CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…101112…98

  1. Charterhall
    Member

    "I suspect arguments up thread that 'the City'/business interests will be so against 'currency uncertainty' for a large part of its market that there will be some rationality/compromise."

    Interesting question. For English companies is Scotland that big a part of their market ? I suspect that for most English companies it isn't. The only English companies with a really big exposure to Scottish uncertainty are those with big parts of their operations here, and for most that's easily solved by closing the Scottish operation and moving the jobs down south.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "easily solved by closing the Scottish operation and moving the jobs down south"

    Really?

    IF Yes, I don't imagine Edinburgh will become the new 'onshore offshore' (or offshore onshore??) and there would be some brassplate-engineering (and maybe some people with silly salaries - not you obviously... - will go south) but surely most jobs will stay?

    Unless of course you're suggesting that most people employed in banking here are relatively low skilled and easy to replace with people in London?

    Or mass relocation of jobs and employees with sufficient subsidies to jump into the SE property market??

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. Charterhall
    Member

    Financial services jobs aren't restricted to the SE. Lloyds already has big parts of their operations in Leeds and Manchester. Bristol also has a big insurance sector.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. crowriver
    Member

    @Insto, Actually there wasn't a currency union with the republic. Eire pegged the Free State pound to GBP - sterilisation they call it now. Quite different.

    A currency peg (otherwise known as a currency board) creates a fixed exchange rate with a 'lead' currency (in this case sterling); that is not the same as sterlingisation, which is just using sterling (without 'permission'/central bank). A number of EU states use currency pegs, eg. the Bulgarian lev is pegged to the euro (used to be pegged to the Deutschmark).

    The Free State pound only came in from 1928. I'm not sure whether a currency union existed in Ireland 'twixt 1921-28, but I'm sure the Irish had other things to worry about at the time. Irish independence declared 1916, gained 1921/22. There was a war of independence followed by a civil war raging until 1923; the Irish Free State was effectively an autonomous dominion of the British Empire until the 1930s, and little by little moved towards becoming a republic, finally declared 1n 1948.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Nelly
    Member

    I had to be in London yesterday - Canary Wharf to be precise.

    I have been a few times for work recently. It never ceases to amaze me the huge differences as soon as you step off the plane at City airport.

    Spend on infrastructure is astronomical, building work going on everywhere, cranes and scaffolding up pretty much everywhere along the DLR.

    The whiff of massive investment - both private and public - is unmistakable.

    We are like an economic pygmy up here - and Edinburgh is pretty wealthy compared to much of this country.

    I know England isn't just London, but it is where so many decisions are made. And many of them are made, consciously or unconsciously, with a 'London mindset'.

    For me, I would be more concerned now if we vote - No.

    For my money, that simply consigns us to backwater status forever.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Charterhall
    Member

    Yes the sights from the DLR are quite something aren't they ? It certainly is a different world down there. Great to visit occasionally but I certainly wouldn't want to live there.

    A better together vote allows us a share of all that success.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "but I certainly wouldn't want to live there"

    So 'Leeds, Manchester, Bristol' - or perhaps Norwich or Newcastle?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. wee folding bike
    Member

    Pin, "A better together vote allows us a share of all that success."

    Really, how has that worked in the past? Like the direct trains to France we were promised 25 years ago? How about the HS2 being sold on the benefit to the midlands but we don't even get mentioned? Olympic spending?

    Still waiting on your analysis of what happens to the value of Sterling without us.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "A better together vote allows us a share of all that success."

    It's good that you are sticking to your beliefs, but it would help if the No campaign would positively outline how in future Scotland (or even just Edinburgh) would get its "share" of infrastructure spending.

    Perhaps they could 'promise' to start HS2 in Edinburgh??

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. steveo
    Member

    For my money, that simply consigns us to backwater status forever.

    To be fair that money hasn't really ever left London (The City really) we'd be no more a back water than the rest of England. All this benefit we're meant to see from the Union doesn't really seem to flow north that well.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. PS
    Member

    All this benefit we're meant to see from the Union doesn't really seem to flow north that well.

    This is getting more attention now, largely pushed by the debates around independence and HS2 and, I suspect, with a bit of momentum from the BBC's move up to Salford. Northern English cities (Manchester in particular) seem to be regaining some of their former confidence and getting more clued up about how to work together to have a louder voice at a national level.

    I would expect something more of a rebalancing in the event of northern MPs having a bit more clout in the next parliament (say, if Labour or a Lib-Lab coalition gained power). However, they may have considerably less clout in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. Instography
    Member

    @crowriver
    Thanks for the economics and history lessons but the distinction you imply between a pegged currency and sterlingisation is non-existent. Using sterling without a currency union and pegging a differently spelled but otherwise identical currency has exactly the same outcome in terms who sets policy for the pegging / using nation.

    My point, which of course you understood, was in response to IWRATS's use of the often-repeated but mistaken assertion that the UK entered into a currency union with the Irish Republic and that this is evidence of the 'bluffing' about the likelihood of a currency union after independence. The fact is that until 1927 the republic just continued to use the pound Sterling as it had done before independence. Sterlingisation I suppose. The Bank of England and the UK treasury made all the decisions just as it had done. In 1928 the republic introduced the Free State pound pegged to Sterling. The Free State pound was identical to Sterling - £sd, same coin values. The names were different but that was simply a veneer. UK pounds were freely accepted and interchangeable in Ireland. The Bank of England and the UK treasury made all the decisions just as it had done and the Irish pound simply went along with it. The only policy lever / stabiliser available to the republic was fiscal policy. You could argue that this is actually better than a currency union where the likelihood is that you have no control over monetary policy and little control over fiscal policy.

    There was never a formal currency union, although it might be true that in practice the BoE would have stepped in to support Irish banks just as they stepped in in 2008 to provide support for Irish banks.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. steveo
    Member

    they may have considerably less clout in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum.

    I understand why Labour want to keep the Union, it works for them, they get ~40 (virtually) free seats every GE which really can't hurt even though its a fairly small percentage of their total seats.

    But whats in it for the Conservatives? If Scotland is this great money pit into which London must throw money, if all the banks would be better off in the SE, why do they care? Its not like it'll effect their political clout in the UK, there are after all more Pandas in Scotland.

    Sorry PS that wasn't addressed to you directly just picking up on a thought that occurred after reading your post.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. Instography
    Member

    The economic and employment consequences of financial services companies being headquartered outside Scotland are probably much less significant than the political consequences. It's certainly true that you could maybe leave the bulk of the jobs where they are and move the headquarters. That might still be a significant undertaking. Who knows?

    The important question is why these companies feel the need to make provision for moving assets to English registered companies. There's a long story behind it but essentially one of the consequences of the BCCI scandal was to ensure that banks were regulated in the country in which they did the bulk of their business. For the financial sector after independence there seem to be two possible outcomes. The first, and preferred option of the Scottish Government, is to enter into a currency union and to share a banking regulator with the rest of the UK. This combination, it is hoped, will satisfy the EU's regulatory requirements by presenting a unified banking and regulatory system (for the purposes of regulation - a single country) allowing an independent Scotland to join the EU on the basis that it has a central bank (the Bank of England) and that Scottish financial institutions are supported and regulated in the country (the UK) in which they do the bulk of their business. That's where the link to Scottish Financial Enterprise's assessment comes it, and it really is worth reading. (http://www.sfe.org.uk/SCOTTISH-INDEPENDENCE-AND-FINANCIAL-SERVICES-AN-INDUSTRY-OBSERVERS-PERSPECTIVE.aspx). It's not clear that that would actually be acceptable, it's an odd form of independence but politically it's much better than the alternative.

    If there is no currency union and Scotland sets up its own currency or uses Sterling then the banks still need to be headquartered and regulated in the country in which they do the bulk of their business, and for most that is not Scotland. So the headquarters need to move. This is the contingency planning Standard Life announced. In preparation for that they are establishing English companies into which assets associated with their English business would move so that they could be regulated as required by the EU and the institutions could continue to do business. It's not that they care a jot about independence. They'll happily work anywhere but for the most part they try to do that with at least the appearance of legality.

    There are undoubtedly assets associated with that business and to believably be headquartered it seems likely that at the very least some headquarters functions - jobs - would also need to move. That's going to look very bad indeed.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. PS
    Member

    @steveo I'll have a go at answering it anyway. :)

    I suspect there will be pretty much as many perspectives on why they should (or should not) care as there are Conservatives.

    Broadly though, there will be Conservatives who would be happy to see the back of Scotland for a range of reasons - a reduction in the number of safe Labour/SNP/Libdem seats, reduction in the number of perceived "subsidy junkies" to pay for; a reduction in Scottish members of the cabinet; it will be good fun to be part of a changing political scene at Westminster; an end to having to hear Scottish football results on the Today programme sports bulletin... These are the nasty, selfish ones that no-one likes. ;-)

    There'll be some who conform to the Yes campaign's image of not wanting to lose Scotland because that will mean the UK loses Scotland's resources (oil), nuclear sub base, and perhaps influence on the world stage (Security Council seat and all that). They may also see any post-independence uncertainty and disruption as a risk to the rUK economy, rather than an opportunity.

    But there'll also be some who recognise the benefits that Scotland being part of the UK brings to the rest of the UK - different perspectives; different opportunities; trade; a bigger, wider, more diverse UK economy. Non-SE Conservatives, non-neoliberal Conservatives are likely to be in this group. I suspect a lot of old skool Conservatives will also have an emotional attachment to the UK/Britain and all that they perceive that entails.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Instography - interesting stuff, thanks. Clearly there was less formality around the UK/Irish 'currency union' than I'd been given to understand. In any case, I don't actually want to see a currency union between iScotland and the rUK, but I do expect one to be negotiated and probably put in place in the event of a Yes vote.

    I place the 'refusal' to even countenance such an arrangement very much in the category of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction ready to be fired at Scotland Cyprus in forty five minutes'. That is to say a blatant untruth told in order to facilitate a desired outcome - they wanted to attack and take resources from Iraq in 2002 and they want the Scots to pipe down and hand over the loot now.

    Actually, once you conclude that there is a 'they' separate from 'us' the Union's broken. I guess you still think of the Westminster regime as 'us'?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. PS
    Member

    Actually, once you conclude that there is a 'they' separate from 'us' the Union's broken. I guess you still think of the Westminster regime as 'us'?

    So, there is no room for opposing views or interests in a democracy?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. Instography
    Member

    I can see how I come across as a unionist in this. I think I've been very careful not to express an opinion either way other than to say that I don't expect independence to amount to much in terms of the kind of progressive, socialistic utopia that many supporters of independence present it as. But I've also said, and I said it again at a company board meeting in London yesterday, that commercially (and probably also in terms of personal finances and my mini-empire in Edinburgh) independence would be a good outcome. I'm not sure if it will help or not to know that I studied economics and spent about 10 years of my late teens and twenties in the Socialist Workers Party. Opposition to both unionism and the sort of petit bourgeois nationalism represented by the SNP (even with its Janus-face of social democracy) are pretty hard-wired even though the Party wouldn't have me and I wouldn't have them.

    So, in spite of the risk of appearing to be supporting the union, I persistently argue against what I see as the false premises and opportunism that the case for independence has been built on - the currency union being chief amongst them. But I can also be roused by the inherent dangers of a unicameral legislature and the whole 'seamless transition' deceit.

    I honestly don't know how I'll vote. They'd have made it easier for me if it had been independence and damn the consequences. I think I might have been drawn to an analogy of toppling the union like it was that huge statue of Saddam. I could happily have voted for independence with The Redskins playing on my iPod just for old times' sake. It would have appealed to me like the old anarchist Class War sticker I used to have that went "The Royal Debate - hang them or shoot them?" But this independence with the pound, the queen, the honours system, Nato, the EU and a currency union is no independence at all. Even if it's all tactical, it's winning the "prize" by deceiving the voters not by convincing them. It's a managerial power grab.

    Anyway, you're going to have to explain to me what it is you think the rest of the UK has to gain by entering into a currency union that they're inevitably going to do it.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @PS - "So, there is no room for opposing views or interests in a democracy?"

    Sorry, no, I was speaking for myself. Maybe should have said 'one' rather than 'you'.

    I am, precisely, in favour of opposing views and debate.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @ Instography - thanks again. I think I actually agree with your analysis.

    The difference may be that I'm willing to take the risk of a managerial power-grab on the basis that I think Scotland may now have woken up enough to spot that happening and take the opportunity to steer the country towards actual independence. I don't expect instant miracles or particularly believe the SNP.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. wee folding bike
    Member

    PS, the safe Labour seats in Scotland don't make that much difference to Westminster.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-need-scotland/

    There are factors in England which might be more important. The number of votes per seat isn't evenly spread. As I remember it favours Labour.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. Radgeworks
    Member

    a good thread, proves democracy has its uses.

    For me the yes/no thing boils down to a handful of things.
    I no longer want Scotland to be the home of illegal nuclear weapons.
    I no longer want Scotland to be dragged into illegal foreign wars for corporate interests, that have killed, maimed and displaced millions of innocent souls.
    I no longer want Scotland to be ruled by a group of people that has at best tenuous connections to it.
    I no longer want to hear the lies, damned lies and untruths we are fed daily/hourly/weekly/monthly about why despite all the cuts, expenses fiddling, cash for questions, financial malfeasance, pedophilia, and the general running into the ground of the poor,disabled and working class people, we are somehow still going to be better together.
    The only thing better together are the cheeks of my @rse.
    I want to live in a more vibrant, wealthier, fairer independent Scotland as a citizen of Scotland, and absolutely NOT a crown subject, a title we all in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales inherit at birth. Whether we want it or not.
    It is clear from what we can glean out of the corporately controlled media, Westminster and Scotland are entirely different beasts, and this is something that cannot and will not be papered over, I have spoken to a huge amount of my fellow Scots, of all castes and creeds i might add, and i can happily say, the NO campaign has had little impact on redressing the balance in favour of Westminster rule, It all started with Thatcher, and it is going to end with Cameron, he knows it, they know it, and they are doing all the can to try to prevent it, but also, they know it isnt washing with your average scot. Ive seen enough and lived through enough to know what side my bread is buttered, and its no wi Westminster for sure.
    The obvious choice for us is a YES, because a NO means more of the same garbage we have been fed for a century or more. Time for a change, because its no as good as a rest, its better, better than better together at least.
    Yes all the way.

    I bid you all a pleasant weekend of riding.

    Peace

    The Radgeworks

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    "The only thing better together are the cheeks of my @rse"

    That has made my weekend. Vaya con Dios, amigo.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. PS
    Member

    PS, the safe Labour seats in Scotland don't make that much difference to Westminster.

    I think this is true and I reckon the electorate has (thankfully) enough floating voters to reset any imbalances to ensure that no one political party gets a clear run at thing for more than a couple of terms now, but my point was that some Conservatives will see this as a "pro" for Scottish Independence.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. neddie
    Member

    What is the legal definition of a 'headquarters'? Surely you only need to have an office in the country of your choice, with a staff of one, and a sign outside saying 'Headquarters' !?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    "What is the legal definition of a 'headquarters'?"

    Not quite the same -

    brassplate company

    Firm without any 'real' existence other than a brass nameplate (on a panel with other nameplates) at its registered (legal) address. Accounting and legal firms (especially in tax havens) rent their street addresses as the registered offices of brassplate firms.

    "

    http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brassplate-company.html

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. Instography
    Member

    Backtracking seems to come sooner than expected. That's a turn-up.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/leading-scottish-financiers-line-up-to-support-independence

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "

    AngusBMacNeilMP (@AngusMacNeilMP)
    28/03/2014 22:34
    UK Gov minister aint alone on £ & indy Scot. Plaid Cymru translated this from a Tory MP on 18th March @JonathanPlaid

    http://pic.twitter.com/nj6RdoFvpH

    "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. Instography
    Member

    But it's still interesting that no one says why. At least unnamed Lib Dem minister presents as a quid pro quo for Trident not an economic necessity which, on reflection, makes the offer of a currency union a bit of a bear trap. To present that kind of deal, and for the SNP / Yes campaign to welcome the offer, would split the Yes campaign in two. The radical wing would be apoplectic if they look like accepting it but if they refuse it, half the public (who don't much care about missiles on the Holy Loch but want to keep the pound) will wonder why the pound is suddenly not so important.

    I wonder if they're being played.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…101112…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin