Brit telcos warn Scots that voting Yes could lead to hefty bills BT and other British network operators have followed in the footsteps of knickers model David Beckham by urging Scotland not to quit the Union. The companies, including the former state monopoly, EE, O2 and Vodafone, have written an open letter to Scots in which they are warned of the wallet-hitting drawbacks of voting for …
...can't the UK just invade (point at Trident as a potential weapon of mass destruction - what the hey, bring back Tony to say it all again) and repossess them legally?
If they get upset, offer them another independence referendum in 300 years.
My coat? It's the one over there with the copy of war and peace in the pocket. Yes, peace has been crossed out....
"whiskey obviously!" The majority of Scotch is not Scottish owned (London-based Diageo being the biggest player, IIRC). And, despite the furious activities of the Scotch Whisky Ass., it doesn't have to be made in Scotland (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scot).
There's a few ways to incorporate another territory into yours. I believe this isn't the first referendum in 300 years. There was one in 1979 iirc which got a majority yes but not enough people voted or something like that. I'm sure Prince Phillip could give some reasons why the turnout was low and simultaneously ensure a 95% yes vote this time.
The goalposts were changed in the 79 referendum. The change meant that there needed to be a 40% turnout, which btw is a damned site higher than most general elections!
That referendum was for devolution, not independence.
This time round it's too close to call at the moment.
I am definitely in the YES camp and stuff like this .. ie more costs is a load of bullshit... the reason???
The plan is to LOWER corporate tax to below the UK's current level as an incentive to bring business here so why would it be more expensive if their costs are lowered?
It's purely a case of London-centric business getting involved and trying to bully the electorate with more FEAR FEAR FEAR... that has been the staple of the NO campaign.
ie more costs is a load of bullshit... the reason???
Not true in this case. Mobile network coverage is part of the licence and universal coverage benefits significantly from scale. Networks already complain about having to provide service in sparsely populated areas but can partly offset the additional costs by also serving densely populated areas. Apart from the Clyde/Forth corridor, Scotland is very sparsely populated and this will significantly affect any services to aspire to universal coverage. So the postal service will also be affected. It's also to see how the cost of groceries will rise as rUK distribution is reorganised. Any such changes will provide new opportunities, but it's naive to think they will not be disruptive.
Of course, the Scandinavian countries demonstrate that some services can be provided despite low population density and tricky terrain but they operate significantly different models with notably higher tax rates to fund the necessary financial transfers.
Can't bail out what you don't have (given the banks seem to be heading to England in the event of a yes vote). If they have any sense they would ensure any future banking system was regulated more in line with Canada's rather than the US/UK model of light regulation and lots of nose candy.
It might all work out, assuming they don't attempt any more South American holiday home ventures.
"You do know one of the worst offenders was a Scottish bank, as was one of the lesser ones?
erm.. They haven't been Scottish except ijn name and where the HQ building are for quite some time..
The Rpoyal bank of Scotland is owned by KLLoyds TSB and the Bank of Scotland is HBOS.. H for Halifax.
Also as for the bailouts... here's the thing....
For example Barclays with registered offices in anerica benefited GREATLY from US bailouts... why? it was based there as were RBOS,HBOS and others.
The companies try to compartmentalise by having an LLC in each country it operates in..
Thus RBOS and HBOS both having companies registered and trading in London would have got bailouts just the same.
which means that in Scotland the bailouts would have been affordable to the Scottish govt
But remember, under EU law a financial institution must be based in the country in which it does the most of its business.
Following a Yes vote, RBS (and most others) would remain a UK bank, not a Scottish bank. I think the Clydesdale bank would probably be the only Scottish bank left.
Give the Irish credit, we were more reckless than anyone else with perhaps the exception of Greece. We are till paying for it and unfortunately so will our children.However I think the Scots have a better chance of being financially prudent as there is culturally a more responsible attitude to money.
Its all a bit Monty Python as in "what did the Romans do for us?"
What ever the Scots do decide I hope there isn't any bitterness afterwards.
For any operator that currently covers the whole of the UK in any industry there would be costs of independence and telecoms would be no different. There would be new costs to be met; for example a cross border call might not be ocal rate any more, so billing systems would need to change. Plus if the rump UK and Scotland move to different currencies further billing changes would be needed. Plus, national level infrastructure would presumably need to be duplicated.
In addition to new costs, cost apportionment would change. Universal Service Obligation costs are high for industries operating in Scotland, for example. So it might be that that pushes up prices.
Of course costs can go down as well as up: salary costs may be lower in Scotland.
Unfortunately, most companies can only say "our costs might change" - they can't say whether the change would be material or indeed in which direction because most of them don't know. With such uncertainty, of course, the politicians on both sides tend to read it however supports their case.
I don't envy Scottish voters making such a choice.
"Scotland is very sparsely populated and this will significantly affect any services to aspire to universal coverage."
Strange. Operators in Germany, France, etc seem to be quite capable of providing a good continued service even in the rural areas. On my home broadband I have 2mbit (with a line just shy of 5km). Step out the door and into a field, Speedtest on my phone pegs the average rate at 2.6mbit.
So what's so hard about Scotland? There are some places that perhaps don't even have electricity yet, however this doesn't describe the entire country. For the places that have a reasonable population level to make mobile phones worthwhile, aren't the transmitter towers around them already in place? I'm not certain if there is great benefit to "universal coverage" where few people ever go. To that end, I am also wondering why a separation will automatically result in a jump in prices, asides from scaremongering... It may, infrastructure changes etc, but given the number of variables, I am surprised that such easy predictions can be made at the point. Maybe the costs would go down? Oh, silly me, that never happens, does it?
To be fair we are aiming they actually want towers everywhere. They may decide to reuse some vacated mod spectrum lower down the dial to allow for a lower speed but greater range service (they'd need to petition for a band to be created but that's not all that hard), they might even make some money leasing out the spectrum. They could also increase transmit power. They could use fixed directional antenna on houses with mimo to deliver fairly high speed wireless broadband over crazy distances.
Bottom line is they would have flexibility there and importantly it would be their choice. The border would be fun however, the usa, Canada and Mexico have a lot of fun with spectrum at the borders. Its not even a case of it will be fine if you use directional antenna and point them away as you get reflections.
".....The border would be fun however, the usa, Canada and Mexico have a lot of fun with spectrum at the borders....." I used to visit an office in Northern Ireland which was a few miles from the border with Eire. If you had a Vodafone mobile and wandered down to the southern end of their offices you would suddenly flip to Vodafone Ireland and get charged for roaming. It was quite fun explaining to Finance that, no, we hadn't gone on a jolly south of the border, no matter what our phone bills said.
Of course there are technical solutions and there could well be opportunities for the telcos using the lower frequencies currently in use.
In rural areas of Scotland at present I have virtually 100% coverage in my car even when my phone on its own has no signal at all -- the very-powerful car receiver system links to my mobile by bluetooth. Other solutions exist for domestic and office settings.
"Strange. Operators in Germany, France, etc seem to be quite capable of providing a good continued service even in the rural areas. On my home broadband I have 2mbit (with a line just shy of 5km). Step out the door and into a field, Speedtest on my phone pegs the average rate at 2.6mbit."
Pfft! A rubbish analogy. Germany has 80 million people and 4 times the population density of Scotland, France has , what 50 million people and double the population density of Scotland. Both have lots of densely populated urban centres that cross subsidise the rural areas. Scotland has the central belt and lots of very challenging geography. Costing more? I can easily see at least one of the networks shutting shop in Scotland - which do you reckon will sell up - three or O2?
Add to that the cost of splitting the networks in two (even if its just a virtual split), the costs of data centres being moved, new network kit, all the customer comms to sort out the billing, figuring out where all the pre-paid customers are to assign them to the right cost centre, new SIM cards if they go down that route , legal bills for all the due diligence, testing, contract negotiations with the outsource partners etc.
You want to call basic economics scare-mongering ? Go ahead. To me that's a big fat opportunity. I've got some mobile experience. If it is a "yes" it will be a bonanza for contractors, and the likes of IBM, Accenture and so on are likely to be praying for a yes as they will make serious amounts of money.
"To that end, I am also wondering why a separation will automatically result in a jump in prices,"
Largely down to the way prices are set. BT has a universal service obligation (USO). In effect, it's mandated to charge all telephone customers the same for line rental - so the total cost is divided by the number of lines.
Scotland has a smaller, less dense population that is more expensive to serve than England - vastly more so in the case of the highlands, Shetland, Orkney and so on. Today those lines are subsidised by the cheaper lines in the densley populated south east of England. Everyone pays the same, regardless of actual cost.
In the event of a breakup, why would UK customers want to pay higher line rental to subsidise another country? They almost certainly wouldn't, and if Ofcom has no jurisdiction in Scotland there's no-one to impose or enforce such a rule anyway. Line rental would increase.
The same is true for the mobile companies - today everyone pays the same, give or take, and Scotland is in effect subsidised.
All things being equal, line rental costs - fixed or mobile - would drop in the UK and increase in Scotland after a split.
Like you say, the "Central Belt" is relatively densely populated, and far easier to serve than most of England, so I call BS on this - the reality is that BT know that an independent Scotland wouldn't let them get away with the shenanigans that Westminster let them get away, with, due to the "Old School" network.
"Like you say, the "Central Belt" is relatively densely populated, and far easier to serve than most of England, so I call BS on this - the reality is that BT know that an independent Scotland wouldn't let them get away with the shenanigans that Westminster let them get away, with, due to the "Old School" network."
Sigh, it isn't BS. Take for example EE. It will need two accounting systems not one as any revenue in iScotland will be taxable at the rates assigned under Scotland's rules. Two sets of accountants. Two sets of audits. Don't get me started on the calling scenarios. God only knows how you figure out how to assign revenue from prepay topups (especially VAT). The hardware for Scotland will be charged to Scotland and it is unlikely to be 8% of the cost of rUK hardware. But carry on in your bubble if you wish because come Friday if it is a yes vote then it will be Scotland's problem.
Yep, lower corporation tax, while spending more on welfare, while funding free tuition fees, oh and while Alex Salmond is at it, set up a Sovereign Wealth fund as well as cutting Corporation tax. The Yes campaign IS bullshit from start to finish. They want to spend Scotland's money in 3 different ways at the same time, any 5 year old could do the Maths and tell you it doesn't add up.
Oh, and the cutting the of corporation tax will do absolutely nothing to attract businesses, unless Scotland is going to go toe to toe with Ireland and cut it below 12%. Why would a business set up in Scotland, when they can set up in Ireland at an even lower cost?
As for the cost of things being different, OF COURSE they will be, I am absolutely shocked that this is not obvious to most people. If Scotland becomes independent it's going to be like going from France to Germany and expecting the costs to be the same, of course there will be differences, and in a lot of cases the costs will be higher because Scotland purely by its geography is harder to ship to (in case noone's looked at a map Scotland has a hell of a lot of hills, lochs and valleys).
".....We would have to think of an environmentally responsible way to dispose of the surplus....." We could be really evil and tell the Scots that one of our conditions for removing Trident from Faslane is they to have to take our excess politicians. And that colossal waste of oxygen George Galloway, naturally, because as a Scot he would be ineligible to stand for an English seat in Parliament. Ooh, it's worth telling the Scots to vote yes just to get rid of that loon.
They tried a similar move in Ireland years ago offering tax incentives, one off subsidies and all sorts and it worked well for a while. The reality is though that at some point those tax levels need to normalise and that is largely going to depend the the cost of running Scotland v's the amount of other government revenue streams.
In Ireland, once the tax breaks broke, so did a lot of the industrial and corporate investment.
This isn't a case of fear, fear, fear. There are a huge number of factors to take into account over and above "We're Scottish and we currently hate the English". Banking, currency, investments, corporations, services, funding; all these things will be effected. Telco is just one, what about water, gas and electricity. The cost to businesses will be huge if they operate and/or provide services on both sides of the border and it is my opinion that any costs related to resolving their operating and regulatory requirements one BOTH sides of the border should be born by Scotland alone.
Equally dissolving the Union isn't just a case of applying a bit of tipex over Scotland's entry. By dissolving the union we will be effectively creating not one new country but two. There will be the new Scotland and the the New United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland neither of which will technically be members of the EU. Will the UK therefore lose its position as a founding member and the veto rights that we currently hold. Will Scotland even qualify to join? Will they be a contributor or a beneficiary? I for one would not want them to be a beneficiary as they would be in a situation of their own choosing.
Would the UK even choose to rejoin the EU. Maybe a no vote should prompt us to get around to the whole EU referendum we have been talking about for so long.
Equally, also worth bearing in mind that just because the vote may be in favour of leaving the Union that doesn't mean it will happen.
Anyway, that's my two cents
And if the UK Government refuses to accept Salmond's undoubtedly preposterous demands? I understand that a 'Yes' in this mockery of a referendum will lead to negotiation between Scotland and the UK with a view to the granting of independence, not the automatic gaining of it.
The wording of the question is interesting, too. It says "Should Scotland be an independent country?", not "Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?" I can see many loyal but intelligent Scots saying 'Yes' to the first dream but 'No' to the second reality. There seems to be considerable scope for a massive fudge here, designed to just shut the Scots up.
Perhaps Scotland will become an independent country that amicably and sensibly shares all aspects of its infrastructure and governance with its larger neighbour, thus effectively preserving the status quo and keeping the EU handouts coming, while deluding the woad and sporran brigade into believing they are finally free of the hated English.
Salmond can boldly strut to the front of the stage and announce that he has, bravely and singlehandedly, saved tens of thousands of jobs and many millions of pounds by ordering the English to move their submarines half a mile down the loch instead of all the way to Portsmouth. And so on.
Then Hollywood can rush out Braveheart 2 in time for Christmas, telling the Scots how the Scots won the Great Battle to drive out the English and gain Independence. And the Scots will all live happily ever after.
PS: and if a single deciding vote comes from a witless 16 year-old glue-sniffer on the Benefit, then Salmond's new voting age will doubtless be lauded a success.
It's the arrogance that 'We're Scottish and currently hate the English' that sticks in the craw, I don't think anyone in Scotland is remotely interested in what the English people are thinking about the fact that a large amount of Scottish people would quite like the country to be ran by Scottish people, with Scottish votes counting towards what we want.
That has nothing to do with England, not everything is about England. I'm a Yes, I want Scottish people to make real decisions on Scotland's future. Not anyone else.
It's nothing to do with 'hating English' and to try to make it out as some sort of hate campaign is not beneficial in the slightest. Their has been a real grassroots movement up here, everybody is interested in how the country should be handled, it's amazing to watch and it's not about England or English people, it is purely about Scotland and Scottish people.
Pax681
"No it isn't. Stop making things up."
read it and weep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979"
I think he was possibly referring to your assertion that the 40% turnout requirement was higher than for most General Elections. The last two have had turnouts over 60%. 2001 was 59% and every General Election before that as far back as 1922 was over 70%, with a couple of elections in the 1950s tipping the odds at >80% turnout.
So yes. Stop making things up. 40% for a decision as important as secession and independence is not at all high. It should damn well have a turnout well over 50%. Either people care enough to vote or you're pandering to a vocal minority, which is no basis for rule.
Moreover, your claim of a 40% turnout quorum was wrong! The requirement in 1979 was for 40% OF THE ELECTORATE TO VOTE YES.
Although 48% of voters voted yes, that only equated to 32.9% of the electorate as the turnout was only 63%. Do you actually read the articles you post to...?
dogged -- The 1979 referendum was stitched up with a requirement of 40% of the total electorate had to vote yes, which is a bigger share than Cameron got at the general election. This 40% did not take into accout error in the voters role. My uncle had two entries in the voters role 1 for the front door and one for the back lane, but of course voting twice would be illegal. Like I said a stichup.
The goalposts weren't moved in the 1979 referendum: they said "40% of the electorate" from the get-go, and the final result didn't get anywhere near that.
I believe the previous cavil was (rightly) calling bullshit on the claim that general elections don't get as high as 40% turnout, when they routinely score 60% or more (more like 75% in the 1970s). In fact, turnout in the referendum was significantly lower than in any general election before 2001.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
