As ever, the devil will be in the details. But technical universities seem an obvious route forwards. ----------- I took an interest in part of this when I was in Parliament, exploring the idea of having some courses whose content was strongly influenced by employers. The deal would be:
1. An employer X who consistently finds it hard to get the right sort of British graduates would explain what they needed to university Y. 2. Y would develop a course designed to meet X's needs while retaining sufficient breadth to avoid the student being tied to X (e.g. if it was Microsoft, the course couldn't be just tied to MS software). 3. X would pay some of the fees and offer a 1-year contract to any graduate with a 2-1 result or better.
What would be in it for the student is a guaranteed job offer - no compulsion to take it, but nice to know it's there. X would pay some money but solve his recuitment problem. And the university would attract more students.
The companies I talked to were very interested, as were students. But there was strong resistance from academics, who felt it was a slippery slope towards making universities a tool of industry instead of a tool of knowledge.
Perhaps technical universities as proposed would look on it more positively?
As I have mentioned passim, an SME company of my acquaintance tried doing exactly this in the programming world. UK universities talked to were just not interested, but one in Eastern Europe was. Apparently (and this is second-hand info) the arrangement is working rather well, but the graduates are employed in that country, not the UK.
I have no idea if the problem in the UK was the academics or the business model.
It is a short step from here to degrees in golf course management (which probably have very high graduate employment rates). It is the age-old tension between education and training.
Mr. G, I was referring only to financial firms, and just because someone takes a different view to yourself does not mean they're not being intelligent.
Sequence as follows: Yes wins Currency union does not occur RBS and Lloyds move south at once, as largely owned by British taxpayers Financial firms wary of not having a safety net (lender of last resort) move south Financial firms with majority English/Welsh/Northern Irish depositors move south to avoid flight of deposits to British-based firms
If a currency union occurred, then the last point would still hold, and RBS/Lloyds as well, but a lender of last resort would see many firms remain in Scotland.
Edited extra bit: you can't have 8% of a currency. You can have it, have it with a currency union, or not have it. If you vote to leave a country you don't get to complain you can't have the same currency and central bank. Scotland's entitled to a share of assets and liabilities, not to ongoing access to British institutions.
MD, Lloyds and RBS are already down south , do you think Nat West disappeared or Halifax. They are already UK banks and will see little to no change after independence, they may shuffle a few brass plates and mix of brands in either country. They are not going to pull out and lose business. I am with a Spanish bank online under UK regulation , it makes no difference whatsoever what country their headquarters are in. It is a stupid stupid red herring put out by imbeciles.
The difference will be about 5,000 well paid jobs in Edinburgh, plus the knock on impact on housing and the service sector. That just from RBS and Lloyds; others will add more.
Clearly not devastating in the context of Scotland, but very significant for Edinburgh and one of many challenges that a new iScot will face.
(the 8% of GDP that people cite is misleading because it includes the local branch operations for RBS and BoS which will, of course, need to remain in some form or other)
Charles, utter rubbish , stop trying to kid that they will move jobs and cost themselves a fortune. All the important jobs are already in London , at most a handful would move. They could not get 5000 experienced people down south and would not be able to spend the amount it would take to house and pay them. Pathetic scaremongering Tory crap as usual.
PS: a lot of our GDP is currently registered in London as you will well know, it will take a big jump when it and the oil gets registered in Edinburgh instead.
Do you work in the financial services industry?
I have some relevant experience that informs my comments.
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
Say you borrowed 150k for a house in delightful Auchtermuchtie. Then a YES comes along. Followed by a 'use the pound anyway'. No drama. But the temporary practical arrangement heads towards the serious option where Scotland has its own money, its own central bank, its own lender of last resort - and the Groat is born (but pegged to the Pound). Probably still no drama. But the peg would come under pressure - fixed exchange regimes don't work (ask Norman Lamont). Then the Groat floats.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Another English cringe from a position of ignorance. You are conflating unionist lies with economic common sense for starters. Why not just call it the scaremongering that it is.
Mr. Me, surely the reverse is true? We can (or should be able to...) control who enters, but we can hardly prevent those wishing to emigrate from doing so.
The idea is to encourage people to leave, not to prevent them from leaving. There's a lot the government could do here - clearly the bedroom wasp scheme is a step in the right direction.
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
I think it would mean that anyone who had bought a house as a home and not an investment would be punished hugely. We have been in our present place for more than 20 years, if we had to pay 28% of its appreciation in value over that time I am not even sure we could afford to buy anything other than a small flat in the area in the area.
Introducing capital gains on principle residence would essentially stop older people wanting to downsize from doing so and lead to a even greater mis-allocation of resources both housing and financial. If you tax a transaction then the number of those transactions will decline, with all the knock-on effects (stamp duty, income and corporation taxes from estate agents and tradesmen etc etc)
Politically introducing capital gains tax on principle residences would be a very brave thing to do. So brave that the chances of being re-elected would be about zero.
Mr. G, the UK's economic difficulties are largely caused by Scottish financial institutions and Chancellors. That's why any refusal by Scotland to take its fair share of the debt will absolutely infuriate the British (British, in that scenario, not including Scotland).
I do worry any break-up would be really quite hostile. Hard to see a separation being other than acrimonious.
PS : there is no separation we are merely cancelling the current political union
If the other party sees it as a separation, it's a separation. Starting with separate currency.
Its pretty much pointless tying to reason with him. I must say it worries me if its genuine and this sort of attitude might be prevalent elsewhere in the elecotrate.
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Where do I say that it should be banned?
The waste of housing has a social impact, by raising the cost of housing, causing overcrowding, and leading to an economy wide misallocation of capital as more money is put into house-building so that people can accumulate spare rooms.
Mr. G, I was referring only to financial firms, and just because someone takes a different view to yourself does not mean they're not being intelligent.
Sequence as follows: Yes wins Currency union does not occur RBS and Lloyds move south at once, as largely owned by British taxpayers Financial firms wary of not having a safety net (lender of last resort) move south Financial firms with majority English/Welsh/Northern Irish depositors move south to avoid flight of deposits to British-based firms
If a currency union occurred, then the last point would still hold, and RBS/Lloyds as well, but a lender of last resort would see many firms remain in Scotland.
Edited extra bit: you can't have 8% of a currency. You can have it, have it with a currency union, or not have it. If you vote to leave a country you don't get to complain you can't have the same currency and central bank. Scotland's entitled to a share of assets and liabilities, not to ongoing access to British institutions.
It is a stupid stupid red herring put out by imbeciles.
Clearly not devastating in the context of Scotland, but very significant for Edinburgh and one of many challenges that a new iScot will face.
(the 8% of GDP that people cite is misleading because it includes the local branch operations for RBS and BoS which will, of course, need to remain in some form or other)
Charles, utter rubbish , stop trying to kid that they will move jobs and cost themselves a fortune. All the important jobs are already in London , at most a handful would move. They could not get 5000 experienced people down south and would not be able to spend the amount it would take to house and pay them. Pathetic scaremongering Tory crap as usual.
PS: a lot of our GDP is currently registered in London as you will well know, it will take a big jump when it and the oil gets registered in Edinburgh instead.
Do you work in the financial services industry?
I have some relevant experience that informs my comments.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
Say you borrowed 150k for a house in delightful Auchtermuchtie. Then a YES comes along. Followed by a 'use the pound anyway'. No drama. But the temporary practical arrangement heads towards the serious option where Scotland has its own money, its own central bank, its own lender of last resort - and the Groat is born (but pegged to the Pound). Probably still no drama. But the peg would come under pressure - fixed exchange regimes don't work (ask Norman Lamont). Then the Groat floats.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
A property tax would be wildly unpopular, and rightly so. Being free to own one's own home is what this country is all about. Sinister proposal.
Undertaxation of residential assets leads to misallocation of capital and encourages high property prices.
I'd rather charge a flat rate property tax - say 0.5% - and then use the money raised to get rid of much more damaging taxes (including slab stamp duty, employer NICs. etc).
Taxes tend to get added, but rarely taken away.
Stamp Duty was meant to be a small amount (0.5%) on luxury properties, look at it now. It just amounts to a Moving Tax.
Any "flat rate" tax would end up being abused the same away, there was a reason rates were abolished.
Daniel Hannan (@DanHannanMEP) 28/08/2014 10:13 Rotherham's then MP, @DenisMacShane on the abuse: “As a true Guardian reader & liberal Leftie, I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”
Undertaxation of residential assets leads to misallocation of capital and encourages high property prices.
I'd rather charge a flat rate property tax - say 0.5% - and then use the money raised to get rid of much more damaging taxes (including slab stamp duty, employer NICs. etc).
Does it? People want to own their own homes and wish to then stay in them.
You sound like a Bolshevik complaining about grain hoarding by the Kulaks.
Indeed. A problem of this site is its infiltration by Bolsheviks like Charles - we moderates are tired of being harassed by such left-wing extremists. :-)
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
A property tax would be wildly unpopular, and rightly so. Being free to own one's own home is what this country is all about. Sinister proposal.
Undertaxation of residential assets leads to misallocation of capital and encourages high property prices.
I'd rather charge a flat rate property tax - say 0.5% - and then use the money raised to get rid of much more damaging taxes (including slab stamp duty, employer NICs. etc).
Does it? People want to own their own homes and wish to then stay in them.
You sound like a Bolshevik complaining about grain hoarding by the Kulaks.
No, he sounds like someone who understands free market economics complaining about inconsistent government policy making people do things they wouldn't normally do in a free market.
By giving homes more generous tax treatment than other assets the UK government is doing the equivalent of putting a 50% tax on salt-and-vinegar crisps, but no tax on cheese-and-onion crisps. This results in people making and buying cheese-and-onion crisps, and less salt-and-vinegar crisps, than they would otherwise.
There used to be a Next Cabinet Exit market (Ladbrokes? Betfair? Hills?) but I cannot find one anywhere. Can anybody point us in the right direction?
"The Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has indicated he would resign from the coalition government in the event of a Yes vote and join Alex Salmond’s Team Scotland to negotiate the terms of independence.
Mr Carmichael told The Scotsman that if Scots were to vote Yes, he would accept an invitation made by the First Minister in Monday’s television debate for politicians from both sides of the referendum campaign to be part of a cross-party team working out the details of the new constitutional settlement.
The Liberal Democrat minister has become the most senior figure in the Better Together camp to confirm that he would sit at the negotiating table."
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
Patrick, Dear Dear , how Little Englander of you. Questioned on your master slave relationship you promise retribution for the uppity Scots. You boys need to smell the coffee and start thinking about the impact for you and stop fantasising about Scotland and how you will punish us. It is coming and it will have a major impact on YOU, your least concern will be Scotland.
Net migration into the UK totalled 243,000 in the year up to March, up from 175,000 in the previous 12 months, official figures show.
So much for Cameron's promise immigration. Another promise broken: how many is that? And suckered Tories think he'll carry out his promise re EU referendum, if re-elected.
It's not possible to control immigration, whilst remaining a member of the EU.
I'm sure they crossed the border by accident as well.
Yes, they are worried that the Ukrainian government might otherwise win.
Must be about time for another 'humanitarian aid convoy' to retrieve the remainder of the Topaz Radar production line they left behind after the last visit.
Mr. Me, surely the reverse is true? We can (or should be able to...) control who enters, but we can hardly prevent those wishing to emigrate from doing so.
Well, to reduce net migration you would have to do things that increased emigration, so I'm thinking of relatively benign measures like intensive language courses for the unemployed, simplifying the legal process, indexing of state pensions paid to Britons resident abroad.
It's not forcing people to emigrate, but it's making it easier for people to do so.
Looking at the detailed ONS figures you can see that immigration is up from the EU15, so it's not simply a matter of the East European countries joining the EU, it's also the case that we don't have as many British people emigrating to France, Germany, etc, as are moving here.
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
Say you borrowed 150k for a house in delightful Auchtermuchtie. Then a YES comes along. Followed by a 'use the pound anyway'. No drama. But the temporary practical arrangement heads towards the serious option where Scotland has its own money, its own central bank, its own lender of last resort - and the Groat is born (but pegged to the Pound). Probably still no drama. But the peg would come under pressure - fixed exchange regimes don't work (ask Norman Lamont). Then the Groat floats.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
'Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care' because he'll simply move his cash overseas (i.e. South), away from the clutches of his fellow Scotsmen.
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
A property tax would be wildly unpopular, and rightly so. Being free to own one's own home is what this country is all about. Sinister proposal.
Undertaxation of residential assets leads to misallocation of capital and encourages high property prices.
I'd rather charge a flat rate property tax - say 0.5% - and then use the money raised to get rid of much more damaging taxes (including slab stamp duty, employer NICs. etc).
Does it? People want to own their own homes and wish to then stay in them.
You sound like a Bolshevik complaining about grain hoarding by the Kulaks.
Of course they do. And I'm all for low taxation. But it should be consistent across sectors - the government shouldn't be in the business of incentivising on form of capital allocation vs another.
Taxes on income and employment are far more damaging to economic performance; stamp duty taxes on house purchases are a far greater disincentive to move.
Clearly there are wrinkles to deal with - the proverbial granny in a big house being the standard favorite - so I'd probably look at basing the value on last transacted value plus a nominal increase per year (say 2% p.a.) so that people are able to plan accordingly.
To put this in perspective, the value of the UK residential housing stock is £5.2tn. A 0.5% annual tax would raise £26bn per year. Eliminating residential stamp duty and a portion of council tax would cost, let's say, £10bn. Which leaves you with the potential to reform business rates (to make sure that there is a level playing field between internet and bricks & mortar companies) and to reduce both employer and employee NICs significantly.
There used to be a Next Cabinet Exit market (Ladbrokes? Betfair? Hills?) but I cannot find one anywhere. Can anybody point us in the right direction?
"The Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has indicated he would resign from the coalition government in the event of a Yes vote and join Alex Salmond’s Team Scotland to negotiate the terms of independence.
Mr Carmichael told The Scotsman that if Scots were to vote Yes, he would accept an invitation made by the First Minister in Monday’s television debate for politicians from both sides of the referendum campaign to be part of a cross-party team working out the details of the new constitutional settlement.
The Liberal Democrat minister has become the most senior figure in the Better Together camp to confirm that he would sit at the negotiating table."
@Neil of this parish advised 8-15 to take current cabinet not remaining fully intact with Paddy Power.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
Exactly. It's been said (many times) before: the bedrock of YES supporters come from long-standing passionate and committed Scottish nationalists. For them, independence of their nation is the only real goal. Indeed, almost an end in itself. Not a small number probably don't even see why economic arguments are relevant (except where it can be argued to further reinforce their case): its about their nation's destiny and its "freedom".
I suspect that not a small minority secretly think that fellow Scots who hesitate about making a decision based upon the economics lack their integrity and honour, and secretly feel that passionate and committed Scottish NO voters are traitors.
And there we have the reason for the sheer aggressiveness of some YES supporters, and why the campaign is becoming so divisive and ugly.
In the long-term, however, I can't see a scenario in which Scotland is still in the UK (within, say, 50 years time) unless there is some real emotional affinity and identification with the rest of the United Kingdom as well.
Interesting snippet tucked away in the small print (of the paper edition) of the Glasgow Herald - the only Scottish newspaper to increase its circulation is the Sunday Herald, and that is because it has abandoned its pro-union stance.
SUN , has been very Scottish for the last 3 days , maybe Rupert has seen the numbers. He usually gets in quick when it starts to become very obvious.
Indeed. Even the Daily Record, which used to print SLab press releases unedited, has been remarkably even-handed some days. A bit patchy, but they have seen the writing on the wall. An awful lot of their journos will be very well aware of what is happening in the private polling that is constantly being conducted.
That is certainly an important potential indicator of the situation. Another interesting thing which nobody on this site has (so far as I know) noted or explained is why the flow of defectors is all one way - from No to Yes, in particular in the Labour Party and associated unions.
It's possible that this is simply trivial leakage toward the wider political equilibrium (of 40/60-60/40 as you think fit) and that Party members' thinking is solidly Unionist. It may also simply reflect the practical point that party members will not wish to abandon the time invested in getting up the hierarchy, and the actual and potential rewards of this.
Certainly most of the publicised defectors or quasi-defectors of high rank (local council, provost, MP, MSP, etc.) are retired, i.e. no further advancement to look forward to. Henry McLeish for instance.
However, we have recently seen one sitting local councillor go for Yes:
As with the papers, too early to say - but it is worth watching, and what I do notice, and wonder about, is that there is no great flow the other way - I would certainly have expected Better Together to make a meal of any defectors in the opposite direction.
While a lot of the No to Yes defectors are Labour, I note that just in the last week at least 4 senior Scottish Lib Dems have made the jump. The case that most pleases me personally, for a variety of reasons, is the statement by the Lib Dem former leader of Highland Council, Dr Michael Foxley, a great chum of both Danny Alexander and Charlie Kennedy.
Foxley's primary concern, as a GP, is the huge risk that a No result would cripple NHS Scotland.
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
I think it would mean that anyone who had bought a house as a home and not an investment would be punished hugely. We have been in our present place for more than 20 years, if we had to pay 28% of its appreciation in value over that time I am not even sure we could afford to buy anything other than a small flat in the area in the area.
Introducing capital gains on principle residence would essentially stop older people wanting to downsize from doing so and lead to a even greater mis-allocation of resources both housing and financial. If you tax a transaction then the number of those transactions will decline, with all the knock-on effects (stamp duty, income and corporation taxes from estate agents and tradesmen etc etc)
Politically introducing capital gains tax on principle residences would be a very brave thing to do. So brave that the chances of being re-elected would be about zero.
Which is why I think it's a bad idea!
But an annual tax - based on last transacted value so that people in your position aren't caught out - is equitable.
Mr. Me, surely the reverse is true? We can (or should be able to...) control who enters, but we can hardly prevent those wishing to emigrate from doing so.
Well, to reduce net migration you would have to do things that increased emigration, so I'm thinking of relatively benign measures like intensive language courses for the unemployed, simplifying the legal process, indexing of state pensions paid to Britons resident abroad.
It's not forcing people to emigrate, but it's making it easier for people to do so.
Looking at the detailed ONS figures you can see that immigration is up from the EU15, so it's not simply a matter of the East European countries joining the EU, it's also the case that we don't have as many British people emigrating to France, Germany, etc, as are moving here.
In general, the government has been pretty successful at reducing immigration from outside the EU.
But, the big push factor of high unemployment in the Eurozone, compared with relatively low unemployment in the UK, means Eurozone inhabitants emigrate to this country.
I'm sure they crossed the border by accident as well.
Yes, they are worried that the Ukrainian government might otherwise win.
There's a rather funny story in the DT today - Canada reps at NATO have tweeted a map to help Russian soldiers know where Russia is and where Ukraine is.
Mr. G, I was referring only to financial firms, and just because someone takes a different view to yourself does not mean they're not being intelligent.
Sequence as follows: Yes wins Currency union does not occur RBS and Lloyds move south at once, as largely owned by British taxpayers Financial firms wary of not having a safety net (lender of last resort) move south Financial firms with majority English/Welsh/Northern Irish depositors move south to avoid flight of deposits to British-based firms
If a currency union occurred, then the last point would still hold, and RBS/Lloyds as well, but a lender of last resort would see many firms remain in Scotland.
Edited extra bit: you can't have 8% of a currency. You can have it, have it with a currency union, or not have it. If you vote to leave a country you don't get to complain you can't have the same currency and central bank. Scotland's entitled to a share of assets and liabilities, not to ongoing access to British institutions.
It is a stupid stupid red herring put out by imbeciles.
Clearly not devastating in the context of Scotland, but very significant for Edinburgh and one of many challenges that a new iScot will face.
(the 8% of GDP that people cite is misleading because it includes the local branch operations for RBS and BoS which will, of course, need to remain in some form or other)
ering Tory crap as usual.
PS: a lot of our GDP is currently registered in London as you will well know, it will take a big jump when it and the oil gets registered in Edinburgh instead.
Do you work in the financial services industry?
I have some relevant experience that informs my comments.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
Thats a very long way of saying "no, I have no expertise in financial services"....
No, he sounds like someone who understands free market economics complaining about inconsistent government policy making people do things they wouldn't normally do in a free market.
By giving homes more generous tax treatment than other assets the UK government is doing the equivalent of putting a 50% tax on salt-and-vinegar crisps, but no tax on cheese-and-onion crisps. This results in people making and buying cheese-and-onion crisps, and less salt-and-vinegar crisps, than they would otherwise.
The problem is Mr Edmund that people have to live somewhere, it is not as if they can chose not to have a home and spend the money on investing in a new widget company. Most people live in houses that are just big enough for their needs. So Mr. Charles's proposed tax becomes a tax on living.
In general, the government has been pretty successful at reducing immigration from outside the EU.
But, the big push factor of high unemployment in the Eurozone, compared with relatively low unemployment in the UK, means Eurozone inhabitants emigrate to this country.
Presumably the non-EU decline and the EU increase are related; If the government (the current one and Gordon Brown's) artificially restricts supply from non-EU countries, some of that supply will be replaced by more supply from EU countries than you'd have had otherwise.
As I have explained elsewhere (Independent Scotland and rUK Trade) the dot.com businesses I run would change overnight from being domestic businesses to being businesses that export 90% of their turnover to rUK. This exposes us to new costs, risks and uncertainties; it would place us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors based South of the border. In addition to the obvious currency and EU membership uncertainty (which includes the risk that we will have different VAT regimes or that one of Scotland or rUK is in the EU while the other is out) we are faced with practical issues such as changing shipping costs: the Royal Mail Universal Service Obligation survives privatisation but won't survive separation and we can expect couriers to vary pricing across national borders.
Of course there is a simple but deeply painful solution to those problems; we would move our warehouse operations South of the border and make people redundant as a direct result.
There used to be a Next Cabinet Exit market (Ladbrokes? Betfair? Hills?) but I cannot find one anywhere. Can anybody point us in the right direction?
"The Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has indicated he would resign from the coalition government in the event of a Yes vote and join Alex Salmond’s Team Scotland to negotiate the terms of independence.
Mr Carmichael told The Scotsman that if Scots were to vote Yes, he would accept an invitation made by the First Minister in Monday’s television debate for politicians from both sides of the referendum campaign to be part of a cross-party team working out the details of the new constitutional settlement.
The Liberal Democrat minister has become the most senior figure in the Better Together camp to confirm that he would sit at the negotiating table."
@Neil of this parish advised 8-15 to take current cabinet not remaining fully intact with Paddy Power.
Got on for a potential profit of £20.
Thanks. But it looks like that PP market is gone now.
I would have thought that irrespective of a No or Yes result the UK Cabinet is profoundly unlikely to be identical by Christmas time.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
You do have some strange conceptions. I'm not involved in the family business and have never received a penny from it (apart from 4 weeks work as a teenager). And given that firm's longevity, the family's not into "ruining businesses". Everything I have I've built up myself by creating a role that didn't exist in an industry that didn't realise it needed the services that I could provide...
But the headquarters - not just the CEO - need to be in the country where the primary regulator is based. And the primary regulator will be in London given the weight of assets and iScot's inability to perform the LoLR function for organisations as being as Lloyds or RBS.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
Unfortunately this sort of argument and behaviour is what we can expect if by any chance Yes actually wins. Can anybody think what having a couple of thousand MalcolmG would be like with real power in their hands?
As an atheist, I can only say "God Help Us" because no one else will. We will have dug our own graves, and filled them in over us.
A man who went into a rarely used spare room in his mother's home was shocked to discover that 5,000 wasps had made a giant nest in the bed.
The nest, 3ft wide x 1.5ft deep, was still expanding and the insects had chewed through the mattress and pillows to build it.
When pest controller John Birkett was called to the scene he realised it had been growing for several months. His client, who lives alone in the five-bedroom house in Winchester, Hampshire, had not been in the spare bedroom for months.
Surely there must be something we can do that will discourage this waste of housing?
Why shouldn't a private individual be permitted to allocate capital inefficiently if they want to?
Agreed, but part of the inefficient behaviour is caused by government-induced distortions like taxing you on capital gains on most assets, but exempting your home. The house you live in should be taxed like any other asset.
I'd tend to look at an annual property tax rather than capital gains - the problem with capital gains is that it means that if you sell having owned for a long period it is extremely difficult to afford a comparable or larger property.
But the current tax regime makes no sense.
A property tax would be wildly unpopular, and rightly so. Being free to own one's own home is what this country is all about. Sinister proposal.
Undertaxation of residential assets leads to misallocation of capital and encourages high property prices.
I'd rather charge a flat rate property tax - say 0.5% - and then use the money raised to get rid of much more damaging taxes (including slab stamp duty, employer NICs. etc).
Taxes tend to get added, but rarely taken away.
Stamp Duty was meant to be a small amount (0.5%) on luxury properties, look at it now. It just amounts to a Moving Tax.
Any "flat rate" tax would end up being abused the same away, there was a reason rates were abolished.
That is the biggest problem, I'd agree. But I think that's a problem with our politicians, not with individual taxes.
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
Say you borrowed 150k for a house in delightful Auchtermuchtie. Then a YES comes along. Followed by a 'use the pound anyway'. No drama. But the temporary practical arrangement heads towards the serious option where Scotland has its own money, its own central bank, its own lender of last resort - and the Groat is born (but pegged to the Pound). Probably still no drama. But the peg would come under pressure - fixed exchange regimes don't work (ask Norman Lamont). Then the Groat floats.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
'Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care' because he'll simply move his cash overseas (i.e. South), away from the clutches of his fellow Scotsmen.
Not if IScotland introduces capital controls to try to reduce capital flight....
In general, the government has been pretty successful at reducing immigration from outside the EU.
But, the big push factor of high unemployment in the Eurozone, compared with relatively low unemployment in the UK, means Eurozone inhabitants emigrate to this country.
Presumably the non-EU decline and the EU increase are related; If the government (the current one and Gordon Brown's) artificially restricts supply from non-EU countries, some of that supply will be replaced by more supply from EU countries than you'd have had otherwise.
The nature of immigration from outside the EU is somewhat different than from inside it. Family reunions and asylum claims are much more significant in the case of the former.
I think that rampant unemployment in the Eurozone is the most important single factor driving the increase in EU immigration.
I'm sure they crossed the border by accident as well.
Yes, they are worried that the Ukrainian government might otherwise win.
There's a rather funny story in the DT today - Canada reps at NATO have tweeted a map to help Russian soldiers know where Russia is and where Ukraine is.
Not so simple many Ukrainians have moved to Russia and many Ukrainians have Russian citizenship.
I am just shocked that the US is supplying aid, mercenaries and CIA 'advisers' to the government and that in turn the Russians should supply arms and 'volunteers' to the rebels.
In theory Novorossiya could include all the way to Odessa and up to Kharkov. I guess the extent of the rebel offensive will be determined by the willingness of Kiev to enter into serious negotiations. The realisation that the quick victory gamble has failed has not yet sunk in even if it has in Berlin and other European capitals.
I'm sure they crossed the border by accident as well.
Yes, they are worried that the Ukrainian government might otherwise win.
There's a rather funny story in the DT today - Canada reps at NATO have tweeted a map to help Russian soldiers know where Russia is and where Ukraine is.
I quite liked the British Embassy in Washington tweeting a cake of the White House with sparklers in it to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the burning down of the building by British soldiers... ;-)
The government haven't been that successful in reducing non-EU immigration. The government's aim was to reduce immigration by about 60%. Non-EU immigration has been reduced by about 30%. So they can't blame this on the EU stuff. They've failed on both sides.
He is dishing the dirt on Cameron's EU lies... This is fantastic!
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 28/08/2014 11:10 Ukip now definitely has one MP and again post-2015. Carswell has stonking majority and the seat is stacked full of #Ukip friendly voters.
No, he sounds like someone who understands free market economics complaining about inconsistent government policy making people do things they wouldn't normally do in a free market.
By giving homes more generous tax treatment than other assets the UK government is doing the equivalent of putting a 50% tax on salt-and-vinegar crisps, but no tax on cheese-and-onion crisps. This results in people making and buying cheese-and-onion crisps, and less salt-and-vinegar crisps, than they would otherwise.
The problem is Mr Edmund that people have to live somewhere, it is not as if they can chose not to have a home and spend the money on investing in a new widget company. Most people live in houses that are just big enough for their needs. So Mr. Charles's proposed tax becomes a tax on living.
Yes, it does. But I'd use the money raised to reduce income taxes and other taxes. So, to some extent, it will result in a reallocation of wealth from the non-working and the asset rich to the younger generation and the employed.
But, on balance, that's a good thing.*
* and, for the record, I'd be a net loser from this policy, FWIW, so I'm not talking my own book
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
In the long-term, however, I can't see a scenario in which Scotland is still in the UK (within, say, 50 years time) unless there is some real emotional affinity and identification with the rest of the United Kingdom as well.
Lol I bet you just love all those nice cuddly NO voters, they just have the nicest gloom and doom you could ever wish for. Those naughty nasty YES voters on the other hand , how very dare they, how can they expect to survive without our beneficence and sagacity.
Cameron will be choking on his corn flakes reading that news. The Conservatives will need to pull a real rabbit out of their hat regarding candidate selection to have a chance of winning.
I'm sure they crossed the border by accident as well.
Yes, they are worried that the Ukrainian government might otherwise win.
There's a rather funny story in the DT today - Canada reps at NATO have tweeted a map to help Russian soldiers know where Russia is and where Ukraine is.
Not so simple many Ukrainians have moved to Russia and many Ukrainians have Russian citizenship.
I am just shocked that the US is supplying aid, mercenaries and CIA 'advisers' to the government and that in turn the Russians should supply arms and 'volunteers' to the rebels.
In theory Novorossiya could include all the way to Odessa and up to Kharkov. I guess the extent of the rebel offensive will be determined by the willingness of Kiev to enter into serious negotiations. The realisation that the quick victory gamble has failed has not yet sunk in even if it has in Berlin and other European capitals.
If there is trouble anywhere you can be sure the Americans will have been involved, just have to meddle in everybody's business.
No, he sounds like someone who understands free market economics complaining about inconsistent government policy making people do things they wouldn't normally do in a free market.
By giving homes more generous tax treatment than other assets the UK government is doing the equivalent of putting a 50% tax on salt-and-vinegar crisps, but no tax on cheese-and-onion crisps. This results in people making and buying cheese-and-onion crisps, and less salt-and-vinegar crisps, than they would otherwise.
The problem is Mr Edmund that people have to live somewhere, it is not as if they can chose not to have a home and spend the money on investing in a new widget company. Most people live in houses that are just big enough for their needs. So Mr. Charles's proposed tax becomes a tax on living.
Yes, it does. But I'd use the money raised to reduce income taxes and other taxes. So, to some extent, it will result in a reallocation of wealth from the non-working and the asset rich to the younger generation and the employed.
But, on balance, that's a good thing.*
* and, for the record, I'd be a net loser from this policy, FWIW, so I'm not talking my own book
A tax on assets is appropriate culturally for Southern Europe where there is widespread income tax avoidance and where property rights are less respected.
Here's a question: In which currency would Scottish mortgages be repayable?
Say you borrowed 150k for a house in delightful Auchtermuchtie. Then a YES comes along. Followed by a 'use the pound anyway'. No drama. But the temporary practical arrangement heads towards the serious option where Scotland has its own money, its own central bank, its own lender of last resort - and the Groat is born (but pegged to the Pound). Probably still no drama. But the peg would come under pressure - fixed exchange regimes don't work (ask Norman Lamont). Then the Groat floats.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
'Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care' because he'll simply move his cash overseas (i.e. South), away from the clutches of his fellow Scotsmen.
Not if IScotland introduces capital controls to try to reduce capital flight....
Just a word on the UKIPalypse: if Yes wins, that'll make things harder for them. The election will be all about choosing a government to play hardball with the Scots, and that's still advantage Conservatives. If No wins, this defection could be a very significant plus indeed for the purples.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
Unfortunately this sort of argument and behaviour is what we can expect if by any chance Yes actually wins. Can anybody think what having a couple of thousand MalcolmG would be like with real power in their hands?
As an atheist, I can only say "God Help Us" because no one else will. We will have dug our own graves, and filled them in over us.
A lot better than having dullards like you as we have now. We have had 50 years of turnips like you running things, see where that got us.
We have lots of "Experts" on here, I say its bollocks and you are too up yourself. Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks. RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves. 5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
You do have some strange conceptions. I'm not involved in the family business and have never received a penny from it (apart from 4 weeks work as a teenager). And given that firm's longevity, the family's not into "ruining businesses". Everything I have I've built up myself by creating a role that didn't exist in an industry that didn't realise it needed the services that I could provide...
But the headquarters - not just the CEO - need to be in the country where the primary regulator is based. And the primary regulator will be in London given the weight of assets and iScot's inability to perform the LoLR function for organisations as being as Lloyds or RBS.
Doh, cost of 2 brass plates , not exactly a big deal. I repeat all the top jobs are in London already. If you have meetings with RBS , you only get low level ones in Edinburgh , if you are meeting the top brass you are in London doffing your cap. Refute that one.
If UKIP now have an MP, that's the last barrier for them getting a place in the debates surpassed, unless it's a real stitch-up.
Not so fast - he's resigning and restanding in a by-election.
But it does make the case for 2 debates: (1) as a 4 way between the 4 significant national parties (sorry Neil) and (2) a head to head with Miliband vs Cameron as the most likely PMs.
I'd probably use criteria such as:
to qualify for debate (1) standing in >50% of seats nationally (ex NI) plus averaging > 10% in poll of polls [to be defined but the obvious ones] in the 12 months prior to announcement for the election
to qualify for debate (2) standing in >75% of seats nationally (ex NI) plus averaging >25%...
Mr. G, I was referring only to financial firms, and just because someone takes a different view to yourself does not mean they're not being intelligent.
Sequence as follows: Yes wins Currency union does not occur RBS and Lloyds move south at once, as largely owned by British taxpayers Financial firms wary of not having a safety net (lender of last resort) move south Financial firms with majority English/Welsh/Northern Irish depositors move south to avoid flight of deposits to British-based firms
If a currency union occurred, then the last point would still hold, and RBS/Lloyds as well, but a lender of last resort would see many firms remain in Scotland.
Edited extra bit: you can't have 8% of a currency. You can have it, have it with a currency union, or not have it. If you vote to leave a country you don't get to complain you can't have the same currency and central bank. Scotland's entitled to a share of assets and liabilities, not to ongoing access to British institutions.
It is a stupid stupid red herring put out by imbeciles.
Clearly not devastating in the context of Scotland, but very significant for Edinburgh and one of many challenges that a new iScot will face.
(the 8% of GDP that people cite is misleading because it includes the local branch operations for RBS and BoS which will, of course, need to remain in some form or other)
ering Tory crap as usual.
PS: a lot of our GDP is currently registered in London as you will well know, it will take a big jump when it and the oil gets registered in Edinburgh instead.
Do you work in the financial services industry?
I have some relevant experience that informs my comments.
lawyers.
Thats a very long way of saying "no, I have no expertise in financial services"....
Plenty enough to know that he was bullshitting. He does not seem to know that the big jobs are already in London. Of course we can expect the wicked witch of the south to come on and cackle as ever.
Indeed serious problems for all mainstream parties, with these latest immigration figures and the Rotherham scandal. Carswell's timing is immaculate.
Will it not also have an effect on the Scottish Independence Referendum?
I would think that England getting itself all up in a lather about UKIP might encourage a few more people in Scotland to vote for Independence. Unless that is Carswell's intention then it could end up being the worst possible timing.
So what currency is Mrs McTavish now being asked to service her mortgage in with the Bank of Kikcaldy?
Who gets to take the loss or gain of exchange difference if the mortgage is 'Groatised' during the peg period? The bank or Mrs McTavish?
It's clear that the main motivator of YES support is emotive. It's also clear that the bulwark of NO support is an appeal to pragmatic, everyday economic common sense.
As someone who is equally emotional about the UK, our flag and the common bonds across our island, I have been disappointed in the absence of a positive emotional appeal to British identity in the latter, whilst also being surprised at the sheer aggression and lack of sobriety in the former.
Both campaigns have disappointed IMHO.
Fully agree. But the abject dishonesty of the YES campaign will leave lasting damage whatever the result.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
And there we have the reason for the sheer aggressiveness of some YES supporters, and why the campaign is becoming so divisive and ugly.
In the long-term, however, I can't see a scenario in which Scotland is still in the UK (within, say, 50 years time) unless there is some real emotional affinity and identification with the rest of the United Kingdom as well.
That is certainly an important potential indicator of the situation. Another interesting thing which nobody on this site has (so far as I know) noted or explained is why the flow of defectors is all one way - from No to Yes, in particular in the Labour Party and associated unions.
It's possible that this is simply trivial leakage toward the wider political equilibrium (of 40/60-60/40 as you think fit) and that Party members' thinking is solidly Unionist. It may also simply reflect the practical point that party members will not wish to abandon the time invested in getting up the hierarchy, and the actual and potential rewards of this.
Certainly most of the publicised defectors or quasi-defectors of high rank (local council, provost, MP, MSP, etc.) are retired, i.e. no further advancement to look forward to. Henry McLeish for instance.
However, we have recently seen one sitting local councillor go for Yes:
As with the papers, too early to say - but it is worth watching, and what I do notice, and wonder about, is that there is no great flow the other way - I would certainly have expected Better Together to make a meal of any defectors in the opposite direction.
.
"While a lot of the No to Yes defectors are Labour, I note that just in the last week at least 4 senior Scottish Lib Dems have made the jump. The case that most pleases me personally, for a variety of reasons, is the statement by the Lib Dem former leader of Highland Council, Dr Michael Foxley, a great chum of both Danny Alexander and Charlie Kennedy.
Foxley's primary concern, as a GP, is the huge risk that a No result would cripple NHS Scotland."
THanks to you and TUD - that's five more data points, and, like the Yes posters in my town that I checked out on my morning walk, not one in favour of No. Hardly conclusive, but interesting.
To be fair to Mr Carmichael, he did say he would move after a Yes vote - by which the situation would be different and he would have to resign anyway to reflect the realities of being a MP. However I agree that it is very significant that Dr Foxley is moving - he is such an important LD.
I guess Carswell will romp the by-election (but the Tories will decide when it's held...perhaps sooner the better and get it out of the way), UKIP will have another bouncette....small earthquake in Clacton...and the caravan moves on. Annoying and distracting for us blues but hardly seismic. I will win by May 2015 bets with tim.
Carswell is a proper MP, unlike a career driven non-entity.
Tories attack him at your peril. This could rip the right apart.
This is a great day to pop into PB! How marvellous. I did wonder why Daniel Hannan penned a lengthy explanation as to why he WASN'T joining UKIP the other day. I guess he was aware of Mr Carswell's intentions and getting his position clear in advance. I do like Douglas, he seems a very good chap. I assume Mr Farage got his Margate [?] nomination the other evening too.
The media are now going to spend days talking about Carswell, UKIP, by-election, problem for Cameron, good for Miliband etc... Meanwhile these people will just carry on as if nothing as happened.
Comments
I have some relevant experience that informs my comments.
Introducing capital gains on principle residence would essentially stop older people wanting to downsize from doing so and lead to a even greater mis-allocation of resources both housing and financial. If you tax a transaction then the number of those transactions will decline, with all the knock-on effects (stamp duty, income and corporation taxes from estate agents and tradesmen etc etc)
Politically introducing capital gains tax on principle residences would be a very brave thing to do. So brave that the chances of being re-elected would be about zero.
The waste of housing has a social impact, by raising the cost of housing, causing overcrowding, and leading to an economy wide misallocation of capital as more money is put into house-building so that people can accumulate spare rooms.
Having heard you Tory experts for many many years the only thing you ever get right is enriching your own bankbooks.
RBS is divesting heavily as it is , it will NOT want the expense of moving 5000 people to London. The jobs are going to be lost due to people like you who think they are clever but are there due to inheritance only and ruin companies whilst enriching themselves.
5000 jobs are not moving , it is bullshit from bullshitters. Any fool knows they can achieve it on a bit of paper at little to no cost other than some parasitical lawyers.
The promises of pain-free nirvana tomorrow with knobs on may influence the outcome - but would lead to potentially catastrophic regret once the actual practical implications of a divorce crystallise. Malc genuinely doesn't fear or care that the Scottish economy would get screwed, that iScotland might literally go bankrput, pensions unpaid, that taxes would need to rise or spending to drop sharply. 'Companies might flee England to come north'. FFS! Vote YES for independence and the end-state it omplies - but be sober and realistic about the gutwrenching pain the transition will demand.
The lack of emotional passion on the NO side is indeed telling - but won't lead to anything much. The nit (esp cybernit) hostility has damaged our national unity. They'll get devomax and no Barnett and can enjoy that going forwards.
Stamp Duty was meant to be a small amount (0.5%) on luxury properties, look at it now. It just amounts to a Moving Tax.
Any "flat rate" tax would end up being abused the same away, there was a reason rates were abolished.
28/08/2014 10:13
Rotherham's then MP, @DenisMacShane on the abuse: “As a true Guardian reader & liberal Leftie, I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”
Was just idly reading a bit on the Roman Empire, and apparently taxation levels were usually 2-5%.
Vote Roman for low taxation and maximum violence to barbarians!
By giving homes more generous tax treatment than other assets the UK government is doing the equivalent of putting a 50% tax on salt-and-vinegar crisps, but no tax on cheese-and-onion crisps. This results in people making and buying cheese-and-onion crisps, and less salt-and-vinegar crisps, than they would otherwise.
"The Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael, has indicated he would resign from the coalition government in the event of a Yes vote and join Alex Salmond’s Team Scotland to negotiate the terms of independence.
Mr Carmichael told The Scotsman that if Scots were to vote Yes, he would accept an invitation made by the First Minister in Monday’s television debate for politicians from both sides of the referendum campaign to be part of a cross-party team working out the details of the new constitutional settlement.
The Liberal Democrat minister has become the most senior figure in the Better Together camp to confirm that he would sit at the negotiating table."
You boys need to smell the coffee and start thinking about the impact for you and stop fantasising about Scotland and how you will punish us. It is coming and it will have a major impact on YOU, your least concern will be Scotland.
It's not forcing people to emigrate, but it's making it easier for people to do so.
Looking at the detailed ONS figures you can see that immigration is up from the EU15, so it's not simply a matter of the East European countries joining the EU, it's also the case that we don't have as many British people emigrating to France, Germany, etc, as are moving here.
Taxes on income and employment are far more damaging to economic performance; stamp duty taxes on house purchases are a far greater disincentive to move.
Clearly there are wrinkles to deal with - the proverbial granny in a big house being the standard favorite - so I'd probably look at basing the value on last transacted value plus a nominal increase per year (say 2% p.a.) so that people are able to plan accordingly.
To put this in perspective, the value of the UK residential housing stock is £5.2tn. A 0.5% annual tax would raise £26bn per year. Eliminating residential stamp duty and a portion of council tax would cost, let's say, £10bn. Which leaves you with the potential to reform business rates (to make sure that there is a level playing field between internet and bricks & mortar companies) and to reduce both employer and employee NICs significantly.
Got on for a potential profit of £20.
I suspect that not a small minority secretly think that fellow Scots who hesitate about making a decision based upon the economics lack their integrity and honour, and secretly feel that passionate and committed Scottish NO voters are traitors.
And there we have the reason for the sheer aggressiveness of some YES supporters, and why the campaign is becoming so divisive and ugly.
In the long-term, however, I can't see a scenario in which Scotland is still in the UK (within, say, 50 years time) unless there is some real emotional affinity and identification with the rest of the United Kingdom as well.
Foxley's primary concern, as a GP, is the huge risk that a No result would cripple NHS Scotland.
But an annual tax - based on last transacted value so that people in your position aren't caught out - is equitable.
But, the big push factor of high unemployment in the Eurozone, compared with relatively low unemployment in the UK, means Eurozone inhabitants emigrate to this country.
EDIT
No need for question marks!
Douglas Carswell has joined UKIP
As I have explained elsewhere (Independent Scotland and rUK Trade) the dot.com businesses I run would change overnight from being domestic businesses to being businesses that export 90% of their turnover to rUK. This exposes us to new costs, risks and uncertainties; it would place us at a competitive disadvantage to our competitors based South of the border. In addition to the obvious currency and EU membership uncertainty (which includes the risk that we will have different VAT regimes or that one of Scotland or rUK is in the EU while the other is out) we are faced with practical issues such as changing shipping costs: the Royal Mail Universal Service Obligation survives privatisation but won't survive separation and we can expect couriers to vary pricing across national borders.
Of course there is a simple but deeply painful solution to those problems; we would move our warehouse operations South of the border and make people redundant as a direct result.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/its-not-about-numbers.html?m=1
I would have thought that irrespective of a No or Yes result the UK Cabinet is profoundly unlikely to be identical by Christmas time.
But the headquarters - not just the CEO - need to be in the country where the primary regulator is based. And the primary regulator will be in London given the weight of assets and iScot's inability to perform the LoLR function for organisations as being as Lloyds or RBS.
As an atheist, I can only say "God Help Us" because no one else will. We will have dug our own graves, and filled them in over us.
I think that rampant unemployment in the Eurozone is the most important single factor driving the increase in EU immigration.
I am just shocked that the US is supplying aid, mercenaries and CIA 'advisers' to the government and that in turn the Russians should supply arms and 'volunteers' to the rebels.
In theory Novorossiya could include all the way to Odessa and up to Kharkov. I guess the extent of the rebel offensive will be determined by the willingness of Kiev to enter into serious negotiations. The realisation that the quick victory gamble has failed has not yet sunk in even if it has in Berlin and other European capitals.
Yes, he will. Resigning from parliament.
The government haven't been that successful in reducing non-EU immigration. The government's aim was to reduce immigration by about 60%. Non-EU immigration has been reduced by about 30%. So they can't blame this on the EU stuff. They've failed on both sides.
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
28/08/2014 11:10
Ukip now definitely has one MP and again post-2015. Carswell has stonking majority and the seat is stacked full of #Ukip friendly voters.
Well done Dave you have started a split, wait til you lose the Union with Scotland.
Con 22,837 53%
Lab 10,799 25%
Lib 5,577 12.9%
BNP 1,975 4.6%
But, on balance, that's a good thing.*
* and, for the record, I'd be a net loser from this policy, FWIW, so I'm not talking my own book
Long shot.
UKIP will therefore have Parliamentary representation after May 2015.
Disaster for the tories.
PB to go into meltdown!
Edit: in a good way. This great site is made for announcements and days like this.
I guess the producers are rewriting the lunchtime news bulletins.
Tories attack him at your peril. This could rip the right apart.
Just a word on the UKIPalypse: if Yes wins, that'll make things harder for them. The election will be all about choosing a government to play hardball with the Scots, and that's still advantage Conservatives. If No wins, this defection could be a very significant plus indeed for the purples.
As an atheist, I can only say "God Help Us" because no one else will. We will have dug our own graves, and filled them in over us.
A lot better than having dullards like you as we have now. We have had 50 years of turnips like you running things, see where that got us.
This could be fun, particularly in view of other events this week.
In our analysis Clacton is THE most favourable seat for Ukip. Carswell will win hands down"
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/504935755652026369
just seen Doug Carswell signing up for UKIP
Refute that one.
But it does make the case for 2 debates: (1) as a 4 way between the 4 significant national parties (sorry Neil) and (2) a head to head with Miliband vs Cameron as the most likely PMs.
I'd probably use criteria such as:
to qualify for debate (1) standing in >50% of seats nationally (ex NI) plus averaging > 10% in poll of polls [to be defined but the obvious ones] in the 12 months prior to announcement for the election
to qualify for debate (2) standing in >75% of seats nationally (ex NI) plus averaging >25%...
I would think that England getting itself all up in a lather about UKIP might encourage a few more people in Scotland to vote for Independence. Unless that is Carswell's intention then it could end up being the worst possible timing.
Foxley's primary concern, as a GP, is the huge risk that a No result would cripple NHS Scotland."
THanks to you and TUD - that's five more data points, and, like the Yes posters in my town that I checked out on my morning walk, not one in favour of No. Hardly conclusive, but interesting.
To be fair to Mr Carmichael, he did say he would move after a Yes vote - by which the situation would be different and he would have to resign anyway to reflect the realities of being a MP. However I agree that it is very significant that Dr Foxley is moving - he is such an important LD.
I do like Douglas, he seems a very good chap. I assume Mr Farage got his Margate [?] nomination the other evening too.
This puts the cat amongst the pigeons.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/28/article-2736136-20DDBA1000000578-434_636x382.jpg
The media are now going to spend days talking about Carswell, UKIP, by-election, problem for Cameron, good for Miliband etc... Meanwhile these people will just carry on as if nothing as happened.