Saturday, March 08, 2014
More UKIP madness
Just when I thought UKIP could not get any more extreme, this report in one of our valuable local newspapers crosses my path.
The Argus reports the views of Donna Edmunds, a Lewes district councillor and MEP candidate for the South East, that business owners should be allowed to refuse to serve women and gay people:
Responding to a post on an internet forum Coun Edmunds said they should be allowed to refuse service, including because a customer is gay or a woman.
She had been asked to state whether she supported remarks by Henley-on-Thames UKIP councillor David Silvester who said the floods this winter had been caused by the Government’s support for gay marriage.
After saying she did not agree with her party colleague, she added: “I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose.
“It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?”
When asked by The Argus to clarify her statement the EU election hopeful said it would be ok for a shop owner to refuse to serve her based on no other fact than she was a woman, or if service was refused to a gay person.
She said: “I’m a libertarian so I don’t think the state should have a role on who business owners serve.
“I wouldn’t refuse to serve gay people. I’m not saying their position is a correct one. I’m saying they should be free to make that choice themselves.”
When in a hole, stop digging.
The Argus reports the views of Donna Edmunds, a Lewes district councillor and MEP candidate for the South East, that business owners should be allowed to refuse to serve women and gay people:
Responding to a post on an internet forum Coun Edmunds said they should be allowed to refuse service, including because a customer is gay or a woman.
She had been asked to state whether she supported remarks by Henley-on-Thames UKIP councillor David Silvester who said the floods this winter had been caused by the Government’s support for gay marriage.
After saying she did not agree with her party colleague, she added: “I believe that all business owners, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, should be allowed to withhold their services from whomever that choose whenever they choose.
“It’s their business. Why should they be forced to serve or sell to anyone?”
She said: “I’m a libertarian so I don’t think the state should have a role on who business owners serve.
“I wouldn’t refuse to serve gay people. I’m not saying their position is a correct one. I’m saying they should be free to make that choice themselves.”
When in a hole, stop digging.
Friday, March 07, 2014
Going overboard on national identity
It is not often that I quote the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales favourably on this blog but his response to comments by a Plaid Cymru MP about the Welsh rugby captain are spot on.
As the BBC report, Jonathan Edwards, who is Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr tweeted a question asking how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British?
Warburton had said that when he was on tour with the British Lions and he was asked about his nationality he replied that he was British. The Western Mail picks up the story:
Warburton's comment was made at a press conference where he was asked about the level of hostility between the Wales and England teams in advance of Sunday's clash at Twickenham.
Asked to respond to England wing Jack Nowell's remark that "we're going out to play against a team that hate you", Warburton insisted: "We don't hate them".
Warburton said: "Both my parents were born in England so I can't think that way at all. I think people make a bigger thing out of it. All the lads went on the Lions tour and got on well with the English boys. If someone asked me my nationality [on that tour] I'd say British."
Mr Edwards, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, tweeted: "I really find it difficult to understand how someone who does not consider themselves to be Welsh can be captain of the national rugby side."
In a further tweet, the MP added: "Justin Tipuric is a far better player anyway."
Shadow Welsh secretary, Owen Smith was quite right to respond by commending Sam Warburton for simply telling the truth about the proud, shared identities he has, as a Welshman and a British citizen:
"One thing we can all agree on is that Sam is a great player and we're all hoping for a Welsh win on Sunday”
"And I equally condemn Plaid Cymru for daring to challenge Sam's role as captain of Wales in light of his feeling of belonging to both Wales and the wider UK.
"I feel exactly as Sam does, as do millions of Welshmen and women in Wales and across the World.
"And anyone who has seen Sam play, both as captain of Wales and as captain of the British Lions, can be in no doubt about the commitment and the passion with which he pulls on either shirt."
There is no room in twenty first century Wales for the narrow-minded nationalism and politics of identity evidenced by Jonathan Edwards comments. Questioning the purity of somebody's Welshness is a slippery slope that no mainstream political party should want to step onto.
It does not bode well either for Leanne Wood's plea today to voters of other parties to switch to Plaid Cymru in the forthcoming European elections. After all why would pro-European Liberal Democrats switch to a party that wants to isolate Wales and plunge us into a further economic depression by cuttng us off from the UK economy?
As the BBC report, Jonathan Edwards, who is Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr tweeted a question asking how Sam Warburton could captain the Wales rugby team if he considered himself British?
Warburton had said that when he was on tour with the British Lions and he was asked about his nationality he replied that he was British. The Western Mail picks up the story:
Warburton's comment was made at a press conference where he was asked about the level of hostility between the Wales and England teams in advance of Sunday's clash at Twickenham.
Asked to respond to England wing Jack Nowell's remark that "we're going out to play against a team that hate you", Warburton insisted: "We don't hate them".
Warburton said: "Both my parents were born in England so I can't think that way at all. I think people make a bigger thing out of it. All the lads went on the Lions tour and got on well with the English boys. If someone asked me my nationality [on that tour] I'd say British."
Mr Edwards, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr, tweeted: "I really find it difficult to understand how someone who does not consider themselves to be Welsh can be captain of the national rugby side."
In a further tweet, the MP added: "Justin Tipuric is a far better player anyway."
Shadow Welsh secretary, Owen Smith was quite right to respond by commending Sam Warburton for simply telling the truth about the proud, shared identities he has, as a Welshman and a British citizen:
"One thing we can all agree on is that Sam is a great player and we're all hoping for a Welsh win on Sunday”
"And I equally condemn Plaid Cymru for daring to challenge Sam's role as captain of Wales in light of his feeling of belonging to both Wales and the wider UK.
"I feel exactly as Sam does, as do millions of Welshmen and women in Wales and across the World.
"And anyone who has seen Sam play, both as captain of Wales and as captain of the British Lions, can be in no doubt about the commitment and the passion with which he pulls on either shirt."
There is no room in twenty first century Wales for the narrow-minded nationalism and politics of identity evidenced by Jonathan Edwards comments. Questioning the purity of somebody's Welshness is a slippery slope that no mainstream political party should want to step onto.
It does not bode well either for Leanne Wood's plea today to voters of other parties to switch to Plaid Cymru in the forthcoming European elections. After all why would pro-European Liberal Democrats switch to a party that wants to isolate Wales and plunge us into a further economic depression by cuttng us off from the UK economy?
Thursday, March 06, 2014
On the Welsh health service
This morning's Western Mail reports the continued 'cold fury' of the Welsh health minister at criticism of Wales' NHS from Westminster.
Mark Drakeford has described the Conservative Party's criticism of the Welsh NHS as a “cynical” and “deliberate” attempt to “drag the reputation of the NHS in Wales through the mud”.
There is no doubt that this dispute has got very heated over the last few days, but that does not disguise the fact that there are real problems on both side of the border that respective governments need to get to grips with.
Nevertheless, one cannot get over the impression that Mr. Drakeford is protesting just a little bit too much.
I have sat through many sessions in the Senedd when Welsh Labour Ministers have attacked the coalition government's record on health in England. Did they seriously not expect UK Ministers to reciprocate?
Mark Drakeford has described the Conservative Party's criticism of the Welsh NHS as a “cynical” and “deliberate” attempt to “drag the reputation of the NHS in Wales through the mud”.
There is no doubt that this dispute has got very heated over the last few days, but that does not disguise the fact that there are real problems on both side of the border that respective governments need to get to grips with.
Nevertheless, one cannot get over the impression that Mr. Drakeford is protesting just a little bit too much.
I have sat through many sessions in the Senedd when Welsh Labour Ministers have attacked the coalition government's record on health in England. Did they seriously not expect UK Ministers to reciprocate?
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
A bad day for good news?
Given the obsession of the Tory Party with immigration and their refusal to relax regulations where it is obvious that an economic advantage can be gained, I am not surprised by this story on the BBC which suggests that aa particularly inconvenient report has beeen suppressed.
The BBC say that Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed.
They say that it suggests "displacement", the number of UK workers unemployed as a consequence of immigration, is well below the figure used by ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. This conclusion was considered potentially incendiary by Government spin doctors:
The work, an extension of that MAC research, estimates that the cost to existing British workers of new arrivals is much lower.
However, the figure it suggests for the displacement of British workers has not been disclosed.
Officials say the prime minister's team has prevented publication of the report, which has been ready since last year, to avoid igniting controversy.
But Downing Street sources told the BBC the report had not yet been completed and was not ready to be released.
They insisted it would be published "in due course", and the BBC's chief political correspondent Norman Smith says he understands this could be within days.
Statistics released last week suggest the government is unlikely to meet its pledge to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 people a year by 2015.
Vince Cable is no doubt feeling vindicated by this report.
The BBC say that Downing Street has withheld publication of a cross-governmental report that suggests one potential impact of immigration is smaller than claimed.
They say that it suggests "displacement", the number of UK workers unemployed as a consequence of immigration, is well below the figure used by ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. This conclusion was considered potentially incendiary by Government spin doctors:
The work, an extension of that MAC research, estimates that the cost to existing British workers of new arrivals is much lower.
However, the figure it suggests for the displacement of British workers has not been disclosed.
Officials say the prime minister's team has prevented publication of the report, which has been ready since last year, to avoid igniting controversy.
But Downing Street sources told the BBC the report had not yet been completed and was not ready to be released.
They insisted it would be published "in due course", and the BBC's chief political correspondent Norman Smith says he understands this could be within days.
Statistics released last week suggest the government is unlikely to meet its pledge to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 people a year by 2015.
Vince Cable is no doubt feeling vindicated by this report.
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Five more years?
The Independent reports today that Nick Clegg has told the Liberal Democrats to prepare for another five years in power amid new evidence that voters are warming to the idea of coalition government.
They point to a ComRes poll for The Independent, which found that 34 per cent of people believe that Britain is better off with a coalition government than if the Conservatives or Labour had won the last general election outright. That is higher than the 29 per cent figure recorded last July:
The findings are a boost for the Lib Dems. Last night, a bullish Mr Clegg announced that he is setting up a team to prepare for negotiations with other parties in the event of another hung parliament after next year’s general election. The Deputy Prime Minister insists he is not taking voters for granted but is increasingly confident his party will remain in office and that Britain is entering an era of coalition government.
A senior Lib Dem source said: “We were well prepared last time but Nick wants us to be even better prepared this time. We have every intention of returning to government after the election to anchor the country in the centre ground.”
I was in Llandudno in 1981 when David Steel told representatives to go back to their constituencies and prepare for Government. It took 30 years to realise that dream. Let's hope that Nick Clegg does not repeat that mantra at the party conference this weekend.
There is a lot of work to do to persuade voters to give Liberal Democrats the chance to return to government. Although we need to bee prepared for all eventualities we should not take get too confident yet..
They point to a ComRes poll for The Independent, which found that 34 per cent of people believe that Britain is better off with a coalition government than if the Conservatives or Labour had won the last general election outright. That is higher than the 29 per cent figure recorded last July:
The findings are a boost for the Lib Dems. Last night, a bullish Mr Clegg announced that he is setting up a team to prepare for negotiations with other parties in the event of another hung parliament after next year’s general election. The Deputy Prime Minister insists he is not taking voters for granted but is increasingly confident his party will remain in office and that Britain is entering an era of coalition government.
A senior Lib Dem source said: “We were well prepared last time but Nick wants us to be even better prepared this time. We have every intention of returning to government after the election to anchor the country in the centre ground.”
I was in Llandudno in 1981 when David Steel told representatives to go back to their constituencies and prepare for Government. It took 30 years to realise that dream. Let's hope that Nick Clegg does not repeat that mantra at the party conference this weekend.
There is a lot of work to do to persuade voters to give Liberal Democrats the chance to return to government. Although we need to bee prepared for all eventualities we should not take get too confident yet..
Monday, March 03, 2014
The real wasted vote in the European elections
Thursday's Guardian contains an admission that should make all Euro-sceptics pause before casting their vote in May's European elections.
They quote the leader of the UK Independence party, Nigel Farage admitting on the eve of the European election campaign: "We're whistling in the wind if we think we can implement a Eurosceptic agenda from within the European parliament."
He adds "we cannot change a thing in Europe" and that while Eurosceptics could "have some fun" in the European parliament trying to block legislation, it will "not last very long".
As the paper says, Farage's forecast that sceptics will not be able to achieve anything in the European parliament after the elections raises questions as to the purpose of electing Ukip MEPs to the parliament, especially in view of the party's erratic voting record in the previous parliament.
Liberal Democrat president, Tim Farron hits the nail on the head when he says: "Ukip MEPs don't turn up for key votes that affect British jobs, they don't work for their constituents and they don't stick up for Britain. More Ukip MEPs means fewer people working hard to protect Britain's interests in Europe. Our MEPs work hard all year round to protect British jobs."
So, what is the point of UKIP? Are they really asking us to vote for them so they can go to Brussels, and draw substantial salaries and expenses just so they can have fun? I think we all know the answer to that.
N.B. The following picture illustrates UKIPs other problem, that of retaining their MEPs. They have lost 45% of them from the UKIP group in Europe since the last European election:
They quote the leader of the UK Independence party, Nigel Farage admitting on the eve of the European election campaign: "We're whistling in the wind if we think we can implement a Eurosceptic agenda from within the European parliament."
He adds "we cannot change a thing in Europe" and that while Eurosceptics could "have some fun" in the European parliament trying to block legislation, it will "not last very long".
As the paper says, Farage's forecast that sceptics will not be able to achieve anything in the European parliament after the elections raises questions as to the purpose of electing Ukip MEPs to the parliament, especially in view of the party's erratic voting record in the previous parliament.
Liberal Democrat president, Tim Farron hits the nail on the head when he says: "Ukip MEPs don't turn up for key votes that affect British jobs, they don't work for their constituents and they don't stick up for Britain. More Ukip MEPs means fewer people working hard to protect Britain's interests in Europe. Our MEPs work hard all year round to protect British jobs."
So, what is the point of UKIP? Are they really asking us to vote for them so they can go to Brussels, and draw substantial salaries and expenses just so they can have fun? I think we all know the answer to that.
N.B. The following picture illustrates UKIPs other problem, that of retaining their MEPs. They have lost 45% of them from the UKIP group in Europe since the last European election:
Sunday, March 02, 2014
Storm in a teacup
Whilst the Labour Party was busy changing its rules yesterday, it seemed that the media had other preoccupations. Indeed, a Labour own-goal completely over-shadowed any good news coming out of their special conference.
As the Financial Times reports the Labour Party has accused Waitrose of stealing trade from small high street shops by giving a million free coffees and newspapers to its customers every week:
In its latest salvo against big business, Labour said the myWaitrose loyalty scheme was having a “stark effect” on small coffee shops and newsagents across the UK.
Andy Sawford, shadow communities minister, has written to every MP with a local Waitrose asking them to press the chain to make changes to the scheme in the “spirit of fair competition”.
Mr Sawford urged MPs of all parties to write to Mark Price, managing director of Waitrose to tell “him that his company is acting in a way that will further destroy the British high street”.
Mr Price described Labour’s claimed as “nonsense” and said Mr Salford was “completely misguided”.
As the paper says, up until now Waitrose has been held up by politicians from all parties as the model of good capitalism. Nick Clegg has even called for a fairer “John Lewis economy” in reference to Waitrose’s parent company, which is owned by its staff.
However, Labour appears once more to have set its face against consumer choice and competition in an intervention that earns the title of the most bizarre of 2014 so far.
As the Financial Times reports the Labour Party has accused Waitrose of stealing trade from small high street shops by giving a million free coffees and newspapers to its customers every week:
In its latest salvo against big business, Labour said the myWaitrose loyalty scheme was having a “stark effect” on small coffee shops and newsagents across the UK.
Andy Sawford, shadow communities minister, has written to every MP with a local Waitrose asking them to press the chain to make changes to the scheme in the “spirit of fair competition”.
Mr Sawford urged MPs of all parties to write to Mark Price, managing director of Waitrose to tell “him that his company is acting in a way that will further destroy the British high street”.
Mr Price described Labour’s claimed as “nonsense” and said Mr Salford was “completely misguided”.
As the paper says, up until now Waitrose has been held up by politicians from all parties as the model of good capitalism. Nick Clegg has even called for a fairer “John Lewis economy” in reference to Waitrose’s parent company, which is owned by its staff.
However, Labour appears once more to have set its face against consumer choice and competition in an intervention that earns the title of the most bizarre of 2014 so far.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
English badger cull teeters from farce to fiasco
Those who thought that the English badger cull could not get more farcical will have been disabused of that whimsy yesterday with the leaking of the conclusions of the Independent Expert Panel appointed by Defra to evaluate its implementation.
The Ecologist reports that the badger culls were an outright failure. They killed well under the target number of animals, and were unable to meet Defra's own 'humaneness test':
First, fewer than half of the badger population was killed in both areas over the six-week period - against the target to kill 70% of badgers in each area.
This is worse than preliminary assessments, which indicated that 58% of badgers had been killed in the Somerset area, and 30% in the Gloucestershire area. The IEP used a more precise methodology, accounting for the discrepancy in the figures.
Research by Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London carried out in the 1990s showed that if the target to kill 70% of badgers in six weeks was not achieved, the spread of bovine TB (BTB) - which the badger culls are intended to reduce - could actually be increased as infected badgers moved into new areas.
Up to 18% of badgers took over 5 minutes to die
The trial culls also failed to meet the principal humaneness criterion set by Defra, which is for no more than 5% of badgers to take more than five minutes to die. Depending on the assumptions made, the IEP found that between 6.4% and 18% of shot badgers exceeded the 5-minute time limit. It also found a "wide variation in the effectiveness and humaneness" of the contractors engaged to kill the badgers.
Professor Woodroffe told the BBC's Phallab Ghosh that the panel's findings "show unequivocally that the culls were not effective and that they failed to meet the humaneness criteria. I hope this will lead to the Secretary of State (Owen Patterson) to focus on other ways of eradicating TB in cattle."
The cull, she added, "has cost a fortune and probably contributed nothing in terms of disease control, which is really unfortunate."
So the cull actually increased the incidence of bTB and proved to be a particularly cruel and inhumane way to kill badgers, many of which suffered despite Ministers' assurances to the contrary.
What makes this farce even worse is that UK Ministers are ignoring all these findings and are determined to press on with the experiment. Whatever happened to evidence-based policy?
After an initial hiccup Wales seems to have got it right. Would it really hurt for England to learn from us.
The Ecologist reports that the badger culls were an outright failure. They killed well under the target number of animals, and were unable to meet Defra's own 'humaneness test':
First, fewer than half of the badger population was killed in both areas over the six-week period - against the target to kill 70% of badgers in each area.
This is worse than preliminary assessments, which indicated that 58% of badgers had been killed in the Somerset area, and 30% in the Gloucestershire area. The IEP used a more precise methodology, accounting for the discrepancy in the figures.
Research by Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London carried out in the 1990s showed that if the target to kill 70% of badgers in six weeks was not achieved, the spread of bovine TB (BTB) - which the badger culls are intended to reduce - could actually be increased as infected badgers moved into new areas.
Up to 18% of badgers took over 5 minutes to die
The trial culls also failed to meet the principal humaneness criterion set by Defra, which is for no more than 5% of badgers to take more than five minutes to die. Depending on the assumptions made, the IEP found that between 6.4% and 18% of shot badgers exceeded the 5-minute time limit. It also found a "wide variation in the effectiveness and humaneness" of the contractors engaged to kill the badgers.
Professor Woodroffe told the BBC's Phallab Ghosh that the panel's findings "show unequivocally that the culls were not effective and that they failed to meet the humaneness criteria. I hope this will lead to the Secretary of State (Owen Patterson) to focus on other ways of eradicating TB in cattle."
The cull, she added, "has cost a fortune and probably contributed nothing in terms of disease control, which is really unfortunate."
So the cull actually increased the incidence of bTB and proved to be a particularly cruel and inhumane way to kill badgers, many of which suffered despite Ministers' assurances to the contrary.
What makes this farce even worse is that UK Ministers are ignoring all these findings and are determined to press on with the experiment. Whatever happened to evidence-based policy?
After an initial hiccup Wales seems to have got it right. Would it really hurt for England to learn from us.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Fair funding for Wales
Unsurprisingly, the Welsh Affairs Committee report on the draft Wales Bill fails to achieve a consensus on key issues such as the lockstep linking together income tax levels in any devolution of income tax-varying powers and the voting system.
What it does do though is highlight the importance of reforming the Barnett formula so that the money going to the Welsh Government is distributed on the basis of need rather than an arbitrary population based percentage of UK spending set in the 1970s.
Fair funding is crucial before the Welsh Assembly takes on tax-varying powers, otherwise the calculation of the related claw-back of grant will be flawed and set the underfunding in stone for another generation.
The Western Mail report that the the Welsh Affairs select committee agrees. They argue that: “We believe that the issue of fair funding should be examined and do not see the need to postpone this until after the 2015 general election”:
The MPs state in their analysis of the UK Government’s Draft Wales Bill: “Although it is outside the scope of this inquiry, we have sympathy with the argument that the issue of fair funding should be resolved before income tax powers are devolved so that Wales is not unfairly disadvantaged.”
Committee chairman and Conservative Monmouth MP David Davies said: “If the power to collect certain taxes is devolved to Wales, the block grant will be reduced, and this must not unfairly disadvantage Wales, as the current funding formula does.”
I think it is universally agreed that nothing will happen to consider the fairness of the Barnett formula until after the Scottish referendum for obvious political reasons. However, it is my view that once that is out of the way, and irrespective of the result, the UK Government should announce an immediate review of the way that the nations and regions are funded with the aim of getting some objectivity and fairness into the system.
What it does do though is highlight the importance of reforming the Barnett formula so that the money going to the Welsh Government is distributed on the basis of need rather than an arbitrary population based percentage of UK spending set in the 1970s.
Fair funding is crucial before the Welsh Assembly takes on tax-varying powers, otherwise the calculation of the related claw-back of grant will be flawed and set the underfunding in stone for another generation.
The Western Mail report that the the Welsh Affairs select committee agrees. They argue that: “We believe that the issue of fair funding should be examined and do not see the need to postpone this until after the 2015 general election”:
The MPs state in their analysis of the UK Government’s Draft Wales Bill: “Although it is outside the scope of this inquiry, we have sympathy with the argument that the issue of fair funding should be resolved before income tax powers are devolved so that Wales is not unfairly disadvantaged.”
Committee chairman and Conservative Monmouth MP David Davies said: “If the power to collect certain taxes is devolved to Wales, the block grant will be reduced, and this must not unfairly disadvantage Wales, as the current funding formula does.”
I think it is universally agreed that nothing will happen to consider the fairness of the Barnett formula until after the Scottish referendum for obvious political reasons. However, it is my view that once that is out of the way, and irrespective of the result, the UK Government should announce an immediate review of the way that the nations and regions are funded with the aim of getting some objectivity and fairness into the system.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Fleeing Salmond's sinking ship
The wheels are starting to come off Alex Salmond's independence bandwagon. Earlier this week I blogged that Brussels is likely to enforce higher VAT levels on an independent Scotland whilst the UK Government's will insist that an independent
Scotland will not be allowed to retain the pound. There are also doubts being cast by the EU
President that Scotland may not even be allowed to join the European Union.
Now the Telegraph is reporting that Standard Life has become the first large Scottish company to warn it may move part of its multi-billion pound operations to England if there is a vote for independence this year.
RBS has also warned that uncertainty over the referendum is damaging its business and a vote for separation would be “likely to significantly impact the Group’s credit ratings”. A view expressed this morning by one economist is that an independent Scotland will also lose RBS, simply because a central Scottish bank would not be big enough to guarantee deposits in a bank of that size.
Standard Life, which is described by the Telegraph as a pensions, savings and insurance giant, has said that it is drawing up contingency plans to shift operations and personnel from its Edinburgh headquarters as a “precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position. It believes that the planning is necessary to protect customers and shareholders and that this could involve moving its headquarters from Edinburgh to London.
It seems that Scotland 'going it alone' could mean literally that.
Now the Telegraph is reporting that Standard Life has become the first large Scottish company to warn it may move part of its multi-billion pound operations to England if there is a vote for independence this year.
RBS has also warned that uncertainty over the referendum is damaging its business and a vote for separation would be “likely to significantly impact the Group’s credit ratings”. A view expressed this morning by one economist is that an independent Scotland will also lose RBS, simply because a central Scottish bank would not be big enough to guarantee deposits in a bank of that size.
Standard Life, which is described by the Telegraph as a pensions, savings and insurance giant, has said that it is drawing up contingency plans to shift operations and personnel from its Edinburgh headquarters as a “precautionary measure to ensure continuity of our businesses’ competitive position. It believes that the planning is necessary to protect customers and shareholders and that this could involve moving its headquarters from Edinburgh to London.
It seems that Scotland 'going it alone' could mean literally that.
