try counting for a while and it was about 10:1 over 120 miles.
I managed to find a No voter though. I was talking to him at a food kiosk while wolfing down 2 lunches. A Daily Mail reader. I suggested he look at what is planned for him if we vote No, eg Boris, Farage, and the whole list of politicians in England who have voiced their opinion on stripping Scotland of funding.
I think I left him as a Don't Know. If he does look up what those guys have said, I think he'll become a Yes. 🙂
I suggested he look at what is planned for him if we vote No, eg Boris, Farage
FFS
I think the banks know a compliant tax and regulation regime when they see one.
@ben as it stands there are no plans for a regulatory regime in Scotland so its hard to see how you'll have any banks or financial services at all.
If RBS etc do move the HQ permanently it will only be matter of time before the majority those staff move too.
Debt: IMO Scotland will agree to be responsible for a portion of the interest and principal currently payable, eg 9% of total. They will make these payments to the UK Treasury on an agreed schedule. From the point of independence they will start to borrow in their own name for additional amounts (eg budget deficit, capital expenditure), they could borrow via "private loans" with the UK or other lenders or by "public" bond markets. In all liklihood they will begin via private loans whilst they establish their own presence although they will need a Treasury/Central Bank to do this. Even if Scotland can convince lenders it is a high credit quality country the cost of this new borrowing will be higher than the UK due to the "newness" and small size of the Scottish economy
@epic clearly signs are not a good indicator of intentions as the vote is something like 40/40/20 (Yes, No, Don't Know)
RBS:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798[/url]
"It is my view as chief executive that any decision to move our registered headquarters would have no impact on our everyday banking services used by our customers in Scotland.
"This is a technical procedure regarding the rotation of our registered head office based on our current strategy and business plan. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs".
And Lloyds
"Lloyds Banking Group said it could also shift its legal home to its headquarters, which is already in London.
However, Lloyds said this was just a legal procedure and "there would be no immediate changes or issues".
So... Is it just me or is this largely good news for Yes? A scary headline, sure. Everyone knows these are multinational organisations, the idea of a "Scottish bank"'s been absurd for years. And as I mentioned last night, Lloyds Banking is actually already based in London. So there might be a small scale migration of jobs, potentially some pretty high value, but mostly it's a wholesale migration of risk, no? Tax continues to be paid (in theory) where the business is done and (in practice) where the company feels like paying it. And now the RUK gets to be lender of last resort whether they want to or not.
Lloyds, unless things changed a lot since I worked there, was already run from its HQ in London. And while we were being Better Together a load of HBOS jobs migrated to Gillingham and Halifax already (including mine)
Oh. In unrelated news, today the Scotsman came out in favour of No. Which is [i]quite a shock[/i].
Oh. In unrelated news, today the Scotsman came out in favour of No. Which is quite a shock.
I know. I haven't been quite so shocked since I heard the news that Graham Norton was gay.
I have savings in some Scottish-based companies (e.g. Scottish Widows). Should I sell those now in order to avoid being caught up in the maelstrom?
No idea, I asked something similar and epicyclo on here said he has moved his money overseas, and he is a frothing yes voter. I've not got much but I still don't want to lose it. I can't even figure out if my bank is actually scottish, or british, or what!
I managed to find a No voter though. I was talking to him at a food kiosk while wolfing down 2 lunches. A Daily Mail reader. I suggested he look at what is planned for him if we vote No, eg Boris, Farage, and the whole list of politicians in England who have voiced their opinion on stripping Scotland of funding.I think I left him as a Don't Know. If he does look up what those guys have said, I think he'll become a Yes.
Success for project feart then
bigjim - MemberNo idea, I asked something similar and epicyclo on here said he has moved his money overseas, and he is a frothing yes voter. I've not got much but I still don't want to lose it. I can't even figure out if my bank is actually scottish, or british, or what!
Banking wise they're all british until actual independence- FSCS will still protect any "scottish" banks in the meantime. So it's basically business as usual as far as savings in banks.
@Northwind RBS, Lloyds are being defensive, protecting themselves. They don't want a bank run either in Scotland or UK, by moving HQ to London they retain the BoE guaranty and of course actually have a regulator there being none in Scotland. There have been a number of articles suggesting there could be a large deposit withdrawl in Scotland if banks remained domiciled post a Yes. RBS/Lloyds had to do something as their shares where on the slide as investors where worried about a Yes vote.
What this shows is that Scotland will need a central bank/treasury if it is to have any banks or financial services companies post independence. This is a statement of the obvious in my view but one the Yes campaign hasn't addressed. The alternative is Scotland has no banks or financial services companies based there, they would just be a service center and how could he government borrow money ?
jambalaya - MemberThe alternative is Scotland has no banks or financial services companies based there, they would just be a service center and how could he government borrow money ?
Governments don't borrow money by nipping into the local branch, is the short answer. About 9% of the UK debt is held by UK banks. Overseas investors make up the single largest body of lenders.
@Northwind, how attractive to international investors do you think a country without a central bank, financial services regulator and thus any of it's own banks is going to be ? Also small countries borrow relatively more from banks. This is partly why AS was a currency union and he hasn't budgeted for any of this, that and the fact he wants to dodge the euro.
jambalaya - Member@Northwind, how attractive to international investors do you think a country without a central bank, financial services regulator and thus any of it's own banks is going to be ?
I think it's less important than you'd think, since we'll effectively be borrowing in a foreign currency- the pound (or conceivably euro or dollar, it all works out the same) already being supported by its own central bank. The currency risk to investors should be the same if we borrow in the pound, as it is if they lend to the UK (possibly less- it removes the potential risk of a country devaluing its own currency to reduce debt) Course, that's just one risk consideration.
@Northwind, I understand you have greater knowledge of the University application/funding world and the history of nuclear weapons / capability for example. However I have been an investment manager (mainly debt) for most of the past 30 years. Scotland will be able to borrow but there will be a high price for the factors I have mentioned. If it borrows in a foreign currency inc the euro it will still need a central bank and investors charge "extra" for foreign currency borrowing (not just in terms of rate but the amount they will lend). The central bank isn't just supporting the borrowing currency but also the financial health of the borrower. IMO there isn't a snowballs chance in hell Scotland will run a budget surplus given all the promises and the costs of setting up independently, so it's going to need to borrow quite a lot.
I am sure AS will tell you that Scotland will have 10% of the assets of the BoE to kick start its own Central Bank. Hopefully you can see the chances of that are slim to none.
Oh, sure- thought I'd covered it by limiting my post to currency risk alone, but then I also thought you were originally suggesting that Scotland would struggle to borrow, rather than facing increased costs (which is inevitable frankly). So probably made for a bit of a confused post.
Re Bank of England- the reserves discussion there isn't one I've paid any real attention to, interested in your reasoning... In principle, the BoE reserves are a shared UK national asset.
Just announced: 97% of adults have registered to vote.
Incredible.
Just look at all the announcements by companies of moving their headquarters and its all Sir this and Sir that. If you run a bank it seems you get a knighthood and it is just the old boy network working together.
They might move their nominal headquarters to London and therefore pay profits to the Uk government but I would be amazed if they moved the 1000's of processing and admin staff. Lots and lots of banks have their nominal headquarters in London but there actual processing headquarters elsewhere. Lloyds for instance is in Bristol.
It's certainly an interesting strategy - one minute we're told that an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to cope if RBS collapsed again. Then we're told that RBS is leaving. Can't have it both ways.
Of course the jobs themselves aren't moving, it's just a paper exercise.