Scotland Debate

[Imurg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-Lloyds-warn-Scotland-over-independence.html

The Telegraqph are saying the same thing.

And he uses the word "we" rather than "I" - implying that this is a Corporate policy rather than a personal wish...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And now BBC are reporting that Shell boss has apparently said 'he wants Scotland to stay in UK'.

Haven't read what he really said (so may have to agree when I do) but my initial thoughts from other Beeb articles - and the selective quotes - are that he said nothing of the sort! it was merely a BBC journalist's report that took that attitude. If that is the case - and I stress that I may need to adjust my opinion later - then it's quite scary that such an 'independent' news organisation is taking such a biased stance. Who knows what rubbish we are being fed on unverifiable stuff!

I will check and confirm later!

Boss of Shell is largely concerned with uncertainty - and so to a greater degree he will be concerned about whether UK stays in the EU (whether Scotland is in UK or not) come an EU referendum. So with the Scottish referendum the big companies are in fact just rehearsing their risk concerns in advance of the EU referendum.

Of course as predicted on such matters the view of the boss of Shell is presented as 'another serious blow to the YES campaign'. When in fact Shell aren't saying anything more than Scotland leaving the UK is currently higher uncertainty than the status quo - which is rather stating the obvious but is nonetheless a fact.

 

[Foxholer]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...d-Lloyds-warn-Scotland-over-independence.html

The Telegraqph are saying the same thing.

And he uses the word "we" rather than "I" - implying that this is a Corporate policy rather than a personal wish...

Well to misquote 'they would, wouldn't they'!

Lon ago realised not to expect 'the whole truth' from Newspapers, especially UK ones. Telegraph is little more than a 'snobby Daily Mail', imo, though it's my paper of choice - for Sport and the Crossword! Oh and for Matt and Alex!

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but saw a piece on the BBC (so could well be biased, as above), stating that the Banks would have to move their HQ's down to England/rUK if there were a split, due to EU legislation about being based where the majority of the Business occurs.

Does that affect anything for you pro-Yes'ers?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but saw a piece on the BBC (so could well be biased, as above), stating that the Banks would have to move their HQ's down to England/rUK if there were a split, due to EU legislation about being based where the majority of the Business occurs.

Does that affect anything for you pro-Yes'ers?

That is a biggy.
EU ruling that the banks headquarters should be in the country where it does the most business. Court ruling in 1995 seemingly.
This affects Lloyds and RBS.
Basically means that the debts of those banks will be moved to that country. Nat West is bigger than RBS in the UK and their headquarters will be moved to England.
iScotland would lose the debt of Lloyds and RBS and probably the finance jobs.

The National BBC is getting to the stage where you just can't trust a word it says on the debate.
The BBC Scotland political correspondent is about the only one with any credibility. I don't suppose you get the opportunity to hear him in rUK.

 

[FairwayDodger]

iScotland would lose the debt of Lloyds and RBS and probably the finance jobs.

What makes you say that - I don't see how either would necessarily follow? Not saying you're wrong, just interested.

The National BBC is getting to the stage where you just can't trust a word it says on the debate.
The BBC Scotland political correspondent is about the only one with any credibility. I don't suppose you get the opportunity to hear him in rUK.

Can't say I've noticed a particular bias in the BBC. Admittedly they sometimes say stuff the "yes" campaign doesn't like but that's not the same thing. I listen to Radio Scotland most mornings and seem to be getting quite impartial info with pluses and minuses for both sides.

Got any links demonstrating bias?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That is a biggy.
EU ruling that the banks headquarters should be in the country where it does the most business. Court ruling in 1995 seemingly.
This affects Lloyds and RBS.
Basically means that the debts of those banks will be moved to that country. Nat West is bigger than RBS in the UK and their headquarters will be moved to England.
iScotland would lose the debt of Lloyds and RBS and probably the finance jobs.

The National BBC is getting to the stage where you just can't trust a word it says on the debate.
The BBC Scotland political correspondent is about the only one with any credibility. I don't suppose you get the opportunity to hear him in rUK.

Though listening to BBC Radio Scotland this morning (as I sometimes do if there is a significant piece of news in respect of the referendum) the view given was that even if the banks had to move their HQ (to London) then most of the jobs would remain in Scotland - I think Lloyds would be able to stay in Scotland for a reason I didn't quite hear - but probably tied to the TSB. I believe that the EU ruling was brought in to prevent banks moving their HQ from their base and where their customers are simply for taxation 'minimisation' (read avoidance) purposes. Though the report I heard indicated that the legislation has not been tested and was certainly not aimed at the iScotland scenario.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Though listening to BBC Radio Scotland this morning (as I sometimes do if there is a significant piece of news in respect of the referendum) the view given was that even if the banks had to move their HQ (to London) then most of the jobs would remain in Scotland - I think Lloyds would be able to stay in Scotland for a reason I didn't quite hear - but probably tied to the TSB. I believe that the EU ruling was brought in to prevent banks moving their HQ from their base and where their customers are simply for taxation 'minimisation' (read avoidance) purposes. Though the report I heard indicated that the legislation has not been tested and was certainly not aimed at the iScotland scenario.

I think with Lloyds it's a case that having their HQ up here is purely symbolic anyway, a condition of the HBoS takeover. The BBC view was that the only actual change would be the gold plaque from the building on the Mound would need to move south.

What really interested me on this legislation was that the HQ should be in the territory where the bank does most of its business. So, if Barclays (say) made major inroads in China would it have to move? Effectively no bank could be successful in a larger market than where it was domiciled?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

What makes you say that - I don't see how either would necessarily follow? Not saying you're wrong, just interested.

As I pressed the send button I remembered the UK taxpayer has a big holding in both banks.
Could get messy.

The use of we [or even England] when referring to rUK generally goes unnoticed by most.

 

[Foxholer]

Boss of Shell is largely concerned with uncertainty - and so to a greater degree he will be concerned about whether UK stays in the EU (whether Scotland is in UK or not) come an EU referendum. So with the Scottish referendum the big companies are in fact just rehearsing their risk concerns in advance of the EU referendum.

Of course as predicted on such matters the view of the boss of Shell is presented as 'another serious blow to the YES campaign'. When in fact Shell aren't saying anything more than Scotland leaving the UK is currently higher uncertainty than the status quo - which is rather stating the obvious but is nonetheless a fact.

Indeed, having been able to check out other sources, what was really stated was virtually the same (less) 'risk' issue that Standard Life and others have made contingency plans. To be absolutely fair to those reporting, the Shell Boss did actually mention 'prefer Scotland to continue to be part of UK', something others haven't done, so there was a headline to be made. Nothing new in that approach. But still extremely unimpressed how Beeb Journalist/Editor corrupts that statement by changing 'prefer' to 'wants'! Another nail in the coffin of any view of the BBC as 'independent'! And, if we can detect bias on things we know about, the sinister part is how much 'corruption' of events is there in areas where we know much less about!

As for the movement of RBS and Lloyds HOs to South of the border, that is potentially already under way - as other reports have detailed. The, seemingly truly unbiased, independent (as would be expected) S&P report shows that may have benefits as well as perceived disadvantages. Should be neutral from UK/rUK's point of view.

 

[Foxholer]

...
What really interested me on this legislation was that the HQ should be in the territory where the bank does most of its business. So, if Barclays (say) made major inroads in China would it have to move? Effectively no bank could be successful in a larger market than where it was domiciled?

That ridiculous consequence of that directive was what struck me too.

And several large European Banks almost certainly 'fail' that test already. However, they will have ways of dealing with that anyway - the 'Group' function/entity being the obvious one. It does prevent them all moving their registered offices to Luxembourg though!

When that EU directive cam in, there was quite a bit of scare-mongering in (City of) London that it was a proposal to weaken the City's dominance - over Frankfurt and Paris. But nothing really changed in that regard - certainly little that was visible!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Funny how this has been on the back boiler for 9 years, but raises it's head now.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

 

[Foxholer]

Funny how this has been on the back boiler for 9 years, but raises it's head now.

9 Years? Don't you mean 29 years?

It's only relevant (nothing 'back boiler' about it) now because some 'UK Banks' may cease to be domiciled UK!

 

[CMAC]

I see 'Seen Canary' has come out with;
an independent Scotland is an opportunity "too good to miss" and ending the union with England would help boost artistic creation north of their common border.

The Scottish-born star, 83, spoke out six months before a referendum that could split the United Kingdom. A long-term supporter of separation, the Bahamas resident has said he could return to his native land if it became independent.

now is that a good or bad thing

 

[Adi2Dassler]

View attachment 9406

Raise the level of your chat, because that's terrible.Most of them have either been proven to have been misquoted,didn't say anything of the sort or have been proven wrong.

Must do better LiverpoolPhil

 

[Adi2Dassler]

I see 'Seen Canary' has come out with;
an independent Scotland is an opportunity "too good to miss" and ending the union with England would help boost artistic creation north of their common border.

The Scottish-born star, 83, spoke out six months before a referendum that could split the United Kingdom. A long-term supporter of separation, the Bahamas resident has said he could return to his native land if it became independent.

now is that a good or bad thing

anyone who takes the slightest notice of Sean Connery,Davie Bowie,that laddie from Dr Who or any other non-resident egotist should have their voting rights removed.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Raise the level of your chat, because that's terrible.Most of them have either been proven to have been misquoted,didn't say anything of the sort or have been proven wrong.

Must do better LiverpoolPhil

Sorry you're right - must add Shell :thup:

I have noticed when a misquote is positive towards the yes vote it has been taken as gospel a number of times though :thup:

 

[FairwayDodger]

anyone who takes the slightest notice of Sean Connery,Davie Bowie,that laddie from Dr Who or any other non-resident egotist should have their voting rights removed.

Can they be banned from posting on the "Independence" threads in the forum too....?

 

[Adi2Dassler]

Sorry you're right - must add Shell :thup:

I have noticed when a misquote is positive towards the yes vote it has been taken as gospel a number of times though :thup:

I take nothing I read on any forum as gospel btw.