Post by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoPost by Just zis Guy, you know?Post by ®i©ardoPost by HardySpicerPost by INIREF*I&R ~ GBDespots and governments have oft used the plebiscite (decision
by the people or electorate, "referendum") to manipulate
politics and trick their rivals.
Who will decide how and when to hold a referendum about
independence of Scotland? Will that be the Scottish National
Party, one or a few of its leaders, the Scottish government or
parliament, or perhaps our masters the UK government? Why
should not the *electorate* decide when to have a referendum
and also possess the right to put forward a clear, written
proposition? According to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights "Everyone has the right to take part in the government
of his country" both directly (on issues) or by electing MPs.
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britainhttp://www.iniref.org/
The people are deciding. It was in the SNP manifesto before
they got elected.
Hardy
But if it applies to the structure of the United Kingdom ALL the
people involved should get a vote, not just the tail trying to
wag the dog!
Given the apparent flow of tax Northwards I suspect the public
view would be "good riddance, and take your shitty bank with
you".
Guy
"Banks" rather than "bank"! Don't forget that the Bank of Scotland
went down the tubes as well, dragging Lloyds with it after they
were forced into a "merger" for "political" reasons.
Really? And who forced them? Lloyds thought they were onto a
killing and got greedy, failing to apply 'due diligence'. So it was
entirely their own doing.
I think you'll find it was a forced marriage.
I think you'll find you're wrong.
Political pressure was involved.
No it wasn't. It was a purely commercial decision by Lloyds who thought
they were picking up a bargain and failed to look at the books. There
was no political pressure on them to do anything. They got greedy,
thought they were getting a bargain and, instead, picked up a pig-in-a-
poke that Halifax had turned the group into.
Post by ®i©ardoAfter all, it was a rescue plan for a
failed Scottish vanity project,
What 'rescue plan'. BoS were doing exactly the same as everyone else
in banking who saw mergers and increased corporate size as part of
the way forward
Post by ®i©ardoalbeit from a commercial entity but
affecting Scotland's credibility relative to financial security and
ability. After all, look at the total decline in Scottish financial
institutions over the last thirty years. Gone are the days when The
Standard Life and the Scottish Widows' Fund are names spoken with reverence.
Few financial institutions are spoken with reverence these days, not just
the Scottish names. The banking collapse was a global phenomenon.
Post by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoOf course BoS was dragged down by Halifax, with the new HBOS
Post by soupdragonbeing essentially Halifax with a corporate hospitality centre in
Edinburgh posing as headquarters. All the operational systems,
business centre and management teams were Halifax's, as was most of
the mortgage debt.
But it was all down to BoS feeling "left out" of things after the
stunning success by RBS on the takeover front.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-41073/Halifax-merger-talks-Ba
nk -Scotland.html
You seem to be confusing pre and post takeover outcomes.
Or the Daily Mail is.
Post by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonI suspect RumpUK is in for a big shock if Scotland does go.. and
takes all that oil revenue that has bailed out so much in the UK
with them.
There's none left.
There's more than enough left for a country of 5m to be very
comfortable for a long time to come.
But think of the development, servicing and maintenance costs, all of
What on earth are you on about? All that is paid for by the commercial
companies, not the taxpayer.
Post by ®i©ardohttp://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/21183/glasgow-academi
cs-question-salmond-s-oil-fund-claims.html
There have been similar 'reports' from ivory towers for years. So what?
Post by ®i©ardoPerhaps a Scottish tax on alcoholic beverages and spirits could
http://www.theglaswegian.co.uk/glasgow-news/news/2012/02/23/glasgow-hea
lth-expert-in-stark-warning-to-scotland-over-booze-culture-102692-23762
357/
Scotland's drink problem is certainly a problem, but being addressed by
minimum pricing. I note England is considering following this policy
following it's own problems with the alarming rate of drink related
issues down south.
Post by ®i©ardohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/24/scotland-company-referen
dum-damaging-confidence?newsfeed=true
Scarmongering nonsense that's been disproven by companies like Amazon
investing heavily in Scotland despite their awareness of the possibility
of independance. This is old news anyway. The Guardian must be running
short of news if its recycling stuff that first appeared 6 months ago.
Post by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoYou
Post by soupdragoncan, of course, keep the national debt as most of that was run up
by SE England and their penchant for status symbols and vanity
projects.
Like the Scottish Parliament building? That established a precedent
in wastefulness impossible to emulate.
On the contrary. the SP provided some utility for the money, at one
third the cost of the Millenium Dome to the tax payer to build and
remains a capital asset. What's the utility of the London Olympics
again?
I neither know nor care.
So we both agree - a wasteful vanity project.
Post by ®i©ardoThe original Millennium Dome project was greatly expanded by Blair and
Co with the words of "Tony" himself echoing the the nation's ears: ""a
triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness,
excellence over mediocrity". In the words of BBC correspondent Robert
Orchard, "the Dome was to be highlighted as a glittering New Labour
achievement in the next election manifesto"."
The Dome was the idea of the previous Tory admisnistration under John
Major. You skipped that bit in your cut and paste in your cut and
paste from Wiki. Also, you'll note that this is an opinion and wiki
have noted 'citation needed'. In fact, many of the contracts were already
in place when Blair came to power and they had no option but to run with
it.
But again, we agree, a wasteful vanity project. Both of these examples
make the SP project seem like very small beer indeed. And it will serve
an independant Scotland, so no need for a new building.
Post by ®i©ardoPost by soupdragonPost by ®i©ardoAlso, just be very, very thankful that SE England pays more than
enough tax to subsidise the rest of the country - and, no, I don't
live there.
Really? So you believe the
Tesco-generates-all-its-tax-revenue-at-head- office myth too? I think
you'll find most tax revenue is generated around the country. Where
the head office is, where the tax returns are declared, is
irrelevant.
...although the concentration of the highest earning *people* and
businesses is of incredible significance. Don't forget that for every
bankers £1,000,000 bonus the State creams off £500,000.
So what? How many bankers are on a £1m bonus in the SE? A million? A
thousand? Ten? The simple fact is that the amount of money the SE
'generates' is largely made up large companies having their HQ based in
London where they pay their tax bill, rather than where it is actually
made. With the collapse of the banks maybe we should assign all those
losses to the SE, after all, they were quite happy to claim the dosh
when the banks and financial institutions were making massive profits.