Scotland Debate

[FairwayDodger]

Very easy statement to make if you're not one of the 5,000 people who would lose their jobs unless they emigrate to a foreign country to keep them.

Don't misunderstand me - I don't believe that at all. But if you read the article S&P postulate that from their rating perspective the high proportion of Scottish GDP in the financial sector would be a risk. I only commented on that as I found it an interesting position that I hadn't heard expressed previously.

 

[CMAC]

For accuracy, lets use Standard Deaths actual statement instead of yet another unionists slate.

http://www.standardlife.com/utility/customer_statement.html

they also said they'd leave post-devolution btw.Still here, will be next year too.

for even more accuracy lets use their chief execs actual words;

Standard Life's chief executive, David Nish, the company - which has had its headquarters in Scotland for 189 years - has "started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if necessary".

"This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses' competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

for even more accuracy lets use their chief execs actual words;

Standard Life's chief executive, David Nish, the company - which has had its headquarters in Scotland for 189 years - has "started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if necessary".

"This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses' competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."

Which is an honest statement and what you'd expect companies to be doing. What would be really interesting would be to see their risk assessment and mitigation plans. I wonder if an iScotland not being 'allowed' to join a UK 'sterling zone' is a big RED. Because if it is you can bet that one of their risk mitigations activities will be to put pressure on Westminster to create a 'sterling zone' with Scotland.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Looks like a tax dodging issue to me, whilst retaining the majority of staff in Scotland.
Could backfire on them either way.

Someone reported that this was the first large company to say that they would 'leave' Scotland if the people vote yes.
I was surprised by that.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Looks like a tax dodging issue to me, whilst retaining the majority of staff in Scotland.
Could backfire on them either way.

Someone reported that this was the first large company to say that they would 'leave' Scotland if the people vote yes.
I was surprised by that.

But they didn't actually say they would leave did they Doon? They are making contingency plans for the event of a YES vote and appropriate arrangements with rUK not being forthcoming.

Opportunity knocks for an iScotland government on the corporate tax break front perhaps?

 

[NWJocko]

Which is an honest statement and what you'd expect companies to be doing. What would be really interesting would be to see their risk assessment and mitigation plans. I wonder if an iScotland not being 'allowed' to join a UK 'sterling zone' is a big RED. Because if it is you can bet that one of their risk mitigations activities will be to put pressure on Westminster to create a 'sterling zone' with Scotland.

You pretty much have seen their risk assessment and mitigation plans!!??

They think there is a risk so have set up non Scottish registered companies as mitigation.....

 

[Val]

So Now Standard Life step up to the plate and are putting in contingency plans to move to England if Scotland vote for Independence. They have been here 189 years. Does Alex Salmond not get it? Mr Salmond said he knows of numerous large companies that want separation....but he cant name them

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321

As stated earlier in this thread, I know of 2 £100m+ A year businesses who are in the no camp and are holding off showing their hand.

 

[Val]

Quite a balanced assessment, unfortunately one that will undoubtedly be spun both ways.

Interesting (to my untrained eye) they think we'd be better off if the banks left!

that was my initial reaction...might be better if Standard Death did leave.

And how many would that leave looking for jobs in this potential wee independant nation

Edit - this threat has been pointed out, so duplicate post

 

[Foxholer]

for even more accuracy lets use their chief execs actual words;

Standard Life's chief executive, David Nish, the company - which has had its headquarters in Scotland for 189 years - has "started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if necessary".

"This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses' competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders."

And to be absolutely accurate, here's his entire statement on the matter!

"As a large company and employer based in Scotland, we have been following the constitutional debate ahead of the independence
referendum on 18 September 2014. We have a long-standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote. However, we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our four million UK customers, our shareholders, our people and other stakeholders in our business and take whatever action is necessary to protect their interests. For this reason, we have engaged with key politicians and analysed the relevant papers published by both sides of the independence debate. These include the Scottish Government publication Scotland’s Future (the ‘White Paper’) and the UK Government’s Scotland Analysis series.
At the time of publishing this report (February 2014), we believe a number of material issues remain uncertain. These include:
• The currency that an independent Scotland would use
• Whether agreement and ratification of an independent Scotland’s membership to the European Union would be achieved by the
target date (currently 24 March 2016)
• The shape and role of the monetary system
• The arrangements for financial services regulation and consumer protection in an independent Scotland
• The approach to individual taxation, especially around savings and pensions, as a consequence of any constitutional change.
We will continue to seek clarity on these matters, but uncertainty is likely to remain. In view of this, there are steps we will take based on our analysis of the risks. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders. As Chief Executive, my commitment is whatever happens, we will continue to serve the needs of our customers and maintain our competitive position."

 

[CMAC]

As stated earlier in this thread, I know of 2 £100m+ A year businesses who are in the no camp and are holding off showing their hand.

why would they do this yet make it open knowledge to you? forgive me if you are the owner or CEO of these companies, but if they want secrecy about this and its not official it can only be hearsay

 

[Foxholer]

Very easy statement to make if you're not one of the 5,000 people who would lose their jobs unless they emigrate to a foreign country to keep them.

Moving where Company is domiciled wouldn't necessarily mean loss of any of their jobs!

Think how many people there'd be in the Caymans, IOM or Channel Islands if that's what had to happen!

Something rather disappointing to point out though - I've suspected it for a while (25 years or more). The Beeb is not quite the independent reporter of news it purports to be - at least not for references. A reference on the Home Page was worded 'Standard Life quit plan sparks row'. There's an implication there that just doesn't exist. Headline on the actual article was totally different and more neutral though.

 

[williamalex1]

View attachment 9329I hope not.

 

[ger147]

Moving where Company is domiciled wouldn't necessarily mean loss of any of their jobs!

Think how many people there'd be in the Caymans, IOM or Channel Islands if that's what had to happen!

Something rather disappointing to point out though - I've suspected it for a while (25 years or more). The Beeb is not quite the independent reporter of news it purports to be - at least not for references. A reference on the Home Page was worded 'Standard Life quit plan sparks row'. There's an implication there that just doesn't exist. Headline on the actual article was totally different and more neutral though.

I was replying to Adi2's comment that it would be better if Standard Life left Scotland, not the Standard Life CEO's statement.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You pretty much have seen their risk assessment and mitigation plans!!??

They think there is a risk so have set up non Scottish registered companies as mitigation.....

To be precise I am guessing that that's their risk contingency. I guess they would prefer to stay where they are unless their operating environment in Scotland becomes significantly worse. They are making contingency plans in the event that they decide they have to move. But they will try and reduce the likely of this being necessary through their risk mitigation plan - and an element of that will be raising awareness to the rUK and Scottish governments of the risk to their business and that they are putting in place contingency plans. Post a YES vote they would be lobbying BOTH governments to try and ensure that an environment suitable to their needs is maintained in Scotland. If part of that environment is a 'sterling zone' then that is what they would lobby the rUK government for.

And reading back @Foxholder has quoted the full statement which contains a statement of SL identifying the risks to their business being maintained in Scotland.

 

[Foxholer]

I was replying to Adi2's comment that it would be better if Standard Life left Scotland, not the Standard Life CEO's statement.

Fair enough. That wasn't particularly obvious to me. The quote that got posted was FD's.

My comment, about where company is domiciled, still applies. I wouldn't expect to see immediate transfer of staff. There's plenty of Scottish financial sector companies with a presence in London (EC2/3 area) already.

And while he doesn't seem to have a great love for that Company, the S&P report referred specifically to the possible 'benefits' if 'Banks', which SL is not, left as opposed to being part of the 'financial sector' to which it does belong.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Fair enough. That wasn't particularly obvious to me. The quote that got posted was FD's.

Which was my take on what S&P seemed to be suggesting....

My comment, about where company is domiciled, still applies. I wouldn't expect to see immediate transfer of staff. There's plenty of Scottish financial sector companies with a presence in London (EC2/3 area) already.

And while he doesn't seem to have a great love for that Company, the S&P report referred specifically to the possible 'benefits' if 'Banks', which SL is not, left as opposed to being part of the 'financial sector' to which it does belong.

Ooh, I wonder if that's nit-picking or if they really meant that.... Interesting.

 

[ger147]

Fair enough. That wasn't particularly obvious to me. The quote that got posted was FD's.

Adi2's quote was there too but for some reason the formatting highlighted FD's reply instead.

 

[NWJocko]

To be precise I am guessing that that's their risk contingency. I guess they would prefer to stay where they are unless their operating environment in Scotland becomes significantly worse. They are making contingency plans in the event that they decide they have to move. But they will try and reduce the likely of this being necessary through their risk mitigation plan - and an element of that will be raising awareness to the rUK and Scottish governments of the risk to their business and that they are putting in place contingency plans. Post a YES vote they would be lobbying BOTH governments to try and ensure that an environment suitable to their needs is maintained in Scotland. If part of that environment is a 'sterling zone' then that is what they would lobby the rUK government for.

And reading back @Foxholder has quoted the full statement which contains a statement of SL identifying the risks to their business being maintained in Scotland.

"To be precise I am guessing" :rofl:

The quote from SL is below. They have highlighted areas that are risks, to reduce the impact on their business/customers they are taking steps including setting up non-dom in Scotland companies.

"We will continue to seek clarity on these matters, but uncertainty is likely to remain. In view of this, there are steps we will take based on our analysis of the risks. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position and to protect the interests of our stakeholders. As Chief Executive, my commitment is whatever happens, we will continue to serve the needs of our customers and maintain our competitive position."

 

[Val]

why would they do this yet make it open knowledge to you? forgive me if you are the owner or CEO of these companies, but if they want secrecy about this and its not official it can only be hearsay

Part of their business relies on purchasing resources controlled by the Scottish executive and any show of political leanings may jeopardise their procurement costs in turn affecting their ability to trade

 

[Val]

I should add that of course it's hearsay but there's no smoke without fire