Scottish Independence
11 March 2014, 02:43 PM
#421
Scooby Regular
Surely globalisation will simply mean that they will go where they get the biggest (perceived or otherwise) competitive advantage
"Technicalities" will count for fvck all
"Technicalities" will count for fvck all
11 March 2014, 03:27 PM
#422
Scooby Regular
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?
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?
They could of course restructure or incorporate new legal entities in England into which the assets can be transferred. But that's not anything like as simple as, say, RBS buying another bank (and therefore becoming its holding company) as all RBS does in that case is buy the shares - a relatively simple transaction. In that example the assets and liabilities of the other bank (including every retail and commercial account) stay in that company. The change to RBS balance sheet (lkeeping it simple) is that it has another investment asset and either its reserves are depleted or it carries the liability appropriate to the purchase price. What you'd be looking at here is a transfer of both investment and physical assets that LBG Plc and RBS Plc own, together with a transfer of the liability.
Now, as a shareholder in say RBS Plc the share price and hence the value of your investment is based on many things, but specifically the financial position of RBS plc. If a new, lets call it RBS (England) plc is incorporated, the assets and liabilities transferred, you'd be holding shares in an empty shell worth nothing. So collectively, as a shareholder, you either need to be made an offer for your shares, receive shares in RBS (England) plc in equal value, or you're going to say no to the proposed move. Every bank account held with RBS plc is going to have to be moved to a new legal entity.
Likewise every creditor of RBS Plc is going to have to consent to the transfer/assignation of that debt. You can't just transfer the liabilities from RBS plc to RBS (England) Plc without the agreement of everone who's owed money by RBS plc. And that includes every account holder with savings.
With the best will in the world, the new entity is not going to be just the same but based England. Which will impact the value of the bank and its share price. as of course would independence. But its all the huge unknown.
So its far from a simple process. yes it can be done but it both has to be a different legal entity and as a result it is, contrary to Ray's assertions, a massive undertaking.
11 March 2014, 03:41 PM
#423
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it is not unprecedented? BOS merged with Halifax, who's registered office was in England, but the registered office is now in Scotland. OK, it's a new entity, but my point is it has been done, they were willing to do it for whatever reason, we do not know what their intentions will be, nor how far they are willing to go, to exit an independent Scotland.
11 March 2014, 03:46 PM
#424
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
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
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
* You've been out there drilling and scanning for the past nine years, so how much oil did you find and how long will the oil reserves last?
* North Sea oil production is in steep decline and was down 40% in the last three years with only 15 wells drilled last year compared with 44 in 2008. Is exploration in the North Sea becoming more expensive as the rewards for risks make it less financially viable or is that investors don't see the North Sea as attractive any more as they're unlikely to find any significant new reserves? The decline surely equates to the decline and long term sustainability in tax revenue Scotland would receive.
* How is Scotland going to attract the billions in investments required in years to come to North Sea production to maintain it's aging infrastructure in an increasingly competitive market and stimulate new exploration. When this industry wants long term stability and predictability; BP and Shell do not Scotland to be independent as this would bring with it fiscal instability.
* As oil and gas fields mature, how much will it cost Scotland in tax relief to companies to decomission thousands of miles of pipelines, wells and oil rigs in decades to come?
I'm genuinely interested.
11 March 2014, 04:30 PM
#425
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
LBG Plc or RBS plc as legal entities cannot register in England (unless we adopt the fairytale law by which Ray would do it)
They could of course restructure or incorporate new legal entities in England into which the assets can be transferred. But that's not anything like as simple as, say, RBS buying another bank (and therefore becoming its holding company) as all RBS does in that case is buy the shares - a relatively simple transaction. In that example the assets and liabilities of the other bank (including every retail and commercial account) stay in that company. The change to RBS balance sheet (lkeeping it simple) is that it has another investment asset and either its reserves are depleted or it carries the liability appropriate to the purchase price. What you'd be looking at here is a transfer of both investment and physical assets that LBG Plc and RBS Plc own, together with a transfer of the liability.
Now, as a shareholder in say RBS Plc the share price and hence the value of your investment is based on many things, but specifically the financial position of RBS plc. If a new, lets call it RBS (England) plc is incorporated, the assets and liabilities transferred, you'd be holding shares in an empty shell worth nothing. So collectively, as a shareholder, you either need to be made an offer for your shares, receive shares in RBS (England) plc in equal value, or you're going to say no to the proposed move. Every bank account held with RBS plc is going to have to be moved to a new legal entity.
Likewise every creditor of RBS Plc is going to have to consent to the transfer/assignation of that debt. You can't just transfer the liabilities from RBS plc to RBS (England) Plc without the agreement of everone who's owed money by RBS plc. And that includes every account holder with savings.
With the best will in the world, the new entity is not going to be just the same but based England. Which will impact the value of the bank and its share price. as of course would independence. But its all the huge unknown.
So its far from a simple process. yes it can be done but it both has to be a different legal entity and as a result it is, contrary to Ray's assertions, a massive undertaking.
They could of course restructure or incorporate new legal entities in England into which the assets can be transferred. But that's not anything like as simple as, say, RBS buying another bank (and therefore becoming its holding company) as all RBS does in that case is buy the shares - a relatively simple transaction. In that example the assets and liabilities of the other bank (including every retail and commercial account) stay in that company. The change to RBS balance sheet (lkeeping it simple) is that it has another investment asset and either its reserves are depleted or it carries the liability appropriate to the purchase price. What you'd be looking at here is a transfer of both investment and physical assets that LBG Plc and RBS Plc own, together with a transfer of the liability.
Now, as a shareholder in say RBS Plc the share price and hence the value of your investment is based on many things, but specifically the financial position of RBS plc. If a new, lets call it RBS (England) plc is incorporated, the assets and liabilities transferred, you'd be holding shares in an empty shell worth nothing. So collectively, as a shareholder, you either need to be made an offer for your shares, receive shares in RBS (England) plc in equal value, or you're going to say no to the proposed move. Every bank account held with RBS plc is going to have to be moved to a new legal entity.
Likewise every creditor of RBS Plc is going to have to consent to the transfer/assignation of that debt. You can't just transfer the liabilities from RBS plc to RBS (England) Plc without the agreement of everone who's owed money by RBS plc. And that includes every account holder with savings.
With the best will in the world, the new entity is not going to be just the same but based England. Which will impact the value of the bank and its share price. as of course would independence. But its all the huge unknown.
So its far from a simple process. yes it can be done but it both has to be a different legal entity and as a result it is, contrary to Ray's assertions, a massive undertaking.
11 March 2014, 05:51 PM
#426
Scooby Regular
But it is not unprecedented? BOS merged with Halifax, who's registered office was in England, but the registered office is now in Scotland. OK, it's a new entity, but my point is it has been done, they were willing to do it for whatever reason, we do not know what their intentions will be, nor how far they are willing to go, to exit an independent Scotland.
The question is, could RBS Plc or LBG plc merge with a.n.other bank registered in England and create a newco as HBOS did? More unlikely given the comparative size of each of RBS and LBG. Woudn't be a merger of equals, and would the regulators allow it anyway?
The simplest way foward could be to incorporate new English holding companies that could aquire the majority shareholding in RBS plc and LBG Plc - but where is the funding coming from to do that - assuming the shareholders vote in favour? How many billions would need to be available to a new holding co to aquire a majority stake in either RBS or LBG plc?
And the assets would remain with what was RBS plc which (whatever it was named) would remain a Scottish registered company - the holding would only have the investment asset in the Scottish trading bank.
As I said - its a massive undertaking.
11 March 2014, 05:55 PM
#427
Scooby Regular
If RBS makes financial sense then an independent Scotland would be best placed to want it to stay. If it doesn't then the opposite applies and, quote frankly, good riddance.
11 March 2014, 06:54 PM
#428
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, perhaps you are best placed in the North Sea Oil industry to answer a few questions:
* You've been out there drilling and scanning for the past nine years, so how much oil did you find and how long will the oil reserves last?
* North Sea oil production is in steep decline and was down 40% in the last three years with only 15 wells drilled last year compared with 44 in 2008. Is exploration in the North Sea becoming more expensive as the rewards for risks make it less financially viable or is that investors don't see the North Sea as attractive any more as they're unlikely to find any significant new reserves? The decline surely equates to the decline and long term sustainability in tax revenue Scotland would receive.
* How is Scotland going to attract the billions in investments required in years to come to North Sea production to maintain it's aging infrastructure in an increasingly competitive market and stimulate new exploration. When this industry wants long term stability and predictability; BP and Shell do not Scotland to be independent as this would bring with it fiscal instability.
* As oil and gas fields mature, how much will it cost Scotland in tax relief to companies to decomission thousands of miles of pipelines, wells and oil rigs in decades to come?
I'm genuinely interested.
* You've been out there drilling and scanning for the past nine years, so how much oil did you find and how long will the oil reserves last?
* North Sea oil production is in steep decline and was down 40% in the last three years with only 15 wells drilled last year compared with 44 in 2008. Is exploration in the North Sea becoming more expensive as the rewards for risks make it less financially viable or is that investors don't see the North Sea as attractive any more as they're unlikely to find any significant new reserves? The decline surely equates to the decline and long term sustainability in tax revenue Scotland would receive.
* How is Scotland going to attract the billions in investments required in years to come to North Sea production to maintain it's aging infrastructure in an increasingly competitive market and stimulate new exploration. When this industry wants long term stability and predictability; BP and Shell do not Scotland to be independent as this would bring with it fiscal instability.
* As oil and gas fields mature, how much will it cost Scotland in tax relief to companies to decomission thousands of miles of pipelines, wells and oil rigs in decades to come?
I'm genuinely interested.
for there only being 15 oilwells being drilled last year does not really matter as there is hundreds of wells already drilled by whats called a semi " semi submersible rig " A floating rig or a jack up that moves about the north sea drilling wells then we log the wells then they cap them and move to a different location
not sure what happens after that if they install a pipeline to them or leave them to comeback to later.
I dont do anything drilling related but when the oil companys have drilled a well they would send us out to put scanning tools down the well to take readings and pressures and samples.
also I dont think only 15 wells were drilled last year maybe for one specific company only 15 wells were drilled but I doubt only 15 wells over all the drilling companys but I cant be sure as I have not looked into it.
as in the company I have just left after 9 years there is a high profile tool we would run for wells being drilled and we were always out on rigs as these jobs were the big money tickets and we were super busy with this toolstring so I cant say for sure but I would imagine if we were so busy with this tool there was a lot more wells being drilled.
for example on how much oil is out there BP drilled oil wells in west shetland
and the bp clair platform was built there and came online with production in 2005 with a massive
oil reserve of around five billion barrels in the ground in 2008 after thee years of extracting massive amounts of oil BP estimated they have extracted less than 1% of the oil reserve and thats only one oil platform and there are loads of them in the sea.
and there is other big oil fields that have been found recently the buzzard field is another massive find of oil.
yes some are producing less as when extracting oil the pressure down the well
decreases meaning less oil is getting pushed up the well into the pipeline so there is still extreme amounts of oil down there but doesnt have the pressure of pushing the oil up and out the well.
but here is the the thing there are now technology's being developed for this problem and some that are already here.
For instance fracking which supercharges the formation down the oilwell and cracks the formation down the well for the oil to and gas to get extracted.
its not really been used yet in the north sea but my friends in the usa and Canada told me about the amount of fracking that is going on over there on old oil wells is immense.
lets put it this way after all the fracking campaigns that have went on in the USA america has went from a major importer of oil to almost a exporter of oil
as now all them old wells are producing oil again and this information came from at least 7 different Americans that I know from working in the oil industry
also I think you should be able to find this info online as well.
here is just one example its about oil prices in america but it does state now the usa are now producing more oil than saudi arabia " thats where I now work in the oil industry BTW " due to fracking.
http://www.inquisitr.com/995051/unit...rices-so-high/
fracking has not even begun in the north sea yet now when it does believe me when I say there is going to be a explosion of oil production when we do decide to start fracking
so all them oil wells that you say are producing less dont mean jack because once the green light is given to start fracking in the north sea its going to push the oil production to new levels.
also about investments and tax relief's and stuff like that I dont know and wont comment on things I dont have a good understanding of
but one thing I am certain of is with new technology and ways to extract oil I dont think in my lifetime I will see the end of oil production in the north sea
as there is still loads of places we still have not drilled yet and also drilling deeper as well and things like fracking.
there will still be massive field like the bp clair and the buzzard field still waiting to be found.
they were saying back before these two fields were found that oil in the north sea is declining then we go and find two massive oil field which are regarded as major oil finds on a global scale
Last edited by nizmo80; 11 March 2014 at 07:21 PM.
11 March 2014, 09:38 PM
#429
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I'm sure you were saying it wasn't possible to do the move but now saying it is potential but massive work........
Anyway, regardless of the quick point above... back to other points - so no company can be registered in a country and do a few tactical moves to have registration moved to other country??? (I'll not give you any pressing hints on how this can be achieved as you'll know its been done before....).
So if the vote is yes we will quickly see who really did know the insight and who is actually just dealng in 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'. However if it isn't yes, what we can do as I note your pretty close with regards to location is invite me to your grand offices in town and I'll invite you as a guest to mine and we can see who is most likely to be that much closer on this said topic and company
.
Last edited by ScottishRayman; 11 March 2014 at 09:40 PM.
11 March 2014, 10:36 PM
#430
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a bank account. I have had one since I was 11 years old. The colour of my Bank is Blue. The man who deals with me at the desk is very helpful and wears a Blue tie also. I have saved money since I was 11 years old from my Bank to buy a limited edition Henry Hoover with is also Blue. I have been collecting Hoovers since I was 14. Here is a link to my dream Hoover. http://www.henryvacs.co.uk/acatalog/..._in_Blue_.html
If I get this Hoover I would mean the world to me and would love to one day own one. It even has 2 years warranty with it for piece of mind. I have a cat aswell which is not Blue though......
If I get this Hoover I would mean the world to me and would love to one day own one. It even has 2 years warranty with it for piece of mind. I have a cat aswell which is not Blue though......
11 March 2014, 10:49 PM
#431
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a bank account. I have had one since I was 11 years old. The colour of my Bank is Blue. The man who deals with me at the desk is very helpful and wears a Blue tie also. I have saved money since I was 11 years old from my Bank to buy a limited edition Henry Hoover with is also Blue. I have been collecting Hoovers since I was 14. Here is a link to my dream Hoover. http://www.henryvacs.co.uk/acatalog/..._in_Blue_.html
If I get this Hoover I would mean the world to me and would love to one day own one. It even has 2 years warranty with it for piece of mind. I have a cat aswell which is not Blue though......
If I get this Hoover I would mean the world to me and would love to one day own one. It even has 2 years warranty with it for piece of mind. I have a cat aswell which is not Blue though......
11 March 2014, 11:24 PM
#433
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 March 2014, 11:51 PM
#434
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Ok Jonc
for there only being 15 oilwells being drilled last year does not really matter as there is hundreds of wells already drilled by whats called a semi " semi submersible rig " A floating rig or a jack up that moves about the north sea drilling wells then we log the wells then they cap them and move to a different location
not sure what happens after that if they install a pipeline to them or leave them to comeback to later...........................
for there only being 15 oilwells being drilled last year does not really matter as there is hundreds of wells already drilled by whats called a semi " semi submersible rig " A floating rig or a jack up that moves about the north sea drilling wells then we log the wells then they cap them and move to a different location
not sure what happens after that if they install a pipeline to them or leave them to comeback to later...........................
11 March 2014, 11:55 PM
#435
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe when fracking is started in the north sea oil production will go crazy.
and I bet thats what Salmond has in mind when he said that.
12 March 2014, 11:02 AM
#436
Scooby Regular
Hopefully you get your Bahamas dream as funnily enough I have thoughts quite the same, Pension fund looking good but we'll see how far it gets me come time.
I'm sure you were saying it wasn't possible to do the move but now saying it is potential but massive work........
Anyway, regardless of the quick point above... back to other points - so no company can be registered in a country and do a few tactical moves to have registration moved to other country??? (I'll not give you any pressing hints on how this can be achieved as you'll know its been done before....).
So if the vote is yes we will quickly see who really did know the insight and who is actually just dealng in 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'. However if it isn't yes, what we can do as I note your pretty close with regards to location is invite me to your grand offices in town and I'll invite you as a guest to mine and we can see who is most likely to be that much closer on this said topic and company.
I'm sure you were saying it wasn't possible to do the move but now saying it is potential but massive work........
Anyway, regardless of the quick point above... back to other points - so no company can be registered in a country and do a few tactical moves to have registration moved to other country??? (I'll not give you any pressing hints on how this can be achieved as you'll know its been done before....).
So if the vote is yes we will quickly see who really did know the insight and who is actually just dealng in 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'. However if it isn't yes, what we can do as I note your pretty close with regards to location is invite me to your grand offices in town and I'll invite you as a guest to mine and we can see who is most likely to be that much closer on this said topic and company
.Let me have one last go at this, just for the sake of clarity.
A Scottish registered company cannot change its registered office to England. That is fact. A point of law. No tactical moves can alter that. On that point I am 100% correct, despite your statement to the contrary.
There is no such thing as "filing for legal re-adjustment of legal offices" as you had asserted. Incidentally, I note that you've conveniently ignored that you were totally wrong on that point.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, registered number SC090312 can never be registered in England.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc, registered number SC095000 can never be registered in England.
If you'd bothered to read what I'd posted you'd see that I've said the banks as a business (as opposed to a legal entity) could relocate, but it would be a massive undertaking, something Robert Peston completely failed to mention in his article.
I could incorporate a limited company in Scotland with say £100 of assets. I could then incorporate a limited company in England. The English company could buy at least 75% (to be a parent co) of the shares in the Scottish company and I could then hive up the assets from the Scottish company to the English company. I could then effect a name swap between the two, giving the appearance of a change from a Scottish registered company to an English registered company. But they are different legal entities, and hiving up £billions of assets from one PLC to another is a completely different ballgame, and thats on the basis that new parent co was able to buy not less than 75% of the shareholding. And it has to pay market value for the assets hived up.
Easy in a small private company, not so easy in a massive Plc with £bn of assets.
If you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd know the difference between the legal entity of a company and the business it operates. But its pretty clear you don't. You'd also know the implications of restructuring a plc to a new legal entity. But its pretty clear you don't.
Instead your entire point is based on "law" which doesn't exist, "facts" which are completely wrong, apparently having an "insight" (which your lack of a basic understanding of company law makes me seriously question) and the incorrect assumption that (as with most of the posts on here) my position is based on 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'
Funnily enough, I've asked all my banking contacts in LBG if they've heard of you. No one has..
So for now, I'm with Nismo on this one
Edit - they won't have heard of you because I'm going to have another guess - you work for an LBG subsidiary - and I'm probably going to run with marketing? Maybe a marketing manager? No doubt with a fair chunk of experience in call centres.
Which explains why you know so little about company/corporate law.
Stick to what you know mate. No one likes a blagger
Last edited by Devildog; 12 March 2014 at 11:49 AM.
12 March 2014, 12:33 PM
#439
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Dude
Let me have one last go at this, just for the sake of clarity.
A Scottish registered company cannot change its registered office to England. That is fact. A point of law. No tactical moves can alter that. On that point I am 100% correct, despite your statement to the contrary.
There is no such thing as "filing for legal re-adjustment of legal offices" as you had asserted. Incidentally, I note that you've conveniently ignored that you were totally wrong on that point.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, registered number SC090312 can never be registered in England.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc, registered number SC095000 can never be registered in England.
If you'd bothered to read what I'd posted you'd see that I've said the banks as a business (as opposed to a legal entity) could relocate, but it would be a massive undertaking, something Robert Peston completely failed to mention in his article.
I could incorporate a limited company in Scotland with say £100 of assets. I could then incorporate a limited company in England. The English company could buy at least 75% (to be a parent co) of the shares in the Scottish company and I could then hive up the assets from the Scottish company to the English company. I could then effect a name swap between the two, giving the appearance of a change from a Scottish registered company to an English registered company. But they are different legal entities, and hiving up £billions of assets from one PLC to another is a completely different ballgame, and thats on the basis that new parent co was able to buy not less than 75% of the shareholding. And it has to pay market value for the assets hived up.
Easy in a small private company, not so easy in a massive Plc with £bn of assets.
If you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd know the difference between the legal entity of a company and the business it operates. But its pretty clear you don't. You'd also know the implications of restructuring a plc to a new legal entity. But its pretty clear you don't.
Instead your entire point is based on "law" which doesn't exist, "facts" which are completely wrong, apparently having an "insight" (which your lack of a basic understanding of company law makes me seriously question) and the incorrect assumption that (as with most of the posts on here) my position is based on 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'
Funnily enough, I've asked all my banking contacts in LBG if they've heard of you. No one has..
So for now, I'm with Nismo on this one
Edit - they won't have heard of you because I'm going to have another guess - you work for an LBG subsidiary - and I'm probably going to run with marketing? Maybe a marketing manager? No doubt with a fair chunk of experience in call centres.
Which explains why you know so little about company/corporate law.
Stick to what you know mate. No one likes a blagger
Let me have one last go at this, just for the sake of clarity.
A Scottish registered company cannot change its registered office to England. That is fact. A point of law. No tactical moves can alter that. On that point I am 100% correct, despite your statement to the contrary.
There is no such thing as "filing for legal re-adjustment of legal offices" as you had asserted. Incidentally, I note that you've conveniently ignored that you were totally wrong on that point.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, registered number SC090312 can never be registered in England.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc, registered number SC095000 can never be registered in England.
If you'd bothered to read what I'd posted you'd see that I've said the banks as a business (as opposed to a legal entity) could relocate, but it would be a massive undertaking, something Robert Peston completely failed to mention in his article.
I could incorporate a limited company in Scotland with say £100 of assets. I could then incorporate a limited company in England. The English company could buy at least 75% (to be a parent co) of the shares in the Scottish company and I could then hive up the assets from the Scottish company to the English company. I could then effect a name swap between the two, giving the appearance of a change from a Scottish registered company to an English registered company. But they are different legal entities, and hiving up £billions of assets from one PLC to another is a completely different ballgame, and thats on the basis that new parent co was able to buy not less than 75% of the shareholding. And it has to pay market value for the assets hived up.
Easy in a small private company, not so easy in a massive Plc with £bn of assets.
If you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd know the difference between the legal entity of a company and the business it operates. But its pretty clear you don't. You'd also know the implications of restructuring a plc to a new legal entity. But its pretty clear you don't.
Instead your entire point is based on "law" which doesn't exist, "facts" which are completely wrong, apparently having an "insight" (which your lack of a basic understanding of company law makes me seriously question) and the incorrect assumption that (as with most of the posts on here) my position is based on 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'
Funnily enough, I've asked all my banking contacts in LBG if they've heard of you. No one has..
So for now, I'm with Nismo on this one
Edit - they won't have heard of you because I'm going to have another guess - you work for an LBG subsidiary - and I'm probably going to run with marketing? Maybe a marketing manager? No doubt with a fair chunk of experience in call centres.
Which explains why you know so little about company/corporate law.
Stick to what you know mate. No one likes a blagger
12 March 2014, 12:52 PM
#440
Scooby Regular
I'm not going to argue the point of whether RBS can "re-register" their offices because of "law". But the point may be moot since the EU directive could, and in many cases, overide UK law. The point is companies will do it regardless of whether it possibly being a massive undertaking or not. Standard Life are have already started the process by setting up registered companies in England.
As for EU directives overriding UK law - show me some examples. Generally what happensn is there are work arounds.
Had Ray not jumped in to counter what I had posted with some "made up process" then this thread could have been a couple of pages shorter
12 March 2014, 01:53 PM
#441
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I've never said the banks won't do it, just that Peston totally glossed over the significant difficulties involved and as a result his editorial was massively one sided (and therefore should not have been published by the BBC)
As for EU directives overriding UK law - show me some examples. Generally what happensn is there are work arounds.
Had Ray not jumped in to counter what I had posted with some "made up process" then this thread could have been a couple of pages shorter
As for EU directives overriding UK law - show me some examples. Generally what happensn is there are work arounds.
Had Ray not jumped in to counter what I had posted with some "made up process" then this thread could have been a couple of pages shorter
If you want examples you can start with ECHR and how difficult it was in deporting certain people who preached a particular faith.
12 March 2014, 03:49 PM
#443
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea and what shock would that be then ?
I think it will be England thats in for the nasty shock if we get our independence as none of the taxes generated and oil money and plenty of other sources of income in Scotland will be poured into the thieving scum in Westminster !
me personally if I was salmond and we got independence I would tripple the price of water coming from Scotland into England just to be awkward
I think it will be England thats in for the nasty shock if we get our independence as none of the taxes generated and oil money and plenty of other sources of income in Scotland will be poured into the thieving scum in Westminster !
me personally if I was salmond and we got independence I would tripple the price of water coming from Scotland into England just to be awkward
Last edited by nizmo80; 12 March 2014 at 03:59 PM.
12 March 2014, 09:03 PM
#444
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Armley
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brillaint. 3 Jocks and they cant even agree. good riddance to scotland as hope they vote yes.devildog and scotrayman who do you work for or do you none of you actually work with the banks.
12 March 2014, 09:36 PM
#447
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Yea and what shock would that be then ?
I think it will be England thats in for the nasty shock if we get our independence as none of the taxes generated and oil money and plenty of other sources of income in Scotland will be poured into the thieving scum in Westminster !
me personally if I was salmond and we got independence I would tripple the price of water coming from Scotland into England just to be awkward
I think it will be England thats in for the nasty shock if we get our independence as none of the taxes generated and oil money and plenty of other sources of income in Scotland will be poured into the thieving scum in Westminster !
me personally if I was salmond and we got independence I would tripple the price of water coming from Scotland into England just to be awkward
Still no currency to speak of either.
12 March 2014, 09:44 PM
#448
Scooby Regular
but - personally i would love them to stay in the Union, my deep personal convictions are that people/institutions/countries are always stronger together
that said - I totally respect the scots view on this - they live/work there
my observations on this are how pathetically negative the Union vote is
and i totally go with that self confidence and optimism the yes vote gives the scottish people
12 March 2014, 10:35 PM
#449
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: the rev limiter
Posts: 3,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I catch a ride in a helicopter for the record and if you had the brainpower to read back into the thread slightly before jumping in with spazticated comments you would of known I ride a camel to get to work now in the middle eastern desserts
well maybe
but - personally i would love them to stay in the Union, my deep personal convictions are that people/institutions/countries are always stronger together
that said - I totally respect the scots view on this - they live/work there
my observations on this are how pathetically negative the Union vote is
and i totally go with that self confidence and optimism the yes vote gives the scottish people
but - personally i would love them to stay in the Union, my deep personal convictions are that people/institutions/countries are always stronger together
that said - I totally respect the scots view on this - they live/work there
my observations on this are how pathetically negative the Union vote is
and i totally go with that self confidence and optimism the yes vote gives the scottish people
thank you
Here's a shocker for Alex Salmond: Fall in North Sea oil revenues last year left Scottish economy with worse annual deficit level than United Kingdom
Still no currency to speak of either.
Still no currency to speak of either.
also most articles that are written for newspapers are greatly exaggerated to sell their papers you know this as well as I do !
would you believe as gospel what the sun newspaper writes about whats happening in celebrity life LOL as its mostly bullsh!t 20% truth wrapped in 80% lies.
same scenario with the article you posted just aimed at a different audience with a more mature theme believe what you want but if you believe all that is written in newspapers you are very easily brainwashed.
unlike you I speak from what experience I have in this industry and from what I see in the industry and not from reading exaggerated storys written from companys trying to get your attention to buy their newspapers
Also how many time would you like me to say I wont comment on things I have not got a good understanding with ?
I dont know about currency issues mate I have already told you about this so can you let that sink in.
I wont read some crap mickey mouse internet article on currency issues and use it to back up what I am saying about something I have no knowledge about.
Last edited by nizmo80; 12 March 2014 at 10:40 PM.
12 March 2014, 10:47 PM
#450
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude
Let me have one last go at this, just for the sake of clarity.
A Scottish registered company cannot change its registered office to England. That is fact. A point of law. No tactical moves can alter that. On that point I am 100% correct, despite your statement to the contrary.
There is no such thing as "filing for legal re-adjustment of legal offices" as you had asserted. Incidentally, I note that you've conveniently ignored that you were totally wrong on that point.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, registered number SC090312 can never be registered in England.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc, registered number SC095000 can never be registered in England.
If you'd bothered to read what I'd posted you'd see that I've said the banks as a business (as opposed to a legal entity) could relocate, but it would be a massive undertaking, something Robert Peston completely failed to mention in his article.
I could incorporate a limited company in Scotland with say £100 of assets. I could then incorporate a limited company in England. The English company could buy at least 75% (to be a parent co) of the shares in the Scottish company and I could then hive up the assets from the Scottish company to the English company. I could then effect a name swap between the two, giving the appearance of a change from a Scottish registered company to an English registered company. But they are different legal entities, and hiving up £billions of assets from one PLC to another is a completely different ballgame, and thats on the basis that new parent co was able to buy not less than 75% of the shareholding. And it has to pay market value for the assets hived up.
Easy in a small private company, not so easy in a massive Plc with £bn of assets.
If you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd know the difference between the legal entity of a company and the business it operates. But its pretty clear you don't. You'd also know the implications of restructuring a plc to a new legal entity. But its pretty clear you don't.
Instead your entire point is based on "law" which doesn't exist, "facts" which are completely wrong, apparently having an "insight" (which your lack of a basic understanding of company law makes me seriously question) and the incorrect assumption that (as with most of the posts on here) my position is based on 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'
Funnily enough, I've asked all my banking contacts in LBG if they've heard of you. No one has..
So for now, I'm with Nismo on this one
Edit - they won't have heard of you because I'm going to have another guess - you work for an LBG subsidiary - and I'm probably going to run with marketing? Maybe a marketing manager? No doubt with a fair chunk of experience in call centres.
Which explains why you know so little about company/corporate law.
Stick to what you know mate. No one likes a blagger
Let me have one last go at this, just for the sake of clarity.
A Scottish registered company cannot change its registered office to England. That is fact. A point of law. No tactical moves can alter that. On that point I am 100% correct, despite your statement to the contrary.
There is no such thing as "filing for legal re-adjustment of legal offices" as you had asserted. Incidentally, I note that you've conveniently ignored that you were totally wrong on that point.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Public Limited Company, registered number SC090312 can never be registered in England.
Lloyds Banking Group Plc, registered number SC095000 can never be registered in England.
If you'd bothered to read what I'd posted you'd see that I've said the banks as a business (as opposed to a legal entity) could relocate, but it would be a massive undertaking, something Robert Peston completely failed to mention in his article.
I could incorporate a limited company in Scotland with say £100 of assets. I could then incorporate a limited company in England. The English company could buy at least 75% (to be a parent co) of the shares in the Scottish company and I could then hive up the assets from the Scottish company to the English company. I could then effect a name swap between the two, giving the appearance of a change from a Scottish registered company to an English registered company. But they are different legal entities, and hiving up £billions of assets from one PLC to another is a completely different ballgame, and thats on the basis that new parent co was able to buy not less than 75% of the shareholding. And it has to pay market value for the assets hived up.
Easy in a small private company, not so easy in a massive Plc with £bn of assets.
If you're as knowledgeable as you claim to be, you'd know the difference between the legal entity of a company and the business it operates. But its pretty clear you don't. You'd also know the implications of restructuring a plc to a new legal entity. But its pretty clear you don't.
Instead your entire point is based on "law" which doesn't exist, "facts" which are completely wrong, apparently having an "insight" (which your lack of a basic understanding of company law makes me seriously question) and the incorrect assumption that (as with most of the posts on here) my position is based on 'current stances/google updates/outside reading'
Funnily enough, I've asked all my banking contacts in LBG if they've heard of you. No one has..
So for now, I'm with Nismo on this one
Edit - they won't have heard of you because I'm going to have another guess - you work for an LBG subsidiary - and I'm probably going to run with marketing? Maybe a marketing manager? No doubt with a fair chunk of experience in call centres.
Which explains why you know so little about company/corporate law.
Stick to what you know mate. No one likes a blagger
Lots of drivel again, so trying to source out the decent bits is pretty hard. Anyway, if its hangman we are now playing (since you didn't do well at 'Guess Who' we can draw your full body and get the job over with as yet again for about your 4th/5th guess your behind times with guessing roles and not that accurate Zzzzzzzz.....bizarre as it only took me 10 mins to get yours pmsl. Lets hope you don't end up in police as we'd be fecked
.As you said though, "one last go" so mind keep your word
or just PM to invite me to these offices of yours 
.Leedstoplad - swap yours and I'll pass you mine. Hopefully you can get DD's also
