Forum menu
Ed joining George today - time for a new title?
The Labour leader also restated his party's position on the prospect of a shared formal currency union in the event of independence. Asked if such a deal - favoured by the SNP - was ruled out under any circumstances, he replied: "Correct." He added: "All of the lessons from the eurozone are that, if we are going to have a currency union, we also need the kind of fiscal union that we have across the UK."That is a sensible economic choice - it is not about the politics."
Dismissed as having zero credibility of course!
"Ed Milliband" and "credibility" don't really go together. The best bit was when he got so offended at the suggestion that he might not win the next general election.
Meanwhile the CBI omnishambles just gets better and better 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27159618
"You know when we said we were supporting the No campaign? Well, we didn't mean it, we really are impartial. Honest."
[b]The world according to Ben Cooper part 2[/b]
Why should I bother accepting the views of the three main UK parties and the will of the UK people? The SNP have said a currency union will happen so it is definitely going to happen and anyone that says otherwise is a bully, bluffer or blusterer. Why won't the scadges from the south realise they are too wee, too poor and too stupid to exist without a currency union with an independent Scotland.
If you read your link bencooper you would understand the reason for the reversal :
[i][b]The CBI said it had taken legal advice, which suggested the application should not have been made.
"Although the decision to register with the Electoral Commission was taken in good faith, in order to carry out normal activities during the referendum period, it has inadvertently given the impression that the CBI is a political entity - we are not and never will be."[/b][/i]
So the CBI has been given legal advice that it cannot or should not register with the Electoral Commission to make financial donations to the No campaign.
I don't understand why you think this represents some sort of victory for you.
All you have done is highlighted the fact that the CBI considers that it would be bad for large employers if Scotland was to separate itself from the rest of the UK.
And the only reason they are not financially supporting the No campaign is because they have been legally advised not to.
None of this suggests a ringing endorsement of the Yes campaign. In fact it suggests the complete opposite. Although obviously I'm glad that you are chuffed about it ..... even if it is a little bizarre 😕
The chairman of CBI Scotland is the MD of Babcock's marine division, who operate Faslane.
I'm not surprised he thinks independence would be bad for business 😉
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity.
Well I'm not surprised either. What would surprise me though, would be if the chairman of CBI Scotland personally decided what CBI policy with regards to Scottish independence was.
Edit for your edit :
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity.
Well I guess the CBI could be lying but "the rush of broadcasters and other bodies" you refer to amounts to not much more than the BBC and Scottish universities. And I can understand why they might be in a legal dilemma. Although ITV and other broadcasters clearly weren't.
Still, it's interesting that you should highlight the CBI's serious reservations with regards to Scottish independence. Is that the official Yes campaign's line ?
What would surprise me though, would be if the chairman of CBI Scotland personally decided what CBI policy with regards to Scottish independence was
Various CBI members stated that there had been no consultation or vote about the issue.
..... or vote about the issue
You were under the impression that the CBI was an organisation like a trade union with democratic structures ?
Does this mean that you now only accept the opinions of organisations which have had a vote ?
[b]The world according to Ben cooper part 3[/b]
Damn that Ernie and his facts. I will have to draft a response
The chairman of CBI Scotland is the MD of Babcock's marine division, who operate Faslane. [i]As if the loons will be clever if enough to work out the difference between CBI UK and CBI Scotland when it is really CBI UK that is doing a u-turn so mentioning the CBI scotland MD is pointless.[/i]
Oh, and "we've taken legal advice" is a stock phrase, along with the "it was a junior member of staff" line they're trying to play. What's much more likely is that the rush of broadcasters and other bodies to leave the CBI wasn't exactly brilliant publicity. [i]Well I don't have any facts to prove Ernie wrong so a good dose of personal opinion should shut him up! Salmond never uses facts so why should I?[/i]
John Cridland said the application to register “should not have been made”, as it had not been approved by the CBI board and was not signed by an authorised signatory.
mentioning the CBI scotland MD is pointless
It was mentioned in the context of why the CBI might be against independence, so not really pointless.
The CBI likes to be portrayed as an impartial body, but it's hard to be impartial on independence when your Scottish chairman profits from nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
[b]The world according to fasternotfatter:[/b]
Anything said by a businessman, economist or poltician* is the gospel truth, and any suggestion that they might not be telling the truth or being impartial is so blatantly, obviously wrong.
*Apart from a pro-independence politician, of course, that goes without saying.
From the above link :
[b][i]“It was poor corporate governance and process. But it was never a valid application, we have Queen’s Counsel advice to that effect.”[/i][/b]
I think it's clear that the CBI reversed its decision because of poor corporate governance and process, and legal advice to that effect. Presumably it also breached their Royal Charter. None of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland. And the link points out that only 18 employers out of 1,200 have resigned or suspended their membership of the CBI over the issue, which presumably suggests that 1,182 large employers did not share the same level of objection.
None of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland
Has anyone suggested it did? Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position.
What'll be interesting is what happens if the Electoral Commission says no to the CBI.
For four days this forum was a better place.
Clean up on aisle one, new pair of pants to sbob please. 🙁
Has anyone suggested it did?
And did I suggest that anyone did ?
However it's clear that you are well chuffed from this comment :
bencooper - MemberMeanwhile the CBI omnishambles just gets better and better 😀
I just wonder why you are so pleased ?........since none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
[i]It was mentioned in the context of why the CBI might be against independence, so not really pointless.
The CBI likes to be portrayed as an impartial body, but it's hard to be impartial on independence when your Scottish chairman profits from nuclear weapons on the Clyde. [/i]
It was CBI UK that made the decision to campaign against independence not CBI Scotland. You imply that CBI UK made this decision not based on reason but because someone from CBI Scotland is connected to Faslane, this is again your own personal opinion and not a fact. You use the phrase "might be against independence", it either is or it isn't Ben, you use a very tenuous link between Faslane, CBI Scotland and CBI UK to back up your argument so again you are wrong and it is still pointless I am afraid. 😳
[i]Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position.[/i]
Your at it again Ben! Personal opinion not fact!
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/10712842/BAE-latest-company-to-come-out-against-Scottish-independence.html ]BAE latest company to come out against Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f9187be-a522-11e3-a7b4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2zvjpcCnN ]Shell joins business chorus against Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10616789/BP-chief-Bob-Dudley-attacks-Scottish-independence.html ]BP chief Bob Dudley attacks Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/27/standard-life-could-quit-scotland-voters-independence ]Standard Life could quit Scotland if voters back independence[/url]
[url= http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2341503/rbs-fears-material-risk-from-scottish-independence ] RBS fears 'material' risk from Scottish independence[/url]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/03/scottish-independence-guaranteed-costs-weir-group-scotland ]Scottish independence will bring 'guaranteed' costs, warns Weir Group[/url]
Obviously you've missed a lot out fasternotfatter but I found the Scots tourism industry opposition to independence interesting.
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-tourism-industry-rejects-independence-in-vote-1-3339835 ]Scots tourism industry rejects independence in vote[/url]
[i]Delegates at the Scottish tourism industry’s annual conference have voted overwhelmingly against independence.[/i]
And :
[i]Tourism is one of Scotland’s biggest industries, worth more than £11 billion to the economy each year and supporting around 200,000 jobs.[/i]
The CBI notified the electoral commission that they wish to become a part of the no campaign. Over a few days a number of members leave or suspend there membership because the CBI wants to be part of the no campaign though most do nothing. The CBI then says that its corporate governance has not been up to scratch and belatedly it gets legal advice that it cannot become a part of a political campaign. Not to worry it was a "fairly junior" member of staff we'll just get the application nullified. The electoral commission say they [b]may[/b] not be able to nullify the CBI's application.
Ernie and FNF say
😯none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
Your at it again Ben! Personal opinion not fact!
And you're at it again, using companies making contingency plans (as all companies do) as a criticism of independence. BP has also said it doesn't think independence is an issue for them, despite the personal feelings of Bob Dudley.
They are correct. It doesn't.
Ernie and FNF saynone of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
😯
I can see by your " 😯 " that you obviously [i]do[/i] think that it represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your opinions, however much off the wall they might be, but I don't think the logic that you are expressing here really provides the basis for a sensible debate.
Gordimhor while Ernie may have said "none of this represents a ringing endorsement by the CBI for an independent Scotland" I most certainly did not. Are you trying to imply that because the CBI is now not actively campaigning against independence that they are endorsing it?
Ben you originally said [i]"Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position"[/i] to which I replied with a list of companies that have expressed a concern about independence. My point was that your comment was not based on fact and I challenged your point and provided evidence to back up my argument. So I am not [i]"using companies making contingency plans (as all companies do) as a criticism of independence"[/i] I am merely using the statements made by these companies to back up my argument, there is no criticism of independence.
However I disagree that the companies are just making contingencies and it would indeed seem that your original statement was in fact totally wrong. Here are some quotes from the articles.
[i]In his strategic review Ian King, chief executive, said: “In September 2014, Scotland will hold an independence referendum. The decision on independence from the UK is a matter for the people of Scotland.
However, BAE Systems has significant interests and employees in Scotland, and it is clear that continued union offers greater certainty and stability for our business"
"In its annual results last month RBS said: “A vote in favour of Scottish independence would be likely to significantly impact the group’s credit ratings and could also impact the fiscal, monetary, legal and regulatory landscape to which the group is subject.”
"Mr Dudley said: “We have a lot of people in Scotland, we’ve got a lot of investments in Scotland. I don’t know … there’s much debate about what would happen with the currency and of course whether there would be connections with Europe or not."
"Standard Life, which has nearly 4 million customers in the UK and 5,000 employees in Scotland, said it would take "whatever action necessary" to protect its business, including moving its operations to England"
"One of Scotland's largest companies, Weir Group, believes that independence will "guarantee" higher costs for business but produce few and uncertain benefits"[/i]
It would appear that big companies think independence will make a difference and that they are worried by the prospect of independence.
Plenty of good reasons to vote yes Ernie, I never did think the CBI would endorse the yes campaign its support for the union has been well known for decades really. I am content to watch the chaos at the CBI with a hint of schadenfreude.
Just to be clear no I am not saying the CBI is endorsing independence. As I said above the CBI s position has been obvious for decades. They did try to present themselves as being neutral on the issue though but a good campaign from Business for Scotland and the CBIs own cac handed administration put an end to that.
It's hardly surprising that an American subsidy junkie like BAE would be against an independent Scotland with a centre left EU-oriented government with modest geopolitical ambitions. Without the UK's desire to be a "world class" military power, there won't be much business for them north of the border, and fewer tame politicians to suppress corruption investigations.
As a general rule, whatever the military-industrial complex suggests - do the opposite.
Plenty of good reasons to vote yes Ernie
That is something I was prepared to consider a distinct possibility until I saw this thread. But then all I have been offered is stuff like "the CBI is in chaos" or "the No campaign is trying to frighten us" by Yes supporters, instead of actually offering compelling reasons why voting Yes would be positively good beyond meaningless petty nationalism.
The often repeated claim that it would also benefit the less prosperous regions of the UK has likewise lacked any sort of coherent argument to back it up ....... it appears to be left to people's imagination to work out in what ways it would help.
Fasternotfatter - I'm not saying there are no big companies against independence - the CBI's behaviour is proof of that - but of your list:
BAE - yes, big surprise they don't like the idea.
Shell - said they're equally worried about Scottish independence and the UK EU referendum.
BP - stated that the company was impartial and Bob Dudley was expressing a personal opinion.
Standard Life - just making contingency plans, company has made it clear they're impartial.
RBS - based on the idea they might have to move their HQ*
Weir - a company that's been fined for trying to bribe dictators. See BAE.
*this suggestion has been made several times, the logic seems to be that the EU requires a bank to be headquartered in the same country as the majority of it's business. But since Scotland is going to be unceremoniously kicked out of the EU (allegedly), why should we comply with EU rules? It also blows a hole in the argument that RBS is a Scottish bank which an independent Scotland wouldn't have been able to bail out.
Ernie - one big compelling reason: No more nuclear weapons.
For many people, that's enough.
No more nuclear weapons is a good one, I'll give you that. Although I'm less convinced that on its own it is a good enough reason or that it has sufficient widespread support - I would suggest that it is way down the list of priorities for most people, even if it is on their list. Otherwise parties such as the Greens would get huge support in general elections. But as it is 80% of the electorate always vote for one of the three major parties which are committed to the retention of WMDs.
Ben that is revisionism of the highest order especially re RBS and as for "no nukes" (cough) absolutely brilliant. Don't ask, don't tell does not in any way equate to no nukes. Google Ole Kvaerno for some Danish honesty on that issue.
So one big lie sums up the whole issue for "many people". How appropriate. There is hope for Farrage yet/too.
Salmond as Prime Minister and Farrage with increased power. Oh dear. Would that be an 'axis' of some description?
Good piece in the Times last week by Hugo Ri****d, saddened that Scots are turning to nationalism, and that even a 60% vote in favour of the UK is no real victory, although a 51% vote in favour of independence will be celebrated with gusto.
I agree with his statement that Scotland may or may not be better off economically, but will certainly be weakened culturally.
Will be a sad day indeed, and nukes certainly fall well down my list of priorities. Too many people get their knickers in a twist over Faslane to feel good about themselves.
It would create a new collective noun ATG - a "falsehood of politicians" with Alex and Nigel as figureheads.
THM - in what way has there been any lack of clarity over the nukes? The only point of debate is how quickly they can be removed. All Yes groups have been totally clear, after independence the nuclear weapons are going.
Ernie - one big compelling reason: No more nuclear weapons.For many people, that's enough.
Most people couldn't give a flying f*** about nuclear weapons.
Ask Neil Kinnock.
Huh, only just noticed the Russian bomber appears to belong to the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27157504
Ben your original statement was "Most big companies who have expressed an opinion have said that independence will make little or no difference and they're not going to take a position" and now I have got you to admit that "I'm not saying there are no big companies against independence", closer to the truth is that big companies have indeed expressed concerns about independence. So lets have a look at your list
[i]
BAE - yes, big surprise they don't like the idea.[/i] OK so you agree there.
[i]Shell - said they're equally worried about Scottish independence and the UK EU referendum.[/i] the fact that they are worried about the EU in no way means they are not worried about Scottish independence.
[i]BP - stated that the company was impartial and Bob Dudley was expressing a personal opinion.[/i] Bob Dudley is the CEO of BP his personal opinion is based on his experience working at BP, the points he makes about the EU and currency are hardly minor concerns.
[i]Standard Life - just making contingency plans, company has made it clear they're impartial.[/i] Moving your headquarters is hardly "little or no difference"
[i]RBS - based on the idea they might have to move their HQ*[/i] See previous response.
[i]Weir - a company that's been fined for trying to bribe dictators. See BAE.[/i] That doesn't mean that they are not a big company with concerns about independence.
However you try to spin this your original statement was incorrect.
teamhurtmore - MemberBen that is revisionism of the highest order especially re RBS and as for "no nukes" (cough) absolutely brilliant. Don't ask, don't tell does not in any way equate to no nukes. Google Ole Kvaerno for some Danish honesty on that issue.
The claim is that an independent Scotland would not be a nuclear armed country, the suggestion isn't that Scotland would declare a nuclear weapon free zone in its territorial waters.
Which would clearly be impractical when you consider both Scotland's geographical location and its desire to secure NATO membership.
The treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok, and Pelindaba, might have established nuclear weapon free zones across the globe but such a treaty to cover the North Atlantic is clearly beyond the scope of an independent Scotland until the US, the UK, France, and Russia, fully comply with the commitments they made when they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Bearing in mind that the UK is planning a new generation of nuclear weapons, in complete violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think we can safely assume that it will be a long time coming.
I'm not sure how much you would be able to blame an independent Scotland for that.
The claim is that an independent Scotland would not be a nuclear armed country, the suggestion isn't that Scotland would declare a nuclear weapon free zone in its territorial waters.
So, if the Royal Navy neither confirm or deny that they are carrying nuclear weapons on their Vanguard class Nuclear Submarines, then they can carry on using Faslane?
The Royal Navy would be a foreign navy, it would be up to an independent Scotland within its NATO obligations to make such decisions. Scotland itself wouldn't be nuclear armed.
EDIT : I do agree that an independent Scotland would have to deal with some seriously conflicting issues if it wished to be both free of nuclear weapons and a fully integrated NATO member.
But then we also see contradictions with regards to EU membership.
As has been previously suggested a the term "independent Scotland" could only be used in the loosest sense, both EU and NATO membership would seriously restrict Scotland's ability to govern itself freely, as does the present situation to the UK.
What does your last statement mean? "As does the present situation to the Uk bit." It is possible I agree wholeheartedly with that...
I am English and pro union but I just can't see how independence should be decided on whether the numbers add up.
Vote with your hearts not your wallets.
What does your last statement mean? "As does the present situation to the Uk bit." It is possible I agree wholeheartedly with that...
It means that I don't consider that Britain can act like a fully independent nation as long as it remains a member of both NATO and the EU.
I would like to see an independent non-aligned Britain free from the EU. I doubt very much that you wholeheartedly agree with that since you appear to be a strong supporter of Yes Scotland.