CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
closed"Although the tax revenue will go to the HQ"
That depends.
The time is coming (perhaps) when governments - irrespective of whether Scotland becomes independent - 'do something' about multinationals.
Whether this is in the interest of 'the City of London' remains to be seen.
Probably a discussion for a different thread, but all the suggestions I've read to date about what governments could "do" would run a coach and horses through the concept of rule of law and would probably make all of us worse off.
@Nelly
"As has been stated many times, being HQ'd in London does not meant that jobs need to go there."
It seems like wishful thinking to me to think that any regulator and any central bank would agree to regulate and underwrite the activities of an organisation only nominally HQ'd in that country. It seems more likely to me that the acceptance of the risks and costs of regulating and underwriting a financial institution would be contingent on the core functions of that organisation being in the country itself. If nothing else there would be the practical problem of how a regulator in one country could possibly effectively regulate when all the activities were based in another country.
I also think it's simply not being realistic to think that having an office with a desk and one person labelled "CEO" would constitute compliance with EU directives. This notional HQ in one country with all the real jobs and functions elsewhere is little better than the BCCI situation that the EU directives are designed to avoid.
It seems like wishful thinking to me to think that any regulator and any central bank would agree to regulate and underwrite the activities of an organisation only nominally HQ'd in that country.
I thought that was what already happened and was why the US paid more for RBS than the UK did.
@insto - It happens every day, back office functions are carried out from many countries and it has no bearing - as long as the functions are still carried out according to the regs of the HQ country.
I know its not as simple as "a desk" but its also (a) very possible or (b) not without precedent.
My understanding is that the US paid to prevent the bail out of RBS in the same way that the UK stepped in to bail out Irish banks. The concern was not the technical or regulatory responsibility but the potential domino effect of those banks failing on domestic banks.
Of course, as with all these things, no one actually knows whether it would be permitted by the EU or the Bank of England for Scottish banks to be regulated and underwritten by the BoE, even in a currency union; to be headquartered in England but managed in Scotland outside of a currency union or whatever other combination might be proposed. I don't know, you don't know, Scottish Financial Enterprise doesn't know, Robert Peston doesn't know. It really is no good asserting that it is straightforward just because you wish it were so.
Nelly, what are your precedents? What happens in any other industry is largely irrelevant because they aren't governed by their own EU directives that require (a) banks to be headquartered and regulated in the country in which they do the bulk of their business and (b) for each country to have its own financial regulator.
It may well be very possible but for it to work you need:
1. the Bank of England to agree to underwrite a bank only notionally HQd in England but substantively operated from another country
2. the FCA to agree to regulate such a bank when it's main functions are in another country
3. the EU to agree to ignore its own directives just for Scotland.
They might all do that but I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why they would.
Nelly et al, you can argue all you like about whether you personally think it would make good business sense for Edinburgh's big FS employers to decamp to England but its what they think that counts and so far all the indications from them are that they will.
But Pintail, unless there's some tax or profit proposal that would make it disadvantageous to work in Scotland, there is no business case for them moving. No one has made those proposals. Actually, the SNP proposal is the opposite - to compete against England with lower business taxes.
The only indications are that a couple of institutions are making provision to register companies in England into which they would move assets if they had to. There's no indication of a wholesale departure or even any desire to move.
The financial services industry has a perfectly good infrastructure for conducting business anywhere in the world. There's no practical reason for them to move, other than the requirements imposed by the EU and the paradoxical situation that while they are currently headquartered and regulated in the country where they do the bulk of their business (the UK), as soon as Scotland becomes independent, that changes.
"banks to be headquartered and regulated in the country in which they do the bulk of their business"
Agree entirely, and see this as what will happen.
Confused about why this would be an issue - RBS could easily up sticks and put an HQ and many of its HQ functions in London, Manchester, wherever. As far as I am aware it (and the big insurers) have already got contingency plans in place for this.
That does not mean that the vast majority of the work could not continue to be done in Edinburgh.
Which is kind of your point to pintail?
I also think that the EU rules did not take account of a situation such as splitting up of a nation state, and I dont believe for a minute that the EU would think it sensible to push a newly independent state into an economic meltdown without having a wee think about the options relating to regulation first.
Eddie Izzard better together, Dylan Moran skeptical of a yes vote (he lives merchiston park?)
Looks like stand up comics and comedy writers taking a stance?
"Dylan Moran skeptical of a yes vote (he lives merchiston park?"
Didn't know that!
Have friend who is taxi driver, gave Dylan and wife a lift home, involving stopping at various shops for the right crisps, finally purchased in peckhams Brintsfield then round to the house. My pal said he would give their baby sitter lift back down town free. Wife grateful, goes in house for babysitter, tells Dylan to give good tip. Wife leaves, Dylan pays for whole fare in shrapnel, no tip but good story.
Previously used to see him in Stockbridge quite a bit pushing the buggy. Might have 1+ weans now.
Big fan of black books. Indeed saw him win comedy competition when he was 16. Did an interesting anti Home Counties series with Charlotte Coleman who died v tragically of asthma attack.
"Looks like stand up comics and comedy writers taking a stance?"
Not many though and perhaps not too effectively.
http://m.scotsman.com/what-s-on/theatre-comedy-dance/comedy-review-eddie-izzard-edinburgh-1-3366065
Some 'no' comedians seem to be scared of the so-called cybernats, which is a shame - shame that such bullying is going on. Certainly Susan Calman got Twitter abuse for making jokes about the referendum without (as far as I know) saying anything about how she might vote.
I thought the Calman abuse wasn't very certain. She never claimed to have seen it, her friend did, and it was never shown to anyone else.
I usually play a wee bingo game when she is on the News Quiz. Eventually she will make a joke about the Scottish diet.
Eddy Izzard has bigger fish to fry as a possible MP or London mayor.
Insto I agree that the FI's don't want to move, but to echo your later sentence, in the event of a Yes vote, that could all change, and not just because of EU regulations either.
"and not just because of EU regulations either"
Care to elaborate?
No, I don't see why it would change if it weren't for the EU directives. Why would it?
This is like listening to two people argue about spoke tension instead of going out cycling.
People. Step away from the meaningless details. Please.
The main threat to Scottish jobs from independence isn't about EU directives, it's about separating Scottish companies from their main markets in England, putting in place currency and regulatory barriers that don't exist if we remain part of the UK.
The main threat to Scottish jobs from independence isn't about EU directives, it's about scaremongering and lies from the monied interests of Westminster, spreading garbage about seperating Scottish companies from their main markets in England, suggesting they would be putting in place some non existent currency and regulatory barriers, in a global financial system, thats just backwards thinking altogether, and all done in the hope that the masses will swallow that load wholesale, But independence or not 59 countries already have won independence from Westminster rule from 1776 til 1983, Scotland would just be the latest to shake the yoke off, and we will. Dont buy the lies, dont swallow the p*sh from London town clowns....
SAOR ALBA GU BRATH.
The Radgeworks
I see you've been studying the debating skills of our First Minister. Indeed, let's not get too bothered about the details. Let's just say whatever takes our fancy, declare it to be true and hope for the best. And if someone questions it, let's deride their questions and observations, their reference to laws and facts. We can ignore those things as "meaningless details" or scaremongering. If needs be we can call them liars, agents of imperialism and the running dogs of capitalism or whatever other hackneyed insults you can think of. I'm those are the kinds of analytical skills and critical thinking guaranteed to make a success of any new democracy.
Insto, examples?
Quality of debate is lacking on this thread and indeed in the wider debate in the real world (see also helmet thread). People hold entrenched views, reasonable people on lots of other topics, but when things get heated we rip those of opposing views to shreds and say their arguments are pish. Any facts are of course thin on the ground ( predicting the future is tricky). Whereas opinion dressed as fact or conjecture or anti conjecture abounds. Would love it if insto and IWRATS started arguing with each other.
Still, at least I can recite from memory now the start of John Donne's Meditation XVII
no man is an island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less.
I know it then talks about any man's death diminishing JD as he is for all mankind and then a little memento mori that the bell might be tolling for me.
insto,
So you have no examples then?
"I see you've been studying the debating skills of our First Minister"
Well sorry to disappoint you on your entirely speculative commentary regarding what you have assumed about me,emulating a political style is something i have very little time for, but to help you out a bit - i wouldnt bother myself, thats a pure waste of time, but i am however completely entitled to my opinion just like everyone else seems to have yes.
And for what its worth, i have never ever voted for any party.
Enjoy the sun folks.
Radgeworks
I'm right, you're wrong. Refreshing.
Also getting quite Popular Front of Judea now. People both on the Yes side disagreeing? This is one of my concerns for our chippy wee country. Fife already a Kingdom of course. Next UDI for people's republic of Patna (unique town in darkest Ayrshire)
At the risk of extending the game of ping pong a classic example of the Yes campaigns lack of substance which Instography refers to appears to be the currency "Debate".
Those who would probably be in charge of the UK in the event of Scottish isolation state that a currency union is unlikely as it wouldn't benefit anyone but Scotland (which seems quite reasonable). Meanwhile SNP's reply is basically to state that they are bluffing without any real thought about alternatives.
There is a strong likelihood of some very disappointed people whichever way the referendum goes.
It looks like it's going to be close, which isn't a great result for calm and rational discussions afterwards. If you're a strong Yes and No wins by a few thousand votes, you may not be particularly impressed with anyone who voted No for whatever reason, or vice versa.
And people are able to project such a range of possible futures on what a Yes might mean that if Yes wins and the future socialist republic/progressive sustainable green state/tartan Hong Kong/Scandanavian society that they envisage doesn't happen, that's going to be somewhat disappointing.
Or it might just work out with the calm reasoned discussions in Holyrood that our politicians have become famous for. :)
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts