The Great Scottish FREEEEEEEEEDOOOMMMMM!!!!1!!! vote

[Ben Kenobi]

Quit playing with your food, Reg.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've never heard of this before and Wikipedia says something completely different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack

From your source at Wikipedia.

Various shades of blue have been used in the Saltire over the years. The ground of the current Union Flag is a deep "navy" blue (Pantone 280), which can be traced to the colour used for the Blue Ensign of the Royal Navy's historic "Blue Squadron". (Dark shades of colour were used on maritime flags on the basis of durability.) In 2003 a committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended that the flag of Scotland use a lighter "royal" blue, (Pantone 300). (The Office of the Lord Lyon does not detail specific shades of colour for use in heraldry.)

A thin white stripe, or fimbriation, separates the red cross from the blue field, in accordance with heraldry's rule of tincture where colours (like red and blue) must be separated from each other by metals (like white, i.e. argent or silver). The blazon for the old union flag, to be compared with the current flag, is Azure, the Cross Saltire of St Andrew Argent surmounted by the Cross of St George Gules, fimbriated of the second.

[Bereta_Eder]

[Dauphin]

So, if the Scots vote for independence, then what happens next May in the General Election. Do the Scots vote for an MP in Westminster or not - they won't be independent by then? If they do vote, who forms the government if Labour have a majority only because of the Scots?

[molly bloom]

Ireland had tea shock? Shouldn't that be in a thread of its own?

No but Irish breakfast tea can induce shock in those used only to lapsang souchong.

[molly bloom]

Who the **** would invade Scotland?

In the past, the Irish, the Norwegians, and the Angles. And the Anglo-Normans. Some Welsh left. Then the Scots returned the favour to the Irish by emigrating to Ireland.

Blame James I & VI.

[kentonio]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798

In a letter to staff, the bank's chief executive said there was no intention to move operations or jobs.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a582b044-393c-11e4-9526-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3D6isoLp5

It added: “While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England. This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.”

Etc.

Fair enough. That's certainly not the word going around internally at those institutions, but who knows it could just be precautionary planning. They are certainly asking around about large properties in London however, and are already transfering assets. That comes directly from staff high up in the companies (although obviously there's nothing I can link you to prove that).

[kentonio]

So, if the Scots vote for independence, then what happens next May in the General Election. Do the Scots vote for an MP in Westminster or not - they won't be independent by then? If they do vote, who forms the government if Labour have a majority only because of the Scots?

We don't know basically. If they vote yes though, I can't see the Tories allowing it to happen. Equally though Labour would never allow the election to be put back (which some have suggested). I really don't know what the right solution would be unless there was a one year government which another GE the following March. Not ideal but I don't see how anything else would be fair.

[Fake Boris]

Fair enough. That's certainly not the word going around internally at those institutions, but who knows it could just be precautionary planning. They are certainly asking around about large properties in London however, and are already transfering assets. That comes directly from staff high up in the companies (although obviously there's nothing I can link you to prove that).

Moving assets is the typical scaremongering in independence cases.

It just doesn't pass the test of reality. When a new nation is formed, businesses have to set up new structures to comply with local requirements. This means more jobs, not less jobs. There are countless other benefits. Thousands of diplomatic personnel will settle in Edinburgh; many stock exchange operations that I would presume occur in London would be relocated to Scotland, for practical and legal reasons.

[kentonio]

Moving assets is the typical scaremongering in independence cases.

It just doesn't pass the test of reality. When a new nation is formed, businesses have to set up new structures to comply with local requirements. This means more jobs, not less jobs.

Why? The mass bulk of their business is in the south not in Scotland. Why would they not only maintain lots of their oprtations in Scotland but also hire lots of new staff?

There are countless other benefits. Thousands of diplomatic personnel will settle in Edinburgh;

There will definitely be advantages and it'd be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The thing is though they'd be swapping a lot of definite negatives for some quite vague possible positives. That's what makes a lot of Scots scared, that they simply have no idea how long it'd take for things to stabilize. It's also not a huge comfort if you are one of the tens of thousands working in FA to know that you might lose your job but lots of diplomatic personnel might get new ones.

many stock exchange operations that I would presume occur in London would be relocated to Scotland, for practical and legal reasons.

Why?

[kentonio]

Another question btw, if independence isn't bad for those financial institutions, why exactly would they bother scaremongering?

[regexcellent]

I think he's overestimating the likelyhood of diplomats settling in Edinburgh, also. I bet most countries would handle things through their London embassies, perhaps with a consulate in Scotland.

[Hauldren Collider]

A whole bunch of smaller countries have their diplomatic missions to Canada and Mexico in Washington, DC. Diplomatic missions are expensive. Only major countries will bother to establish embassies in an independent Scotland.

[regexcellent]

Are you sure about that? Canada and Mexico are both large countries. Canada has 30 million people and Mexico has 120 million.

[notyoueither]

Moving assets is the typical scaremongering in independence cases.

It just doesn't pass the test of reality. When a new nation is formed, businesses have to set up new structures to comply with local requirements. This means more jobs, not less jobs. There are countless other benefits. Thousands of diplomatic personnel will settle in Edinburgh; many stock exchange operations that I would presume occur in London would be relocated to Scotland, for practical and legal reasons.

Now tell them about the loss of business, jobs, and brain power that came with the referendum in 1980.

Montreal was a financial hub of Canada. That all moved to Toronto, along with most of the jobs and many other businesses due to uncertainty. To be fair, there was also the language thing that drove anglophone families out.