Royal Bank Of Scotland To Relocate To London If A " Yes " Vote.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Nope she is the first queen Elizabeth of Scots.

Oh. A very good point.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

You need to credit the website you took content from, otherwise you'll be accused of plagiarism. Was it www.freescotland.com... ?

This is the Union with England Act 1707

www.legislation.gov.uk...

This is Article XVIII

That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Customs and such Excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this Treaty to be lyable be the same in Scotland from and after the Union as in England and that all other Lawes in use within the Kingdom of Scotland do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain With this difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government and those which concern private Right That the Laws which concern publick Right Policy and Civil Government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland

Law is such a complex area. Was this Article still standing in 1989 as the Act had been largely superseded, and besides the much derided Poll Tax hit England in 1990 and, not to mention the legislation on the Poll Tax would have supersede this Article if you take care to read the legal gobbledegook.

Anyway, Scotland has tax raising powers now, at this minute. Interesting the nationalists have not used them to create a more equal society, preferring to live the lie that they have no powers.

Regards

a reply to: paraphi
Tax raising powers within devolution are pointless as any increase in tax would just trigger a decrease in block grant. Control of a single fiscal lever is no control at all. This is why I also oppose most forms of further devolution other than in context of a proper federal UK. Sadly that will not happen therefore independence is by far the best option.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So because you have been shagged by being in the union you now want to stay in the union as you are to poor to leave. Surely years of underinvestment and neglect are reasons to go?

The same can be said of almost all the regions within the UK.
Perhaps a better alternative would be to stick together and change the system that has crapped on most of us for far too long now.

a reply to: Freeborn
I think we have had this debate before and while we agree mostly on what is wrong with the UK system and even broadly agree on the best solution the difference is you think reform within theUK I still possible I think the current system is too entrenched and by leaving at least Scotland can change.

a reply to: Freeborn

We need a revolution methinks.... everyone is sick of Westminster, not least the Scottish people.
But at the moment, rightly or wrongly, they are the only one's doing anything.
I'd rather we all stick together but in all honesty, I don't care one way or another... I really don't.
I just kinda think "Good on the Scots" for doing something... anything, whether it's good or bad, they're doing something, forcing a change... the sooner the rest of us wake up and do something too, the better.
Of course idiots and bigots will hijack causes and of course there will be a lot of Anti English/Scottish sentiment around as debates and tempers flare, but things change, move on and whatever happens, it wont be the end of the world.

That's all of course just IMHO

a reply to: ScepticScot

I think we have had this debate before and while we agree mostly on what is wrong with the UK system and even broadly agree on the best solution......

Yes, I think you're right there.

..... the difference is you think reform within theUK I still possible I think the current system is too entrenched and by leaving at least Scotland can change.

I think there is a better chance of achieving positive change throughout the whole of the UK by staying together - strength in numbers.
I don't think such change is imminent, but there is a growing move towards wanting real change and a breakaway from the London / Home Counties centric nature of UK economy / society.

Perhaps Scotland can change - it certainly has the talent etc - but will it?
That's the great unknown - and nothing that I've read / heard has convinced me that there is a clear and agreed strategy for achieving real change.
Its still going to be the same set of elite's in control and its more than likely that an independent Scotland will get swallowed up by the behemoth that is the EU.

Royal

Bank

of Scotland....

to relocate from Scotland if it votes YES to independence...

It's almost an oxymoron.

a reply to: blupblup

As usual, wise words my friend.

I have a quick question. If the vote really is as tight as some of the previous polls seem to suggest - let's say 50.01% being for independence and 49.99% being against it - would that be any kind of a mandate?

I too have a question >>>> There is no doubt that there is oil around the

sea in Scotland, but won't they only get a % of the value of the oil produced?

Because it is the oil companies who have the man power and 'tools' that

extract that oil, Scotland will have a type of franchise with them?

a reply to: alldaylong

Just some more fear mongering to add to the fire!

End of the day I hope Scotland does indeed return a vote of YES regarding the referendum!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Technically it is enough but in reality would be a pretty weak position for going into negotiations. However would also a really poor result for no when half the population dislikes the whole set up of government enough to want to leave. Think turn out will be important if it is above 80% gives any result more legitimacy.

a reply to: eletheia

The government license oil companies, so take a cut. They also tax them.

If either is too high then the exploration and exploitation becomes too costly. In recent years to facilitate complex exploitation the UK government has given tax breaks and other dispensations to oil companies. I think one of the concerns (no, not scaremongering) is that an independent Scotland may not be able to shoulder the risk and cost of investment to develop some of the more difficult to reach oil fields, especially if they are uneconomic against current licensing and taxation regimes.

Having a trillion pounds worth of oil somewhere "out there" does not mean that it is economically accessible and does not mean that the government (UK or Scottish) will get any significant share of the revenues.

Regards

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Legal. Nightmare.

Of course it'll be a legal nightmare - it's the creation of a new (old) country, it's not going to be easy but that's no reason not to do it. What a cowardly attitude.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Trust me, I wouldn't put it by Westminster to plant a Nuclear bomb here then have the SAS's Andy McNab show up with knife clamped firmly between his teeth saving us all with 2 seconds too spare on the clock.
Then proclaiming to us all and the World...Hey, you wont have this level of service in a Independent Scotland.

Given the disproportionate numbers of Scots serving in the UK armed forces (particularly SAS/SBS) then I imagine an independent Scotland will manage to maintain such a level of service quite satisfactorily.

Poltical lies.

RBS have been London based for over 200 years - they are registered at 25 Gresham St, London.

originally posted by: RonPalmer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Legal. Nightmare.

Of course it'll be a legal nightmare - it's the creation of a new (old) country, it's not going to be easy but that's no reason not to do it. What a cowardly attitude.

Let's leave the economic aspects to one side, as those are a nightmare in themselves. The legal nightmare should worry people and there's nothing remotely cowardly about it. What is sovereign territory? Who owns what in Scotland, in terms of official buildings? Where do the maritime boundaries go? Will Scotland ratify the Warsaw Convention? Will it have to become a party to the Geneva Convention? How will it write a constitution? If there's a UK election in 2015, before possible Scottish independence in 2016, what happens in Scotland? Kingdom or Republic? What will the legal status of Balmoral be? Will the business arrangements for the deals with the oil companies have to be renegotiated?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Again, why should any of those things ultimately prevent Scotland becoming independent? I would concede that the proposed post-referendum timetable (subject to a Yes vote) does appear to be optimistically short, but there were a lot of legal, and some constitutional, issues resulting from earlier devolution and those were ultimately largely resolved.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Most of that is pretty straightforward and will follow established legal principles. There will be a bit of negotiation but the division of fixed assets is the easy bit.
Balmoral is a private residence so not relavent.