Thursday, 27 February 2014

Soooooo... Standard Life.

If you needed any more proof the BBC isn't keen on telling the truth around the independence debate, you'd be hard pushed to find a better example than this:

We all know its the headline that counts, people see it, go 'Oooooh! Imagine that' then go to the shops.

But here's what Standard Life actually said:

Click to enlarge.
Salient quote:
"In view of the uncertainty that is likely to remain around this issue, there are steps that we can and will take now based on our own analysis. For example, we have started work to establish additional registered companies to operate outside Scotland, into which we could transfer parts of our operations if it was necessary to do so. This is a purely precautionary measure, and customers do not need to take any action. We are simply putting in place a mechanism which, in the event of constitutional change, allows us to provide continuity to customers and to continue serving them, wherever they live in the UK."
So lets talk about that uncertainty for a moment. Who's providing it? Westminster is, it is fatuous to suggest its all Alex Salmond's fault because he's forcing a referendum, Scotland voted for the SNP giving them a majority, its how democracy works.

Its the opposite of this bizarre self-perpetuating double positive, erm, negative argument.
It is Westminster via George Osborne (and we have to assume a retinue of SpAd's) who think saying no to a currency union would be bad for the Yes Campaign. It is the lack of a currency union which is forcing Standard Life to take precautionary measures.

So, when the BBC tells you, as it was doing this morning - at least on the news broadcasts punctuating Chris Evans' home counties middle-class love-in morning show - that Standard Life could 'leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote' - it is untrue, a lie and a falsehood.

Standard Life sent someone to Companies House to fill out some forms - they may even have done it online - they haven't for example booked Pickfords or told its 5000 staff in Scotland to move south or be sacked. The BBC along with most of the Scottish press corps have websites, so we have to assume they know Standard Life - being as it is a fairly serious going concern - has an internet connection which would allow it to conduct business almost anywhere, not just in the UK but on the planet.

I've decided not to dignify this Standard Life story with any more words, instead, here's how the BBC's report should have looked:

I notice the story is also open for comments; what's that I hear you say? A story with faux negative implications for the Yes Campaign and the BBC have allowed comments?

I simply refuse to believe it.

**Edit: I was going to point out that Robert Peston does attribute this action by Standard Life to Osborne's rejection of a currency union, but you know what? Its buried so far down in the story and so loaded with caveats; its hardly worth mentioning.**


  1. Pa

    I haven't really followed the story but a friend told me and it was a so f### FROM ME. They won't move anywhere because they make lots of money. At the end of the day theat is all they care about, its just a shameless attempt at fear from the Westminster broadcasting company. It will backfire.


  2. Aye.

    Some people just will not be reached and there's not much you can do other than move on to those who can.

    Frustrating, but there it is.

    I admit when I heard this last night and this morning on the radio, I thought it would be trouble, but as usual its all wind and piss from the press, although, there seems to be collusion from the Standard Life board going by what Derek Bateman is saying.

    At the risk of sounding stubbornly immovable - it doesn't change my vote either. The idea that we might pander to the needs of rich fat cats and vote no?

    I think not.


  3. If for whatever reason Standard Life decides to take its business elsewhere, then I shall do the same thing.

    Why are the UKOK government doing all this. I realise they are not very competent, being where they are because of who they are rather than them actually knowing anything, bit even a dead frog would know that if we lose the referendum because of these idiotic smears, there is going to be some serious bad feeling going around.

    They may keep their oil money, and their position of Obamas arse licker, but at what cost?

  4. True enough.

    Because I don't imagine I'll stop debunking the lies they've told to get their no vote and I dare say many others will continue too.

    Far as I'm concerned I'll continue to change peoples minds about it all. We've come to far to stop now.

    I'm beginning to sound like a power ballad so I'll stop there by saying, we'll get a yes anyway.



Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.

Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?