http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...endent-nation/Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Printable View
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk...endent-nation/Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
It is an accepted fact that every year for 30 years Scotland has generated more tax revenue per head for the UK treasury than the rest of the UK. The latest figures taken from the Government Expenditure and revenue report Scotland (GERS) state that Scotland generated 9.9% of the UK’s tax revenue but received only 9.3% of spending. This equated last year to an amount of £824.00 extra revenue per person from Scotland versus the rest of the UK, all of which goes to the UK treasury.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Put simply, when the UK runs a surplus Scotland contributes more to the surplus, and when the UK runs a deficit Scotland has to pay more of the debt back than it is responsible for. Its a “lose/lose” situation for Scottish tax payers and especially for those in need of support from the state.
Oh, and do you agree that Scotland is centre left?
Just say YES:greengrin
Nice to see the Scots getting some cash for upgrades of our motorways. Well done the EIB
http://www.bei.org/projects/press/20...ay-network.htm
Who pays back the loan? The EU as a whole or Scotland directly?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Farcical that the M8 is still incomplete and a mighty two lanes at that...and that's without considering the A9, Scotland's own death road.
From previous linkQuote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Debt financing for the project is equally split between a direct loan from the European Investment Bank and a bond placement with international investors. The new Scottish scheme represents the first UK road project involving bond finance since the global financial crisis in 2008, and is the largest project to be financed through the Scottish Government’s Non-Profit Distributing model.
http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org....-distributing/
http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org....mber_2011).pdf
Yeah I get where the debt financing comes from but I don't get how, when, who repays that debt...A quick google search didn't enlighten me either tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Assuming this is different to the EU structural fund which seems to grant the money (on a matched basis).
The EU sure has a lot of ways of spending its and others money!!
Ah the A9, the road Mr Salmond wanted to upgrade with the tram money but was outvoted in his 1st term of office due to him only having a minority control.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
I'm a bit concerned about the fact there seems to be no plans for an elected 2nd house in the Parliament should independence become a reality: who is going to control the government and Parliament?
Lots of oil revenues and no proper "checks and balances" in the seat of power: isn't that a recipe for misuse?
This should be fun :greengrin :greengrin :greengrin
http://news.stv.tv/politics/265285-n...ve-stv-debate/
.Hopefully they will bring the debate to a higher level then the mainly male politicians have managed so far. I like them both.Quote:
Originally Posted by BroxburnHibee
You seen any of the previous debates - last 2 were superb viewing. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Looking forward to Johann really having a go at Nicola, might finally get some answers
Inequality Britain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-s...ust_reloaded=1
You will never get answers off either side, better together will state we will be a third world country, yes campaign will claim the streets will be paved with goldQuote:
Originally Posted by lucky
the truth will likely be in the middle and we will do just fine
Im voting yes out of personal preference but if i was an undecided voter then this nonsense would turn me right off
the better together lot instead of scare mongering need to tell us what they are going to do for Scotland
Pass me the Panadol i'm getting a headache :brickwall
Waffle, waffle, waffle, shouty shouty, Lamont saying the word astonished a world record amount of times, the end
Lamont and Sturgeon shouting at each other at the same time with Rona whats her name shouting at them both to stop shouting :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
Lamont has clearly decided not to answer a single thing
Im seriously in the wrong game, i could easily make up stuff,.shout and argue like a bairn for £65k a year!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Park
Govan shipyard closing on your watch in your constituency, under your nose. OUCH!
That was the standout comment tonight and Lamont blew it trying to score points on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Doubt we've heard the last of that one.
Sturgeon gets £100k :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
Michael Moore :yw:
Anas Sarwar:yw:
Alisdair Carmichael:yw:
Johann Lamont:yw:
Nicola Sturgeon:not worth
Sturgeon shouted interrupted throughout but the worse performance goes to the woman who was meant to be chairing it. Personally thought that was awful viewing and reduced the political debate to a new low.
Your attempt at humour or debate is even worse than Scotland Tonight. You are coming across a oaf and extremely boringQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
She also clamped her when she asked for two things they would do for Scotland though, which is exactly my point, they need to start telling us why we should stay instead of trying to shoot down the other sideQuote:
Originally Posted by lucky
:dummytit:Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
That's the game...Blame the ref.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Never mind the leader of the opposition in Scotland who wouldn't answer 1 question.
Can you answer the question I posed to you earlier in the thread please, you seem to be avoiding it.
Certainly never got any answers from Lamont.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
'We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions'. - Johann Lamont.
Horrific.
The worst performance surely has to go to Lamont, without wishing to put too fine a point on it she came across as an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
She is a complete and utter embarrassment, like a daft schemie wifey arguing across the fence from her neighbour, ranting incohrent nonsense.
As opposed to an unelected bunch of Lords? I know what I'd choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
Is this a joke I'm not getting? Didn't see it last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
I'm either having a serious whoosh moment, or, if it's true how can anyone defend that? Surely it totally blows a hole in the Better Together argument that they are not denigrating the Scottish electorate??? :confused:
Amazed at the lack of criticism on here of Sturgeon and her constant interrupting. Clearly opposite views on the debate see and here different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
An unelected House of Lords is NOT the only option out here ... are you saying a single chamber with no checks and balances is an acceptable path to choose in an independent Scotland?Quote:
Originally Posted by McS****y
I actually thought Annabel Goldie vs Fiona Hyslop was a semi-reasonable debate. The thing about Goldie (and some of the other older Scots tories) is that you get the sense she genuinely is a committed Unionist by conviction. With most of the Lib/Labs I can't shake the feeling that they couldn't give a f about anything other than Nat bashing and their future career prospects at Westminster.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Here's the clip. Scottish cringe personified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nBH55Ze...ature=youtu.be
Interrupting is one thing. Both were at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
The thing with Lamont was no answers. She quite literally shot herself in the head with a few comments.
The one about Scottish voters.
And the one when she asked sturgeon to comment on the lack of jobs forthcoming around the Clyde. Completely forgetting that is happening now. And we are not independent.
Or the question she avoided about the alternative for Scotland.
And her incomprehensible answer on Trident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahone
That's the nature of these things though, both sides will cheer on their own 'champions' and relish every petty point scored as a victory. It's thoroughly depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Anybody change their minds after watching this?
Whilst I am likely to vote yes for many reasons i am far from a fan of the snp or Nicola sturgeon. But I thought she handled "arguing" with a complete halfwit reasonably well.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Lamont should be absolutely shame faced about that performance.
A working class woman who not only has the brass neck to make it to the top in a male dominated party but she talks with a working class accent. Shameful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
You could have bet your mortgage beforehand that Sturgeon would give a much more polished performance than her opponent. I wouldn't dismiss Lamont as a halfwit though, you don't lead the nest of vipers she heads without having something about you. She simply isn't suited to the current media age where substance is secondary to sound bite.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
I thought that so called debate last night was embarrassing, both should be embarrassed if that is the quality of debate we are getting regarding the most important decision that the Scottish people have to make in centuries.
Lamont is only the latest in a line of sacrifices Scottish Labour have made in the face of the SNP leadership's high quality debating skills. The bigger names don't want to face Salmond (or Sturgeon) at FMQs. Once the referendum is out of the way they will step forward when there is less at stake.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
In the event of a yes vote, I would hope that the "A teams" of all parties would be involved in the Parliament. At the moment, the best politicians from the unionist parties go to Westminster. If they were relocated to Holyrood, that could only improve the standard of debate and political thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
It's better to have an unelected bunch of Lords, even in an independent Scotland, than to allow a single parliament, dominated by one party, to have carte blanche to do whatever they like.Quote:
Originally Posted by McS****y
That was my first thought too.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I'm in the undecided camp and can't believe I wasted my time on that last night. A combination of two politicians who didn't want to let the other have any time to speak or make points, a poor show format and a weak chair meant that the entire "debate" was just a shouting match. They didn't debate the issues as much as throwing personal insults at each other and trying to point score with cheap quips. Each of them were as guilty as the other. I've seen better political debates in secondary schools than I saw last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbc70
The show needed to be more like the debates we used to have in school where each side gets a couple of minutes to answer a question, without interruption, then they each get a couple of minutes to respond to the others answer, without interruption, before they have a wee bit of a free for all before moving on to another issue.
Sturgeon was more polished than Lamont, but she struggled when pushed on the currency question, resorting to just asserting that we WILL have a currency union, no alternative, no plans, just that it WILL happen, completely ignoring the possibility that it might not.
Lamont struggled when Sturgeon attacked her on the shipyards issue, which could have been quite easily fended off by Lamont if she had had a bit more composure.
This appears to be what this refurendum is boiling down to, infantile debates and personal attacks on each other by two senior politicians when the country has to make a massive decision in a few months. Sadly, the fervent supporters of each side will lap it all up. One side will claim victory and sneer all over twitter at the other, while the other side does exactly the same thing, taking snippets of what was said out of context, posting them as videos on youtube and circulating them round social media to whip up their supporters into a frenzy over the outrage of what was said.
Yup. Costs less for starters. More effective decision making for another.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
BTW, I'm not saying that the House of Lords is "the only option out here", but we're certainly stuck with it if we stay in the UK.
Commons: "Let's reform the House of Lords."
Lords: "Nah, you're alright, we're doing fine thanks."
You mean a parliament elected by the people of Scotland get to make some decisions without having to check with some other random dudes first? If a Scottish parliament is dominated by one party, it's only because the people voted for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
There are plenty of unicameral systems around the world, and enough of them in 'mainstream' countries to suggest that it's a system that isn't particularly outlandish. These pesky Scandinavians seem to be doing ok with their carte blanche. :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
I hope they both wake up cringing this morning.Neither side 'won' that last night but I wasn't impressed by the 'genetically programmed' statement...absolute shocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I do have sympathy with Lamont when it comes to presentation,though.She simply can't compete with the more 'polished' Sturgeon...that's not to say she's not a good politician,though.
And you can see she's also desperate to say she want rid of Trident as fast as the SNP do, but she's blocked by Westminster by doing so...after any yes victory I'd expect her and her party to say so.
a) I've no doubt it can "make decisions" - the question remains however, where are the checks and balances to determine how "effective" those decisions may be? Mistakes made now, may well prove to be extremely costly later on ...Quote:
Originally Posted by McS****y
b) Well yes, but there are of course other examples to consider - like any former Soviet country, the PRC, Cuba or any communist dictatorship really - Ukraine is a particularly topical example perhaps ... is it a risk worth taking?
Can you detail some of the effective checks and balances that the Lords have made in the last say 20 years? I'm genuinely interested as I have never been able to see any benefit from having the Lords at all. Elected Upper House maybe, but not what we are currently subjected to.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
Believe it or not, I am willing to be persuaded, I feel like I must be missing something big when folks are saying they'd rather have the Lords than a unicameral system.
I'm a big fan of bicameral politics, but with two elected houses...maybe local councillors elected by each local council?...sit for two years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Although that statement was made, it has to be read with context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Some bickering over bedroom tax, the question would an independent Scotland have imposed such a tax (due to possible introduction of a constitution?) 'it could be introduced anywhere if people thought it was a good idea', then Ms Lamont whilst being interrupted blurted that one out followed by 'we choose the world we live in and we have to win the political argument'.
If I was to be Devils advocate I'd suggest Johann was trying to say we are not born knowing the answers but we decide what is best for the country by democratic purpose? Just my opinion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by McS****y
Well, now I didn't quite say that. I am not advocating an unelected House of Lords for an independent Scotland - however, a second elected chamber is something Scotland should consider, if it decides to become independent. Scotland - by opting for independence - does not have to follow the path taken by the UK. Legislation would then be subject to greater scrutinisation and ultimately approval or rejection in a second (elected?) house - a single chamber is surely open to misuse, particularly where vast sums of money are on the table ...
BTW - Germany has an excellent system up and running: no unelected Lords here... and we're doing OK, of course it's a republic - my preferred choice for the UK, rather than separation.
Beyond horrific but in its way also rather honest as by definition if you are a British Unionist then you dont want Scottish people to have the power to make Scottish decisions for Scottish problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Easy win for Sturgeon yet again against rather hopeless oppostion.
Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
High horse duly returned to its stable :D
Agreed, not a ko but clear points win.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Baldmans Comb
I actually agree with this but not all mps are of a better standard than mspsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sorry, that bit wasn't aimed at you - another poster had clearly stated that he/she would prefer the Lords to a unicameral system earlier in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
For what it's worth, I think we kind of agree to a certain extent. I don't think bicameralism (is that even a word?) is a bad thing per se, but my main point is that if we stay in the UK, we get the Lords. By leaving the UK we lose that archaic, outdated house of unelected individuals.
In my opinion, a unicameral system is superior to the one we currently have in the UK.
Rant time...
I find it bizarre that in a supposedly democratic country, we still have a group of people who essentially answer to nobody who have a pretty big say in how the country is run. And we as a people seem to be entirely indifferent to this. Why the sensationalist tabloids haven't been all over this like a cheap suit is beyond me, because in my opinion it's a bloody outrage. Suppose it doesn't suit their agenda.
Last night was a joke from both sides of the arguement, but Lamont's comments were simply outrageous.
To suggest that the Scottish people don't have what it takes to make the big political decisions for their own country is down right insulting and shameful.
After reading Speedy Gonzales comments (post 855 above) I have just sat and watched the whole thing again. He's right, that's not what she was actually trying to say. At worst it was a gaffe, no fair minded person could really believe that one of our leading female politicians would hold a view such as that. Sturgeon certainly didn't pick up on it. As the guys at the end said, we learnt nothing worthwhile last night that we didn't already know. Surely nobody could still argue that a Salmond/Cameron debate would have any merit after watching that nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibercelona
You know what I mean. I'm not a died in the wool SNP man, only voted for them last time round after being sickened by Labour but it was nothing to do with her accent, just her lack of any reasonable argument and her awful attitude. Sturgeon wasn't good either but there was only 1 winner. I don't follow who's "in vogue" with Scottish Labour these days but I wonder why the likes of Susan Deacon and Angus McKay aren't in the running for party leader in Scotland. No doubt there's a very good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
The No campaigns focus on the reality/ negatives of independence, are suggesting it will be hard for us to do it right - at the very least. It's an angle of the debate that needs to be talked about IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
They are suggesting (wrongly :greengrin) that we are better off in the UK, not that we are incapable of doing it right, aren't they? I don't think anybody has argued that we couldn't do it. Have they? Anybody that tried to seriously argue that would quite rightly be pilloried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
There were no winners last night. I have sat through it all again today and both women let themselves down badly. Lamont was certainly nowhere near as bad as some have said on here and Sturgeon underperformed, I expected better. The first section of the programme wasn't too bad with both women making their points reasonably. The second section was dreadful stuff from both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
Myself and a work colleague are trying to get into this. Between us our political knowledge is roughly zero. We started talking about money obviously, wondering if we'd end up better or worse off etc. He then made a point, what would happen with banks? For instance if you have a loan, or a mortgage, and you're paying it back to an English-based bank? We had loads of wee nagging points, such as I'm with TSB, would I still bank with them if Scotland won independence or would new banks spring up? And where would any 'new banks' get money from? Are there answers to questions like this or is it a case of wait and see?
As you can probably gather, we're not even novices at this game and some serious homework is required!
Have to say I thought the 'debate' last night was a complete shambles.
IMO the format where they are allowed to question each other and the 'chair takes a back seat' just doesn't work.
Agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Everything would carry on exactly as before just as happens in every other European country.Quote:
Originally Posted by .Sean.
Swiss people bank with Swiss banks or they bank with German or French banks. Danish people bank with Danish banks or German banks or Scandinavian banks.
At the moment my mortgage,savings and current account are with Banco Santander at the West End which is of course technically a Spanish bank.
Banks in truth are all international these days and just set up 100% subsidiaries in whatever country they choose.
Tens of millions of people in small european countries manage their banking arrangements perfectly well and Scotland would be no different.
Standard Life saying they will relocate if Independence is voted for. Problem is, I'm sure they said they'd do the same thing if we got Devolution.
Never been noted as a hot bed of radicalism that place.
:bye:
I seem to remember the likes of Paul Daniels and Jim Davidson saying they'd leave the uk if labour got into power in 97. Sadly they are both still here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
I read their comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
They basically say that they'll consider leaving if it's a yes and the new government decides to bring in legislation etc that's detrimental to the financial sector. Why would any government DO that?
You could argue that the currency is the issue, but then it's either Sterling (one way or another), so no change or a Scottish pound/Euro in that case I'm sure Standard Life could try to talk to another bank that already works across international boundaries to find out how it's done .... Oh wait..... :cb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15490249
Daylight robbery if we vote No. :wink:
Standard Life will be looking for a currency and regulatory union with tax probably included in that too. If the SNP government can manage to get a currency union, can they afford to say no to the rest and lose thousands of jobs? Independence, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
I remember when the Hearts fans kept dismissing all the warnings and bad news under Romanov. They were roundly mocked by everyone. Now no-one is claiming that independence means going tits up, but all the bad news (currency union, EU membership, companies possibly leaving and so on) just gets dismissed out of hand by the SNP/Yes campaign. It's one of the reasons (although by no means the only one) that the debate has been woeful.
PS The No campaign has been crap too before someone makes that point in response.
Scottish Widows and Standard Life said exactly the same thing pre devolution and around every time there is a general election so I think we might have been here before.Yawn Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
Companys update Business Continuity Plans all the time with the operative words all the time being "Consider if".
Businesses work in the most friendly tax and financial regulatory enviroment they can find and what Scottish government is going to upset this.
"Consider if" Corporation tax in Scotland was set at 15% then Standard Life would think of relocating jobs back to Scotland from England and Ireland.
That's not the headline you are going to get though.
to pick up this point, do you genuinely think we'd not be an EU member nation post yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I genuinely think that it won't be as simple as the SNP would have us believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by southfieldhibby
They've never claimed it would be simple but they appear to be the only ones open to negotiation. I don't believe that the Coalition parties can simply say no without any consideration. They may feel that way but they cannot put their personal feelings before the good of their country. And as for the EU, we ARE in it and don't plan on leaving it. They have no precedent so again there must be negotiation. Barrosso may not be happy about it but he has his own agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
When Mrs Beefster and I are planning to take a risk or do something has a chance of multiple outcomes, we tend to plan for all them. We don't pick the one that we hope will happen and just convince ourselves that everything is going to be alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
How about the SNP/Yes campaign coming out and saying "This scenario is our ideal option but, in the event of another scenario unfolding, here is how we see it unfolding and what we will do...."? If the SNP spelled out what they would do in all the scenarios that they don't want, they would probably convince a lot more of the country.
Folk can pretend it won't happen all they like but, at the moment, the prospect has been raised of Scotland becoming independent without Sterling, EU membership and major employers moving operations out of the country. Yet, not a single campaigner has said "Well, in that scenario....".
I'm undecided on which way I'll vote at the moment. Would love for Scotland to be independent but wouldn't vote for it unless it would be for the better. On this issue though, I don't think it'll be as difficult as the Better Together campaign would have us believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
I'm always intrigued as to how the pro Union camp wants 100% clarity on issues that they themselves are desperately trying to 'muddy' because they think that by creating uncertainty they strengthen their case.
Putting the Independence Referendum to one side, can I ask what clarity we have with regard to the UK in the EU? At the present time, as I understand it, we are to be offered an in/out referendum after the next UK General Election. Where's the certainty - will we be in or out of the EU after the next UK General Election? Who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
This bit always makes me laugh, we have Cameron and his cronies saying we should stick together etc etc then in the same breathe they're quite happy to leave a Union which was voted for by the people of GB. So it's ok for us to leave Europe but it's not ok for us Scots to leave the union of the UK, very hypocritical.
Why don't the SNP tell us what their alternative to a currency union is ? Its a simple question which most folk I've spoke to would like answered.
Can you not turn that around and say that the SNP are being hypocritical too in that they want to leave the UK but become an EU member state? Both sides are hypocritical on this whole issue IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc1
I think people in general are far too hung up on the short term. For almost all of us, I expect it to make very little difference in the short term whether we vote yes or no.Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
Remember all the dire Unionist warnings about millions of jobs disappearing and the economy collapsing if we voted for devolution? In reality, there was very little change at first.
If we vote yes, we will gradually diverge from the rest of the UK over time and when things come up where there is a genuinely marked difference in opinion between Scotland and the rest of the UK (eg. trident replacement) we will get to make our own choice.
Independence is for life, not just for Christmas.
I am a yes man but this is a serious thing for me. They need to offer alternatives. It's so simple. They are making it extremely difficultQuote:
Originally Posted by Betty Boop
How is it not simple?Will we be EU citizens post yes?Will The EU remove us?Will all EU citizens be forcibly removed from Scotland post yes?Would a net contributor to the pot be denied membership?Would net beneficiaries of our contributions veto us joining?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Every single question is met with a reply that shows Scotland will be welcomed into The EU with open arms.
I'd not join the EU btw, but can't see the logic in the scare stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Difference being the Scottish people had NO say in the merging of the parliaments in 1707, they rioted in all the main cities in Scotland when it happened, that tells you how they felt at the time. Being a part of the EU is for monetary issues as it makes perfect sense but SNP and many others believe leaving the UK government would also be beneficial money wise to Scotland.
Well, there only are 3 other alternatives!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahone
1. Our own currency free floating.
2. Our own currency pegged against Sterling or the Euro.
3. Join the Euro.
The Euro can probably be ruled out on political grounds ("who wants to be in crisis like Greece, Spain etc"?) although I'm not convinced it would actually be a bad thing economically. The Euro states running responsible budgets seem to be doing quite nicely thank you very much.
In terms of making a choice, it might be unwise to be (or appear to be) bounced into a hasty choice at the point of Osborne's gun. The Scottish government has taken the sensible step of setting up a Fiscal commission to examine this matter (4 professors of economics including 2 nobel prize winners so you'd like to think their expertise might slightly outrank Danny Alexander :wink:). Having done that, it does seem equally sensible to let them mull things over and then listen to them.
Their latest statement here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00443982.pdf
Here is your answer Betty boopQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Seems to me that the uncertainty regarding the currency union and regulatory practices is what is driving SL's current projected contingency plans: this is a factor that wasn't on the table previously surely? Therefore your comparisons don't quite hold up, particularly if you recall your own reference to a "friendly business environment". From SL's point-of-view this could be a serious problem. Seems most of the SL clients are also outwith Scotland, so again, from a business point of view, Scotland may not be the prime issue here either?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Baldmans Comb
Salmond's spurious claim elsewhere that an independent Scotland could "regulate" the banks/financial institutions thereby avoiding the problems that arose in the FC of 2008 also seem to me to be "pie in the sky" thinking on his part ... bank relocation to the City would circumvents that ploy I would think.
Surely, Salmond and the SNP should have considered, discussed and arrived at workable solutions beforehand with the banking sector and industry, etc. regarding the major problems that are now coming up thick and fast? Why do I get the impression Salmond and the SNP are winging it? The EU situation is another worrying example of an issue that should have been resolved in advance so that the electorate in Scotland can make an informed decision based on facts not on presumption and supposition.
Some may feel that there is a case for independence (I'm not convinced myself), but I feel that the SNP leadership/party is out of its depth here - can the Scottish electorate feel confident about voting for independence when the proponents of the secession seem to be being outmaneuvered with ease in all the major issues?
Here is the actual statement (courtesy of WoS) from Standard Life as it appaers on their website. There's nothing like a good piece of spin to 'up the ante'.
27 February 2014
Scottish referendum
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.
I think you'll find that the SNP want Scotland to become independent and remain in the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Just watching sky news and the one sided reporting on the Standard Life announcement is infuriating. We got to hear Darling and Lamont but the FM's reply was cut off after he opened his mouth. I'm really not one for conspiracy theories but this is blatant.
As with the print reports where they publish a shock horror headline and a first paragraph which contain none of the facts of the story below. Completely one-sided reporting but no less than expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
:top markspost with sense with no blinkers on....unlike some on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeeJay
This is the thing though. As much as the BBC spin it as the above, the actual statement from Standard Life says nothing of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
And yet it's the most one-sided "argument" I've seen posted on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus
Who's got their blinkers on?