Seil Chat

longshanks wrote:

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.

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

Herby Dice wrote:

longshanks wrote: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, .

Herby Dice wrote: You may have very little faith in your countrymen, Longshanks,

Herby Dice wrote:

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

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

Herby Dice wrote: 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.

longshanks wrote: 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 wrote:

Herby Dice wrote: 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 wrote: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 wrote: there are precious few "British" firms which are not subsidiaries of foreign concerns.

longshanks wrote: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 !

NickB wrote:

longshanks wrote: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.

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.”

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

PentlandPirate II wrote:So which currency will an independent Scotland use?