Scottish Independence discussion area

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I am not sure what you are expecting. RBS stated in the statement that operations and jobs are not affected.

Eh No…

RBS intends to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank.
Read more at http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/statement-in-response-to-press-speculation-on-re-domicile.html#xQTG4wu31CW4qj0w.99

The way I read it is that some jobs are going South and they intend to keep the rest in Scotland.. For now.

It is an intention not a promise.

namloc1980

eeepaulo wrote: »

It will move to the uk,

Are you serious? According to their 2013 financial report BOS made pre tax profit of just shy of £3bn. And you reckon they'll pull the plug on their operation and all those profits??? You really have bought the scare tactics haven't you.

eeepaulo

namloc1980 wrote: »

Are you serious? According to their 2013 financial report BOS made pre tax profit of just shy of £3bn. And you reckon they'll pull the plug on their operation and all those profits??? You really have bought the scare tactics haven't you.

Why would they close it?

They will move the hq,

namloc1980

eeepaulo wrote: »

Why would they close it?

They will move the hq,

Their hq is already in London!!!! They're a subsidiary of Lloyds...

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Eh No…

RBS intends to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank.
Read more at http://www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/statement-in-response-to-press-speculation-on-re-domicile.html#xQTG4wu31CW4qj0w.99

The way I read it is that some jobs are going South and they intend to keep the rest in Scotland.. For now.

It is an intention not a promise.

Dear colleagues

We have today made a statement to the market (see below), providing information on our contingency planning in the event of a Yes vote in next week’s referendum on Scottish independence. As you will have seen over the last twenty four hours, other Scottish headquartered financial institutions have made public statements about their intentions. This served to fuel media speculation about our own plans, and in those circumstances, it became necessary for us to update the market on aspects of our contingency planning.

It is my view as Chief Executive that any decision to move our registered headquarters should have no impact on everyday banking services used by our customers in Scotland and the rest of the British Isles. This is a technical procedure regarding the location of our registered head office. It is not an intention to move operations or jobs.

Our current business in Scotland, including the personal and business bank, IT and operations, human resources and many other functions, are here because of the skills and knowledge of our people, and the sound business environment. So far, I see no reason why this would change should we implement our contingency plans.

It is always my aim to ensure we inform our staff about such issues at the earliest opportunity. I know many of you will have already heard about this first in the media. My apologies for that, on this occasion this was unavoidable.

Over the next week, and beyond, we will continue to update you whenever appropriate.

Ross McEwan

Chief Executive

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Lloyds have released a statement saying it.
.

Link?

eeepaulo

namloc1980 wrote: »

Their hq is already in London!!!! They're a subsidiary of Lloyds...

Lloyds hq is in london,

In a statement issued last night, Lloyds – which owns Bank of Scotland and is 25% owned by taxpayers – spelled out its contingency arrangements, which would be likely to involve moving its registered office from Scotland, where its Halifax Bank of Scotland business is registered. "While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England," it said.

dubscottie

Change the script! I am sick on the yes ones shouting "scaremongering" or "scare tactics" every time some one questions them.

Alex Salmond has the yes ones shouting it like some cult that believes in his "vision".

Funny how the SNP logo looks like a rabbit!

Fr.-TED-FR-DOugal-Maguire-Dreams-Vs-Reality-rabbits.jpg

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Lloyds hq is in london,

In a statement issued last night, Lloyds – which owns Bank of Scotland and is 25% owned by taxpayers – spelled out its contingency arrangements, which would be likely to involve moving its registered office from Scotland, where its Halifax Bank of Scotland business is registered. "While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England," it said.

That does not say they will close their banking operation

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Change the script! I am sick on the yes ones shouting "scaremongering" or "scare tactics" every time some one questions them.

Well dubscottie, tell me if the statements today confirmed that it is the intention of any of the banks to move their operation and jobs from Scotland to rUK? Even eeepaulo thought they did

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

That does not say they will close their banking operation

I never said close, move,

My point that is being ignored, while i attempt to answer all of yours is.........

My issue though with alex salmond in that video though is that in the statement he says the jobs will remain and we can tax them so thats fine,

Its not fine, scotland has to be a country that attracts companies, not that drives away the headquarters.

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well dubscottie, tell me if the statements today confirmed that it is the intention of any of the banks to move their operation and jobs from Scotland to rUK? Even eeepaulo thought they did

At what point did i mention jobs or closing?

Do you read what is written or just make it up?

Muahahaha

EunanMac wrote: »

Don't be under the illusion that Ireland doesn't have a version of the same system.
It's largely who you know, not what you know, and always has been.

Oh for sure, I agree, Ireland does have a version of the same system, we have political dynasties that seem to stick around like a bad smell sucking on the teat of public money. But in a republic if those inequalities exist its because the electorate permitted it to happen. In a monarchy it happens by design.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I picked the last seven because 40 years seemed like a reasonable time frame.

I stated that any one can be prime minister, the history of the last forty years shows that to be true.

The only possible argument is that, in the UK, there is a preference for prime ministers to be well educated, not just related to someone who fought on a particular side in a civil war.

Parliament and the monarchy are no more than symbolically connected, the power is with parliament and this represents the UK well. Take a look at the different races, creeds and back grounds of its members. You might also want to take a look at the big statue of Cromwell outside Westminster as well, which is there as a gentle reminder to the monarchy as to what happens when you cross them.

Well like I said you're cherry picking 40 years to suit your argument. If we're going to discard some 40 odd UK PMs and only look at more modern times in the UK then the stat most commentators tout about is that since the dawn of WW2 10 of the last 14 British PMs have been educated at Oxbridge. Its still almost 70% no matter what way you look at it or try to spin it.

And to say that parliament and the monarchy are only symbolically connected is just to show your naivety on UK politics and power structures once again. What do you honestly think happens during the Queens weekly meeting with the Prime Minister of the day? For over 50 years she has been meeting the Prime Minister on a Tuesday, always at her location and always at her leisure. Practically every single PM in recent times has complained privately about going cap in hand (literally) up to Buckingham Palace to explain themselves every seven days. Her and Thatcher had a fractious relationship which is well documented with the Queen sometimes calling Thatcher to a meeting at a specific time and then leaving her sitting waiting for an hour before showing up with a bunch of Corgis when she knew Thatcher hated dogs. Now if Thatcher and the Queen were having arguments then what do you think they were arguing about, the price of stamps or something ? What do you think the Queen and David Cameron were talking about when he was in Balmoral for 6 hours last Sunday ? To say parliament and the monarchy are not connected in the UK is just completely incorrect, these meetings are politically charged and dont take place for the craic


If you think they Queen has no influence on British politics and is only "symbolic" then you are truly naive on how power structures at the top of British society actually work in practice. You believe the Sky News version that the Queen is symbolic and is just for show and ceremony when its actually the case that the Queen has been the most influential person in British politics over the last 50 years, period, no ifs, no buts, no doubts. PMs come and go but the Queen remains, their term in Downing Street is but a cog in how she has influenced and conducted statecraft in Britain for the last half a century.

And I'm not sure either how your Cromwell jingoism is supposed to represent some sort of threat from Parliament to the Royal Family, what kind of fantasy is this and how is it relevant? You say the statue is there to remind the Royal Family of what will happen them if they cross Westminster, I really don't know what sort of cloud cuckoo land you're living in but any notion that Labour or the Tories could ever engineer a military coup and overthrow the monarchy is completely misguided. For one you'll find that there are plenty of the Queens aristrocrats at the highest levels of the British Military. That problem aside part of the British public love the Queen and have far more respect for the Royal Family as an institution than they do in Westminister. So your fantasy coup would be shot down pretty quick, either internally from the military or externally by a violent public out to protect the Queen.

dubscottie

The yes ones should stop and ask themselves why these companies are moving south in the event of a yes vote. And that is just the big ones. How many other smaller businesses are going to flit south?

Sure an independant Scotland will be heaven according to Alex Salmond. So why do they feel the need to move?

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

I never said close, move,

My point that is being ignored, while i attempt to answer all of yours is.........

My issue though with alex salmond in that video though is that in the statement he says the jobs will remain and we can tax them so thats fine,

Its not fine, scotland has to be a country that attracts companies, not that drives away the headquarters.

eeepaulo wrote: »

At what point did i mention jobs or closing?

Do you read what is written or just make it up?

In response to 'Fcuk me, are you saying that BoS are going to close their banking operation in Scotland should the will of the people be Yes?' You said 'It will move to the uk, '

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In response to 'Fcuk me, are you saying that BoS are going to close their banking operation in Scotland should the will of the people be Yes?' You said 'It will move to the uk, '

Their hq

im fairly sure if you look back through the last few pages i mention hq quite a few times

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

The yes ones should stop and ask themselves why these companies are moving south in the event of a yes vote. And that is just the big ones. How many other smaller businesses are going to flit south?

Sure an independant Scotland will be heaven according to Alex Salmond. So why do they feel the need to move?

This has been dealt with earlier in the thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92130463&postcount=876

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Their hq

im fairly sure if you look back through the last few pages i mention hq quite a few times

No you didn't you said 'RBS came out and said we will have to relocate to the uk, lloyds the same'

Sofa King Great

Lloyds and RBS will not close their doors in the event of a yes vote but it is likely that they will move their registered offices to london (albeit Lloyds already based in London).

The impact of this would be to severely reduce the tax reported in Scotland from these large companies. They would instead report the taxes in England. Anyone who thinks a large company would remain in a new state with no fiscal stability or certainty is very much mistaken

namloc1980

dubscottie wrote: »

The yes ones should stop and ask themselves why these companies are moving south in the event of a yes vote. And that is just the big ones. How many other smaller businesses are going to flit south?

Sure an independant Scotland will be heaven according to Alex Salmond. So why do they feel the need to move?

They're not moving. They have contingency plans that they may implement depending on how things go. I would expect any company with a reasonable governance structure to have some form of plans given the decision at hand. It doesn't mean it's the end of the world as the no side are saying

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well dubscottie, tell me if the statements today confirmed that it is the intention of any of the banks to move their operation and jobs from Scotland to rUK? Even eeepaulo thought they did

You didn't read my post right did you? An intention is not a promise.

If they are 100% committed to Scotland it would have read..

RBS promises to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank.

They did not say that though did they..

eeepaulo

[/QUOTE]

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No you didn't you said 'RBS came out and said we will have to relocate to the uk, lloyds the same'

OK just to clarify i mean the hqs

feel free to answer this please,

My point that is being ignored, while i attempt to answer all of yours is.........

My issue though with alex salmond in that video though is that in the statement he says the jobs will remain and we can tax them so thats fine,

Its not fine, scotland has to be a country that attracts companies, not that drives away the headquarters.

Sofa King Great

dubscottie wrote: »

You didn't read my post right did you? An intention is not a promise.

If they are 100% committed to Scotland it would have read..

RBS promises to retain a significant level of its operations and employment in Scotland to support its customers there and the activities of the whole Bank.

They did not say that though did they..

It will retain the employment but where will RBS declare the large profits it earns in it's Global banking and markets division?

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

OK just to clarify i mean the hqs

feel free to answer this please,

Answered already earlier in the thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92130463&postcount=876

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92159339&postcount=1118

dubscottie

namloc1980 wrote: »

They're not moving. They have contingency plans that they may implement depending on how things go.

Again they intend to stay but have not made any promises.. Nothing to stop them moving everything south in 2016..

A Dub in Glasgo

Sofa King Great wrote: »

Lloyds and RBS will not close their doors in the event of a yes vote but it is likely that they will move their registered offices to london (albeit Lloyds already based in London).

The impact of this would be to severely reduce the tax reported in Scotland from these large companies. They would instead report the taxes in England. Anyone who thinks a large company would remain in a new state with no fiscal stability or certainty is very much mistaken

It is going to be a long time before these companies ever declare profits that can be taxed

namloc1980

dubscottie wrote: »

Again they intend to stay but have not made any promises.. Nothing to stop them moving everything south in 2016..

So you agree they're not moving now and what do you mean by moving everything?

Fratton Fred

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well like I said you're cherry picking 40 years to suit your argument. If we're going to discard some 40 odd UK PMs and only look at more modern times in the UK then the stat most commentators tout about is that since the dawn of WW2 10 of the last 14 British PMs have been educated at Oxbridge. Its still almost 70% no matter what way you look at it or try to spin it.

And to say that parliament and the monarchy are only symbolically connected is just to show your naivety on UK politics and power structures once again. What do you honestly think happens during the Queens weekly meeting with the Prime Minister of the day? For over 50 years she has been meeting the Prime Minister on a Tuesday, always at her location and always at her leisure. Practically every single PM in recent times has complained privately about going cap in hand (literally) up to Buckingham Palace to explain themselves every seven days. Her and Thatcher had a fractious relationship which is well documented with the Queen sometimes calling Thatcher to a meeting at a specific time and then leaving her sitting waiting for an hour before showing up with a bunch of Corgis when she knew Thatcher hated dogs. Now if Thatcher and the Queen were having arguments then what do you think they were arguing about, the price of stamps or something ? What do you think the Queen and David Cameron were talking about when he was in Balmoral for 6 hours last Sunday ? To say parliament and the monarchy are not connected in the UK is just completely incorrect, these meetings are politically charged and dont take place for the craic


If you think they Queen has no influence on British politics and is only "symbolic" then you are truly naive on how power structures at the top of British society actually work in practice. You believe the Sky News version that the Queen is symbolic and is just for show and ceremony when its actually the case that the Queen has been the most influential person in British politics over the last 50 years, period, no ifs, no buts, no doubts. PMs come and go but the Queen remains, their term in Downing Street is but a cog in how she has influenced and conducted statecraft in Britain for the last half a century.

And I'm not sure either how your Cromwell jingoism is supposed to represent some sort of threat from Parliament to the Royal Family, what kind of fantasy is this and how is it relevant? You say the statue is there to remind the Royal Family of what will happen them if they cross Westminster, I really don't know what sort of cloud cuckoo land you're living in but any notion that Labour or the Tories could ever engineer a military coup and overthrow the monarchy is completely misguided. For one you'll find that there are plenty of the Queens aristrocrats at the highest levels of the British Military. That problem aside part of the British public love the Queen and have far more respect for the Royal Family as an institution than they do in Westminister. So your fantasy coup would be shot down pretty quick, either internally from the military or externally by a violent public out to protect the Queen.

You've really gone off in to la la land now.

So what if 10 of the last 14 prime ministers have gone to the two best universities in the country. Big ****ing deal. They're universities where clever people go to learn stuff. Get the grades and pass the entrance exam and you could go as well.

Jesus, I've worked with plenty of people that went to Oxbridge, they aren't some sort of reptilian alien species, they're just brain boxes on legs.

Edit: I should add, if that's true about Thatcher and the corgies, Queenie has just gone up in my estimations.

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Again they intend to stay but have not made any promises.. Nothing to stop them moving everything south in 2016..

Will the company you work for guarantee that they will not downsize meaning you will not lose your job? Mine won't irrespective of the referendum result

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Answered already earlier in the thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92130463&postcount=876

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92159339&postcount=1118

answer this please

My point that is being ignored, while i attempt to answer all of yours is.........

My issue though with alex salmond in that video though is that in the statement he says the jobs will remain and we can tax them so thats fine,

Its not fine, scotland has to be a country that attracts companies, not that drives away the headquarters.

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Will the company you work for guarantee that they will not downsize meaning you will not lose your job? Mine won't irrespective of the referendum result

That selfish attitude won't be liked on Salmonds Scottish Socialist State!

dubscottie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You've really gone off in to la la land now.

So what if 10 of the last 14 prime ministers have gone to the two best universities in the country. Big ****ing deal. They're universities where clever people go to learn stuff. Get the grades and pass the entrance exam and you could go as well.

Jesus, I've worked with plenty of people that went to Oxbridge, they aren't some sort of reptilian alien species, they're just brain boxes on legs.

I often think that a load of people think some 1917 style revolution will solve everything..

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

answer this please [!!!]



Its not fine, scotland has to be a country that attracts companies, not that drives away the headquarters.

You are obviously choosing not to read -

'It is already established that EU law requires that your registered office is in the same state as your headquarters and that is taken to be where the bank does most of it's business which in this case is clearly England therefore the 'Scottish' banks will be broken up accordingly'

Therefore by virtue of independence, those company HQ will be moved

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

That selfish attitude won't be liked on Salmonds Scottish Socialist State!

So the company you work for cannot guarantee your job?

Sofa King Great

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is going to be a long time before these companies ever declare profits that can be taxed

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28478920

Most of the bailout was by way of equity so there will be tax to be paid upon return to profitability

dubscottie

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So the company you work for cannot guarantee your job?

Yes they can.. All 4 of them! (my tax is fun)

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are obviously choosing not to read -

'It is already established that EU law requires that your registered office is in the same state as your headquarters and that is taken to be where the bank does most of it's business which in this case is clearly England therefore the 'Scottish' banks will be broken up accordingly'

Therefore by virtue of independence, those company HQ will be moved

Im not just talking about banks, this viable vibrant scotland has to have investment, this campaign should be a showcase to the world of hey look at scotland open for business, instead it was "well we keep the jobs, and can tax them, find the leak"

A Dub in Glasgo

eeepaulo wrote: »

Im not just talking about banks

Well your posts appear to contradict that statement

A couple of statements today that you may have missed in the furore over some banks moving their HQ

'The powers of independence can revitalise Scottish shipbuilding

Ferguson-Ship-Yard-500950Jim McColl, the new owner of Ferguson’s Shipbuilders, has announced that he aims to employ 300 people through a £8 million investment.'

'Financial giant backs independent Scotland’s economy to succeed


Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management (including Scottish Widows Investment Partnership), has backed the economy of an independent Scotland to be a success. The entrepreneur, who co-founded the company in 1983, said last night to the BBC that “An independent Scotland would be a great success.”'

namloc1980

eeepaulo wrote: »

Im not just talking about banks, this viable vibrant scotland has to have investment, this campaign should be a showcase to the world of hey look at scotland open for business, instead it was "well we keep the jobs, and can tax them, find the leak"

Why aren't you quoting stuff from the likes of Aberdeen asset management who have said an Indy Scotland world be very successful and most of the doomsday stuff is completely overblown?

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well your posts appear to contradict that statement

A statement today

'The powers of independence can revitalise Scottish shipbuilding

Ferguson-Ship-Yard-500950Jim McColl, the new owner of Ferguson’s Shipbuilders, has announced that he aims to employ 300 people through a £8 million investment.'

Scaremongering by the yes campaign? Vote no and we'll lose 300 jobs.

A Dub in Glasgo

dubscottie wrote: »

Yes they can.. All 4 of them! (my tax is fun)

Well good luck to you, I would say very few people have a guarantees from their employer even over the next 3 years

Fratton Fred

dubscottie wrote: »

I often think that a load of people think some 1917 style revolution will solve everything..

I suggest we close all universities so everyone is equal.

dubscottie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scaremongering by the yes campaign? Vote no and we'll lose 300 jobs.

Yes and everyone has forgotten the Hyundai plant in Dunfermline that cost mega £££ and ended up unused.

Investment is only good if you are guaranteed orders at the end of it.

eeepaulo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Well your posts appear to contradict that statement

A couple of statements today that you may have missed in the furore over some banks moving their HQ

'The powers of independence can revitalise Scottish shipbuilding

Ferguson-Ship-Yard-500950Jim McColl, the new owner of Ferguson’s Shipbuilders, has announced that he aims to employ 300 people through a £8 million investment.'

'Financial giant backs independent Scotland’s economy to succeed


Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management (including Scottish Widows Investment Partnership), has backed the economy of an independent Scotland to be a success. The entrepreneur, who co-founded the company in 1983, said last night to the BBC that “An independent Scotland would be a great success.”'

I was answering numerous questions about who owns bank of scotland and where they are based.

The above are good.

But still.....
The world is watching at the moment, this viable vibrant scotland has to have investment, this campaign should be a showcase to the world of hey look at scotland open for business, instead it was "well we keep the jobs, and can tax them, find the leak"

Fratton Fred

If only a female Bangladeshi Muslim who grew up in Tower Hamlets (one of the poorest parts of the UK) could go to Oxford, maybe she could have a promising political career, but I guess the British upper class would never let such a thing happen.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushanara_Ali

dubscottie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I suggest we close all universities so everyone is equal.

Thats why some are voting yes isn't it? For a more equal Scotland?

Where gov spending is higher than the tax take? Free this, free that etc..

This is worth a watch. How to bankrupt a country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I44SjqBZbiE

starlit

It be hard to know which way the voting outcome will go I say could be a close vote. I think it be a great thing for Scotland to be independent but who knows being part of the current government might be not be such a bad thing.

dundalkfc10

The bookies have Yes at 3/1 to 7/2

No chance of it happening!

A Dub in Glasgo

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

The bookies have Yes at 3/1 to 7/2

No chance of it happening!

Didn't realise the bookies vote :pac:

Muahahaha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You've really gone off in to la la land now.

So what if 10 of the last 14 prime ministers have gone to the two best universities in the country. Big ****ing deal. They're universities where clever people go to learn stuff. Get the grades and pass the entrance exam and you could go as well.

Jesus, I've worked with plenty of people that went to Oxbridge, they aren't some sort of reptilian alien species, they're just brain boxes on legs.

So saying big fcuking deal is the best you can do? Despite the overwhelming evidence of the vast majority of the last 54 Prime Ministers going to Oxbridge proving my point beyond doubt. You've lost the argument how and all you can say is "So what"

And I'm fully aware of how Oxford operates, my sister has a degree from there as does a mate. But tell me this, if British scoety is structured equally why have none other the other 170 odd British universities ever educated a future Prime Minister. Edinburgh has two which is pretty pathetic in some 300 odd years. The rest of the UK universities have none, not one PM has ever been educated in the many excellent universities across the UK. Why is that, are we seriously to believe that there are no smart and capable people in the rest of the UK? Or is it more likely that the very structures of society are set up to benefit one particular class and even if you're smart and capable the system will ensure that you don't get ahead, or at least not as ahead as what the upper classes are. Thats the way things are in the UK, any of my english friends would privately talk about how they've come up against class cleavages. These are the phenomena that happen when you delibritely structure a society unequally, it can never be any other way.

Finally I noticed how you didnt address my point about how you said that the Queen is only a symbolic influence over the parliament, when that is far from the truth. I hope you at least have some understanding of her role in British politics because if you think it is only symbolic then you're well wide of the mark.