No voters: Ask yourself, why do they suddenly care about Scots?

[Casual Bystander]

Why do they suddenly care about the Scots? Not the politicians, we can all see why some of them have turn from attack dogs to cuddly puppies desperate to lovebomb us, but the banks and businesses.

With the ridiculous fear mongering continuing from the South of the border, a negative tactic that hasn't really worked in their favour so far, we have numerous companies all claiming that prices will rise, jobs will be cut, the rivers will run blood, the seas will turn to fire, mothers will kill their children and the great Beelzebub will walk the Earth once more. You might find those last couple of statements bizarre, but I find the whole suggestion of financial ruin equally bizarre and no less hyperbolic.

Let us break down the arguments:

• Is it the Scots?
  
  
  Most analysts accept that Scotland is more than capable of being a successful and vibrant independent country, even David Cameron admits as much, and anyone here who thinks otherwise is doing a great disservice to the people of Scotland - in fact one might even to go so far as to suggest otherwise would be patronising, insulting and perhaps even touching on unpatriotic. You can still vote no and believe that Scotland is a great place, but to vote no and assume that we are too wee, too stupid and too subsidised suggests an altogether lack of faith in your fellow countrymen, and women, and runs contrary to the facts.
  
  So we know that Scotland can be an independent country, that is unchallenged except by the few who wish to do it harm, so clearly it's not the the Scots which are the issue.

• Is it the competition?
  
  
  Let's look at it after independence. When there is a Yes vote delivered the economic environment will be the same for all companies working within their relevant sectors. It's not as if companies that support the idea of independence will be given tax incentives or political assistance that other companies who were pro-union won't get. That would quickly be challenged in the courts of law and is simply not justifiable. As the old football phrase goes, "the conditions were the same for both teams", so are these companies simply claiming they will be unable to compete with others? I find that a particularly odd suggestion. What company would claim they are unable to compete with others despite being given the same rules and regulations to perform under? No shareholder would accept that as an excuse.
  
  So, it's not the inability to compete in a market that is the problem.

  
  

• What else could it be?
  
  
  Where does this concern originate? Allow me to provide you with the Occam's Razor here; we have ruled out that it's not the population, or being uncompetitive, what else is left? Perhaps rather than looking at what independence would bring let's look at what the these companies benefit from within the union. The ability to avoid tax, the government favours and kickbacks, the ability to lobby and pay off politicians to do their bidding, the ability to force people into zero hour contracts or the ability to maintain the lowest possible wages while being unchallenged when they hand out huge bonuses, in in the case of the banks using public money to do so. These are the things that will affect them and these are the things they fear losing most and these are the things that would be tackled when a newer and more fair society is created after independence.
  
  The simple fact of the matter is that a fairer, more even society, would not tolerate the levels of sleaze and skulduggery that goes on in the passages of Westminster and the closeted London men's clubs where family and political ties run deep. And that scares the shit out of these companies.

I'll put it very simply:

People should realise that the companies which are spreading doom and gloom about independence are worried that their profits will be hit, they don't care about the Scottish people, they care about lining their pockets - and to be fair that is what business is all about, right - but if a living wage is introduced or a numerous tax avoidance loopholes were closed and the friendly bonhomie engendered from an easily corrupted Westminster system was removed then that would worry them. It would tip the balance away, even if just slightly, from the haves to the have nots.

The companies don't actually care about you, they care cares about your money, their profits, their shareholders and not losing the very cushy inside job they have at present. Will independence be the fabled "land of milk and honey", of course not, and nobody is suggesting it will be. What we will have though is the ability to fully and directly affect the policies and practices of the Scottish government rather than forlornly relying on Westminster to do that bidding. A Westminster too busy lurching to the right and desperate to appease UKIP and Conservative Eurosceptics.

TL;DR? Ultimately don't be fooled by their lies and scaremongering. If you want to vote no, and of course I would rather you didn't, don't do it because you think a profit making company is more interested in you and your life than it's profits because we all know too well from past experience that simply isn't the case.

[bob the tank]

Excellent points, well made..

[KR88]

And how do companies fund increase in minimum wage?they charge higher prices, so we pay more to earn more.

And I thought Alex salmonds plan was to reduce corp tax so why would they be scared? I would think they would be desperate for independence?

[Casual Bystander]

And how do companies fund increase in minimum wage?they charge higher prices, so we pay more to earn more.

And I thought Alex salmonds plan was to reduce corp tax so why would they be scared? I would think they would be desperate for independence?

There are two points to that. The first is minimum wage. I can link to numerous studies that demonstrate increasing the minimum wage to what people would call a living wage, actually improves the economy both tangibly and intangibly. It brings in more social cohesion, it reduces poverty and by implication reduces low level crime, and increases happiness in society. It also increases taxation collected and GDP due to the increased wealth within the populace.

The second is regarding corporation tax. The current ridiculously complex taxation system in the UK is open to what many would consider abuse, but for legal reasons must be labelled avoidance. The figures for 2013 showed that tax avoidance cost the UK £35bn in the previous year. A simplified tax system that costs less to regulate and enforce would allow for proper collection without massive avoidance but on the flip side allow for a reduction in corporation tax.

I am not arguing for corporation tax to be reduced. Scotland is competitive now and it would be competitive independently so I don't necessarily see the need for corporation tax to reduce. However it has been long argued by those on the right that if you increase the highest tax for the highest earners then you will reduce tax collected, and there is some merit in that argument (albeit higher taxes tend to increase tax avoidance), however those same commentators on the right are claiming that reducing corporation tax would then in some way reduce tax collection? It seems like a having a cake and eating it argument. They simply can't have it both ways.

[RedRob72]

''People should realise that the companies which are spreading doom and gloom about independence are worried that their profits will be hit, they don't care about the Scottish people, they care about lining their pockets - and to be fair that is what business is all about, right?''

''The companies don't actually care about you, they care about your money, their profits, their shareholders..''

Profitable companies provide jobs. investment and tax revenues No?

[Casual Bystander]

Profitable companies provide jobs. investment and tax revenues No?

As pointed out there is not a (sensible) commentator who thinks Scotland could not be a successful independent country that would allow companies to be profitable. It's under #1 in my OP. It is all about how those profits are generated.

[RedRob72]

As pointed out there is not a (sensible) commentator who thinks Scotland could not be a successful independent country that would allow companies to be profitable. It's under #1 in my OP. It is all about how those profits are generated.

So why are so many Blue Chip Corporates, edging on the side of caution, do you think Richard Branson gives a second thought to how much profit he (The Virgin Group) makes in Scotland?

Or do you think perhaps he is looking at the bigger picture?

[MrGrado]

any one up for travelling south of the border to celebrate a yes vote stopping off at the border to flick our kilts up and slap our arses braveheart style, if coach travel was provided

[Casual Bystander]

So why are so many Blue Chip Corporates, edging on the side of caution, do you think Richard Branson gives a second thought to how much profit he (The Virgin Group) makes in Scotland?

I will give you two answers here; one specific about Branson, and another more general answer.

If you have read Branson's book, you will find that the advice he is giving about staying in the union goes against almost everything he believes in. He advocates seizing the day, making that jump, even if what you are aiming for is not completely defined. It's bizarre that he would now give advice completely contrary to how he has run his companies over the years. To even the most neutral observer it would seem very strange indeed. To know why Branson has chosen to defend the union you would have to ask him personally, but from all the evidence at hand it looks like he is doing so as a favour and doesn't actually believe what he is saying, either that or he's peddled lies up until this point. One of the two positions must be correct.

In general, as a no voter you need to ask yourself the question I laid out above. Do you believe these companies? Many have hardly shown a particular interest in implicit Scottishness until now so why all of a sudden the great concern for the average Scot on the street. I have laid out the reasons it could be and it really does come down to their profit margins will be hit. BT Chairman ( close personal friend of Gordon Brown and member of a number of his advisory committees) Sir Mike Rake has said that telephone bills will go up in an independent Scotland. He had already announced these price increases for the whole country, not just Scotland, yet somehow he now wishes to give an extra warning to Scots? Do you believe that he is genuinely concerned about Scottish BT users? Or is he just worried his monopoly will be threatened and wished to help out his pal Gordon?

These are the decisions the No voters need to weigh up. I know where I stand on these things and my conscience is clear on that.

I have not gone for the big sell in this thread, I feel I have laid out a fairly coherent and fair argument as to why the companies feel the need to warn Scots. I don't believe it's out of altruism, or the belief that they cannot be successful in an independent Scotland. Instead I believe it is the 3rd option from my OP.

[Confidemus]

So why are so many Blue Chip Corporates, edging on the side of caution, do you think Richard Branson gives a second thought to how much profit he (The Virgin Group) makes in Scotland?

Or do you think perhaps he is looking at the bigger picture?

As Virgin Money have made tenders for the provision of private healthcare in the UK, don't you think he stands to gain from Scotland staying in the UK and therefore the NHS being made private?

Stop being so trustworthy in big business.

[RedRob72]

As Virgin Money have made tenders for the provision of private healthcare in the UK, don't you think he stands to gain from Scotland staying in the UK and therefore the NHS being made private?

Stop being so trustworthy in big business.

Lets try another way then, why are big companies getting jittery about the profits they would make in a 'Bright New Confident Vibrant Scotland?

Who issued the tenders for private healthcare provision in Scotland btw? Just asking

[Confidemus]

Lets try another way then, why are big companies getting jittery about the profits they would make in a 'Bright New Confident Vibrant Scotland?

Who issued the tenders for private healthcare provision in Scotland btw? Just asking

Um, you are aware that, unlike England & Wales, the Scottish NHS will remain public? There are always miniscule private areas, but these equate to less than 1%.

[Casual Bystander]

Lets try another way then, why are big companies getting jittery about the profits they would make in a 'Bright New Confident Vibrant Scotland?

Did you read my first post, it really seems like you didn't read my first post as I answered this question clearly and coherently.

[RedRob72]

Um, you are aware that, unlike England & Wales, the Scottish NHS will remain public? There are always miniscule private areas, but these equate to less than 1%.

Er aye exactly...so what's the point about the threat of privatisation of the NHS in Scotland? it doesn't exist !!

[Casual Bystander]

Er aye exactly...so what's the point about the threat of privatisation of the NHS in Scotland? it doesn't exist !!

This is not a thread to discuss the NHS, this is about private companies who have suddenly become very interested in Scotland and to understand why that is.

[Homer Thompson]

Er aye exactly...so what's the point about the threat of privatisation of the NHS in Scotland? it doesn't exist !!

There are two perceived threats :

1) That increased spending down south in the private sector will be excluded from the Barnett formula, meaning less money in the block grant, forcing the Scottish government to privatise health care too

2) The TTIP - a trade agreement between the US and the EU. Allegedly, this will give corporations power to sue governments for any actions that cause them to lose profits. The UK government/EU is refusing, or at least deciding not, to make the NHS exempt from this agreement. This leaves the possibility that private health companies could force the privatisation of the NHS

[Casual Bystander]

Please this is NOT about the NHS, that will only take away from the very serious point being raised here,

Bringing the NHS into this will just turn the thread into a bun fight.

[NormanSaysNo]

The ability to avoid tax, the government favours and kickbacks, the ability to lobby and pay off politicians to do their bidding, the ability to force people into zero hour contracts or the ability to maintain the lowest possible wages while being unchallenged when they hand out huge bonuses, in in the case of the banks using public money to do so. These are the things that will affect them and these are the things they fear losing most and these are the things that would be tackled when a newer and more fair society is created after independence.

Can you explain how the Scottish political system is so radically different from the Westminster system such that it will forever prevent the possibility of rich and powerful companies from negotiating tax dodges and kickbacks. As far as I'm aware, this kind of thing goes on in pretty much every country in the world. How would an independent Scotland be different?

[SweeperDee]

Can you explain how the Scottish political system is so radically different from the Westminster system such that it will forever prevent the possibility of rich and powerful companies from negotiating tax dodges and kickbacks. As far as I'm aware, this kind of thing goes on in pretty much every country in the world. How would an independent Scotland be different?

DonnieSaysDoOne

[NormanSaysNo]

Thanks for the enlightening response.