Indyref 9

[IrnBruTheNoo]

...

www.rbs.com/news/2014/09/statement-in-response-to-press-speculation-on-re-domicile.html#orgZUGud5Cq0M3r9.99

How can this statement be translated into this headline? Especially when the content of the article is misrepresented?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798

I promise, I don't work for the IFS re my comments earlier about spending - this just came out today www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366

You're presuming wrong deeedeee...

No one knows whether they will or will not in the future though. I have had similar statements from huge companies that I have worked for in the past, who months down the line have done a u turn.

No one has a crystal ball an no one can see the future.

The big stories of today as I see them…

1. RBS and Lloyds have confirmed that they are not planning to move their operations out of an independent Scotland (good news).
2. The UK media are determined to misrepresent this message and suggest that the opposite is true, using misleading headlines and failing to provide entire statements from the companies involved (bad news).
3. This means we aren’t paranoid, they really are out to fucking get us (mixed news).
4. Social media and the internet is our biggest weapon against this. Twenty years ago, the media had the power to lie and get away with it. Now we can expose them (the best news).

In the event of a close Yes vote there would have to be be some fairly hairy negotiations. Could someone tell me (because I'm perplexed with so much information around) what powers or aces up his sleeve AS would have going into negotiations with half of his country not having voted for him? Is Trident IT?

Why aren't you relieved? Do you think Ross is lying too?

That's a good link statistically (as always!) However, I think it is slightly oversimplified in that is assumes an independent Scotland's spending would be the same as it is now.

Whereas (to give an oversimplified example) we currently pay a wodge to WM for defence. An iScotland would be spending considerable less on defence than we currently contribute, so that money could go towards the NHS/something else.

I don't think his point is correct, based on what I have read tonight. I think he's exaggerating severely. I'll note he ignores the fact a specific regional exemption is possible anyway. Whether they recognise it as devolution or not, the NHS in Scotland is one service, the NHS in England is another. One has a fairly new situation where it can put care services out to tender and it would have to include those services in TTIP where it tendered them. The other doesn't.

Social media and the internet is our biggest weapon against this. Twenty years ago, the media had the power to lie and get away with it. Now we can expose them (the best news)

That works both ways though.

This means we aren’t paranoid, they really are out to fucking get us

You are sounding paranoid.

Could someone tell me (because I'm perplexed with so much information around) what powers or aces up his sleeve AS would have going into negotiations with half of his country not having voted for him? Is Trident IT?

Yes. I personally think the Yes campaign overestimate Trident's importance. The rUK cannot be forced to move it until they have somewhere safe to take it.

Could someone tell me (because I'm perplexed with so much information around) what powers or aces up his sleeve AS would have going into negotiations with half of his country not having voted for him? Is Trident IT?

I'm not sure %age voting will be relevant in the negotiations? You are right though. Trident is a biggie, as is the debt. There is also things like maritime boundaries. The thing is though, iScotland just really wants a fair share of assets and debts so shouldn't really need that many aces?

Wrong presumption deeedeee...

ItsAll I agree it's simplified (although you have to admit the timing was funny!) - it does make the fair point that the SG, which is campaigning on the basis of health spending etc, has actually performed worse than Westminster in this area.

The rUK cannot be forced to move it until they have somewhere safe to take it.

I'm not sure iScotland can be forced to keep it either.

I'm beyond paranoid, I'm angry.

it does make the fair point that the SG, which is campaigning on the basis of health spending etc, has actually performed worse than Westminster in this area.

I agree.

I'm beyond paranoid, I'm angry.

There are 'angry' people on both sides.

Oh so you're not rising to it now eh? You've spent threads and threads arguing that RBS would move operations and jobs and when your CEO announces the opposite you won't rise to it?

I rather thought that the debt was an evenly balanced issue given the probable attitude of the markets in the event of refusal to accept a share?

The thing is though, iScotland just really wants a fair share of assets and debts so shouldn't really need that many aces?

No, because what iScotland seems to think is fair (according to the White Paper) doesn't necessarily correspond with the UK.

I'm not sure iScotland can be forced to keep it either.

If there is nowhere safe for it to go- they can.

Fair share of assets and debts.

But Alex Salmond says he won't take the debt.

Does anyone else imagine him as a really loudly, squawky baby, throwing all his toys out of the cot which screaming and putting his hands over his ears?

I'm not sure iScotland can be forced to keep it either.

TBH, I reckon they'll just be scrapped. Can you really see the UK electorate allowing them in P!youth/Falmouth?

Oh so you're not rising to it now eh? You've spent threads and threads arguing that RBS would move operations and jobs and when your CEO announces the opposite you won't rise to it?

You start with "I presume you got the message from your CEO on the intranet too statistically"...no. I did not. Think why that might be. You've jumped to a conclusion about me which isn't accurate

But Alex Salmond says he won't take the debt.

No assets no debt.
Not a continuing state then no liability for or default on debt.