jambalaya - Member@epic I think
Not based on your posts you don't. Blair comment being a case a point.
I clearly have different opinions to some but lets keep the personal insults out of this or we'll see the thread drift towards the warnings, bans and it being closed, something someone commented on recently about how we had managed to avoid.
You disagree with what I have posted on Blair but as far as I am concerned its reasoned and rational.
surely Blair being an awful person is one thing we can all agree on?
Eamon de Valera was president of Ireland until he was 91 years old.
the Irish presidency is a ceremonial position, isn't it? doesn't the UK already have a tradition of letting its heads of state grow old in office - it's just God that appoints then rather than the electorate?
Grum we were'nt "given" anything. It was achieved with many long hard decades of campaigning. The first "home rule" campaign was in the 1850s, the Scottish covenant had 2,000,000 signatories in 1949. We voted for devolution in 79 and didnt get it.The vigil for a Scottish parliament on Calton Hill started then and went on till 99. There was the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly started in 1980. The Constitutional Convention in 89, The Claim of Right, etc God knows how many marches ,meetings, petitions, letter writing campaigns etc.
Today's ICM poll:
Yes 49% (up 4%)
No 51% (down 4%)
surely Blair being an awful person is one thing we can all agree on?
You would think but apparently you can both defend/support him and oppose his war decision and claim it is reasoned/rational position.
Whatever happens half of Scotland are going to be upset.
Edit tony Blair is a weapons grade ****.
indeed the making of the peace will be difficult ;whomever wins it will likely be a very close vote either way.
the rhetoric from oth sides has probably not helped
his war decision
Key part of this for me is that it wasn't his decision, it was collective and alongside the US and anyone who might have been leader of a UK government Tory or Labour would have taken us into Iraq IMO
as far as I am concerned its reasoned and rational.
Blair is a liar who took this country into war which ultimately cost up toa million lives and still has consequences in the middle east. If you believe this is supportable, and assuming that you actually understand this (which I doubt), then that's between you, your conscience and the one or two other people you might find to support you.
However, I don't, and your belief demonstrates to me a complete and utter failure to understand the events of the time and the effect they still have today. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine, and mine is that anyone believing Blair to be worthy of anything other than a war crimes trial hasn't thought things out. Hence my comment. Not an insult, my opinion, which I'm also entitled to.
I hate Tony Blair with a passion, principally for the Iraq war. I reserve a lesser degree of hate for the supine Labour MPs who backed it - Jack Straw being the worst of these.
I can't stand Salmond either and it's for all the reasons oldbloke listed above.
The mobile phone companies are now speaking of price rises after a Yes vote.
Whatever happens half of Scotland are going to be upset.
Edit tony Blair is a weapons grade ****.
I do think if there's a Yes vote there will be a lot of No toys being thrown of prams.
If there's a No vote, there'll be less Salmond on telly, so silver clouds, linings and all that.
What about John Major?
He took us into a war that directly led to the 2nd Gulf War but he is not seen as a hate figure? Just saying like.
@Bill Any PM would have taken the UK into Iraq. The US would have invaded without UK support.
It was pretty clear to me at the time the 45 min claim was made up (and not a real threat to our security) and the definition of WMD broadened to include Chemical weapons to publicly justify a decision which had effectively already been collectively taken. If you read "Against All Enemies" Clarke's theory is that an invasion of Iraq was sealed when the Iraqi's tried to blow up Bush Senior in Kuwait after the first gulf war. You can accuse Britain of being the US's Poodle but Blair was not the primary reason for our involvement.
his war decision
to repeat had he opposed war would it have happened?
No one, not even you , can think this war would have happened without his support. Its not credible to think he was anythign other than the prime mover in the decision to go to war and he made that decision then co ereced the country to that point via a fabricated dossier, compelling his won party to vote for it and ignoring the will of the people
YES his war decision. others were culpable and involved but had he opposed war [ perhap snot even been so keen] it would never have happened.
jambalaya - Member
@epic I think most business did indeed try and stay out of the debate for he obvious reason that they don't want to alienate one part of their customer base. However the financial services companies in particular have a requirement to make a statement as a Yes vote raises some serious issues with regard to regulation and deposit insurance schemes in particular.
I think the problem with the financial groups is not because they made a contingency statement along the lines of we're watching the situation and have contingency plans, but rather the flat statements that they would move.
But we all know who their bosses are, so we expect no less from them.
The absolute stupidity IMO came from the major retail groups who are dependent on the individual for their day to day turnover. The odds are that the No voters aren't getting too incensed as Ben says, but I'm convinced there will be repercussions from all those fired up Yes voters. Never ever piss off your customers seems like a fundamental of business to me.
Salmond refuses to answer BBC's question on RBS Corporation Tax and then tries to bluff through on "economic activity" when clearly he must see how that's shot full of holes by Amazon, Starbucks, Apple etc.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/11/alex-salmond-heckled-bbc-reporter-nick-robinson-scotland-independence-rbs-video ]Guardian Link[/url]
@Bill Any PM would have taken the UK into Iraq.
Says who? See, if you're going to make things up, you don't help your credibility at all.
The mobile phone companies are now speaking of price rises after a Yes vote.
Well they were obviously next on Cameron's call sheet. We're in the last minute panic, throwing everything they've got at it. Lovebombing didn't work, the new plan is apparently called Shock And Awe. Seriously.
@epic - the financial groups have no choice but to move, the yes campaign has not laid out plans for a central bank or a regulator - both of these you need if you are going to have Scottish banks. The Yes campaign thinks its going to get these things for free via a currency union which the UK parties have ruled out. So RBS/Lloyds/Standard Life have no choice but to say they would re-locate their HQ
@ben I think the companies all kept quiet as the vote looked like a No. IMO the reason they are coming forward is it looks like the answer could be Yes. Yes is bad for business with more costs and complexity.
yes with different currencies it is bad
I feel certain the multinational companies will manage to keep operating in another country and keep making money.
BBC
Meanwhile, Ukip leader Nigel Farage will hold a "pro-Union" rally in Glasgow with fellow Ukip politicians, where he is to claim that an independent Scotland would not be able to keep the pound - and would be forced to join the euro.
IIRC, Nigel Farage is not a member of government, UKIP has no MPs and that party will take no part in any post independence negotiations. Farage is just a fantasist.
jamabalaya - you are Nigel Farage and I claim my £5
@Big we are all posting our personal views here, credibility is not a factor. A Diane Abbott or Robin Cook would never have been PM in my view. Brown or Cameron would have taken us into Iraq.
Companies leaning on their employees:
[img] 
[/img]
Unions leaning on their members:
[img] 
[/img]
Democracy?
Yes is bad for business with more costs and complexity.
Yes is also good for business, with new opportunities. There's pros and cons, which is why lots of businesses support independence.
I would suggest that even Ben cannot argue that some operating costs will increase for certain businesses in an iScotland. Seems pretty obvious.
yes is bad for business with more costs and complexity
The infrastructure and supply chains are exactly the same, the only differences I can see are different tax regimes, which may even may more favourable after yes, and smaller/larger area's to spread cost overs. It wont be night and day changes.
As for Nick Robinson he needs to wind his neck in. AS gave an answer, which would of been no different to how any other politician would of answered, before having a go at the BBC, probably rightly, for their links to the RBS news. The edit of the broadcast on the BBC didn't show any of the answer and stated that he didn't answer. Hardly impartial reporting. Combine that with the editing of the debate at the hydro and doesn't look good for the BBC.
1. He doesn't understand what he is doing and/or
2. He is using deceit and lies to implement changes that are harmful to both Scotland and the rUK - it's a lose, lose
It couldn't be simpler.
His odious, bullying behaviour is merely a side show.
He took us into a war that directly led to the 2nd Gulf War but he is not seen as a hate figure? Just saying like.
I don't agree that the first Gulf War directly led to the second.
in any case, it was an incontrovertible fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait. there was a far greater degree of international support. civilian casualties were more limited. and there was plenty of "no war for oil" sentiment at the time.
it was a pretty different circumstance.
@JY its bad even if Scotland keeps the pound. Lots of duplication of corporate structures North/South of the border, more organisational overhead. Having to deal with potentially quite different tax and legal frameworks, two sets of Governments/regulators to deal with. I cannot see too many Scottish branded companies looking forward to this, Scottish Power is going to suffer some kind of backlash in the UK for certain - no ?
@ben business are worried, they've done the sums.
Democracy?
yes, democracy!
and they will in rUK as well and some may reduce.some operating costs will increase for certain businesses in an iScotland
Are people really meant to vote on what system has the lowest overhead costs for multinational business?
I cannot see too many Scottish branded companies looking forward to this, Scottish Power is going to suffer some kind of backlash in the UK for certain - no ?
I dont think the english are that petty tbh?
Robin Cook reduces Blairs case for war to rubble.
Leaning on your members/employees - sorry that's a crock.
You have a fiduciary responsibility to both. As a CEO, if you know that one result will have material impact on how you organise/locate your activities you have duty to make sure that your employees know this. It has a clear impact on their lives going forward.
It's about time that companies were free to escape this false neutrality. The political process is there to serve us. Not the other way round.
Of course yS's fairier society actually involves suppression of Information and debate, which is the only way he has been successful so far.
@JY - yes costs will go up in iS and UK - lose lose. We've been discussing this on the other thread. I can't think of any businesses where costs will go down, the legal costs of splitting companies up alone with be significant.
If Scotland really does threaten not to take any debt then I think a UK consumer reaction can't be described at petty ?
@gordihmor a very powerful speech I remember it well. I recently re-read it upon his death.
I would suggest that even Ben cannot argue that some operating costs will increase for certain businesses in an iScotland. Seems pretty obvious.
Nope, pretty hard to argue against that.
But also hard to argue against the suggestion that some operating costs for certain businesses would decrease in iScotland. Business operating costs aren't intrinsically higher in smaller countries - in fact they're often lower I believe because a smaller bureaucracy means less red tape.
What's obvious is that there's competition in the marketplace. If Asda put up prices and Tesco don't, then Asda will lose out. We don't know what the tax and currency arrangements will be like after independence, so impossible to say if business operating costs will be higher or lower.
@ben give us an example where operating costs would go down ? I can't think of one but I imagine there could be some. It's a genuine question.
EDIT: what I do think will happen is the government will reduce taxes and possibly other business compliance costs but where are they going to get the money from ?
I would have though any fiduciary / moral obligation to your employees would include allowing them to vote without you "helping" them decide what was in [s]the companies [/s] their best interest.
the company did it for the company and its future prosperity, the letter even says so.
The [s]political process[/s] business community is there to serve us. Not the other way round.
FTFY
Ben in the company statement you posted, they give some simple clear reasons why yes is not in their interests and the suggested implications.
In a fairier society - do you share that insight or do you suppress it? The answer is blindingly obvious as is the kind of yS reaction to it.
We don't know what the tax and currency arrangements will be like after independence
I thought we did
i) lower
ii) The pound
But also hard to argue against the suggestion that some operating costs for certain businesses would decrease in iScotland. Business operating costs aren't intrinsically higher in smaller countries - in fact they're often lower I believe because a smaller bureaucracy means less red tape.
Where do you get his stuff from? Since the early 90s, Scoltand has run a 11% productivity gap with rUK. So you go independent and attempt to lock the currency. How do you close the productivity gap - hint, have a look in Europe and UN and wage levels.
fairer society 😀
Of course the DO knows his and he had that very short-lived attempt to explain how yS was going to deliver productivity improvements. The supply- side revolution. Out-Torying the Tories again..
Leaning on your members/employees - sorry that's a crock.
Perhaps the employer is just being honest, which is unusual in at lot of the Yes vote discussions.
iS will mean increased overheads and lower consumer confidence which all impact profits which *will* lead to redundancies now. In the future it might lead to more jobs but in short term a lot of people are going to be made redundant, mind you according to AS in 20 years they will be eating unicorn steak off gold plates so they just need to tighten their belt for a few decades.
Also I wouldn't want to be in the ship building Rosyth as my money would be on that comes back to Portsmouth in the event of a Yes vote.
I dont think the english are that petty tbh?
They are, look at how many people voted for UKIP.
THM personally i dont think that companies have any right to tell employees how they should vote and i am surprises anyone does, However if they are to inform then they can explain what they think independence may mean for the business in moderate and temperate language and then let folk decide armed with facts. they cannot say what way they want folks to vote [ they have not done this explicitly but it is pretty clear what they are saying]
They have fallen some way short of that with the word DISASTROUS AND TYPING IN CAPS LOCK
Its a bit hyperbolic and a wee bit salmold esque in tone