Sounds abhorrent, doesn't it? But after reading the article I actually applaud the headmasters decision - given the shoeing he must have anticipated receiving - as he clearly [and paradoxically] has put the long-term interests of the children first.
Sounds weak from the headmaster. I am no anti smoking obsessive but you cannot have one rule for people who are disruptive and another for people who behave
It's a referral unit. They are all disruptive and/or troubled. At least this way they remain in a structured environment and get the help they sorely need. The alternative is higher levels of truancy - no doubt with alcohol and worse mixed in - and ever-lengthening juvenile records.
Sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil. Weakness would have been a failure to depart from accepted norms to achieve that.
It creates disincentives for a start and is unfair
Rubbish.
This is a school dealing with children who have failed, often several times, in mainstream education. Keeping these children in FTE is hard, but surely it is better that they are in school than absconding.
Are you suggesting that the school is going to be attractive to kids who smoke so much that they get themselves expelled (repeatedly) until they are referred?
Do we really need to use such adjectives about peoples' views (Rubbish) Debate is so much better if we don't imo.
I stand by my points which if you reward bad behaviour you get bad behaviour in general
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
Absolutely, and the Lib Dems should emphasise how their priorities, in particular the elimination of tax on the low paid so as to make work more attractive, has contributed to it. It is a tricky balance for the Lib Dems but they have much to be proud of in their record in government and should be careful not to rubbish the Coalition's achievements in some forlorn differentiation strategy.
Basically, qualifying and races will have a massive divergence, not only regarding pace but probably the pecking order as well. Powerful engines will dominate qualifying, efficient engines will have the edge in races.
Basically, qualifying and races will have a massive divergence, not only regarding pace but probably the pecking order as well. Powerful engines will dominate qualifying, efficient engines will have the edge in races.
That seems sensible. It may also make races more lively as it will cause more overtaking.
I can't believe that the *^&*&^^%&&&* BBC are not showing the first race under these new rules live. B******ds.
Mr. Jessop, the BBC's Judas Iscariot approach to licence fee-payers continues to be unimpressive, years after they first sold out people wh like F1 to avoid a terrestrial rival getting the rights.
Races will also benefit from the extra torque but less downforce meaning more sliding action out of corners.
Given the high incidence of cancers and other illnesses caused by cigarette smoking, this school and all of its staff is laying itself wide open to be sued in the next decade or so.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
Absolutely, and the Lib Dems should emphasise how their priorities, in particular the elimination of tax on the low paid so as to make work more attractive, has contributed to it. It is a tricky balance for the Lib Dems but they have much to be proud of in their record in government and should be careful not to rubbish the Coalition's achievements in some forlorn differentiation strategy.
I've always believed the Coalition should and would go full term and that the election campaign would provide enough differentiation for them both. Having said that the Coalition was bound to have rub points that caused difficulty and to some degree that's no bad thing.
Nevertheless the Coalition has been remarkably stable overall partly borne of the fact that Cameron and Clegg knew that they were playing the long game to the end and any local difficulty was marginal to the primary aim of providing five years of stable government with the anticipation of a recovered economy. Presently they are on course.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
I agree , Jack . Unemployment continuing to fall would make it a unique post war situation for a government to lose power in 2015 .
Mr. Jessop, the BBC's Judas Iscariot approach to licence fee-payers continues to be unimpressive, years after they first sold out people wh like F1 to avoid a terrestrial rival getting the rights.
Races will also benefit from the extra torque but less downforce meaning more sliding action out of corners.
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Shock horror , another brass plate may be ordered. Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. Scaremongering will not work.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
I agree , Jack . Unemployment continuing to fall would make it a unique post war situation for a government to lose power in 2015 .
Mark, while you're in the house do you have any appreciation, say over the past 6 months, of any correlation between local turnout/engagement and the performance of the Coalition parties ?
If there are any bit coin experts out there, how does one deal with any tax implications for mined bit coins? I have just started to sell some to take advantage of good prices and pay down my mortgage.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
It had better keep quiet about productivty growth or rather productivty falls though.
Still who needs productivty growth when we can 'create' wealth with rising house prices.
Rising house prices and falling home ownership would have horrified Heath or Thatcher or Major. But then they were lower middle class made good people who believed in aspiration and thought that hard work, self-improvement and self responsibility were the routes to success.
Now it seems the route to success is to own as much property as possible and benefit from one state subsidy after another.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
It had better keep quiet about productivty growth or rather productivty falls though.
Still who needs productivty growth when we can 'create' wealth with rising house prices.
Rising house prices and falling home ownership would have horrified Heath or Thatcher or Major. But then they were lower middle class made good people who believed in aspiration and thought that hard work, self-improvement and self responsibility were the routes to success.
Now it seems the route to success is to own as much property as possible and benefit from one state subsidy after another.
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
The floor's all yours. Go ahead and name some.
Many, nay most, financial services companies registered in Scotland would need to become English entities (they'll need a regulator, a lender of last resoirt, a central bank, an obudsman, etc). That's just a brass plate move. Their Scottish bits would need to be incorporated in Scotland as subsidiaies of the English parent.
The issue is that in an independent Scotland you would end up with English (and overseas) customers having their English billed services managed by an overseas (over-border in the literal sense I suppose) outsourced provider in Scotland. That need not be a problem. As long as Scottish costs were to remain competitive. But if Eck goes all socialist and there is a change in the compettive nature of the Scottish labour market then the work will simply be 'onshored' back to the UK. Or go to Chennai or somewhere. This poses no risks to the English customer base. It poses a genuine threat to jobs in Scotland if their new government was not very careful to ensure cost competitiveness. All signs so far indicate the opposite.
If there are any bit coin experts out there, how does one deal with any tax implications for mined bit coins? I have just started to sell some to take advantage of good prices and pay down my mortgage.
I believe HMRC recently published some advice on this matter. You should investigate their website.
1. Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it was elected.
2. Unemployment is substantially over a million lower than Ed Balls predicted it would be under the Coalition government.
Hi Jack Whilst your point 1 is technically correct it is not really true of 1951 as the 1945 figures had many millions still waiting demob . It is also true that the Conservative governments when they lost office in 1964/1974 and 1997 also left office with unemployment higher than when they were first elected .
I accept the 45-51 figures are more complex but outwith the immediate post war period the unemployment record is dire.
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
Absolutely, and the Lib Dems should emphasise how their priorities, in particular the elimination of tax on the low paid so as to make work more attractive, has contributed to it. It is a tricky balance for the Lib Dems but they have much to be proud of in their record in government and should be careful not to rubbish the Coalition's achievements in some forlorn differentiation strategy.
I've always believed the Coalition should and would go full term and that the election campaign would provide enough differentiation for them both. Having said that the Coalition was bound to have rub points that caused difficulty and to some degree that's no bad thing.
Nevertheless the Coalition has been remarkably stable overall partly borne of the fact that Cameron and Clegg knew that they were playing the long game to the end and any local difficulty was marginal to the primary aim of providing five years of stable government with the anticipation of a recovered economy. Presently they are on course.
Who was it who was constantly posting in late 2010 and early 2011 that the Coalition would only last 14 months. Was it Weather-something?
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
If there are any bit coin experts out there, how does one deal with any tax implications for mined bit coins? I have just started to sell some to take advantage of good prices and pay down my mortgage.
I believe HMRC recently published some advice on this matter. You should investigate their website.
Good luck with that, the HMRC website is one of the ****est websites possible..
If there are any bit coin experts out there, how does one deal with any tax implications for mined bit coins? I have just started to sell some to take advantage of good prices and pay down my mortgage.
I believe HMRC recently published some advice on this matter. You should investigate their website.
Good luck with that, the HMRC website is one of the ****est websites possible..
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
The floor's all yours. Go ahead and name some.
Yawn, unlike you I do have a life
So, you're absolutely positive that some companies will have to register in Scotland, and yet you're unable or unwilling to name any. I'm sure we can all draw our own conclusions. Hey Ho.
Many, nay most, financial services companies registered in Scotland would need to become English entities (they'll need a regulator, a lender of last resoirt, a central bank, an obudsman, etc). That's just a brass plate move. Their Scottish bits would need to be incorporated in Scotland as subsidiaies of the English parent.
The issue is that in an independent Scotland you would end up with English (and overseas) customers having their English billed services managed by an overseas (over-border in the literal sense I suppose) outsourced provider in Scotland. That need not be a problem. As long as Scottish costs were to remain competitive. But if Eck goes all socialist and there is a change in the compettive nature of the Scottish labour market then the work will simply be 'onshored' back to the UK. Or go to Chennai or somewhere. This poses no risks to the English customer base. It poses a genuine threat to jobs in Scotland if their new government was not very careful to ensure cost competitiveness. All signs so far indicate the opposite.
There is a lot more to it than a brass plate. The legal seat of the group would change to England. That legal seat would be subject to English regulatory requirements. What does Scotland do about that? They either have their own duplication requirments in which case the business will be switched south of the border to save costs or they don't in which case the issue is the extent to which the rUK authorities are willing to regulate work carried out "off shore" and give it the kind of protection the companies need to sell their business.
The companies will, by internal charging, essentially have the right to determine where the profits are made. Any increase in the Scottish CT rate and the profitability of their Scottish subsidiaries will fall. The converse may also prove true of course but the reality is that the ability of a Scottish government to determine their taxes in an "independent" Scotland will be severely limited by the 4,000kg gorilla in the corner and the options open to these companies.
Most of the work done in this field in Scotland is not done for Scots but for other Brits or international clients. When the company is based in Scotland having all their back office here makes sense. When it is based in London, not so much.
The reality is that Scotland has a fantastically successful financial services industry built on our integration with the UK. To pretend that not being integrated is not going to have major effects is just dishonest.
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
The floor's all yours. Go ahead and name some.
Many, nay most, financial services companies registered in Scotland would need to become English entities (they'll need a regulator, a lender of last resoirt, a central bank, an obudsman, etc). That's just a brass plate move. Their Scottish bits would need to be incorporated in Scotland as subsidiaies of the English parent.
The issue is that in an independent Scotland you would end up with English (and overseas) customers having their English billed services managed by an overseas (over-border in the literal sense I suppose) outsourced provider in Scotland. That need not be a problem. As long as Scottish costs were to remain competitive. But if Eck goes all socialist and there is a change in the compettive nature of the Scottish labour market then the work will simply be 'onshored' back to the UK. Or go to Chennai or somewhere. This poses no risks to the English customer base. It poses a genuine threat to jobs in Scotland if their new government was not very careful to ensure cost competitiveness. All signs so far indicate the opposite.
Patrick, all basic stuff and SNP have indicated they would run a far better fiscal position than UK so why would the opposite not apply and these companies would be moving jobs north due to being more competitive. Given cost of living , property, salary etc , Scotland would have big advantage. Why is it always the downside that unionists use, the NO hope option.
And now it is the turn of Alliance Trust. They state in their report:
"The referendum in September is creating uncertainty for our customers and our business, which we have a responsibility to address. Regardless of the outcome it is critical that we are able to provide continuity of service and protection for their investments and savings. To give them full confidence, we have started work to establish additional companies registered in England, in order to provide operational flexibility and to complement our existing business in Scotland." http://www.investegate.co.uk/alliance-trust-plc/gnw/alliance-trust-plc---final-results/20140307070029H6843/
Does Stuart really want another contribution from Osborne? Is this some sort of masochism strategy? Surely once was enough.
Never hear any mention of the companies registered in rump UK that will need to put a brass plate up in Scotland. .
The floor's all yours. Go ahead and name some.
Many, nay most, financial services companies registered in Scotland would need to become English entities (they'll need a regulator, a lender of last resoirt, a central bank, an obudsman, etc). That's just a brass plate move. Their Scottish bits would need to be incorporated in Scotland as subsidiaies of the English parent.
The issue is that in an independent Scotland you would end up with English (and overseas) customers having their English billed services managed by an overseas (over-border in the literal sense I suppose) outsourced provider in Scotland. That need not be a problem. As long as Scottish costs were to remain competitive. But if Eck goes all socialist and there is a change in the compettive nature of the Scottish labour market then the work will simply be 'onshored' back to the UK. Or go to Chennai or somewhere. This poses no risks to the English customer base. It poses a genuine threat to jobs in Scotland if their new government was not very careful to ensure cost competitiveness. All signs so far indicate the opposite.
Why is it always the downside that unionists use, the NO hope option.
Possibly because it's not in their interest to promote Independence?
Still, I'm yet to see any suggestions of businesses who might be tempted to relocate or expand north of the border. Why not enlighten me, rather than belittle and scorn my request for information?
Comments
I stand by my points which if you reward bad behaviour you get bad behaviour in general
The nation used to baulk in the 50's with numbers close to 500k and then again in the 70's with 1M.
This government can be proud of both its employment/unemployment record whilst other European nations have wobbled badly. Even the youth unemployment numbers are heading south.
The Coalition should trumpet this success from the rooftops.
F1: Alonso agrees with me:
http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/24184/9200542/fernando-alonso-not-expecting-drivers-to-get-anywhere-near-qualy-pace-in-2014-races
Basically, qualifying and races will have a massive divergence, not only regarding pace but probably the pecking order as well. Powerful engines will dominate qualifying, efficient engines will have the edge in races.
I can't believe that the *^&*&^^%&&&* BBC are not showing the first race under these new rules live. B******ds.
Races will also benefit from the extra torque but less downforce meaning more sliding action out of corners.
Nevertheless the Coalition has been remarkably stable overall partly borne of the fact that Cameron and Clegg knew that they were playing the long game to the end and any local difficulty was marginal to the primary aim of providing five years of stable government with the anticipation of a recovered economy. Presently they are on course.
And a 'highlights' programme every night sounds in rather poor taste.
This is the sort of thing that reaffirms my opposition to cameras in courts over here.
I don't know if you've heard the latest news about Schumacher, but I fear that 'no change' in this case is fairly bad news.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26479162
I hope I'm wrong.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24744684
Also, my review of 300: Rise of an Empire is here
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/235722/#Comment_235722
Cunningly, I've already read it. I still doubt I'll see the film (not much of a cinema-goer in any case).
Everton to beat Arsenal 15/4
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/fa-cup/arsenal-v-everton/winner
Charlton to beat Sheff United 12/5
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/fa-cup/sheffield-utd-v-charlton/winner
Sunderland to beat Hull 5/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/fa-cup/hull-v-sunderland/winner
Wigan to beat City 16/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/fa-cup/man-city-v-wigan/winner
Adebayor FGS 9/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/chelsea-v-tottenham/first-goalscorer
The lads and lasses at Dawlish are doing a great job rebuilding the line, as shown on the link below. I'd like to see a sea that could destroy that lot ...
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetables-and-travel/storm-damage/dawlish/
http://www.siteeyelive.com/monitor/bbcdawlish/camputerb86.jpg
Current re-opening date is the 4th April, a fortnight earlier than the last estimate.
Still who needs productivty growth when we can 'create' wealth with rising house prices.
Rising house prices and falling home ownership would have horrified Heath or Thatcher or Major. But then they were lower middle class made good people who believed in aspiration and thought that hard work, self-improvement and self responsibility were the routes to success.
Now it seems the route to success is to own as much property as possible and benefit from one state subsidy after another.
The issue is that in an independent Scotland you would end up with English (and overseas) customers having their English billed services managed by an overseas (over-border in the literal sense I suppose) outsourced provider in Scotland. That need not be a problem. As long as Scottish costs were to remain competitive. But if Eck goes all socialist and there is a change in the compettive nature of the Scottish labour market then the work will simply be 'onshored' back to the UK. Or go to Chennai or somewhere. This poses no risks to the English customer base. It poses a genuine threat to jobs in Scotland if their new government was not very careful to ensure cost competitiveness. All signs so far indicate the opposite.
His office roof was in a Bond film and MI6 even offered him a job, but Energy minister is fighting a different enemy — climate change
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/the-political-interview-ed-davey-on-bond-mi6-and-tackling-climate-change-with-labour-9176498.html
Paul Haydon @Paul_Haydon 43m
While Ukip complain from the sidelines, Lib Dems are the ones standing up for Britain in Brussels #whyiamIN #ldconf
pic.twitter.com/MrQ4l4YKMV
The companies will, by internal charging, essentially have the right to determine where the profits are made. Any increase in the Scottish CT rate and the profitability of their Scottish subsidiaries will fall. The converse may also prove true of course but the reality is that the ability of a Scottish government to determine their taxes in an "independent" Scotland will be severely limited by the 4,000kg gorilla in the corner and the options open to these companies.
Most of the work done in this field in Scotland is not done for Scots but for other Brits or international clients. When the company is based in Scotland having all their back office here makes sense. When it is based in London, not so much.
The reality is that Scotland has a fantastically successful financial services industry built on our integration with the UK. To pretend that not being integrated is not going to have major effects is just dishonest.
Still, I'm yet to see any suggestions of businesses who might be tempted to relocate or expand north of the border. Why not enlighten me, rather than belittle and scorn my request for information?