By James Scott

There is a hauntingly familiar ring to the No campaign’s attempts to recruit business leaders to forecast woe and destruction after a Yes vote for Scottish independence.

I, for one, have been through it all before.

As Executive Director of Scottish Financial Enterprise in the run up to the devolution referendum, I was required to warn of the hazards of so radical a move. I see that the current incumbent of the post is similarly constrained.

In the event, of course, the Scottish financial sector flourished post-devolution and under successive Scottish governments, at least until the point where the failure of London regulation and financial policies resulted in lasting damage to our banks.

We are now faced with a specific statement by an important and respected Scottish firm that uncertainty over currency, regulation, taxation and membership of the European Union have caused it, as a purely precautionary measure, to undertake contingency planning to set up additional registered companies. No mention that I have found of moving headquarters, incidentally, despite some of the headlines.

This is being held against the Yes campaign, despite the fact that the Scottish Government’s proposals for a currency union and for uniform regulation across Britain after independence, and the SNP’s approach to company and personal taxation, provide the complete answer to Standard Life’s concerns. The concerns would be better directed at the Westminster parties which claim to stand in the way of such sensible outcomes, at least for now.

While they are at it, Standard Life might also consider where the greatest uncertainty of relations with the European Union lies: in Scotland’s desire to continue as a member, or Westminster’s looming referendum on membership to follow hard on the independence referendum?

I noted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s remarks in London last week, none of which offered the kind of support Prime Minister David Cameron was looking for as he seeks a deal on Europe to take to the British people.

The impression has been left that to set up additional registered companies is a novelty for a company such as Standard Life. It already has several such companies here and overseas of which perhaps the most significant, from the point of view of the present discussion, is Standard Life International Ltd. in Ireland offering investment products to UK residents. UK taxation, of the company and those who buy its products, will have played a part in the choice of an Irish location.

No one can take issue with Standard Life’s decision to undertake contingency planning, but in expressing its concerns, the Company should target the UK Government. For the reassurances it needs, it would do well to put pressure on Westminster to set aside the dog-in-the-manger attitude adopted towards the sharing of Sterling and consider also what planning it needs to undertake against Westminster’s relations with the European Union breaking down entirely.


James Scott is formerly Head of the Scottish Industry Department, Chief Executive of the Scottish Development Agency and Executive Director of Scottish Financial Enterprise.

This article was originally published in the Herald newspaper.

Comments  

 
#
Barbazenzero
2014-03-07 11:06

Well said, but with Beaker’s Currency union refusal ‘is final’ today – bbc.co.uk/…/…, surely the $64,000 question is how the SG & Yes Scotland should react.

IMO, the best line to take is to keep reminding everyone of Cameron’s no pre-negotiation which pre-dates the s30 Order which formally set up the referendum. See Brian Taylor’s The big questions from January 2013 – bbc.co.uk/…/… – with “In the Commons, Prime Minister David Cameron again made this clear. No pre-negotiations on the prospect of ending the Union.

The SG should remind all questioners of this at every opportunity, point out that the white paper sets out what would be best for both parties and keep dismissing Gideon’s, Balls’ & Beaker’s assertions as pre-referendum banter.
 
 
#
Breeks
2014-03-07 11:11

Ok, so independent, we lose some businesses who have issues with our sovereignty.
But put it in perspective, our place in the union has cost us most of our steel industry, coal industry, ship building industry, fishing industry, and squanders the bounty of our oil industry, and threatens the staff in our hospitals with privatisation and zero hour contracts.
I don’t blame Financial houses moving to England. They can destroy business and ruin people with impunity and have the Westminster Government bail out their bonuses while condemning the rest of us to survival of the fittest. We might miss the business, but not the business culture.
 
 
#
gus1940
2014-03-07 16:08

I don’t suppose that by any chance the long queue of companies saying that they may, might, could etc. set up companies in London is anything but a centrally co-ordinated campaign by Project FEar tacked on to Osborne’s Speech on The Pound.

I wonder why Osborne has so far not made himself available for interview by the media since his threat was made.

RE the moves or threatened moves by the companies concerned – while I may take out a Fire Insurance Policy on my house it does not signify an intent to set fire to said house.
 
 
#
lochside
2014-03-07 16:27

Good article. Only in Scotland with our outrageously biased msm would the blame be aimed at the SNP/Yes campaign. It is the spiteful and stupid intransigence of the UK Government with its refusal to share currency that is the cause of the ‘uncertainties’.

Any cursory examination of the members of these ‘walking away’ Companies’ Boards shows close links with the Tory party. So surprise, surprise, they all announce the same week as Osborne and his puppet reaffirm their bogus stance.

This is a re-run of the Fear campaigns of ’79 and ’92 . They really are desperate.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.