Tories Campaign Against Scottish Independence (Shock) 136


Keith Skeoch, Executive Director of Standard Life, is on the Board of Reform Scotland, the neo-conservative lobby group which wants to abolish the minimum wage,  privatize the NHS and pensions and restrict trade unions further.

It is difficult for Tories openly to campaign against Scottish Independence as everyone in Scotland hates them, so they do it with their corporate hats on.  This is most of the board of Standard Life:

Keith Skeoch, Executive Director, right wing political lobbyist

Crawford Gillies, Non Executive Director, Chairman of Control Risk Group, of London, the “security consultancy” of choice heavily peopled by ex MI5 and MI6 officers

Garry Grimstone, Chairman, “lead non-executive” at the Ministry of Defence, London

Noel Harwerth, non-executive Director, Director of “London First” – [Honestly, I am not making this up]

David Nish – Chief Executive, Member of the “UK Strategy Committee” of “TheCity UK”. “TheCity UK” being a body of the City of London.

John Paynter, non-executive Director, was vice chairman of JP Morgan Cazenove until the 2008 crash

Amazing that lot oppose independence, huh?

Standard Life also threatened to leave at the time of the devolution referendum and gave out no campaign materials to staff.  “Leave” of course is a relative concept – the above bunch just pop up from London from time to time to check on how the serfs are doing.

 


136 thoughts on “Tories Campaign Against Scottish Independence (Shock)

1 2 3 4 5
  • fred

    “Just like that. Out loud.”

    So the Better Together crowd in Livingstone agree with one of the BNPs policies.

    Come to think of it I’m a bit peeved we are giving India money to buy arms with while we have sad stories as seen here, a young man starved to death because his benefits were stopped. I mean I don’t mind helping the needy in poorer countries but a quarter of a billion quid a year to a country with nuclear weapons and a space program is taking the piss.

  • fred

    “Someone else was disputing that. I wasn’t. Looks like a statement of the bleeding obvious to me. Is that what it takes to qualify as a fact?”

    And don’t you think it’s sensible that people are informed of that fact before they vote?

  • fred

    “Will the song be ‘Scotland the brave’. or ‘Scotland the slave’?”

    Actually slavery was legalised by the Scottish Parliament in 1606 with the Anent Coalyers and Salters act.

    This law was overturned by the British government in 1775 so since then slavery has been illegal in Scotland.

  • Juteman

    “This law was overturned by the British government in 1775 so since then slavery has been illegal in Scotland.”

    The British State, through their agents ATOS, forces unemployed and vulnerable people to work for no pay. UKIP types love it.

  • A Node

    One of the reasons why I’m going to vote YES in September is in the (slight) hope that a Scottish government will be more responsive to a smaller electorate, and in the certainty that the Westminster one never will be. Part of my hope is based on the example of Iceland and the way they dealt with the bankers – jailed the ones they could catch before the rest hopped it. They aren’t resting on their laurels. I don’t know how viable this new currency will prove to be, but I applaud them for trying it, and once again think “If they can do it, maybe Scotland too”. At least they have the freedom of action to try it.

    “So, let me introduce to you the new cryptocurrency of Iceland, Auroracoin.

    Auroracoin is based on Litecoin, a descendant of the Bitcoin protocol, the foremost cryptocurrency in the world. However, it is started by an “Airdrop” of auroracoins to the Icelandic nation, designed to reach almost every Icelander. This one-time event will create the conditions for Icelanders to start using the currency, by providing them with a start and making them aware of the currency and its possibilities. After the Airdrop, the only way to acquire auroracoins will be through mining and transacting. Auroracoin will mirror the development of Bitcoin in the near to medium term.

    The Airdrop will start to take place on March 25th 2014. A national ID database, created by the government will be used for this purpose. Although the thorough registration of the entire Icelandic nation into one database is unfortunate, it creates opportunities to reach a large part of the public through various means. About 330,000 Icelanders will be made able to claim f 31.8 each over the following year.”

    http://auroracoin.org/

  • fred

    “The British State, through their agents ATOS, forces unemployed and vulnerable people to work for no pay. UKIP types love it.”

    I don’t know what it says in your dictionary but in mine slavery is when one person is effectively owned by another.

    Should Scotland gain independence I would expect the present benefits system to continue for a while then get considerably worse. Considering the number of UKIP types there are around.

  • A Node

    Clark,
    a Google search for “Birgitta Jónsdóttir auroracoin” comes up with zilch, but you would imagine she has some involvement in the new currency if she was checking out bitcoin.
    I’ll keep my fingers crossed for Iceland, but I don’t have high hopes. As I’ve explained in a previous discussion about bitcoin, I believe the bankers are too powerful and too protective of their monopoly to allow a serious alternative to develop.

  • Clark

    Fred,- 8:01 pm; that seems an unduly negative assessment. Your Scottish government is considerably more socialist than my Westminster government. You have free prescriptions, free education, and other such things that have been cut in England.

    A humane benefits system doesn’t have to be more expensive than a cruel system.

  • Clark

    A Node, technologically superior methods have a proven record of replacing outdated methods, even against the wishes of vested interests. The bankers can’t even properly run the the money systems they do have such influence over. People may just start voting with their wallets.

  • A Node

    “The bankers can’t even properly run the the money systems they do have such influence over.”

    Well, some people say that the continual cycle of boom and bust is evidence of your assertion. I would say it is evidence of the opposite. They deliberately inflate and deflate economies in order to amass more and more of a nation’s (and its citizen’s) assets. Through their control of the money supply, they can create (lend) money at will. People borrow to buy property and invest in their businesses, then the bankers cut back on lending, the available money in the economy dwindles until there simply isn’t enough left for everybody to repay their debts, and the assets of the bancrupts go to the banks. Repeat indefinitely.

    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)ownership.”

  • fred

    “Fred,- 8:01 pm; that seems an unduly negative assessment. Your Scottish government is considerably more socialist than my Westminster government. You have free prescriptions, free education, and other such things that have been cut in England.”

    Somebody was just telling me the Scots were slaves.

    That doesn’t sound much like slavery to me.

    The Scots are very fortunate to not pay VAT on things like newspapers, children’s clothes, many foods. That wouldn’t continue after independence either.

  • Ben

    “Well, some people say that the continual cycle of boom and bust is evidence of your assertion”

    It’s called ‘pumping’ or ‘churn em and burn em’, because there can’t be winners without losers.

    They’ve been squeezing the blood-sponge since 2008 to get every drop. The World economy has been on life support only until the patient’s blood has been drained. When the patient dies they will be done, A Node.

  • Clark

    Fred, maybe those things wouldn’t continue after independence; I suppose it will depend upon the economy. But at least the Scottish government seems likely to try to do those things, and more. The Westminster government already has a record of getting rid off all those things, the both those that I mentioned and the ones you mentioned.

    Fred, I think you’re giving too little thought to what might happen if the NO vote wins the referendum. It’s east to assume that things will carry on just as they are, but that is only an assumption. Maybe the Westminster government has been effectively bribing the Scottish people into voting NO. If a NO vote relieves Westminster of that pressure, they are likely to turn just as nasty towards the Scots as they currently are to the English.

    I don’t think you, or anyone in Scotland, want that.

  • A Node

    “They’ve been squeezing the blood-sponge since 2008 …”

    More like 1808, at least this side of the Atlantic.
    Britain sold its soul to the bankers to beat Napoleon and they’ve had us by the balls ever since.

  • Clark

    A Node, ultimately, the financial actors need economic actors to have confidence in the currencies that the financial actors deal in. Any currency which is not trusted is as good as useless.

    Plus…

    If there are technology-based alternative currencies, there are ways for economic actors to escape the untrustworthy currencies that the financial actors use.

    These are just my musings; none of this is my field. But it seems to me that with maths-based currencies available, debt-based currencies could lose their appeal in the event of another financial crash.

  • Clark

    Finance needs economy; it has no existence without it. Economy functions much better if finance is available, but economy doesn’t completely cease to exist if finance disappears; if the worst comes to the worst, there’s always barter or gold coins. But it’ll never get that bad from now on, because cryptocurrency has been invented.

    Sorry, I’m just playing with these ideas in my head and on this page.

    There’s nothing to stop the financial organisations from using these cryptocurrencies; they can invest them and lend them just like any traditional currency, I suppose. But can they lend out more than they hold? I don’t think they can.

    Someone help me out with this…

  • A Node

    Clark,
    Everything you say is true if we assume that bankers are just one more player in the game. We can imagine rival groups and currencies jostling for position in the financial system.
    But I believe bankers run the game. Control of the money supply isn’t some optional extra, it’s their core power. Through it they control all the other levers of power – military, industrial, information, energy, science, politics, ….
    This might seem a pretty extreme view, but it’s backed by history. Until the middle of the 20th century, control of the money supply was accepted as being the single most important factor in any nation’s economy. Politicians made speeches about it and countries went to war over it. Then all of a sudden, the subject is never mentioned any more – not because it became unimportant, but because vested interests became powerful enough to suppress it.

    There are some great documentaries on the subject. My own journey began with this 10 minute introduction ….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC720Cl3N-0
    …. followed by this extended more comprehensive 45 minute explanation
    ….. leading to this 3.5 hour masterpiece:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE

    Incidentally, the writer and producer of the last one is a guy called Bill Still. He has been expunged from Wikipedia. I think you’d find the editing history interesting.

  • fred

    @Clark

    No it won’t depend on the economy, those will be just some of the conditions for Scotland joining the EU. Britain being a long standing member has more favourable conditions than new members have.

    Did you consider the possibility that the SNP are bribing the Scots to vote yes. The SNP aren’t actually a Socialist party, they decided to adopt Socialist policies to attract votes for independence, it was all planned by the 79 Group, if they get independence what’s to say they won’t revert to type.

    What A Node is saying about the cycle of boom and bust applies to the cycle of politics too, Socialism is used to consolidate and control wealth then Capitalism is used to transfer it. Socialism is more often than not just a means to an end. A way of harnessing the power of the people, controlling them.

  • Clark

    Fred:

    those will be just some of the conditions for Scotland joining the EU

    This seems overly pessimistic. Does the EU micro-manage to this degree? The variation between EU countries would suggest otherwise. Won’t Scotland be in a position to negotiate? Scotland is not a poor country; Westminster and the corporate system wouldn’t be propagandising so hard to keep hold of it if it was.

    The SNP aren’t actually a Socialist party, […] if they get independence what’s to say they won’t revert to type.

    In which case, unless you’re seriously suggesting that the Scottish Parliament would stop holding elections or change the electoral system to something as inflexible as the Westminster system, the Scottish people could reduce the SNPs power at the next election.

    Socialism is used to consolidate and control wealth then Capitalism is used to transfer it.

    In which case, why are you campaigning against independence? If that’s true, it’s true of the current UK system also, so what’s the difference? Surely a more democratic, voter-controllable system is better for the people that a less democratic system.

  • Clark

    A Node, 10:09 pm;

    Control of the money supply isn’t some optional extra, it’s their core power.

    Yes, this seems true. The more money they lend (out of nothing) the more control they have. But:

    But I believe bankers run the game.

    So why did they need the Monetarists, Thatcher and Reagan, to take the controls off credit? Bankers currently seem to have a lot of influence over politics, probably because countries are in hugely in debt. But governments still make the laws, and if governments will be sufficiently assertive, they can change those laws, and the bankers will have to operate within them.

  • Resident Dissident

    Ken Skeoch may be a Tory and against Scottish Independence, neither of which are yet crimes in Scotland. His day job is as Chief Executive of Standard Life Investments – and despite what Craig might think he has a better track record in that job than most Insurance Company Investment Managers (not that is a particularly high standard) – he is also based in Edinburgh so doesn’t just pop up from London from time to time to check on how the serfs are doing.

    The fact that Craig is attacking the messenger rather than the message speaks volumes – I am not saying that the problem is insurmountable, as insurance companies do operate cross boundaries – but having most of your customers and liabilities in a different country with possibly a different currency and a different regulatory regime would present a few management issues to say the least. If you want to focus on these questions you are more likely to counter Standard Life’s arguments than resorting to anti Tory hyperbole.

  • BrianFujisan

    Re Lamont using The Proclaimers Lyrics…. The Proclaimers Have Their say

    Quote us no more! —

    The Proclaimers hit out at Johann Lamont’s use of Their lyrics –

    Lamont said: “The reality is that more jobs would go than went at Ravenscraig, more jobs would go than at Bathgate, more jobs than at Linwood.

    “If there is a Yes vote, is it not the case that we will need to rewrite the song: ‘Standard Life no more, RBS no more, shipbuilding no more, the Scotland we love and fight for no more’?”

    The brothers behind the band, Charlie and Craig Reid, accused Ms Lamont of “distorting our song as part of Labour’s anti-independence cabal with the Tories”.

    They said: “The reality is Johann Lamont believes the people of Scotland aren’t genetically programmed to take decisions and would prefer we went ‘cap in hand’ to London under Westminster rule than allowing us to govern ourselves.

    “The lyrics in Letter From America are about the job losses and closures that flow from Scotland not having control over her destiny — that is what happened in the 1980s, and that is why Scotland needs independence now.”

    Replying in Hoylrood’s debating chamber, Mr Salmond said: “Does Johann Lamont not recall that what she has just quoted — Bathgate, Linwood, Lochaber no more — were put out by the No campaign in 1979, a campaign that she supported because she was against devolution?

    “Scotland did not get a parliament, and guess what happened? Bathgate, Linwood and Lochaber all closed.”

    http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/quote-us-no-more-the-proclaimers-hit-out-at-johann-lamont-s-use-of-lyrics-1.245049

  • fred

    “This seems overly pessimistic. Does the EU micro-manage to this degree? The variation between EU countries would suggest otherwise. Won’t Scotland be in a position to negotiate? Scotland is not a poor country; Westminster and the corporate system wouldn’t be propagandising so hard to keep hold of it if it was.”

    They could try negotiating if they want but the EU is trying hard to standardise VAT rates across Europe.

    What makes you think that Scotland would be a wealthy country? The only evidence we have is that Salmond says so and he’s been wrong about everything else. If Charles Stewart had stopped at Edinburgh he might have got away with it, he kept on marching to London. What makes you think the Nationalist hostility towards England would suddenly stop with independence?

    “In which case, unless you’re seriously suggesting that the Scottish Parliament would stop holding elections or change the electoral system to something as inflexible as the Westminster system, the Scottish people could reduce the SNPs power at the next election.”

    The SNP are trying to interfere with the constitutional election process in Westminster, no reason to think they wouldn’t do the same in Scotland.

    “In which case, why are you campaigning against independence? If that’s true, it’s true of the current UK system also, so what’s the difference? Surely a more democratic, voter-controllable system is better for the people that a less democratic system.”

    It’s the same all over the world.

    Campaigning? I don’t go knocking on doors with a rosette in my lapel. This is a comments section where people say what their opinions are, I say what mine are.

  • A Node

    Clark
    “So why did they need the Monetarists, Thatcher and Reagan”

    From my perspective, the bankers didn’t need Thatcher and Reagan, it was the other way round. Thatcher and Reagan were appointed by the bankers to implement the next stage in a programme to globalise their financial structures. If they hadn’t agreed to do it, two other stooges would have their places in history.

    The world we see is an illusion created by bankers. To misquote Richard Feynman, “If you think you know what money is, you don’t know what money is.”

  • A Node

    Clark

    “Yes, this seems true. The more money they lend (out of nothing) the more control they have.”

    Yes, but it’s not the lending of money in itself that gives them control of an economy. The real power lies in the fact that because they create the money they lend out of nothing, the more they lend the more money exists within the economy. When there’s a lot of money about everybody buys from each other and the economy flourishes. When they cut lending, more money returns to the banks in debt repayment than goes out in fresh loans so there is increasingly less in circulation until it is mathematically inevitable that a proportion of borrowers will default and go bankrupt.
    So they control the amount of money available. Quite simply, if they lend a lot, the economy booms, if they lend little, the economy busts. That’s the real power.
    And it’s not about the bankers acquiring wealth. It’s about them deciding which countries grow while others starve, which technologies and industries develop, and who wins wars. And much more.

  • Clark

    A Node, 2:45 am; this description is perfectly clear. But they can’t lend cryptocurrency out of nothing, can they? Because each unit of it is individually identified, they can only lend it if they actually have it. So they can’t control it so they’ll oppose it.

    This may or may not be relevant:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbl.is%2Fvidskipti%2Ffrettir%2F2014%2F02%2F11%2Fsegir_syndarmidla_vera_afkimastarfsemi%2F

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.