UKC

Along with 'bully boy tactics'. I wish the Nats would add to their campaign vocabulary.
Its getting a little tedious to hear them whinge and moan about Westminster bully boys, scaremongering financial institutions, bullying business leaders and any other body that disagrees with what they say. Salmond is the ultimate bully boy and its a case of the pot calling the kettle black with him.
Surely independence is a matter for the heart, not the head for the electorate if not the political establishment
I wish Scotland well in the event of a Yes vote but I fear the country will be changing nothing as far as the politics of the country are concerned.

In reply to Gone for good:

I am still a fan of the yes voters being "Team Scotland"

In reply to Gone for good:
I had a thought that the best way to avoid financial uncertainty could be a mutually decided timetable for change by both England and Scotland. I don't know if this will happen.

In reply to Gone for good:

Now you're being "patronising".....

In reply to Timmd:


Could you flesh out how that would work, Tim? Which changes do you mean?

In reply to Gone for good:

Follow the money. The business leaders are worried that change will hit their profits. They are NOT concerned about the welfare of the Scottish people.

Go Team Scotland!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think I could today, because I went to sleep at about three and woke up at seven. If I remember I will, but addled at the mo...

In reply to Shani:



You're probably right, but countries are generally quite keen on having profitable companies.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Profitability is just one dimension of how to view a business.

Starbucks is highly profitable, but through a process of tax inversion they are able to post a loss in the UK and bleed millions of pounds out of this country to low taxing offshore jurisdictions.

It costs us money to have Starbucks here!

In reply to Shani:


Then don't go there, simple

I never have.

In reply to Shani:




You brought profits into it. How will it benefit iScotland for companies to relocate to rUK?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Why would any country want to host a 'profitable company' that undermines that country's tax base?

The banks have also been 'highly profitable' to the UK, but you'll appreciate the wider context of this 'profitability'.

In reply to Shani:



How are the companies who've said they have contingency plans to move out of Scotland undermining the tax base of rUK if they do carry out those plans?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I never said they did.

In reply to Shani: "Follow the money. The business leaders are worried that change will hit their profits. They are NOT concerned about the welfare of the Scottish people.

Go Team Scotland!"

So why the "Go Team Scotland" if you don't think companies moving out of Scotland is a good thing?

In reply to Shani:


I doubt it, they may not pay much corporation tax but that is just one tax, plenty is given to the economy in other ways. For a start they employ lots of people, thus giving them some of the money they generate through wages (which are taxed). No Starbucks equals no jobs, no wages, no spending and no taxes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Because much of the noise I have heard is from large international companies that are engaged in aggressive tax avoidance or who have managed to mutualise the huge debts they've created, on to the public. I see no problem with such companies with parasitic business models moving out of Scotland.

In reply to Shani:


Which companies are you happy to see leave Scotland?

In reply to Gone for good:

I thought 'nonsense!' was the most common word. AS seems to use it to refute everything/everyone. Although the most hilarious and side-splitting phrase must go to Sturgeon for the use of 'Scottish Intelligence Agency'....

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I doubt few if any will. It is jazz hands, designed to spread fear and to protect their current business model. In iScotland they will simply adjust to the new environment rather than leave.

In reply to PeterM:

Re. the SIA - yes, excellent work. Anyone know how this operation works?

In reply to Shani:

It's just a brass-plate exercise. It will mean they may be headquartered in England, but I doubt they'll shut anything in Scotland. On the other hand I do see some profiteering going on and I have absolutely no doubt that prices will rise. I do not see Tesco(rUK) subsidising Tesco(Scotland). One of the cool things just now is that items cost the same in Laandon! as they do in the Tesco in Stornoway, despite it being obviously more costly to get them to the Isle Of Lewis. One worrying thing that has not been mentioned, but Standard Life have addressed explicitly is an offer to investors/customers to withdraw investments/monies from anything jock-related if they are feeling nervous. A mass sell-off of Scottish company shares may be a bit worrying.

In reply to Greenbanks:


I'm sure Polis Strathclyde, I mean Scotland, will sort it out. Should give them something to do other than endless traffic stops.

In reply to Shani:


Excellent whatireckonery. What do reckon would happen to a bank that stayed in iScotland, with no central bank or lender of last resort or guarantor of deposits? Is it possible that depositors (80% of whom don't live in Scotland) may remove their money and put it elsewhere? Do you think banks might want to avoid all the money disappearing? Possibly by moving out?

In reply to PeterM:

The state Tesco is in at present I'd think they'll look closely at food-distribution that is more costly - thinking maybe that here's a good opportunity to offload?

In reply to Greenbanks:
They already get local carriers to bring the stuff up from Perth or Glasgow or wherever the distrib. centre is. They could always sell the store... . If independence goes ahead I see the highlands and islands getting it in the nuts. Even the central belt treats the place as a bit of a pain in the arse when it's patently not. Mind you for a lot of them Aviemore, Glencoe, or Inverness is about as far north as they'll ever go, and they regard the inner hebrides are'remote'.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

More Jazz hands. rUK will have to be reasonable with both their demands and the timetable of unwinding various institutions.

In reply to Shani:


More non answers. What demands? Which institutions?

In reply to PeterM:

>One worrying thing that has not been mentioned, but Standard Life have addressed explicitly is an offer to investors/customers to withdraw investments/monies from anything jock-related if they are feeling nervous. A mass sell-off of Scottish company shares may be a bit worrying.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21615593-scottish-referendum-nears-ca...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sharing of currency central bank support etc.... if only for a transitional period.

Scotland has a lot of natural resources and a lot of potential. It has en excellent education system and skilled & educated people. These are what will attract business and investment.

In reply to Shani:



rUK doesn't want CU with a foreign country, all 3 parties have said no, it would be electoral suicide next May if any of them rolled on that. rUK would welcome any companies, jobs, taxes and investment that wanted to relocate though.

In reply to Shani:


But we always have had....so where, or, more importantly, why would business and investment now go up when, in addition to the above, we may have just isolated ourselves from our neighbours and their markets? Of course if they only do business and exist in Scotland, it might just work

In reply to Sir Chasm:


All true. But even IF there is a 'yes' vote, there is no timetable for independence. The unwinding could take decades to complete and no one knows when it will start.

Pragmatism will win out and Scotland holds plenty of aces.

In reply to PeterM:

The worlds oil & gas resources are located in increasingly unstable geographical areas. Those resources in stable areas are located in increasingly hostile environments (such as West of Shetland oil). Thus wind, wave, tidal and hydro become increasingly attractive. Technology is also improving all the time.

I think phrases like "isolated ourselves from our neighbours and their markets" are fear-driven. This is understandable, but we manage to trade and collaborate with plenty of neighbours both in and out of the EU and much further afield.

Heck, we built a plane with the French (who are historical allies of the Scots), who are a boat-ride away....and as I recall, that plane was pretty good.

In reply to Shani:


The timetable is independence by May 2016, do try and keep up.


Pragmatically rUK doesn't want to be part of a CU. Which aces? Just 3 or 4 will do, you don't have to list plenty.

In reply to Shani:

"....These are what will attract business and investment."

Jim Sillars has just told all the companies that have come out against independence how they will be punished for having a different opinion to him and the SNP and how he would encourage boycotts.

I'm not sure how influential he is in the great scheme of things, and maybe he's just a nutjob that makes good copy for newspapers. Eitherway, it must be embarrassing for the YES side to have guys like this opening their mouths


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11091801/Big-b...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Nationalise BP? and threats to business? The man is a giant ass-hat..

In reply to Shani:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-crude-oil-production-geographical-area/
See europe graph. My statement was not fear-driven but fact driven. Not being part of the EU and not being in charge of our own currency are in fact barriers that are not there now. Do you see them as making it easier to do business outside scotland or more difficult?

In reply to PeterM:

It's quite astonishing, he must be a plant by BT because they couldn't buy this sort of story

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Goodness me, that will encourage keeping businesses in the country!

The company I work for recently (2 weeks ago) cancelled plans for building an office in Scotland until all of this has settled down.

In reply to JoshOvki:



- I'm sure Mr Sillars will be there soon to punch your collective faces off for such treachery...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is this a timetable or deadline and what does it include? I'd be happy if you could provide a link because as far as I am aware there is no timetable on, for example, currency separation or decision on currency union as of yet.


Debt partitioning, demarcation of oil & gas reserves, Trident

Salmond here tackles your earlier concern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHmLb-RIbrM&app=desktop

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


The really worrying thing for the average "Yes" campaign supporter is that most of the SNP think like this but have had the wisdom to keep their mouths shut during the campaign. It certainly plays to the murmurings that this is more about kicking Westminster and the establishment than a positive move in a new direction.

At least you know where you are with UKIP.

In reply to Shani:


Here you go http://scotreferendum.com/reports/scotlands-future-your-guide-to-an-indepen... surprised you couldn't find it yourself.


rUK has already underwritten the debt, if iscotland welched on its debts it would harm itself more than rUK. Oil? What is there to decide? It's only 1% of UK GDP. Trident? Surely all independence parties are promising trident will go? Are they lying?
Aces? Deuces more like.


I know he's lying, I can see his lips moving.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I'm getting a 404 from that link. There is no need for a tw*tty comment at the end.

In reply to Shani:

I didn't. I got this from the link "• The proposed framework is based on maintaining sterling as the currency and the Bank of England continuing as the Central Bank in both an independent Scotland and the UK."

Whoops....

In reply to Shani:


See if this works http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/how-will-scotland-become-independent you surely can't get better than the Scottish government itself?


And yet you added one anyway.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

"Aiming for March 2016 leaves 17 or 18 months for negotiations"

"Aiming" - so aspirational and clearly not binding. This would also be contingent on division of assets and liabilities which could involve protracted discussion.

In reply to Shani:



Of course it isn't realistic, look where it comes from.

In reply to Gone for good:

And so now the Yes campaign want us all to believe the bankers when they say no jobs are at risk.
The only liar bigger than a politician is a banker!!!

In reply to Gone for good: Dearie me Mr Salmond!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11090512/Alex-...

In reply to Shani:

How do you work that out?