There are a couple of other Scottish based companies in the FTSE (I have shares in Aggreko and Weir) both engineering companies that earn most of their profits overseas. Would they have similar issues as Standard Life? Factories are harder to move than headquarters, but any thoughts on how a Yes vote would affect them? I would have thought that hedging against currency risk with an independent petrocurrency Scottish pound would be an unnessecary headache and cost.
Re Standard Life, again it's the currency which is killing the Nats, despite this being a "trivial" issue of no interest to most voters, or so we are told.
They need a Plan C. And it needs to be watertight.
There is no response the SNP leadership will be able to provide except that Standard Life is bluffing and/or to accuse it and its leadership of colluding with the Tories. They'll be a fair bit of personal abuse from some SNP supporters too.
Where the Nats are getting it wrong (how long have you got...) is to say this element will be fine (it won't) or that one will be (it won't either).
They should say look, it's going to be a bumpy ride. We are setting out for independence and we are doing this because it is our destiny. Not everyone will come with us but I promise you we will govern for all Scots and all of those issues will be sorted out in the years to come; we will have our own currency and institutions and society in good time.
Our children will come to inherit a prosperous, confident independent country and they will thank us for that.
Yes, that would be the honest approach. But the SNP leadership - as distinct from other parts of the Yes camp - do not trust Scottish voters with the truth. Instead, their independence pitch is all about a painless path to the land of milk and honey. That's why the only response to today's news, as it has been with both the currency and EU membership issues generally, will be obfuscation, denial and abuse.
Fat winbag Soames was mouthing about it being bad for Aggreko in Holyrood yesterday , not surprising since he is one of the Westminster arse licking elite, whilst McColl of Weir stated it was no issue and in fact a great opportunity for his business.
Think you will find McColl runs the better business of the two.
Radio 4 just had a news segment from the Russian foreign ministry that sounded ominous. It sounded (and I may have misheard) that they are willing to protect Russian compatriots.
And gunmen have seized the regional parliament in the Crimea.
Ominous.
That is what happens when Washington and Westminster organise coup's in Russia's backyard. Be fun when Russia saves its people by annexing Crimea and those guarantors of Ukraine's borders ( UK and USA ) have to wimp out of tackling the Russians. They will not be quite as gung ho as usual, won't be so quick to ruck with eth big boys.
Moscow seems to be blaming the EU rather than the UK and USA. After all, the EU applied the most pressure, threatening to target Ukrainian government officials with visa bans and asset freezes. Strangely, you fail to mention Canada, which also, by your measure 'organised the coup' by restricting visas.
Given all that, it would be interesting if Salmond was to back Russia over the EU ...
You dumb unionists would love it , but unlike Westminster he will be for real democracy , not UK/US puppet governments.
So far you have called me dumb and a fool, and have accused me of having a 'stupid mind'.
You appear to have lost the argument.
As for the UK.US puppet governments line, I'm amazed you neglect the EU's role in this. Indeed, I think it's time to roll out this link again; you may find it useful: http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-tinfoil-hat.html
Josias, if the cap fits ............I am sure you have it on your head
(fx: ruffles hair) Nope, no hat on my head. A slightly balding patch on the crown, but no hat.
I understand OGH provides a very fine consultancy service (not based in Scotland) on the issue of follicular thinning for gentleman of a certain vintage.
Terms - 200 guineas an hour in person or 125 guineas over the interweb thingy.
Mr. G, not so simple, though. A bit like when Morsi was forced out. Yes, he won a democratic (and fair) election, but he then acted as if he had 99% backing and abused his authority. Winning an election doesn't give you the right to act like a tyrant.
Yanukovych gerrymandered the constitution to give more power to himself. However, he also had strong, genuine support in much of the country.
An amicable split might be the best way forward. No idea if that's unrealistic, though.
Meanwhile, Salmond claimed there would be a currency union. Then, if not, there'd be a George Tax. But there won't be that either because his clear plan, which has been held ever since the long war with Eurasia began, that sterlingisation is the way to go.
F1: BBC livefeed suggests some sort of review of road safety and speed limits *could* pave the way to a London Grand Prix. I suspect that's a huge steaming pile of horseshit. Leaving aside the fact street circuits are often dire and we already have a rather good circuit, the work would take months in the heart of London.
On the other hand, it does give the media something to discuss whilst Ecclestone's future is decided...
There is no response the SNP leadership will be able to provide except that Standard Life is bluffing and/or to accuse it and its leadership of colluding with the Tories. They'll be a fair bit of personal abuse from some SNP supporters too.
The basic problem for the SNP is that there is no currency scenario - including any credible currency union - that will allow public money to be spent in an independent Scotland at the levels it is currently spent. Thus, the SNP leadership cannot get into any kind of debate about what will happen after a Yes. Instead, they have to maintain the pretence that everything will just be OK because it just will be in the hope that enough voters will believe this for long enough to win in September. The reality can then be dealt with in the knowledge that there will be no going back. For nationalists symbolic independence is the be all and end all; how it actually effects every day lives is of secondary importance.
Isn't your *consistent* position that there *will* be a currency union if there's a Yes vote? Not sure why your hypothesising other scenarios.
Perhaps the PB Einsteins who scamper from scenario to scenario declaiming that they'll all be really bad for the Yes campaign might consider the politics of it all (not their strongest area I admit). Salmond is holding to the position that a currency union is the best option and that he expects WM to accept that if there's a Yes vote, but isn't ruling out other options. Just imagine the shrieking if he'd rolled over at the first onslaught by the killer blancmanges of Osballs & Alexander, and committed to plan B, C or Y before Standard came out with their announcement? Burst eardrums all over the shop.
I've been telling you for months, indeed years, that the currency issue was a potential killer for Yes. You and others told me the issue was trivial, and voters "didn't care".
Why didn't you guys think this through? Did you really believe London would meekly agree to any currency union Salmond demanded? Did you not have a plan for if/when they refused?
Apparently not. Stupidity of the highest order. M
They did think it through. And having done so decided their best chance was to pretend it was not a problem. The SNP leadership is not stupid; it is pragmatic. And they may get that Yes as a result. What happens afterwards is if no interest to them right now. They'll say anything to win the referendum because for them independence of any kind is better than being part of the UK, even if it ends up causing most Scots considerable hardship.
Just on corporation tax and Scottish independence, it's worth noting that pretty much every UK business with substantial Scottish sales and/or operations would need to set up a Scottish company to own assets there.
So Tesco Group PLC would need to own Tesco Stores (Scotland) Ltd which would own operations in a newly independent Scotland. This corporate would, of course, be subject to Scottish corporation tax.
Robert, you are trying to educate monkeys, their brains cannot grasp anything other than everything flows south. This suits us fine , we will see when the split is done who gains and who loses overall. My guess would be more flowing north than going south personally, given the boasts on here about how much business England does with Scotland.
Re Standard Life, again it's the currency which is killing the Nats, despite this being a "trivial" issue of no interest to most voters, or so we are told.
They can't have a formal currency union, their Plan B is both vague and laughable, no wonder finance companies are anxious.
They need a Plan C. And it needs to be watertight.
Scottish press reporting Plan C, Salmond says voters in EWNI should have no say on whether we enter a currency union with Jocktopia, apparently he knows better and it's all for our own good.
"Standard Life is the UK's biggest provider of defined contribution pensions and self-invested pension plans, and has around £240bn of assets under management. It has 5,000 Scottish-based employees and 1.5 million shareholders."
So Alan is pretty much spot on. Malcolm...not so much.
Still does not hide the fact that westminster are calling in favours from all their arse lickers
There are a couple of other Scottish based companies in the FTSE (I have shares in Aggreko and Weir) both engineering companies that earn most of their profits overseas. Would they have similar issues as Standard Life? Factories are harder to move than headquarters, but any thoughts on how a Yes vote would affect them? I would have thought that hedging against currency risk with an independent petrocurrency Scottish pound would be an unnessecary headache and cost.
F1: Webber reckons Ricciardo is good enough to win grands prix this year. The comments might have been made before Renault woe became apparent, but still suggests he thinks Ricciardo will give Vettel a tough time.
If Red Bull actually wanted the best driver they would've gone for Hulkenberg, it must be said (or perhaps Grosjean).
I'm sure PB tories and Spanish nationalists well remember the threats from some businesses that they might leave before the devolution referendum. No? Well that is a surprise.
Yet curiously scottish widows and standard life are still here. How very curious.
For those who self-evidently don't have a clue about scottish politics on PB then, a timely reminder.
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
Always keep in mind we are dealing with the same 'geniuses' who think just because Osbrowne and Cammie assert something must mean it is true. Doesn't matter how many times their posturing has proved to be complete crap already, they have to keep believing it.
But, if Salmond or Sturgeon says it's true, then we should believe them?
Look, I'm all for Scottish Independence, and think that if the Scots vote for it, it'll work out, it may not be easy going, but building something so important usually never is. I'm not going to pretend that I know or understand Scots politics, and I certainly don't understand the economics of it all, but it does appear that the SNP have dropped the ball on the currency issue.
All the Westminster parties say it ain't happening, things like automatic membership of the EU don't look nailed on, but the impression I get is that Salmond says It'll be ok, and everybody else is wrong. I realise I only get my impressions from London based News organisations, so I might be getting a skewed view of it.
Oh, and malcg, have a lie down, mate. Your usually passionate advocacy of independence is good to see, but today, you've just gone barmy. Not everyone who disagrees with you is dumb, stupid, mindless, fat, windbags or puppets.
"Standard Life is the UK's biggest provider of defined contribution pensions and self-invested pension plans, and has around £240bn of assets under management. It has 5,000 Scottish-based employees and 1.5 million shareholders."
So Alan is pretty much spot on. Malcolm...not so much.
Still does not hide the fact that westminster are calling in favours from all their arse lickers
I'm sure the PB tories and Spanish nationalists well remember the threats from some businesses that they might leave before the devolution referendum? No? Well that is a surprise.
Yet curiously scottish widows and standard life are still here. How very curious.
For those who self-evidently don't have a clue about scottish politics on PB a timely reminder.
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
These sorts of threats should really be treated in the same way as all those companies who said they would leave the UK if we didn't join the Euro. Remember that huge rush to exit when it became clear we would not join? No neither do I.
As a large company and employer based in Scotland, we have been following the constitutional debate ahead of the independence referendum on 18 September 2014. We have a long standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote. However, we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our four million UK customers, our shareholders, our people and other stakeholders in our business and take whatever action is necessary to protect their interests. For this reason, we have engaged with key politicians and analysed the relevant papers published by both sides of the independence debate. These include the Scottish Government publication Scotland’s Future (the ‘White Paper’) and the UK Government’s Scotland Analysis series. At the time of publishing this report (February 2014), we believe a number of material issues remain uncertain. These include: •The currency that an independent Scotland would use •Whether agreement and ratification of an independent Scotland’s membership to the European Union would be achieved by the target date (currently 24 March 2016) •The shape and role of the monetary system •The arrangements for financial services regulation and consumer protection in an independent Scotland •The approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions, as a consequence of any constitutional change. We will continue to seek clarity on these matters but uncertainty is likely to remain. In view of this, there are steps we will take based on our analysis of the risks. 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 precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders. As Chief Executive, my commitment is whatever happens, we will continue to serve the needs of our customers and maintain our competitive position.
Just on corporation tax and Scottish independence, it's worth noting that pretty much every UK business with substantial Scottish sales and/or operations would need to set up a Scottish company to own assets there.
So Tesco Group PLC would need to own Tesco Stores (Scotland) Ltd which would own operations in a newly independent Scotland. This corporate would, of course, be subject to Scottish corporation tax.
Of course. The bigger issue, though, is how many companies/institutions currently run from Scotland - but mainly doing business abroad (as the rUK would be, for example) - would relocate their non-Scotland-specific operations elsewhere. As I understand it, 90% of SL's business is non-Scottish. That's a big chunk of potential corporation tax income possibly walking out the door, not to mention top rate income tax etc. it's possible the tax regime could be developed to incentivise companies to such an extent that they stay - but that, too, reduces government income, for a while at least, while alienating the voters at whom the SNP independence pitch is aimed.
So Tesco Group PLC would need to own Tesco Stores (Scotland) Ltd which would own operations in a newly independent Scotland.
Which is jut one of the factors (distribution being charged to Scotland, not amortised across the whole UK, being the principal one) that will lead to higher supermarket prices post Indy....
Radio 4 just had a news segment from the Russian foreign ministry that sounded ominous. It sounded (and I may have misheard) that they are willing to protect Russian compatriots.
And gunmen have seized the regional parliament in the Crimea.
Ominous.
That is what happens when Washington and Westminster organise coup's in Russia's backyard. Be fun when Russia saves its people by annexing Crimea and those guarantors of Ukraine's borders ( UK and USA ) have to wimp out of tackling the Russians. They will not be quite as gung ho as usual, won't be so quick to ruck with eth big boys.
Moscow seems to be blaming the EU rather than the UK and USA. After all, the EU applied the most pressure, threatening to target Ukrainian government officials with visa bans and asset freezes. Strangely, you fail to mention Canada, which also, by your measure 'organised the coup' by restricting visas.
Given all that, it would be interesting if Salmond was to back Russia over the EU ...
You dumb unionists would love it , but unlike Westminster he will be for real democracy , not UK/US puppet governments.
So far you have called me dumb and a fool, and have accused me of having a 'stupid mind'.
You appear to have lost the argument.
As for the UK.US puppet governments line, I'm amazed you neglect the EU's role in this. Indeed, I think it's time to roll out this link again; you may find it useful: http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-tinfoil-hat.html
Josias, if the cap fits ............I am sure you have it on your head
(fx: ruffles hair) Nope, no hat on my head. A slightly balding patch on the crown, but no hat.
I understand OGH provides a very fine consultancy service (not based in Scotland) on the issue of follicular thinning for gentleman of a certain vintage.
Terms - 200 guineas an hour in person or 125 guineas over the interweb thingy.
Bargain ....
I'm a firm believer that any consultant should be able to practice what they preach. I therefore assume that OGH has a fine head of hair that would put Samson (pre-Delilah) to shame?
Just on corporation tax and Scottish independence, it's worth noting that pretty much every UK business with substantial Scottish sales and/or operations would need to set up a Scottish company to own assets there.
So Tesco Group PLC would need to own Tesco Stores (Scotland) Ltd which would own operations in a newly independent Scotland. This corporate would, of course, be subject to Scottish corporation tax.
Robert, you are trying to educate monkeys, their brains cannot grasp anything other than everything flows south. This suits us fine , we will see when the split is done who gains and who loses overall. My guess would be more flowing north than going south personally, given the boasts on here about how much business England does with Scotland.
Oh yes, companies are already looking to flock north to invest in an independent Scotland whose currency will be ?????
Answers on a postcard to :
Right Honourable Alec 'Bloody Eck, I Haven't A Clue' Salmond Edinburgh (Less Standard Life) Scotland (Still in UK) Europe (But No Euro)
I'm sure the PB tories and Spanish nationalists well remember the threats from some businesses that they might leave before the devolution referendum? No? Well that is a surprise.
Yet curiously scottish widows and standard life are still here. How very curious.
For those who self-evidently don't have a clue about scottish politics on PB a timely reminder.
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
These sorts of threats should really be treated in the same way as all those companies who said they would leave the UK if we didn't join the Euro. Remember that huge rush to exit when it became clear we would not join? No neither do I.
Actually, I think this slightly different to the Euro debate.
This is about whether banks - whose assets and liabilities are largely denominated in Sterling - can afford to have a domicile, or central banker who is unable to print Sterling or act as an unlimited lender of last resort.
For this reason, I would be very surprised if RBS or Standard Lift (or HBOS) were Scottish companies post-independence.
That doesn't mean that all the employees in Scotland would leave, or that the Scottish operations would be decimated, etc. It merely means they would chose to have UK head offices and have a UK PLC as the dominant corporate entity.
But, if Salmond or Sturgeon says it's true, then we should believe them?
Not at all. What the right-wing dominated PB believes is of no consequence whatsoever. It's up to the scottish public who they believe or not given that Yes and No are quite obviously not going to agree on very much at all.
If all the No campaign have to offer the scottish public is scare stories on currency that started WAY back in 2012 then they had better be far more prepared than scottish labour were when they thought a negative campaign in 2011 would be more than enough to see them win easily. SLAB actually had a reasonable amount of activist to fight that 2011 election. So they had better somehow at least double their number of activists if this is all they can come up with for the next seven months.
Lord Wallace, the UK Government's law officer for Scotland, is expected to dismiss as "fundamentally flawed" the Scottish Government's assertion that an independent Scotland would have an entitlement to the Bank of England after a Yes vote.
In a lecture on law, he will explain that international law is clear that if Scotland decided to leave the UK, then it would also leave behind UK institutions such as the Bank of England.
In his speech to the 80 Club in London, the Advocate General will say: "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."
Lord Wallace will explain that assets such as cash, currency or gold reserves held by the UK state could be subject to negotiation after a Yes vote, stressing: "An individual pound is an asset, as is a collection of pounds in a bank account; the pound as a system of currency is not."
The carefully considered detailed legal rebuttal by the SNP:
A spokesman for John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Secretary, hit back, saying.....the Advocate General's view as that of an "arrogant, Tory-led Westminster establishment......
Similarly, Britain's Embassies belong to the Foreign Office - an institution of the continuing UK state.
. The bigger issue, though, is how many companies/institutions currently run from Scotland - but mainly doing business abroad (as the rUK would be, for example) - would relocate their non-Scotland-specific operations elsewhere.
That why you made such a fool of yourself when you were 100% certain Romney would win?
4 CEOs Who Threatened To Fire Workers If Obama Won
Hey all you CEOs that threatened to fire workers if Obama won reelection, what now?
In the months leading up to the presidential election, a number of chief executives -- some directly, some with a bit more tact -- called on their workers to vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney or face the potentially dire consequences. The movement was the result of two distinct forces -- the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which made such declarations legal, and a June conference call in which Romney himself asked employers to let their true feelings known.
But, if Salmond or Sturgeon says it's true, then we should believe them?
Not at all. What the right-wing dominated PB believes is of no consequence whatsoever. It's up to the scottish public who they believe or not given that Yes and No are quite obviously not going to agree on very much at all.
If all the No campaign have to offer the scottish public is scare stories on currency that started WAY back in 2012 then they had better be far more prepared than scottish labour were when they thought a negative campaign in 2011 would be more than enough to see them win easily. SLAB actually had a reasonable amount of activist to fight that 2011 election. So they had better somehow at least double their number of activists if this is all they can come up with for the next seven months.
As you say, Mick, I'm not the one you have to convince. I'd be interested to know what the genuine view is North of the Border. Down here in the East Mids, I get the impression that No isn't really trying, but is still quite far ahead (depending on what poll you believe), and that Salmond's economic argument is in tatters, but I only get London based news here.
Which are the other Scottish FTSE 100 companies Aggreko, Weir, RBS, Standard Life and which others?
In January 2007, Scotland was represented in the FTSE 100 by Cairn Energy, HBOS, RBS, Scottish & Newcastle, Scottish & Southern Energy, Scottish Power and Standard Life.
By February 2012 it was down to Cairn, Aggreko, RBS, SSE, Standard Life and Weir Group.
The number of Scottish companies listed on the UK stock exchange has declined by one-third since 2007, mainly due to de-listing as a result of the economic downturn and foreign take-overs; these include Scottish & Newcastle, Thus Group, Dana Petroleum, ProStrakan and Axis Shield.
There are a couple of other Scottish based companies in the FTSE (I have shares in Aggreko and Weir) both engineering companies that earn most of their profits overseas. Would they have similar issues as Standard Life? Factories are harder to move than headquarters, but any thoughts on how a Yes vote would affect them? I would have thought that hedging against currency risk with an independent petrocurrency Scottish pound would be an unnessecary headache and cost.
Radio 4 just had a news segment from the Russian foreign ministry that sounded ominous. It sounded (and I may have misheard) that they are willing to protect Russian compatriots.
And gunmen have seized the regional parliament in the Crimea.
Ominous.
That is what happens when Washington and Westminster organise coup's in Russia's backyard. Be fun when Russia saves its people by annexing Crimea and those guarantors of Ukraine's borders ( UK and USA ) have to wimp out of tackling the Russians. They will not be quite as gung ho as usual, won't be so quick to ruck with eth big boys.
Moscow seems to be blaming the EU rather than the UK and USA. After all, the EU applied the most pressure, threatening to target Ukrainian government officials with visa bans and asset freezes. Strangely, you fail to mention Canada, which also, by your measure 'organised the coup' by restricting visas.
Given all that, it would be interesting if Salmond was to back Russia over the EU ...
You dumb unionists would love it , but unlike Westminster he will be for real democracy , not UK/US puppet governments.
So far you have called me dumb and a fool, and have accused me of having a 'stupid mind'.
You appear to have lost the argument.
As for the UK.US puppet governments line, I'm amazed you neglect the EU's role in this. Indeed, I think it's time to roll out this link again; you may find it useful: http://www.ehow.com/how_2049858_make-tinfoil-hat.html
Josias, if the cap fits ............I am sure you have it on your head
(fx: ruffles hair) Nope, no hat on my head. A slightly balding patch on the crown, but no hat.
I understand OGH provides a very fine consultancy service (not based in Scotland) on the issue of follicular thinning for gentleman of a certain vintage.
Terms - 200 guineas an hour in person or 125 guineas over the interweb thingy.
Bargain ....
I'm a firm believer that any consultant should be able to practice what they preach. I therefore assume that OGH has a fine head of hair that would put Samson (pre-Delilah) to shame?
Absolutely.
Mike only pretends to lack hair atop in a before and after picture commercial promotional sense. In reality he's more hirsute than Chewbacca.
F1: mildly surprised the ambient temperature of 27C in Bahrain is the highest the new cars have experienced so far. Could mean that in hotter climates we might see even more over-heating issues.
But, if Salmond or Sturgeon says it's true, then we should believe them?
Not at all. What the right-wing dominated PB believes is of no consequence whatsoever. It's up to the scottish public who they believe or not given that Yes and No are quite obviously not going to agree on very much at all.
If all the No campaign have to offer the scottish public is scare stories on currency that started WAY back in 2012 then they had better be far more prepared than scottish labour were when they thought a negative campaign in 2011 would be more than enough to see them win easily. SLAB actually had a reasonable amount of activist to fight that 2011 election. So they had better somehow at least double their number of activists if this is all they can come up with for the next seven months.
As you say, Mick, I'm not the one you have to convince.
Just take a wild guess at how many times currency comes up when leafleting for Yes?
Even if it was a magic bullet for No (and it ain't considering it's all predicated on trust) then you would think the idiots at 'better together' might have managed a far better fist of their massive 'killer' announcement than having the toxic Osborne as the face of it with wee Danny and Balls meekly agreeing a little later once they realised what was going on. If No want to send Osborne and Cammie back to scotland every week do you seriously think that would fill the Yes campaign with dread? Quite the reverse.
Mr. Pork, shade unfair for you to call someone a 'fool' when they're one of the few Englishmen here who actually thinks a currency union makes sense.
Poor old Mick is flailing. You should see our exchange from last night a couple of threads back. Apparently I was a Romney supporter, I'm a Yellow Tory and I'm a Spanish nationalist. Mick plays the man not the ball. And sometimes he gets a bit too excited and starts fibbing. It's his way, bless him.
Thinking of DC's foray to Aberdeen and his meeting with the oil majors - was this a bit of a pre-emptive strike?
Currently many of the largest oil companies are disinvesting in the N Sea as the residual oil becomes more expensive to extract and they wish to use their assets in exploiting new fields that are to be found in Africa and Asia.
However, a lot of the Subsea technology has been developed during the N Sea saga and is now being used globally. Many of these companies are still based near Aberdeen, but how many would relocate, as well as slimming down their Aberdeen operations in favour of more local operations globally?
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
Edit - And Nick P is right about an EU In/Out referendum. It doesn't matter whether the risk of (say) Honda decamping is really high or not: there will be contradictory statements from plausible people on both sides, and voters will conclude that it's a leap into the dark. That's why I've always thought an Out result is unobtainable.
I'm sure PB tories and Spanish nationalists well remember the threats from some businesses that they might leave before the devolution referendum. No? Well that is a surprise.
Yet curiously scottish widows and standard life are still here. How very curious.
For those who self-evidently don't have a clue about scottish politics on PB then, a timely reminder.
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
Well, as it turned out, the business leaders were quite right to have doubts about devolution.
Even the scottish tories knew that they had to u-turn on Devolution sharpish after it won so emphatically. They, right alongside Cammie, are now fully in favour of scottish devolution. However, if you and the PB tories want to rant about the 'evils' of Devolution then go right ahead. It certainly wouldn't prove a thing about you not having a clue about scottish public opinion.
One thing Mick is absolutely right on is that trust is a huge part of the referendum campaign. Clearly, the SNP leadership believes that it has a huge advantage on that front. I imagine they are absolutely right to be so confident. It's this, more than anything else, which explains their combative, non-specific responses to uncomfortable issues, such as currency and EU membership.
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
You clearly know as much about scottish politics as you did about US politics. Bit late to try and fib that you weren't the biggest PB Romney on the site now. You clearly were and it was very funny indeed.
Am I correct in believing that whilst a lot of Labour constituencies resisted the allure of the SNP, it was mainly the Tory areas that fell to the SNP?
If so, and the SNP continues to rubbish rUKIndependence policy as Tory -Westminster, will the SNP be shooting itself in the foot and lose that initial support?
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
You clearly know as much about scottish politics as you did about US politics. Bit late to try and pretend you weren't the PB Romney in chief now. You were and it was very funny indeed.
Can we please stop this PB Romney business. SO made a call, which didn't come off. We've all done it, big deal. At least he actually made a prediction.
Stop trolling about things which happened years ago.
Can we please stop this PB Romney business. SO made a call, which didn't come off. We've all done it, big deal. At least he actually made a prediction.
Stop trolling about things which happened years ago.
Congratulations on your appointment to PB moderator.
Interestingly, given the way that the Lib Dems are planning to fight the May Euros 8% said they consider going yellow for those elections only. Clegg’s gamble on there being a specific niche market for being “the party of In” appears to be supported by these figures
Clegg's gamble with his strategy is threefold:
1. That people accept that the Lib Dems *are* the party of 'In'. Clearly, they're the most pro-EU but Labour and to a lesser extent, the Conservatives are also parties of In.
2. That people care enough about registering support for In, when the vote itself won't determine that question. UKIP clearly benefit from people registering support for 'Out' but then it's always easier to protest against something (all the more so when there aren't serious consequences to doing so). Asking people to register support for a not very popular status quo is a different matter. Were it a referendum, where the actual status of the UK's membership were at risk, that might not be the case. But it isn't.
3. That Eurosceptic Lib Dems won't be put off supporting them by the stance. This may not actually be as big a risk as it sounds. Those voters in all probability know the Lib Dems' stance and are either already out of the tent for the EP elections, or else won't might too much them pushing a policy that's alwas existed.
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
I wouldn't be that hasty. The Scots middle classes, and everyone in Edinburgh, and surely anyone with a job in finance, were already voting No, overwhelmingly.
The referendum will be won or lost in poorer, leftier West Scotland, in and around Glasgow. These voters may possibly regard threats from 'Tory business' as an even better reason to vote Yes.
Today is a very bad day for Nats, no mistake. But it ain't over yet. The next few polls will be fascinating.
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
Edit - And Nick P is right about an EU In/Out referendum. It doesn't matter whether the risk of (say) Honda decamping is really high or not: there will be contradictory statements from plausible people on both sides, and voters will conclude that it's a leap into the dark. That's why I've always thought an Out result is unobtainable.
The economic arguments in Indy are clobbering Salmond, if nothing else it shows BOOers will have to have a well thought through economic pitch and credible exponents. The EUSSR brigade will need to be locked away for the duration since they'll scare people.
On the other hand it's fun to watch Porky rant about Cameron when his position on the EU is basically a shade of Devo Max which sensibly should have been what Salmond should have bid for.
Off topic, Tim Montgomerie has a great column in The Times about just how much it can cost to try to become a Tory MP. Over 40 grand is the average spent by prospective candidates, plus you've got to have the time to travel around the country to persue that elusive seat. There's no way the average bloke on the street is ever going to contemplate that. Montgomerie reckons that prospective Labour candidates don't spend as much, largely because they tend to come from more politically supportive employers such as unions.
That, coupled with the nepotism, and the patronage that infects our politics, all seem to be the only ways into national politics. No wonder politicians are out of touch.
Uh, oh. Another bullying statement telling Cybernats to 'calm down dear'
The First Minister said the internet allows people to use the type of language which would never be repeated in public.
He said everyone has a duty between now and Sept 18 to ensure the independence debate is "worthy of the importance of the decisions which are being made".
The impassioned plea marked the First Minister’s most candid comments to date about a problem which has blighted the independence campaign.
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
Edit - And Nick P is right about an EU In/Out referendum. It doesn't matter whether the risk of (say) Honda decamping is really high or not: there will be contradictory statements from plausible people on both sides, and voters will conclude that it's a leap into the dark. That's why I've always thought an Out result is unobtainable.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
Are you going to predict glory for Cameron after his Merkel love in? You were certainly amusingly unstable and beside yourself with glee after his Veto flounce and Cast Iron IN/OUT referendum pledge. You didn't look a gullible fool at all after that.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
CBI leaders say the business case for devolution still hasn't been made. They had talks with the Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, and told him that extra costs under home rule could damage their ability to compete in the marketplace. Their concerns are focused on the possibiltiy that a parliament could raise business rates and income tax, leaving English businesses facing lower costs than those north of the border.
Andrew Cubie of CBI Scotland said that business leaders were less concerned about political arguments over devolution than the economic implications a parliament's tax powers.
These comments came as it emerged that the director of the CBI in Scotland, Ian McMillan, is moving towards the viewpoint of the governor of the Bank of Scotland, Sir Bruce Patullo, who is not in favour of a Scottish parliament having tax-varying powers.
You clearly know as much about scottish politics as you did about US politics. Bit late to try and pretend you weren't the PB Romney in chief now. You were and it was very funny indeed.
Can we please stop this PB Romney business. SO made a call, which didn't come off. We've all done it, big deal. At least he actually made a prediction.
Stop trolling about things which happened years ago.
I think it's rather endearing and have no problem at all with Mick's approach or even his fibs. People can make their own judgements on who is the more credible poster. That said, i do realise it must be pretty tedious for a lot of you and I apologise for that. If it helps, I'll not be responding to any of his Romney, Yellow Tory or Spanish Nationalist stuff anymore.
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
I wouldn't be that hasty. The Scots middle classes, and everyone in Edinburgh, and surely anyone with a job in finance, were already voting No, overwhelmingly.
The referendum will be won or lost in poorer, leftier West Scotland, in and around Glasgow. These voters may possibly regard threats from 'Tory business' as an even better reason to vote Yes.
Today is a very bad day for Nats, no mistake. But it ain't over yet. The next few polls will be fascinating.
That's hardly news, they declared a £25bn loss on their first year post bail out. The bigger issue is why HMG won't break the thing up. Where's Avery ?
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
That's a keeper.
Yes, please keep it and quote it here on the 19th September.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
They were thinking that the currency issue is very difficult for us as there is no option that will allow us to maintain current public spending levels, let alone increase them, as an independent country; so we'll just pretend that, actually, there isn't an issue. And it may yet work
If it helps, I'll not be responding to any of his Romney, Yellow Tory or Spanish Nationalist stuff anymore.
Boo hoo hoo.
Grow a pair and set out what party it is support then. You always seem to favour the lib dems in any argument so tell us why that's not true. At least the PB tories have the balls to admit they are tories. God knows what you believe apart from that Romney would win (not a "fib" chum we all know you did) and that those who support Catalan Independence are unpleasant.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I doubt it will be anything other than very tight. We'll all just have to hope the result is accepted and that if it's a Yes the divorce negotiations are not too fraught.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
That's a keeper.
Yes, please keep it and quote it here on the 19th September.
So, what is your prediction Richard. You say that it will not "be close". What exactly does that mean? 55% No? 60% No? 70% No?
They were thinking that the currency issue is very difficult for us as there is no option that will allow us to maintain current public spending levels, let alone increase them, as an independent country; so we'll just pretend that, actually, there isn't an issue. And it may yet work
It would have worked better if they'd chosen an option which was within their power to deliver, and stuck to it. Probably a separate currency pegged to the pound would have been the most plausible. Instead, they've so far worked their way through 13 out of the 14 items in SeanT's brilliant list yesterday.
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Near perfect.
Obsequious Cameroons aren't out of touch with scottish public opinion at all. Currency - rated 8th by the scottish public in priorities with just a tiny 2% believing it was the important issue in the referendum.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
And worst of all, a close result on very low turnout.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I doubt it will be anything other than very tight. We'll all just have to hope the result is accepted and that if it's a Yes the divorce negotiations are not too fraught.
SCOTLAND may not get independence even if the Yes campaign wins the referendum, it was claimed today.
An unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted saying a Yes vote would not guarantee independence
It would be better if the referendum wasn't close but I fear it will be. I expect no to win, mainly because the SNP have made such an appalling mess of their campaign and have been caught out so many times. Scots are being asked to vote for a pig in a poke.
At the end of the day I expect this to overcome: the undoubted organisational superiority of the yes campaign An apparent funding superiority for yes the "taint" of tory support for the no campaign (although a good quarter of all no voters will be tory voters) the incompetence of Scottish Labour the "thrawn" nature of some Scots who do not like to be told what to do by anybody (much like the English really)
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Near perfect.
Obsequious Cameroons aren't out of touch with scottish public opinion at all. Currency - rated 8th with just 2% believing it was the important issue in the referendum.
You've got us there Mick, we've been spending too much time listening to blokes from Somerset telling us what Scots think.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
And worst of all, a close result on very low turnout.
The consequences of the big turnout differential still hasn't sunk in for better together or indeed the PB tories. Sooner or later it will.
For such a 'canny' and 'astute' politician, this looks like a blunder:
Alex Salmond: No formal say for the English on a currency union The First Minister rejects the English, Welsh and Northern Irish holding a referendum on a currency union with an independent Scotland.
Surely much better to say 'that would be a matter for the rUK Government - but given they would have agreed it was in both our interests, I'm sure they'd carry a referendum if they held one.'
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
A close NO would not be all that bad. It would likely mean the referendum was re-run in 15 years or so, which might be the time required for the Scottish people to reach a settled judgement.
A close YES would be most unfortunate, though. If Scotland does decide to become independent it would be best if it did so confidently and full-heartedly, rather than by a wafer-thin margin.
I'm relatively confident that - as with the AV referendum - one side or the other will have established a clear advantage by polling day and win by 20 points or more. I'm not certain which side that will be, though.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
That's a keeper.
I have an even better one over McBride. Soon enough that one comes back out.
They were thinking that the currency issue is very difficult for us as there is no option that will allow us to maintain current public spending levels, let alone increase them, as an independent country; so we'll just pretend that, actually, there isn't an issue. And it may yet work
It would have worked better if they'd chosen an option which was within their power to deliver, and stuck to it. Probably a separate currency pegged to the pound would have been the most plausible. Instead, they've so far worked their way through 13 out of the 14 items in SeanT's brilliant list yesterday.
A separate currency is clearly the best long term option, but it means higher borrowing costs in the short to medium term, lower public spending, higher interest rates (mortgages) and, quite possibly, higher taxes; so you can see why the SNP leadership - as opposed to other parts of the Yes campaign - would not advocate it.
So, what is your prediction Richard. You say that it will not "be close". What exactly does that mean? 55% No? 60% No? 70% No?
Over 60% No
Tasty. Very, very tasty. I assume that you are filling your pockets over at Shadsy's. He is offering a whopping 4/1 on Yes getting 35-40%. You'd be a fool not to re-mortgage your house.
Alex Salmond: No formal say for the English on a currency union The First Minister rejects the English, Welsh and Northern Irish holding a referendum on a currency union with an independent Scotland.
That looks an awful lot like bluff, bluster and bullying, does it not?
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
Edit - And Nick P is right about an EU In/Out referendum. It doesn't matter whether the risk of (say) Honda decamping is really high or not: there will be contradictory statements from plausible people on both sides, and voters will conclude that it's a leap into the dark. That's why I've always thought an Out result is unobtainable.
But of course the BOO side have the perfect answer to that which is that - in the case of the EU - the companies have made this threat before and proved to be lying. A number of large companies threatened to leave the UK if we did not join the Euro. And when we did not, they not only didn't leave but they soon increased investment.
This argument also has the benefit of reminding the public that the same people arguing for staying in the EU were those who were so in favour of us joining the disastrous Euro a decade or more ago and that the arguments they are using now are exactly the same as those they used last time.
I would suggest that the BOO side will be positively hoping for some of these people to start making these dire warnings again as it will just help to show how consistently wrong they have been on almost every aspect of our relationship with the EU.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I doubt it will be anything other than very tight. We'll all just have to hope the result is accepted and that if it's a Yes the divorce negotiations are not too fraught.
SCOTLAND may not get independence even if the Yes campaign wins the referendum, it was claimed today.
An unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted saying a Yes vote would not guarantee independence
Re Scotland: It's Game Over, isn't it? Salmond might as well call off the referendum.
Near perfect.
Obsequious Cameroons aren't out of touch with scottish public opinion at all. Currency - rated 8th with just 2% believing it was the important issue in the referendum.
You've got us there Mick, we've been spending too much time listening to blokes from Somerset telling us what Scots think.
They were thinking that the currency issue is very difficult for us as there is no option that will allow us to maintain current public spending levels, let alone increase them, as an independent country; so we'll just pretend that, actually, there isn't an issue. And it may yet work
It would have worked better if they'd chosen an option which was within their power to deliver, and stuck to it. Probably a separate currency pegged to the pound would have been the most plausible. Instead, they've so far worked their way through 13 out of the 14 items in SeanT's brilliant list yesterday.
A separate currency is clearly the best long term option, but it means higher borrowing costs in the short to medium term, lower public spending, higher interest rates (mortgages) and, quite possibly, higher taxes; so you can see why the SNP leadership - as opposed to other parts of the Yes campaign - would not advocate it.
Independence will come at a price - are the Scots willing to pay it?
I hope so, and look forward to watching the in-fighting start on the 19th of September, when the various factions north o' the border realise what's going to happen.
'Wings over Somerset' could organise another whip round.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
And worst of all, a close result on very low turnout.
The consequences of the big turnout differential still hasn't sunk in for better together or indeed the PB tories. Sooner or later it will.
There is a reason for that. The PB Tories haven't got the foggiest idea of ground conditions in Scotland. They are totally, blissfully unaware of the non-existence of BT activists on the ground in vaste swathes of the country. Whereas there isn't even a village which hasn't been canvassed by the Yes team. And before September, they will be re-canvassed and re-canvassed and the gaps will be filled in. Meanwhile, GOTV folks over at BT will be looking at their empty databases and pulling their hair out.
They were thinking that the currency issue is very difficult for us as there is no option that will allow us to maintain current public spending levels, let alone increase them, as an independent country; so we'll just pretend that, actually, there isn't an issue. And it may yet work
It would have worked better if they'd chosen an option which was within their power to deliver, and stuck to it. Probably a separate currency pegged to the pound would have been the most plausible. Instead, they've so far worked their way through 13 out of the 14 items in SeanT's brilliant list yesterday.
A separate currency is clearly the best long term option
Which is why a 'Currency Union' is off the table - for them to work the market has to believe they are immortal.......
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I doubt it will be anything other than very tight. We'll all just have to hope the result is accepted and that if it's a Yes the divorce negotiations are not too fraught.
SCOTLAND may not get independence even if the Yes campaign wins the referendum, it was claimed today.
An unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted saying a Yes vote would not guarantee independence
A separate currency is clearly the best long term option, but it means higher borrowing costs in the short to medium term, lower public spending, higher interest rates (mortgages) and, quite possibly, higher taxes; so you can see why the SNP leadership - as opposed to other parts of the Yes campaign - would not advocate it.
Sure, but such objections could be made about any realistic option, and, as you rightly said they would have hoped people would believe their reassurances on questions like that. It's the flip-flopping, and the fact that they go for positions (such as currency union and automatic membership of the EU) which aren't in their power to deliver, which are so damaging.
They could certainly have made a plausible argument that a separate currency would work well: there's the Irish precedent to point to, and many small countries such as Denmark do absolutely fine with their own currencies.
I expect a very close result in September. But the good news is that these issues have been raised. If Scotland still votes Yes, it will have done so with its eyes wide open, though the practical consequences for ordinary Scots could well be quite unpleasant.
I don't expect it to be close. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are extremely powerful motivators in a referendum of this sort, and the SNP have made an absolute hash of allaying them, with their positions falling apart repeatedly on several central issues. The currency one is just extraordinary: completely predictable. What were they thinking?
There has never been a "referendum of this sort", I don't know how anyone south of the border can call this. There are many uniquely Scottish forces at play and there is still a long time for events to play out.
Tasty. Very, very tasty. I assume that you are filling your pockets over at Shadsy's. He is offering a whopping 4/1 on Yes getting 35-40%. You'd be a fool not to re-mortgage your house.
I've taken the maximum Ladbrokes would allow me on that one.
The number of long-term migrants coming to the UK rose to 212,000 in the year to September 2013, according to official figures.
The Official for National Statistics said the net flow - the numbers moving here minus the numbers leaving the UK - rose from 154,000 in the previous year.
Mr. Observer, a close result would be a bad thing, whoever wins. Suspicions of vote-rigging (it'll be fun to see how many postal votes are doled out) could make things contentious. A clear Yes or No would be best.
I doubt it will be anything other than very tight. We'll all just have to hope the result is accepted and that if it's a Yes the divorce negotiations are not too fraught.
SCOTLAND may not get independence even if the Yes campaign wins the referendum, it was claimed today.
An unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted saying a Yes vote would not guarantee independence
I hope that the "unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron" cleared that with Darling first.
Obviously, Scotland will not become an independent country until there is an agreement between the negotiating parties.
This just hasn't struck home yet with our natty colleagues. Personally I'd just keep vetoing EU entry until Salmond signs up to what I want. And there are about a dozen other things HMG can do if he decides he doesn't want to play ball. This takes us back to 2011 when the Nats tried to bluff that everyone will be glad to have us despite it being pointed out that the terms of cub membership have changed over the years and membership concessions are no longer being offered.
Comments
Conservatives could hold Lisbon Treaty referendum after ratification
A Conservative government could hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty even if it has already been ratified, William Hague has said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/3097376/Conservatives-could-hold-Lisbon-Treaty-referendum-after-ratification.html
Don't think so.
Think you will find McColl runs the better business of the two.
Terms - 200 guineas an hour in person or 125 guineas over the interweb thingy.
Bargain ....
Meanwhile, Salmond claimed there would be a currency union. Then, if not, there'd be a George Tax. But there won't be that either because his clear plan, which has been held ever since the long war with Eurasia began, that sterlingisation is the way to go.
F1: BBC livefeed suggests some sort of review of road safety and speed limits *could* pave the way to a London Grand Prix. I suspect that's a huge steaming pile of horseshit. Leaving aside the fact street circuits are often dire and we already have a rather good circuit, the work would take months in the heart of London.
On the other hand, it does give the media something to discuss whilst Ecclestone's future is decided...
If Red Bull actually wanted the best driver they would've gone for Hulkenberg, it must be said (or perhaps Grosjean).
Yet curiously scottish widows and standard life are still here. How very curious.
For those who self-evidently don't have a clue about scottish politics on PB then, a timely reminder.
Always keep in mind we are dealing with the same 'geniuses' who think just because Osbrowne and Cammie assert something must mean it is true. Doesn't matter how many times their posturing has proved to be complete crap already, they have to keep believing it.
But, if Salmond or Sturgeon says it's true, then we should believe them?
Look, I'm all for Scottish Independence, and think that if the Scots vote for it, it'll work out, it may not be easy going, but building something so important usually never is.
I'm not going to pretend that I know or understand Scots politics, and I certainly don't understand the economics of it all, but it does appear that the SNP have dropped the ball on the currency issue.
All the Westminster parties say it ain't happening, things like automatic membership of the EU don't look nailed on, but the impression I get is that Salmond says It'll be ok, and everybody else is wrong.
I realise I only get my impressions from London based News organisations, so I might be getting a skewed view of it.
Oh, and malcg, have a lie down, mate. Your usually passionate advocacy of independence is good to see, but today, you've just gone barmy. Not everyone who disagrees with you is dumb, stupid, mindless, fat, windbags or puppets.
You would have thought them at home in the SNP then!
It really does show how the Yes campaign feels about business though.
Constitutional change
As a large company and employer based in Scotland,
we have been following the constitutional debate ahead of the independence referendum on 18 September 2014.
We have a long standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote.
However, we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our four million UK customers, our shareholders, our people and other stakeholders in our business and take whatever action is necessary to protect their interests.
For this reason, we have engaged with key politicians and
analysed the relevant papers published by both sides of the
independence debate. These include the Scottish Government publication Scotland’s Future (the ‘White Paper’) and the UK Government’s Scotland Analysis series.
At the time of publishing this report (February 2014), we believe a number of material issues remain uncertain.
These include:
•The currency that an independent Scotland would use
•Whether agreement and ratification of an independent Scotland’s membership to the European Union would be achieved by the
target date (currently 24 March 2016)
•The shape and role of the monetary system
•The arrangements for financial services regulation and consumer protection in an independent Scotland
•The approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions, as a consequence of any constitutional change.
We will continue to seek clarity on these matters but uncertainty
is likely to remain.
In view of this, there are steps we will take based on our analysis of the risks. 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 precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders.
As Chief Executive, my commitment is whatever happens, we will continue to serve the needs of our customers and maintain our competitive position.
http://www.standardlife.com/static/docs/2014/ara.pdf
http://wingsoverscotland.com/
Shadowy cleric persuades Nats to give him their money.
Answers on a postcard to :
Right Honourable Alec 'Bloody Eck, I Haven't A Clue' Salmond
Edinburgh (Less Standard Life)
Scotland (Still in UK)
Europe (But No Euro)
This is about whether banks - whose assets and liabilities are largely denominated in Sterling - can afford to have a domicile, or central banker who is unable to print Sterling or act as an unlimited lender of last resort.
For this reason, I would be very surprised if RBS or Standard Lift (or HBOS) were Scottish companies post-independence.
That doesn't mean that all the employees in Scotland would leave, or that the Scottish operations would be decimated, etc. It merely means they would chose to have UK head offices and have a UK PLC as the dominant corporate entity.
It's up to the scottish public who they believe or not given that Yes and No are quite obviously not going to agree on very much at all.
If all the No campaign have to offer the scottish public is scare stories on currency that started WAY back in 2012 then they had better be far more prepared than scottish labour were when they thought a negative campaign in 2011 would be more than enough to see them win easily. SLAB actually had a reasonable amount of activist to fight that 2011 election. So they had better somehow at least double their number of activists if this is all they can come up with for the next seven months.
Lord Wallace, the UK Government's law officer for Scotland, is expected to dismiss as "fundamentally flawed" the Scottish Government's assertion that an independent Scotland would have an entitlement to the Bank of England after a Yes vote.
In a lecture on law, he will explain that international law is clear that if Scotland decided to leave the UK, then it would also leave behind UK institutions such as the Bank of England.
In his speech to the 80 Club in London, the Advocate General will say: "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."
Lord Wallace will explain that assets such as cash, currency or gold reserves held by the UK state could be subject to negotiation after a Yes vote, stressing: "An individual pound is an asset, as is a collection of pounds in a bank account; the pound as a system of currency is not."
The carefully considered detailed legal rebuttal by the SNP:
A spokesman for John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Secretary, hit back, saying.....the Advocate General's view as that of an "arrogant, Tory-led Westminster establishment......
Similarly, Britain's Embassies belong to the Foreign Office - an institution of the continuing UK state.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/government-law-chief-pours-scorn-on-snps-currency-plan.23548619
I hear about these responses from NASA time and time again. Great response and really shows the agency in a great light.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10664428/Schoolboy-4-over-the-moon-with-Nasas-help-on-his-homework.html
Oops!
I'd be interested to know what the genuine view is North of the Border. Down here in the East Mids, I get the impression that No isn't really trying, but is still quite far ahead (depending on what poll you believe), and that Salmond's economic argument is in tatters, but I only get London based news here.
Mike only pretends to lack hair atop in a before and after picture commercial promotional sense. In reality he's more hirsute than Chewbacca.
May the force be with you.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/118861568@N03/
Even if it was a magic bullet for No (and it ain't considering it's all predicated on trust) then you would think the idiots at 'better together' might have managed a far better fist of their massive 'killer' announcement than having the toxic Osborne as the face of it with wee Danny and Balls meekly agreeing a little later once they realised what was going on. If No want to send Osborne and Cammie back to scotland every week do you seriously think that would fill the Yes campaign with dread? Quite the reverse.
Currently many of the largest oil companies are disinvesting in the N Sea as the residual oil becomes more expensive to extract and they wish to use their assets in exploiting new fields that are to be found in Africa and Asia.
However, a lot of the Subsea technology has been developed during the N Sea saga and is now being used globally. Many of these companies are still based near Aberdeen, but how many would relocate, as well as slimming down their Aberdeen operations in favour of more local operations globally?
Financial Services account for about 12% of Scottish GDP. What more does anyone need to know?
Edit - And Nick P is right about an EU In/Out referendum. It doesn't matter whether the risk of (say) Honda decamping is really high or not: there will be contradictory statements from plausible people on both sides, and voters will conclude that it's a leap into the dark. That's why I've always thought an Out result is unobtainable.
However, if you and the PB tories want to rant about the 'evils' of Devolution then go right ahead. It certainly wouldn't prove a thing about you not having a clue about scottish public opinion.
Bless.
You clearly know as much about scottish politics as you did about US politics.
Bit late to try and fib that you weren't the biggest PB Romney on the site now.
You clearly were and it was very funny indeed.
If so, and the SNP continues to rubbish rUKIndependence policy as Tory -Westminster, will the SNP be shooting itself in the foot and lose that initial support?
Stop trolling about things which happened years ago.
The very nature of making predictions and offering tips means that many will not be accurate.
1. That people accept that the Lib Dems *are* the party of 'In'. Clearly, they're the most pro-EU but Labour and to a lesser extent, the Conservatives are also parties of In.
2. That people care enough about registering support for In, when the vote itself won't determine that question. UKIP clearly benefit from people registering support for 'Out' but then it's always easier to protest against something (all the more so when there aren't serious consequences to doing so). Asking people to register support for a not very popular status quo is a different matter. Were it a referendum, where the actual status of the UK's membership were at risk, that might not be the case. But it isn't.
3. That Eurosceptic Lib Dems won't be put off supporting them by the stance. This may not actually be as big a risk as it sounds. Those voters in all probability know the Lib Dems' stance and are either already out of the tent for the EP elections, or else won't might too much them pushing a policy that's alwas existed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26359917
Next thing they'll be accusing her of eating bacon.
On the other hand it's fun to watch Porky rant about Cameron when his position on the EU is basically a shade of Devo Max which sensibly should have been what Salmond should have bid for.
Tim Montgomerie has a great column in The Times about just how much it can cost to try to become a Tory MP.
Over 40 grand is the average spent by prospective candidates, plus you've got to have the time to travel around the country to persue that elusive seat. There's no way the average bloke on the street is ever going to contemplate that.
Montgomerie reckons that prospective Labour candidates don't spend as much, largely because they tend to come from more politically supportive employers such as unions.
That, coupled with the nepotism, and the patronage that infects our politics, all seem to be the only ways into national politics.
No wonder politicians are out of touch.
Scott, please note that he was addressing both CyberScotNats AND CyberBritNats. I hope you were paying attention.
- State-rescued lender confirms total losses since bailout level with 2008 state bail-out
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10664372/RBS-has-lost-all-the-46bn-pumped-in-by-the-taxpayer.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/10664537/Tony-Blairs-government-struck-secret-deal-with-Sinn-Fein-says-Lord-Trimble.html
Sometimes no is just the right answer, and it doesn't matter how it's dressed up or how odious the Englishman delivering it is.
BritNats or ScotNats?
Grow a pair and set out what party it is support then. You always seem to favour the lib dems in any argument so tell us why that's not true. At least the PB tories have the balls to admit they are tories. God knows what you believe apart from that Romney would win (not a "fib" chum we all know you did) and that those who support Catalan Independence are unpleasant.
Obsequious Cameroons aren't out of touch with scottish public opinion at all.
Currency - rated 8th by the scottish public in priorities with just a tiny 2% believing it was the important issue in the referendum.
'Cameron's red carpet reeks of desperation': Angela Merkel’s visit to London shows how much more David Cameron... http://bit.ly/1mEWmGc
Fop chicken.
An unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron was quoted saying a Yes vote would not guarantee independence
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-may-be-denied-if-yes-win-1-3306137
I hope that the "unnamed senior colleague of Prime Minister David Cameron" cleared that with Darling first.
At the end of the day I expect this to overcome:
the undoubted organisational superiority of the yes campaign
An apparent funding superiority for yes
the "taint" of tory support for the no campaign (although a good quarter of all no voters will be tory voters)
the incompetence of Scottish Labour
the "thrawn" nature of some Scots who do not like to be told what to do by anybody (much like the English really)
But I still think it will be close.
Alex Salmond: No formal say for the English on a currency union
The First Minister rejects the English, Welsh and Northern Irish holding a referendum on a currency union with an independent Scotland.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10664559/Alex-Salmond-No-formal-say-for-the-English-on-a-currency-union.html
Surely much better to say 'that would be a matter for the rUK Government - but given they would have agreed it was in both our interests, I'm sure they'd carry a referendum if they held one.'
Instead we get 'no'!
Is someone rattled?
A close YES would be most unfortunate, though. If Scotland does decide to become independent it would be best if it did so confidently and full-heartedly, rather than by a wafer-thin margin.
I'm relatively confident that - as with the AV referendum - one side or the other will have established a clear advantage by polling day and win by 20 points or more. I'm not certain which side that will be, though.
Unless as it's your 'most likely outcome' you think it's an odds on shot?
This argument also has the benefit of reminding the public that the same people arguing for staying in the EU were those who were so in favour of us joining the disastrous Euro a decade or more ago and that the arguments they are using now are exactly the same as those they used last time.
I would suggest that the BOO side will be positively hoping for some of these people to start making these dire warnings again as it will just help to show how consistently wrong they have been on almost every aspect of our relationship with the EU.
I hope so, and look forward to watching the in-fighting start on the 19th of September, when the various factions north o' the border realise what's going to happen.
'Wings over Somerset' could organise another whip round.
They could certainly have made a plausible argument that a separate currency would work well: there's the Irish precedent to point to, and many small countries such as Denmark do absolutely fine with their own currencies.
The number of long-term migrants coming to the UK rose to 212,000 in the year to September 2013, according to official figures.
The Official for National Statistics said the net flow - the numbers moving here minus the numbers leaving the UK - rose from 154,000 in the previous year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26367391#"