Metropol

Charlie Wells wrote:I'm half surprised the Salmond hasn't mentioned that from memory both RBS and Lloyds have the UK government/taxpayer as a major shareholder. If I was being cynical I'd suggest this might have been an influence in them going public, however non-cynical the announcement was designed to stabilise the financial markets after they took a hit earlier in the week.

Actually, he did mention that today, and pointed out that whilst he was in the Scottish Widows building telling Scotland he'd be "heartbroken" if we "left", his advisers were briefing the companies you mention to re-issue the press releases they actually made some weeks ago.

It's also worth noting that Standard Life announced in event of a yes vote they were relocate some of their business out of Scotland.

There's greater value in noting that they said exactly the same thing in 1997 in case there was devolution.

But instead of leaving they massively expanded their business. There came a point a handful of years later that they said they couldn't offer large enough dividends to the policy holders so they de-mutualised the business - at which point they cut 1000 jobs saving £100 million a year and returned bumper profits to shareholders and a £5 million bonus to boss Sandy Crombie. Trebles all round!

Standard Life have form. This is certainly well known within the Edinburgh finance sector.

It amuses me that the Yes campaign don't want to be told what to do by Westminster, however are more than happy to be still told what to do from Brussels (via the EU).

How do you mean, exactly? We're currently subject to European legislation as part of the UK - but you don't suggest that Westminster have their policies dictated by Brussels, do you?

I think on the day a lot will depend upon the voter turnout, and maybe the tighter polls will help to increase the turnout.

Its clearly going to be a massive turnout. There's talk of "landslide" but I think its much too close to call.

Edit: Here's a question/thought, if Scotland votes yes what would the likes of the Royal Mail do? I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried to introduce higher postal charges for anyone posting from England to Scotland and vies-versa. At the moment I believe it's a fixed cost across the country, whereas courier tend to charge a higher rate for the 'Highlands & Islands'.

The SNP (if elected) intend to re-nationalise the Scottish part of the business. I have no idea how that would work but I would support it. The universal price will be abandoned by the UK company - I'd lay money on it. But I'd be prepared for Plymouth or Newcastle to be a higher tariff - prices radiating out from a London hub.

Could the SNP re-buy Royal mail at the flotation price?

This is rather interesting:

FS publishes analysis showing Salmond has been cutting the NHS harder than Cameron.?

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

Gavin Scott wrote:

It amuses me that the Yes campaign don't want to be told what to do by Westminster, however are more than happy to be still told what to do from Brussels (via the EU).

How do you mean, exactly? We're currently subject to European legislation as part of the UK - but you don't suggest that Westminster have their policies dictated by Brussels, do you?

Perhaps I was being a bit flippant with that particular remark. It's just that even if Scotland does become independent they will still have someone telling them what to do to some extent, in the form of the EU. Obviously the same applies to the existing situation (and if the outcome is no), and understandably the likes of Cameron don't wish to focus on the EU influencing laws as it won't help him with the 2015 elections.

In some respects I'm glad I don't have a vote in this, as for me there's still a lot that is uncertain, and if Scotland becomes independent the decision is unlikely to be reversed for a very long time. I do however sense that quite a few lawyers are rubbing their hands at the thought of many years work.

Changing subject slightly I wonder if the Sun apparently backing independence could have anything do with the many meetings Salmond has had with Murdock (something I believe first revealed during Leveson). Not the Conservatives or Labour would ever dream of cosying up to Murdock & co...

thegeek wrote:I thought the point of the 600-odd page White Paper was exactly that?

I confess that I have not read all 670 pages of the white paper, but I have read the summary.

The problem I have with it is that it completely ignores the fact that after more than 300 years Scotland is no longer a separate functioning country, however much Salmond likes to believe it is. As it stands, it is impossible for Scotland to function without the UK since everything about it's existence as a first world country is fundamentally tied to being part of it.

Salmond makes various bold claims presented as fact about what will happen with those fundamentals if independence is voted for but he has absolutely no mandate to guarantee he can deliver on them. Leaving the UK as it stands means leaving the UK, he can't choose which bits of it he wants to take with him on the way out if the UK won't agree to him having them.

He cannot guarantee what will happen with the economy (or even what currency will be used), what will happen with EU membership, what will happen with defence, who the head of state will be (or whether the Queen will even have a place in an independent Scotland), whether there will need to be border controls, what will happen to the validity of UK passports held by Scottish citizens who will no longer be UK citizens, who will issue replacement passports so Scots can go on holiday after 2016, what will happen with broadcasting, what will happen with .uk websites hosted in Scotland, I could go on and on. He can't guarantee anything, he just has to hope a way will be found to deliver his vision of an independent Scotland and he could come up way short of what he has promised.

In theory (although admittedly it will never happen) Scotland could rapidly degenerate into a sub-third world country since no definite arrangements about what an independent Scotland will look like have been agreed in advance of the referendum.

And away from Scotland, questions have to be asked about the legitimacy of holding a general election next year if there is a yes vote when it will be known that a government could be voted in partly on the mandate of a people who are shortly to cease to be governed by that government - I'm not at all happy that Scottish voters could leave me stuck with Milliband for 5 years when they're going to bugger off after a year and have their own elections.

Gavin Scott wrote:The SNP (if elected) intend to re-nationalise the Scottish part of the business. I have no idea how that would work but I would support it.

'I have no idea how that would work' for me typifies what I see as the insanity of the referendum happening. I genuinely cannot see how you can comprehend voting for something with no understanding of what it will even mean.

As I said before though, I still firmly believe that very little will actually change. It isn't really viable for Scotland to exist outside of the UK without it having a relationship so close that it may as well have stayed within it - in which case what's the point?

On a lighter note whilst Salmond says an independent Scotland would keep the pound it would appear this Bureau de Change at Dubai International Airport knows otherwise...

Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hange.html

Some might say Scotland already has it's own currency, try spending a Scottish £10 note in England.

Charlie Wells wrote:Some might say Scotland already has it's own currency, try spending a Scottish £10 note in England.

As good a time as any to post this I suppose...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYAjshQA2ms

Published Thurs 11th Sept, undertaken 9th-11th Sept:
YouGov - Yes 45%, No 50%, Don't know/not voting 6% (rounded). Sample: 1,268.
Excluding Don't knows - Yes 48%, No 52%.
Commissioned by The Times/Scottish Sun. More info.

Just read the Culture section of the wee blue book and it's as full of holes as the White Paper. It claims that Scottish people won't be able to be blocked from using iPlayer because of ISP detection, so the BBC won't be able to levy a charge like it does with the Irish, on Irish ISPs.

Am I the only person missing the elephant in the room here?

It's a very small elephant in a very big room. With things such as the economy, healthcare, defence/Trident, oil, business, nationality and international geopolitics on the table, such triflingly piffling matters as BBC iPlayer access are not important, or at least, will be addressed in the 2 year transition period to independence in 2016.

Everyone seems to be acting like this is an overnight thing, that next Friday all cables and roads north of Cumbria will be cut off. It's called a PROCESS for a reason - there are things to be sorted out. This will be one of them. I imagine Scotland will eventually get its own IP infrastructure so that geoblocking the iPlayer will be possible, but for now I doubt it's the main swinging factor in the referendum.

Alexia wrote:I imagine Scotland will eventually get its own IP infrastructure so that geoblocking the iPlayer will be possible, but for now I doubt it's the main swinging factor in the referendum.

You say that, but television plays such an important part in the lives of many people, so I think it's an important point to answer (Obviously it's one they cannot answer as they have no idea what will happen)

On a similar matter, it's very short sighted of Salmond to start waging war on the BBC, potentially a week before he'll have to start negotiating with them over the support they'll provide to create SBS.