Scotland Debate

[CMAC]

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

usually its no smoke without mirrors when it comes to all these 'informed' individuals. Rangers/Dyson/Woods etc were full of unsubstanciated rumours that when said in a certain way were perceived as fact.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

"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."

Sorry - what I meant was to be precise what the SL CEO is talking about is their risks and their risk contingency planning. I'd be interested in their risk mitigation plans because in general you want to avoid implementing your contingencies - they can cost a lot of money. Much better to spend money and do whatever is required to mitigate the risks so you don't have do implement your contingency plans.

 

[NWJocko]

Sorry - what I meant was to be precise what the SL CEO is talking about is their risks and their risk contingency planning. I'd be interested in their risk mitigation plans because in general you want to avoid implementing your contingencies - they can cost a lot of money. Much better to spend money and do whatever is required to mitigate the risks so you don't have do implement your contingency plans.

This is off on a tangent but they have already implemented their mitigation techniques of non-Scottish companies!!

Semantics and not important anyway, I'd imagine they wouldn't want to leave and pretty sure Salmond/Yes camp wouldn't welcome it either.

The interesting point (that I keep talking about) is that the CEO mentions the level of uncertainty.... Surely the ball is in Salmond's camp to, as much as possible, lessen the uncertainty?

Financial Services is c. 15% of Scottish GDP. S&P may well consider that to be a bit high and therefore a "risk" in terms of their rating/assessment, a bigger risk (IMO) from an Independent Scotland's point of view is losing 15% of GDP......

 

[FairwayDodger]

The interesting point (that I keep talking about) is that the CEO mentions the level of uncertainty.... Surely the ball is in Salmond's camp to, as much as possible, lessen the uncertainty?

It should be but Salmond's strategy is to label anyone suggesting possible difficulties and seeking clarity as a "feartie". Or anyone who stands up and says "no" as a "bully".

It's playground politics.

 

[NWJocko]

It should be but Salmond's strategy is to label anyone suggesting possible difficulties and seeking clarity as a "feartie". Or anyone who stands up and says "no" as a "bully".

It's playground politics.

Sadly for such an important issue I agree.......

 

[Val]

usually its no smoke without mirrors when it comes to all these 'informed' individuals. Rangers/Dyson/Woods etc were full of unsubstanciated rumours that when said in a certain way were perceived as fact.

When you hear it mention by two CEO's then you take notice

 

[CMAC]

This is off on a tangent but they have already implemented their mitigation techniques of non-Scottish companies!!

Semantics and not important anyway, I'd imagine they wouldn't want to leave and pretty sure Salmond/Yes camp wouldn't welcome it either.

The interesting point (that I keep talking about) is that the CEO mentions the level of uncertainty.... Surely the ball is in Salmond's camp to, as much as possible, lessen the uncertainty?

Financial Services is c. 15% of Scottish GDP. S&P may well consider that to be a bit high and therefore a "risk" in terms of their rating/assessment, a bigger risk (IMO) from an Independent Scotland's point of view is losing 15% of GDP......

exactly- but direct questions seeking detail are met with "It will be", "They cant", "We will", "It will benefit us all" blah blah blah politician speak with no names, no detail, so solutions and no plan B

Sturgeons disgraceful showing the other night was a frightening peak into an independent Scottish Govt.

 

[Val]

However until lots public that it can only ever be rumour or hearsay

 

[Val]

exactly- but direct questions seeking detail are met with "It will be", "They cant", "We will", "It will benefit us all" blah blah blah politician speak with no names, no detail, so solutions and no plan B

Sturgeons disgraceful showing the other night was a frightening peak into an independent Scottish Govt.

It appears that the YES campaign is based on they can't do .... and they won't do ...

 

[JCW]

I think they better off as they are , Its others playing politics for their own ends , when it goes wrong they wont be there ................................glad I don't have to vote as Dad choose to retire here in Poole Dorset rather then Dundee , weather being the main reason for that , I know its still raining , course closed again this morning after the rain last night

 

[Foxholer]

The interesting point (that I keep talking about) is that the CEO mentions the level of uncertainty.... Surely the ball is in Salmond's camp to, as much as possible, lessen the uncertainty?

Financial Services is c. 15% of Scottish GDP. S&P may well consider that to be a bit high and therefore a "risk" in terms of their rating/assessment, a bigger risk (IMO) from an Independent Scotland's point of view is losing 15% of GDP......

To be fair to Salmond (much as it goes against the grain!) he has stated a policy - in the White Paper - and all he is doing is sticking to the Plan. To announce/provide a 'Plan B' would allow opponents to argue, whether validly or not, that he doesn't really have a proper plan in the first place, something he would be very unwise to do! The 'it will', 'we can' approach may provide a small amount of ammo for opponents, but the 'just bullying' response isn't such a bad one, especially, as others have posted, is even likely to sway a few fence-sitters - stubborn-ness and belligerence being seen as a 'positive national trait'!

Indeed playground politics, but with few quantifiable policies, was/is always going to be that way!

I don't think S&P were considering the loss of ALL of Scotland's Financial Services, merely the (dodgy?) Banks.

 

[NWJocko]

To be fair to Salmond (much as it goes against the grain!) he has stated a policy - in the White Paper - and all he is doing is sticking to the Plan. To announce/provide a 'Plan B' would allow opponents to argue, whether validly or not, that he doesn't really have a proper plan in the first place, something he would be very unwise to do! The 'it will', 'we can' approach may provide a small amount of ammo for opponents, but the 'just bullying' response isn't such a bad one, especially, as others have posted, is even likely to sway a few fence-sitters - stubborn-ness and belligerence being seen as a 'positive national trait'!

Indeed playground politics, but with few quantifiable policies, was/is always going to be that way!

I don't think S&P were considering the loss of ALL of Scotland's Financial Services, merely the (dodgy?) Banks.

The White Paper is nothing more than what they want to happen rather than what is possible or reasonable to expect, there is a difference.

Whenever Salmond is asked how they are going to achieve their wish list he has no basis of fact to respond or reassure and seemingly isn't interested in doing so.

I should have added that obviously not all FS in Scotland would disappear, although appreciate your usual attention to pedantry :ears:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This is off on a tangent but they have already implemented their mitigation techniques of non-Scottish companies!!

Semantics and not important anyway, I'd imagine they wouldn't want to leave and pretty sure Salmond/Yes camp wouldn't welcome it either.

The interesting point (that I keep talking about) is that the CEO mentions the level of uncertainty.... Surely the ball is in Salmond's camp to, as much as possible, lessen the uncertainty?

Financial Services is c. 15% of Scottish GDP. S&P may well consider that to be a bit high and therefore a "risk" in terms of their rating/assessment, a bigger risk (IMO) from an Independent Scotland's point of view is losing 15% of GDP......

He can lessen the uncertainty - but I would like to see the CEO put the statement straight to Cameron and Osborne along the lines of...

'You do absolutely understand that if Scotland votes YES and you do not agree to Scotland joining rUK in a Sterling Zone then we will pull out of Scotland - with the impact that will have on Scotland and the cost that doing so will have to us. Scotland in a Sterling Zone is critical to us staying in Scotland and we want to stay in Scotland. You have stated that under no circumstances will rUK entertain Scotland in a Sterling Zone. If that is the case then on the announcement of a YES vote we will immediately begin to implement our contingency plans for withdrawal. So tell me now and put aside any political shenanigans and posturing - is the 'no sterling zone' now carved in stone. Yes or No - we have to know'.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall.

 

[Foxholer]

He can lessen the uncertainty - but I would like to see the CEO put the statement straight to Cameron and Osborne along the lines of...

'You do absolutely understand that if Scotland votes YES and you do not agree to Scotland joining rUK in a Sterling Zone then we will pull out of Scotland - with the impact that will have on Scotland and the cost that doing so will have to us. Scotland in a Sterling Zone is critical to us staying in Scotland and we want to stay in Scotland. You have stated that under no circumstances will rUK entertain Scotland in a Sterling Zone. If that is the case then on the announcement of a YES vote we will immediately begin to implement our contingency plans for withdrawal. So tell me now and put aside any political shenanigans and posturing - is the 'no sterling zone' now carved in stone. Yes or No - we have to know'.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall.

Yes, that would be fun to watch!

But it would be against those Companies 'political neutrality' to do it (in the open!).

 

[NWJocko]

He can lessen the uncertainty - but I would like to see the CEO put the statement straight to Cameron and Osborne along the lines of...

'You do absolutely understand that if Scotland votes YES and you do not agree to Scotland joining rUK in a Sterling Zone then we will pull out of Scotland - with the impact that will have on Scotland and the cost that doing so will have to us. Scotland in a Sterling Zone is critical to us staying in Scotland and we want to stay in Scotland. You have stated that under no circumstances will rUK entertain Scotland in a Sterling Zone. If that is the case then on the announcement of a YES vote we will immediately begin to implement our contingency plans for withdrawal. So tell me now and put aside any political shenanigans and posturing - is the 'no sterling zone' now carved in stone. Yes or No - we have to know'.

And I would love to be a fly on the wall.

I agree thats the question that should be put to Osborne etc but by Alex Salmond not every CEO of a Scottish based company FFS!!!!

It is up to Salmond to present what the situation post Yes will be as he is the one pushing for it and the national (political) leader in that event.

I'm intrigued that you always think the onus is on Westminster rather than the (proposed) Scottish government to provide answers?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I agree thats the question that should be put to Osborne etc but by Alex Salmond not every CEO of a Scottish based company FFS!!!!

It is up to Salmond to present what the situation post Yes will be as he is the one pushing for it and the national (political) leader in that event.

I'm intrigued that you always think the onus is on Westminster rather than the (proposed) Scottish government to provide answers?

But the CEO can check with Cameron and Osborne that what they have set is indeed set in stone or if it is political positioning. Salmond is utterly unable to answer that question. He can suggest that the C&O 'No Sterling Zone' is political posturing - but only C&O can tell the CEO the facts as THEY and ONLY THEY can determine whether a Sterling Zone will happen. Salmond can only predict that it will.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm intrigued that you always think the onus is on Westminster rather than the (proposed) Scottish government to provide answers?

Well, the White Paper has provided all the answers Scotland needed - hasn't it?

So if Westminster is arguing something different, it's them that needs to provide 'answers' surely!

Btw. This post doesn't mean I'm taking sides. Just trying to explain the issue/onus (hopefully) logically.

 

[FairwayDodger]

But.... as far as the sterling zone idea goes, this is one of the few areas where we've been given a definitive answer.... rUK says "No".

The implication here seems to be that the SL CEO needs to ask Cameron et al again because...... we think he's lied to the British people on this? Fair enough, his lips were moving so I can see why people would think that but having already given a very public definitive answer why would he say anything different?

 

[NWJocko]

Well, the White Paper has provided all the answers Scotland needed - hasn't it?

So if Westminster is arguing something different, it's them that needs to provide 'answers' surely!

Btw. This post doesn't mean I'm taking sides. Just trying to explain the issue/onus (hopefully) logically.

Again, the White Paper hasn't provided answers, merely set out what Salmond would like to see happen. As with the sterling zone, UK has said no!! Of course, whether they actually mean no is a different question

As this one area (FD beat me to it) that Westminster has commented on why on earth should the CEO of Standard Life ask them? Should every individual and every Scottish company contact Cameron and Osborne? Or, more loigically, should Salmond provde with them enough facts and a compelling case as to why they should vote Yes!!?

 

[NWJocko]

But the CEO can check with Cameron and Osborne that what they have set is indeed set in stone or if it is political positioning. Salmond is utterly unable to answer that question. He can suggest that the C&O 'No Sterling Zone' is political posturing - but only C&O can tell the CEO the facts as THEY and ONLY THEY can determine whether a Sterling Zone will happen. Salmond can only predict that it will.

Actually, no.

Salmond is the only person (or one of a few in reality) that is actually in a position to negoitiate with Westminster so that he isn't left with trying to "predict" what is going to happen.

For the life of me I don't know why you think he should sit back without providing any information or negotiating a more concrete position (on all aspects) where possible whilst Cameron and Osborne are left to shape an Independent Scotland!!?