egafd.com

I have seen a lot of negative comments from the senior figures in Scottish Labour on TV this week. I have watched 'Newsnight Scotland' most nights this week, which I can get on my TV here in London. It is truly a bizarre situation: as I said earlier Scottish Labour, who don't want independence, will probably end up as the Government within a few years - so an independent Scotland will have an administration running it who didn't want the place to be independent at all, but will have to run it as that. What will they do? Suddenly make out they are content with the place being independent, because that it the set-up they will be running? I don't know what else they can do because trying to re-join Britain will not be an option.

Also, on a separate point, what will happen to the Union Flag? Once the blue is gone it will just be red and white, but possibly with a hint of green as the Welsh flag is in it. The Sun suggest this (no green bit though):

Mick
"I would also point out they made a similar statement in 1997!"

This was to do with devolution. There is no comparison to the situation of a yes vote in an independence vote. I repeat "Standard Life chief executive David Nish said a number of material issues remained unresolved in connection with independence, including currency and the shape and role of its monetary system" and "He also highlighted arrangements for financial services regulation and consumer protection and the approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions."

10% of Standard Life's customers are in Scotland, Mick. The vast majority of their customers are in England. It would be very surprising if Standard Life did not decide to move post a yes vote given:

1. There is complete uncertainty over which currency would be used. Salmond has trumpeted the costs to the rUK of UK businesses trading with a post-independence Scotland using a different currency. He has refused point blank to state what the transaction costs would be to Scottish businesses trading in a different currency with the rUK even though he knows what those costs would be. How else could the Fiscal Commission have come to the decision that a currency union would be best if they had not worked out the cost/benefits of other potential solutions? But clearly Salmond has decided to keep voters like yourself, Mick completely in the dark.

2. There is complete uncertainty over whether Scotland would be in the EU in the timescale that Salmond predicts i.e. Scottish Independence Day 2016. I have yet to come across anybody outside the SNP who believes that this date is achievable.

3. There is complete uncertainty about the regulatory system that will be in place that the Scottish finance sector will be required to have to stay legal as far as EU law is concerned. Without this, Standard Life will not be able to trade.

Argie:

You are absolutely right. I would expect that Standard Life is the first of many who will argue that not knowing what currency, monetary/fiscal regulation system, EU membership etc is a big turnoff.

1. Uncertainty created by Westminster parties specifically to have this effect.
2. For 2016 read 2018 regarding Tories stated pledge for UK referendum on EC membership.
3. There has been no suggestion, from Standard Life, Yes campaign, Better Together campaign or indeed anyone but you that there would be any significant changes as they would be working multinationally!

Standard Life have been making contingency plans, almost exactly like the majority of other larger cross-border companies. There was actually no mention of jobs moving/offices shutting in their statement.


Lastly, I would politely suggest you read both sides of the story before telling me that I am in the dark about how MY country is managed!

Whilst it is flattering, and not unexpected, just why is it the Westminster parties are so keen to keep us?

"1. Uncertainty created by Westminster parties specifically to have this effect."

You are contradicting yourself. You agreed with Sam that a currency union with the rUK involves those of us who are not Scottish in the decision-making process. It is OUR decision as to whether we want to have a currency union with an independent country and underwrite their liabilities. Salmond cannot decide for us. Therefore, we have the right to say No, we do not want a currency union which is what all the main political parties have stated and what polls have suggested that the British people do not want.

Salmond has refused to accept that the British people and the main Westminster parties may not be bluffing and has refused to talk about a Plan B so he is responsible for the confusion.

"2. "For 2016 read 2018 regarding Tories stated pledge for UK referendum on EC membership.""

I know this is the SNP rather desperate line. However ask yourself Mick. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are against this referendum. Cameron and the Tories could not even get a majority in 2010 despite having Gordon Brown, one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in power and the worst recession in living memory. It would by highly unlikely that the Tories will win an election in 2015 with the overall majority required to have this referendum. Both Labour and Lib Dems will vote against.


3. "There has been no suggestion, from Standard Life, Yes campaign, Better Together campaign or indeed anyone but you that there would be any significant changes as they would be working multinationally!"

This has a similar level of truth as Salmond has i.e. a lie. The Better Together campaign have argued that there would be movements of operations out of Scotland if the Salmond uncertainty continues.

"Standard Life have been making contingency plans, almost exactly like the majority of other larger cross-border companies. There was actually no mention of jobs moving/offices shutting in their statement."

Once again this has a similar level of truth as Salmond has i.e. a lie.

"In its annual report, published on Thursday, the chairman of the Edinburgh-based pensions and savings firm, Gerry Grimstone, says Scotland has been a great base for the company but that, "if anything were to threaten this, we will take whatever action we consider necessary - including transferring parts of our operations from Scotland - in order to ensure continuity and to protect the interests of our stakeholders". I have outlined elsewhere in the thread what those uncertainties are.

"Lastly, I would politely suggest you read both sides of the story before telling me that I am in the dark about how MY country is managed!"

Read what I stated. Salmond has refused point blank to talk about the transaction costs which Scottish businesses will incur if they use a different currency like the euro to do business with rUK companies. How is this not keeping you and all Scottish voters in the dark about some of the costs involved if Westminster are NOT bluffing about a currency union?

Salmond is also keeping voters in the dark about the EU and what he is going to do if various EU commissioners, the President of the EU, international lawyers etc etc are correct and Salmond is talking bollocks about being able to join the EU as an independent country in 2016.


Whilst it is flattering, and not unexpected, just why is it the Westminster parties are so keen to keep us?

Stronger with, weaker without. The same goes for Scotland's position. It sure as hell aint the footie or rugby teams. !wink!.

Last point and we can agree to disagree.
Earlier in the thread you talked about the Scottish Government not using their extra tax raising powers to fund their social policies. They do not come in to operation until 2016.

"Earlier in the thread you talked about the Scottish Government not using their extra tax raising powers to fund their social policies. They do not come in to operation until 2016."

I referred to the Scottish parliament right to vary income tax by 3p. If I had been wrong I would happily admit it. You have been wrong on many of your points I have replied to in this thread and not once have you admitted it. Bit like Alex Salmond really - bluster your way through.

This in Wikipaedia. You have got confused.

"The Scottish variable rate (SVR) is a mechanism which enables the Scottish Government to vary (down or up) the basic rate of UK income tax by up to 3p in the pound. The power has never been used, and will be succeeded by the new legislative framework for Scottish public finance in the Scotland Act 2012. The upcoming legislative framework is expected to be in place by April 2016 and gives the Scottish Parliament the power to set a Scottish rate of income tax.

When legislating for the Scottish Parliament, a number of matters were reserved by the UK Parliament at Westminster. One such reserved matter was taxation; however, this had been a key point in Scottish negotiations relating to parliamentary control. As a means of compromise, Westminster afforded the Scottish Parliament the ability to vary income tax, which was subsequently given the consent of the Scottish electorate in the second question of the 1997 devolution referendum.

Therefore, the Scotland Act 1998 granted the Scottish Parliament the power to vary income tax by +/- 3p in every pound. This power is often referred to as the tartan tax, a phrase first used by Michael Forsyth as a way of attacking the power, using the idea of 'tartan' to get across the idea that it would be an extra tax on Scots alone. However, the phrase "tartan tax" would only correctly apply if the tax were varied upwards ? no phrase has yet been suggested if the tax were varied downwards. To date, the Scottish Parliament has chosen not to utilise its tax varying powers."

You can even listen to John Swinney making a rare apology for allowing the 3p tax option to lapse. I realise that this is something that Salmond wont trumpet about because as we know - everything that is bad in Scotland is Westminster's fault!


.

Feel free to admit you are wrong Mick. Have a good weekend.