The BBC is biased…in favour of the United Kingdom……

Nationalists brand BBC’s Nick Robinson ‘a liar’ as thousands protest at corporation’s ‘biased’ coverage on referendum

 

Why?  Because the BBC’s Nick Robinson actually did his job and asked an awkward question…one that Alex Salmond avoided answering…….the spineless Robinson then fell into line and meekly stated that Salmond had answered the question about tax…and note, Robinson has not since gone on to investigate the claims made by Salmond…which is a shame as they bear only a passing resemblance to the truth..but Salmond has Robinson on the run it seems…..

 

To all tweeting about me saying that @AlexSalmond did not answer me : He DID answer re RBS but did NOT re why trust him not company bosses

In fact Salmond’s ‘answer’ was a masterclass in evasion, bluster and bluff redirecting attention away from the issue and onto Salmond’s favourite subject…the persecution of the poor wee SNP by the bullying English in Westminster….playing the victim card to perfection.

If you watch the video near the end Robinson has to demand the answer again to the question about tax revenues and RBS…so clearly at that time he felt Salmond had not answered the question…..

And Robert Peston wonders why Salmond is making such a fuss:

And, to be clear, for all the outrage of Alex Salmond at what he sees as the politically motivated leaking by the Treasury of this migration south, he has known these were the banks’ respective intentions for months (because RBS, for one, told him).

 

The BBC has responded in its usual way…nothing to see here…in this case there isn’t…except for Robinson’s craven surrender to the SNP bullying…..

We received complaints from viewers who felt Nick Robinson’s report on the Scottish First Minister’s press conference implied that Alex Salmond had not answered a question put to him

The BBC’s Political Editor Nick Robinson asked Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond two questions at his press conference on Thursday 11th September. The first question centred on the tax implications of RBS moving its legal headquarters to London; the second on why voters should trust a politician rather than businessmen.

Nick Robinson’s report showed the second question on trust, with a script line noting that Mr Salmond had not answered that point.

The BBC considers that the questions were valid and the overall report balanced and impartial, in line with our editorial guidelines.

Robinson asked if Salmond still believed there were no consequences resulting from businesses such as RBS moving to London, or did Salmond accept that tax revenues would go to London?

Salmond replied that corporation tax depends on economic activity not where your registered office is claiming that RBS’s and Lloyd’s registered office’s were merely brass plaques with no significance.

But that’s not true.  The brass plaques represent the legal entity of the company.

The Banks are moving their legal entities from Scotland to England…..and as such would likely be under English tax jurisdiction….and Lloyds does have its head office in London but it is a Scottish company legally…and its subsidairy, The Bank of Scotland, has its HQ in Edinburgh…so that will move also…disengenuous of Salmond to dodge that….

The move will end more than 100 years of heritage for the Edinburgh based Bank of Scotland, which has its head office in St Andrew Square.

 

 

From City AM:

Lloyds Banking Group will move its official headquarters out of Scotland if the country votes for independence in next week’s referendum.

The banking group which owns Lloyds Bank, Halifax and Bank of Scotland largely operate from its London headquarters, however the bank’s registered offices are in Edinburgh.

RBS statement:

As part of such contingency planning, RBS believes that it would be necessary to re-domicile the Bank’s holding company and its primary rated operating entity (The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) to England.

The Guardian looks at businesses moving their head offices…although RBS and Lloyds aren’t moving for tax purposes such effects could happen by default…..

Corporate inversion – moving the head office for tax purposes

A corporate inversion occurs when a multinational group moves its notional head office, often for tax purposes, from its home jurisdiction to an overseas territory. The impact on operations is often minimal, with manufacturing activities and the markets in which it operates remaining unchanged.

However, combined with a web of crossborder transactions between companies owned by the same group, such inversions can play an important role in shifting profits within an international business to low-tax jurisdictions, boosting returns for shareholders.

Peston says he doesn’t know exactly what will happen tax wise and he is still trying to find out…so Salmond must have been blustering….

Does the Anglicisation of banks matter?

From the BBC’s Peston….

In a globalised world of multinationals, working out where tax is paid – if it is paid – is ferociously complicated.

 

Here the BBC delves deeper telling us the banks want to move their ‘tax homes’ to England:

Scotland: Why would banks shift tax headquarters south?

Banks and financial services firms have said they will move their tax headquarters, and in some cases part of their operations, to England in the event of a vote for Scottish independence.

Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group said they would “re-domicile” their main groups south of the border if there were a Yes vote.

Tesco Bank would also “re-domicile” in England, Clydesdale Bank would re-register as English, and TSB would also “re-domicile” parts of its business.

But what does that actually mean?

According to Patrick Stevens, tax policy director at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, large companies typically “re-domicile” to take advantage of perks offered by a particular country’s tax regime.

It’s helpful to think of a company having to have a “home” for tax purposes. To move that “home”, multinationals make a holding company tax resident in a particular country.

Like the outcome of the referendum itself, it’s very difficult to see what the eventual tax outcome will be.

However, one thing is certain: banks want to move their tax “homes” south as a backstop in the event of Scottish independence.

 

 

Salmond tried to mock Robinson by saying someone from the BBC should know that Lloyds has their head office in London…..but that’s semantics….the registered office is the one that pays the taxes.

Peston the day before the little spat made clear what was what:

Lloyds would relocate its registered office to where it currently has its head office – which is also London (naturally).

 

Salmond smirked and laughed off any suggestion that he couldn’t be sure about how much oil was in the Clair Field, and the SNP has been insistent in BBC interviews that it was enormous and would guarantee a massive windfall without the BBC challenging that assertion……

The SNP’s business mouthpiece, Business for Scotland, tells us:

Off the West coast of Shetland is the Clair Ridge field. It contains an estimated 8 billion barrels of oil, with an estimated 120,000 barrels per day production at peak levels.

 

However whilst there are estimates of 8 billion barrels of oil in the field BP says that in reality only 640 million are recoverable:

The development will produce about 640m barrels of oil over 40 years.

 

What does Salmond say one day later after the Robinson interview?

Is there a massive unreported oil field off Shetland under the Clair Ridge?

“There is a lot of suggestion.”

Is it credible suggestion?

“Oh yes, it’s credible. But can I confirm it? No. What I can tell you is many of my constituents believe this to be true.”

Are they misguided?

“Well, I don’t know. I can’t say for definite.”

 

 

 

Salmond claimed there must be a conspiracy between No10 and the businesses as they’d all had a chat with Cameron recently….unfortunately Salmond then went on to admit the company announcements weren’t news at all to the Scots, they’d known all along…indeed these businesses had announced these plans and commented on the consequences of Independence months earlier.

 

Finally Salmond refused to answer the question about the trustworthiness of politicians….he himself has his doubts….

This argument’s been won,” he carries on, “for the following reason: that the overwhelming majority of people want to keep the pound, and secondly they don’t believe the Westminster politicians.”

 

 

So all in all, Salmond gave an ‘answer’ but he didn’t say anything that could be relied upon.  Many taxes will go to England as a result of the registered offices moving, The BBC did know that Lloyds had its head office in London.  The oil field is big but nowhere near as productive as the Yes campaign claim….and Salmond now admits he can’t be sure at all.  And of course politicians aren’t trusted anywhere…..all of which are the opposite of what Salmond claimed.

So no, Salmond didn’t answer either question and if Robinson had a bit more backbone he’d have tackled Salmond again, and again.

 

 

 

Much of this is revealed in an interview Salmond did with the Herald newspaper the day after the Robinson session:

 

Is the BBC’s referendum coverage biased?

“Yes, absolutely,” he says. “Of course it is. The problem with Nick … I mean, don’t get me wrong, I like these folk, but they don’t realise they’re biased. It’s the unconscious bias which is the most ­extraordinary thing of all. If the BBC were covering, in my estimation, any referendum, in any democracy, anywhere in the world, they would cover it impeccably, in a balanced fashion.

“What they don’t understand is they’re players in this.”

He says BBC journalists from London are reporting old news as fresh out of ignorance.

This argument’s been won [of the currency debate],” he carries on, “for the following reason: that the overwhelming majority of people want to keep the pound, and secondly they don’t believe the Westminster politicians.”

 

Is there a massive unreported oil field off Shetland under the Clair Ridge?

“There is a lot of suggestion.”

Is it credible suggestion?

“Oh yes, it’s credible. But can I confirm it? No. What I can tell you is many of my constituents believe this to be true.”

Are they misguided?

“Well, I don’t know. I can’t say for definite

 

He’s always said the result would be a Yes. What about the scale of the victory?

“I’d be absolutely delighted with 50.1%. I do have something [greater] in mind but I’m going to leave it to the people.”

 

 

I  wonder if he will be so accepting of a 50.1% No vote?  Keep that statement in mind.