Confident performance, but don't mention Iceland
This was a self-confident performance by the First Minister.
Tautological, I know, but noteworthy given the extent of the pressure upon Alex Salmond as a consequence of the economic crisis and, more specifically, the response by the UK Government.
On BBC Scotland, the Prime Minister had declared bluntly that Scotland, acting as an independent nation, would not have had the resources to mount the banking rescue.
It was a salient attack, delivered by a PM who has regained the status to command the attention and thus the ear of the voters. It was the first substantial challenge to Mr Salmond since he gained power at Holyrood.
To be frank, he and his colleagues appeared briefly discomfited. Alex Salmond has definitely now regrouped. That doesn't mean, of itself, that his arguments will be heeded or will find favour. But they were cogently and powerfully expressed.
Broadly, Mr Salmond argues that Gordon Brown's policies are partly responsible for the banking crisis; that he presided over an irresponsible expansion of unsustainable credit.
Further, he dismisses the assertion that only the clout of the UK Treasury could have mounted the banking rescue.
He notes that the money does not come from cash reserves but from borrowing and, further, that the terms imposed, for example, upon the Royal Bank of Scotland through preference shares should enable the Treasury to make a profit in the long-term by lending to the bank at a higher rate than that available in the market.
Still further, Mr Salmond argues that big countries as well as small ones have been caught up in the economic crisis - but that small, habitually prosperous countries like Norway have shown deftness in dealing with that crisis.
Don't mention Iceland, though. It may have been one of Mr Salmond's "arc of prosperity" comparators - but, now that its banking system is in turmoil, the SNP tends to disown that comparison, arguing that Iceland is tiny, smaller than the population of Edinburgh.
Whom will the voters heed? Depends, presumably, upon a range of factors: whom they blame for the economic mess, whom they thank for efforts to mitigate it and, most crucially, what happens to the real economy of jobs and mortgages.
It's a balancing act for Alex Salmond. He must counter-attack against Labour without giving the impression that he is sniping politically during a crisis.
But it's a balancing act for Labour too. Their case on the "Union dividend" has been strongly advanced. But party strategists know that it must not slip over into decrying Scotland as too wee or poor to govern herself. That, they know, would not be smart politics.
And there's more. The UK government is insisting tonight that Mr Salmond has missed the point: that the problem for HBOS is not capitalisation but liquidity. They say that the bank on its own would continue to struggle in the current market conditions.
Also in response to Mr Salmond, HBOS itself has stressed it believes the deal should go ahead. The bank said it believed that the merger would allow access to significant savings resources.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"the problem for HBOS is not capitalisation but liquidity. They say that the bank on its own would continue to struggle in the current market conditions."
I don't understand the UK point here.
Norway and other small countries have put liquidity into their banking systems, as has the Eurozone.
I'd like to see figures that suggest that Scotland (uniquely) couldn't.
Complain about this comment
The only people who seem to be mentioning Iceland are unionist who are obviuously at the desparation stage.
It is not even a valid argument against Independence.
Complain about this comment
Comparing Iceland 300,000 people to Scotland's 5,000,000+. Iceland population is equivalent to 6% of Scotland's population.
Is rather like comparing Germany 70,000,000+ to either Ireland c4,300,000 (c6.1%) or Lithuania c3,400,000 (c4.9%); or apples to oranges; or sunlight to darkness.
Incidentally, where is Jim Murphy's apology to the People and Government's of Ireland and Norway (to name too). The man should remember it is his job to exclusively insult and talk-down to Scots - not our neighbours!
Complain about this comment
2. At 6:35pm on 19 Oct 2008, A_Scottish_Voice wrote:
The only people who seem to be mentioning Iceland are unionist who are obviuously at the desparation stage.
It is not even a valid argument against Independence.
-------------------
Why?
As for HBOS, I think Alex has lost the argument a bit. He was initially for the plan, and in fact stated he would have given the bank 100 billion. Now he's against it.
So, had Scotland been independent, he would have injected a huge amount of money into the bank, and possibly (obviously not certain) seen it fail anyway.
Iceland should be mentioned by the way, since the SNP were constantly mentioning them and Ireland, Norway........
Small point with Norway, they have a very high cost of living compared to here.
Is that what we want here?
And I am not some uber-unionist before the uber-nationalists start ranting.
Complain about this comment
Of course Westminster is not going to bend on the HBOS takeover, whether they are right or wrong. To do otherwise would be a climbdown and loss of face for Brown and Darling, and this is altogether more important than the future of the bank. If the cash is availiable to save the bank, as it seems to be, then let's have a proper public enquiry by an impartial third party to see what the best course of action is. Something as important as Scotland's largest financial institution deserves better than to be used as a political football by Brown and Darling, two politicians whose understanding of economics is, to say the least lacking. Whether Salmond's is better I don't know but at least he appears to have the interest of Scotland and the bank with it's associated jobs at heart. Considering the state this labour government has got Britain's economy into, irrespective of world events, it is unlikely any decision it or it's Prime Minister and Chancellor make can be trusted to be the best possible option for HBOS. As for the comparisons being made between Scotland and Iceland I find it a disgrace that Brown who trumpets his Scottishness should try to make political capital by denigrating his own country. Size , is not the yardstick by which to judge a country and it's people . Look at tiny country's like Malta with a population the size of Edinburgh which punches above it's weight and runs it's own airline and banks. Whether independence suits Scotland or not I don't know but it is becoming increasingly preferable to being governed by this dreadful regime in London.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
"As for HBOS, I think Alex has lost the argument a bit. He was initially for the plan, and in fact stated he would have given the bank 100 billion. Now he's against it."
Circumstances changed mate. Resources were made available that HBOS may be able to claim (I think). The take-over would be pointless then.
"So, had Scotland been independent, he would have injected a huge amount of money into the bank, and possibly (obviously not certain) seen it fail anyway."
It would not have failed. The takeover was worth 12 billion, Salmonds cash injection for HBOS alone was almost 10x that amount. Also Britain put in 100 billion into the markets when HBOS was to be taken over. It seemed to be worth while so far.
"Iceland should be mentioned by the way, since the SNP were constantly mentioning them and Ireland, Norway........"
Why stop there? Shall we not discuss the GLOBAL problems and include USA, Germany, France, Spain and Britain etc? Countries large and small are being effected. Ireland appears to be fairly stable now, Iceland will eventually recover also.
Besides you ignore the main point. These two countries (Ireland, Iceland) have preformed record growths over the last decade. Their problems today will reverse their growth only by a small percentage before it takes off again (itll take off because of the benefits these countries had before).
"Small point with Norway, they have a very high cost of living compared to here. Is that what we want here?"
Have you been to Norway? Norway is managed incredibly well. The cost of living is higher, but the average Norwegian earns more, plus their standard of living is far greater then here in Britain. Norway also has a surplus instead of debts etc plus other advantages to why Norway is better positioned then Britain.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
By the way. It does appear that you may be an uber-unionist. From your comments I feel that you are not open minded about Independence at all. You say that you are 'on the fence' however your 'equal' rants against Labour and the SNP tend to end with the SNP getting a far larger ranting, plus you appear to always either underestimate what Scotland can do or ignore what can be done to 'protect the Union'.
Perhaps since you say you are sitting on the fence between the Union and Independence, you could enlighten us with your views why Independence is good. If you are not fully for the Union then what attracts you to Independence.
Complain about this comment
I've never seen anyone actually provide a credible source to the '100 billion quote'.
He did say he would do 'everything in his power' I believe.
Complain about this comment
#4 Neil_Small147
I don't think any politician in the UK comes out of this whole sorry mess with much credibility.
Andrew Rawnsley has an interesting article on Brown and Cameron's statements on finance. Much the same could have been said of the others.
I'd award Cable (for raising the issue earlier than the other UK parties) and Salmond (for talking out against the FSA and the rush to demutualisation) one (but only one) Brownie point each for their previous statements.
I agree it's valid to raise Iceland, but it's also important to recognise that a major factor was the collapse of its currency.
To their credit, the SNP leadership set their faces against an independent Scottish currency, and have now recognised that the Scottish currency needs to be the Euro.
Complain about this comment
It's sad listening to the SNP and their plea for independence. Scots rule the UK now and have done so for years so one can only assume that those calling for an indepedent Scotland can't hack it in the big pond. United the UK ruled the greatest empire the world has ever seen and was respected around the world, as separate countries we will become a bunch of squabling nations off the coast of Europe. Such is Blairs legacy to Great Britain. Someone has to pay for the SNPs give aways to the Scotish people and the large pot of Britains taxes make this possible without it I'm afraid the Scots would come to rue the day they fell for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
"a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector" Alex Salmond, 2007 - on the regulation of Scottish Banks, seeming to suggest that he thought they were too regulated!
Complain about this comment
#10 studownie
It's always interesting to hear an English/British Tory commenting on Scottish affairs.
For those who haven't seen his insightful comments before, this is a quote from one of his posts on NR's blog.
More than a little confused!
Complain about this comment
#9 oldnat
Spot on re the euro - the separate currency is clearly the fundamental problem with Iceland.
But I think you're being a little harsh on Cable, who has to date been earlier to recognise the problems than other politicians. I grant that he wasn't early enough recognising the need for better regulation, but then nobody in Westmidden was pushing for it either. OTOH he did realise the problem was building by putting on p10 of the 2005 LibDem manifesto: "We will tackle irresponsible credit expansion in mortgages and personal loans by curbing misleading advertising and anti-competitive practices by promoters of insurance for mortgages and loans, and of credit cards."
Had he had chance to do something about that, the UK part of the problem would have been much lessened. Surely worth at least a couple of Brownie points?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Isn't it time that you stopped ranting on about Gordon Brown, and started supporting Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#4 - . I still remember when some Norwegian friends came over here, they were spending as Scots can only do in Eastern Europe. It was a valid point you made; but if that comes with higher prosperity, higher life quality and lower poverty rates (like Norway), then fine.
Complain about this comment
#8 BrianSH
On a previous thread, I asked for anyone who could substantiate the 100b claim to source it for me, since all I could find was a Scotsman report that a bailout "might" cost that much.
There was no response.
#4 Neil_Small
You made the claim that "in fact stated he (Salmond) would have given the bank 100 billion."
Care to give the source?
Complain about this comment
#9 good point on currency old nat.
#4 Neil Small - returning to your point on HBOS, there are serious questions over the size of the new emerging bank. It would have something like c30% market share for all UK mortgages ... surely the competition commission will have something to say on that! These points need to be raised.
Complain about this comment
# 10 ... "as separate countries we will become a bunch of squabling nations off the coast of Europe. Such is Blairs legacy to Great Britain".
This is somewhat fallacious of you studownie! Your conclusion most certainly does not follow your premise.
Blair is not responsible for the centuries of cross border squabbling between Scotland and England, in much the same way that nationalism on both sides of the border was thriving long before the mention of unions, empires, or even the much lauded north sea oil. Mr Blair's political manouvering may have inadvertently accelerated a possbile fragmentation of the state we currently know as the UK, but I'd argue that it is anything but a legacy.
... "Scots rule the UK now and have done so for years "
Interesting. Is England under the yoke of Scottish dominion? All hail those considered gentlemen (and ladies) demanding of an independent English republic!
..."one can only assume that those calling for an indepedent Scotland can't hack it in the big pond."
Another startlingly weak analogy. This argument is so superficial, minimal and irrelevant to the issues at hand, that it signally fails to even be amusing at the basest of levels. You're drawing conclusions about your reason (B) because of some tenuous similarity in your mind to reason (A).It's a very inappropriate argument.
Complain about this comment
#13 Brownedov
OK
One Brownie point plus one Brownedov point -
more than any politician really deserves!
Complain about this comment
# 12 ... " cultures do not mix without trouble eventually occuring. We are crowded enough we do not need to stoke the fires of civil strife" ...
This is a new low! The poster who champions the restriction of access to the UK, based upon his argument that a larger group of people will always try to dominate smaller groups, thus creating civil strife, signally fails to acknowledge the application in principle of the same rules with the current socio-political structure of the UK!
Very much a slippery slope of an argument. Though it is at least putting a smile on my face so late this Sunday evening.
Complain about this comment
#19 oldnat
LOL and graciously accepted. Having just listened to Mrs Balls talking a great deal of her husband's namesake on Adam Boulton's Sky podcast, I agree that very few are worthy of any.
Complain about this comment
An interesting position now arising, if Scotland can no longer print its own currency, then the case for the single EU currency will probably become even stronger.
I'm not sure what the out come of HBOS will be, however I'm sure it does enhance the EU debate.
Personally I not committed to the principles of the EU, I think its a bit of a mine field.
I dont think the general public know enough about the EU and what the single currency would mean?
I wonder if Mandelson, believes that its time for the UK to commit fully the the EU.
There are some-people on this blog who are up to date the EU and all its implication.I wonder if they would care to share there valuable knowledge of the EU withus.
Complain about this comment
No mention of Mr Salmond mentioning how his Independent paradise would cope when the price of oil drops 50%. Just as well for him that Iceland exists!
Complain about this comment
#23 uk_abz_scot
But Iceland doesn't have any oil. That's why Brian said not to mention it.
Complain about this comment
#22 derekbarker
"I dont think the general public know enough about the EU and what the single currency would mean?"
Well, NuLab were committed to it in '97 "when the convergence criteria are met" but backed off by '05 and promised a referendum on it on the same page (p84) of their manifesto as the referendum on the EU constitutional treaty. Unless I've missed something I think that one's off too, for now.
A pity, since a public education campaign to explain it would be no bad thing, but my guess is the fear that it would lose many Middle Englanders to the Tories.
Complain about this comment
Mr Salmond is way off track in blaming the PM for the economic problems whilst conveniently forgetting that the present turmoil was caused by greed and aggressive sales and marketing by the Banks so that even greater bonuses could be paid to the banking hierarchy.
RBS are a global bank and Mr Salmond appears to say that, if Scotland was independent, there would have been a greater degree of control over irresponsible lending practices. How was he going to achieve that especially since the majority of the RBS profits came from outside Scotland?
It is not many weeks since Mr Salmond called those Bankers/Hedge Fund Managers "spivs and speculators". In his speech today, I didn't hear any such criticism of Messrs Matthewson and Goodwin - how hypocritical can you get?
Complain about this comment
#20 DrLecter
Unfortunately, studownie's comments aren't particularly "low" in the context of Nick Robinson's blog.
For those that haven't checked NR out, it's well worth a look - to highlight how different the political dialogue is on either side of the border.
A few (usually Labour) posters try to provide some evidence to support their assertions, but the vast majority are simply ill-informed rants (and not infrequently racist).
Complain about this comment
7. At 7:57pm on 19 Oct 2008, Thomas_Porter wrote:
Neil_Small147:
Perhaps since you say you are sitting on the fence between the Union and Independence, you could enlighten us with your views why Independence is good. If you are not fully for the Union then what attracts you to Independence.
------------
Why do I think independence would be good? Fair question.
1. It would allow Scotland to control it's own budget, which I am definitely in favour of, much as this may surprise you.
2. It might provide us with a more balanced Government, since it is unlikely any one party would wield a massive majority, therefore preventing policies being implemented at will. Some of the bills passed in Westminster went through despite opposition from the Government benches. As a result politicians would have to come up with more sensible policies, with safeguards built in.
3. Some MSPs might grow up politically. There are still many on all sides who are like the new kids in school. They would have to concentrate on more serious issues that the taxpayer is interested in.
4. Foreign policy might be more stable and relationships would improve generally. But we would have to accept that we would no longer be a major player in international affairs.
5. We may end up with a better standard of living, but a lot of that depends on society. We have a helluva lot of problems that will not go away overnight.
6. Hopefully political correctness would disappear.
But I am more in favour of a federalist state. No one can predict what will happen over the next 10, 20 or 50 years. Europe may implode for all we know. It's happened before and it can happen again.
-----------
17. At 8:51pm on 19 Oct 2008, pattymkirkwood wrote:
#4 Neil Small - returning to your point on HBOS, there are serious questions over the size of the new emerging bank. It would have something like c30% market share for all UK mortgages ... surely the competition commission will have something to say on that! These points need to be raised.
True, the Government rewrote the rules regarding competition. It isn't the best solution, but what was the alternative? To be honest I don't think anyone had a clue how to resolve this. But I cannot see Brown and Darling changing things now.
Complain about this comment
Yes, I believe you have a point,
Are we know in a position where the opt outs are no longer relevant, if you take into account the huge losses from banks and the stock markets.
There does seem to be an EU level of joint response to this down-turn.
I also believe that there is a joint EU effort on immigration in the shape of the blue cards.
Given the fact that middle England, will never be the same after this depression, in terms of growth and manufacturing.
Do you believe that the EU and the single currency will become more of a must rather than a choice.
I have to say, that it seems that Europe must be more intergrated on banking and many other interests following this world wide down-turn.
Complain about this comment
Given that Mr Salmond has commended Ireland on taking quick action to rescue it's economy .. perhaps someone can advise which recent Irish budget proposal the SNP would take if Scotland was independent:
23% tax on bank interest
1% income levy (no personal allowance)
Mortgage Relief drops 5%
Stamp duty on cheques now EUR0.50
Motor tax rates up across the board
EUR200 on workplace parking spaces
Army camps closed
Free medical care for over 70's abolished
Visiting A&E now costs EUR100
Larger class sizes, less teachers
Complain about this comment
re HBOS
This does require careful thought. The Lloyds-HBOS will be a giant. Bank of Scotland and TSB in Scotland, Lloyds in England, Halifax and Cheltenham + Gloucester in mortgages and home insurance and Scottish Widows in Life Insurance + Pensions. That is about one third of the finance sector.
When you add in RBoS, the Royal Bank in Scotland, NatWest and Coutts in England and Direct Line all under Government control, well. who needs ID cards!
But joking aside, when I think back to the old GPO, black telephones and all, I dont see Government of all or any hue, red, blue, gold or yellow as competent to run this. We need banks to mobilise our savings and lend to those who want to start or expand their businesses, buy their own homes etc.. We don't need a Cabinet meeting to decide if Maisie should be lent GBP5,000 to open her own salon.
There is no hurry, lets take time and think this through.
Complain about this comment
Instead of grieving over the remains of RBS and HBOS, why not start a new bank or two from scratch? The world will still need banks, probably based on new principles. Maybe even spin off Intelligent Finance from HBOS.
Complain about this comment
If the hbos merger with loyds goes ahead then i am removing my money from it and putting it somewhere that has a headquarters in scotland i would urge every other right thinking scot to say wether they would do the same. lets stop them doing this.
Complain about this comment
#28.
Neil_Small147.
I believe I understand you more. I suppose you do not want an immediate Independent Scotland. You would prefer a more gradual approach. Federalism would be simply another step after devolution which would not end the Independence Nationalists. Also I do believe you would favour an Independent Scotland depending on the British European status. In the future if European Integration was to go so far for an Army of some sort (one example) I guess you would also be ready to support Scottish Independence over the Union. Again Independence over time. If the European Union becomes more the military drive behind the world (its already an economic power house) then from your points there would no longer be reason to remain apart of Britain.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know?
If the BoS ceases to exist, what happens to my BoS banknotes?
Complain about this comment
#28 - Neil Small, true about it not being changed - as it wouldn't suit Gordon and his Darling - but that doesn't mean it is the best solution.
There is an unwillingness to even discuss the options now for the same reason. That is why I think Salmond is justified in raising it; even though he knows it would probably have been in his own best interests to skirt particulars and keep his attack general on this issue.
Complain about this comment
first and foremost, i've never thought of the bbc as being biased. I've tried to think and hoped thst they would be fair and impartial. it's 11:38 and yet there has been no update on the bbc scotland website as to the key points, arguments and issues raised in the FIRST MINISTERS closing speach of the RULING PARTY of 5million peoples conference. they may be there somewhere but like most internet users who use it, they aren't the first thing you see when you click on scottish politics so therefore it isn't that important. surely no matter which party you follow you would hope that your conference would...... nah forget it, it's a waste of time. you know people are right, the bbc wont finally listen until the sun and record realise that they are backing the wrong team and turn coats and start backing the snp and then they will start looking after their funding by backing too.
I've posted 3 times and this is now a rant.
I thought Salmond was statesment like. Confident and assured of himself and talking sense. never waivered from the fact they are here for us, to help us, to back us up and support us when needed. All good and the best thing it's about what we can do better and improve. Solutions, not just pointing out failures (thats for reluctant ex-pat).
One final point. I'm bouyed by the number of new posters, i've often read but never posted until recently, who are backing the snp, backing their belief and getting behind the fact that if everyone else can do it why cant we!
bring on 2010
Complain about this comment
#35 oldnat
Depends on why and how quickly BoS ceased to exist.
BoS banknotes are issued way in excess of the fiducary issue but have to be backed GBP for Bos pound for each Pound excess so there will be a very large number of notes fully backed and a few that aren't.
Any sensible Gov't would organise a Bos pound for GBP swap to save a panic and they would probably win as there will be lots of Bos pounds that have gone missing sewn into GranPa's mattress and gone into the tip etc.
BoS would have to be pretty spectacularly bankrupt for this not to be the Governments best option but we are talking a recovery of less than 25p in the pound which for a deposit taking bank would be pretty amazing. Rather like the fireworks at the end of the festival sponsored by Bos. Spectacular even!
Complain about this comment
#37 Jedirnbru .... the Sun i suspect will turn back to the Tories in England but the SNP in Scotland before long. Sounds bizarre i know but it wouldnt be the first time they've had different views in 2 places. As for the Record it will always be Labour ....purely because its part of the Mirror group.
As for the BBC well the recent announcements about programmes being transferred to Scotland seems to me to be just to shut up some people.
I see the Torys have plans to give us tax raising powers to try and appease the restless Scots.
Complain about this comment
#38
B***er. Given away my unionist leanings. I meant traded in for euro with the Forth Railway Bridge on the back!
Complain about this comment
FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT CAPITALISATION AND LIQUIDITY MEANS IN BANKING TERMS.
LIQUIDITY.
In banking, liquidity is the ability to meet obligations when they come due without incurring unacceptable losses. Managing liquidity is a daily process requiring bankers to monitor and project cash flows to ensure adequate liquidity is maintained. Maintaining a balance between short-term assets and short-term liabilities is critical. Deposit accounts represent the primary funding (liabilities) in traditional commercial banks, and the loan portfolio represents the primary asset. The investment portfolio represents a smaller portion of assets, and serves as the primary source of liquidity. Investment securities can be liquidated to satisfy deposit withdrawals and increased loan demand. Banks have several additional options for generating liquidity, such as selling loans, borrowing from other banks, borrowing from a Central bank, such as the US Federal Reserve bank, and raising additional capital. In a worst case scenario, depositors may demand their funds when the bank is unable to generate adequate cash without incurring substantial financial losses. In severe cases, this may result in a bank run. Most banks are subject to legally-mandated reserve requirements intended to help banks avoid a liquidity crisis
CAPITALIZATION.
the act of counting anticipated earnings and expenses as capital assets (property, equipment, fixtures) for accounting purposes. 2) the amount of anticipated net earnings which hypothetically can be used for conversion into capital assets.
----------------------------------------------------
HBOSs problem is liquidity due to the panic withdrawal of savers money.
so if the westminster government put an amount of about 20 billion into HBOS, would that solve HBOSs problem and give them time to stabilize, and if so there is no need for the takeover to go ahead with LLOYDS TSB.
westminster could also have used the irish solution by giving a guarentee that all bank deposits would be safeguarded, not just up to a limit of 50k.
gordon brown appears to be using the HBOS liquidity problems in his fight against the SNP, and also against scotland and yorkshire.
whereas all the other politicians, SNP, conservatives and lib dems have rightly been taking the financial crisis seriously and not doing or saying anything to upset the goverments rescue plans, gordon brown likes to joke about it, as per his phone call when he said it probably just another bank in trouble and then he also says that the saving of HBOS and RBS was a union dividend that scotland on its own could not do.
the union dividend was that the banks got into trouble due to de-regulation when gordon brown was chancellor.
gordon brown cannot even take the credit for the bank bailouts, as it was the treasuary officials that came up with the swedish solution to the problem, and these same officials will be in place no matter who runs the goverment, labour or conservative.
at the very start of the crisis all gordon brown had to do was give the same guarantee that the irish goverment gave to stop the withdrawal of funds from the banks.
alex salmonds initial response to HBOSs problems, was that he would, if scotland was independent put funds into HBOS (he never said 100 billion, that was the papers that gave that figure), and lo and behold what does westminster do, their rescue plan is to put funds into the banks, so who would have acted sooner than gordon brown.
the dithering by brown, at all points of the credit problem, has only made the problem worse in the long term until it affected most of the banks.
Complain about this comment
handclapping
Thanks for your #38 (and even more for your #40!)
Complain about this comment
30. At 10:34pm on 19 Oct 2008, rjakes wrote:
Given that Mr Salmond has commended Ireland on taking quick action to rescue it's economy .. perhaps someone can advise which recent Irish budget proposal the SNP would take if Scotland was independent:
-------------
mr salmond commended the irish on taking quick action to rescue its banks, and therefor its economy.
what mr salmond said has nothing to do with the irish budget, but then what else could we expect from a new labour supporter but made up stories to try and link the praise given for saving the banks, to the irish budget.
-----------------------------------------------------
35. At 11:29pm on 19 Oct 2008, oldnat.
keep a hold of your BOS notes (or send them to me, ha ha), as if they are like mine (mint) then they will become collectors items.
i also have a 1937 BOS, and its worth a bit more than the initial 1 pound.
i even have RBOS notes as well ( jack nicholas mint), should i be worried.
Complain about this comment
Do you think if we go it alone and the banks are still with us (not much chance i know) we would be allowed to print Scottish Euros !!!
Complain about this comment
#44 rabbiehippo
Yes, they have to have bridges or arches.
the Forth Railway bridge would be ok; would we be allowed the macdonalds arches I wonder?
Complain about this comment
On Salmond's performance:
I was at the conference this week, but had to come back to Glasgow at lunchtime, so watched the FM's speech on the BBC. This gave me the opportunity to see the interviews too. This was my first SNP conference and I was impressed with the relaxed confidence and general energy of all there. This culminated in Salmond's speech, a cogent and powerful performance. The hope and vision he and all others expressed is in sharp contrast to the despair and negativity espoused by various Labour politicians.
One Scottish Labour MP (or is that Labour MP in Scotland, I'm confused) even compared an independent Scotland's handling of this crisis with the Darien Scheme. Ye gods, they accuse US of living in the past. Labour has always used fear to achieve their aims, seems nothing has changed. Other than, of course, that the people have seen through these tired tactics.
I've said it before, if this is the best Labour can do, we have little to worry about.
Complain about this comment
#45 Now to be fair to the rest of Scotland the Kessock Bridge and the Skye Bridge too.... and in reference to some comedian that posted not long ago Brigodeejohn lol
Complain about this comment
#47 rabbiehippo
It's not actually true. The designs have to be generalised otherwise every country would be wanting their own. It is bad enough already with 74 different varieties of note and they only came out in 2002.
Complain about this comment
We know what Brian's political leanings are but I thought he was being paid by the BBC as a political journalist. If that be the case then surely it is important for him to retain some form of balanced independent questioning away from the standard labour/unionist party line. I watched his interview of the three SNP members after Alex's speech and was slightly shocked to see that he was defending Gordon Brown's policies. I thought that a political journalist who takes a wage from the BBC would at least try to be above party politics in his interview.
I always used to think that the BBC was meant to represent the views of all those who live in the UK, be they Labour, Conservative, Libdem etc.
Maybe I'm wrong and have SNP tinted glasses but I seem to remember Robin Day (Question time: 79-89) ripping into all parties. Brian cannot be accused of that.
Complain about this comment
Brian must have beeen sick as a parrot when the Financial expert from ITEM came on Radio Scotland this morning and said that Brown had been building up debt all through the good times. While Brian was siding with Brown.
It is pretty unanimous that managing the Debt Spiral was Brown's responsibility
Complain about this comment
@43
surely the budget is a way of rescuing the economy
still not like a Nat to answer a question
Just because I raise a point, doesn't mean I vote one Party over another. Helpful if you didn't label everyone just cause they happen to understand more than you do.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #195 on the Clark Kent thread, there is a little more information about the YouGov poll reported in yesterday's People in their daily sister Mirror with their: Gordon Brown's Labour government slash Tory David Cameron's opinion poll lead.
No details yet on the YouGov site, but on past form full data should be avalable in the next few days.
Complain about this comment
Gosh, Reluctant-to-be-Scottish will be turning in his grave. A lead story in the BBC espousing the fact that the UK economy is 'already in recession'.
Not just Ireland eh?
Pitty that mismanagement by Westminister has achieved a situation where it is unable to keep remotely up to date with the situation; but is this really surprising considering the incompetence exhibited by UKgov? It is a disaster that English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and yes, British will have to pay for the incompetence of a political union that only exists as a black hole.
Welcome back to economic reality gentlemen!
Complain about this comment
Re Glenrothes, the Courier reports in their Voters to quiz by-election candidates that the candidates will be debating at Kirkland High School on Thursday at 4pm chaired by Lesley Riddoch and broadcast on Radio Scotland's Riddoch Questions on Friday 24 October at 1:15pm. Even us expats should be able to follow this live or via listen again on the iPlayer.
Complain about this comment
Brian, an interesting acticle.
I'm a little concerned about your contention in it regarding the impact on voting.
You assert - Whom will the voters heed? Depends, presumably, upon a range of factors: whom they blame for the economic mess, whom they thank for efforts to mitigate it and, most crucially, what happens to the real economy of jobs and mortgages.
However all the factors you cite are not within the remit of the Scottish Government to change.
Whom they blame for the economic mess - regulation of the banks is reserved to Westminster along with all the major levers of financial power.
Whom they thank for efforts to mitigate - as stated, all the levers of financial power lie with Westminster, so you have to ask who are the only people who could mitigate it.
What happens to the real economy of jobs and mortgages - need I repeat .........
I find your argument disingenuous at best. If the Scottish Government have not been given the power to set or change policy in these areas, how can you contend that they should be, in some way, rated on it by the voters.
Complain about this comment
Nothing changes.
BBC Scotland - the propaganda wing of the Labour party in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
How many political parties will contest the Glenrothes elections?
Maybe Christian alliance will throw their hat in the ring as well.
On a brighter note, yougov to put labour
on 44% 5% ahead of the snp
Complain about this comment
Ah, police numbers drop in real terms by 45.
Yes, the so called 1000 new police officers
that the nats said they would introduce.
Are in fact -45, another failed snp manifesto commitment.
Complain about this comment
2 & 3. It was Salmond who repeatedly used Iceland as an example of 'a successful small nation'. To now disown such a comparison because it horrifically backfired does the SNP's flailing credibility even further damage.
Although it was most predictable to see the few remaining nats on here do it.
As Ireland has also gone into recession making two out of his three prime example nations a fallacy, I see Salmond has now selected a new arc of prosperity in Norway, Sweden and Denmark....What exactly do they have in common with Scotland other than 'a small population'?
And then we have Salmond saying the HBOS takeover is no longer necessary.....only to be discredited again by HBOS themselves saying the takeover is in the bank's interest. Some 'economist' he is turning out to be.
6. Brown has put 100bn in to sort out the entire banking industry. Salmond was willing to spend that much on just one bank.
And that the amount Brown spent of our money on recapitalising HBOS was a tenth of Salmond's figure, just goes to further show Salmond's lack of grasp on the situation.
Complain about this comment
Derekbarker
Your good at pointing out what other people do wrong. But what do you think they 'should' do?
There's no point finger pointing without some positive input.
Personally, looking at the financial situation, is it really the time to ask everyone to foot the bill for even more public servants?
Perhaps you could view this as the Scottish government simply trying to put money back into the taxpayers pockets!
Complain about this comment
Ref HBOS & Llloyds TSB
Could be a tad off-subject, but I'll be happy if someone cares to correct my grasp on this.
As I understand it, in 'normal' circumstances any merger would have primarily been solely in the remit of the two Boards of Directors and shareholders concerned. If they accept it, then it goes ahead, excepting any veto from the Competition Commission.
However, these are abnormal times and the two banks have already accepted(?) cash injections of taxpayers' money. But if HBOS then decide they can safely continue independent trading after all, couldn't they just return the money and tell the UK government "thanks, but no thanks"?
On the other hand, if they haven't got the cash (or are unable to borrow it elsewhere) - sorry HBOS, you're bust! And you'd better be grateful for any crumbs from the taxpayer or anyone else!
Am I wrong with my understanding?
Also, cannot help but wonder how HBOS (or any other lender, in whatever guise) would treat ME, if I ran out of mortgage-money...
Complain about this comment
The nats manifesto in tatters.
Police numbers falling
Teachers numbers falling
Class room sizes increasing
No new schools 2years in
student debt, still there
No new houses
Their manifesto has been shot to pieces,
When you mention Europe, no response?
No federalist among the Nationalist.
Complain about this comment
16. Are you saying all the papers colluded to make that quote up?
The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, the Scotsman, the Herald and a few others....they all got together and manufactured this quote from the FM?
Oh-oh.........
Wah! Wah! Wah! CONSPIRACY ALERT! Wah! Wah! Wah!
(I wasn't going to come on here today as the SNP's pro-independence response was a total non-starter....But when I read the posts coming from the nationalists, I just have to comment.)
Complain about this comment
Brian,
The Scottish budget is pre-set, you might have to alter it a bit here and there
but the fact is the 30Bn is still there.
Complain about this comment
61. I believe the answer is (b), they haven't got the cash and can't borrow.
Going by comments coming from HBOS and the UK Treasury, liquidity seems to be the problem, ie. HBOS needs to borrow heavily to keep its wheels turning but no-one will lend to them.
Complain about this comment
#59 Reluctant-Expat
#57 derekbarker
I'm a simple man, my view is that in light of the independence man that a dead/merge HBOS actually helps independence; those who have lost their jobs will come into the welcoming embrace of the SNP.
But I'm also a real person, I'm interested in these peoples livelyhoods and futures; so I do not support this merger; it is not in their interests and I support them first.
You only support the Labour party line: I've got the foreman's job at last, all you workers can kiss my *expletive*
Repeating the same arguements and ad hominem attacks reveals your naivety, the weakness of your position and your political allegiance.
Complain about this comment
51. At 07:35am on 20 Oct 2008, rjakes.
the irish budget is for managing the economy, not for saving the economy, two different things alltogether.
did alex salmond praise the irish budget or did alex salmond praise ireland for taking quick action to save the irish banks. ?????
if the irish had not given the bank guarantee then the irish banks would have collapsed, then ireland would really have been in trouble, iceland type trouble.
Complain about this comment
Salmond's speech was fairly typical of a party in power - heavy on rhetoric, light on substance. Endless twee comments on "the Homecoming from Brigadoon", ill-informed comments on HBOS/ LloydsTSB and not too much mention of the great victory to come in Glenrothes. My discussions at conference clearly showed the party are already planning how to deal with Labour scraping home by however small a victory. I fear that Salmond has more to lose in Glenrothes than Brown has.
Complain about this comment
#36 pattmkirkwood.
I think you are correct with Alex Salmond's tactics: he needs to make general attacks. His weakness is to use specific examples, without checking his facts fully.
With HBOS, he rightly questionned the plan but HBOS executives (perhaps under pressure?) told him that there was no other option. Had he discussed this first with them he could then have gone public on amore general approach.
The same applies with his "arc of prosperity". Constant change. Whereas had he made a general statement on "there are many small countries that are successful" instead of specifics, he would not appear to be falling flat on his face.
Remember that Mandelson is now back in Government. Whatever your views on him (I don't like him) he is a very sharp politician and dangerous to his opponents.
Complain about this comment
#57 derekbarker
"How many political parties will contest the Glenrothes elections?"
There's a full list of declared candidates so far on this website's Glenrothes: Candidate profiles. According to fifedirect.org.uk, nominations close at 16:00 on 21 October, so Christian alliance have time to enter a runner.
"On a brighter note, yougov to put labour on 44% 5% ahead of the snp"
Not according to anything on their website yet. Where's the source for your claim? Are you by any chance a People or Daily Mirror journalist?
Complain about this comment
33. Karinm, an excellent idea. Kill off HBOS's market in Scotland so that they close up operations, make all their staff redundant and move the entire company to England.
That'll teach them.
Complain about this comment
#5 wrote: "Whether independence suits Scotland or not I don't know but it is becoming increasingly preferable to being governed by this dreadful regime in London."
I believe the majority of English would also like to be free of the dreadful Scottish regime in London.
Complain about this comment
69. At 11:09am on 20 Oct 2008, Neil_Small147.
it could be that the BOS is to small a bank to carry HALIFAX, and the merger would give a better bank to building society ratio, and with being a larger orginization, it would be easier to get cheaper funding on the international markets.
part of HBOSs problem is that it is having to pay higher rates to borrow money.
alex salmond is correct to say that the viability of HBOS to go it alone should be looked at in light of the intervention by westminster, which has to be clarified to what they mean by their statment that the money is availiabe on condition that the merger goes ahead.
it probably will make no difference to the merger, but there is no harm in looking at it again before it goes ahead.
Complain about this comment
#50 Aye i heard that guy this morning from ITEM ... he didnt half let rip. The unionist on here can say what they like but there is no getting away from the fact that Gordon has been using the country credit card to make himself look good.... but oh wait ...whats that ...its the posty .... oh damn ..more bills. Heres a wee bit out of Private Eye to enhance this position
'The bank (Lloyds TSB)had wanted to take over HBOS for some time but knew it would not get past anti monopoly laws. Browns bypassing of a competition enquiry therefore represents a huge and valuable gift from one part of the establishment to another - the 'establishment' Brown claimed in his speech last week to the Labour party conference that he wanted to change rather than join.
But Brown would have had another pressing reason to want to stabilise HBOS . Thanks to Browns private finance initiatives, the bank is central to NHS hospital and other public services.
During the Labour conference his wife Sarah took part in a well publicised visit to the site of Manchester Childrens Hospital part of a 420 m quid PFI scheme. Via various PFI consortia, HBOS is helping run 12,000 beds in hospitals from London to Halifax. It alsofinances more than 30 school projects, covering 20,000 school places.
The ultimate financial effect of an HBOS collapse on these PFI's is hard to calculate ,but the disruption would have been severe. Instead of 'transferring risk' to the private sector, PFI has given the public sector another pressing reason to bail out the banks'
I can see why one bank would therefore want to take over another bank. There is a Lloyds Tsb and and HBOS in my town .. now its fairly obvious that one has to go if this merger goes ahead. So what to do with the other building... i dont know if the bank owns it but im guessing it does. What a bonus to be able to sell off excess property and raise huge amounts of money in the process. Great for the bank but about 4 people in the town will have to look elsewhere for a job ... and in a small town theres not much financial sector jobs to be had...... looks like T****s will be the only option!!!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
It's a liquidity problem, caused by irresponsible banks.
Are you suggesting that Scotland takes the Icelandic route?
Inflation and borrowing compared to the last tory government are low, which allows the PM to borrow more to keep the public sectors record employment numbers in good shape.
Brian, the nats implemented an efficiency saving target on the 32 councils in Scotland,
that has resulted in the loss of employment.
I think you should be more honest about who has a better track record on employment.
Complain about this comment
#70 Ive already questioned the careers of both Reluctant_Expat and DerekBarker. Ive also pointed out that for all their arguements on here .... they wont win anyone over to the dark side on a blog, all they can do is throw insults at people.... well thats not true i suppose .. me old mucker Derek has calmed down a wee bit .... hes gotten a bit nervouse lately ;O)}
Complain about this comment
#63 Reluctant-Expat
"The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, the Scotsman, the Herald and a few others....they all got together and manufactured this quote from the FM?"
Fine. No matter that they're all unionist media, please post dates and article titles if you cannot be bothered to quote URLs, and we can follow it up from there.
Yet again, you're the only one claiming any conspiracy. Has a simple determination to discover the truth of your allegation become conspiratorial?
Complain about this comment
58. At 10:06am on 20 Oct 2008, derekbarker wrote:
Ah, police numbers drop in real terms by 45.
Yes, the so called 1000 new police officers
that the nats said they would introduce.
Are in fact -45, another failed snp manifesto commitment.
--------------------------------------------------------
HHMMMMMM - more disinformation from derekbarker.
--------------------------------------------------------
latest information regarding police numbers.
It was a rise of 74 on the figure in June last year, just after the SNP formed its government.
The government welcomed the figures. The SNP had made a commitment to introduce 1,000 extra officers by 2011.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said: "We inherited the lowest recruitment since devolution, with many officers due to retire.
--------------------------------------------------------
it takes a year to train a police officer and there is a limit to how many you can train each year.
Complain about this comment
derek,
With regards to employment the UK government is in no position to lecture the Scottish government, looking at the latest BBC report (15 Oct) the unemployment in the UK has rose to the same levels as 1998.
Now considering the fact that council rates have increased much faster than inflation during the boom years (council tax is tied directly to property prices) then I don't consider it unreasonable to expect the councils to be as realistic as possible.
Currently the unemployment level is at 1.8 million, but I've seen analysts predicting that it could mushroom to anywhere between 2 and 3 million.
In comparison to 'Government Borrowing' we have yet to see the effects of the bank bailouts on the UK balance sheet; I have seen analysts expect UK borrowing to mushroom from 43.8% of GPD to 80-100% or even higher!
'Why pay back your overexpenditure today, when we can tax your children tommorrow?' Should be the new Labour government mantra.
The economy has turned and Gordon has nothing to show for the UK's time in the sun to help out those who need it most.
Complain about this comment
77. I have always found Google an adequate search engine. Try it for yourself but please let me know if it is too difficult for you.
Er....I have never claimed any conspiracy, especially not an anti-nationalist one!
What's that you're saying about "unionist media"?
Are you feeling okay?
Complain about this comment
Rabbie, the problem AS has now is his credibility, he has been all over the place on this HBOS merger and dont forget the economist, AS was prepared to put 100Bn into one bank,
Rabbie this is no time for Russian Roulette, nor a novice accountant, the nats are the lose cannon of the political spectrum,"young and incapable.
By the way any luck with your wind powered trains? Tee Hee.
Complain about this comment
Derek ... it has already been pointed out by others that AS did not say 100bn. He was misquoted as usual. I do hope you dont just read the bits you want to believe.
Whats wrong with wind powered trains ... im off to the patent office to see if im on a winner !!
Complain about this comment
11. It's better to quote him more fully:
"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ?gold-plated' regulation."
Alex Salmond - Apr 2007
"Where did this age of irresponsibility come from? Who broke down the barriers in the financial sector? Who presided over the inflation of asset values? Who allowed the spivs and speculators of the £40 TRILLION derivatives markets ? the financial weapons of mass destruction - to be totally unregulated? It might just have had something to do with the occupant of 10 and 11 Downing Street over these last eleven years."
Alex Salmond - Oct 2008
Salmond clearly still believes that Scotland is both gullible AND stupid by seriously believing he could get away with this massive u-turn.
And clearly the derivatives market is not [Unsuitable URL direct link to PDF = removed by Moderator] "totally unregulated" as Salmond also claimed.
Complain about this comment
Also Derek ... AS does not have a problem with his credibilty in the real world ... only on political blogs and in the media. Now most of the newspapers are not on the SNP's side so they have an uphill struggle to put forward their vision.... ooh im using spin... The majority of the public dont really give a monkey about whos in charge which is obvious by the turnout figures .... now if AS was to put forward a sexy Big Brother ex-contestant (in a bikini) in Glenrothes we would get an extra 4-6,000 votes from Daily Star readers alone. Before you ask me for some research on those figures Expat .... its a joke. Anyway Derek i have to go... Mrs Hippo has some chores about the house i must attend to so tara the noo :o)}
Complain about this comment
Brian
The private sectors has declined, the housing industries are in trouble, banks have been lending to irresponsibilly, the private housing market is a victim of its on greed.
I think you GDP figures in relation to borrowing aren't accurate, however they do reflect those of the previous tory government, Brian, if you want to continue with public services then in difficult times you must borrow to sustain those services.
Brian you cant flip/flop on the issues of employment, you are either for or against.
Complain about this comment
I'll leave it to those with more knowledge in these areas to comment, but today's Dow Jones report on UK debt sounds very scary to me!
Complain about this comment
82. At 12:17pm on 20 Oct 2008, rabbiehippo.
sorry rabbie but the wind power trains idea will not work unless you harness the wind from derekbarker.
actualy it is a possibility to have wind generated elect. trains, but as to the cost of setting up the tracks, wind turbines, battery storage and dc to ac convertors + elect. standby, would it be economical.
Complain about this comment
It's a bit rich Brian writing: 'He must counter-attack against Labour without giving the impression that he is sniping politically during a crisis.' When we all know that it was Gordon Brown who was the first to break the concensus and snipe at the SNP. Why did you not mention that Brian?
Complain about this comment
79. BrianSH resorts to his standard fantabulous exaggerations: "I have seen analysts expect UK borrowing to mushroom from 43.8% of GPD to 80-100% or even higher!"
The 100% worst-case scenario would require borrowing #720bn for this entire crisis which, while technically possible, is not realistically expected.
Furthermore, forecasts by reliable organisations expect national debt to rise to around 50%, still within EU limits, still below the EU average, still below the Western European average, still less than both the USA and Japan.....
Try to not get carried away when you are attempting to talk down the UK.
82. I see no rebuttal from the SNP on this widely-reported "misquote". Do you?
Complain about this comment
11. It's better to quote him more fully:
"We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ?gold-plated' regulation."
Alex Salmond - Apr 2007
"Where did this age of irresponsibility come from? Who broke down the barriers in the financial sector? Who presided over the inflation of asset values? Who allowed the spivs and speculators of the £40 TRILLION derivatives markets ? the financial weapons of mass destruction - to be totally unregulated? It might just have had something to do with the occupant of 10 and 11 Downing Street over these last eleven years."
Alex Salmond - Oct 2008
Salmond clearly still believes that Scotland is both gullible AND stupid by seriously believing he could get away with this massive u-turn.
And clearly the derivatives market is not "totally unregulated" as Salmond also claimed.....google "Section 43 of the Financial Services Act 1986" including quotes (which is a pdf so I cannot link).
Complain about this comment
#68 corporationtax
you clearly were at a different conference then! As far as Salmond's speech as being "full of rhetoric". Isn't that what a speech is? Ministers like Sturgeon and Swinney had already made announcements in their speeches (maybe you missed them).
Salmond's job was two-fold. Firstly, to give the party an idea of where the Government is going and secondly to use what paltry TV coverage the SNP get to put our vision to the general electorate.
On Glenrothes, a normally safe Labour seat with a 10000 majority. We know it is not in the bag and speaker after speaker asked for volunteers to visit and continue our campaign. They'll get them and the fight will continue to polling day. Glenrothes is not as important as it was to Brown, but make no mistake, if we win then it is a severe blow to him.
On Homecoming 2009. Sorry you think it is twee and Brigadoon, but I'm sure our tourist industry thinks otherwise.
Complain about this comment
86. In summary, the UK is borrowing more than last year.
As is almost every other industrialised country in the world.
See my #89.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat ... the cost would mostly be in the trains and electrifying the track ie overhead cables. These could be used to take the excess back to the Grid.You would only need to get the power from the wind turbine to the track. One of the problems i think might be that an electric train would have a big power draw..... any electricity guys or tram engineers out there to advise on this one ??
Complain about this comment
89. At 12:44pm on 20 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat.
you supply the actual quote from alex salmond, not what the unionist papers say he said.
unless the papers say that they are quoting alex salmond, then what they have printed in relation to the 100 billion is their intepretation and not fact.
as it been you that been going on about it, without supplying links to alex salmond actualy saying it.
if you cannot put up, then its best you shut up.
you are just another unionist posting miss-information.
Complain about this comment
Just a wee correction to some of the posts that I have been writing. I mentioned the name Brian, I meant Brian Taylor and not BrianSH. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding BrianSH.
Complain about this comment
#80 Reluctant-Expat
Thank you yet again for your discourtesy in failing to follow basic blog etiquette and also for demonstrating what an unpleasant individual you must be. In addition to your regular attempts at "mobbing" anyone with views different to your own, You post endless "CONSPIRACY ALERT" and like statements whenever you are unable to support your own views.
oldnat's #16 contained a perfectly reasonable but so far unanswered request to Neil_Small147 to provide a source for his #4's assertion that "in fact stated he [Salmond] would have given the bank 100 billion", which you now appear to claim in your #63 to have seen confirmed in "The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, the Scotsman, the Herald and a few others".
You then go on to imply that I should learn to use Google - presumably because it is such a simple process that even a home ruler might be able to manage it. Well, no doubt to your surprise I do know how to use Google, and I am sure oldnat and others also have developed this skill.
The problem is that searching for that string gives no meaningful hits. The best I was able to find, via Google News was by searching for "salmond would give bank 100 billion", currently giving about 19 "hits", of which only one is directly relevant.
That one article is Macwhirter's opinion piece in a September Sunday Herald, Labour's glee at the fall of HBOS risks backfiring. That does contain the words: "... Alex Salmond's suggestion that an independent Scotland could have organised a £100-billion ...".
Sadly for Neil_Small147, it contains no information to indicate when or to whom Salmond made that " suggestion ".
I'm off shortly for the afternoon but hope to be back tonight. With any luck it'll be after you've finished your ranting, as I note that your posts are mainly during office hours. I imagine it must relieve the stress a little. Why not try Zen like CEH on the NR threads?
Complain about this comment
#37 - the mail on BBC bias. A letter sent to the Beeb this morning. Can i say that I regard the BBC as a sterling site...
...but not susceptible to a 'change' in political seeding/mood, before by-elections? I think not.
Btw, the Labour/BBS Scotland political team meeting. Have tried, but FOI have denied everyone access to the minutes of these meetings [one of which was before the election, one of which was before Glasgow-East].
----
Thanks for your prompt response *****.
As you would have seen from my original mail, I have acknowledged the conference banner/link into the main section. This isn't really the point I was making - I'm aware of the comprehensiveness and breadth of options once the reader actually arrives in this dedicated section. No worries whatsoever.
It's merely with respect the seeding and number of relevant stories [seemingly available] in regard to what is a very 'busy' conference, where I cannot agree with you. In this respect, it certainly does not mirror coverage given to conferences held previously by Labour etc. - and this is a point that seems to be being made on various political forums, including through the main on line press veins in Scotland.
There's the usual push behind labour scaremongering and spin, of course, including the red cape our Prime Minister seems to be wearing this weather. For what, two days on end? - the BBC carried the throbbing Labour message of 'Scotland could not have survived the current financial crisis without the strength of the union' i.e. Mr. Brown's surprising broadside against the SNP - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7670331.stm
Where is the rebuttal? I know it's been made. Where is the SNP position? It has been made again, already, at conference - so why can it not enjoy the same position and bask for two days on the 'Scotland' landing page? As a web article?
Days before a by-election, this is surely not balanced coverage?
The point I made about the home page links [from my tailored options] is exactly that - so perhaps there's been some misunderstanding here? The problem indeed is that none of these stories are related to the SNP conference in any way. Our main party is in conference, there are no links from the home page - the first 'gate way' into the depths of the site.
I know that, in the past, Scottish Labour have met BBC Scotland's political team a few times, on the back of their own fears with respect apparent 'SNP bias' from the BBC [I think a news reader made the mistake of referring, once to many times it seems, to the Scottish parliament as the Scottish 'government'!].
To that end, I hope you'll allow me register my disappointment, as a member of the public, and a web editor myself - with what I see as quite clear 'pro-union' bias in your site.
Very often, due to the thoroughly gutless nature of our Scottish broadsheets [who ARE pro-union] only the BBC seems capable of delivering unbiased reportage. I fear, since the SNP victory last year, and running up to by-elections [as we are just now] there is a marked change in the manner of this reportage.
Let me thank you once more for your prompt response.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Liked the question time with Eck. Despite the depressing and often 'several times answered' questions from unionists.
But why oh WHY didn't you press him on his opinion on the Calman draft, soon to be published.
An 'independent' review, dontya know? [cough].
Complain about this comment
# 94 vote_nat
I'm surprised that you actually waste your time discussing anything with this person. I suspect that the majority of people on here, including the Unionists, would not want to be associated with a person who is trying to be so rude. It is people like that that give blogging a bad name. I may not agree with some of the posts put on by the unionists but I do respect their point of view and I endeavour to treat them with the respect that they deserve. However, some of the bloggers deserve no respect at all. This applies not only to certain Unionists bloggers but some so called nats.
I try to avoid using statistics on my posts as it is so easy to manipulate them to your own point of view. Just listen to any politician of whatever party and you'll see what I mean.
Complain about this comment
Mid-conference, what is the leading story on the BBC Scotland political landing page?:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/scotland_politics/default.stm
'By-election role for Sarah Brown'
Ahhhh - she kissed him don't you know - in front of folk.
That means they're 'just like me'.
OK, I'm sold - I'm voting Labour.
NOT!
Complain about this comment
Sweden has just announced that it will be providing credit guarantees up to a maximum of $205bn, equivalent to 61% of the nation's GDP. Another $20bn (that's another 6% of GDP) is being set aside for any banks needing emergency capital.
So, total possible borrowing worth 67% of GDP for an economy so stable, that Salmond does not expect it to go into recession.
For perspective, the entire possible borrowing of #500bn in Brown's bail-out plan is equivalent to just 40% of the UK's GDP.
It looks like Salmond's 'Arc of Prosperity II - With Crossed Fingers' is starting to falter already.
With everything collapsing around the SNP's ears, maybe they should change their logo.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant Ex-splat and his endless amount of energy wasted for exposing the ludicrous nature of independence and self-belief.
More stats ex-splat? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
There was a young man called ex-pat
Who seemed to be quite a big prat
He posted again
and again and again
and still no one paid heed to his stats
Complain about this comment
# 102 Gingerbadger
Rofl. But I don't think Rabbie Burns will be moving out of the way for you anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
#96 Brownedov: I doubt it will pass muster with the impartiality police, but there is a brief discussion of that elusive GBP100 billion suggestion at the SNP Tactical Voting blog.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Fingers and legs are crossed.
Dont mention Iceland or Ireland or Denmark.
A probable borrowing rate of 43% compared to the rest of the world economies, is a reflection, that this world indeed does need a master of the universe
to lead the world in a time of uncertainty.
"Not a time for a novice"
Wow! AS has hit the reality switch and the arch-nats are taking a nose-dive.
What ever did happen to that LIT tax proposal? another one gone with the wind!
Complain about this comment
#98, Gingerbadger asked:
"But why oh WHY didn't you press him on his opinion on the Calman draft, soon to be published."
Maybe because seeking comment on an as yet unpublished report would be like asking what someone today thought of tomorrow's weather!
The chickens of educated guesswork coming home to roost is at the root of much of the credit crunch.
Complain about this comment
The Gingerbread Badger....................
Run....Run...... as fast as you can?
Complain about this comment
#87 Reluctant-expat
'Furthermore, forecasts by reliable organisations expect national debt to rise to around 50%'
#101 Reluctant-expat
'For perspective, the entire possible borrowing of #500bn in Brown's bail-out plan is equivalent to just 40% of the UK's GDP.'
National Statistics Online...
'Public sector net debt, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP ), was 43.3 per cent at the end of August 2008'
1+1=1?
Complain about this comment
#97 Ginge
To be fair to the BBC and their co-conspirators throughout the UK media, it is probably difficult to report on huff and bluster and give it a balanced coverage.
I mean, where on earth do you start analysing some of this SNP armchair punditry?
Where are the hard facts to back up comparisons with wee countries around the world. The SNP themselves find this difficult. Their Premier League of wee countries we want to be is constantly changing/reducing.
Mr Salmond made the comparison to Iceland but now all of a sudden "the unionists" should stop going on about it - it is way too small to be comparable to our wee country - really, you couldn't make it up!
Complain about this comment
maybe sarah brown could explain to the glenrothes constituents how hurt gordon was that the electorate did not understand his 10p tax fiasco, no apology, just he was hurt that the electorate could not understand that the rich needed more money.
she could explain how his initial idea of taking 250 pounds per year of the poorer paid members of society and giving it to the richer members of society was good for the lower paid.
the subsequent raising of the 20p tax band worked out that gordon was only taking 125 pounds per year from the poor to give it to the rich. now that is a good socialist policy, i think not.
over and over we have seen the new labour party promoting conservative policies,
tax the poor until the pips squeek, and reward the rich with more money.
once again gordon is using his wife to try and get more votes, how low can the man go.
Complain about this comment
In continuation of my earlier post, its a saddening portrayal of unionist logic:
1 country + 1 country + 1 country + 1 country = 1 country?
Some people aren't very good with the old arithmetic, never mind the maths.
Perhaps they should leave the important business to the nationalist camp and stick to the 'toon cooncils! braw hoosies! nice corrs! mair tractors! mair polis' Labour party conferences.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Was that a coherent post?
Care to shed light on that 100Bn AS said he would give to one bank?
Complain about this comment
#86 Browndov
Please nooooo Zen. I've read CEH's posts and he has to be Alistair Campbellin disguise. Out of all the uber-supporters of the various parties he even makes Reluctant-Expat look like a SNP supporter.
As for wind powered trains, the solution is easy. Just stick a politician - any party will do - at one end of the train along with a large turbine. To keep them going get a journalist to ask them questions.
Anyway, I'm spending the rest of my lunch break in the hurricane that has hit Glasgow.
Complain about this comment
109. And?
Shall I help you out with this complex three-piece jigsaw?
1. Current debt is 43.8% of GDP.
2. The entire borrowing of #500bn of the bail-out plan, if used, would amount to an additional 40% of GDP.
3. However, forecasts are that UK debt will only rise to around 50% of GDP.
?
Complain about this comment
113. Maybe Brian would also like to shed light on Salmond's April 2007 complaint that there was too much banking regulation....
....followed up by Salmond's complaint yesterday that there was too little banking regulation?
Jeez, The Weeble is all over the place!
Complain about this comment
111. "tax the poor until the pips squeek, and reward the rich with more money."?
LIT = Those whose income is not salary-based (eg. company directors and owners, landlords and property dealers etc.) will no longer be required to pay for council services.
Whereas households with multiple incomes (eg. working couples, those in shared housing etc.) will now pay more.
All wage-earners will see their income tax increase by 3%.
And as the amount raised is not enough to cover Council Tax revenue, budgets of other public services will be raided to make up the difference.
And who uses those public services the most? The 'company directors' or the 'working couples'?
Did you say it was Labour who "tax the poor until the pips squeek, and reward the rich with more money."??
(This is all getting too easy.)
Complain about this comment
#116
Weeble does do a far bit of wobbling!
It's seems as-though the light bulb has gone out.
Complain about this comment
BrianSH #112
Could be wrong, but I think there might be a protocol, increasing by increments:
country, nation, state.
Complain about this comment
#117.
Your entire comment is worthless.
"LIT = Those whose income is not salary-based (eg. company directors and owners, landlords and property dealers etc.) will no longer be required to pay for council services."
Do you know the exact wording of the Bill? If so, please share the information with the rest of the group. I do believe Swinney will ensure that everyone pays one way or another.
Company Directors on the otherhand. I know for a fact they will pay LIT. Does that make your comment wrong? Misinformed?
Complain about this comment
Re 30
Alec has already implemented the larger class sizes and less teachers, at least in my part of the world.
As for the rest who knows how the pile of unfunded SNP pledges will be paid for?
Re 90
I reckon this same exercise could be carried out for any of our politicians, they really are all as bad as each other.
I reckon this should remove any Brownie points Mr salmond would have got!
Re HBOS / Loyds merger. I don't think anything I have seen changes the original decision. It doesn't look as if the HBOS model is really all that stable. What we want is the best long term stable solution. But Alec is right to ask the question, there should be no secrets. The main disadvantage will be the size of the new beast, it will be huge and difficult to regulate.
So why no answers form Downing Street?
Alex is also right to try to maximise jobs in Scotland, he should get some credit for his efforts so far.
OldNat:
Please don't point too many to NR's blog, we don't want that standard of debate in Scotland, we all disagree but at least most of the time there is some political debate of worth and basic respect for other opinions(well mostof the time). NR's contributors are frankly woeful. Bighulabaloo would have been a moderate.
Complain about this comment
#115 Reluctant-Expat
We have established that the GDP of the United Kingdom is £1.4 trillion (150 billion off your sums but that's what the BBC says)
Current debt is 43.8% - £613 Billion
UK Rescue Package! - £387 Billion
Thats 27.6% of GDP
This is composed of...
Bank Debt Guarentee - £250 Billion
BoE Short Term Loands - £100 Billion
Treasury Injection - £37 Billion
Then we have the governments investments in banks
RBS - £20 bn
LloydsTSB - £5.5 bn
HBOS - £11.5 bn
Northern Rock - £ 26 bn
Bradford and Bingley - £ 18 bn
Thats a further £81 bn - 5.8% of GDP
In total a stonking-eyewatering 77.2% of GDP.
Now consider just how badly the recession will affect the tax take for the exchequer in addition to the hundreds of billions still owing in PFI/PPP contracts you can easily see how some analysts believe that the UK is actually already owing over 100% of GDP.
Broon and bust... and these are the men you trust with the economy of four countries.
Complain about this comment
OK, I think I've finally sourced the 100 billion GDP charge against Salmond.
On 21 September, the Scotsman reported Salmond as saying "Salmond said he would have advanced billions of pounds of credit to HBOS ? which employs 17,000 people north of the border ? in a bid to ensure its short-term survival while the financial storm raged." (though not quoting, and I still have to source what he actually said.)It then went on to make its own comment "The loan of public money ? possibly as much as £100bn "
On the general question of using the BoE special liquidity fund
At the time Darling criticised the suggestion, and said there was no need for public money to be invested in HBOS.
The first misreading of the supply of money to HBOS and the 100 billion occurs in the Scotsman blog.
On 22 September, the Scotsman carried a story, which for the first time has a politician repeating the blogger's error in associating Salmond directly with the 100 billion amount. Gray was right to describe it as "a fantasy figure" - but it was the Scotsman's fantasy not Salmond's.
On the 24 September at FMQs in the Scottish Parliament Wendy Alexander said that
FM reply
In that same debate, Ross Finnie attacked Brown's handling of the crisis, and agreed that Salmond had been misquoted However Jeremy Purvis MSP repeated Gray's original falsehood Andy Kerr repeated the charge as did Iain Gray again Tavish Scott then repeats it again Salmond again points out the error
So what do we have?
An inaccurate report by the Scotsman, misunderstood by Iain Gray, and repeated ad nauseam.
The fanatics will continue to repeat their Goebellian lies, but I expect Neil_Small to accept that this has no foundation.
Complain about this comment
120. Great rubuttal!
Not one contradictory fact, just "I'm sure Swinney will ensure everyone pays one way or another."
Another devastating retort by Master Potter.
(If Swinney does intend to also apply LIT to dividend income, trust income, capital trust income, capital gains income.......much of which is calculated and collected separately from your bog-standard income tax.....then this has all the makings of an absolute farce! I'd hope this did get passed and kill off the SNP's credibility once and for all - if it didn't have the prospect of totally thingy-ing up public finances!)
Complain about this comment
117. At 2:23pm on 20 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat.
its geting to easy is it.
lit has not been introduced as yet.
the 10p tax fiasco has been introduced.
lit is for the poorer members of society.
the 10p tax fiasco is against the poorer members of society.
there is no way round the fact that new labour are tories in disguise.
so if you vote tory you get a tory government.
if you vote new labour you get a tory government.
the average working couple will not jointly earn enough to have to pay more.
--------------------------------------------------------
"All wage-earners will see their income tax increase by 3%."
the above is a typical false statement from you, as if you earn a wage that is below the tax threshhold you would not pay the 3% tax, and you would have to earn a large income before you would the equivalent of the council tax.
after your tax allowance, how much would you have to earn to pay the equivelent of the council tax.
council tax is a disproportional tax on the poorer members of society.
but then again new labour support the tory policy of tax the poor until the pips squeek.
Complain about this comment
#122
Brian, please quote right.
CURRENT BORROWING STANDS AT 37%
You tend to mix and pick on the bail-out
syndrome.(500Bn)
Its likely that borrowing will rise to 43%
again Brian, are you advocating an Icelandic position.
Do you agree that the snp efficiency savings imposed on the council have cost jobs?
As you have said in previous post, employment is important(yes)
Complain about this comment
Yep, BrianSH is broken.
In #79, we have: "In comparison to 'Government Borrowing' we have yet to see the effects of the bank bailouts on the UK balance sheet; I have seen analysts expect UK borrowing to mushroom from 43.8% of GPD to 80-100% or even higher!"
Now, in #122, we have: "In total a stonking-eyewatering 77.2% of GDP."
Quite a big drop down there, Brian!
To make up this new 22.8% difference between the two (a mere #182bn), BrianSH then dusts off that old nat chestnut, the PFI projects, onto the equation!
'BrianSH', are you really Alex Salmond?
Complain about this comment
123. That's it? That's your 'proof'?
Salmond said, "There was clearly a misunderstanding of the reference to the liquidity fund."
What did he say then? Can't he quote himself??!
Did he suggest using the entire amount just to save HBOS? It is blindingly obvious how important HBOS staying (part-)Scottish is to his independence plans.
Did he suggest he would have spent the entire #100bn on just the one company?
Complain about this comment
121. At 2:46pm on 20 Oct 2008, northhighlander.
your local council has implemented the larger class sizes and less teachers, at least in your part of the world.
now it may be an SNP, new labour or lib dem council, and i am guessing that its a lib dem council.
could the class size be down to political manovering.
how many are in a class in your area, and is there a shortage of teachers willing to work in your area.
we know that there is not a shortage of newly qualified teachers, but they want to work near their home base and do not wish to relocate to other areas despite relocation payments being made availiable.
Complain about this comment
#124
Reluctant-Expat.
You lost credibility many weeks ago. I find it amusing that you believe Company Directors will not pay LIT because according to you they don't have salaries...
I'm not complaining. From your opinion (not fact) my family have became far wealthier. Perhaps this is a good moment to ask my father for a car once I am seventeen?
What next? You may as well claim that it will soon become optional to pay income tax in future. I would not be surprised
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
128 part 2: This also does not explain away The Weeble's failure to grasp that it is liquidity that is HBOS's problem and the reason why LTSB's takeover should go ahead.
HBOS does not have enough money 'internally' to keep its wheels turning and no-one is lending to them. HBOS apparently needs LTSB's to keep it from grinding to a halt....or so the press releases and statements repeatedly say.
I seem to have grasped this without having repeated meetings with senior HBOS staff. Why can't Salmond?
Complain about this comment
Re: too many to mention
Can I please ask that people on all sides of the debate remember that the astronomical figures being bandied about here are not going to finance a giant stag party.
As things stand at the moment, money provided to the banks are being given either on a loan basis, or as a purchase of stock in the bank. I think we all have to remember that there is an expectation that we will get this money back in the long term. All of these institution still have many divisions / products which are highly profitable
Similarly, the guarantees are just that, guarantees, and the money has not been spent, it is there to provide confidence and a bail of IF REQUIRED.
Lastly, the purchase of the toxic debt (how I hate that term) is still not necessarily money lost forever. There will certainly be a higher level of bad debt within it, but it is by no means 100% loss.
Let us remember that much of the money pledged by the UK and other governments is likely to be returned in the long term, and while I appreciate that this will result in some short term pain, I would suggest that it is the role of central government to provide relief in this type of situation and to take the long term view that may not be available to commercial organisations.
Before I am accused of making the argument for one side or the other, let me say that I do not see this as being an argument for either side, just a plea to ratchet down the ever increasing hysteria.
Complain about this comment
123. At 2:57pm on 20 Oct 2008, oldnat.
it does not matter to the unionists that you have disproved that alex salmond did not say that he would put 100 billion into HBOS.
its in their interests to keep on repeating that he did say it, in the belief that if you repeat a lie over and over then the lie becomes the truth.
ps. where are the HBOS bank notes you were going to send me so that they can go in my collection. remember only mint and unused will do.
Complain about this comment
#127 Reluctant-Expat
Oh contraire, it's not my problem if you can't understand economics and mathematics; perhaps, if I may be so bold, you should have signed up for some of that skillseekers allowance that Labour provided for the three R's.
Unfortunate to see that it was yet another batch of public cash not well spent.
Complain about this comment
I think Mr Salmond and co still haven't fully grasped the events of the last 2 weeks. Let me try to explain...Scotland does not have a banking system any longer!!
RBS - 60% owned by the UK Treasury
HBOS - Taken over by Lloyds TSB and 40% owned by the UK Treasury
Clydesdale - Owned by an Australian bank.
How, therefore can we become independent? I find it staggering that so many nationalists can think that the day after we become independent Scotland will turn into Switzerland overnight and we'll all be rolling in money!
The truth is that even before the current financial crisis, the costs of breaking up the UK would be massive...breaking up the NHS, the armed forces, royal mail, social security, establishing a new tax system, the list goes on...
Now we need to add to that the cost of an independent Scotland having to "buy back" RBS from the UK Treasury!!
And at the end of that, what would we have? It remains to be seen what will happen to the Lisbon treaty, but there is a good chance still that the European Union will override Ireland's objection to it and implement the treaty anyway. Such is the way that small countries are treated in these days of globalisation.
Right now, we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor elected by the good people of Fife and Edinburgh respectively fighting for Scotland's interest in the UK and in the world. The UK may not have the clout it once had, but one thing's for certain, we've got far more chance of having an influence on world affairs than an independent Scotland will have!
Complain about this comment
#127 Reluctant-expat
In further reading of your posts I note that you now acknowledge that the Broon Manouvering has managed to indebt this country to 78% of GDP.
Congratulations, the union dividend in action!
We could make a film; Union Dividend Man; and you could be he!
It could be a blockbuster the likes of which has never been seen!
You could stop evil nationalists in their plot to destroy the world you know and love with prejudice; spouting such remarkable one liners as...
1. Arc of Insolvency!
2. 40% of GDP, or is that 77%..... Mabye 100%... dammit
3. 1 Country + 1 Country + 1 Country 1 Country = 1 Country?
4. Three cheers for I.D cards! Hip Hip!
5. Oil? Where's your oil now!
6. I'll give you your LIT!
7. Broon or Bust! We'll whose bust now!
#126 derekbarker
I just used Reluctant-expat's figures, after all he is the font of all knowledge.
Complain about this comment
Would the die hard unionists like to denegrate any other scandanavian/smaller nations economies while we're doing the rest, wouldn't want to leave anybody out in the "look how rubbish they are, just think how badly Scotland would've been if inependent" stakes?
Your right, all of these nations should definitely take a leaf out of the UK's economic policies for the future.
After all Brown's plan has saved not only the UK but the whole of Europe, and perhaps even beyond by following his example.
Thank goodness we weren't allowed to make our own fiscal policy, we might've gotten it comletely wrong as opposed to now.
Roll on the union dividend
Complain about this comment
As a card carrying nationalist i am used to the arguments in favour of the UK (the politically correct name for London's empire), and they tend to have three distinguishing features
1) Scotland is too poor/weak/small/stupid to look after itself. We need the wise English to save us from self-destruction. We're like children really. And all they ask in return is everything we own and ever will own, the use of areas near major cities for nuclear plants, nuclear submarine bases and anything else they don't want on their doorstep and for all our sportsmen to be considered British as long as they're doing well.
2) The flow of money from Scotland to England is ignored in any economic argument. As is the free source of water, petrol, electricity and gas provided by the people of Scotland to the Union, in return for...um...whatever it is we get from London. Sarcasm i suppose.
3) Bigger is always better, for defence, for economics, for agriculture, for everything. Small independent countries like Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and the rest of the upstarts will soon be begging their larger neighbours to swallow them up for their own good.
So what you tend to get is stories asking what would happen if Scotland became independent at the worst possible time with nowt but the clothes on her back, and must be assuming that the money being currently being hemorrhaged to London will stay there. Nothing is new about this, but now the unionists are in a bit of a pickle with regards to Europe
The problem is that the arguments of bigger is better should equate to joining a European super state, but this cannot be. So what you find (hilariously if you lean towards the self-determination mindset) is a newspaper saying unionism is good and bad within a page of each other.
For example the Sunday Express (19/10/08) savaged first Alex Salmond's conference performance, pointing out in a manner dripping with condescension that only the union has saved us again. Yet on the previous page, separated by only a thin slip of paper, we find an attack on the Europeans and the idea that this "crisis of convenience" will "bounce us into the Eurozone" (their words).
How dare the Europeans use those same arguments to prove a different point they cry. How dare they use logic and reason and extrapolate from a given point? Don't they know we know right from wrong and the glorious British Empire, the most successful exploitative system in world history, can't survive without other peoples money and resources? Cant they see that the Welsh have been stripped bare, the profitable colonies have gone for this whole freedom craze and Gibraltar and the Falklands have nothing to export but rabid monkeys and tiny penguins? How can Londoners be expected to scratch a living if they can't exploit someone?
The only possible reason for this double-edged argument is arrogance, the idea that the ideal size for a country is whatever size Britain happens to be at that particular moment, which is of course, nonsense. The crisis has effected the U.S., which has a population around six times that of Britain right down to Iceland, which has a population of less than Edinburgh. And lets not forget that the small independent countries of Northern Europe (Particularly Sweden, which David Cameron has wished Britian was "more like" but also Ireland, Norway, Finland, Denmark and so on) are doing much better than the UK, and some will avoid recession altogether. Fair enough Iceland has effectively gone under but whether it was worth using anti terror legislation to strike them down in order to score cheap points for the union is another story. It is also worth noting that the IMF have pointed to Spain as the biggest risk of collapse, a country so similar in size and history (lots of money taken from other places) to England that it is all but ignored by the London media.
George Orwell's classic 1984 spoke of "doublethink", the principle of keeping two conflicting ideas in ones head, and believing both to be true. But being a staunch anti-imperialist i wonder how he'd feel about the process blossoming in the Unionist press.
Complain about this comment
133. At 3:29pm on 20 Oct 2008, googlehoo.
good post.
--------------------------------------------------------
its the central banks (bank of england) responsibility to give loans to the other banks - building societies in the situation that has arisen due to the credit crunch, ? why did it not do so.
it was reported that alister darling approached the bank of england to put funds into northern rock and was told no. why ?.
if the bank of england cannot do its function as the official bank of the UK then what is the point in having it as the central bank.
Complain about this comment
#123 oldnat.
Yep, I'll accept that there is no foundation. Shows what happens when journalists report things :p
I'll not continue to use it, much to vote_nat's disappointment, but then I'm not a unionist.
Complain about this comment
126. Actually, borrowing is over 44% today although a large chunk of that is tied up in certain banks. I think I read that, without the banks, debt is still around 37-38%.
Perspective - When the Tories left office, we had a trade surplus (albeit small but steadily increasing nonetheless), a govt budget surplus, tax levels of 37% of GDP compared to 40.5% now, a rapidly decreasing debt (and it continued to drop from 44% in 1997 to 29% in 2003, before Brown started his spending spree), personal debt was at EU average levels and there had been 13 years of growth with only 1 year in recession (ok, as of 2008, that does mean economic growth for 23 out of the last 24 years - which isn't too bad and nicely sums up the UK's transformation since the dark days of the 70s/early 80s).
Them were the days.
Complain about this comment
#137
RE clearly never gave a figure of 77%???
The rudiments of your calculations are flawed! your simply arguing for the sake of argument, a tactic that is well used by the nats.
Weeble on the wobble.
Be true, tell the truth...its free!
Complain about this comment
134. He has disproved zilch and nada.
Salmond says he has been misquoted/misundertsood yet he doesn't reveal what he really said. Was it something about a one-armed man? Did the gloves not fit?
Salmond has a history of telling mighty porkers:
Exhibit A: In 2006, he said Labour's GERS reporting a 6bn deficit was wrong, and it was really a 3bn surplus.
In 2007, the SNP's own GERS reported a 3bn deficit even though the economy had grown and the oil prices had shot up.
Exhibit B: In the same 2007 GERS, Salmond claimed there was a 800m surplus.....he didn't say that surplus only exists if you ignore 4bn in spending.
Exhibit C: In 2007, Salmond complained that there was too much banking regulation.
In 2008, Salmond then complains that there was too little banking regulation.
Yeah, but this time, he's telling the truth.
Complain about this comment
#136.
Edin Chris.
"The truth is that even before the current financial crisis, the costs of breaking up the UK would be massive...breaking up the NHS, the armed forces, royal mail, social security, establishing a new tax system, the list goes on..."
Armed Forces would not be expensive. Without the Iraq/Afganistan or other British commitments Scotland would save quite alot of money/resources. Trident would also be gone, another wasted resources off Scottish hands. You are also forgetting Scotland has already military buildings in Scotland that could be used for our Army. There are lots you are not looking at here.
Simple scaremongering. Too poor, too incapable. You Scots can't go it alone!
"Now we need to add to that the cost of an independent Scotland having to "buy back" RBS from the UK Treasury!!"
What are you on about? Why will Scotland have to buy RBS shares? Scotland never owned RBS in the first place. It is a PRIVATE company...
"Right now, we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor elected by the good people of Fife and Edinburgh respectively fighting for Scotland's interest in the UK and in the world."
What have you been watching? They will never argue Scotland's corner. They can't, they represent Britain. They were represented into the British National Parliament. They are British Nationalists (not related to the BNP) they favour no parts over another.
"The UK may not have the clout it once had, but one thing's for certain, we've got far more chance of having an influence on world affairs than an independent Scotland will have!"
That's the problem. You worry about having an influence on another countries when the average Scot worries about how to make ends meet. Besides Britain is not a major player, she does not even come close. Russia has more influence then we do and she grows stronger each day.
Complain about this comment
#141 Neil_Small147
It's a long time since I thought you were a Unionist, and even when I did, I thought you an intelligent, reasonable one.
As for others, I came across this rather nice exchange.
Can't make up my mind which one a certain other poster is!
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter # 130
Ref - Optional Income Tax
Quote: I do believe Swinney will ensure that everyone pays one way or another. Unquote
Unfortunately, in some cases, payment of this tax might will be voluntary. I personally know of people who've already notified their employers (who in turn will inform HMRC) that they've moved to stay (at their pal's house) at an adress in Carlisle.
The cover story will be that they now commute to work in the central belt or alternatively, say they get rented lodgings in Scotland, which they only use whilst working, i.e. not their "main residence" (which is the HMRC term).
Result: Ostensibly they now reside across the border and won't be paying any extra tax.
Bearing in mind the majority of our population is within a commute of the border, I'm diasappointed the SNP don't seem to have thought this one through.
I pay my taxes and don't in any way condone such behaviour, but being realistic, it is going to happen.
A wee poem:
Tax evasion made so very easy,
by our very own Mister John Swinney.
Complain about this comment
A wee joke.
Gordon Brown was visiting a primary school where he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked Mr Brown if he would like to lead the
discussion on the word 'tragedy'.
Thus the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy'.
A little boy stood up and offered: 'If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.'
No, said Gordon - that would be an accident.'
A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy'
I'm afraid not, explained Gordon - that's what we would call great loss'
The room went silent. No other children volunteered.
Gordon searched the room. 'Isn't there anyone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?'
Finally, at the back of the room, little Jeremy raised his hand... In a quiet voice he said: 'If A plane carrying you and Mr Darling to Afghanistan or Iraq was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to
smithereens, that would be a tragedy.'
'Fantastic!' exclaimed Gordon. 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?'
'Well,' says little Johnny 'it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either!'
Complain about this comment
A wee joke.
Gordon Brown was visiting a primary school where he visited one of the classes. They were in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked Mr Brown if he would like to lead the
discussion on the word 'tragedy'.
Thus the illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a tragedy'.
A little boy stood up and offered: 'If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playing in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.'
No, said Gordon - that would be an accident.'
A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everyone inside, that would be a tragedy'
I'm afraid not, explained Gordon - that's what we would call great loss'
The room went silent. No other children volunteered.
Gordon searched the room. 'Isn't there anyone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?'
Finally, at the back of the room, little Jeremy raised his hand... In a quiet voice he said: 'If A plane carrying you and Mr Darling to Afghanistan or Iraq was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to
smithereens, that would be a tragedy.'
'Fantastic!' exclaimed Gordon. 'That's right. And can you tell me why that would be tragedy?'
'Well,' says little Johnny 'it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be an accident either!'
Complain about this comment
136. At 3:50pm on 20 Oct 2008, edinchris.
just another scaremonger trying to tell us that it would cost scotland to much to be independent.
HBOS has not been taken over by lloyds tsb as yet.
it has never been stated by the SNP that scotland would be as rich as switzerland after independance, so why make it up.
gordon brown and alistair darling are fighting for the labour party and no one else, they only care about scotland in respect to how many labour mps can be returned at the next election and then scotland will get the usual brush off.
another point that is never brought up is that the scottish average wage is 2000 pounds lower than the uk national wage, is that the union divide or is it that the scottish worker is cheap labour for the westminster goverment and the keep scottish workers poorer.
Complain about this comment
#148 Gingerbadger
Lol, very good.
#149 Gingerbadger
Ach, it was funnier the first time.
;)
Complain about this comment
Re #142 Reluctant-Expat
I'm obviously not well today as I find myself leaning positively towards your posting (just the one though).
While there has been a sustained period of growth in the UK, you are correct in asserting that there has also been an even greater level of spend and taxation.
While GB has been the chancellor in this period, I would contend that Uncle Tony has much to answer for in this as, if I remember correctly, on one occasion, GB took the huff after TB announced an increase in spend on the NHS without checking with GB first - oh for the halcyon days of TB and GB gambolling around Downing Street with nary a World crisis in sight.
One point I would make is that while TB and GB were been spending like a drunken sailor with a weekend pass for all those years, I don?t recall that many politicians saying nay to increased spend on public services (yes, yes ok, Vincent Cable foresaw some problems), and other than a constant complaint about increasing taxation (what?s new) I don?t recall a universal cry for a fighting fund to guard against future downturn and recessions (I may be wrong on this, and if I am I?m sure I?ll be picked up on it and roundly abused, but I?m struggling to think of it), so while I maintain that the government has much to answer for with respect to the current situation, I do not subscribe to the idea that it would all have been avoided if we had a different administration. We may have had a different debt / GDP ratio, but the crisis would, I maintain have been the same.
Complain about this comment
#145 Thomas Porter
Let me clarify a few points then...
1) Armed forces - How do you divide up national assets - aircraft carriers, submarines, eurofighters? Practically speaking it will be a logistical nightmare
2) Banks - my point on this is how can we be independent when our biggest banks are owned by the UK Treasury?! For independence to have any meaning, the Scottish treasury will have to buy the shares that the UK Treasury will put in which will bankrupt us before we even start!
I am not saying for one moment that Scots are not capable. Our own Scottish Prime Minister, I actually think is doing a good job currently. You could argue that he shouldn't have got into this mess, but it is a global downturn, and he has shown intelligence and leadership in how to get out of it. Why, when we have Scots running Westminster do we want to get rid of the UK?!
Complain about this comment
141. At 4:08pm on 20 Oct 2008, Neil_Small147.
hi neil,
sorry if you took that reference to mean you , it was for re-pat and derekbarker who were keeping on repeating it again and again.
Complain about this comment
144, part II!
Exhibit D: In 2006, Labour's GERS reported a non-oil deficit of 11bn.
In 2007, Salmond regularly complained that the GERS calculations were "incomplete and flawed" and "both underestimated revenue and overestimated expenditure". Therefore, 3,000 entries were being recalculated and checked.
In the subsequent 'corrected' SNP GERS, the non-oil deficit was.....10.8bn, a 1.8% variation that mirrored the economic growth of that period.
The only significantly different entries between the 'flawed' 2006 GERS and the 'correct' 2007 GERS were down to increased oil prices and revenues.
Exhibit E: Prior to 2007, Salmond repeatedly claimed that Scotland's North Sea oil revenues were not being spent in Scotland and were, in fact, being 'stolen' by Westminster.
In the SNP's same much-checked and recalculated GERS, it was reported that ALL of Scotland's oil revenues were returned and included in the Holyrood budget, as had been reported in ALL previous GERS.
Complain about this comment
150. "another point that is never brought up is that the scottish average wage is 2000 pounds lower than the uk national wage, is that the union divide or is it that the scottish worker is cheap labour for the westminster goverment and the keep scottish workers poorer."
Careful, vote_nat, you are getting close to inventing a new conspiracy.
Complain about this comment
141. At 4:08pm on 20 Oct 2008, Neil_Small147
and aimed at the politicians.
Complain about this comment
#153 edinchris
"Armed forces - How do you divide up national assets - aircraft carriers, submarines, eurofighters? Practically speaking it will be a logistical nightmare"
It's much easier to pool them into a European Defence Force!
We'd then also get
True economies of scale
A Defence as opposed to an Attack Force.
Complain about this comment
141. At 4:08pm on 20 Oct 2008, Neil_Small147.
and the newspapers.
Complain about this comment
A ghostly poke at the police figures.
Hey! there in the red, I thought the blue line was drawn for an extra 1000.
Hmmm....."GERRYMANDERING" -45...0'}
Complain about this comment
#153.
Chris.
Hello there Chris,
Thank you for accepting that Scotland has an equal stake in military assets. It all depends on the negociations between England and Scotland. However I was making the point that Scotland could quite possibly scrape enough military hardware to fund her own military while also keeping control of the military bases in Scotland. I will also point out that many military assets may close down due to Scottish Soldiers no longer going to England for training. There may be some negociation that will allow Scottish Soldiers to use English Bases to ensure that the money generated by Scots Soldiers is kept in the local economies. Just think what could happen to Catterick, when the locals loose the Scots Soldiers it could be quite harmful. Submarines and Aircraft Carriers are quite difficult to seperate but where England gains, Scotland would have a stronger position to negociate in a different area. They (England) get submarines, what do we get instead? A refund? etc
"2) Banks - my point on this is how can we be independent when our biggest banks are owned by the UK Treasury?! For independence to have any meaning, the Scottish treasury will have to buy the shares that the UK Treasury will put in which will bankrupt us before we even start!"
Your claim here, "...the Scottish treasury will have to buy the shares that the UK Treasury will put in which will bankrupt us before we even start!" You simply have no evidence to state that Scotland would be bankrupt if we attempted to gain control of RBS. However as I said earlier England will be willing to give up certain assets to Scotland for what they see as more valuable assets that Scotland has a stake in. However I stated earlier that the UK Treasury are not going to own the banks forever. They will sell them back into private hands.
#158.
Oldnat.
Defence Force? It is sometimes far more logical to destroy possible threats in their own territory to protect the citizens that live in your country.
Are you hoping to have some sort of Japan-style Defence Force?
Complain about this comment
158. With a defence budget of only around 2.5bn, I don't think an independent Scotland's armed forces would even dream about major ships like carriers, subs or even frigate and destroyers.
'Wealthy' Ireland's forces consists of just eight patrol boats, ten light aircraft and 50-ish light armoured vehicles - to be blunt, something that couldn't even be considered a 'defence force'.
Ah, but what's the worry? Any major threat and both Ireland and Scotland would be protected by their big neighbour, the one with the nukes, aircraft carriers and state-of-the-art armour and fighters. No shame there.
(This should get Master Porter going. He's in the military, y'know. Did a month's service in the juniors before he started his three month sick leave, no less.)
Complain about this comment
As we are now talking about the armed forces and defence issues, and in answer to those who are always asking where is the union dividend for Scotland, I offer this:
The two new aircraft carriers, for which the contracts have now been signed, will create roughly 4500 jobs in two Scottish shipyards. (Scotland population about 5 million). They will create roughly 1500 jobs in two English shipyards. (England population about 55 million). That may not be an argument against independence, but it seems to a neutral observer to be a clear dividend from the union. Especially if you are a shipbuilder in Scotland. Or are we not allowed to mention the upsides?
Complain about this comment
#69 Neil Small,
There is truth in that statement, but remember Mandelson's return to Government can be used against Brown too! In fact, I would be very surprised if he didn't make an appearance or two on the Glenrothes by-election literature (and I wont be Labour putting it out there!)
A nice flier with him and Thatcher on it (with brown sandwiched in between) would do the job, I think.
Complain about this comment
I see Sarah Brown is evidently more popular with Glenrothes voters than Gordon Brown! Is the 'big man' actually going to show up, or is he just planning on sending the wife?
Complain about this comment
This slide, speeded-up by Blair and Cherie, to an unofficial (unelected) Presidency with a 'First Lady' is corrosive and unjustified.
Complain about this comment
#163 MalcolmW2
I've heard that they may actually mothball the carriers as a result of the credit crunch as part of a defence spending review.
Complain about this comment
#153 edinchris
"Why, when we have Scots running Westminster do we want to get rid of the UK?!"
You seem to think it a good idea for Scots to rule over a subject people - I thought that thinking went out with the Empire.
The reality is that as long as we have a unitary British state, the current situation applies. The country should be run by avowedly British people - regardless of their place of birth.
Presumably you will urge the repeal of the Treaty of Union when the PM and Chancellor are English?
Leave the "ethnic nationalism" where it belongs - on that other blog that I dare not name for fear of northhighlander!
Complain about this comment
#162.
Reluctant-Expat.
First of all you have no right to comment on my personal circumstances. I would appreciate that you do not attempt to 'best guess' what exactly my situation may be. It's rather foolish when I am a total stranger after all.
The 2.5 billion defence budget is perfect for the size of military Scotland would have. Of course the way that the European Union is going then we will be working towards a European Military eventually.
There is also NATO, the SNP are against becoming an actual NATO member but are willing to contribute to NATO and UN missions. This is fine, because Scotland will have the freedom to deploy where she wants without the NATO Alliance appearing weak. We have witnessed this over recent years, Germany's reluctance to deploy soldiers is our main example. Britain being forced to cough up soldiers for Afgani etc.
Of course. Expat is more concerned about Britain having an influence over the world rather then what an average Scot worries about. If we walk down the street today, do you actually think people care about the military balance or would they be more worried about energy prices, food prices, housing, employment? I wonder how it feels to struggle to pay bills but watch as brand new shiney submarines leave and enter port...
Britain's attitude is almost completely sick beyond belief. I admire countries, parties who are able to search internally to create something better for a popultion rather then pretending to be something they certainly are not.
Complain about this comment
#163.
MalcolmW2.
You are quite quick to show possible benefits of the Union. However why stop there? You never mentioned the amount of damaged caused over the uncertainty of the aircraft carriers... Typical Unionist. Is this suppose to be your 'balanced' assessment of the situation? For years the people who work at the shipyards were unsure if the aircraft carriers were happening or not. For a long term business if they are unsure what the future has in store for them then they are in trouble. Britain hesitated and yes it came at a cost.
Complain about this comment
#163 MalcolmW2
By your username, I presume you are from London? Your Mayor seems happy to talk about public funding of projects which will result in employment vastly greater than the carriers will provide.
The people I feel sorriest for are the voiceless souls in the North of England who pay their taxes and get very little back (unless they move to London).
Complain about this comment
166. Jeez, and there's none of that from Salmond then!
Complain about this comment
Brown leads the way again.
I notice no-one has followed any of President Salmond's suggestions to tackle the crisis.......er, what were his suggestions again?
How about Swinney, that other 'economist'?
Did anyone in the SNP come up with a single suggestion for dealing with this global crunch (apart from free central heating for some pensioners and a birthday tartan)?
Complain about this comment
The economies of scale provided by a joint Navy are probably one of the strongest arguments for the Union. Though I have severe doubts about the effectiveness of the Royal Navy, given their surrendering to the Iranians and their unwillingness to fight pirates off the Horn of Africa.
One assumes that an independent Scotland would have little to no naval power. What's Prime Minister Salmond going to do if, say, Russian subs are spotted prowling within Scottish waters? Please don't call this scaremongering after the Georgia War and Russian bomber sortie over the North Sea last year.
Complain about this comment
169. Outstanding! Better than I dared hope for!
Your last paragraph has been copied and saved.
Almost legendary!
Complain about this comment
170. And again.
A 4bn contract is given to Govan, thousands of jobs are guaranteed and created.....and Master Porter now complains, claiming that there was some "uncertainty".
Well, there was negotiation to be done as France was building a third vessel of this design, with obvious design/financial overlaps, but recently cancelled their ship. Also BAe and Vosper had to sort out their merger on this deal.
But there was no uncertainty. The carriers were always going to be built as the existing ships are nearing their end date. The RN was never going to be carrier-less.
Finally, BAe, the owner of the shipyards, was obviously always aware of all this.
But, apart from that, spot on yet again.
Complain about this comment
174. The RN actually has a ship deployed on anti-pirate duties but legislation had to be passed to allow our ships to properly engage in this type of operation (law enforcement in international waters).
Up until then, the RN could only assist people under attack but even then, no arrests were allowed.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
"What's Prime Minister Salmond going to do if, say, Russian subs are spotted prowling within Scottish waters?"
This is scaremongering. Are you now telling us Russia will send submarines into Scottish waters after Independence? Ridiculous! Scotland would take Russia to the UN. Russia simply has no claim to these parts and they may face possible sanctions for that reason. America would get involved to protect their European Allies, no doubt other countries would be worried about Russian vessels and their alarms would be raised.
I would be amused to wonder why Scotland would be in Russia's interest. Why would they bother? Do they want our whiskey? Perhaps take home several sheep aswell? Does Russia have territory in Scotland that only the Union can protect? But then again why does Russia have to be our enemy? Scotland becomes Independent then follows British policy? When Scotland becomes Independent there will be time to re-evaluate our relations and develop new friendship with our neighbours. Russia will soon be a powerful and wealthy country. We should encourage Russia to invest into Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#174 Anaxim
"The economies of scale provided by a joint Navy are probably one of the strongest arguments for the Union".
Wouldn't that be even more true if we had a European Navy?
Complain about this comment
"Wouldn't that be even more true if we had a European Navy?"
I despair.
Complain about this comment
#180 jam804
Why despair?
Try making a rational argument against Defence being a function of the European Union instead.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter # 170
"Typical unionist"
Besides being rather rude, this is not even correct. I am agnostic on Scottish independence, living in England with no plans to re-locate back to Scotland whatever happens. Given many of your rather childish posts on world affairs and military exploits, however, I wonder if you have thought through your apparent career choice as well as you might have. Maybe it was just the uniform that attracted you.
OldNat #171:
I'm not sure how you come to assume I live in London from my username, but I don't come from London, I just work there. My roots are in the Western Highlands, and having lived in both places I may be better able to judge some aspects of the union than one or two of the more fanatical posters who seem to have lived (or should that be live) in a bubble and think that dragons live south of Hadrian's wall. There is clearly a debate to be had on the future of the UK, and its constitutional settlement, but it needs to be stripped of emotion and discussed in an adult manner. That includes the English who have an equal right to be heard on the future of their country. The problem is that no-one here seems willing to enagage with them (or the Welsh) on the subject as if it concerns nobody but the Scots.
Cue a heated response from the fanatical fringe about why the continuance of the union or not is only a matter for the Scots to decide.
Complain about this comment
#179 oldnat
"Wouldn't that be even more true if we had a European Navy?"
Yes, but the effectiveness of the EU could be reduced if it were to become a military power. It has been truly successful using only civilian tools, possibly because there's no military option to fall back on (aside from the rapid reaction force for peacekeeping).
Complain about this comment
A few things on defence, and it is an area where I do know a few things.
A European Defence Force sounds great in principle, but part of the reason to have it is political - certain countries do not want NATO, or more specifically, the USA.
Likewise I doubt very much whether the French will follow the "party line". While they have an understanding with NATO they will carry on as before.
There is a language problem as well. Not so with air forces, since English is the international language for air traffic control.
While I do not expect Russian subs in Scottish waters - they will be there anyway - resources are getting scarcer in the world and it is resources that can cause conflict: Japan in WW2, the Middle East etc.
The other problem is a change of Government within a European state. It is possible that a change of Government would result in a country's contribution being removed.
But a country must retain its own independent armed forces. Not only they are they used for military matters, but also civil emergencies - firefighters strike, Lockerbie (RAF personnel helped clear up the wreckage and recovery of bodies).
And where do Switzerland and Sweden stand? Historically neutral countries they stayed out of WW2.
Complain about this comment
163
The building of two aircraft carries with a large propostion of the work done in Scotland does not compensate for the fact that over the last forty years Scoland has been provided less than 4% of the budget for defence procurement. The aircraft carriers work does not materially affect those figures.
The contract going in large part to Scotland may be something to do with the facilities needed for the work only being available in Scotland.
The Union dividend seems to consist of
*wages lower than Irish wages far less English wages
*the worst health record in Western Europe
*the lowest economic growth in Europe over the last twenty years
*a population at best static and this only because of immigration without which we would have the only decreasing population in Europe.
* a sizeable proportion of our population convinced that we are smaller,poorer and stupider than every other country in the world
* a similar sized proportion who haven't clocked yet that the UK government have lied and lied and lied about the huge value of Scotland's natural resources and will continue to do so because they know that many , including a lot contributors to these posts, will continue to swallow the juvenile lies
....... and other benefits to numerous to mention.
Brian Taylor's blog should be a forum for informed debate and not a rubbish bin for some of the crap that presently pollutes it.
Complain about this comment
#182 MalcolmW2
I took the W2 to refer to postal area.
"That includes the English who have an equal right to be heard on the future of their country."
Of course they have, and most of us who tend towards the Nationalist end of the spectrum would agree.
The argument has never (or should have never) been with them, but with the British (the 5th nation within the UK) since the two primary political nationalisms cannot co-exist within the same territory. Natural justice would require that, if those resident in England vote to have an English state, they get what they have voted for.
Most of us on this blog do try to have the issue "discussed in an adult manner".
Complain about this comment
#144 #155 RE:
It worries me when there are claims that all of the proceeds that Scotland would receive from North Sea oil (95% being in Scottish territiorial waters) have apparently already been spent, while there are still howls of derision over the Barnett formula on how English tax payers are subsidising us poor Scots.
By that reasoning not only do we not have a surplus from North Sea oil but we need extrea cash from the rest of Britain to make up the deficit?
If this is the case, and us Scots are just sponging off the rest of the UK, why would you fight tooth and nail to keep the union? If this is the perception of financial affairs within the UK Scotland may get its independence by default, not through Scottish votes, but from irrate Enlgish tax payers fed up subsidising Scotland.
If only it where true, maybe most of us would be happier.
#176 RE:
The carriers where in doubt at one point, thankfully there was still work to go around with the destroyers, but only with the merger did this deal finally go through. The companies have reserved the right to de-merge after a stipulated period of time, should one company wish to remove itself the other will continue (more than likely BAE systems) the construction to fulfill the order alone.
Just another in a long line of name changes for the yards on the Clyde with the same result for the workers, uncertainty and the fear of job losses
The carriers are still going ahead. Also, the contract wasn't awarded to Govan alone, there are three yards involved from BAE, two on the Clyde (Govan you mentioned and also Scotstoun), and also Barrow. The French cancelled there carrier as they want a new generation nuclear powered carrier instead.
Know it all knows nothing when it comes to the turmoil of the yards for the last twenty years.
Carriers were always a certainty where they, course they were.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
Childish poster? That claim would stand up better without the snipe. "Maybe it was just the uniform that attracted you." Tell me, are you really better then I, for taking on a offensive stance and attack me personally for choices I make? I am young, childish? Yes of course. I still have much to learn which is what I do here, I read, research and say what I think is really going on. Is that not what we all do here? But you can't expect to take the high road when you decide upon yourself to attack posters personal circumstances... its quite provocative. I guess we both have to grow up abit more. Which is fair to say I believe.
;-)
On a further note...
"There is clearly a debate to be had on the future of the UK, and its constitutional settlement, but it needs to be stripped of emotion and discussed in an adult manner. That includes the English who have an equal right to be heard on the future of their country. The problem is that no-one here seems willing to enagage with them (or the Welsh) on the subject as if it concerns nobody but the Scots."
I fully agree with you here. The current settlement can not continue, however what do you think will happen when people from England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, plus Labour, Tory and Nationalists (from all sides) come together for debate? Every should have their opinion heard, but how quickly will it turn into problems. Everyone wants something different, political parties will look out for their long-term objectives and who will be the winner?
You live in England, what problems do the English see? Do they see themselves subsidising Scotland? Would they urge for greater economic powers for the Scottish Parliament? Will England be given their own Parliament?
Complain about this comment
#163 MalcolmW2
Upsides from the Union?! You compare the relative size of the workforces involved against the overall size of the population. Again, same as RE, do you have any grasp of the landscape of shipbuilding in the UK over the last twenty years? Of course there are more shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde, that is where Britain's hub for military shipbuilding lies, simply because they outperformed there other competitors in the UK.
Before the carrier order and the current four destroyers that are being/have been built, there had been a dearth of orders from the MOD. Seem to remember building quite a few frigates for the Sultan of Brunei and his navy?!
Complain about this comment
#183 Anaxim
You rightly say "could", since we're into an area of speculation.
However, I remain a Confederal European Unionist who wants to see a single European Foreign Policy, and Defence should go along with that.
Unless Europe wanted to follow an interventionist foreign policy (as per Blair and Bush), then Border Defence and peacekeeping would be the primary functions of the EDF.
Complain about this comment
EU Armed Forces?
A small population, ethnically different from their much larger bullying neighbour, wishing to determine their own future.
Eventually the overbearing neighbour actually invades, using heavy military force.
As foreseen by the invader, from the sidelines the EC makes bleating "can you not negotiate with each other to find a solution?" noises. However, the aggressor simply ignores all international pressures and sanctions. They remain in occupation, issuing new rules directly akin to their homeland. They instruct that in future only the occupiers' language will be taught in schools, and the natives' mother-tongue will not be taught, nor recognized.
For a fact, the Falklanders are still very thankful their future wasn't abdicated to some European Defence Committee.
Complain about this comment
#190
Oldnat.
I believe the European Union should have a single defence policy, which member states simply rotate responsibilities on a regular basis. However I would not expect the European Union to take over other countries military's fully. The European Union is simply not ready to take on 'super power' status. If Europe united under one banner we could rule the world, but with that comes greater threats and problems along with great expectations from everyone around the world. I also don't think the European Union will stand up to the United States of America, we will have influece that we will never use and America will still be seen to take the lead on all matters.
Complain about this comment
#136 edinchris
I see that you've changed your tune a lot since counting day in Glasgow East when your #9 on the Will they, won't they? thread said "What we need is a creditable alternative to Labour that can offer real solutions and actually get people interested in politics."
I might have agreed with that but do not accept that "Duff" Gordon and Capt. Darling are the two superheros who can miraculously turn around the mess made by er... "Duff" Gordon and Capt. Darling.
Complain about this comment
#117 Reluctant-Expat
"Did you say it was Labour who "tax the poor until the pips squeek, and reward the rich with more money."??"
So I believe, and he was quite right to do so. To watch the Supreme Leader's admonition of the proletariat and to read his stirring prose, see Labour's Gordon Brown speaks to Conference including the immortal "apology" words: "So what happened with 10p stung me because it really hurt that suddenly people felt I wasn't on the side of people on middle and modest incomes...."
#128 Reluctant-Expat
"That's it? That's your 'proof'?"
Let's just say that it's a few orders of magnitude more convincing than anything you have posted to date and in the process you seem to have tipped derekbarker over the edge again. While you were away over the week-end, some of his posts were quite positive.
#NNN Reluctant-Expat
Your discourtesy in refusing to honour basic blog etiquette in referring to other posts is a salutary demonstration of the conceit of NuLab and its contempt for the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
#104 forfar-loon
Excellent link, but you're quite right, witness R-E's contempt for oldnat's meticulous #123.
#114 Neil_Small147
"CEH's posts ... even makes Reluctant-Expat look like a SNP supporter."
I'm afraid you're right, and eloquently put. I accept the error of my ways - perhaps R-E is more like grandantidote with attitude.
#123 oldnat
Thanks very much for your excellent scholarly endeavours on this topic. "Goebellian lies" - A term to be cherished and far too good to be wasted on the likes of R-E.
#125 vote_nat
Sadly very true
Complain about this comment
#184 Neil_Small147
Nato was a product of a divided Europe and the Soviet threat. I don't see that United Europe needs to include the USA as the lead member of the Defence Alliance. Not insuperable, and it would make sense to organise the troops in linguistic groups.I think you are absolutely right, and water is likely to be the biggest problem. Under these circumstances, it makes sense to me for Europe to act in common, rather than being divided in its response.I agree. Since most of the armed forces are not fighting wars (unless Blair is PM) it makes sense for them to be based in their home countries in normal times to support civil emergencies. For example, Scotland would have to provide significant Air-Sea Rescue Services. For really massive emergencies, the forces based in several countries would act together.Replace Switzerland (non EU) with Ireland (EU but neutral) and this is a major difficulty. Both, however, provide peacekeeping forces, and some "arrangement" could no doubt be made - though with difficulty.I never said it would be easy!
However, politics should look forward as well as back.
Complain about this comment
#182 MalcolmW2
I shared oldnat's thought that you were probably from "The Smoke". W2 is the area around Paddington station, extending South
and East to Marble Arch and West to Notting Hill.
Complain about this comment
#191 shortstirling
If you are referring to Georgia, then check your facts.
I've posted previously that a major problem for aspirant countries which are ex-Soviet republics is that their boundaries were deliberately created by Stalin across national/ethnic boundaries in classic Imperial divide and rule fashion.
I would not support the admission of such as Georgia and the Ukraine while they continue to suppress minorities.
Complain about this comment
Hello oldnat 191
Read the final paragraph - there's a clue in the proper noun, plural, "Falklanders"(!!!).
Don't think I have to check my facts any more on this one, though I'm not perfect either, by any means, lol!
Complain about this comment
#161 Thomas Porter
My general point is that the UK has been a political entity for longer than many other countries in the world - USA, Germany, Italy to give just 3 examples.
When a union has been around for so long,breaking it up becomes a very costly experience and a logistical nightmare. Given the current track record of relations between the SNP and Labour governments, independence negotiations would quickly descend into bad feeling and acriminony as each side accused the other of not being fair. My question therefore is, why bother? What after all, would "independence" achieve?
Scotland would be independent only in name...
Our banks would be run by England
Our currency (assuming we used the euro) would be run by Brussels
Our interest rates would be set in Brussels (with far less regard for Scottish interests than the Bank of England currently has)
Our energy would be imported from England or the rest of Europe (thanks to Mr Salmond ruling out the nuclear option and setting a target of 80% reduction in emissions)
Our defence would rest in the hands of England
So how exactly would we be independent?!
Many nationalists hold up the example of Ireland, but what they forget is that Ireland had huge EU subsidies in the days when the EU was smaller. Today, those subsidies go to Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc.
The oil argument doesn't work either. Oil production has declined 28% since 2003, while maintenance spending is set to hit £1.5bn this year. North sea oil has always been harder to extract than in Saudi Arabia and it will eventually reach the point where it won't be competitive.
As part of the UK, we are part of the 5th largest economy in thw world, and we have far more chance of creating a successful Scotland!
Complain about this comment
# 172 - If you were at all fair minded you would recognise that! When was the last time you saw Moira Salmond swanning about demanding the attention of the Nation?!
Plus Salmond ran on a ticket of "Alex Salmond for First Minister" - I seem to recall it annoyed some people! People voted for him, across the country; so he has a personal mandate.
#184 - Neil, personally I would not seek a country as highly militarised as Switzerland, dotted with army and air force bases, compulsory national service for all, and with every man with automatic weapon sitting above his mantlepiece.
Rather conservative socially too, lovely country otherwise. Just thoroughly paranoid in terms of invasion (with good historical justification).
Complain about this comment
#148/149 Ginger
Great joke. Keep them comimg.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
#201
I would hardly suggest that a 17% endorsement of AS is a mandate?
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable to give up on Cleggs wedge of taxation and join the labour party.
Should help the people of Glenrothes to decide that the lib/dems are in melt-down over their taxation policies.
Yes, the lib/dems have also shelved their EU commitment.
The old liberals have gone very tory.
Complain about this comment
#199 shortstirling
I was looking to the future, and yes, Europe would have to adopt a stance over the overseas territories.
Only Denmark (Greenland),
Netherlands (Aruba and Netherland Antilles),
France (New Caledonia and Dependencies, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna Islands, Mayotte, St. Pierre and Miquelon)
UK (Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Is., Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, Ascension Is., Tristan de Cunha, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands)
have overseas territories or dependencies as a remnant of their imperial past.
Europe has proved itself adaptable as to finding solutions. Thatcher's use of war for electoral survival may not be the best solution in the future.
Complain about this comment
93. rabbiehippo
Looks like Calgary have already got one up and running in an urban environment, at least some countries are allowed to look to the future and not stuck in a timewarp.
http://www.apta.com/services/intnatl/intfocus/windelec.cfm
Complain about this comment
#201 pattymkirkwood
I totally agree with your point re Salmond and am mildly surprised that R-E chose to to open up a topic which I'd have thought he'd prefer to remain private grief within the Labour Party
But having spent more time there than anywhere else since Spring '91, I can't agree with you completely re Switzerland.
You're right without doubt that it's rather conservative socially, but that's a function of their people-oriented, bottom-up constitution, which requires a majority of the votes AND a majority of cantons to change anything. It often makes for slow progress, but they seldom change anything lightly. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong, but I don't believe the Swiss have ever approved something like the US 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) and subsequently reversed it. It's (almost?) always a ratchet-like forward progression - slow but steadily in the direction of equality for all.
too, lovely country otherwise. Just thoroughly paranoid in terms of invasion (with good historical justification).
Neil, personally I would not seek a country as highly militarised as Switzerland, dotted with army and air force bases, compulsory national service for all, and with every man with automatic weapon sitting above his mantlepiece.
Regarding their military, they certainly have a right to be paranoid. Expanionist though the EU is, however, I somehow can't see Franco-German forces combining for an assault on Basel and the Swiss seem to be beginning to feel the same.
Only today on WRS (World Radio Switzerland), there was an interesting discussion - Swiss Army undergoing "Identity Crisis" - re a possible change from the existing "compulsory" militia to either an all-volunteer militia or an all-volunteer professional force as currently in the UK.
It's not going to happen anytime soon because of the reasons above, but look back in a decades or two and you may be surprised at how much has changed.
Complain about this comment
#203 derekbarker
And I would hardly suggest that a 0% endorsement of GB is a mandate?
Complain about this comment
#203 - say what you want derek, but thats how the rules work and '17%' is higher than '16.9%'.
Plus remember it was the first time in c50 years that Labour lost the popular vote in Scotland. I suspect the margin will be larger next time anyway.
Complain about this comment
200. edinchris
"As part of the UK, we are part of the 5th largest economy in thw world, and we have far more chance of creating a successful Scotland!"
Maybe in the distant past those days are long gone, UK's GDP is about 29th and liable to be going down further. ps Ireland's 9th
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Complain about this comment
#123, #195 'Goebellian lies' delivered by Lord Haw Haw.
Complain about this comment
#205 oldnat
After your scholarly demolition of R-E today, I hesitate to contradict you, but what about Gibraltar, not to mention Spain's Ceuta & Melilla?
Complain about this comment
Sorry, must be getting tired. Here's a repost of #207 without the bits from #201 I forgot to remove in editing.....
#201 pattymkirkwood
I totally agree with your point re Salmond and am mildly surprised that R-E chose to to open up a topic which I'd have thought he'd prefer to remain private grief within the Labour Party
But having spent more time there than anywhere else since Spring '91, I can't agree with you completely re Switzerland.
You're right without doubt that it's rather conservative socially, but that's a function of their people-oriented, bottom-up constitution, which requires a majority of the votes AND a majority of cantons to change anything. It often makes for slow progress, but they seldom change anything lightly. I'm sure someone will prove me wrong, but I don't believe the Swiss have ever approved something like the US 18th amendment (prohibition of alcohol) and subsequently reversed it. It's (almost?) always a ratchet-like forward progression - slow but steadily in the direction of equality for all.
Only today on WRS (World Radio Switzerland), there was an interesting discussion - Swiss Army undergoing "Identity Crisis" - re a possible change from the existing "compulsory" militia to either an all-volunteer militia or an all-volunteer professional force as currently in the UK.
It's not going to happen anytime soon because of the reasons above, but look back in a decades or two and you may be surprised at how much has changed.
Complain about this comment
205. At 10:29pm on 20 Oct 2008, oldnat wrote:
Europe has proved itself adaptable as to finding solutions. Thatcher's use of war for electoral survival may not be the best solution in the future.
------
It may have been political survival, but what about the Falkland Islanders themselves? Had she NOT done anything she would have been out. I don't think the Tories, let alone anyone else, would have tolerated an invasion on UK territory without response.
Remember the reasons for the invasion - political survival for the Argentinian Junta. Never mind the history, the fact is that the Falklands were and currently are UK territory.
War is never the best solution, but sometimes there is little other choice. While negotiation never killed anyone, some people will not move.
But one lesson was not learned from the Falklands - you need to equip your Armed Forces properly, something Governments for over a hundred years have failed to do.
Complain about this comment
Skullduggery indeed Brownedov!
Complain about this comment
PS to my #212
Ooops, and what about Spain's Canary Islands and Portugal's Madeira & Azores.
And in reverse, what about Kaliningrad / Koenigsberg?
Or closer to home Denmark's Faroe Islands?
Not that I'm disagreeing with oldnat's #205, but the EU members already accept, and are presumably ready to defend, a pretty diverse set of overseas "headaches".
Complain about this comment
212 Brownedov
I deliberately omitted dependencies within Europe - Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Faroes, Gibraltar, Akrotiri - they can be self-governing within a Confederal EU.
I have to admit I wasn't aware of Ceuta & Melilla.
The same general principle applies, however. For all such territories outwith Europe, there needs to be a long, slow, difficult resolution of the problem - or Europe has to say that these territories are European and will be defended.
Complain about this comment
#211 InMyKip
Nice touch - perhaps the "Lord Haw Haw" will stick.
Complain about this comment
ill just post this again .. since the mods have passed it now and may have been missed.
#50 Aye i heard that guy this morning from ITEM ... he didnt half let rip. The unionist on here can say what they like but there is no getting away from the fact that Gordon has been using the country credit card to make himself look good.... but oh wait ...whats that ...its the posty .... oh damn ..more bills. Heres a wee bit out of Private Eye to enhance this position
'The bank (Lloyds TSB)had wanted to take over HBOS for some time but knew it would not get past anti monopoly laws. Browns bypassing of a competition enquiry therefore represents a huge and valuable gift from one part of the establishment to another - the 'establishment' Brown claimed in his speech last week to the Labour party conference that he wanted to change rather than join.
But Brown would have had another pressing reason to want to stabilise HBOS . Thanks to Browns private finance initiatives, the bank is central to NHS hospital and other public services.
During the Labour conference his wife Sarah took part in a well publicised visit to the site of Manchester Childrens Hospital part of a 420 m quid PFI scheme. Via various PFI consortia, HBOS is helping run 12,000 beds in hospitals from London to Halifax. It alsofinances more than 30 school projects, covering 20,000 school places.
The ultimate financial effect of an HBOS collapse on these PFI's is hard to calculate ,but the disruption would have been severe. Instead of 'transferring risk' to the private sector, PFI has given the public sector another pressing reason to bail out the banks'
I can see why one bank would therefore want to take over another bank. There is a Lloyds Tsb and and HBOS in my town .. now its fairly obvious that one has to go if this merger goes ahead. So what to do with the other building... i dont know if the bank owns it but im guessing it does. What a bonus to be able to sell off excess property and raise huge amounts of money in the process. Great for the bank but about 4 people in the town will have to look elsewhere for a job ... and in a small town theres not much financial sector jobs to be had...... looks like T****s will be the only option!!!
Complain about this comment
214. Neil_Small147
"It may have been political survival, but what about the Falkland Islanders themselves? Had she NOT done anything she would have been out. I don't think the Tories, let alone anyone else, would have tolerated an invasion on UK territory without response."
The other reason was what lies under the ocean within its territorial waters, OIL.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat are you missing out the godly commonwealth not forgetting the Quebec French? A cunning plan for world dominance.
Complain about this comment
200 edinchris
Being the "fifth largest economy in the world" guarantees no particular benefit to its population. The sweat shops of the Far East are all in the top 10 of the world's large economies.
The size of the economy is irrelevant as the most succesful societies on the face of the earth in terms of provision for their people have historically been the Nordic Alliance countries and New Zealand.
Any suggestion that being a part of the most heavily indebted state in the world (in which the debt is now more than the GDP) is a good place to be is absurd.
The wheels have come of Gordon Brown again after a short interlude provided by panic and confusion.
Everybody knows he is responsible for the economic disaster he's trying to take the credit for managing. And as for sending his wife into Glenrothes ( "Hey, hen will we jist ca' ye Sadie ?) How desperate is that?
Complain about this comment
#217 oldnat
"For all such territories outwith Europe, there needs to be a long, slow, difficult resolution of the problem - or Europe has to say that these territories are European and will be defended."
I agree 100%, although I suspect that Argentina won't renounce its claim to The Falklands any time soon, and in the medium term the Moroccans are likely to become even crosser than they are already over Ceuta & Melilla.
Anyway, I'm starting to make too many silly typing mistakes so time for bed methinks.
Complain about this comment
#216 Brownedov
"Spain's Canary Islands and Portugal's Madeira and Azores.
And in reverse, what about Kaliningrad / Koenigsberg?
Or closer to home Denmark's Faroe Islands?"
Faroes - dealt with in my #217
Spain's Canary Islands and Portugal's Madeira and Azores - integral parts of their countries, I believe.
On Continental Europe, enclaves are necessary - the same may apply in parts of the old Soviet Union which are now "Westernised".
#214 Neil_Small147
I have no problem with keeping Europe's armed forces at a high enough level to protect those territories which they decide are to be protected. It's difficult to argue that past conditions would be replicated in the future, but having decided in advance that overseas territories should be protected, a United Europe would have had the resources not to remove the only naval vessel protecting the territory, as Thatcher did, thus sending an inappropriate signal to a hostile neighbour.
.......................................
Europe has an imperial past which has imposed borders on states around the world (eg Middle East and Africa) and has created significant problems for the inhabitants.
We have a moral duty to stop exacerbating them (eg Iraq) and to pay the cost of the consequences.
Complain about this comment
# 139 sharpskiSOFBTRC
well said
# 148 gingerbadger
Rofl
Why would the Unionists think that an independent Scotland might not want to have friendly trading relations with Russia? The USSR has gone now. If you look at history then you will see that Scotland has always had good relations with Russia and the Baltic states. An independent Scotland would decide for itself whom it wished to have relations with. We even might have friendly relations with England, when the dust settles.
Complain about this comment
225 gedguy2
England is, and will continue to be, our main trading partner.
We need good relations with them before and after the constitutional settlement. The British may be a problem, but we need to encourage the English towards self-determination.
Complain about this comment
# 213 - Brownedov,
Point taken, I too have spent a substantial amount of time in Switzerland - admittedly no longer than a month at once; and I recognise much of the picture you paint. Partly the reason why they are so conservative is that they won their 'freedoms'/'liberties' so early (Rutli Meadow and all that). But as I say I do recognise the point you are making (that they rarely back-track) - even if results in some women only gaining the vote ('nationally') in the 1970s!
Complain about this comment
I wonder if anyone saw Newsnicht last night? Some creep was on telling us all that the Lloyds HBOS deal was simply the best idea ever...
hint:
It wasn't someone who was being interviewed as both saw it as being a raw deal to the public; including the business editor of the Scotsman, how times change when the union dividend starts to affect you!
Complain about this comment
Some background may help folks understand why, whilst I am neutral on Scottish independence, I would vote for continuance of the union were I still in Scotland:
Unlike Thomas_Porter, who grew up in the age of personal computers and in a city made prosperous by oil, I am in my fifties. My father, who was English, loved the rugged, untamed beauty of the highlands (as do I), my mother, who was Scottish, carried a maiden name of one of the better known clans that has established itself around the world. I have family still in the western highlands. I now live in England, married to an English wife (whose mother was a Scot, her father an Englishman) and I love the gentle rolling hills around my home. I was brought up to feel British, and in a real sense I am a product of the union. I am British, why should I have to choose between England and Scotland?
But there is more to it than that. I remember the 1950's and 1960's in the highlands. There was no "Scottish" oil. The first oil from the North Sea was pumped ashore in 1975 - I remember the fuss made by the then Labour government. So on what did the west of Scotland survive? Mainly fishing in the dangerous waters off Iceland. That industry is now gone, killed off by the European Union's disasterous policies and Iceland's unilateral grab of fishing grounds. There were also those who scratched (literally) a living off the land. Both were hard lives, lived by hard men and women. Once the oil is gone. what then for the highlands under independence?
Hard for Thomas to understand I suspect, but there was no television in the village even in the mid 1960's. The TV signal is line of sight and there were a lot of hills. The fortnightly arrival of the mobile cinema at the village hall was a big event then. The transmitters and relay stations did eventually arrive, paid for by the BBC licence payers, most of whom lived in England. Had Scotland been independent there would probably have been no TV before the Sky satellite was launched. Contact with the outside world was via the single telephone box, or the Royal Mail; both services installed and maintained by the British taxpayer (most of whom etc). I recall in very hard winters, when the snow fell in yards not feet, the RAF (or it may have been the navy) dropping feed to the animals from helicopters so that they would not starve. I heard no carping from the English taxpayer about the cost. I am not talking here about ancient history - I am going back only forty years. There was not much talk then about breaking up the union. Then came the oil . . . .
Thomas (I example you only because you have been honest about you age, I suspect this could equally well apply to others). You often talk of the evils of Thatcherism and the Tories. You would have been unborn when Thatcher was deposed, and only six when the Tories left office. Few people have clear memories of when they were under six, and it would be a strange child of that age who concerned himself, much less understood, politics. That doesn't of course make your views any less legitimate, but it does call into question how you came by them; you often write as if you had personal experience of those years. I have, and consider all political parties on a par with snake-oil salesmen; the Tories were no worse than the present incumbents of office, and the SNP will disappoint given time. It is the nature of things.
If Scotland does achieve independence, I fully expect hard times in the highlands again. Those in Edinburgh (which seemed as far away to me as London when I was a boy) and the border regions, have scant regard for highland communities and will resent having to bear all the financial burden to support them. The idea of all Scottish regions happily enjoying prosperity together is a pipe-dream. Old rivalries and grudges will swiftly reappear. As for the EU, which helped destroy our fishing fleets, don't expect much help there. The money will drain eastwards to the new accession states, none of it northwards, but Scotland will put plenty into the pot. The EU may not even exist by the time the oil runs out, and what then? The rationale behind leaving a union which has endured for three hundred years to rely on one which may not last another fifty has always escaped me. But then I don't have the distorted, bitter view of history from which so many seem to suffer.
Opinion on independence (and therefore the breakup of my country Great Britain) is a personal thing, but the questions that have still not been properly asked, and the answers to them, are much more complicated than your many posts would suggest. The debate is for everybody in these islands, and to be encouraged, but it will proceed better when those so engaged refrain from using respectable words like "unionist" and "nationalist" as if they were a social desease. Both sides of the argument are entitled to their views, and the right to express them.
OldNat: I understand your thinking now, but I do not live in London. The W2 in my username is a private joke from my time in uniform. British uniform.
Complain about this comment
# 226 oldnat
I put that 'English' comment into my #225 post with tongue in cheek. I live in England and my family are English so I have nothing against the English. I know that the majority of our exports is with England and I'm more than happy to leave it that way.
However, when independence comes I expect that there will be a lot of chest beating going on by both sides in public and in private. That I am sure of. There will be a lot of decisions to be made to seperate the two countries and this will take time, hence the phrase 'when the dust settles'.
So please don't think my post was anti-English in any way shape or form. It was just banter.
Complain about this comment
Re 171 oldnat
There are a numberof us in Scotland who currently experience the phenomenon you describe.
If you live in the northern half of Scotland you get used to exactly the same situation.
We pay our taxes and suffer exactly as the northerners in England do. Everything centralised around the Central belt. All big public sector schemes provided for the central belt. Our young people have to move south for work, to be replaced by retired types looking for somewhere quiet to spend their remaining days.
OUr new SNP governement is no different. One of my main points against independance is that we would replace remote rule from Westminster with remote rule from Edinburgh. We would still be under represented and have little influence over proceedings.
Complain about this comment
#231 northhighlander
"we would replace remote rule from Westminster with remote rule from Edinburgh"
Which is why I share the views of youself and Ed Iglehart (currently fighting the US election on Justin Webb's blog!) for a "bottom up" system of government.
Complain about this comment
232. Which is exactly what I have been advocating for a while now.
Start government at council level, with broad fiscal powers and maximum autonomy over local services. No permission to be needed or funding to be sought from higher government; be it Holyrood, Westminster or even Brussels.
If the community wants to build a new school/police or fire station/hospital/museum/bypass/tram network/railway station/airport/rail link etc, they decide on how it is funded, where and when it is built and who by. The community sets its own path and its own level of progress.
Holyrood should confine itself to administering affairs that cross council boundaries (prisons, motorways, universities and the ilk).
Similarly, Westminster should confine itself to UK-wide matters (law, foreign affairs, defence and that ilk).
This model can then be continued up to EU level with Brussels only responsible for Europe-wide matters (trade, human rights, freedom of movement/capital/goods and that ilk).
And then perhaps even up to UN level (oooh, world government!)....
Complain about this comment
194. Brownedov, have you seen the latest report from the OECD about the UK's shrinking wealth gap?
And what on earth is this about?:
#NNN Reluctant-Expat
Your discourtesy in refusing to honour basic blog etiquette in referring to other posts is a salutary demonstration of the conceit of NuLab and its contempt for the rest of us.
Sorry, but that's just insane.
Complain about this comment
# 233
I read this post and agreed wholeheartedly with it. It was well written, balanced and thought provoking, and then I looked at who wrote it. If this is the standard that he now takes then I'll continue to read his posts. I might not agree with all he says but at least it isn't insulting.
And then I read the last sentence in # 234. Oh dear, so near yet so far.
Complain about this comment
232. A bottom up system of Government is fine until you look at the quality of our local representatives - also Council dictatorship is no better than Government dictatorship - we need MPS, MSPs and Councillors who truly represent the best interests of the decent people in our society and to get rid of the adherents of political correctness who are now in control at all levels.
Until we do, so it does not much matter whether we are controlled from Brussels, Westminster, Edinburgh, locally or Timbuctoo.
Complain about this comment
#227 pattymkirkwood
OK. I don't think we're at loggerheads over this. I certainly do not suggest that Scotland should follow the Swiss militia model but was merely trying to explain why it will take some time for the Swiss to move away from it themselves.
As you say, women came very late into Swiss politics, but they've already had a woman president without needing a Thatcher type to do it.
Complain about this comment
236. We get only what we vote for.
Any such council would certainly need professional, full-time councillors. An unpaid and part-time legislature cannot put sufficient time and effort into properly scrutinising a council's executive.
There is thankfully widespread frustration and condemnation of 'political correctness' nowadays. A great many examples of race- and religion-based PC-ness have actually been initiated by the bureaucrats with little demand from what were perceived 'victimised' groups.
Classic examples have been the banishment of nativity plays in many schools. Usually, it turns out that no non-Christian parents have actually complained, with many accepting it is an 'indigenous culture' of a primarily Christian state, but that it has been over-zealous governors taking arbitrary action.
(Personally, religion is a pile of poppycock anyway. A wholly obsolete practice that is only good for the ideological and dogmatic management of its devoted followers, and stirring up resentment of and conflict with those who dare to believe anything else.)
Complain about this comment
#234 Reluctant-Expat
I hadn't heard of the OECD report but will take a look. Whatever it says, the 10% tax fiasco referred to in my #194 was deeply regressive, something for which NuLab should collectively hang their heads in shame and yet something Brown could not bring himself to apologise for in front of the membership, blethering on instead about being stung and hurt by us not understanding him.
Re blog etiquette, thank you for quoting both the relevant number and poster for a change.
"And what on earth is this about?: #NNN"
It was shorthand for your #59, #63, #65, #80, #83, #90, #92, #115, #116, #117, #124, #128, #132, #142, #144, #155, #156, #162, #172, #175, #176 and #177 where this basic courtesy was lacking, as it has been on many previous threads.
Working again today, but will hope to look back later.
Complain about this comment
#232 oldnat &
#233 Reluctant-Expat
Very similar to the Swiss model, of which I heartily approve.
Very different from anything I've heard from NuLab, who 'don't seem to want a federal structure within their own party and seem to resist any devolution for England tooth and nail.
Complain about this comment
# 238 Reluctant_Expat
Got to agree with that too
Complain about this comment
236. At 12:39pm on 21 Oct 2008, Sheneval wrote:
232. A bottom up system of Government is fine until you look at the quality of our local representatives - also Council dictatorship is no better than Government dictatorship - we need MPS, MSPs and Councillors who truly represent the best interests of the decent people in our society and to get rid of the adherents of political correctness who are now in control at all levels.
Until we do, so it does not much matter whether we are controlled from Brussels, Westminster, Edinburgh, locally or Timbuctoo.
--------------------------------------------------------
i am not against the idea of a bottoms up system of goverment, but it is up to the supporters of it, to put forward the economical - social case for the case to do so.
my basic observation would be that i would expect that extra costs involved in having a bottoms up system of government would be very high, due to the duplication of departments in each area.
also the bickering that would go on between areas as to they got this and they got that.
my mother who is on many of her local committees, could tell you a few stories as to what goes on in her area.
some really good informative committee chairmen (could this be oldnat) who listen to everyone and give everone a chance at their say, and some of the biggest bullies (actualy it was no suprise to find out that many this type were ex-trade union officials, but do not get me wrong as there are many excellent ex-trade union officials as well) who dictated what people can say or do.
it would help if the representatives were in it for the good of the population and not for their party, but then that goes for any type of government.
Complain about this comment
238. At 1:37pm on 21 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
(Personally, religion is a pile of poppycock anyway. A wholly obsolete practice that is only good for the ideological and dogmatic management of its devoted followers, and stirring up resentment of and conflict with those who dare to believe anything else.)
--------------------------------------------------------
why do you go and spoil what may become a good debate by posting the above.
i am not religious by any means, but it does not stop me for seeing that a lot of good comes out of religion, certainly much more than the downside.
Complain about this comment
240. A confederated UK is never going to happen.
There are no political parties calling for it (although the SNP may start after 2010) and there is no demand for it either.
At least there is one party pursuing a federal UK, even if it is the LDs.
Not that I favour a truly federal state with a codified constitution either (inflexible, conservative and slow to adapt to changing times etc.).....more a quantum leap in devolution along the lines of 'Complementarity' (to use EU parlance) where any given power or responsibility is the remit of the lowest effective level of government.
Complain about this comment
Expat
Thanks for your comments.
I know we will probably always have political parties, but it's interesting when people focus on their own ideas instead of concentrating on the blurb that comes out of all machine politics.
Complain about this comment
#233, 238, Reluctant-expat
I'm amazed to find myself broadly agreeing with you for a change. My only disagreement would be with the powers you would ascribe to Westminster, namely law, foreign affairs, defence, I would give to Holyrood. Scotland already has a separate legal system to the rest of the UK, though they are not dissimilar, and foreign affairs and defence I would keep at Holyrood due to what I perceive to be the cultural differences between the different UK nations. For example, I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq, like a great many Scots, nor do I agree with us having nuclear weapons.
#244 '...and there is no demand for it either.'
Going by this blog, I'd question that.
As usual, I'm late to the party and there's a new thread. *sigh*.
Complain about this comment
#218 I hope it dosen't I'd much rather he just improved his behaviour and quit with his I'm totally right and you are totally wrong let me belittle you (his "all or nothing" thinking error amongst others) approach to posting.
Complain about this comment
246. Don't confuse three bods on here as widespread public demand!
Leaving aside your claim that a Scotland in the UK should still have its own defence and foreign policy.....there is that 'cultural differences' perception again. Go to any poll that covers a wide variety of social issues and you'll see that there is considerable common ground on almost all of them.
Examples:
All UK regions are between 70-80% in favour of CCTV cameras.
All UK regions are 45-55% in favour of a comprehensive DNA database.
All UK regions were 43-48% in favour of a centralised health database.
All UK regions were split roughly 50-50 on ID cards. Only NE is most split by 54% to 40% in favour.
All UK regions were 61-72% in favour of the 42 day detention extension.
All UK regions were 50-60% in favour of both building new nuclear power stations and maintaining/increasing the nuclear share of overall energy production.
All UK regions were 80-86% of requiring those on incapacity benefits to have regular medicals to continue receiving the benefit.
All UK regions were 22-27% in favour of Brown not signing the EU Constitution Treaty.
All UK regions were 34-39% in favour of war in Iraq, and 50-59% against (latest poll 2006). London was the most against, Scotland was mid-range on both measures.
All UK regions were 20-24% in favour of immediate withdrawal from Iraq and 68-76% in favour of a delayed withdrawal. Scotland were least in favour of an immediate withdrawal.
All UK regions were between 40-44% in favour of renewing Trident. Scotland was 44% in favour. All were between 40-46% against.
On all bar a very few, Scotland was mid-range. Even a 10% variation across all parts of the UK clearly does not suggest there are significant cultural differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
And these are all from YouGov polls. There's no way I'm adding all the links!
Complain about this comment
#248 Reluctant-Expat
"Don't confuse three bods on here as widespread public demand!"
Too true, but don't confuse widespread low turnouts in elections with public satisfaction with the status quo, the existing parties or the quasi-democratic existing system.
Back to your evil ways of non-identification of pot originators, I see.
Complain about this comment
#248 Reluctant-Expat
"And these are all from YouGov polls. There's no way I'm adding all the links!"
I wouldn't have expected you to, but some dates would have been interesting. Looking at the dates on YouGov's 2008 Political Archives most seem to be at least 3 months old and many in previous years.
Complain about this comment
#248
"All UK regions were 50-60% in favour of both building new nuclear power stations and maintaining/increasing the nuclear share of overall energy production."
Based on a biased consultation question some endorsement! Might be an idea to post links to support your statements.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23574710-details/Consultation%20for%20nuclear%20power%20%27biased%27/article.do
Complain about this comment
#200.
Chris:
"My question therefore is, why bother? What after all, would "independence" achieve?"
Scotland would be independent only in name...
"Our banks would be run by England"
Will it? How did you get that conclusion? Does Scotland not pay tax now? We will have a claim to the shares Britain currently owns. There is only one bank that the Government has more then 50% of the shares, the UK Gov also has said this is only temporay and they will sell the shares when the market settles.
"Our currency (assuming we used the euro) would be run by Brussels.Our interest rates would be set in Brussels (with far less regard for Scottish interests than the Bank of England currently has)."
I see you are unware that the Euro uses lower rates then the British currency which wil actually benefit Scotland...
"Our energy would be imported from England or the rest of Europe (thanks to Mr Salmond ruling out the nuclear option and setting a target of 80% reduction in emissions)."
What energy? Does Scotland not produce 8-10x more oil then she uses? Scotland does not import energy today, what would change? Scottish nuclear power plants are already used to prop up England. I guess you never knew.
"Our defence would rest in the hands of England."
Again, why? You have to explain.
"So how exactly would we be independent?!"
The Scottish Government, who was elected by the Scottish people will be capable of anything and everything. Scotland can go as she wishes without England out voting our MP's.
"Many nationalists hold up the example of Ireland, but what they forget is that Ireland had huge EU subsidies in the days when the EU was smaller. Today, those subsidies go to Poland, Hungary, Slovakia etc."
Please learn the history between Britain and the Republic fo Ireland. Britain put the Republic of Ireland under some type of trade sanctions which crippled their economy. Later, while they are still recovering they decided to join the European Union. The European Union therefore had to help the Republic of Ireland recover.
According to Unionists Scotland receives subsidies from England. Whats the difference between England and the European Union? Besides Ireland contributes to the European Union these days, but apparently Scotland continues to live off England... I would prefer European handouts since by using Ireland as an example we will eventually be able to pay them back!
"The oil argument doesn't work either. Oil production has declined 28% since 2003, while maintenance spending is set to hit ?1.5bn this year. North sea oil has always been harder to extract than in Saudi Arabia and it will eventually reach the point where it won't be competitive. "
The oil will eventually run out (In the North Sea and the rest of the world) therefore the price of oil will eventually sky rocket as supplies run dry.
If you think we have seen the end in the price rises can you imagine in several years time when earth's population also sky rockets how great demand will be?
"As part of the UK, we are part of the 5th largest economy in thw world, and we have far more chance of creating a successful Scotland!"
You have to explain this. Is Scotland not receiving subsidy's from England? Is this the success of the Union? Scotland forever living off someone else. (Unionist arguement, not my opinion)
Complain about this comment
#229
MalcolmW2.
"I was brought up to feel British, and in a real sense I am a product of the union. I am British, why should I have to choose between England and Scotland?"
By your own statement then I am also a product of the Union. However I am willing to choose between the United Kingdom (not just England as you put) and Scotland. There is quite an age gap between us, what had happened during that time that has drove many more towards Nationalism? I know I am not alone, the SNP are popular with young adults. But why are more young Scots choosing the SNP? This is dangerous for the Union. Children, like them, hate them, are the future. We will be the person taking away your rubbish, the next star football player, we will be the teachers teaching the next generation after us. But again, what has happened?
Complain about this comment
252 % 253. Children have always been strong supporters of independence.
Strange how, when they become adults and start experiencing the real world and not a perception based on partisan gossip, that proportion of support drops.
Also, our banks were always London-owned and they will again once the govt equity is sold off.
And there is that nonsense about the Euro being preferable solely because their interest rates are currently lower. Euro interest rates are set in Frankfurt and primarily adjusted according to the needs of the French/Germain/Italian economies which are quite different to ours (inflationary pressures, economic cycles, unemployment levels etc.).
What happens when our inflation is higher than Germany/France/Italy and we need higher rates to bring it under control...but they don't?
Who wins and what happens to our inflation?
What happens when our economy starts to slow down and we need cuts to boost growth...but they don't?
Who wins and what happens to our growth?
The nationalist argument for joining the euro is one of the most flawed, naive and even immature arguments they have.
Salmond only supports the euro as his strategy is to claim everything about the Union is wrong for Scotland. What's your reason?
Complain about this comment
252. The oil will eventually run out (In the North Sea and the rest of the world) therefore the price of oil will eventually sky rocket as supplies run dry.
If you think we have seen the end in the price rises can you imagine in several years time when earth's population also sky rockets how great demand will be?"
For crying out loud.
What is the point of high oil prices if we have little oil to sell? Prices are not going to continue rising back above $147 to $200 and more (as you claimed a few months back....just before oil prices collapsed over 50%). Even OPEC seem to have agreed that $100 is about right for them.
You also forget (again) about the impact on the rest of the economy of sky-high oil prices. Think back to just earlier this year, and the protests and economic problems we were seeing due to the oil before the banking collapse.
Complain about this comment
#254 Reluctant-Expat
"The nationalist argument for joining the euro is one of the most flawed, naive and even immature arguments they have."
How would you distinguish it from the NuLab party line? p84 of The Labour Party manifesto 2005 says: "The five economic tests must be met before any decision to join can be made."
No quibbles about "interest rates ... set in Frankfurt", I see. Or has NuLab done abother U-turn on that particular referendum promise?
#255. At 09:52am on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat
"You also forget (again) about the impact on the rest of the economy of sky-high oil prices."
And you also wish to forget that Scotland is better endowed with potential renewable sources than the rest of the UK.
Couldn't you try to manage just one positive reason per day to preserve your beloved union?
Complain about this comment
256. Sure.
Not having to rely on highly volatile oil prices for 25% of our public sector budget.
Complain about this comment
257. At 11:26am on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
256. Sure.
Not having to rely on highly volatile oil prices for 25% of our public sector budget.
--------------------------------------------------------
are you saying the the union has failed the scottish population in that they have to rely on oil for 25% of their public sector budget.
Complain about this comment
258. We'll ignore that small matter that the union ensures that Scotland does not have to rely on oil for 25% of its public sector budget.
Whereas the SNP economic masterplan does.
Complain about this comment
#252 Thomas Porter
In answer to your questions:
1) Banks - Yes, Scotland would be entitled to around 10% of the UK Treasury based on population. However, this would not be enough to buy back 60% of RBS and 40%of HBOS and Lloyds TSB which is owned by the UK Treasury (and I am pretty certain they will still be owned by the UK Treasury at the time of the referendum in 2010.) Scotland therefore will not have an independent banking system in 2010.
2) The euro - the current rate may benefit scotland, but will it next year or the year after? The European Central bank sets interest rates on how it will benefit the big European economies - Germany, France and Italy. Scotland will be totally ignored.
3) Energy - Thanks to the short sighted policies of the SNP government, our surplus will soon disappear leaving us dependnet on our energy from the weather (wind farms, hydro etc) or importing it from other countries.
4) Defence - assuming Scotland gets 10% of the UK armed forces, it will be unable to defend itself so will be reliant on others.
Overall, the current arangement is a partnership. i am not saying that scotland is dependent on England or England dependent on Scotland. My argument is that both countries work better when working together.
It seems daft to me to exchange a union where we make up 10% of the population and have a considerable amount of influence in government for a union where we will make up less than 2% of the population and we will have far less control of crucial areas such as currency and interest rates thn we do today!
Complain about this comment
------------------------------------------------------
258. At 12:05pm on 22 Oct 2008, U13282939 wrote:
are you saying the the union has failed the scottish population in that they have to rely on oil for 25% of their public sector budget.
259. At 12:54pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
258. We'll ignore that small matter that the union ensures that Scotland does not have to rely on oil for 25% of its public sector budget.
Whereas the SNP economic masterplan does.
------------------------------------------------------
are you saying that the SNP economic masterplan has to rely on oil for 25% of their public sector budget because the union have failed the scottish population.
Complain about this comment
Another aspect of Salmond's economic masterplan is that he intends to create an oil fund...
...even though all oil revenues are needed just to maintain current spending.
Which means:
a) he will have to cut spending without any corresponding tax cuts,
b) he will have to raise taxes just to fund existing services,
c) he will have to borrow at interest rates equal or greater than the returns from the oil fund or
d) a combination of the above.
Furthermore, saving just 1bn a year, it would be 40-50 years before the fund would produce a 1bn return.
Complain about this comment
259. At 12:54pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
258. We'll ignore that small matter that the union ensures that Scotland does not have to rely on oil for 25% of its public sector budget.
--------------------------------------------------------
does that mean that scotland does not have to rely on 25% of its public sector budget on oil, because the union has not failed the scottish population.
and if so does that then mean that the oil money to westminster as a gift.
Complain about this comment
Question: The proposed Severn Barrage would alone produce twice our total electricity exports. And then you can add the proposed Thames Barrage too. And another at The Wash.
All this talk from Salmond that we could produce a gazillion GW of renewable electricity.....to whom can we sell it if our neighbours don't need it?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat.
you have persistenty claimed that scotland has a deficit of 10 billion if you take away the oil revenue.
and if that is so then the union has failed the scotish population.
Complain about this comment
U13282939, you are making the same mistake as Salmond by wrongly believing that wit is an adequate substitution for logic.
Complain about this comment
#264 Reluctant-Expat
Along with renewables technology, storage and transmission technology is also developing apace. Are you seriously suggesting that with "the impact on the rest of the economy of sky-high oil prices" (your #255) that energy will not be needed, even if England sorts out its own energy needs?
That said, your point re the potential energy yield of Severn, Thames & Wash Barrages is an extremely good reason to stop the folly of new nuclear development until someone solves the waste disposal issues.
Complain about this comment
#260 edinchris wrote:
"It seems daft to me to exchange a union where we make up 10% of the population and have a considerable amount of influence in government for a union where we will make up less than 2% of the population and we will have far less control of crucial areas such as currency and interest rates thn we do today!"
But currently Scotland is in both unions with little say in either. So long as the UK are such bad europeans, the dividend from each union is minimal.
Complain about this comment
264. At 2:10pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
Question: The proposed Severn Barrage would alone produce twice our total electricity exports. And then you can add the proposed Thames Barrage too. And another at The Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------
does that mean that england, scotland, wales and northern ireland will not need to build nuclear power stations now.
Complain about this comment
268. How are the UK "bad europeans". The UK is one of the more compliant countries when it comes to EU policies and rules.
France is one of the lowest, especially when it comes to deregulation. Then there's the refusal to amend the CAP and the refusal to allow the EU Parliament to end the monthly Strasbourg fiasco.
Which country is the "bad european" here?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat.
U13282939, you are making the same mistake as Salmond by wrongly believing that wit is an adequate substitution for logic.
you make the same mistake as brown by wrongly believing that un-truths are a adequete substitution for the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------
you have persistenty claimed that scotland has a deficit of 10 billion if you take away the oil revenue.
and if that is so, then the union has failed the scotish population is that not so.
the above is very lodgical, so please answer the question.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter #253:
"There is quite an age gap between us, what had happened during that time that has drove many more towards Nationalism?"
----------------------------------------
What happened, as I said in my post, was oil. That and the fact that far too many Scots fell for the siren call of a snake-oil salesman who whispered in their ears that the nasty English, who in my young days were helping to keep the remote highland communities afloat with their taxes, were stealing it all. That, to my mind at least, is the most unpleasent aspect of the SNP message: a refusal to acknowledge the help that the union gave to Scotland before the oil, but a grim determination to deny any payment in return by sharing what they see, rightly or wrongly, as a wholey Scottish resource. I know people like that when it comes to buying a round in the pub. They are deeply unpopular with everybody else.
Mix in the absurd distortion of history portrayed by Mel Gibson, who seems for reasons unclear to have a pathological need to depict the English as arch villians in all his films without regard for historical fact (witness "The Patriot" as well as "Braveheart"), which is lapped up by impressionable young minds too lazy to bother reading up on real history, and we have a Nationalist rallying cry. Fortunately, I still have faith in the good sense of the mature majority of Scots to see through this smoke and mirrors. Politics is more than supporting your national team at football. An SNP majority at Holyrood may well make sense for Scots post devolution, but translating that to a majority in a referendum on full independence is something else alltogether.
Incidentally, I said I was a real product of the union because I had one parent from either side of the border, not because I was born within the UK. Having close family in both England and Scotland does alter one's perception on the merits of breaking up the UK. I am far from unique in that.
Complain about this comment
267. Scotland can only export electricity to nearby countries.
If they don't need our many GW, then we have no market.
And apparentl only 5% of electricity generation across Europe is generated by oil, and that share is decreasing. I think it is only 1% of UK generation.
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Sectors_and_activities/energy/indicators/EN27,2007.04/fig1.gif
(Quite why electricity prices are so high is beyond me.)
Complain about this comment
--------------------------------------------------------
261. At 1:35pm on 22 Oct 2008, U13282939 wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
258. At 12:05pm on 22 Oct 2008, U13282939 wrote:
are you saying the the union has failed the scottish population in that they have to rely on oil for 25% of their public sector budget.
259. At 12:54pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
258. We'll ignore that small matter that the union ensures that Scotland does not have to rely on oil for 25% of its public sector budget.
Whereas the SNP economic masterplan does.
------------------------------------------------------
are you saying that the SNP economic masterplan has to rely on oil for 25% of their public sector budget because the union have failed the scottish population.
266. At 2:32pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
U13282939, you are making the same mistake as Salmond by wrongly believing that wit is an adequate substitution for logic.
--------------------------------------------------------
me thinks that re-pat has a problem answering the question.
Complain about this comment
#270 Reluctant-Expat wrote:
"How are the UK "bad europeans". The UK is one of the more compliant countries when it comes to EU policies and rules."
I think you answered your own question there. The UK is much more wedded to the rule-book than most, and less creative in exploiting opportunities where they exist.
#273 Reluctant-Expat wrote:
"Scotland can only export electricity to nearby countries."
That's why the developing storage and transmission technologies I mentioned in my #267 are so important. Wireless transmission is a proven possibility (though not for a long while on an industrial scale) and fuel cell storage is much closer to public availability. Pre-charged fuel cells could not only slash use of domestic oil (to be saved for plastics and pharmaceuticals) but be exported and returned for recycling in existing container ships.
I'm not talking tomorrow but a couple of decades here, and that's the minimum time England will need to make themselves energy-independent with the 3 barrages you're suggesting.
Complain about this comment
275. At 4:21pm on 22 Oct 2008, Brownedov.
add to your list -
probably one of the most important uses of spare electricity, is the production of hydrogen fuel.
Complain about this comment
#276 U13282939
Absolutely.
I somehow don't feel that any country is going to be embarrassed at having too much electricity available in the future.
I suppose it's ultimately a difference (already aired on the new thread) between a can-do attitude and the Col. Blimp attutide of many hardline unionists.
As it happens, the Severn barrage would probably have to be a joint project between England and a fiscally-autonomous Wales, but it's a way off yet.
Complain about this comment
277. In all seriousness, you two need to grow up.
Your ridiculous pie-in-the-sky daydreams of wealth and happiness in a brigadoon-style utopia, where you are now apparently living off the wealth of container ships delivering giant batteries (a technology that may or may not ever happen) to distant shores is astonishingly childish.
The Severn Barrage (and the Thames and Wash schemes) are all based on current technology and only environmental concerns block their way. Strategic economic need will soon overrule the need to protect salt marshes.
And once they are built, our primary energy market is gone.
Try my approach of being realistic. Just for once.
Complain about this comment
In the long term, the countries of North Africa will be able to far outproduce Scotland in terms of 100% reliable renewable energy, via solar plants.
It's always the same story for natural resources, which is why Scotland's economy must be focused, above all, on high-tech manufacturing and services.
Complain about this comment
278. At 6:51pm on 22 Oct 2008, Reluctant-Expat.
i suppose we keep answering your postings for the amusement value.
because your postings have no other value.
you are a bit like gordon browns bust to buster speeches.
and where is your answer to my questions in 271 and 274.
Complain about this comment
#272.
MalcolmW2.
"What happened, as I said in my post, was oil."
Are you sure? The Scottish National Party was created before oil was discovered, there support came from the Highlands and rural communites if I am not mistaken? But you ignored my question slightly. I asked why are people choosing Nationalism. British, Welsh, Scottish Nationalism has all increasedby the number of votes at the General Elections. Is it all about oil? No. Is it all about oil for the Scots? Well you can convince yourself its about oil but will you be able to risk it all be ignoring the other possible reasons?
"That, to my mind at least, is the most unpleasent aspect of the SNP message: a refusal to acknowledge the help that the union gave to Scotland before the oil..."
Please stop the history lesson. If you are willing to talk about history then why not mention the problems that the Union gave to Scotland? The struggle to be recognised by England and Ireland, the problems we suffered by policies set to benefit the South East of England. History should not be forgotten but should also not be used to decide the future. History is best left in the past.
Complain about this comment
#279 Anaxim
True, but surely it would be preferable to use local renewables than import wherever possible.
#278 Reluctant-Expat
"In all seriousness, you two need to grow up."
And, as I've said before, you need to provide some positives for the union or you'll find yourself with no "nurse" to cling to.
Yes, the technology you're discussing is known, but the size alone will involve some decades in planning and construction.
If you're predicting a world surplus of energy, why were you so bullish recently over nuclear power?
Complain about this comment
#Brownedov 279
Do you agree then, that there is little to no chance of Scotland becoming an energy-exporter with much more effective competition from the Sahara (and Iceland)?
Scotland's renewables (wind, wave, hydro, tide) are either equal or less reliable than Sahara solar or Icelandic geothermal, so it would be a good idea to have a complete link-up for the maximum spread of energy sources and the lowest prices possible.
Complain about this comment
#283 Anaxim
No, not quite. I do accept that Sahara and Iceland may be able to produce a lot of renewable energy relatively quickly, although the current poverty of both may slow that down a little. I also agree that it would be sensible to link sources as fast and extensively as practical.
I don't accept that the renewables in the British Isles will remain unreliable. As a recreational sailor I know very well that the tides are pretty reliable and storage technologies will make the other renewables reliable fairly quickly, especially if there is an overall surplus supply because efficiency will matter less.
As I've said on the new thread, I'm no technical expert in this field but have seen like others how quickly technology can develop when there's a demand for it, as I believe there will be here.
Complain about this comment
284. At 10:58pm on 22 Oct 2008, Brownedov.
scotlands annual usage of energy is around about 36 TWH and at this moment we export approx. 12 TWH per annum which mainly goes to northern ireland and the north of england i believe.
scotland has a potential through time to produce over 200 TWH of renewable energy from the offshore wind, onshore wind, tidal and hydro ect., and that may increase with better technology.
GBs total requirement at this time is just under 400TWH.
the problem with electricity transmission in GB is that you have significant loss the further away from the supply source the user is, i have at one point seen the equation for calculating the loss, but that was a while back and i cannot remember it now.
i believe oldnat at one point said that he did not understand why we used 240v and most of europe used 220v with america and a few others using 110v.
i believe that this goes back to the fact that GB was the first and when the rest of the world started they used their own voltage.
the reason i am saying this is that the 110v supply has less of a voltage loss over longer distances.
also at this time scotland losses about 15TWH per annum through the power industries own usage ( pumped storage from the excess production, mainly at night ) and line loss.
it may not be practical to import energy from the sahara due to the distance, but i will leave that to someone that knows the equation for the line loss calculation.
getting back to liquid hydrogen which can be produced with the surpluses of energy, it then can be stored in tanks, bottles ect., and is used from a way back to fire the rockets into space and is also being used to run cars and buses, though i do not think that westminster would be happy if all cars ran on it as they would lose the tax revenue on petrol.
liquid hydrogen can be transported in tankers all over the world and then used to produce energy at near enough point of use, and that would overcome transmission from north africa to wherever, but then again you need water to produce the liquid hydrogen.
Complain about this comment
#285 U13282939
Yes - I'm no techie in that field, but what you say re production of hydrogen from surplus electricity makes common sense for a Scotland not exactly short of water.
OTOH for the Sahara, surplus solar electricity might be put to better use pumping water, for desalination and irrigation. There, it will all depend on who "owns" it, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
274. Now you're just being silly.
Why is Salmond's flawed economics the fault of the union?
Scotland does not need to rely on the oil but Salmond insists that we do. How is that the fault of the union?
Do you agree with Salmond that relying on volatile oil prices (and a dwindling supply) for 25% of our budget is a good idea?
Complain about this comment
Where are the SNP's policies on reserved matters?
Have they perhaps balked on publishing them after their primary economic masterplan failed at the very first crisis?
Complain about this comment
U13282939, maybe you can tell me what this much-claimed "overwhelming case for independence" is.
You nationalists mention it all the time but never elaborate when asked.
And I can't find any hint of it anywhere on the entire world wide web.
Can you, once and for all, just tell me what it is or where it is written?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter #281:
Thomas,
at your age what is history is part of other people's lives - mine included. The SNP pre-dates oil but had very little support anywhere in Scotland, it was a marginal if noisy political party. If memory serves the first SNP member was elected to Westminster in 1964; it created a stir but was hardly earth-shatering. Real, hardline support which could be described as popular (not the same thing as majority though) started about the time of your birth, though I doubt there is a connection!
On a wider point, leaving history in the past (rather than reading about it widely enough to truly understand it - never accept just one source because the message and interpretation will always be biased) is the quickest and surest way to repeat its errors. That is one of the mistakes of the present UK government. As the saying goes," If you don't understand where you have been, you will not know where you are going". True history matters.
As for nationalism in general, not just in Scotland or indeed the UK, I suspect it has much to do with people's disillussionment with mainstream politicians these days. They are casting around for something to replace what is, by any measure, a poor choice of candidates and parties all over the world. Sadly, as I said before, nationalist parties will themselves dissappoint eventually if they achieve power. It is simply the nature of modern politics. I wish we could have this conversation again when you are my age to see how your views have changed, but sadly doubt that will be possible!
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat.
wheres the answer to my 271 post.
remember the figures are yours not mine.
--------------------------