Share this content

Any Scottish members out there?

Any Scottish members out there?

Didn't find your answer?

We're ramping up our coverage of the Independence vote - as you may have seen on site. 

As such, we'd like to hear from you, our members, about what your views are on the vote and what you think the implications will be if it goes either way. 

In addition, we have an opportunity for two members to star in our upcoming Scottish Independence podcast. If you're interested in that, leave a comment below and we'll be in touch. 

Otherwise, simply post your thoughts below. 

Replies (574)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By mrme89
09th Sep 2014 17:24

I'll be glad when it's over.

 

I just hope the vote isn't close otherwise we are going to hear this debate every few years for the next century.

 

The yes vote has overtaken the no vote in the polls, but I don't think that will reflect the official voting. I think there are still too many fundamental questions that remain unanswered for anyone to vote yes with any confidence for a future with an independant Scotland.

 

 

Thanks (5)
Replying to MissAccounting:
Euan's picture
By Euan MacLennan
12th Sep 2014 11:06

I have a dream

mrme89 wrote:

I'll be glad when it's over.

I agree with the very first comment on this thread.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Brads.Kings:
avatar
By andy.partridge
12th Sep 2014 11:49

Don't hold your breath

Euan MacLennan wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

I'll be glad when it's over.

I agree with the very first comment on this thread.


Pandora's Box has been opened. Without an overwhelming majority for 'No' of near Falklands and Gibraltar proportions this will run . . and run . .  and run  . . . 
Thanks (2)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
12th Sep 2014 12:20

I concur-the box is open

andy.partridge wrote:

Euan MacLennan wrote:

mrme89 wrote:

I'll be glad when it's over.

I agree with the very first comment on this thread.


Pandora's Box has been opened. Without an overwhelming majority for 'No' of near Falklands and Gibraltar proportions this will run . . and run . .  and run  . . . 

 

Andy

You are spot on, the discussions will rumble on even in the event of a No vote. The tax powers now being offered will need to be considered by the whole of the UK, although  I expect they will be granted, and the independence impetus is hardly going to disappear up here with say a 53/47 vote split. Everyone up here is praying that post result, whichever way it falls, no civil unrest arises, and in this regard I think the common sense of the people in Scotland will prevail over those with extreme views who might have caused trouble.

The Libs (Charles Kennedy last night on This Week) are again pushing their federalist approach for the UK, marking territory already for the post 18th  landscape,  and the influence of UKIP next year and continuing EU membership, or type of membership, will all get poured into the mix.

My own view is that the Devo Max option is the way to go, I suspect > 60% of voters up here would have embraced it if our elected masters in Westminster had agreed to have it as an option; it would still have required UK assent, but getting that would probably have been a bit easier two years ago before all the recent events. The current offer strikes me as a tad unconstitutional, it feels like the Westminster parties are saying, without consulting the rest of the UK, "we jointly control Westminster so we promise to deliver." Nothing like taking your supporters for granted, you would have thought having seen what has happened to the Labour vote in Scotland they might have understood the approach might not be well received. Hubris anyone?

 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By andy.partridge
09th Sep 2014 18:04

Embarrassed

I'm embarrassed that it seems to be close.

Even if 'Better Together' wins by a whisker there will be mutual suspicion between the two countries that I think is irreconcilable. Whatever the result, it will either be the end of the Union or the beginning of the end of the Union.

Oops, sorry I'm south of the border so my views are irrelevant apparently.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By merlyn
09th Sep 2014 18:20

Vote no!

Going to the states next week and due to the Yes vote gaining popularity the pound has been devalued slightly.

Didn't really have an opinion before but now it seems my Levi's will be £1 more per pair so come on Scotland think of me and vote no!

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
09th Sep 2014 19:01

Fed up of the mud-slinging

(From both sides, but especially from SNP)

Thay have accused Better Together of panic measures following the narrowing of the polls (yet in the same hypocritical breath complain that those same measures were known months ago).

Seriously, what reaction to the polls did they expect from BT - to sit back, smile and accept it? Truth is that the SNP's own tank has run dry so they've had to resport to the only option of rubbishing the other side, and again have the hypocrisy to accuse BT of negativity. The Yes campaign's reaction to BT's latest move indicates to me that they are in fact the ones panicking - I expect to be more evident following today's comments from BoE Governor regarding the £ and sovereignty.

And for those following the opinion polls, I suggest that they also check the latest odds offered by the bookmakers - when was the last time you saw a poor bookie? (If you're a No voter don't bother looking - the best that I can find for a 'No' is 5/2 - on)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By duncanedwards
09th Sep 2014 20:27

Good news

for some as there will be change whether Yes or No prevail.

For most, I can see it being another layer of bureaucracy and new legislation to contend with.

Will it benefit or disadvantage business generally (both sides of the border)?  Probably the latter.

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
10th Sep 2014 08:11

I am interested
Hi Rachel

As you know I covered the tv debate in a discussion time out . I would be interested in taking part of your coverage . I covered the closeness before the polls came out this week that it was too close to call.

I started as a definite No but now I am undecided but leaning towards a yes but that could change. I am not a member of SNP and I am not a nationalist. I don't like the language of Unionist or Nationalist we are individuals promoting on both sides a change for Scotland. I do not like either side slagging off individuals . as Alasdair Darling said last night on scotland tonight it is not about any individual.

What upsets me whether I agree with him or not I believe AD has argued passionately for his case and I have a lot of respect for him. I don't have respect for the no campaign that seemed to have push him to the side . If Scotland goes it will because the likes of Ed and Cameron had no backbone .

Thanks (1)
avatar
By David Treitel
09th Sep 2014 21:03

As a resident in England, I have already moved all of my pension funds to Scotland so that I'll only have to pay tax on 90% of my future pension income.

Thanks (1)
Logo
By marks
09th Sep 2014 22:00

Yes for me

Having lived in Scotland all my life (40 years this year) I feel it is time for a change so will be voting yes.

I thought it would be a 2-1 vote in favour for no as humans tend to by nature to like routine and not like change but seems to be too close to call at the moment.  Though think that come voting day the "no" vote will actually win.

I feel that no campaign has led a broadly negative campaign saying what is bad about yes as opposed to what is good about no.  I feel this is a cheap way to put your argument as it always easy to point out flaws in your opponent rather than talk up your own strengths.

Issues such as currency question personally I dont see as a big issue as whether it is the pound, the euro or the scottish thistle it will sort itself out in time as has always happened if you look at economic history.

 

Thanks (3)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Sep 2014 09:50

That's natural

marks wrote:

Having lived in Scotland all my life (40 years this year) I feel it is time for a change so will be voting yes.

I thought it would be a 2-1 vote in favour for no as humans tend to by nature to like routine and not like change but seems to be too close to call at the moment.  Though think that come voting day the "no" vote will actually win.

I feel that no campaign has led a broadly negative campaign saying what is bad about yes as opposed to what is good about no.  I feel this is a cheap way to put your argument as it always easy to point out flaws in your opponent rather than talk up your own strengths.

Issues such as currency question personally I dont see as a big issue as whether it is the pound, the euro or the scottish thistle it will sort itself out in time as has always happened if you look at economic history.

 

Isn't it always easier to make change sound exciting and invigorating than the status quo and doesn't that help explain the campaign styles?
Thanks (1)
By Ruddles
09th Sep 2014 22:41

Flaws and strengths

I accept, marks, that there may not be a huge amount of positives for the No campaign to concentrate on. At least, however, they have not misled the electorate. The problem with the SNP campaign is that they have consistently misled and avoided giving meaningful answers to the key questions. Indeed tonight when pressed for a reaction to Carney's statement about a currency union, Salmond could only reiterate the point that an independent think tank had concluded that a currency union would be best. That may well be the case - but an independent think tank does not decide on whether or not there will be a CU - if the BoE says no, if Westminster says no, there is nothing that Salmond can do to force the issue. Yet he persists with the notion that "all will be alright on the night". And if you want to see what a nasty piece of work he really is, just have a look at some of his responses on his Facebook page. No-one that treats any person - in oppostion or otherwise - with such public arrogant disdain is deserving of a place in office.

Back to the question of dealing with weaknesses in the other side, given that this is a vote FOR change of an utterly critical magnitude, it is only right and proper that those flaws in the argument FOR that change be exposed. Sadly, I fear that the efforts of the No campaign are largely falling on deaf ears because a significant majority of Yes voters have their ears, eyes and minds tightly closed and are voting with nothing but their hearts. This is an issue that fully deserves to be decided with the head - proud to be Scottish but delighted to be United.

Thanks (3)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By fiairlieb1
12th Sep 2014 12:21

"they have not misled the

"they have not misled the electorate"??? Really?

Claim - 'RBS will be relocating to England'

FACT - RBS have categorically said that no jobs or resources will move

There are many more which continue to be perpuated and promoted by a compliant BBC and other media

There is still hope, though, for the Yes campaign, with the fall out from the disastrous George Galloway performance on TV yesterday, the fall out from the blatant lie promoted by BBc's Nick Robinson and, of course, the impending visit from Nigel Farage and the march in Edinburgh by the Orange Order!!

If the 'No' campaign wish to talk facts, how about telling everyone what will replace the Barnett formula if a No vote is successful. How about telling us exactly what powers will be ceded to Scotland, and what the likelihood of those powers being allowed by English MPs (who are, quite rightly, looking after the interests of their own country and constituents)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wanderer:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
12th Sep 2014 12:45

Uncertainty can destroy

fiairlieb1 wrote:

"they have not misled the electorate"??? Really?

Claim - 'RBS will be relocating to England'

FACT - RBS have categorically said that no jobs or resources will move

There are many more which continue to be perpuated and promoted by a compliant BBC and other media

There is still hope, though, for the Yes campaign, with the fall out from the disastrous George Galloway performance on TV yesterday, the fall out from the blatant lie promoted by BBc's Nick Robinson and, of course, the impending visit from Nigel Farage and the march in Edinburgh by the Orange Order!!

If the 'No' campaign wish to talk facts, how about telling everyone what will replace the Barnett formula if a No vote is successful. How about telling us exactly what powers will be ceded to Scotland, and what the likelihood of those powers being allowed by English MPs (who are, quite rightly, looking after the interests of their own country and constituents)

fiairlieb1

Sorry, MP's may represent an constituency in England, but the country whose interests they look out for is the UK, not England. If you get your wish for independence then Yes, that will be the position, but despite the labels of "Scottish", "English" "Welsh" "Irish" they are all UK MPs.

But answer me this, have you as part of your job, had any face to face dealings with bankers vis a vis the business you work for recently. I did on Wednesday, the simple answer to our question  "What will be your policy to continue lending to us in Scotland if there is a Yes vote" was "No decision has yet been made, there have been discussions, but nothing agreed"

Do not label everything negative as project fear, the fact is that whilst things will eventually sort out if there is a Yes vote, the uncertainty during the transition is likely to lead to the relocation of many business entities South and possibly the starvation of lending both for business entities and domestic mortgage customers in Scotland whilst the uncertainty exists throughout what will possibly be lengthy negotiations.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Jekyll and Hyde
10th Sep 2014 08:35

if I were Scottish I would vote yes.
Quite frankly we need change on Britain and if Britain isn't prepared to change then why would Scotland want to be part of it.

Perhaps if we were to have had the much promised referendum on Europe the vote now may not have been so close.

Thanks (5)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
10th Sep 2014 09:36

2 years after a 'yes' vote
I'm English and (quite rightly) don't get a say, but I think 2 years after the vote, the Scots will be

1. Angry with Alex Salmond for all of the promises he couldn't keep and should never have made;

2. Bitter with the rest of the UK for the hard bargain they drove during the negotiation process. Although we are one kingdom now, English voters won't be feeling generous to the Scots if they walk away without taking their share of the public debt - which looks likely as under NO circumstances will there be a currency union;

3. Irritated with everyone when they realise how many UK public sector jobs and corporate jobs will be going south.

Thanks (8)
avatar
By awoodj
10th Sep 2014 09:44

The facts I have seen personally

Housing market for mid and upper market properties currently hardly moving until vote. I can only assume that if it's a Yes that won't be great for that segment as otherwise why wait to see what happens.

Speaking to Senior business people who are the higher end of taxpayers/earners, quite a few are already considering leaving in the event of a Yes vote.

Similarly a number of business people I speak to planning to move money out of Scottish Banks prior to vote, including some high profile supporters of Yes campaign is what I am told.

Lastly Scottish businesses are registering new companies in England with plans to move depending on the outcome.

These types of things have been dismissed as scaremongering but All this is REALLY happening up here, draw your own conclusions about the impact those things might have.

Personally I think if many of the top 2-3% of Scottish Taxpayers leave that has a huge impact on tax revenues going forward.

Thanks (3)
By Rachael White
10th Sep 2014 09:44

The only worry

For me would be that Scotland wouldn't be in the EU. That'll have a bigger impact than they expect. 

But apart from that, I'm on the yes side. 

Sarah - thanks for volunteering - I'll be in touch via PM soon.

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Sep 2014 09:55

Is that the official Sift view? ;)

Rachael_Power wrote:

For me would be that Scotland wouldn't be in the EU. That'll have a bigger impact than they expect. 

But apart from that, I'm on the yes side. 

Sarah - thanks for volunteering - I'll be in touch via PM soon.

What does that mean? Are you a 'no' because you recognise potentially catastrophic economic and political consequences, or are you a 'yes' despite that?
Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
10th Sep 2014 09:49

We may not be in the EU anyway
Hi Rachel
I would prefer the UK to be in the EU but I believe the UK will vote to leave if they had a referendum

Thanks (2)
By Rachael White
10th Sep 2014 10:16

Not the official Sift view!

All views expressed are my own.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of, why shouldn't a country be free to rule themselves? 

If they had a Home Rule policy that works and that they were happy with perhaps that would work too. I know they tried and failed to do this in 1913, when they tried something similar with Ireland.

It's very exciting though, and I'm looking forward to following it whichever way it goes. 

Thanks (3)
Replying to SXGuy:
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 10:23

Which country?

Rachael_Power wrote:

I'm looking at it from the point of view of, why shouldn't a country be free to rule themselves? 

Depends what you mean by "country".  My country, the UK, is and always has been free to rule itself.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By sosleepy
10th Sep 2014 10:54

Hmm

johngroganjga wrote:

Rachael_Power wrote:

I'm looking at it from the point of view of, why shouldn't a country be free to rule themselves? 

Depends what you mean by "country".  My country, the UK, is and always has been free to rule itself.

It's also had a habit over the centuries of taking other countries' freedom to rule. Now one of those countries has the chance to get their country back if they so choose. Whether they flourish or not, that's their responsibility and they should be entitled to it.

Thanks (3)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By gsgordon
15th Sep 2014 10:58

UK is actually a state

The UK is not a country, it is a Union of countries. In a similar vein, Great Britain is a collection of islands.

Scotland is ruled, despite devolution, by a London-based government.

It has been estimated that 78% of MP's are millionaires, whereas the population count is 0.7%.

The UK party systems promote people with no knowledge of real life and little work experience to positions of power.

The House of Lords is larger than the House of Commons.

The UK still believes it is a world power with a seat at various top tables. Who are they kidding?

I could go on and cite various statistics but just Google "inequality UK 2014" as an example of how the UK is not a great place to live.

I really don't understand why anyone would put up with any of those facts.

In February 2014 the Financial Times published statements confirming an independent Scotland's ability to function financially and that it would be better off than the rest of the UK. They said "Even pro-unionists accept that the country has all the ingredients to be a viable nation state" - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5b5ec2ca-8a67-11e3-ba54-00144feab7de.html#slide0.

David Cameron even said we would be OK. Now we are expected to believe discredited banks that are predicting a 1930's-style depression or a Weimar republic. And we are expected to listen to (for example) press distortion of what the Bank of England Governor said recently. Again, I could go on.

Scotland's budget has been reduced in recent years and further cuts, accepted by the major Westminster parties, will make it very difficult to maintain our public services including the NHS. Further NHS privatisation will ensue in England, Wales and NI unless the UK negotiates that the NHS is exempted from TTIP. Westminster appears to be unwilling to demand this exemption and it is well known that various members of both the Commons & Lords have financial interests in private health companies. Andy Burnham is warning about this, but Scottish Labour deny it. The BBC gives hardly any coverage of this, or of the NHS Jarrow march, in Scotland. Our NHS will only avoid privatisation if we become independent.

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

Thanks (2)
Replying to pauld:
By johngroganjga
15th Sep 2014 11:17

Joke?

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Thanks (1)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By J_G_W
15th Sep 2014 11:27

Why?

johngroganjga wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Why would it be a joke?

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
By johngroganjga
15th Sep 2014 11:47

Joke

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Why would it be a joke?

If you don't understand where that perception comes from there is no point trying to explain it.  The Yes campaign's raison d'etre is to be anti English.  The whole reason for its existence is to rid Scotland of English (and Welsh and NI) influence.

If you think cordial relations will survive a Yes vote you are in for a big surprise. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Merrygirl:
avatar
By J_G_W
15th Sep 2014 12:25

.

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Why would it be a joke?

If you don't understand where that perception comes from there is no point trying to explain it.  The Yes campaign's raison d'etre is to be anti English.  The whole reason for its existence is to rid Scotland of English (and Welsh and NI) influence.

If you think cordial relations will survive a Yes vote you are in for a big surprise. 

And you believe that? So from the polls, nearly 2 million people, in your view, are anti-english. In my view, your being a little bit delicate about this and seem to have taken this vote personally. They have a right, like every country in the world to be ruled and governed by politicians they elect in to their own Government in their own country. If you can't see that, then the problem isn't with millions of Scots, but with you.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Vile Nortin Naipaan:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Sep 2014 12:37

They are

J_G_W wrote:
They have a right, like every country in the world to be ruled and governed by politicians they elect in to their own Government in their own country. If you can't see that, then the problem isn't with millions of Scots, but with you.
They already have that right. They are ruled and governed by UK politicians that they have had a part in electing.

But you are ignoring john's real point. He is not saying that every one of those who have chosen to vote "Yes" hates the English. It is that the "Yes" campaign has largely focussed on anti-English rhetoric. Given that presumably the people Scottish people have voted for in the past will presumably form the basis of the separate government in a post "Yes" future, it is hardly a stretch to say that eliminating the English influence in Scottish affairs is at least a major factor.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Martin Pooley:
avatar
By gsgordon
15th Sep 2014 12:44

It's Anti-Westminster Rhetoric

stepurhan wrote:

J_G_W wrote:
They have a right, like every country in the world to be ruled and governed by politicians they elect in to their own Government in their own country. If you can't see that, then the problem isn't with millions of Scots, but with you.
They already have that right. They are ruled and governed by UK politicians that they have had a part in electing.

But you are ignoring john's real point. He is not saying that every one of those who have chosen to vote "Yes" hates the English. It is that the "Yes" campaign has largely focussed on anti-English rhetoric. Given that presumably the people Scottish people have voted for in the past will presumably form the basis of the separate government in a post "Yes" future, it is hardly a stretch to say that eliminating the English influence in Scottish affairs is at least a major factor.

We want to eliminate the influence of the Westminster club of greedy millionaires in both houses, including those that are from Scotland. You will hear a huge amount of anti-Westminster rhetoric and very little anti-English. I only wish that were true in the other direction.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
15th Sep 2014 14:45

Not following your logic

gsgordon wrote:
We want to eliminate the influence of the Westminster club of greedy millionaires in both houses, including those that are from Scotland.
Are the people currently MPs from Scotland going to be banned from power in an independent Scotland? Because otherwise it sounds like the same greedy millionaires could be in power after independence as before. The only change is it will exclusively be Scottish greedy millionaires, no English greedy millionaires any more.

So exactly how exactly are you saying independence would eliminate the general "greedy millionaire" problem that you say is the real issue?

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
15th Sep 2014 15:10

All greedy millionaires

stepurhan wrote:

gsgordon wrote:
We want to eliminate the influence of the Westminster club of greedy millionaires in both houses, including those that are from Scotland.
Are the people currently MPs from Scotland going to be banned from power in an independent Scotland? Because otherwise it sounds like the same greedy millionaires could be in power after independence as before. The only change is it will exclusively be Scottish greedy millionaires, no English greedy millionaires any more.

So exactly how exactly are you saying independence would eliminate the general "greedy millionaire" problem that you say is the real issue?

All greedy millionaires are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Then again maybe the New Order in Scotland will agree that their salaries be pegged to the Scottish national average, say 1.5 times as the benchmark, okay, 2 times given the responsibilities they are taking on our behalf.

Old school tie a thing of the past, just were you all part of the same radical clique when you were younger.

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By gsgordon
15th Sep 2014 16:57

Greedy MP's

stepurhan wrote:

gsgordon wrote:
We want to eliminate the influence of the Westminster club of greedy millionaires in both houses, including those that are from Scotland.
Are the people currently MPs from Scotland going to be banned from power in an independent Scotland? Because otherwise it sounds like the same greedy millionaires could be in power after independence as before. The only change is it will exclusively be Scottish greedy millionaires, no English greedy millionaires any more.

So exactly how exactly are you saying independence would eliminate the general "greedy millionaire" problem that you say is the real issue?

This was intended as a rebuff to suggestions we are being anti-English, not the only issue. I also asked whether you like being ruled by a corrupt government to see how you might react. The Scottish Parliament rules on expenses totally prevent the kind of corrupt expense claims in WM. I also note that WM expenses are higher now than when the scandal broke.

Greedy Scots MP's will have to take their chance in a democratic election, or live off their fees for speaking engagements like Alistair Darling (including receiving over £10,000 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven Limited, a leading buyout firm who in 2008 bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa for £1.44bn). There are many more links between former ministers and private health companies, which will not occur in Scotland.

I note that the House of Lords has recently been stuffed even more with unelected, mostly snoozing or non-attending, "defenders of democracy". Some are of Scottish descent and we would prefer them not to have any influence over Scotland or indeed England.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
15th Sep 2014 17:04

to YES supporters

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By andy.partridge
15th Sep 2014 17:13

Wager

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?


I might put a fiver on civil unrest. What odds will you give me?
Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
Red Leader
By Red Leader
15th Sep 2014 17:23

Bet

andy.partridge wrote:

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?


I might put a fiver on civil unrest. What odds will you give me?

So that we may consider your proposal, define civil unrest please, both quantity and quality.

Your AWeb bookie. Gamble responsibly.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
By mrme89
15th Sep 2014 17:25

.

Red Leader wrote:

andy.partridge wrote:

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?


I might put a fiver on civil unrest. What odds will you give me?

So that we may consider your proposal, define civil unrest please, both quantity and quality.

Your AWeb bookie. Gamble responsibly.

 

Mild rioting on a national scale?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
16th Sep 2014 08:42

Definition

Red Leader wrote:
So that we may consider your proposal, define civil unrest please, both quantity and quality.
The BBC reporting it as such in their main news bulletins.

On a completely unrelated topic, what reporter would be likely to report on such a thing and do they need an assistant in wording their reports?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Old Greying Accountant
15th Sep 2014 17:39

I think Salmond is on record ....

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?

... as saying it is a once in a generation, if not life time, decision, so if no he would not re-visit for at least 15 - 20 years.

Thanks (0)
Replying to graeme kempson:
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
15th Sep 2014 17:58

Yeah but ...

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?

... as saying it is a once in a generation, if not life time, decision, so if no he would not re-visit for at least 15 - 20 years.

I'm sure what will happen is that in 2 years time Salmond will claim something like "This Devo Max that Westminster promised doesn't give the Scottish people as much power as they expected ... so we want another independence referendum".  Salmond doesn't seem like the sort of person that will stay quiet for too long.

Whatever the outcome, I do hope there is no violence.  One way or another, though, there will be a lot of embittered Scots on 19th September.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By caleycasual
15th Sep 2014 20:30

Keep going

Red Leader wrote:

If the referendum result is No winning in the low 50%s, what is the next step for Yes?

It only has to be yes once.  It has to be no forever.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
16th Sep 2014 08:40

Still not making sense

gsgordon wrote:
This was intended as a rebuff to suggestions we are being anti-English, not the only issue.
It wasn't a very good rebuff, because, as I said already, it makes no sense in the context of this debate. If the Scottish MPs are as much as greedy millionaires as the English ones, then that is not an independence question. It only becomes an independence question if you say that the MPs you would be getting rid of (the English ones) are somehow worse. Which would bring us back to anti-English sentiment again. Perhaps you can point me to these Scottish parliament rules that guarantee no corrupt expense claims.

Greedy Scots MPs would have to take their chance in a democratic election post-independence. That is exactly what they have done pre-independence, so not an independence issue.

Thanks (2)
Replying to sparkler:
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 08:55

Independence issue

stepurhan wrote:

If the Scottish MPs are as much as greedy millionaires as the English ones, then that is not an independence question. It only becomes an independence question if you say that the MPs you would be getting rid of (the English ones) are somehow worse. Which would bring us back to anti-English sentiment again. Perhaps you can point me to these Scottish parliament rules that guarantee no corrupt expense claims.

Greedy Scots MPs would have to take their chance in a democratic election post-independence. That is exactly what they have done pre-independence, so not an independence issue.

Quite right. Lots of the issues the Yes campaign are banging the drum about are not independence issues at all.  They are UK wide issues that affect everyone in all the home nations in the same way.

e.g.

"Country is too London-centric".

"We have a government we didn't vote for".

Thanks (1)
Replying to Vile Nortin Naipaan:
avatar
By Old Greying Accountant
15th Sep 2014 12:54

You miss the point ...

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Why would it be a joke?

If you don't understand where that perception comes from there is no point trying to explain it.  The Yes campaign's raison d'etre is to be anti English.  The whole reason for its existence is to rid Scotland of English (and Welsh and NI) influence.

If you think cordial relations will survive a Yes vote you are in for a big surprise. 

And you believe that? So from the polls, nearly 2 million people, in your view, are anti-english. In my view, your being a little bit delicate about this and seem to have taken this vote personally. They have a right, like every country in the world to be ruled and governed by politicians they elect in to their own Government in their own country. If you can't see that, then the problem isn't with millions of Scots, but with you.

... which has already been made, most English want to make the marriage work, but if Scotland want a divorce then most English want to cut all ties. It doesn't matter what realtions Scotland want with rUK post a yes vote, it is irrelevant if rUK, as is likely, won't want relations with Scotland - cordial or otherwise.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Matrix:
avatar
By J_G_W
15th Sep 2014 13:44

Is that right.

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

The Yes Campaign is not anti-English. We intend to continue cordial relations with the other nations of Great Britain.

I trust this is a joke!

Why would it be a joke?

If you don't understand where that perception comes from there is no point trying to explain it.  The Yes campaign's raison d'etre is to be anti English.  The whole reason for its existence is to rid Scotland of English (and Welsh and NI) influence.

If you think cordial relations will survive a Yes vote you are in for a big surprise. 

And you believe that? So from the polls, nearly 2 million people, in your view, are anti-english. In my view, your being a little bit delicate about this and seem to have taken this vote personally. They have a right, like every country in the world to be ruled and governed by politicians they elect in to their own Government in their own country. If you can't see that, then the problem isn't with millions of Scots, but with you.

... which has already been made, most English want to make the marriage work, but if Scotland want a divorce then most English want to cut all ties. It doesn't matter what realtions Scotland want with rUK post a yes vote, it is irrelevant if rUK, as is likely, won't want relations with Scotland - cordial or otherwise.

 

And you, an accountant believe that?

My business is in England. If my business can get the best product/service/deal with a company north of the border, it will do that. Why, as a business, would I change that to a product/service/deal that I considered worse before the vote just purely based on sentiments.

If I'm honest, the rhetoric on here hasn't been thought through and, at best, comes across as people with a chip on their shoulder. How dare they decide to rule themselves.... lets make it as hard as possible for them. After all, we've been 'friends' for hundreds of years. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By johngroganjga
15th Sep 2014 13:59

Sentiment

J_G_W wrote:

My business is in England. If my business can get the best product/service/deal with a company north of the border, it will do that. Why, as a business, would I change that to a product/service/deal that I considered worse before the vote just purely based on sentiments.

It wouldn't be sentiment.  Currently the border is, in economic terms, transparent. If the border becomes a barrier between two foreign and competing economies then everything changes, as both sides inevitably turn their backs on each other to look after their separate interests..

Thanks (0)
Replying to rebeccajessop:
avatar
By J_G_W
15th Sep 2014 14:26

Of course its sentiments

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

My business is in England. If my business can get the best product/service/deal with a company north of the border, it will do that. Why, as a business, would I change that to a product/service/deal that I considered worse before the vote just purely based on sentiments.

It wouldn't be sentiment.  Currently the border is, in economic terms, transparent. If the border becomes a barrier between two foreign and competing economies then everything changes, as both sides inevitably turn their backs on each other to look after their separate interests..

Of course it's sentiments. There are comments on here about changing to Irish whiskey, is that based on separate interests or is that because of a chip firmly on ones shoulder.

Your argument for companies moving business to England is based on an invisible line that will now become visible. Nothing to do with price, nothing to do with level of service, nothing to do with the quality of the product/service. The actual aspects of a business transaction that matters.

Convince me. We employ over 40 people north of the border, we have services from companies based in Scotland. Why do you think, that people like me, will move those services because a nation decided to Govern themselves in Edinburgh, rather than be Governed in London. Or is it, like I suspect, just a guess with no actual solid reasoning.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Richard Grant:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
15th Sep 2014 14:50

Are you saying your business is cross border?

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

My business is in England. If my business can get the best product/service/deal with a company north of the border, it will do that. Why, as a business, would I change that to a product/service/deal that I considered worse before the vote just purely based on sentiments.

It wouldn't be sentiment.  Currently the border is, in economic terms, transparent. If the border becomes a barrier between two foreign and competing economies then everything changes, as both sides inevitably turn their backs on each other to look after their separate interests..

Of course it's sentiments. There are comments on here about changing to Irish whiskey, is that based on separate interests or is that because of a chip firmly on ones shoulder.

Your argument for companies moving business to England is based on an invisible line that will now become visible. Nothing to do with price, nothing to do with level of service, nothing to do with the quality of the product/service. The actual aspects of a business transaction that matters.

Convince me. We employ over 40 people north of the border, we have services from companies based in Scotland. Why do you think, that people like me, will move those services because a nation decided to Govern themselves in Edinburgh, rather than be Governed in London. Or is it, like I suspect, just a guess with no actual solid reasoning.

 

If you are saying your business is cross border then you are going to have to consider a few tax issues. No idea whether you intend to create a foreign subsidiary for the "overseas" part of your business or whether you will have one company trading on both sides and will need to deal with the foreign branch issues?

Irrespective you will need to consider a few areas:

1. Place of employment re employment contracts

2. Vat reporting depending on EU status

3. Corporation tax in two jurisdictions

4. Effect of whatever Double Tax Treaty rUK and iScotland negotiate and sign

5. Will you need two distinct employer liability insurance policies or will one covering both countries suffice. (Spoke to our insurance broker this morning and think one will do, but you will obviously need to ensure it covers minimum requirements in both countries)

6. Possible need for  professional input for HR purposes re two diverging setts of employment laws; the Yes shot from the hip 24 month redundancy period aimed at Standard Life springs to mind, however you can say with certainty that those laws that are currently identical will over time diverge.

 

There must be 100 other small areas, all no doubt are capable of being solved but many will have a business cost.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Richard Grant:
avatar
By awoodj
15th Sep 2014 15:16

Why leave

J_G_W wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

J_G_W wrote:

My business is in England. If my business can get the best product/service/deal with a company north of the border, it will do that. Why, as a business, would I change that to a product/service/deal that I considered worse before the vote just purely based on sentiments.

It wouldn't be sentiment.  Currently the border is, in economic terms, transparent. If the border becomes a barrier between two foreign and competing economies then everything changes, as both sides inevitably turn their backs on each other to look after their separate interests..

Of course it's sentiments. There are comments on here about changing to Irish whiskey, is that based on separate interests or is that because of a chip firmly on ones shoulder.

Your argument for companies moving business to England is based on an invisible line that will now become visible. Nothing to do with price, nothing to do with level of service, nothing to do with the quality of the product/service. The actual aspects of a business transaction that matters.

Convince me. We employ over 40 people north of the border, we have services from companies based in Scotland. Why do you think, that people like me, will move those services because a nation decided to Govern themselves in Edinburgh, rather than be Governed in London. Or is it, like I suspect, just a guess with no actual solid reasoning.

Differing policies towards business and differing tax regimes (both personal and company taxation) would just a small sample of why companies/people might move. Obviously I can't speak for you and some will stay no matter what but some will definitely go too. In terms of solid reasoning, I already know of a number companies and individuals actively considering it out of a small sample set, I doubt they are the only ones.

Thanks (0)

Pages

Share this content