Why is Salmond celebrating our humiliation ?

[Herby Dice]

They wanted certainty that if they lend money to the UK, and Scotland then separated, it would be the rUK which took responsibility for that debt and not iScotland.

Not strictly true. Creditors merely want certainty over exactly who will be responsible for paying back the debt. Without this statement creditors would be uncertain as to who would be responsible for which proportions of any debt as Westminster currently refuses to discuss these matters. Nobody is going to lend to you on the basis that your mate will probably end up taking responsibility for some of the repayments, although you are not willing to say how much. It is nothing to do with uncertainty over Scotland's ability to pay. You may have very little faith in your countrymen, Longshanks, but I do not believe that is shared internationally.

BTW Laphroig became Japanese today; bought by Suntory. Profits from that lovely dram will now go to Tokyo.

Which is somehow less acceptable that those profits going to the USA, where Beam Global, previous owner of Laphraoig is based?

[longshanks]

They wanted certainty that if they lend money to the UK, and Scotland then separated, it would be the rUK which took responsibility for that debt and not iScotland.

Nobody is going to lend to you on the basis that your mate will probably end up taking responsibility for some of the repayments, .

Another timely intervention Herby and you have put it much better than I did.

I will add that they will lend on these circumstances if they percieve your mate to be a better credit risk than you. In reality the markets think the opposite in the situation we are discussing.

You may have very little faith in your countrymen, Longshanks,

Herby, please don't get personal and assume things which I have never expressed. Just because I have posted that the debt markets have less faith in iScotland's creditworthiness than they do in rUK does in no way mean that "I have very little faith in your[my] countrymen".

I guess you are in breach of forum rules by this untrue personalisation so I was tempted to report you to...........ermmm. Oh well.

[longshanks]

BTW Laphroig became Japanese today; bought by Suntory. Profits from that lovely dram will now go to Tokyo.

Which is somehow less acceptable that those profits going to the USA, where Beam Global, previous owner of Laphraoig is based?

Is it ?

I don't have an opinion on the shades of acceptability of almost total foreign ownership of our major sustainable export.

American, Japaneses, English, French ?

The truth is it's sad and economically damaging to have this situation. The Laphroig announcement this morning only serves to remind us that we are an economic colony of the multinationals and, as such, much of the profits made by iScotland's two largest (c45% of GNP) industries will not be kept in iScotland.

[Herby Dice]

Herby, please don't get personal and assume things which I have never expressed. Just because I have posted that the debt markets have less faith in iScotland's creditworthiness than they do in rUK does in no way mean that "I have very little faith in your[my] countrymen".

I guess you are in breach of forum rules by this untrue personalisation so I was tempted to report you to...........ermmm. Oh well.

I choose my words carefully, Shankers old chum. Hence the insertion of the word "may" in the sentence you quoted. Look it up.
I have yet to see any evidence of the markets lack of faith in Scotland's creditworthiness. You have merely asserted it.

[Herby Dice]

The truth is it's sad and economically damaging to have this situation. The Laphroig announcement this morning only serves to remind us that we are an economic colony of the multinationals and, as such, much of the profits made by iScotland's two largest (c45% of GNP) industries will not be kept in iScotland.

It is sad, perhaps, but that's capitalism. Over half the shares (53% in 2010) in British companies are in foreign ownership, there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns. It has been a platform of UK economic policy for some time to encourage "inward investment" (aka selling our infrastructure to the highest bidder), and it must be admitted that sometimes it is not a bad thing - without foreign investment the UK would have no motor industry to speak of for example.
At least with oil and Scotch whisky they cannot move manufacture to the far east.
However, the last thing I want to do is cause thread drift This is a matter for another place.
And it's Laphraoig, by the way.

[longshanks]

I choose my words carefully, Shankers old chum. Hence the insertion of the word "may" in the sentence you quoted. Look it up.

Thanks for the tip. I have now put the word "may" on my clipboard; nice get out clause.

I have yet to see any evidence of the markets lack of faith in Scotland's creditworthiness.

You may know very little about the sovereign debt markets ? Try (after researching the true situation) to describe the movements last week, tell us who was at the meeting on Monday morning to which Danny Alexander was invited, read The Treasury explanation of the announcement which then followed, and now describe the market movements since.

That way you will see the evidence of the markets lack of faith in iScotland's creditworthiness as compared to rUK's.

............... and may refrain from dismissing what is obvious as "assertion."

......................

BTW; what's all this about Laphroig ? Does it matter in the slightest if someone misses out an "a" in a post on a sleepy wee forum?

[longshanks]

Over half the shares (53% in 2010) in British companies are in foreign ownership, there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

Sorry Herby but it may be becoming clearer that you may not have in depth knowledge on this subject so, to make things clearer for all, the figure in December 2010 for foreign ownership was considerably less than you say. It was 41.2%.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pnfc1/sha ... -2010.html

....and it would help if you would quantify "precious few" in your assertion "there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns".

Actually, don't bother because the fact is that the vast majority of British firms are NOT subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

Quite interestingly I just found out that there are 4.8 million firms in the UK of which 2.71 million are qualified, actively trading companies.

[NickB]

BTW; what's all this about Laphroig ? Does it matter in the slightest if someone misses out an "a" in a post on a sleepy wee forum?

Not to a 'true born' Scot obviously.

After all, if it did matter then you would have taken the trouble to spell it correctly after your error had been pointed out

[longshanks]

Agreed.

[NickB]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was you who brought the subject of the Laphraoig sale up and then proved ignorant of both the ownership and the spelling of one of our signature malts.

A little more humility and a touch less sneering at those who know less about the bond markets than you would be more in keeping with the values aspired to by most 'true-born Scots' that I know.

While we are on the subject, what exactly is a 'true-born' Scot and why should they feel any more or less humiliated than those who are not 'true-born' ?

[Herby Dice]

Over half the shares (53% in 2010) in British companies are in foreign ownership, there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

Sorry Herby but it may be becoming clearer that you may not have in depth knowledge on this subject so, to make things clearer for all, the figure in December 2010 for foreign ownership was considerably less than you say. It was 41.2%.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pnfc1/sha ... -2010.html

....and it would help if you would quantify "precious few" in your assertion "there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns".

Actually, don't bother because the fact is that the vast majority of British firms are NOT subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

Quite interestingly I just found out that there are 4.8 million firms in the UK of which 2.71 million are qualified, actively trading companies.

Sorry, Shankers, I mistyped. In 2012 the percentage of UK shares in foreign ownership was 53%. I think you can agree that is more than half.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pnfc1/sha ... -2012.html.
Thank you for giving me permission to know little about sovereign debt markets. I promise to take you up on the offer. Unfortunately I do not have time to complete the homework you have set me, so you will have to help me out here. I am sure your responses are authoritative, but without a link to help me they remain assertions. They may be obvious to you.

[longshanks]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that it was you who brought the subject of the Laphraoig sale up and then proved ignorant of both the ownership and the spelling of one of our signature malts.

A little more humility and a touch less sneering at those who know less about the bond markets than you would be more in keeping with the values aspired to by most 'true-born Scots' that I know.

While we are on the subject, what exactly is a 'true-born' Scot and why should they feel any more or less humiliated than those who are not 'true-born' ?

An interesting post NB but it may be a tad heavy on semantics.

Just a few points though :

1. How did I show ignorance of the ownership of Laphroig ? I don't see any indication that I didn't know who owned it prior to Suntory.
2. As we agreed the ommission of an "a" is hardly something to get excited about. Its not the end of the world to misspell a word by one letter.
3. I fail to see why you are demanding that I explain what is meant by the term "true born Scot". Your second paragraph indicates quite clearly that you know who falls into that category as you say you know some.

Anyway, lets not go into a major thread drift and try to get back on topic.

Alan Cochrane writing in The Telegraph seems to share the views on the bond market's attitude to wards debt (rUK v iScotland) and is now taking it further. Did you know that the SNP government has been forced over the last few weeks to rewrite part of their contracts with foreign suppliers to include a clause that whatever happens they will be paid in £sterling ! Seems like they fear that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, then we won't have the pound and don't want payment in Euros, groats or whatever.

Seems judgements are being made and reality, as opposed to assertion, is finally hitting home. That must be a good thing all round.

[longshanks]

there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

Can you give any substance to that astounding assertion Herby ?

[NickB]

Did you know that the SNP government has been forced over the last few weeks to rewrite part of their contracts with foreign suppliers to include a clause that whatever happens they will be paid in £sterling !

You have a lurid imagination. The clause of which you speak is simply an affirmation of the use of Sterling now and in the future by the Scottish Government.

[PentlandPirate II]

No, I don't think so Nick. This is the contractors saying they demand to be paid in sterling because no one knows what currency an independent Scotland would use (you've got to accept that as fact), and unless they can be sure they are going to be paid in sterling the deal is not on. They insist on naming the currency so that they can guarantee the figure they get rather than accepting a figure quoted in, say, euros with no control on the exchange rate at the time of payment.

[longshanks]

Did you know that the SNP government has been forced over the last few weeks to rewrite part of their contracts with foreign suppliers to include a clause that whatever happens they will be paid in £sterling !

You have a lurid imagination. The clause of which you speak is simply an affirmation of the use of Sterling now and in the future by the Scottish Government.

No, not my imagination at all, its widely reported in the press and confirmed by top Scottish contract lawyers. eg.

Major infrastructure contracts drawn up the the SNP Government include a clause which admits a go-it-alone Scotland could be forced to give up the pound.

Alex Salmond's Government have been forced to secretly concede there is a risk an independent Scotland could ditch the pound.

The First Minister insists the country will definitely keep sterling if there is a Yes vote in September’s referendum.

But the Daily Record can reveal major infrastucture contracts drawn up by his Government now include a clause designed to reassure businesses they will be paid in sterling even if Scotland adopts a different currency.

One of Scotland’s top corporate lawyers last night said the clause had been drawn up to calm fears over the impact of Scotland joining the euro or launching its own currency.

The revelations are doubly embarrassing for Salmond.

The clause effectively admits a go-it-alone Scotland could be forced to give up the pound. And it’s also an admission that business would be suspicious of any other currency.

The clause was added last October to the contracts between businesses and the Scottish Futures Trust, the quango charged with building new hospitals and schools.

It says: “All invoices under this agreement shall be raised in pounds sterling.”

The rewritten contract means firms are now guaranteed to be paid in sterling for the entire length of each agreement. The deals can run for as long as 25 years.

Andrew Sleigh, head of corporate and commercial law at law firm Levy & McRae, said it was a very unusual clause.

He added: “The fact that this rider has now come in is a manifestation of the uncertainties and risks caused by the independence debate – of that there is no doubt.

“I regard it as a prudent step, as the markets will recoil in nervousness over any uncertainty about currency.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... ld-3023619

Again, reality is emerging from the slough of fantasy assertions, and it doesn't look good for us if we make the mistake of voting Yes.

[NickB]

No, I don't think so Nick. This is the contractors saying they demand to be paid in sterling because no one knows what currency an independent Scotland would use (you've got to accept that as fact), and unless they can be sure they are going to be paid in sterling the deal is not on. They insist on naming the currency so that they can guarantee the figure they get rather than accepting a figure quoted in, say, euros with no control on the exchange rate at the time of payment.

Can you please name or link to a document - any document - where any contractor was demanding to be paid in sterling?

Do you actually know what the original clause was and how it was altered?

ORIGINAL VERSION
Manner of Payment

34.3 All payments under this Agreement shall be made in pounds sterling by [electronic transfer of funds for value on the day in question] to the bank account of the recipient located in the United Kingdom) specified in the relevant invoice, quoting the invoice number against which payment is made.

AMENDED VERSION
Manner of Payment

34.3 All invoices under this Agreement shall be raised in Pounds Sterling and the money of account and money of payment in respect of all payments, liabilities and claims (including any accrued rights) under this Agreement at any time shall remain denominated in and be made in Pounds Sterling. All payments under this Agreement shall be made in Pounds Sterling by [electronic transfer of funds for value on the day in question] to the bank account of the recipient (located in the United Kingdom) specified in the relevant invoice, quoting the invoice number against which payment is made.

Only the bit in red has been added, and it deals with invoicing and documentation. Payments were always specified as being made in Sterling.

Hardly earth-shattering . . . a slow news day for the unionist media obviously.

[NickB]

No, not my imagination at all, its widely reported in the press and confirmed by top Scottish contract lawyers. eg.

By 'widely reported' I take it you mean it was in the Daily Record, as I don't recall seeing this story elsewhere

Perhaps you would care to give the story a little more credence by naming these 'top contract lawyers' ?

For an excellent deconstruction of this daft wee story in the Record may I recommend this article ?

[PentlandPirate II]

So which currency will an independent Scotland use?

[NickB]

So which currency will an independent Scotland use?

The pound.