general elections provide the same level of uncertainty, surely?
i imagine you had to plan for minimum wage when it was promised in 96.(there were the same scare stories about this btw)
Both sides of the border will be keen to give you certainty as soon as possible after the 19th.
The rhetoric ends, the realpolitik begins on Sept 19th.
i'm not a proponent of corporation tax cuts, but if there is one that outweighs any negatives that arise, surely business would not move away?
Why do you want to get out of westminster to be in control of your country, but stay in the EU where you lose control? I've not heard a reason for this on here or any other forum.
It's a pity the nats on here don't heed the comments made by someone years ago which went something like this........."O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."
From the same man if I recall correctly sums up the SNP "vision" rather nicely........
"The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!
Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!
general elections provide the same level of uncertainty, surely?
Of course not. The currency, overall cost of doing business and border control obstacles you may come up against do not change with a general election.
In fact, the last time a general election really changed anything was in 1979. And even then not particularly for business.
Dealing with borders, currency exchanges and most importantly, now knowing -at all- what those are going to be is the problem. And Salmond's steadfast refusal to even discuss what these things are simply makes, for my business, dealings with Scotland for 18 months or so past independence just too risky.
Things may be alright, they may not. That is the point. There are plenty of markets where they definitely will be alright. I just don't need to take the risk.
Of course not. The currency, overall cost of doing business and border control obstacles you may come up against do not change with a general election.
In fact, the last time a general election really changed anything was in 1979. And even then not particularly for business.
Dealing with borders, currency exchanges and most importantly, now knowing -at all- what those are going to be is the problem. And Salmond's steadfast refusal to even discuss what these things are simply makes, for my business, dealings with Scotland for 18 months or so past independence just too risky.
Things may be alright, they may not. That is the point. There are plenty of markets where they definitely will be alright. I just don't need to take the risk.
"elections don't change anything"
Couldn't have a more profound argument for YES
Vote YES for an electoral voice that is 10 times louder than it is just now, so that elections DO change things.
Why do you want to get out of westminster to be in control of your country, but stay in the EU where you lose control? I've not heard a reason for this on here or any other forum.
Don't worry. Scotland going Independent means they would be the masters of their own destiny and ultimately responsible for their own country for the foreseeable future.
It will take Scotland years to meet the criteria to join the EU, plenty of time for them to live their dream of governing themselves before they have to give in to reality.
Or are you going to become a dictatorship post independence and have no elections?
The problem with your independence isnt being independent, it is not being clear what independence is.
It isnt using the currency of the country you want to leave allowing them to dictate your interest rates and fiscal policy.
It also isnt getting the people the Yes campaign leaders have spent the last 12 months or so sticking the finger up at to take on the risk of your entire economy should it go tits up.
Why do you want to get out of westminster to be in control of your country, but stay in the EU where you lose control? I've not heard a reason for this on here or any other forum.
there's a lot wrong with the EU, but Westminster has even more wrong with it.
Theres a difference between having an international relationship with Europe and having a parent/child relationship with England
Why do you get a reduction in the share of a debt for not having a currency union?
Salmond said the other week on radio that the pound wasn't an asset.
The Bank of England is the one that holds the assets that back Sterling. Whilst Sterling might not be considered an asset the bank that issues and, to an extent, controls it certainly is. It also happens to have been nationalised and is thus an asset of the current UK. As such it has to be included in the negotiations should we vote for independence. The reason we'd get a reduction in debt repayment commitment is that, in simple terms, for every fraction of the assets we are refused we'll insist on an equivalent reduction in liabilities of not less than the absolute value of said asset or its proportion of the total asset pool whichever is the greater amount. That covers the eventuality that the value of UK assets are lower than the debt and that it might be higher.
And you did this a;ll by yourselves, not the 'bastard English'
Good luck kids - we fart in your general direction.
Let's not lump in the 50% plus of Scots who support the Union and have thought rationally about their decision.
Just as "the English" are not of one mind neither are the Scots and it's wrong to
damn them all just because of a few nutters on here - which I'm sure wasn't what you
intended.
The Bank of England is the one that holds the assets that back Sterling. Whilst Sterling might not be considered an asset the bank that issues and, to an extent, controls it certainly is. It also happens to have been nationalised and is thus an asset of the current UK. As such it has to be included in the negotiations should we vote for independence. The reason we'd get a reduction in debt repayment commitment is that, in simple terms, for every fraction of the assets we are refused we'll insist on an equivalent reduction in liabilities of not less than the absolute value of said asset or its proportion of the total asset pool whichever is the greater amount. That covers the eventuality that the value of UK assets are lower than the debt and that it might be higher.
Who said anything about about being refused a share of the assets...
For the assets that you are not going to receive part of you will be compensated with greater portions of alternative assets.
Which is everything that is wrong with Salmons campaign, and why business is coming out against it.
These are fundamental subjects that should be known by now.
Westminster are the only ones who had the power to get answers to those questions. They refused to ask EU and NATO and have put up an argument against cuurrency union that is not believable.
The Bank of England is the one that holds the assets that back Sterling. Whilst Sterling might not be considered an asset the bank that issues and, to an extent, controls it certainly is. It also happens to have been nationalised and is thus an asset of the current UK. As such it has to be included in the negotiations should we vote for independence. The reason we'd get a reduction in debt repayment commitment is that, in simple terms, for every fraction of the assets we are refused we'll insist on an equivalent reduction in liabilities of not less than the absolute value of said asset or its proportion of the total asset pool whichever is the greater amount. That covers the eventuality that the value of UK assets are lower than the debt and that it might be higher.
Are you part of the negotiating team? You seem to think you know what will and will not happen!
Westminster are the only ones who had the power to get answers to those questions. They refused to ask EU and NATO and have put up an argument against cuurrency union that is not believable.
Why the hell should the Westminster do Scotland's dirty work for them? Scotland will be the one choosing to leave the UK and therefore leave the EU and NATO.
It is Scotland's Politicians job, once they are in a position to, to negotiate entry into these organisations.
Westminster are the only ones who had the power to get answers to those questions. They refused to ask EU and NATO and have put up an argument against cuurrency union that is not believable.
Yeah dream on. Didn't your representatives that YOU voted in at westminster accountable? What have they had to say about this?
Yeah dream on. Didn't your representatives that YOU voted in at westminster accountable? What have they had to say about this?
Scottish Labour MPs are the ones with the most to lose from independence. Your the dreamer if you see them pushing for clarity on the EU and NATO which would boost support for independence.
Scotland does not have the power or the vehicle to ask these questions to NATO and EU,, Westminster does, yet refused.
I seriously hope the UK government ensure the absolute best deal for the 'rUK' and doesn't allow us to be shafted by Salmonds new state.
A claim on oilfields should be lodged too, and the nastiest divorce possible would be great.
Sick of some of the rhetoric coming from the yes camp. Fight fire with fire, and any No voters caught in the crossfire are more than welcome to rejoin the UK by moving over the border.
Comments
Especially for non-Scots who may struggle with the lingo.
A good analogy for the YES campaign I reckon especially given who wrote it.
Why do you want to get out of westminster to be in control of your country, but stay in the EU where you lose control?
Still, thou art blest, compar'd wi' me!
The present only toucheth thee:
But Och! I backward cast my e'e,
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!
Of course not. The currency, overall cost of doing business and border control obstacles you may come up against do not change with a general election.
In fact, the last time a general election really changed anything was in 1979. And even then not particularly for business.
Dealing with borders, currency exchanges and most importantly, now knowing -at all- what those are going to be is the problem. And Salmond's steadfast refusal to even discuss what these things are simply makes, for my business, dealings with Scotland for 18 months or so past independence just too risky.
Things may be alright, they may not. That is the point. There are plenty of markets where they definitely will be alright. I just don't need to take the risk.
Couldn't have a more profound argument for YES
Vote YES for an electoral voice that is 10 times louder than it is just now, so that elections DO change things.
It will take Scotland years to meet the criteria to join the EU, plenty of time for them to live their dream of governing themselves before they have to give in to reality.
Head office continues
No real people use words like 'campaigns' and all the flowery rhetoric.
Not really.
Or are you going to become a dictatorship post independence and have no elections?
The problem with your independence isnt being independent, it is not being clear what independence is.
It isnt using the currency of the country you want to leave allowing them to dictate your interest rates and fiscal policy.
It also isnt getting the people the Yes campaign leaders have spent the last 12 months or so sticking the finger up at to take on the risk of your entire economy should it go tits up.
They will change.
No currency
No EU membership
No NATO
And you did this a;ll by yourselves, not the 'bastard English'
Good luck kids - we fart in your general direction.
there's a lot wrong with the EU, but Westminster has even more wrong with it.
Theres a difference between having an international relationship with Europe and having a parent/child relationship with England
we'll see
Jim Sillars interview this morning, on BBC News 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WWtRmSJFLs
The Bank of England is the one that holds the assets that back Sterling. Whilst Sterling might not be considered an asset the bank that issues and, to an extent, controls it certainly is. It also happens to have been nationalised and is thus an asset of the current UK. As such it has to be included in the negotiations should we vote for independence. The reason we'd get a reduction in debt repayment commitment is that, in simple terms, for every fraction of the assets we are refused we'll insist on an equivalent reduction in liabilities of not less than the absolute value of said asset or its proportion of the total asset pool whichever is the greater amount. That covers the eventuality that the value of UK assets are lower than the debt and that it might be higher.
Which is everything that is wrong with Salmons campaign, and why business is coming out against it.
These are fundamental subjects that should be known by now.
It will be the same parent and child relationship, but this time Scotland will be dictated to from Berlin.
Let's not lump in the 50% plus of Scots who support the Union and have thought rationally about their decision.
Just as "the English" are not of one mind neither are the Scots and it's wrong to
damn them all just because of a few nutters on here - which I'm sure wasn't what you
intended.
It wont if your short-sighted and bury your head in the sand.
For the assets that you are not going to receive part of you will be compensated with greater portions of alternative assets.
Westminster are the only ones who had the power to get answers to those questions. They refused to ask EU and NATO and have put up an argument against cuurrency union that is not believable.
Are you part of the negotiating team? You seem to think you know what will and will not happen!
The EU is ran for the benefit of the German economy, much like the yes voters see the UK as being run for the benefit of the Westminster economy.
It is Scotland's Politicians job, once they are in a position to, to negotiate entry into these organisations.
Yeah dream on. Didn't your representatives that YOU voted in at westminster accountable? What have they had to say about this?
Scottish Labour MPs are the ones with the most to lose from independence. Your the dreamer if you see them pushing for clarity on the EU and NATO which would boost support for independence.
Scotland does not have the power or the vehicle to ask these questions to NATO and EU,, Westminster does, yet refused.
A claim on oilfields should be lodged too, and the nastiest divorce possible would be great.
Sick of some of the rhetoric coming from the yes camp. Fight fire with fire, and any No voters caught in the crossfire are more than welcome to rejoin the UK by moving over the border.