Jump to content

Scottish independence and devolution superthread


Happy Hearts

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 27.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • TheMaganator

    2323

  • JamboX2

    2165

  • Geoff Kilpatrick

    1717

  • Boris

    1199

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Exactly this!   I was thinking about the naysayers and then thought about WHY a movement would want to lead a nation into independence which would ultimately lead to financial ruin, expulsion from c

Posted Images

A lot of these discussions are insightful although looking at the wider picture - as you would expect.

 

But what about the impact this is going to have to each of us personally.

 

I am head of a medium sized charity in Scotland but one which is UK-wide. Ive been told - last week - if it is yes, we will be cut loose. Yes, there have been supportive platitudes about helping us but my perception is actually they just want rid of asap.

 

Working in a devolved environment has certainly opened my eyes as to how English (London) perceive those not in the head office and I can honestly say I feel I am treated as second-rate (when it comes to actual decision-making). I would like to think I have some values which I can (and have) added to the organisation but they are dismissed because it doesnt fit in with the wider - ie English (London) thinking. Colleagues in Wales and NI feel the same - it has been the case for a number of years, to varying extent. Speaking to colleagues in other charities that are devolved it is frightening how similar our gripes are - being treated, as I said, as lesser-being simply because you dont work in London.

 

As I said in a previous post today - I was a firm No. But - and mainly because of the persecution (not being emotive simply accurate) - I have turned to yes. It was a lot more than that obviously - I have thought about it a lot. My wife is a staunch yes, as is my Dad. But now Im back to no because I really dont want to lose my job (and the income that it provides for the family).

 

I think I am intelligent enough to know the pros and cons but putting it simply if (as is likely right now) I vote no it will simply be out of fear of the future. I wont be voting for the greater good or even the long-term prospects for my children or my children's children.

 

Sometimes I feel as if some think this is an abstract debate rather than an actual reality that will have massive implications. and I know that whatever the result the repercussions are going to be with us for years and years.

 

Does anyone else feel scared and - without wishing to sound pathetic - wishes there was a box next Thursday that says - I dont know can you give me a bit longer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What those same people who've remained working in Gogarburn since the ownership of their employer changed hands in 2008?

Aye, but their (majority) owners are about to (if you believe the Yes camp) become a foreign country

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thousands of people lost their jobs

 

RBS is a far more streamlined company today. That's not to say certain aspects of it won't be downsized or relocated down south, with obvious job losses.

 

My partner works at Gogarburn so as a yes voter this puts me in a very difficult position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of these discussions are insightful although looking at the wider picture - as you would expect.

 

But what about the impact this is going to have to each of us personally.

 

I am head of a medium sized charity in Scotland but one which is UK-wide. Ive been told - last week - if it is yes, we will be cut loose. Yes, there have been supportive platitudes about helping us but my perception is actually they just want rid of asap.

 

Working in a devolved environment has certainly opened my eyes as to how English (London) perceive those not in the head office and I can honestly say I feel I am treated as second-rate (when it comes to actual decision-making). I would like to think I have some values which I can (and have) added to the organisation but they are dismissed because it doesnt fit in with the wider - ie English (London) thinking. Colleagues in Wales and NI feel the same - it has been the case for a number of years, to varying extent. Speaking to colleagues in other charities that are devolved it is frightening how similar our gripes are - being treated, as I said, as lesser-being simply because you dont work in London.

 

As I said in a previous post today - I was a firm No. But - and mainly because of the persecution (not being emotive simply accurate) - I have turned to yes. It was a lot more than that obviously - I have thought about it a lot. My wife is a staunch yes, as is my Dad. But now Im back to no because I really dont want to lose my job (and the income that it provides for the family).

 

I think I am intelligent enough to know the pros and cons but putting it simply if (as is likely right now) I vote no it will simply be out of fear of the future. I wont be voting for the greater good or even the long-term prospects for my children or my children's children.

 

Sometimes I feel as if some think this is an abstract debate rather than an actual reality that will have massive implications. and I know that whatever the result the repercussions are going to be with us for years and years.

 

Does anyone else feel scared and - without wishing to sound pathetic - wishes there was a box next Thursday that says - I dont know can you give me a bit longer?

Nothing wrong with voting out of self interest.

 

I'd wager that's what the overwhelming majority of people will be doing.

 

People's personal circumstances will have a huge influence on their vote

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

RBS is a far more streamlined company today. That's not to say certain aspects of it won't be downsized or relocated down south, with obvious job losses.

 

My partner works at Gogarburn so as a yes voter this puts me in a very difficult position.

 

It does. How does she feel about you voting yes which could result in her losing her job?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Aye, but their (majority) owners are about to (if you believe the Yes camp) become a foreign country

 

So very similar to the situation that folk who work for Clydesdale are in then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does. How does she feel about you voting yes which could result in her losing her job?

 

Well I was always going to vote no until a few weeks ago. Now I'm changing my mind again.

I might just abstain.

 

[MODEDIT]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory House M.D.

 

BP haven't said they'd leave. They've said that they believe that the future of the North Sea is best served with Scotland staying in the union.

 

It is a Yes tag line 'what would you say to living in one of the wealthiest nations in the world' - and Sturgeon bangs on about us being 14th richest - when we're already 6th richest in the UK. The Yes camp attempted to make it black & White.

 

BT has had failings - no doubt. But your camp would have done better if it was prepared to answer hard questions honestly. Salmond would never have (without saying so) admitted we'd be using the Panama Pound if he hadn't been pressed and pressed.

 

You're voting on hope - that's fine. Most people may flirt with the idea of independence but they'll want to know exactly how it'll affect them. Hope isn't enough for most people.

 

I'm not "voting on hope" at all.

 

I personally support yes because as we stand the Union IMO doesn't work for what's best for Scotland and I genuinely 100% believe that my children and their children will have a better future ahead of them due to independence.

 

I'm under no illusions that all will be rosey after independence. Nor am I stupid enough to believe it'll be half as bad as BT and it's support would like me to think.

 

I'm supporting yes so I and my future children, grandchildren and the future generations of people can vote for a government and have it be the government that the majority of Scottish people wanted.

 

I'm supporting yes because I believe that our own government will serve us far better than the London-centric governments of the UK today. I'm also supporting yes to rid us of the utter vacuum that is London it's self.

 

The things I am supporting in hope of are that Scotland becomes a fairer, more equal nation than the UK is right now. I hope that Scotland can become a shining example to the world of a country using it's renewable energy resources to their full potential and I also hope that we can become a nation that is known as a peaceful place that does not dive head long into illegal wars and all sorts of other questionable affairs.

 

I'm not the smartest person and I can freely admit that I don't understand and wouldn't claim to understand a lot about politics, economics and other such issues in this debate. I'm not really politically minded but have been intrigued by this referendum and try to keep up with it.

 

I feel like the yes campaign does indeed offer more "hope" but it has also been a largely positive campaign and focused on what makes Scotland great which a yes campaign should be focused on.

 

I feel however that BT started off as a petty smear campaign (smearing every claim "yes" made) and worsened into scare-mongering and lying.

 

I was a staunch No when this debate began by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, I'm talking about Better Together passing out leaflets saying Tesco will put up shopping prices in line with RoI. Which Tesco has confirmed as bullshit.

 

I'm talking about Sky News regurgitating the already proven bullshit "roaming fees".

 

I'm talking about BT allegedly telling foreign workers they'll be deported after a yes vote.

 

I'm talking about people suggesting dual-nationality will be forced upon the foreign worker in indy Scotland.

 

I'm talking about Ian Wood giving "expert analysis" as a "neutral" when he is in fact a BT supporter.

 

I'm talking about people's "6th to 14th" argument as if it is actually that black and white.

 

There's been many other scare tactics produced since westminster collectively shat it's self on the strength of one poll.

 

I appreciate that questions need answered on the yes side.

 

Better Together have done nothing other than pray on fear for the last year and more.

 

I'm a yes supporter that is more than willing to accept a No vote but not when it has been manipulated by the UK media and scaremongering. It grates on me that people are being blatantly lied to by BT time and again about petty stuff like the Tesco fiasco but their scaremongering still maintains credibility purely because of fear.

 

I can take losing. It's the being blackmailed that irks me.

 

I also think it's shameful that big companies like BP, who couldn't actually leave an Independent Scotland without leaving the oil and have their HQ in England already, are pressuring the vote because their profits might take a hit for a while.

 

It's depressing to watch knowing all this shite is swallowed by a lot of people.

 

Also, the Governor of BoE's words being twisted by BT supporters to mean we can't have a currency union is utterly embarrassing. Even AD realises that is NOT what the man said.

 

Amen. For me, the last week has been an absolute eye opener in terms of media bias. I'm at the point of expecting someone on Sky to to do a 'Russia Today' and quit on air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

Thousands of people lost their jobs

Thousands more should have done. Keeping banks in zombie status is akin to the nationalisations of the 60s and 70s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking in from afar, I sense the mood is swinging towards "yes".

 

Whatever happens it is going to be bloody close! I'm actually quite excited about it now, having been entirely "meh" for the last couple of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do people not understand the difference between moving an HQ and moving an entire operation?

 

One thing I'm not clear on is the tax implications - if these organisations move HQ, does mean the tax they pay also leaves Scotland?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

So very similar to the situation that folk who work for Clydesdale are in then.

And whose owner are stuck with them because there isn't much of a market to buy them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not "voting on hope" at all.

 

I personally support yes because as we stand the Union IMO doesn't work for what's best for Scotland and I genuinely 100% believe that my children and their children will have a better future ahead of them due to independence.

 

I'm under no illusions that all will be rosey after independence. Nor am I stupid enough to believe it'll be half as bad as BT and it's support would like me to think.

 

I'm supporting yes so I and my future children, grandchildren and the future generations of people can vote for a government and have it be the government that the majority of Scottish people wanted.

 

I'm supporting yes because I believe that our own government will serve us far better than the London-centric governments of the UK today. I'm also supporting yes to rid us of the utter vacuum that is London it's self.

 

The things I am supporting in hope of are that Scotland becomes a fairer, more equal nation than the UK is right now. I hope that Scotland can become a shining example to the world of a country using it's renewable energy resources to their full potential and I also hope that we can become a nation that is known as a peaceful place that does not dive head long into illegal wars and all sorts of other questionable affairs.

 

I'm not the smartest person and I can freely admit that I don't understand and wouldn't claim to understand a lot about politics, economics and other such issues in this debate. I'm not really politically minded but have been intrigued by this referendum and try to keep up with it.

 

I feel like the yes campaign does indeed offer more "hope" but it has also been a largely positive campaign and focused on what makes Scotland great which a yes campaign should be focused on.

 

I feel however that BT started off as a petty smear campaign (smearing every claim "yes" made) and worsened into scare-mongering and lying.

 

I was a staunch No when this debate began by the way.

 

You don't need to justify your vote to anyone; at the most extreme ends of the spectrum we will have people who believe they are Scottish or British and will not move regardless of debate. For pretty much everyone else it is a straight forward analysis of risk v reward (on both and individual and collective level). Most of us have now made up our minds but even tonight we have people on this thread who still have a delicate balance to wrestle between risk and reward.

 

I share your frustration with many aspects of the way this campaign has been run but given a straight choice of Yes or No, change or no change then it was inevitable that both sides would be reduced to a tactic of attempting to discredit the others argument.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And whose owner are stuck with them because there isn't much of a market to buy them.

 

A product of the current global financial market not the referendum. Still hasn't changed their presence/jobs in Scotland and is unlikely to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'm not clear on is the tax implications - if these organisations move HQ, does mean the tax they pay also leaves Scotland?

Just about to ask that question - if their HQ is not in Scotland do they pay their Corporation Tax outside Scotland too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

A product of the current global financial market not the referendum. Still hasn't changed their presence/jobs in Scotland and is unlikely to do so.

True, apart from the cuts they've already made (I worked for the parent at the height of the fun).

 

The key issue for a future Scottish government here is not the move of registered offices. It is the loss of the potential corporate taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

Just about to ask that question - if their HQ is not in Scotland do they pay their Corporation Tax outside Scotland too?

Correct

Link to post
Share on other sites

If SL et all are making contingency plans for a Yes vote then it's likely they'll be off in the medium term anyway. Uncertainty kills corporations and there's no way that No are getting a comprehensive vote of approval now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

So by offering a lower rate of Corporation Tax we could persuade them to stay in Scotland (and perhaps persuade others to move their HQs here)?

For financial services, it is bigger than that. There are EU regulations on main market, the regulator under which they sell business and, in the case of the banks, the lender of last resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the subject of BP has been coming up a lot after their pro-Union declaration..I'm wondering how their situation lies with regard to them having been found, today, grossly negligent in the American courts over the oil spill in Gulf of Mexico in 2010..." a ruling that could add billions of dollars in fines to the more than $42billion in charges taken so far for the worst offshore disaster in US history" The articles are saying that 'The company has shrunk since it was forced to sell assets to pay for the disaster aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers" Says the judge is yet to assign damages from the spill "under the federal Clean Water Act, though previous calculations by Reuters have shown fines could run to $17.6 billion in the costliest scenario". BP say they are going to appeal.

 

How does their selling of assets and their subsequent fine affect BP's credibility in terms of their influence on Scotland's economy and are UK govt.assisting with shoreing up their reputation and influencing BP's contract's connected to the UK gov?

 

People have been talking about the new legislation for companies (banks?) where they now are to relocate to the area where they do most business, so some company moves are being misinterpreted deliberately by the pro-Union press and have been in planning for some time.

 

Does anybody read Private Eye - 5th Sept issue in particular?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

At the moment the BoE sets interest rates that it believes are appropriate for the UK. How do they set them if they need to set them for both the UK and Scotland? Will they (attempt to) pick one that suits both countries? Or one that just suits the Uk or one that just suits Scotland? Bearing in mind apparently an independent Scotland will have a very different economy to England how does the BoE go about this?

 

No one knows if your interest rate would be the same in a currency union. The Scottish government won't have any input as to what the BoE does to interest rates though.

 

Scotland's economy is more like that of the UK than that of any other individual part of the UK. I've not seen any suggestion anywhere that that is likely to change other than the ridiculous claims on here that the whole financial sector will up sticks and move down south.

 

Let's not mix ourselves: at the moment, the BoE sets interest rates that it believes are appropriate for London, and that will continue in a currency union.

 

I saw someone (Dexter?) ask what happens if they raise interest rates but give tax breaks or whatever to rUK people / companies. That would ruin the financial equilibrium of the economy. Money would flood in from around the world, increasing the value of the pound. That would put severe pressure on any company which relies on exports, I think. (Or would make imports more expensive - I can't remember which way round, cos I'm still half asleep!)

 

Do we really think rUK are going to do things in the future out of sheer spite for Scotland?

Edited by Forrest
Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

Scotland's economy is more like that of the UK than that of any other individual part of the UK. I've not seen any suggestion anywhere that that is likely to change other than the ridiculous claims on here that the whole financial sector will up sticks and move down south.

 

Let's not mix ourselves: at the moment, the BoE sets interest rates that it believes are appropriate for London, and that will continue in a currency union.

 

I saw someone (Dexter?) ask what happens if they raise interest rates but give tax breaks or whatever to rUK people / companies. That would ruin the financial equilibrium of the economy. Money would flood in from around the world, increasing the value of the pound. That would put severe pressure on any company which relies on exports, I think. (Or would make imports more expensive - I can't remember which way round, cos I'm still half asleep!)

 

Do we really think rUK are going to do things in the future out of sheer spite for Scotland?

15% oil?

 

12% financial services?

 

You sure?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor

Do people not understand the difference between moving an HQ and moving an entire operation?

No. No they don't.

 

Companies will move and individuals will leave. Fair enough. Bye. Best of luck.

 

Scotland will move forward. end of story.

 

Do no campaigners not realise they aren't voting for the status quo as it stands today. Vote No and the Scottish parliament gets extra powers regardless. The status quo has gone and Scotland will be different after the 18th whatever you vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cardiac Rucksack

 

The way I see it, before the news was littered with the referendum, it was all about how shit the government and the economy are. It's hardly like we're living in paradise right now. So we can say yes, and maybe have a shite government and economy. Or vote no, and definitely have a shite government and economy.

 

I'm well aware it's nowhere near as simple as that, but I just can't see how we can moan and moan for years about how the country's being run, then claim that it's without doubt better than the alternative.

 

Scots and Scotland will moan and moan no matter what happens. It's basically what the country does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GhostHunter

No. No they don't.

 

Companies will move and individuals will leave. Fair enough. Bye. Best of luck.

 

Scotland will move forward. end of story.

 

Do no campaigners not realise they aren't voting for the status quo as it stands today. Vote No and the Scottish parliament gets extra powers regardless. The status quo has gone and Scotland will be different after the 18th whatever you vote.

 

Yes, Scotland may get extra powers, however as part of the UK, it won't lose major streams of economic revenue, such as from the MOD etc.

 

Maybe more importantly, there will be no immediate need to hike up interest rates or implement a plan for massive spending cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

""If I see the word 'scaremongering' used on more time in response to people's honest and very real worries I will throw a hissy fit my children would be proud of," another user said. "'m so utterly sick of it.""

Mums net give Salmond a good shooing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/11088278/Patronising-Salmond-feels-Mumsnet-backlash.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a shame so many people are going to be frightened by statements from companies like BP and RBS. Companies whose profits might take a temporary hit. Not their survival mind, just their profits. I really hope the people of Scotland hold their nerve and show these companies they won't be held to ransom just so that 35 years of rampant free-market Thatcherism can continue unabated. It'll be a sad, sad day when the desires of multinationals trump the needs and rights of the people.

 

Come at me with the teary smiley bros...

 

 

You are spot on but in modern Scotland those are our jobs and mortgage payments. To threaten that with a YES vote is like a miner voting for Thatcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Scotland's economy is more like that of the UK than that of any other individual part of the UK. I've not seen any suggestion anywhere that that is likely to change other than the ridiculous claims on here that the whole financial sector will up sticks and move down south.

 

Let's not mix ourselves: at the moment, the BoE sets interest rates that it believes are appropriate for London, and that will continue in a currency union.

 

I saw someone (Dexter?) ask what happens if they raise interest rates but give tax breaks or whatever to rUK people / companies. That would ruin the financial equilibrium of the economy. Money would flood in from around the world, increasing the value of the pound. That would put severe pressure on any company which relies on exports, I think. (Or would make imports more expensive - I can't remember which way round, cos I'm still half asleep!)

 

Do we really think rUK are going to do things in the future out of sheer spite for Scotland?

 

Is it not the case that after independance our economy will be based on oil, which England's won't be, and we will be spending far more on public services?

 

I don't think BoE would do anything to spite Scotland, however I'm almost certain their decisions will favour the UK.

Edited by Ivan Drago
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We give money to the EU who gives subsidies to others.

 

Great, so we'll continue as before then. If England needs subsidy from us, they'll get it via EU handouts (as long as they don't vote to leave)! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

BoE Governor suggests Scotland would require reserves of between ?30bn and ?110bn to adopt a sterlingisation policy in order to maintain deposit protection and a lender of last resort role (given the enormous size of Scotland's financial sector). Only ?15bn to come from existing cash reserves at BoE.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/10/uk-scotland-independence-carney-idUKKBN0H51NM20140910

 

Between a quarter and 85% of Scotland's entire economic production for a year required! Should note for reference that the savings on Trident would amount to roughly ?200m per year - and the OBR forecasts total oil tax and receipts revenue of ?61bn for the 25 years to 2040.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/obr-north-sea-oil-and-gas-could-produce-20bn-less-in-revenue-than-forecast-.1405004390

 

The oil fund will have to perform pretty well.

 

Maybe another Plan B bus will turn up soon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Templeton Peck

""If I see the word 'scaremongering' used on more time in response to people's honest and very real worries I will throw a hissy fit my children would be proud of," another user said. "'m so utterly sick of it.""

Mums net give Salmond a good shooing

http://www.telegraph...t-backlash.html

 

Yip, a real good kickin

 

http://www.mumsnet.c...-survey-results

There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on 18 September. If you are resident in Scotland and eligible to take part how do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

Answer Options Response percent

Yes, I believe Scotland should become an independent country 48%

No, I do not believe Scotland should become an independent country 41%

I don't know/ not stated 11%

Edited by Templeton Peck
Link to post
Share on other sites
Chaka Demus & pliers

Just saw a rangers fan on FB urging others not to be blinded by passion. This guy knows f all about politics and is a full on FTP, WATP kind of guy. Got Union Jacks all over his windows and fence and is getting excited about the big march this weekend.

 

:facepalm:

Edited by Chaka Demus & pliers
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor

 

Yes, Scotland may get extra powers, however as part of the UK, it won't lose major streams of economic revenue, such as from the MOD etc.

 

Maybe more importantly, there will be no immediate need to hike up interest rates or implement a plan for massive spending cuts.

 

What does the MOD contribute. A couple of aircraft carriers which were put out to tender. The services are shrinking evidenced by the closure of RAF Leuchars.

 

Newsflash! Interest rates will rise in 2015.

Newsflash! Further austerity will be required. Particularly to fund devo max.

Edited by The Mighty Thor
Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

 

 

What does the MOD contribute. A couple of aircraft carriers which were put out to tender. The services are shrinking evidenced by the closure of RAF Leuchars.

 

Newsflash! Interest rates will rise in 2015.

Newsflash! Further austerity will be required. Particularly to fund devo max.

Newsflash: Scotland won't avoid austerity, irrespective of the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see similarities between FoH and the Yes campaign.

Both started slowly but hard work and persuasive arguments built both interest and momentum and a genuine belief that things could change.

We are seeing the benefits at Hearts already - Hopefully the same will happen for the nation.

 

Farmer/Petrie are the Cameron/Osborne of Scottish Football

Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner works at Gogarburn so as a yes voter this puts me in a very difficult position.

 

It does. How does she feel about you voting yes which could result in her losing her job?

Well I was always going to vote no until a few weeks ago. Now I'm changing my mind again.

 

Chief exec has apparently written to all staff indicating there will not be a significant shift of jobs to London.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest GhostHunter

I didn't say it would. Dexter did.

 

Not quite....

 

Also, an alliance of companies was formed to build the warships, BAE, Babcocks and Thales amongst the bigger ones, all of whom employ thousands of Scottish workers. The MOD are paying those companies to build the carriers thereby helping the Scottish economy...so I don't quite follow what you mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yip, a real good kickin

 

http://www.mumsnet.c...-survey-results

There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on 18 September. If you are resident in Scotland and eligible to take part how do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

Answer Options Response percent

Yes, I believe Scotland should become an independent country 48%

No, I do not believe Scotland should become an independent country 41%

I don't know/ not stated 11%

 

To be fair, Mumsnet is a Republic all of it's own, and a darn scary one at that !

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC business reporting RBS HO to move to London.

 

But again alluding without saying so that it's all jobs lock stock and barrel.

 

 

 

 

 

Chief exec has apparently written to all staff indicating there will not be a significant shift of jobs to London.

And within the space of 5 mins same channel news bulletin saying some departments will move, but in a far softer less worrying tone.

 

Ps I understand the difference in tones between a correspondent and news reader

Edited by DETTY29
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it's time to add something to debate (hopefully). Firstly, ill set my stall out. Im an ex-pat and don't have a vote (and checked that box in the poll), i do, however, still have 2 children in full time education in Scotland and ergo have a vested interest in this campaign.

 

If you had asked me my position 2 years ago, i would have said nice idea, but it's probably not practical and i don't think the people of Scotland will go for it anyway. Like many, i waited and watched the campaigns unfold.

 

I have several points to make:-

 

1. I find it frustrating how poor the No campaign has been. For the most part they focussed very heavily on the currency issue (i'm not trivialising this point) and pushed and pushed and pushed Salmond to declare his intent. When he did, their response, was ehh sorry not going to happen. What i find annoying about this, is that the Yes campaign are continually being criticised for not answering specific questions, hardly surprising, when you consider that all the BT side have to do is say, no we won't agree to that so what are you going to do now. Also, it is in effect Salmond showing his hand before negotiations begin (assuming a win).

 

2. I am very concerned about the media bias and potentially Westminster using it's political clout (external to BT) to influence countries, businesses etc.. How deep this goes i don't know, but i find myself becoming more and more suspicious. I read the Scotsman statement this morning and laughed out loud. Apparently, they don't do irony. At the end of the statement they clearly state that they made this decision not out of fear but out of balancing risks against benefits. Only problem is they don't mention any benefits in the article, only risks !!!

 

3. I find it surprising that Salmond has not done more to try and engage big businesses to his cause (perhaps he has and failed, i don't know). Anyone with a vote would be crazy to dismiss the opinions of big business (SL, BP etc..). Not that i am suggesting it should be your main driver for decision, but it should be a concern.

 

4. My final point is on Oil and Gas and more specifically on Ian Woods review, has anyone read it? I have and whilst it certainly poses serious questions about the future, it is not all doom and gloom. Im not sure if it's in the rules to post a link to it or not, so i will await the MODS response on this. Section 2.2 makes for very interesting reading.

 

I guess what all this adds up to is, if i was voting, I would be seriously tempted to vote yes now, not because i think Salmond has particularly answered all the questions, more because the BT campaign is in such disarray they either a. don't care or b. don't have a very strong argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotsman today...John C knows...for me the vote is all down to age and risk...me, I have a young family and work in one of the main finance employers in Scotland...can i take the risk of things going wrong...No.... Are things really that bad..? For me, not really.

 

Yep, in that boat too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CEO Aberdeen Asset Management.

 

His vote is personal.

 

No decisions to be made until vote and negotiations concluded.

 

Both economies should thrive in event of YES.

 

Biggest concern is the divide it is causing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncertain profits mean down sizing and job losses in the real world.

 

By saying "uncertain" do you mean the good times along with the bad or just the bad?

 

Profits from all company's have peaks and troughs in the real world.

 

What does my heid in is our media wallowing in negative headlines such as "PROFITS SLASHED AT MULTI NATIONAL"

 

What they don't headline is the billions of actual profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...