[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

So let's feed the "uneducated" or "ill-informed" lies and claptrap as it doesn't matter....hmmmm

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

Institutions hold assets - both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

The problem is that there's a narrow economist's definition of an "asset", and there's a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

The problem is that there's a narrow economist's definition of an "asset", and there's a wider definition which most people know and understand means something that is worth something.

This is what I was getting at. You can argue all day about what is/isnt an asset or a liability and what should happen to the institutions and what they hold, but that's best left to the lawyers. As there's no set international laws that cover exactly what should happen a lot will be left up to negotiation, which obviously isnt happening at the moment. What the population want to know is, not what narrow legal terms and laws define what might happen, but what the negotiating positions are. Arguing semantics doesnt help anyone.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters. Just because the concept may seem or may be difficult to understand (it isn't) doesn't meant that people should be allowed to deliberately mis-use them to lie and to deceive. That is what AS is doing. In the end, you cannot escape the truth as politicians and those who vote for them find out in the end.

You would not expect a doctor or a lawyer for example to misuse terms just to make a difficult story more palatable to swallow. Doctors don't say, that dark shadows on the x-Ray are just an optical illusion. They say what it is, so that you can make an informed decision. AS is deliberately misusing terms with the explicit intention to confuse and mislead. That is unbecoming of any politician at any time, let alone when you are debating major constitutional change.

It's a sad state of affairs it we are going to say it doesn't matter what our politicians say because folk either don't understand, are to lazy to read what they say or they simply ignore them. So it's ok if they just spout BS....kind of sums up a lot of the BoD though.

Deciding what currency option to use and how much autonomy you want on government spending, tax, interest rates, supply of money etc are hardly semantics. They are FUNDAMENTALS.

Institutions hold assets - both real assets (gold in a vault) and more intangible assets (the reputation of an institution, for instance).

A new institution's reputation probably wouldn't be an asset as it hasn't had time to build up a track record of delivery. A new institution's reputation would probably be a liability and bear higher risk.

There are very clear legal rules and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.

You seem to know better than all of the expert opinion I've read then. As far as I can see there are various precedents for division of assets, liabilities and institutions and how actually happens will likely be a mix of all of them based on the what can be negotiated and what makes sense to both parties.

To the man on the street though, it doesn't matter. It captures how a lot of people feel about the whole situation and tactics being used to try and swing the vote to the No side.

The author's main point is to go for independence to be independent. A fair enough point but that's not who the yes campaign is set up to reach i.e. the people who want to know the risks/rewards before deciding.

konabunny - Member
Institutions can also bear liabilities!

Not in la la land.

WNB, I simply bother to understand how a central banks balance sheet work and how the pros and cons of different currency regimes stack up. The FC and the HM Treasury do the same thing, that's why they are less prone to BS. The information is readily available for all rather than hiding behind an acceptance of false definitions, half truths and lies.

I have been consistent in my criticism of the BoD from the day it was published (when I read it) and the BOE, HM Treasury, the FC and even economists on different sides have agreed with the factual stuff on which I base my criticism*.The debate between the pros and cons will of course lead to different answers, but AS doesn't do that. He pretends that the cons don't exist and to point them out is bullying and bluster. On the contrary, it (telling the truth) is not patronising the population of Scotland by pretending that they will swallow untruths and deceit.

I do seem to be a bit isolated in suggesting that the proposed "don't ask, don't tell" approach to nuclear defence is deceit as well. But if not knowing that nukes are in Scottish waters is the same as them not being there, then so be it! La, la, la.........

THM, I was talking generally, not just about the currency situation. Your disdain for AS is clear and you're not the only one with problems with the white paper. Mixing party policy for post independence with their stated positions on independence negotiations was a mistake. As too was stating the position as facts rather than things to be negotiated.

I'd suggest that getting into the in depth nitty gritty of economics and fiscal policy when making press conferences isnt a sensible decision, so stuff is skirted around and presented in a fashion more easily understandable to most people, even if it misses the point in some areas.
Your criticism of AS being economical with the truth, or lying as you bluntly put it, is no different from any other politician generally or in a referendum build up. You only have to look at the way the voting reform referendum went to see that.

The referendum in about so much more than just AS, he's the face of it (for better or worse) and he probably should of done a better job on some fronts, but thats just the way it is. Politicians talking shite, whats new.

This thread now needs a sticky at the top of each page listing out the various Acronyms and Abbreviations so that late joiners can get up to speed.

thm has to be the one to write it. 🙂

Largely true WNB, I am just unforgiving of any politician that spouts BS. In his case, I feel that one is doing far more than the others 😉 and with harmful consequences.

Apparently VisitScotland chiefs are being hauled over hot coals by MSP's keen to know why ticket sales for 'Bannockburn Live', an event organised to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the battle are a bit sluggish. Worries of financial difficulties, a reduction from 3 days to 2, expensive tickets, and a clash with a free event to mark Armed Forces Day nearby.

More importantly, will the newS cottish equivalent of the Royal Mail allow shocks to be posted without destoying them?

Apparently VisitScotland chiefs are being hauled over hot coals by MSP's keen to know why ticket sales for 'Bannockburn Live', an event organised to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the battle are a bit sluggish.

Interesting, but what's the relevance to a discussion about independence?

Tourism income.

So one event isn't doing as well as predicted - so what?

About 8 Months ago, before the campaigns got going, I was on a course with work and one of the other attendees was a (Quite Gobby TBH) younger Scots fella... At the meal after, the topic drifted round to Scottish independence, He was wholeheartedly in favour (Even as a London Resident)...

Of course various people chipped in with different points about how the two theoretically separated countries would have to disentangle their respective institutions, economies, resources and relationship with the EU...

While He was fielding each of these, mostly reasonable, points with equally reasonable counter points it struck me that nobody in either camp (then or indeed now) has, or can really definitively addressed these technical points, and I suppose they won't until a final decision is made either way, and that perhaps that isn't really the point of the vote anyway, its about [I]National Identity[/I], not the details, but neither party is campaigning based on that basic question, they've both descended into smart-arse, hypothetical, technicalities and its all cobblers, they simply don't know how it might play out.

Have the vote, if scotland says "Yes" to independence then everyone can calmly sit down and start looking at the timetable and details of any separation... Trying to frame the debate based on unknown details and hypothetical future policies doesn't actually serve either campaign very well...

This thread now needs a sticky at the top of each page listing out the various Acronyms and Abbreviations so that late joiners can get up to speed.

Let me start:

BS = Alex Salmond's speech

its about National Identity, not the details, but neither party is campaigning based on that basic question, they've both descended into smart-arse, hypothetical, technicalities and its all cobblers, they simply don't know how it might play out.

Very well put.

I do wonder if the Yes strategy is the best one sometimes - like the Lamont vs Sturgeon debate last night, Sturgeon could have played it very well by just sitting back and letting Lamont rant angrily to herself.

This is the thing that I think winds people up about Alex Salmond - he often seems to be enjoying himself. Smug, perhaps, but that's better than whining and angry.

Anyhow, an interesting article about independence from a business point of view:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/answers-for-a-no-minded-businessperson/

Smug, perhaps, but that's better than whining and angry.

Salmond doesn't do whining and angry? 😕

Anyhow, an interesting article about independence from a business point of view:

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/answers-for-a-no-minded-businessperson/

From the point of view of someone who's just graduated from university with a politics degree.

Scotland already pays 9.9% of total UK taxation towards total civil service costs and all regulatory bodies.

The UK employs 448,835 civil servants as of March 2013.

74,240 civil servants are based in London and 45,470 civil servants are based in Scotland at the time of the figures. (Source)

Even on a simple calculation, Scotland’s financial contribution is paying for more civil servants per head in London than in Scotland.

Clearly I struggle with simple calculations, as London has a significantly higher population than Scotland, and the simple calculation I can see is that Scotland pays <10% of the civil service cost, yet gets >10% of the civil servants. That also doesn't appear to answer the question of whether Scotland will need more civil servants post independence.

For sure this is more nit-picking, but in an article which picks the nits it seems you should get the detail right.

Re Service is part of that reason not that they moved out the CS to the provinces - DVLA in swansea, Tax in Newcastle - not sure what Scotland has - in an effort to help poorer areas? Not saying that is true and explains it but it may well be a factor worthy of consideration

This is yet another article that wrongly thinks institutions are assets.

If they are not then rUK would give them all away that will never happen as they wish to keep and not share the valueless things.

Why would they argue about valueless stuff and not just go yeah have it?
Is it because it has value?

Amusing as this points probably makes the economists put their head in their hands and shake as it does the non economists with your view.

Can I have a definition you are using as it seems really narrow - I do not understand, and did not get a reply, as to why its reputation, trustworthiness or prestige is not an intangible asset.

It may be very difficult to put the reputation on a balance sheet but it still exists or companies would not care about it

Amusing as this points probably makes the economists put their head in their hands and shake as it does the non economists with your view.

😀

One benefit of independence would be the end of British summer time, there would simply not be enough justification to keep it in place. No more changing the clocks means lighter evenings. People would get out and exercise more in the winter so the UK would be a healthier place. It would mean that Scotland and the UK would be starting and finishing work at different times so trade would be affected, although Scotland trades more with the UK so it would hit them harder. When Scotland ends up with a new currency this would affect trade with the UK even further. Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

Not changing the clocks is the clincher - goodbye Scotland! 😆

Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

I could say exactly the same about the UK and Europe.

Not changing the clocks is the clincher - goodbye Scotland!

It means every time you phone someone in Scotland, they'll be able to say "och, what time do you call this? We've been up for hours!"

(Or maybe the other way around, can't be bothered working it out)

Lots of reasons . For me it is partly a matter of national identity, also because we would like to be governed by a government we elected. However I also think it is important that independence is not just an end but a means with which to build a fairer more socially just society and to manage theScottish economy more appropriately.It is up to us after we vote yes to make sure that we continue to bring real power closer to the ordinary people.
I believe that Westminster is much too strongly enmeshed with a political and economic clique who's policies have served the majority of people all over the UK very poorly for many years.

Why do the Scots want to distance themselves from their largest trading partner?

We don't, why do you think AS has been arguing for a currency union when it will mean a loss of power to any new Scottish government? We want to be independent of Westminster, but no isolationist. What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

Whatnobeer said it better than me. It is alo important to say that a yes vote is not necessarily a vote for the SNP as there are other groups in the yes campaign.

Oh, no no no - we're not allowed to reap any benefits of the rUK, didn't you get the memo?

What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.

still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

Oh, no no no - we're not allowed to reap any benefits of the rUK, didn't you get the memo?

You guys still don't seem to get this [u]independence[/u] idea, do you?

[i]What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc[/i]
A currency union is just not on the cards. We don't have one with the Republic of Ireland so why would we want one with an independent Scotland. Scotland's loss in trade could be to the benefit of the UK as people stop trading with Scotland and instead trade with companies in the UK. If Scotland chooses independence there will be no benefits of being part of the UK any more. Why favour one foreign country over another?

Youre implying we want something for nothing Grum but I think what we want is to make a fair deal which suits both iScotland and rUK.

Youre implying we want something for nothing Grum but I think what we want is to make a fair deal which suits both iScotland and rUK.

The trouble is, since devolution you've already pretty much got this:

a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc

And the way to get more control over taxes/spending while still keeping the benefits of the EU and UK would be Devo Max. You can't have independence while keeping everything that you like about the UK, and none of the bits you don't like.

grum - Member

You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.

It's our cake too. We just want to stop you eating our share...

Well I dont support devo max, nor do I support a currency union without a compromise on relevant policies. I would see a currency union or Scottish use of sterling as a short term policy until Scotland joins the euro, and then we would hopefully both be in the EU. Until then why not continue to trade with each other and to have strong social ties?

We just want to stop you eating our share...

You see this kind of bollocks really winds me up. 'I' am 'eating 'your' share'? Really? 🙄

Well I dont support devo max

Interested to know why not? Is it just an emotional thing about wanting to be separate?

Until then why not continue to trade with each other and to have strong social ties?

Not sure anyone is arguing against that though are they? Even the No campaign aren't really suggesting that.

We don't have one with the Republic of Ireland so why would we want one with an independent Scotland

Did have for about 50 years.

You see this kind of bollocks really winds me up. 'I' am 'eating 'your' share'? Really?

Refusing to share the pound, which we contributed to as well.

Refusing to share the pound

I am doing that am I?

Nobody is 'refusing to share the pound' just saying it has to be done on terms which won't be detrimental to the rUK.

Is there a Yes campaign version of the Daily Mail? Because some of you would make great writers for it if their was - grossly distorted emotive arguments aren't helpful to anyone.

if their was.

Please can you 'learn' some proper language.
Then your opinion might count for something.

You mean you want to have your cake and eat it.

MMMMMMM cakes could be the simple way to explain this to the masses...we could be on to something

Now does this cake have value or not?

Forget the eu;
Forget the £;
Forget Braveheart;
Forget the oil;
Forget the whiskey;
Forget nukes;
etc, etc.

I want the people of Scotland to be governed by the party they voted for.

If this means being shafted by holyrood instead of being shafted by westminster, then yes yes yes.

whatnobeer - Member
What most people want is a situation where our vote matters, we have full control over taxes and spending and still able to reap the benefits of the EU, rUK etc.

Respectfully, I would suggest that if you put that to anyone they would say they would love that outcome - all upside, no downside.. Sadly, the two are incompatible as the last decade has shown. It's like marriage, to enjoy the benefits of the union you cede some of your independence. The relevant case study is live and (just about) kicking just across the Channel. Europe will be moving towards greater levels of interdependence in the future - it has to if it is the survive. Why is Scotland unique and able to counter the weight of history, politics and economics alone? (Clue: it can't)

It's very difficult for currency unions to work in the first place. History is littered with broken examples. If you attempt to create and run them without full fiscal and monetary union, then you are stacking the odds firmly against you.

It should be very clear why the rUK is likely/definitely against a currency union with another state that wishes to run independent policies. The risks are (1) unbalanced since only one party could bail out the other due to size differentials and (2) unmanageable since rUK would be taking on the risk without any control. Only a fool would propose that to their electorate. Even the Europeans finally get this. None of this is bullying, it's not even economics or politics, it's basic common sense. Fortunately, our civil servants seem to have sufficient amounts.

If the tables were turned and rUK said we want a system where we take all the upside and none of the downside, you would reject that out of hand. And you would be correct to do so. It's a truly absurd notion.

It's a matter of national identity for me. Though the huge difficulty of changing the political system within the UK is an added motivation. In the UK/rUK I would support a new voting system,a genuine left of centre political party, promote much wider participation in politics at all levels,particularly from poor or working class people bring in tighter regulation of utilities and banks,a ceiling of some kind on bonuses and scrap the house of lords.
Then after lunch.... 🙂

[i]Did have for about 50 years[/i]
No we didn't the Irish pound was pegged to the UK pound. This is not a currency union, we were not lender of last resort.

The pound belonged to England before the union with Scotland, hence why we get to keep it. Scotland contributed taxes and they were spent, there is no piggy bank in the Bank of England full of Scottish money, Scotland did not buy shares in the Bank of England.

The Irish situation is interesting. (Yet again,) I would recommend McCrones book for a well presented summary of that bit of history.

If this means being shafted by holyrood instead of being shafted by westminster, then yes yes yes.

More to the point, when they do shaft you. We can vote them out, and they'll actually go out.

It's a matter of national identity for me. Though the huge difficulty of changing the political system within the UK is an added motivation. In the UK/rUK I would support a new voting system,a genuine left of centre political party, promote much wider participation in politics at all levels,particularly from poor or working class people bring in tighter regulation of utilities and banks,a ceiling of some kind on bonuses and scrap the house of lords.

Thank you for one of the most sensible and honest arguments I've seen on the issue.

I'm not sure how well you'll get on with achieving some of it if you do go independent but I hope you succeed.

Please can you 'learn' some proper language.
Then your opinion might count for something.

Is that the best you can come up with? 🙄

Nationalisation

is the process of taking a private industry or private assets into public ownership by a national government or state.[1

I suspect I ll be a long time dead before that list is done either way Grum 😆
But its a chance to make a good start.

[i]The Bank of England was nationalised by the UK government in 1946[/i]

It has been around for 319 years. Longer than the union and it has been an English bank a lot longer than it has been nationalised. The pound is still English no matter how you look at it. No to a currency union and you buy your bank notes off the UK if you decide to use it without a currency union. You don't take your share of debt we stop sending bank notes north of the border.

On national identity, I know everyone feels differently, however my wife has lived in Scotland for 10+ years and still feels like a guest, a welcome guest, but a guest none the less. She feels a sense of guilt that she should be voting on Scotlands future when many other 'Scots' are not eligible. My own feelings of national identity have become watered down, and if I don't hear Flower of Scotland' again I would not miss it, however, it feels like a pride in many aspects of Scotland is being highjacked for a cause of independence.

I just feel that the day I have to apply for dual nationality for my children at the behest of those that don't like the Tories much, will be a sad day indeed.

On a side note Athgray, you mentioned Bannockburn 700 earlier.
As a (former) medieval reenactor i have been hearing stuff about this event.
Basically the event organizers aren't willing to pay the going rates for groups to do a 3-day event & many/some (depending on who you speak to) groups from down South are extremely wary of going as they fear a marked rise in Nationalistic silliness. I've remarked before about how there is a definite undercurrent of anti-English hostility in the public & combining the anniversary with the indy referendum seems like it will increase it.
Its a long way to travel to be paid less than the going rate & to run the risk of potential abuse/threats etc. (this has happened before) so i can see how they are having to shorten the event.

I just feel that the day I have to apply for dual nationality for my children at the behest of those that don't like the Tories much, will be a sad day indeed.

I wouldn't worry, most likely outcome is a No vote.

teamhurtmore - Member
[b]There are very clear legal rules [/b]and definitions regarding assets and liabilities (and yes most people mix them up) and in the end that is what matters.
POSTED 10 HOURS AGO #

And right in cue, the Scotsman reports now that

CLAIMS by the SNP Scottish Government that an independent Scotland would be entitled to keep the pound and Bank of England are “fundamentally flawed” on legal grounds, Advocate general Lord Wallace will say in a lecture tomorrow.

The Lib Dem peer will tell an audience at 80 Club in London that Chancellor George Osborne’s statement that there will be no sterling zone with an independent was based on legal advice as well as economic interests for the rest of the UK in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum....Lord Wallace, the United Kingdom Government’s Law Officer for Scotland, will explain that international law is clear that if Scotland decides to leave the UK then we would also leave behind UK institutions like the Bank of England....

.....[b]“When UK ministers say that the Bank of England would not belong, in part, to an independent Scotland, that is an expression of the legal position, not a calculated asset-grab.”[/b] He will claim that the arguments made by SNP ministers is fundamentally flawed in two ways. [b]He will say: “In their White Paper, Scottish Ministers claim that ‘the pound is Scotland’s currency just as much as it is the rest of the UK’s’ and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in the Scottish Government, John Swinney MSP, has argued that the Bank of England is ‘as much our bank as it is anybody else’s’. [b]With respect, they are wrong on both counts.”[/b]

He will explain that the legal analysis set out in the UK Government’s first Scotland Analysis Paper makes it clear that in the event of Scottish independence, the institutions which currently serve the United Kingdom will serve the continuing United Kingdom. He will say: “For obvious reasons, the Scottish Government doesn’t assert that it should continue to have a share of the UK Parliament. By a similar token, the UK central bank, the Bank of England would continue to serve the continuing UK as its central bank, but would not do so for the newly independent Scotland.

[b]“The flaw in the Scottish Government’s position is to equate currency with assets[/b]

So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth. And then we await Standard Life's comments in the morning. Retailers, financial services all singing from the same hymn sheet. I wonder why?

Did anybody see the poll in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on Monday? Conducted post George's currency comments.
From the paper -

A Press and Journal-commissioned poll has revealed support for Scottish independence has dipped across the north and north-east over the last year.
The survey conducted after last week’s intervention from Chancellor George Osborne on currency found that 65% of respondents intend to vote “no” in September’s referendum.
Just 17% of 500 people questioned said they will be voting “yes”, while 18% said they were still undecided.

Something else not moving yS's way. Salmond is my mother's MP. Plenty of tales locally of him behaving like a spoilt child

Scotland's loss in trade could be to the benefit of the UK as people stop trading with Scotland and instead trade with companies in the UK.

So Standard Life might quit Scotland in the event of independence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/uk-should-not-vote-on-currency-union-salmond-1-3321888

****

So a referendum on Scotlands future is a birthright for Scots but a referendum on the future direction of the UK is not necessary according to Mr Salmond?
Hypocrisy much?

the Scotsman article is revealing

Mr Salmond, speaking at a press lunch with Scottish media, said the proposal is in the best interests of everyone.

“Our position is share and share alike,” he said.

“We think it’s right and proper that we have a sterling union that is in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.”

The alternative is for Scotland to refuse a fair share of UK debt, he said.

and in the comments

Salmond must be a sleeper, it's the only logical explanation.

So Standard Life might quit Scotland in the event of independence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26362321
br />

Hmm - an uncorroborated report in the BBC, not exactly solid. Remember how RBS were definitely going to move to London after independence?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c266dd0-9f83-11e3-94f3-00144feab7de.html
on the FT too...

Standard life have no real option, they and most other listed companies will have to declare their plan B's, they are owned by shareholders, they have to ensure good governance.

As I see it they are not saying they are moving to London, they are basically saying that if there is too much uncertainty then they will have to move to London.

Can't read that - it's not really a surprise that companies make contingency plans. I used to work for IBM on General Accident's mainframes, they planned for everything.

Why are they announcing it, though?

This would be the same Standard Life that threatened to up sticks and leave if there was a "yes" vote in the 1997 devolution referendum?

The one that's still based in Edinburgh?

This would be the same Standard Life that threatened to up sticks and leave if there was a "yes" vote in the 1997 devolution referendum?

Apparently no.

[i]"Labour was celebrating the success of attempts to woo big business following reports that two of Scotland's largest insurance companies had given their tacit support to home rule.

Mr Robertson welcomed the news that Standard Life and Scottish Widows had said they were relaxed about the prospect of Labour's plans for a Scottish Assembly."[/i]

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/apr/24/past.electionspast1 ]Major plea for Scots to stand by Union[/url]

Which Standard Life are you thinking of ?

Standard Life already does business all over the world in multiple currencies. Whatever happens in Scotland their English book and trading in pounds would be unaffected. http://www.standardlife.com/about/locations.html

This is just them saying "don't increase tax or bugger about with regulation". It's not about independence.

So the lawyers now join the economists and the politicians in distinguishing between lies and the truth

* if they are not assets give them to Scotland then as they have no value.

** we can debate this, I suspect we will, as frankly none of us know the outcome including GO, the lawyers and AS

@ben, no idea, but they would have to announce it in some manner.

@stefmcdef, May happen, may not, they just have to state their plan B. Most of their business is not in Scotland, so what is in the best interests of the shareholders?

^ Thanks Ernie Lynch - my memory must have been of the Tories scaremongering on behalf of Standard Life.

Why are they announcing it, though?

They are sending a message to AS, basically "Either have a sensible economic plan or we'll sink you"

Talking BS with a nice smile, which AS is very good at, might be good enough for the general population, but businesses won't stand for it.

🙂 I only checked because I thought it was highly improbable that Standard Life, or any other major business for that matter, would have been bothered about Scotland having devolved power

Perhaps the wider point is that the same dire predictions of the sky falling down on us were made prior to devolution, and guess what? Business as usual, for the most part.

Full text of the Standard Life statement

On 18 September 2014 a referendum will be held to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. In recent months some of our customers have been in touch with us to ask what impact this would have on their savings and investments with Standard Life.

Our key priority is to continue serving the needs of our 4 million UK customers, wherever they reside and regardless of any constitutional change. The same applies to our customers in other parts of the world.

As a business we have a long-standing policy of strict political neutrality and at no time will we advise people on how they should vote, but we have a duty and a responsibility to understand the implications of independence for our customers and other stakeholders and to take whatever action may be necessary to protect their interests.

In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. 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 purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK.

Customers can find further details in our 2013 Annual Report and Accounts from our Chief Executive David Nish and Chairman Gerry Grimston

Hardly the major melt down, 'we will leave' type statement you'd of imagined from reading the BBC this morning. Seems to me it's something that all businesses should be doing. Assessing the risks/rewards that may occur and planning accordingly.

Standard Life pride themselves among other things on (1) their political neutrality and (2) their long term strategic thinking.* David Nish's responsibilities are to SL's shareholders, clients and employees. He is making a very valid point that major uncertainties remain over key factors that affect his business including currency how a monetary system would work and regulation. He also makes a more tactical and direct point about how AS proposes to tax savings and pensions.

Of course this common sense statement is greeted with the usual diatribe:

“Standard Life’s threats are more blackmail & bullying by privileged monied elites trying to undermine Scottish democracy & social justice,” tweeted writer Kevin Williamson.

More sensibly and coincidently, the Head of the PRA which regulates the industry (with the FCA) called into question the idea that the rUK would maintain responsibility for regulating financial institutions in an independent country.

Asked if the plans were a “pig that would fly”, Mr Bailey told members of the Scottish Affairs Committee: “It is a pig that I can’t observe flying in any other part of the world.”

Quite.

So if you run SL or Aberdeeen or Bailiie Gifford etc you face the prospect of an untested regulatory regime, uncertainty over currency systems and the prospect of new taxes on your core products, what would you do?

So RBS shifts, TSB has already changed its registration and legal status ahead of its IPO, and the asset management companies are saying the same things. Makes you wonder......

So CU is ruled out, only a fool would adopt the panama solution, so time for Messers Mirrlees and Stiglitz to earn their fees. Their paymaster is floundering and sinking in his own hubris and needs a lifebelt fast. Trouble is the FC has already nailed its flag to the mast. Ooops....

Cue more diversionary BS over the next few days.

[* long time clients of mine in my past career]