Forum menu
On a side note Athgray, you mentioned Bannockburn 700 earlier.
As a (former) medieval reenactor i have been hearing stuff about this event.
Basically the event organizers aren't willing to pay the going rates for groups to do a 3-day event & many/some (depending on who you speak to) groups from down South are extremely wary of going as they fear a marked rise in Nationalistic silliness. I've remarked before about how there is a definite undercurrent of anti-English hostility in the public & combining the anniversary with the indy referendum seems like it will increase it.
Its a long way to travel to be paid less than the going rate & to run the risk of potential abuse/threats etc. (this has happened before) so i can see how they are having to shorten the event.
I just feel that the day I have to apply for dual nationality for my children at the behest of those that don't like the Tories much, will be a sad day indeed.
I wouldn't worry, most likely outcome is a No vote.
teamhurtmore - Member
[b]There are very clear legal rules [/b]and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.
POSTED 10 HOURS AGO #
And right in cue, the Scotsman reports now that
CLAIMS by the SNP Scottish Government that an independent Scotland would be entitled to keep the pound and Bank of England are “fundamentally flawed” on legal grounds, Advocate general Lord Wallace will say in a lecture tomorrow.The Lib Dem peer will tell an audience at 80 Club in London that Chancellor George Osborne’s statement that there will be no sterling zone with an independent was based on legal advice as well as economic interests for the rest of the UK in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum....Lord Wallace, the United Kingdom Government’s Law Officer for Scotland, will explain that international law is clear that if Scotland decides to leave the UK then we would also leave behind UK institutions like the Bank of England....
.....[b]“When UK ministers say that the Bank of England would not belong, in part, to an independent Scotland, that is an expression of the legal position, not a calculated asset-grab.”[/b] He will claim that the arguments made by SNP ministers is fundamentally flawed in two ways. [b]He will say: “In their White Paper, Scottish Ministers claim that ‘the pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK’s’ and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government, John Swinney MSP, has argued that the Bank of England is ‘as much our bank as it is anybody else’s’. [b]With respect, they are wrong on both counts.”[/b]
He will explain that the legal analysis set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper makes it clear that in the event of Scottish independence, the institutions which currently serve the United Kingdom will serve the continuing United Kingdom. He will say: “For obvious reasons, the Scottish Government doesn’t assert that it should continue to have a share of the UK Parliament. By a similar token, the UK central bank, the Bank of England would continue to serve the continuing UK as its central bank, but would not do so for the newly independent Scotland.
[b]“The flaw in the Scottish Government’s position is to equate currency with assets[/b]
So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth. And then we await Standard Life's comments in the morning. Retailers, financial services all singing from the same hymn sheet. I wonder why?
Did anybody see the poll in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on Monday? Conducted post George's currency comments.
From the paper -
A Press and Journal-commissioned poll has revealed support for Scottish independence has dipped across the north and north-east over the last year.
The survey conducted after last week’s intervention from Chancellor George Osborne on currency found that 65% of respondents intend to vote “no” in September’s referendum.
Just 17% of 500 people questioned said they will be voting “yes”, while 18% said they were still undecided.
Something else not moving yS's way. Salmond is my mother's MP. Plenty of tales locally of him behaving like a spoilt child
Scotland's loss in trade could be to the benefit of the UK as people stop trading with Scotland and instead trade with companies in the UK.
I'm not sure you've really thought that one through...
So Standard Life might quit Scotland in the event of independence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321
So a referendum on Scotlands future is a birthright for Scots but a referendum on the future direction of the UK is not necessary according to Mr Salmond?
Hypocrisy much?
the Scotsman article is revealing
Mr Salmond, speaking at a press lunch with Scottish media, said the proposal is in the best interests of everyone.“Our position is share and share alike,” he said.
“We think it’s right and proper that we have a sterling union that is in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.”
The alternative is for Scotland to refuse a fair share of UK debt, he said.
and in the comments
😉Salmond must be a sleeper, it's the only logical explanation.
So Standard Life might quit Scotland in the event of independence:
Hmm - an uncorroborated report in the BBC, not exactly solid. Remember how RBS were definitely going to move to London after independence?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c266dd0-9f83-11e3-94f3-00144feab7de.html
on the FT too...
Standard life have no real option, they and most other listed companies will have to declare their plan B's, they are owned by shareholders, they have to ensure good governance.
As I see it they are not saying they are moving to London, they are basically saying that if there is too much uncertainty then they will have to move to London.
Can't read that - it's not really a surprise that companies make contingency plans. I used to work for IBM on General Accident's mainframes, they planned for everything.
Why are they announcing it, though?
This would be the same Standard Life that threatened to up sticks and leave if there was a "yes" vote in the 1997 devolution referendum?
The one that's still based in Edinburgh?
This would be the same Standard Life that threatened to up sticks and leave if there was a "yes" vote in the 1997 devolution referendum?
Apparently no.
[i]"Labour was celebrating the success of attempts to woo big business following reports that two of Scotland's largest insurance companies had given their tacit support to home rule.
Mr Robertson welcomed the news that Standard Life and Scottish Widows had said they were relaxed about the prospect of Labour's plans for a Scottish Assembly."[/i]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/24/past.electionspast1 ]Major plea for Scots to stand by Union[/url]
Which Standard Life are you thinking of ?
Standard Life already does business all over the world in multiple currencies. Whatever happens in Scotland their English book and trading in pounds would be unaffected. http://www.standardlife.com/about/locations.html
This is just them saying "don't increase tax or bugger about with regulation". It's not about independence.
So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth
they have been equally clear about the fact the debt remains with rUK - you will praise AS for saying this I assume? Its irrelevant largely as what each part can do legally is NOT what they will definitely do at separation. [b]The outcome will be a political fudge[/b]** where debts and assets* are split pro rata or via hard haggling.
* if they are not assets give them to Scotland then as they have no value.
** we can debate this, I suspect we will, as frankly none of us know the outcome including GO, the lawyers and AS
@ben, no idea, but they would have to announce it in some manner.
@stefmcdef, May happen, may not, they just have to state their plan B. Most of their business is not in Scotland, so what is in the best interests of the shareholders?
^ Thanks Ernie Lynch - my memory must have been of the Tories scaremongering on behalf of Standard Life.
Why are they announcing it, though?
They are sending a message to AS, basically "Either have a sensible economic plan or we'll sink you"
Talking BS with a nice smile, which AS is very good at, might be good enough for the general population, but businesses won't stand for it.
🙂 I only checked because I thought it was highly improbable that Standard Life, or any other major business for that matter, would have been bothered about Scotland having devolved power
Perhaps the wider point is that the same dire predictions of the sky falling down on us were made prior to devolution, and guess what? Business as usual, for the most part.
Full text of the Standard Life statement
On 18 September 2014 a referendum will be held to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. In recent months some of our customers have been in touch with us to ask what impact this would have on their savings and investments with Standard Life.Our key priority is to continue serving the needs of our 4 million UK customers, wherever they reside and regardless of any constitutional change. The same applies to our customers in other parts of the world.
As a business we have a long-standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote, but we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our customers and other stakeholders and to take whatever action may be necessary to protect their interests.
In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK.
Customers can find further details in our 2013 Annual Report and Accounts from our Chief Executive David Nish and Chairman Gerry Grimston
Hardly the major melt down, 'we will leave' type statement you'd of imagined from reading the BBC this morning. Seems to me it's something that all businesses should be doing. Assessing the risks/rewards that may occur and planning accordingly.
Standard Life pride themselves among other things on (1) their political neutrality and (2) their long term strategic thinking.* David Nish's responsibilities are to SL's shareholders, clients and employees. He is making a very valid point that major uncertainties remain over key factors that affect his business including currency how a monetary system would work and regulation. He also makes a more tactical and direct point about how AS proposes to tax savings and pensions.
Of course this common sense statement is greeted with the usual diatribe:
“Standard Life’s threats are more blackmail & bullying by privileged monied elites trying to undermine Scottish democracy & social justice,” tweeted writer Kevin Williamson.
More sensibly and coincidently, the Head of the PRA which regulates the industry (with the FCA) called into question the idea that the rUK would maintain responsibility for regulating financial institutions in an independent country.
Asked if the plans were a “pig that would fly”, Mr Bailey told members of the Scottish Affairs Committee: “It is a pig that I can’t observe flying in any other part of the world.”
Quite.
So if you run SL or Aberdeeen or Bailiie Gifford etc you face the prospect of an untested regulatory regime, uncertainty over currency systems and the prospect of new taxes on your core products, what would you do?
So RBS shifts, TSB has already changed its registration and legal status ahead of its IPO, and the asset management companies are saying the same things. Makes you wonder......
So CU is ruled out, only a fool would adopt the panama solution, so time for Messers Mirrlees and Stiglitz to earn their fees. Their paymaster is floundering and sinking in his own hubris and needs a lifebelt fast. Trouble is the FC has already nailed its flag to the mast. Ooops....
Cue more diversionary BS over the next few days.
[* long time clients of mine in my past career]
Over to you THM.... 😀 Oops already done.
I see Royal Bank of Scotland (80% owned by UK taxpayer) is announcing an 8 billion quid pre-tax loss today
Tell me independence people, in the division of assets, do you get all of RBS or a just a population based share?
I only checked because I thought it was highly improbable that Standard Life, or any other major business for that matter, would have been bothered about Scotland having devolved power
It's got nothing to do with devolved power, it's a half baked economic plan that has them concerned. AS's 'yes we can' mantra may play well with the electorate, but the finance industry and business in general like to see a lot more rigour around these things.
Just saying 'look, everyone else says it won't work, but trust me I'll figure it all out after you vote yes, isn't exactly what you'd call a detailed proposal'.
It's got nothing to do with devolved power, it's a half baked economic plan that has them concerned. AS's 'yes we can' mantra may play well with the electorate, but the finance industry and business in general like to see a lot more rigour around these things.
+1
And from experience you never present half-baked proposal to the likes of Standard Life. They see through you immediately and chew you up appropriately if you try to BS them. Ditto the other Edinburgh fund managers.
Tell me independence people, in the division of assets, do you get all of RBS or a just a population based share?
I'd assume that the shares would be split on a population basis, but as with anything post vote you can never be sure. Things would be traded and swapped left right and centre.
I rather like the prospect of the proposed 3 year trial to synchronise UK time with Europe.
Interesting time to put forward.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15490249 ]UK clocks change trial to be considered[/url]
slackalice that article is over three years old. Read that this morning, seems to be a lot of old articles on BBC website just now for some reason.
Beg your pardon! Thanks Rene 🙂
As you were.
What happens to the banks depends on their legal status (branch versus subsidiary) and their place of registration. The main impact will be (1) who regulates them and (2) who will get their taxes. We know what is happening with BOS and TSB, RBS is much more complicated due to its current more complex structure. Perhaps their main shareholder should have a say!?!?
But if you are a financial services company faced with external bondholders and shareholders you have to be very brave to locate in a country that has no plans for an independent regulator and thinks that a foreign country can do this job for them.
La, la, la.....forget Mirrlees and Stiglitz, AS needs the Brothers Grimm.
Tell me independence people, in the division of assets, do you get all of RBS or a just a population based share?
All very academic. Judging by AS's current form, I think he's blown any chance of a Yes vote this September. He won't get anyone in the finance sector backing his proposals.
I would like Scotland to stay but if we get rid of the dark evenings its a fair swap.
😀 @ zippykona!
Maybe we need to start listing the benefits of an Independent Scotland to rUK?
1. We can extend summer time year round - less accidents, more time for exercise in daylight, and over time a happier and healthier population
2. Some large companies will follow Standard Life and move their corporate entities and staff from the North to the South - a bigger share of corporation tax / employment related taxes will come in to rUK coffers
3. Reduced liabilities on pensions and public spending (an issue as Scotland's population ages and oil runs out)
4. Voting in the rUK becomes less distorted by the vote north of the border without having to establish a parliament for England
5. Cheaper products from the North as Scotland devalues its own currency to try and survive economically
6. When Scotland goes bust we can buy it back on the cheap without any of the liabilities
anything else?
Some large companies will follow Standard Life and move their corporate entities and staff from the North to the South - a bigger share of corporation tax / employment related taxes will come in to rUK coffers
I think a lot would, the company I work for said they would probably have to leave scotland too.
He won't get anyone in the finance sector backing his proposals.
Whereas quite a few other businesspeople, including No supporters, are getting pretty worried about what would happen after a No vote. The lack of certainty over Barnett, whether there will be devo max or a pull-back of powers to Westminster, etc.
Yes have published a white paper, people are asking where the No white paper is.
Maybe we need to start listing the benefits of an Independent Scotland to rUK?
I thought we didn't get a say in the matter?
Yes have published a white paper, people are asking where the No white paper is.
Do you need a white paper for the status quo?
Yes have published a white paper, people are asking where the No white paper is.
I was under the impression that if the motion doesn't pass, which it won't, the status quo remains?
Try the government website for starters - it's all there.
Of course it's neither a manifesto nor a BoD, so the text tends to be more sober, slightly dull and free from hyperbole.
Do you need a white paper for the status quo?
It wont be the status quo though, will it. There's already plans in motion to cut Scotland's budget. And with the Tories in charge I can't see things getting any better for anyone in Scotland in the near future. It would be great to see realistic and honest plans set out for Scotland's future from BT, but more of the same isnt it.