So the results are in, and Scotland has elected to stay within the United Kingdom, by a very close margin. Whilst the result was, for a long time, too close to call, it seems as though one of the deciding factors for Scots going to the polls was the sheer number of unknowns surrounding Scotland breaking all ties with the UK. From an economic and business perspective, there were a number of uncertainties about what the consequences of a totally independent Scotland would mean for companies on either side of the border.
Business spokespeople from many Scottish industries came forward to voice their uncertainty over the fallout for companies with regards to EU law, tax and spend, regulation, financial services; a yes or no vote would have affected business infrastructure in a myriad of different ways. This was as much the case for the logistics industry as it was for any other.
Of course logistics and distribution is a question, first and foremost, of borders, so a Scottish logistics industry would of course have needed a clear framework of how the new order would affect them. Had Scotland chosen the path of overhauling its trade laws, it may suddenly have found itself an unattractive option for some logistics companies.
Consider that the logistics and distribution industry is responsible for the movement of alcohol, tobacco and oil, among other items. One consequence of the change, as pointed out by Alan Powell of the United Kingdom Warehousing Association, would have been to force logistics companies to pay excise duty twice, once in the altered UK, and again in a newly independent Scotland, causing a lot of extra paperwork for the Revenue Services of both states; this in turn would affect the cash flow of businesses operating across the border.
Powell pointed out that the only solution would have been that goods would have remained in what is known as "duty suspension", which is itself a time consuming and costly process. For example, alchohol is often held in what is known as a tax warehouse under duty suspension; tobacco is also held in such warehouses, but in the case of tobacco, this is only for when it is being shipped outside the UK. Powell's point was clear: there would have been a sudden rise in the number of such warehouses on both sides of the border.
The transport industry would have found itself radically changed by such legislation, especially since laws surrounding excise and tax are complex, and can result in further fines and unforeseen expenditure for businesses if even the slightest mistake is made.
Furthermore, the transport and logistics industry was suddenly enjoying a sudden upsurge following a long slump; Scottish independence could have been a sudden and unwelcome disruption.
There were, of course, arguments that Scotland would have had more control over its policy-making, and that there would have been increased flexibility for Scottish businesses who often feel overlooked by UK politicians. However, it may be that there were just too many "unknown unknowns (to quote a certain US politician) for Scottish business to take the gamble.
Business spokespeople from many Scottish industries came forward to voice their uncertainty over the fallout for companies with regards to EU law, tax and spend, regulation, financial services; a yes or no vote would have affected business infrastructure in a myriad of different ways. This was as much the case for the logistics industry as it was for any other.
Of course logistics and distribution is a question, first and foremost, of borders, so a Scottish logistics industry would of course have needed a clear framework of how the new order would affect them. Had Scotland chosen the path of overhauling its trade laws, it may suddenly have found itself an unattractive option for some logistics companies.
Consider that the logistics and distribution industry is responsible for the movement of alcohol, tobacco and oil, among other items. One consequence of the change, as pointed out by Alan Powell of the United Kingdom Warehousing Association, would have been to force logistics companies to pay excise duty twice, once in the altered UK, and again in a newly independent Scotland, causing a lot of extra paperwork for the Revenue Services of both states; this in turn would affect the cash flow of businesses operating across the border.
Powell pointed out that the only solution would have been that goods would have remained in what is known as "duty suspension", which is itself a time consuming and costly process. For example, alchohol is often held in what is known as a tax warehouse under duty suspension; tobacco is also held in such warehouses, but in the case of tobacco, this is only for when it is being shipped outside the UK. Powell's point was clear: there would have been a sudden rise in the number of such warehouses on both sides of the border.
The transport industry would have found itself radically changed by such legislation, especially since laws surrounding excise and tax are complex, and can result in further fines and unforeseen expenditure for businesses if even the slightest mistake is made.
Furthermore, the transport and logistics industry was suddenly enjoying a sudden upsurge following a long slump; Scottish independence could have been a sudden and unwelcome disruption.
There were, of course, arguments that Scotland would have had more control over its policy-making, and that there would have been increased flexibility for Scottish businesses who often feel overlooked by UK politicians. However, it may be that there were just too many "unknown unknowns (to quote a certain US politician) for Scottish business to take the gamble.