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.

Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By J_G_W
15th Sep 2014 17:14

Move. Possibly. But which way?

awoodj wrote:

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.

The White Paper suggest they will be reducing the corporation tax rates for businesses in Scotland by 3%. Now, if the opposite was true, I could understand the hysteria. However, I agree it is sound business practise to plan for the uncertainty of the political landscape.

In my opinion, and it is only that, I don't forsee a lot of businesses moving if the pound is the currency and especially if there is a currency deal with the lender of last resort being The Bank of England. In order for these company 'plans' the media refer to (i.e. such and such makes plans to move to England) to come to fruition there would have to be major flaws in the Scottish economy after independence has been concluded and negotiations finalised. They are only planning to appease Shareholders. Their share price depends on it, as we all know, the stock market is strongly influenced by market sentiments. They certainly aren't moving on the event of Independence as the media would have you believe. 'Right lads, lets put 'Operation get the hang out of here' into action'.

If the worst happened and Scotland became some kind of Banana Republic then by all means, we'd certainly start seeing some significant movements. But in a strong economy (which they have), with the uncertainties negotiated (which they plan to do and complete by 2016) and for a lower taxation system companies (which they have suggested would be their aim) they'd need to work very hard to convince their shareholders that the costs of moving their business, relocating employees, selling commercial property, buying commercial property etc was worth it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kol-R:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
15th Sep 2014 18:05

Headline Tax rates are Pabulum for the Masses

J_G_W wrote:

awoodj wrote:

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.

The White Paper suggest they will be reducing the corporation tax rates for businesses in Scotland by 3%. Now, if the opposite was true, I could understand the hysteria. However, I agree it is sound business practise to plan for the uncertainty of the political landscape.

In my opinion, and it is only that, I don't forsee a lot of businesses moving if the pound is the currency and especially if there is a currency deal with the lender of last resort being The Bank of England. In order for these company 'plans' the media refer to (i.e. such and such makes plans to move to England) to come to fruition there would have to be major flaws in the Scottish economy after independence has been concluded and negotiations finalised. They are only planning to appease Shareholders. Their share price depends on it, as we all know, the stock market is strongly influenced by market sentiments. They certainly aren't moving on the event of Independence as the media would have you believe. 'Right lads, lets put 'Operation get the hang out of here' into action'.

If the worst happened and Scotland became some kind of Banana Republic then by all means, we'd certainly start seeing some significant movements. But in a strong economy (which they have), with the uncertainties negotiated (which they plan to do and complete by 2016) and for a lower taxation system companies (which they have suggested would be their aim) they'd need to work very hard to convince their shareholders that the costs of moving their business, relocating employees, selling commercial property, buying commercial property etc was worth it.

So you are happy for the additional compliance costs I outlined earlier, and repeat below, the 3% (actually 2%, as Yes propose 18% rate and the UK rate will be 20% by 1 April 2015, 3% headline is cut from this current year 21%)

 

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 Vile Nortin Naipaan:
By johngroganjga
15th Sep 2014 13:29

Personally?

J_G_W wrote:

In my view, your being a little bit delicate about this and seem to have taken this vote personally.

Of course I take it personally.  How could I not take personally a threat that my country will be broken up for ever, and that many friends, and as it happens my alma mater, will be left on the other side of a national frontier.  Of course if I had a vote I would just cast it and abide by the will of the majority.  But as I have no vote, all that is left is emotion.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
15th Sep 2014 12:24

An anti-English slant?

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!

Throughout the latter stages of the campaign there has (from my English perspective) been an anti-English slant from the "Yes" side.

The image that evil English overlords, based 350 miles away, pillage Scotland of its natural resources, tax it heavily and bases its army of mass destruction in the Clyde, plays well with some parts of the Scottish electorate.

Even in the last Salmond vs Darling debates, Salmond questioned Darling that in the event of a "Yes" vote, whether he would be "join us in manning the barricades" [during the negotiation process with rUK], giving the image of a small embattled nation desperately fighting off its auld enemy, the English.

Seriously ... please could there be bit more sensible debate from the "Yes" side and actually answer some real questions, rather than resorting to nationalistic nonsense going back several hundred years. 

Thanks (2)
Replying to pauld:
By johngroganjga
15th Sep 2014 11:21

UK

gsgordon wrote:

The UK is not a country.

Yes it is.  It's mine.  Scotland is just as much part of my country as London is.  I live about equi-distant between the two.  There is no difference. 

Thanks (1)
Replying to pauld:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
15th Sep 2014 11:43

Concerns re Independence

gsgordon wrote:

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.

Re MP's , how many MSP's are millionaires or are they merely aspiring to the position with more funds to play with.

The Scottish electoral system has the joys of the list system, do your time in the party and forget about your ability, you can get yourself up near the top. So any thought of arguing anything against your own party probably wrecks your career, so much for harnessing all the talents. I could also add the ability to appoint politicians outwith their comfort zone /expertise although this is a fault of both systems.

House of Lords; so what, what is in a name. I don't care what it is called but I am somewhat uncomfortable living in a country with no second/revising chamber and I suspect it will only be a matter of time before in the event of a yes vote the Nationalists dispense with our monarch. So we  may have a republic with no second chamber. 

Having  this set up, overseen by Salmond and MacAskil and given their 79 Group past and its stated aims, is not very comforting. Having Jim Sillars, another ex 79 Group member, back in the mix (There will be a reckoning speech not that friendly) is even less reassuring. Having MacAskil  secretly arming our police without openness worries even further, having his attempts to dispense with the need for corroboration(  it is sitting pending ) does not add comfort and his past comments about the judiciary do suggest that maybe these are people Scotland should think carefully about. None of this is helped by by the BBC protests and the threats that the staff need changed.

The UK works because we have separation of powers, there are checks and balances within it between the legislature , the judiciary, the armed services and the forth estate. These balances are subtle but they work, the last real attempt to overthrow the government was in 1745.

 I do not believe that living in a country without these checks and balances is sensible and the past backgrounds of some of the characters does give pause for thought: do leopards really change their spots.

Thanks (0)
Replying to pauld:
avatar
By daveforbes
15th Sep 2014 16:31

Geography

gsgordon wrote:

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

Sorry to be pedantic, the "British Isles" are a collection of islands. "Great Britain" is the name of the big one (9th largest island in the world).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Annette Danbury:
avatar
By gsgordon
16th Sep 2014 14:12

The main point is that the UK is not a country

daveforbes wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

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

Sorry to be pedantic, the "British Isles" are a collection of islands. "Great Britain" is the name of the big one (9th largest island in the world).

Common usage is that Great Britain refers to the island together with a number of surrounding islands, which constitute the territory of England, Scotland and Wales.

But let's not be too pedantic. My main point was about the UK not being a country, rather it's a state (indeed a sovereign state) consisting of four countries. Would you like to question that?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
By johngroganjga
16th Sep 2014 14:35

UK

gsgordon wrote:

 My main point was about the UK not being a country, rather it's a state (indeed a sovereign state) consisting of four countries. Would you like to question that?

Yes I will question it.

I may be alone but I don't think so.

I may even be in a minority, but I don't think so.

The UK is a country.  It is my country.  All parts of it are equally parts of my country.  John o' Groats just as much as Lands End.  All part of Scotland are just as much parts of my country as all parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By daveforbes
16th Sep 2014 18:39

geography and history

gsgordon wrote:

daveforbes wrote:

gsgordon wrote:

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

Sorry to be pedantic, the "British Isles" are a collection of islands. "Great Britain" is the name of the big one (9th largest island in the world).

Common usage is that Great Britain refers to the island together with a number of surrounding islands, which constitute the territory of England, Scotland and Wales.

But let's not be too pedantic. My main point was about the UK not being a country, rather it's a state (indeed a sovereign state) consisting of four countries. Would you like to question that?

I suppose it all depends on your definition of "country" and "state".

However as Clan Forbes ad Clan Gordon are mortal enemies, I distrust everything you say.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Helen Crowley
10th Sep 2014 10:23

Either way it's stirred up a great deal of anti-English and anti-Scottish feelings on opposite sides of the border. You only need to have a look at some social media rants on both sides of the campaign on my own Facebook page! The campaign has also highlighted a complete inability of any of our poilticians to give us straight answers, no wonder so many are confused. The biggest issues for me are Defence and the Economy. However you will find that Defence is hardly ever mentioned or debated. I have also met Alex Salmond in the flesh, he's a nice bloke, a charmer even but I will still be voting No Thanks with my head and not falling for the "Braveheart" mentality that seems to permeat the SNP's rhetoric. Will be glad when it's all over but I expect there to be recount after recount next week! 

Thanks (5)
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Sep 2014 10:23

Thanks Rachael

Yes, the prospect of self-determination is exciting, the reality can be very different. You have raised the EU factor which I think is a valid one. But you have skipped my question. Does the appeal of self-determination override the economic and political risks that go with it?

You have already suggested you would vote 'yes' if it were not for the EU issue. It is an issue, so are you still a 'yes' or not? (Thank you for contributing to my poll!)

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
10th Sep 2014 10:26

Ireland

That is a very relevant reference, Rachael. Whatever the outcome of the vote, those in charge are going to be landed with a severely divided country. It is going to take considerable effort and time, if it can be done, to reconcile the two halves of the Scottish people. Some commentators are already suggesting that the wound may be all but fatal - but easier to heal should Scotland remain in the UK. Judging by some of the language used - again by both sides but predominantly the Yes side - that healing process is likely to be extremely long and difficult. There is real concern that some communities are going to face a Northern Ireland-like scenario - and we all know how that ended.

Thanks (1)
By Rachael White
10th Sep 2014 10:28

John - of course, I can completely understand that. My country is the Republic of Ireland so I feel similar. Perhaps some of the Scots feel that Scotland is their country rather than the UK - it's a matter of perspective really. 

I'm not sure if I'm honest andy. The EU issue is a big one - and besides my vote doesn't really count for much! :) 

In addition my opinion isn't as well informed as others. I would vote to trial a Home Rule solution first with a view to independence eventually if that didn't work out. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 10:30

Currency union ...

@marks - the question here is liability and who pay the bills if things go wrong

You may not percieve '.. see as a big issue  ..' however no-one in their right mind would underwrite their neighbour

Also as a side issue, a curreny union means that Scotland would be regulated by the BOE. So what is the point of independance especially when coupled with a wih to be part of the EU - contradictory!  

@andy.partridge - agreed - level of ignorance on this topic is quite outstanding

Also Shetlands, Orkney expressed a wish to have a referendum of their own (slightly foul up AS claims about oil) - after all they are closely aligned with Norway and anyway they have an impressive soverign wealth fund

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/islandgroups

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/07/04/isles-referenda-proposal-shot-...

Clearly 'whats good for the goose' .....

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Sep 2014 10:36

Agreed

JC wrote:

Also Shetlands, Orkney expressed a wish to have a referendum of their own (slightly foul up AS claims about oil) - after all they are closely aligned with Norway and anyway they have an impressive soverign wealth fund

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/islandgroups

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/07/04/isles-referenda-proposal-shot-...

Clearly 'whats good for the goose' .....

 

I have spoken to an islander about the very subject. He feels they have little in common with the mainland and that the oil is theirs, not Edinburgh's! Let's hope Mr Salmond is a consistent and honest politician and gives them every chance to break free from Scottish suppression.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By J_G_W
10th Sep 2014 13:12

Not quite

andy.partridge wrote:

JC wrote:

Also Shetlands, Orkney expressed a wish to have a referendum of their own (slightly foul up AS claims about oil) - after all they are closely aligned with Norway and anyway they have an impressive soverign wealth fund

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/islandgroups

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/07/04/isles-referenda-proposal-shot-...

Clearly 'whats good for the goose' .....

 

I have spoken to an islander about the very subject. He feels they have little in common with the mainland and that the oil is theirs, not Edinburgh's! Let's hope Mr Salmond is a consistent and honest politician and gives them every chance to break free from Scottish suppression.

Its a non-starter. If they were to become independent, an island within the international waters of another nation would be an enclave – this would give it rights to all the oil and mineral wealth within 12 miles of the shoreline and there is no oil within 12 miles of the Shetlands.

Thanks (0)
By Rachael White
10th Sep 2014 10:32

Ruddles

That's very true.

I really hope whatever the outcome it won't lead to violence. I hate that that's been a feature of former bids for independence and remains so in some areas (like NI) today. 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
avatar
By Mick Milne
10th Sep 2014 13:35

dangerous

Rachael_Power wrote:

That's very true.

I really hope whatever the outcome it won't lead to violence. I hate that that's been a feature of former bids for independence and remains so in some areas (like NI) today. 

 

Can only see that coming from the Yes camp if they lose

Even the concessions being offered by the main UK parties irritate me.  Why does Scotland need it's own tax freedom - can only mean higher taxes for Scots in a few years time to pay for an Edinburgh tram upgrade! All the extra work/admin/red tape for what?

Ive had 3 fantastics holidays in the last 2 years in various parts of England - I worked and stayed there for a year or so.  No need for separation on any point

Our Scottish based business - 300 employees - worried about the outcome.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 10:39

Puzzled

If your country is not affected by the change, either way, why should those of us whose countries are take any notice of what you say.  Nothing to do with you really is it?

Thanks (0)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
avatar
By DerekChaplin
10th Sep 2014 14:23

Puzzled

johngroganjga wrote:

If your country is not affected by the change, either way, why should those of us whose countries are take any notice of what you say.  Nothing to do with you really is it?

Surely sometimes an outsiders point of view is far more relevant than those caught up in the decision, as they come from a detatched viewpoint and usually can see both sides' point of view far clearer?

 

Thanks (5)
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 23:27

Emotion

DerekChaplin wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

If your country is not affected by the change, either way, why should those of us whose countries are take any notice of what you say.  Nothing to do with you really is it?

Surely sometimes an outsiders point of view is far more relevant than those caught up in the decision, as they come from a detatched viewpoint and usually can see both sides' point of view far clearer?

 

You can't separate this from emotion, which is only human. For many of us it's all emotion. And I'm English, living in England, and I don't have a vote.

Thanks (2)
Replying to fawltybasil2575:
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 15:23

Although ...

johngroganjga wrote:

If your country is not affected by the change, either way, why should those of us whose countries are take any notice of what you say.  Nothing to do with you really is it?

Rachel has RoI domicile, but I am assuming she's UK resident and therefore it will affect her, as much as it will my Irish director/shareholder of a Scottish Company in Aberdeen.

I did find this comment quite rude and arrogant.

If you take that view, should all the Poles, Croatians etc. be given a vote on the future of a country they may well not be living in 3 years hence, having fled the resultant deep recession that will be inevitable?

To me it is obscene that ex-pat Scots who may well retire back "home" one day have no vote, but transitory migrant workers do!

Thanks (4)
Replying to Rgab1947:
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 23:30

Emotional investment

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

johngroganjga wrote:

If your country is not affected by the change, either way, why should those of us whose countries are take any notice of what you say.  Nothing to do with you really is it?

Rachel has RoI domicile, but I am assuming she's UK resident and therefore it will affect her, as much as it will my Irish director/shareholder of a Scottish Company in Aberdeen.

I did find this comment quite rude and arrogant.

If you take that view, should all the Poles, Croatians etc. be given a vote on the future of a country they may well not be living in 3 years hence, having fled the resultant deep recession that will be inevitable?

To me it is obscene that ex-pat Scots who may well retire back "home" one day have no vote, but transitory migrant workers do!

I mean no disrespect to Rachael at all (in fact if you look she has in terms accepted my observation as fair). But in this debate she is an outsider because if this is not her country she cannot conceivably have the same emotional investment in it as I have. Just as I have no emotional investment in hers.

Thanks (0)
Me!
By nigelburge
10th Sep 2014 10:41

It is NOT, repeat NOT, about the SNP

or Alicsammin or Al-IqSamin or Braveheart.

It is about the settled wishes and will of the Scottish people. Please don't believe what you are reading in the mainstream press. Try reading this, wingsoverscotland.com and this www.newsnetscotland.com  and then make an informed comment.

The vote will be 65+% yes - a fact that Cameron and sidekicks have only just woken up to.

This will be my only post on this subject - I am too busy rolling around laughing at the antics of the Three Stooges to do anything else!

Thanks (2)
By Rachael White
10th Sep 2014 10:45

John - you're right, I agree with you. It's up to the Scots alone to decide their fate. 

Thanks (0)
By mrme89
10th Sep 2014 11:02

Lets not forget why there was a union in the first place; Scotland was on the verge of bankruptcy and England didn't want Scotland to do any deals with France.

 

It's still 2/5 at the bookies to be a no vote but several months ago it was 1/14! The yes vote has definately made ground, but with so many questions unanswered, I still think the no vote will prevail.

 

 

Thanks (2)
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 10:50

... and that of the UK

... and that of the UK

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
10th Sep 2014 11:05

@nigel

My informed comment, having looked at the two sites referenced, is that anyone looking for neutral commentary on the main issues would be well-advised to stay away from those two publications. They're - despite any claim they may make to the contrary - nothing but messengers of SNP propaganda.

Thanks (4)
Replying to John Charman:
avatar
By macaulay147
12th Sep 2014 14:30

Information

Ruddles wrote:

My informed comment, having looked at the two sites referenced, is that anyone looking for neutral commentary on the main issues would be well-advised to stay away from those two publications. They're - despite any claim they may make to the contrary - nothing but messengers of SNP propaganda.

 

Yes you would be much better off looking at BBC content!! You can always rely on them for and independent unbiased opinion.

Unfortunately both sides will provide biased information making an informed decision for your average man on the street very difficult.

Thanks (0)
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 10:59

Of course the people of Scotland must vote as they see fit.  That is their right.

Thanks (0)
Red Leader
By Red Leader
10th Sep 2014 11:42

Better Alone or Better Together?

That's what it comes down to.

The Yes campaign reminds me a bit of all those upbeat political campaigns promising a better future. They are are inevitably followed by difficult reality.

Remember the incredible optimism when Obama was elected, or Blair in 1997? EDIT: and remember the subsequent reality? 

I think No will win - my guess 50.9%. You heard it here first!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 11:24

My personal view ...

... is it is not just a Scotland issue, England and Scotland arfe so intrinsically entwined both in business and family ways that a yes vote will have very serious and very negative outcomes for all involved.

If Salmand starts squeezing the rich and big businesses they will go, make no mistake about that, and small business in the boders will be strangled as they will either have the expense of complying with two legal/tax systems or will have to give up a large portion of their customer base.

There have been some very good and wide ranging points on this thread, few of which have been covered in what I have seen by the yes and no camps which have been very narrow and shallow campaigns.

Forget William Wallace, Labour MP Jim Murphy is your true Braveheart, and if I have one message to the yes camp it is wake up and listen to Jim before it is too late.

To misquote, I would say divorce in haste, repent at leisure, as you surely will if you do vote yes.

Thanks (6)
Replying to thehaggis:
avatar
By andy.partridge
10th Sep 2014 11:27

Worse

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

a yes vote will have very serious and very negative outcomes


Not just a 'yes' vote, but a close vote will be equally damaging if not more so.
Thanks (1)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 11:37

Totally agree Andy ...

... all it will do is spread ill feeling and resentment and there will be a lot gloating in the gloaming.

In my view it should be 75% of the votes available (not of turnout) so that it is a clear an unequivocal result.

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Mick Milne
10th Sep 2014 13:37

spot on

Old Greying Accountant wrote:

... all it will do is spread ill feeling and resentment and there will be a lot gloating in the gloaming.

In my view it should be 75% of the votes available (not of turnout) so that it is a clear an unequivocal result.

 

Spot an, agree here - there should be an overwhelming majority in favour of change for something as fundamental as this - not 50.1% to push it through

Thanks (2)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 11:38

Which bit of not affected ...

are we talking about?

@johngroganjga - would it be?

- Anticipation that the stock-market will be impacted by the decision (all UK pension funds falling). 

- £Sterling currently on downward trajectory - $1.71 to $1.65

- The 3 stooges visiting Scotland to offer bribes with rUK taxes

- The possibilty of the BOE having to step in to cover them if it goes wrong

- Questions on accepting a share of UK national debt

If Scotland's decision was in complete isolation then there would be not problem - but the issue is that this has an impact on rUK which may end up with everyone else paying the price and not just Scotland

Don't forget that areas such as Health, Business Rates, right to vary income tax by 3% have already been devolved so AS already has the power BUT has not used it except for scare mongering about 'privatising health' - Eh!

Scotland currently has approx. 50% GDP from state spending and re-jigging (rolling back) this would be an immense task

At this point both a 'yes' and 'no' (and also 'maybe' - very close) are problamatic because of the manner in which both sides have performed, all come with their own issues and a great deal of damage has already been done

So realistically the impact affects the rest of the UK and to say that they are not involved because it is none of their business is incorrect

Thanks (2)
Replying to lionofludesch:
By johngroganjga
10th Sep 2014 23:11

Misunderstanding

JC wrote:

are we talking about?

@johngroganjga - would it be?

- Anticipation that the stock-market will be impacted by the decision (all UK pension funds falling). 

- £Sterling currently on downward trajectory - $1.71 to $1.65

- The 3 stooges visiting Scotland to offer bribes with rUK taxes

- The possibilty of the BOE having to step in to cover them if it goes wrong

- Questions on accepting a share of UK national debt

If Scotland's decision was in complete isolation then there would be not problem - but the issue is that this has an impact on rUK which may end up with everyone else paying the price and not just Scotland

Don't forget that areas such as Health, Business Rates, right to vary income tax by 3% have already been devolved so AS already has the power BUT has not used it except for scare mongering about 'privatising health' - Eh!

Scotland currently has approx. 50% GDP from state spending and re-jigging (rolling back) this would be an immense task

At this point both a 'yes' and 'no' (and also 'maybe' - very close) are problamatic because of the manner in which both sides have performed, all come with their own issues and a great deal of damage has already been done

So realistically the impact affects the rest of the UK and to say that they are not involved because it is none of their business is incorrect

My post was addressed to Rachael, who said her country eas the ROI. So that is the country that I said would not be affected.

I couldn't agree more that my country, the UK, will be severely affected by a Yes vote, which I fervently hope does not transpire.

Thanks (0)
Sarah Douglas - HouseTree Business Ltd
By sarah douglas
10th Sep 2014 13:58

Can we take the Anti English and Anti Scottish out of the debate

Hi

Can we take the Anti English and Anti Scottish out of the debate  please.  The media has worked hard to achieve this. 

As I have said before part of my family is English and I know English people in Scotland who are considering voting independence this does not make them Anti English because they are considering voting yes or undecided.  Neither does someone voting  for the Union make them anti Scottish.   If that was the case then my Scottish Husband would have to be Anti his own Mum, which is just stupid and vice a versa.  Both our families are divided down the middle but we are not anti each other either.

Neither side are perfect and they both have their extremists on both sides do not even represent 2% of the population.  If you are going to be in someone face than that is not on and yes you can expect a reaction.  A guy on the BBC made a statement that all businesses small as well have suffered abuse if they support no.   Not one of my clients whether no or yes have experience this and are quite happy to discuss what they are voting.   Anyway it is a private ballot so no one has to say how they vote.  That does not mean you are scared to say you vote, it simply means you want to keep your vote private.

In my industrial Estate it is 50: 50  and I have just had a lovely conversation in the sun.  We all agree that we all friends with difference opinions and we we all be friends on the 19th.  Yes there will be those disappointed but we will get over it. 

Now that would be a boring  story for the media would,nt it.   I have not met anyone shouting down others opinions if anything their is a lot of respect. 

 

 

 

Thanks (3)
avatar
By adam.arca
10th Sep 2014 13:44

Close vote

I can only echo the previous comments about the potentially damaging implications of a close vote. I would personally very much like the Scots to vote overwhelmingly 'No' but, if they don't, I would prefer the 'Yes' vote to be clear and unassailable.

A close vote is IMHO very likely to cause bitterness and recriminations between both sides (both the 'No' and the 'Yes' camps, and also rUK and Scotland), and a narrow 'No' victory will almost certainly lead to continual demands for a re-run a la EU referenda where they keep going until they get the result they want.

I have to suffer the amateurish, 4th rate, South Walian centric buffoons of the Welsh Assembly (so bad they make Westminster look cutting edge) and that purgatory was imposed on me by virtue of something like a 50.001 to 49.999 vote. Despite the closeness of that vote and despite many rumours of voting irregularities which swung the vote, the 'No' vote in Wales has never been offered a re-run. From a selfish point of view, I don't see why the Scottish 'Yes' camp should get a re-run if they lose but I fear they will!

Of course I am not comparing the Welsh decision back in 97 with the Scottish one now: unfortunately, most people in Wales are happy enough with the Assembly because, in reality, not a lot has changed but a) that most definitely wouldn't be the case for Scotland and b) again selfishly, this is likely to lead to a push for more devolved powers in Wales which I could really do without.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By taxation4
10th Sep 2014 14:28

Horse Trading Clients

I am a tax accountant, living in Scotland and specialising in Actors, the entertainment industry and other 'creatives'. Due to comments in other threads on accountingweb I have been approaching accountants, based in England, who also specialise in these areas. This is because, should Scotland become independent, we will (apparently) not be able to act for those who are resident in a separate country. I didn't want my clients worrying about what to do and I didn't want to lose over a quarter of my business overnight so I have been suggesting we horsetrade!

I have received some interesting offers.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By J_G_W
10th Sep 2014 14:49

.

taxation4 wrote:

I am a tax accountant, living in Scotland and specialising in Actors, the entertainment industry and other 'creatives'. Due to comments in other threads on accountingweb I have been approaching accountants, based in England, who also specialise in these areas. This is because, should Scotland become independent, we will (apparently) not be able to act for those who are resident in a separate country. I didn't want my clients worrying about what to do and I didn't want to lose over a quarter of my business overnight so I have been suggesting we horsetrade!

I have received some interesting offers.

I'd politely suggest this to be a bit of a wasted endeavour. 

If anything changes in Scotland, it won't be over night. Independence wouldn't happen until 2016. At this point we neither know the outcome of the vote, the scale of the changes, or if there will be any changes of any great significance.

My practise is on the borders, only just in England. We will be active on both sides of the border regardless of what happens with Scotland's vote.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By taxation4
10th Sep 2014 15:18

Horse Trading

Not wasted endeavour - responsible behaviour. Wouldn't happen overnight but clients like to know where they stand and I can show them I've been thinking of them and give them an informed option.

I am in the Scottish Borders.

Interesting times.

 

 

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
10th Sep 2014 15:20

I agree OGA

The whole process is full of anomalies. A Scots person, born in Scotland of two Scottish parents but living in England will presumably have to apply for a Scottish passport (or renounce his Scottish citizenship and apply for English citizenship). It is absurd that such an individual has no voice in the outcome of a vote with the potential to so radically alter the state of his country of citizenship. (Which by extension is why, logically, everyone in the UK ought have had a say - the SNP seem to be under the misunderstanding that independence would be a one-way process. That is far from the truth - but given the behaviour of one of them on Radio 5 at lunchtime, it is clear that they either have no concept of what truth is or if they do they don't want others to hear it.)

Thanks (2)
Replying to atleastisoundknowledgable...:
avatar
By NDH
10th Sep 2014 16:35

Ruddles, I believe they will get this automatically.

Ruddles wrote:

The whole process is full of anomalies. A Scots person, born in Scotland of two Scottish parents but living in England will presumably have to apply for a Scottish passport (or renounce his Scottish citizenship and apply for English citizenship). 

Ruddles, I believe they will get this automatically.

It's all a game of if's and but's and the moment which seems daft for something of this magnitude. It's only if the Yes vote wins will actual negotiations start and then people will learn their fate rather than the Yes campaign's assumptions that they will get everything they want which chances are they won't. Either way it's going to reflect badly on Britain in the short term and who knows the repercussions further down the line.

Thanks (0)
By Ruddles
10th Sep 2014 16:13

Demographics

Interesting analysis of the latest Panelbase poll - particularly across the social groups. I don't think it's giving anything away to state that it's obvious from which groups the majority of the Yes votes will come. They presumably believe that their position can't get any worse so they may as well vote for change. I fear that should Yes prevail they're in for rather a nasty shock.

Thanks (1)
By Ruddles
10th Sep 2014 16:42

NDH

If a Scottish passport is to be given automatically to such people then why have they been excluded from the vote (I think the answer to that is obvious isn't it, Mr Salmond?)

It might be a case of cutting off my nose to spite my face but if I were living in England, denied a vote in the referendum, and then "offered" a Scottish passport I think I'd be telling Shrek where to shove it.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
11th Sep 2014 18:21

Percentage Play

Ruddles wrote:

If a Scottish passport is to be given automatically to such people then why have they been excluded from the vote (I think the answer to that is obvious isn't it, Mr Salmond?)

It might be a case of cutting off my nose to spite my face but if I were living in England, denied a vote in the referendum, and then "offered" a Scottish passport I think I'd be telling Shrek where to shove it.

 

If dual nationality /citizenship is to be offered then if one wishes to stay a citizen of an EU member state the percentage play (As long as there are not major downsides by having dual citizenship/nationality ) would be to accept it ,thus giving two bites at retaining the right to work/ live in other EU countries plus retaining the right to live/work in rUK and iScotland.

As far as I can tell nobody has a clue as to what will actually be agreed if a Yes vote in respect of holding on to  UK passport/citizenship whilst having Scottish passport/citizenship. There was a suggestion I read that UK passport would last until it expires so maybe I should consider renewing it early? (I think it has got another 3 years to run)

However if place of residence and entry on electoral roll are to have a significant  bearing, maybe, as at a particular date, I will make my fortune by acquiring a large slum property in Berwick (Are there any large slum properties in Berwick?) and renting out the rooms to asylum seekers  from Alba anxious to preserve their UK citizenship.

What a mess!!!!

 

Thanks (0)
By Silver Birch Accts
10th Sep 2014 18:47

Cumbernauld

I am more interested in the Midlands braking away from Westminster. Back to the days of Mercia with Tamworth as the Capital and Dave sticking his trainset where the light does not shine. I am fed up with being enslaved by Eaton types who have no understanding of  government of the people by the people. The long walk to freedom, back to good old Anglo Saxon times where is Alfed when you need him. We are not slaves we can see a bright new fairer society free from public school types and RTI and IR35 and.........

That is enough ranting - Ed

Thanks (2)
avatar
By User deleted
10th Sep 2014 21:22

At lease you have your counties ...

... my beloved Middlesex exists only as a cricket club and a postal district, swallowed by the GLC many years ago, apart from lolwy Spelthorne who opted top join Surrey.

That said the egomanic mimi Salmands of Staines having wasted thousands of council tax pounds adding "upon-Thames" to the name now want to sell us out to London for the price of a tube zone. 

Thanks (0)

Pages