jonc

A majority of 60%+ says "No", even if you take out the undecided:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-revealed-poll
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politic...ntum-1-3316371
http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questi...nce-referendum

Not only is the financial industry in Scotland against independence, so to is their oil and gas industry. Like I said, it all hinges on the what currency and independent Scotland will use and not even Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon nor John Swinney can tell you that.

nizmo80

iTrader: (2)

C'mon now jonc we have already covered this crap already polls dont mean jack **** pal and we both know it so lets move on from the % of people want
as it cant be know unless every scot was involved in the poll which they are not

ScottishRayman

Totally incorrect on the banking point I'm afraid, simply they can move after filing for legal re-adjustment of registered offices. The fact that LLoyds have 2 of their main offices in Edinburgh (Port Hamilton & Dalkeith Road) means very little as mind they moved over 800 roles to India in 4 staged moves & would be willing to make the switch to England from Edinburgh which is much easier (trust me I know how the previous transitions were delivered .

Anyways, silly idea wanting own Independence and actually amazed England don't take it as an insult and actually state 'you are leaving so never mind yer vote'.

Hopefully common sense prevails as I have an image of 'Escape From New York' if the vote did go for Independence.

Laters xxx

Devildog

Sorry, but you're wrong. A company can move its registered office within the territory of registration but not outside it. Scotland and England/Wales have separate registries and operate under different law. The country of registration defines under which law the company operates.

Had you bothered, 2 minutes on google would have confirmed that

And you'll probably find that theres no such concept as "filing for legal re-adjustment of registered offices" either

I'm not saying that the banks can't become English registered companies, but the undertaking to do so would be massive.

Best

DD

jonc

A massive undertaking? can you elaborate? That is no guarentee they won't relocate if they decide that the risks to business far outweighs the cost to re-registering. Besided, if the EU do have their way, they may have to anyway.

Not saying the banks and businesses will relocate, but the uncertainty is there and businesses such as Standard Life are already putting plans place should independence means a risk to their business.

Devildog

Its quite simple

RBS and Lloyds are Scottish registered PLC's. To have registered offices in England and Wales would require a change of legal entity.

Effectively new companies. The implications that has in respect of the assets held, the tax position, the fact that shares are publicly traded, etc are huge. As they are public, its not a simple matter of incorporating RBS (England) Ltd and that new co aquiring ownership of RBS by aquiring its shares or assets and becoming an English registred holding company.

The standard life point is a bit of a red herring. They did that when devolution was first considered years ago. And surprise surprise are still in Scotland. Again, read between the lines. Spin is rife.

Of course there is uncertainty. Thats completely to be expected

jonc

You forget that RBS is UK Government owned. Should Scotland separate from the UK, then it is unlikely that the UK Government will allow or be legally allowed to keep the UK taxpayer funded RBS bank to remain in Scotland.

Say that RBS does stay in Scotland. How is Scotland going to sustain the debt it will inherit?

Devildog

I don't forget that and its its not as simple as being UK Govermnent owned mate.

The UK Treasury owns 100% of UK Financial Investments Ltd which currently owns 64% of RBS. 36% is owned by other corporations and private individuals. And there's every chance that UKFI will sell its shares, removing that control, as the "debt" is repaid.

RBS ownership is noted here:

http://www.investors.rbs.com/investo...tatistics.aspx

LLoyds ownership by UKFI is significantly less.

If Scotland becomes independent UKFI will have no greater or lesser control than it does now. It will own 64% (or probably less) of a company registered in a different legal juristiction. Scotland has always had its own legal system and the position will be no different in that regard than it is now.

As I've said there is so much misinformation, scaremongering and spin its no wonder there is huge uncertainty.

As for the debt - well that depends on the currency issue, doesn't it? And that's another question and not related to this discussion on whether LLoyds and RBS will relocate their registered offices to England.

Geezer

The point about registered and head offices etc is an EU directive, and that states that they should have their head office and registered office in the same place, but more importantly, that those offices must be in the same member state that it does most of its business in. If Scotland go independent, there is no guarantee it will be a member state, which opens up a whole can of worms which I would have thought Lloyds and RBS (and Standard Life) for that matter will wish to avoid.

LBG is currently registered in London, and it has a head office, and a Scottish head office (formerly the BOS head office on the Mound), so I don't see much of an issue there whether Scotland goes or not.

RBS, on the other hand, is registered and has its head office in Scotland, but if it is doing most of its business in the UK (a UK without Scotland), then it may be forced to move under Council Directive 95/26/EC.

Even that all notwithstanding, look around, how many of the world's big banks (or any big companies for that matter) are based in tin pit little countries like Scotland will be? There is a reason for that, and that's why a lot of the big players are starting to make noise about moving out if the Yes vote is successful.

If Salmond wants to play Braveheart, that's his choice, but he's also playing with the future of a lot of people, and not necessarily in their best interests.

jonc

That is for ordinary shares, include non-voting B shares and enhanced dividend access share, that makes total capital ownership of over just 80%.

Currency is a huge issue and will be a deciding factor of whether these financial institutions stay or leave. At the moment no one in the SNP can catagorically state for definite what Scotland will be using.

ScottishRayman

No requirement for me to google anything for 2 minutes, as that would suggest I need brought up to speed with a specific company I'm very close to, but happy for others to google to understand them , cant say the same for Standard Life etc so happy fo others to comment.

Anyway, you do agree they can become English registered which I did suggest so we agree on something, so regardless of how "massive" it would be then the sheer opportunitly and fact it will happen exists..............subject to the 'Yes' vote which I'd certainly doubt will happen so unlikely any action required

Regards.

Devildog

I'm not questioning your knowledge of RBS mate, as that was not the issue.

Your complete misundestanding of the law surrounding registered offices, however, was.

The point remains that the existing legal entity that is The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc cannot move its registed office to England. And that's a point of fact.

Devildog

Lloyds Banking Group PLC is a scottish registered company. As is Bank of Scotland Plc. LLoyds Bank plc is of course registered in England & Wales.

So the issue for LBG Plc is the same as fro RBS Plc

ScottishRayman

Totally wrong banking group I'm LBG - sorry but if they decide to up sticks they WILL apply and GET English registration. Today's google news isn't what will happen......trust me, so no misunderstanding on my part at all thanks.

Regards.

Devildog

Mate,

Who you work for/with makes no odds to the point here.

Answer this then (as you clearly know so much about it). How will Lloyds Banking Group PLC, a Scottish registered PLC, apply to move its registered office from Scotland to England?

Not its business (which we all agree can be done with comparative ease) not its head office as that can be anywhere a company wants, but its registered office.

hodgy0_2

just think of the new stationary bill!!!

ScottishRayman

Do you honestly believe no rules, changes, legislation will alter if the vote is yes (and very quickly I will add) !!!? If so great and we will leave you with that thought.......however if the vote is yes please have a google very SHORTLY after it and drop me a note on where LBG is, and actually registered

And who I work for does make odds, especially if you are heavily involved ta

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

LOL at this argument.

What companies are legally allowed to do, and what they ACTUALLY do are two very different beasts, aren't they?

Devildog

lol

You're maybe not quite getting this. I'm not arguing that you don't know about LBG's infrastructure and or facilities management. Once thing is certain, however. And that is you're not that influential in its overall contingency stragegy - because if you were, the last thing you'd be doing is commenting on it in any way shape of form on a public forum.

Now, and I could be way off the mark here, I'm guessing that you're HR/IT/Infrastructure or similar. Which would explain why you a) talk about moving 800 roles to India which, to be honest, will only have HR and infrastructure implications and b) from the legal standpoint of what can and cannot actually be done you appear to know the square route of **** all.

And if you are in an influential position, then heaven help us all as far as LBG is concerned. Because you'd have to hope that someone with any influence on strategy would have even a basic understanding of the law in theory and in practice. And we know you don't, given your wholly inaccurate reference to how you thought you could change a registered office from Scotland to England in an earlier post. What was it you stated? - Ah yes: "filing for legal re-adjustment of registered offices" - something which doesn't actually exist.

And now, having been called out on that, you're now basing your "knowledge" of what will happen by way of what would amount to a very quick change in primary legislation. Do you actually know what that involves? In the event of Scottish independence there will certainly be changes in both primary and secondary legislation. On both sides of the border. But that takes time. Takes due process. Has to be drafted. Be debated in parliament. Obtain parliamentary approval. Be given Royal assent. And that's the simplified version of how it happens.

Oh, yes - and it will probably be sitting in a queue a mile long of other pending legislative changes. Parliament on both sides will have plenty of other issues to be dealing with as well as this.

So forgive me for not taking your points as in any way as factually representative what either LBG or RBS can or cannot do.

What they will do will ultimately be decided by people way above your pay grade, that's for sure

Devildog

THis is not something that can be done and got away with. This is something that is currently physically impossible to do.

You cannot change he registered office of a company from Scotland to England/Wales.

ScottishRayman

PMSL Wasn't sure what parts to pull out so I'll pick out 3 for starters lol -

1. Help me find the part that says "influential in its overall contingency" - I'll await that reply.

2. Yeah you were wrong in your guessing, but your right about being "way of the mark" so we'll agree on that.

3. Did I share my pay grade and salary with you? Looks back lol.

Devildog

1) I was stating a point. Call it thinking out loud.

2) So you're not HR/IT/Infrastructure. I'll have another go (I don't mind being wrong, by the way). Perhaps an external consultant. Not actually a bank employee. Any closer?

3) Ah, you see there you go jumping to conclusions. I didn't suggest your pay grade or salary was more or less than mine. I did, however, state for the reasons given that it was below those who actually did have influence on contingency strategy. Which you've now confirmed with your point 1 above. (Ps - for your point 1 to actually make sense, you need the words "strategy" or "plan" after "contingency" at the end)


That would be, how do I put this...100% wrong on your part.

Not without registering a new comany or hiving up or down the business and assets. So, that would also be, how do I put this, ...wrong on your part

Its pretty clear we've established above that there is a fairly significant misunderstanding on your part. Unless you want to actually answer the question with anything other than "they will just change the law" Which, lets be honest, is a bit of a cop out answer.

That's a lot of "wrongs" for someone who asserts to be very close to one of the companies in question

jonc

It's really not that difficult, banks have been buying and selling each other and transfering assets since the banking system started. If the vote is yes, RBS could be broken up with 80% going to the UK Government, the rest will remain in Scotland, Scotland keeps RBS and it's Scottish HQ and branch network. UK side former RBS will be relaunch as Nat West or a new brand. The Goverment had already drawn up initial plans for a break up last year so the foundations are already in place. The same can be applied to Lloyds since it too has a registered office in England within its group. The Bank of England will therefore no longer be the lender of the last resort for Scotland's financial system, which as yet is to established post independence.

If banks are clever enough to think up many different ways to generating billions in revenue, well then I hardly think that a little formality of registered offices will pose much of issue for them. If RBS does go this way, then you can blame Alex Salmond since is credibility for pursuing independence is quickly going down the pan, much like his support for backing Fred Goodwin to have RBS buy ABN Amro that got RBS in a state that it is in today.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Exactly what I meant.

If the banks want to do it, do you think a few rules, or even a law will stand in their way? When has either, ever?

hodgy0_2

There are, after all, no golden rules

The one with the gold makes the rules

Geezer

Sorry, yes, that is quite correct.

ScottishRayman

1. Ahhh thought that may be the case, as again was pretty wide of the mark tbh.
2 Hmmmmm, nope yet again. A bit like 'Guess Who' here and I'm wondering how many attempts you wish to take. Prob best not guessing as not getting far.....colder and colder I'd say if we want to play the little game lol.
3. Nobody mentioned a comparision between mine and yours, so slightly confused where that came from.

Folk are telling you their views, simply because you don't share the same or indeed not aware of some plans certainly doesn't make them wrong until come the actual time you can prove them wrong...........which you factual are not in a position to do at this point (although you do seem to wish to lol).

Jonc - fully correct.

nizmo80

iTrader: (2)

I think devil dog's trying to figure out if you are just another fella talking about stuff you have very little knowledge about or if you are indeed working in a professional field that gives you a inside view on whats going on and how things actually work.

The fact that you avoid telling devil dog whats your experience is in this matter and only say that your very close to a specific company,,,,which could mean anything !
for instance you could be the teaboy at a bank and could say you are very close to that specific company and it would not be a lie but in no way means you know anything about what goes on in the bank
apart from who like 2 sugars with there tea and who likes a tunics teacake on a Monday morning LOL

You are not the first on this specific thread to write utter garbage and say it is gospel though
earlier on in the thread it was being said on how north sea oil is not going to last much longer and is dwindling from people with absolutely no knowledge about the oil in the north sea what so ever !
Then I was very happy to tell them for the last 8 or 9 years I was part of a engineering team who would send specialised high profile scanning tools
down oilwells to see roughly how much oil is down there.
and it is so funny to see people argue with no knowledge of what they are arguing about and this thread is full of people like that and TBH you come across as one of these people

Now fetch me a coffee and a tunics teacake you TEABOY LOL

Devildog

Ray

I have plans to retire to the bahamas. Doesn't mean its necessarily going to happen or that my plans are based on substance.

Getting back to basics:

I stated that it was not possible for a Scottish registered company to change its registered office to England.

You stated that I was wrong. And that it was a simple process of "filing for legal re-adjustment of registered offices"

I think even you will agree that you either just made that up or you don't actually understand the process.

I don't actually care what it is you do. It's clear, however, that you don't fully understand many of the issues faced, irrespective of how close you think you are to the process.

Geezer

If LBG is unable to re-register (for want of a better term) their registered office from the Mound, that still doesn't preclude them having some organisational change and re-naming? I have been part of the group for some years, through BoS, HBOS and LBG, and with the recent farming off of the TSB part of the organisation, it's not entirely impossible the group will change again. That would be an oppurtunity to do it, as they did before. The Mound has not always been the registered office from my point of view.

So, they may not be able to move a registered office as it stands, but in the past the registered office has not been in Scotland, so however they got round that, they could do it again?