2141 replies to this topic

[Seb.F]

We have a Scottish client that has their HQ in Glasgow that has hinted they will move it to the UK if it's a yes vote.

 

They have 6 other sites in Scotland and 7 in England. That's 6 sites each holding around 50 rail containers and 30 HGVs each, so that's what, 300 containers and 180 HGVs.

 

Gonna have ~200 people out of work instantly and they're not even a big company.

[myles]

The RBS announcement about actually moving it's HQ is more significant though, surely? Sure lots of jobs will remain in Edinburgh but it then becomes a London/rUK registered bank with a London/rUK registered office and the taxes will be payable to rUK, despite the much heralded reduced corporation taxes.

 

 

We'll be so poor by then that we'll need that extra income.

[Rosssco]

All cancelled out by a currency union arrangement of course. The story is spun as a "relocation" when its actually a legal process to make sure they retain the BoE as a lender of last resort. There are no closing of offices. Lloyds is already HQ'd in London and RBS is 81% owned by the UK Government. Aberdeen Asset Management seem quite content though eh?

 

 

Give Scott some straw, he needs to do more clutching..

 

A currency union in the terms will not happen.. Or if it did happen would hobble the Scottish sufficiently to make the whole indy enterprise a bit of a lame duck..

 

You can continue along with your supporters to believe this, but you are only fooling yourselves.

 

AAA - Ah, those distributers of wealth to the benefits of social justice and cohesion.. There's going to be ALOT of opportunities to make money in the reshuffling and reselling of financial products, bits of old companies, and 'transitional arrangements' in your brave new world.. Companies like that do love a bit of financial turmoil, its how they make money!

 

Here's the view of the Scotmans, another Tory rag...

 

http://www.scotsman....rdict-1-3537857

[Zuber]

Well we have Halifax branch in Leicester, can't be much different

 

I just find it truly bizarre that people are able to sit there straight faced and honestly claim/believe this lot (everything that comes with becoming a seperate country) isn't going to cost [font="calibri, sans-serif;"]ridiculous [/font] amounts of money. We have a great track record of large scale ventures not costing much after all...

 

You can point to this or that Professor and spin it all you want. Going Independent is going to be Hard, Expensive and Painful. That's just the reality of major change and upheaval. Just moving house is bloody stressful for crying out loud. Sometimes, all the pain is worth it...

 

If Scots want to go it alone, fair enough. But don't kid yourselves or try and fool anyone else it's not going to be a difficult and bumpy journey. It's going hurt quite a bit for quite some time before things settle and get better.

 

In the end, there will some pluses and some minuses. And with a fair dollop of luck, depending on who you are and if you can actually figure it all out you might feel you/Scotland are a bit better off.

 

Well worth a punt ...

[techieboy]

We have a Scottish client that has their HQ in Glasgow that has hinted they will move it to the UK if it's a yes vote.

 

They have 6 other sites in Scotland and 7 in England. That's 6 sites each holding around 50 rail containers and 30 HGVs each, so that's what, 300 containers and 180 HGVs.

 

Gonna have ~200 people out of work instantly and they're not even a big company.

 

I can understand multi billion pound financial institutions doing that but struggle to see why a small/medium business would. Do they expect all of their existing Scotland based work to evaporate? Maketh little sense to me unless the boss is some kind of ultra-Unionist.

[techieboy]

 

If Scots want to go it alone, fair enough. But don't kid yourselves or try and fool anyone else it's not going to be a difficult and bumpy journey. It's going hurt quite a bit for quite some time before things settle and get better.

 

 

In Scott's defence, I don't think he's ever claimed it was going to be easy or straightforward or even that Scotland would be a better/fairer/richer place from year one, let alone day one. I think most people realistic people expect some pain and uncertainty for a few years but that's the one thing banks don't like.

[LY_Scott]

Zuber that's just about the most sensible thing I've ever seen you write. Take a bow sir

[Rosssco]

 

 

If Scots want to go it alone, fair enough. But don't kid yourselves or try and fool anyone else it's not going to be a difficult and bumpy journey. It's going hurt quite a bit for quite some time before things settle and get better.

 

 

In Scott's defence, I don't think he's ever claimed it was going to be easy or straightforward or even that Scotland would be a better/fairer/richer place from year one, let alone day one. I think most people realistic people expect some pain and uncertainty for a few years but that's the one thing banks don't like.

 

 

The problem is though, Scott is not in charge or running any form of major political campaign.

 

Its the complete denial that goes all the way to the top of the SNP / Yes campaign of the huge risks to real peoples jobs, livelyhoods, public services and the quality of life that we enjoy that gives no crediblity to these people.

 

And why do they not say this? They cannot, because that would be to derail their proposals, because they know the vast majority of sensible people would not vote to risk so much for so little potential gain, and to change the name above the door..

[Seb.F]

His primary reasoning seemed to be that while he didn't doubt over time and many years, Scotland could become a decent functioning entity on its own, even for a small business, factoring unknowns into future projections is just too dangerous.

 

The safer option is sticking projects below the border and having more faith in the UK.

[techieboy]

And why do they not say this? They cannot, because that would be to derail their proposals, because they know the vast majority of sensible people would not vote to risk so much for so little potential gain, and to change the name above the door..

 

 

But isn't that ever the norm in politics (and whatever Salmond says, politics will always be politics, whether it's at Holyrood, Westminster or Washington DC)? With the possible exception of the current government who upfront said it was going to be painful journey on their austerity ticket, no political party/movement ever advertises the negatives and rarely even just the boring and mundane realities. It's always an easier sell when all the talk is about some (unachievable/unrealistic) utopian version of the world where everybody earns more money than they can spend and has free this, that and the other and poverty and injustice has been eradicated. Unfortunately anyone who argues with that or tries to point out the sometimes blindingly obvious faults is ignored, shouted down, accused of negative campaigning or in this case being a fully paid up charter member of Project Fear........

[Rosssco]

As it said in an article recently, arguing with the Yes campaign is like trying to punch smoke... You can't, its intangible, its a vision that can adapt to anything that you throw at it. Its doesn't matter if its unrealistic on many levels, because there always could be some way around the problems you present it..

 

The endless positivity only serves to further delude those who 'believe'..

 

http://www.scottishr...lCraig172.shtml

[techieboy]

like trying to punch smoke... You can't, its intangible, its a vision that can adapt to anything that you throw at it. Its doesn't matter if its unrealistic on many levels, because there always could be some way around the problems you present it..

 

 

That's exactly what it feels like.

[G-Bob]

We have a Scottish client that has their HQ in Glasgow that has hinted they will move it to the UK if it's a yes vote.   They have 6 other sites in Scotland and 7 in England. That's 6 sites each holding around 50 rail containers and 30 HGVs each, so that's what, 300 containers and 180 HGVs.   Gonna have ~200 people out of work instantly and they're not even a big company.

  I can understand multi billion pound financial institutions doing that but struggle to see why a small/medium business would. Do they expect all of their existing Scotland based work to evaporate? Maketh little sense to me unless the boss is some kind of ultra-Unionist.

This! Companies will go wherever they make money. If they make the same amount they will stay as moving cost money. Just as their is the chance it could be detrimental to their business it could also be the complete opposite and be beneficial. No one knows until it happens so both sides are just guessing.

[Rosssco]

As always, humour probably says it how it really is..

 

http://www.thedailym...y-2014091190446

[techieboy]

The endless positivity only serves to further delude those who 'believe'..

 

http://www.scottishr...lCraig172.shtml

 

That's a really good read. She makes her points very well.

[G-Bob]

If the banks move, just consider it outsourcing.

 

England will be our Indian call-center.

[techieboy]

Nah, unfortunately, they'll leave the call centres in Scotland, so I'll still have to endure the accent whenever I speak to Santander or First Direct.

 

We'll just carry on enjoying the corporation tax being deposited into the UK Exchequer.

 

[techieboy]

I can see the Yes vote percentage taking a dive amongst the middle classes in Edinburgh, now Waitrose have said food will cost more in Scottish stores after a Yes vote.

[LY_Scott]

Waitrose only have one shop in Scotland lol

[Dunk]

I can see the Yes vote percentage taking a dive amongst the middle classes in Edinburgh, now Waitrose have said food will cost more in Scottish stores after a Yes vote.

Waitrose; famed for its "value range" and low pricing policy.