Rebuilding the arc
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the best form of defence is robust attack.
Certainly, that appears to be the strategy here at the SNP conference in Perth.
It has been suggested, not least by the prime minister, that the economic crisis and the UK Government's response presents a challenge to the SNP.
How, asked Mr Brown, would an independent Scotland have mustered the resources to rescue RBS and HBOS?
Further, what now for Alex Salmond's "arc of prosperity", comprising Iceland, Ireland and Norway?
Mr Salmond, naturally, declines to enter the debate on terms set by his opponents.
Rather, he says that the PM has shattered any lingering consensus over the economic situation.
He says further that he is now entitled to respond in kind.
Consequently, opening the conference, Mr Salmond spoke of a "Downing Street downturn", blaming Gordon Brown directly for the circumstances, including banking regulation, which led to the crisis.
Intriguingly, David Cameron has now made pretty much the same case in a speech in London.
Here in Perth, we can expect to hear this argument amplified by John Swinney when he addresses delegates.
Right now, Mr Brown is being hailed as a hero.
That mood seems unlikely to last, particularly as the economy slows and unemployment rises.
Given that, it is reasonable for the PM's opponents to seek to hasten the process of applying that longer-term scrutiny.
However, I also believe that the PM's words will have left at the very least a seed of doubt in the minds of those in Scotland who might be asked to cast a vote in any subsequent referendum on independence.
To that degree, I hold to the view that the first minister needs to find a revised and updated narrative for his vision: one that takes account of the economic developments and at least addresses the arguments advanced by Mr Brown.
It is, perhaps, asking too much for that to emerge this weekend, here in Perth.
We are all still at the stage of absorbing these cataclysmic events.
Understandably, the allocation of blame has now begun.
But a reshaped narrative will still be needed at some point.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Brown's argument relies on the premise that RBS and HBOS (notice that H) were worth saving. The reality is that both are gigantic banks, built up over many years from a great many smaller banks in Scotland, which provided a perfectly functional banking system for many years. It is hard not to suggest that their recent massive mergers and acquisitions (notably ABN AMRO) were an example of super-confident institutions overreaching themselves, which world of business was not forgiving enough to accomodate. It is the law of the jungle out there...
An independent Scotland's economy is untested. There would be less extra money coming from England but presumably also significantly less expenditure on the armed forces and diplomacy. Besides, maybe having less money in the pot would make a future Scottish treasury less keen to through billions of pounds at the economy in hope of a quick fix. Surely we of all nations could have made a cannier deal.
Maybe if the Scottish banking slate was wiped clean and we got some new smaller institutions we could see a revival of the entrepreneurship and skill with finance that we have been internationally famed for for centuries.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
*throw!
I'm distracted by the prospect of lunch and the weekend!
Complain about this comment
With regard to HBOS, was it not the case that Halifax TOOK OVER the bank of Scotland? which therefore makes it an English organisation albeit that they have kept a presence up here. It would be easy to shift the power base down south at any time.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just how does Swinney intend to fund this latest 'pledge' of 100% rates relief for small businesses.
I put pledge in parentheses as we all know how much faith to put in anything the SNP says.....
*1000 extra police pledge - broken by the SNP but then forced back onto the agenda by the Tories - only 48 new police on the streets so far - well below Labour's recruitment levels
*Class sizes pledge - broken
*First-time buyer support pledge - broken
*Student debt pledge - broken
*Nursery School provision pledge - broken
*Matching Labour's school-building programme "brick for brick" pledge - not one brick for one school was laid last year, so about 500m short so far!
*Grants for cultural projects pledge - broken
What do we have? Well, Salmond's proud 'magnificent seven' achievements included:
*The few remaining paid subscriptions (and 92% of prescriptions were already free) are now slightly cheaper.
*One pound road tolls removed on some bridges
*Free hospital parking in some hospitals
Plus an endless list of anti-UK hissy-fits ranging from chess-sets to border towns and Mary Queen of Scot's remains.
Certainly plenty for the nationalists to boast about. Oh yes.
Complain about this comment
#5
Well, I'm not sure whether you would call it a takeover rather than a merger (takeovers tend not to keep the taken-over bank's name), but the fact remains that Halifax was the mortgage-part of the business, and thus should take proportionately more of the blame than the BOS part. If they had not merged, would BOS have been less willing to over-reach itself? Nobody can say for sure. Just like nobody can say for sure whether an independent Scotland would have somehow been protected from the current crisis or been put into economic ruin. The only thing that IS for certain is that being in the Union has NOT saved us from the crisis - okay, so there has been this massive injection of funds, but if the Union is so effective, why did we even need it?
Complain about this comment
When Mr Brown related the bail-out of the banking system to the House, my thoughts were immediately returned to his anouncement of the the 10p tax 'reduction'. I seen a remarkable similarity with both the triumphal mode of the then chancellor's presentation and the raucous support from the Labour benches.
Our politicians have state-backed pensions which are drained from the treasury. Perhaps, if they had to source their own pensions into institutions in the same way as the people they are paid to represent then they would have been more sensitive to the well-being of those institutions and the current crisis would have been averted long ago.
Complain about this comment
Brian, if the SNP fails to "reshape the narrative" and concentrates on blaming others while demanding cash from Westminster, it will be seen as the party of grievance - and the conference could be the beginning of the end of its popularity.
But if Alex Salmond tells us clearly what he would do now...
I suspect, however, that most of the speeches will be punctuated with "IF we had been independent," and "WHEN we are independent....."
Please, could the SNP - just this once - try to be the party of today, here and now, and stop wallowing in historical glories or Utopian dreams?
We all enjoy a whinge now and again, but you can't build a nation on it.
Complain about this comment
Okay, I do agree that Gordon Brown behaved irresponsibly as Chancellor and, if he hadn't done so, we might have been in a better situation now. There's no denying that GB's irresponsible lending and selling the UK's gold weren't exactly bright ideas worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize but what's done is done and we have to make do with what we have left.
But I still disagree with Salmond's "Blame Westminster for everything"policy. Scotland would not be able to cope in this crisis on its own, look at Ireland, Iceland and Norway doing so well after all; Ireland is in recession, Iceland's main bank has collapsed majestically and Norway are scraping around for loose change down the back of the sofa. Wonderful circumstances for them all. Fact is, despite Salmond's rhetoric, Scotland cannot cope on its own and we would be in an even worse situation if GB hadn't stumped up the extra cash. Salmond is biting the hand that feeds him; Scotland's national bank (one of the biggest banks in the world, nonetheless) is being propped up by Brown's government and Salmond still feels cause to complain.
Those of you who have the "Scottish Independence or bust" attitude, think again. We wouldn't have Westminster's money to prop us up and goodness only knows where we would be had this happened post-independence (if it ever happens).
Complain about this comment
#7 - You can't hold a minority government to account for breaking manifesto pledges, it's as easy as that. If they weren't given the political capital by the electorate, they can't push through the policies.
I for one have been struck by how the SNP have continually come across in debates as the more mature and pragmatic party, compared with Labour's infighting, cheap jibes, reliance on London for direction and above all an unhealthy sense of entitlement.
See you in Glenrothes.
Complain about this comment
#12
You most definitely can. In order for a minority government not to be accountable for not keeping to their pledges they have to have put a bill before parliament asking for it and been out-voted by the majority.
The SNP write the budget, plan the agenda, take the policy decisions. The only, major, example of opposition parties leading policy away from their manifesto is in the Edinburgh Trams, the cost of which is nothing comparable to even one of the dozen or so major manifesto commitments which they were once so willing to promise and now are not so.
As for the Banking crisis, Alex Salmond stood up in the last election campaign and claimed that an Independent Scotland would be good because we would be able to LOWER regulation on our banks. He attacked the government repeatedly for having over-burdensome regulation, yet now he has hypocricy to criticise Brown for not having enough regulation.
The reality is that had we followed Salmonds policies we would be in exactly the same position as Iceland right now, not just because we're a small country with less financial ability to weather the storm, but because we would have had to cut the levels of regulation in order to spur the economy in the ways Salmond regularly talked about pre:current crisis.
The SNP got elected off the back of being the Scottish party rather than just an independence party, willing to work within the context of the current situation to try and benefit us. It would be good to see them continuing to do this if they hope to have future election successes.
Complain about this comment
Has the media developed a communal case of amnesia? Gordon Brown stated in his 2002 Mansion House speech stated that:
"What you, as the City of London, have achieved for financial services we, as a government, now aspire to achieve for the whole economy."
Or from the same speech:
"Strengthening the competitive environment means attaining the highest standards in the provision of financial services and it is because of the issues raised on auditing, accounting and the regulation of financial services that in February we announced a thorough review of the UK's current regulatory arrangements for financial reporting and auditing which will make its initial report next month, and why - more generally - we have created a new standing committee on financial stability and the financial services authority - and I applaud Sir Howard Davies on the work he has done. "
Perhaps the 2006 version will show he has have learned the need for effective regulation of the financial markets? Or perhaps not:
"To meet the challenge of global markets we created a single unified FSA.
"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.
"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based. I know Sir Callum is committed to reducing regulatory administrative burdens and the National Audit Office will now look at the efficiency and value for money of our system."
That's the same FSA which couldn't even comprehend some of the more innovative financial vehicles, never mind regulate them.
Gordon Brown seems to have a thing about financial regulation. He hates it. Again from his 2006 speech: "Progress if we invest in and nurture the skills of the future, advance with light touch regulation, a competitive tax environment and flexibility."
By 2007 this has become "enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure for a British Sarbannes-Oxley after Enron and Worldcom"
I could go on but I think it is clear that, not only was GB Chancellor for all those years, he was an enthusiastic proponent of precisely the financial practises which caused our current financial and economic meltdown.
Complain about this comment
Has the media developed a communal case of amnesia? Gordon Brown stated in his 2002 Mansion House speech stated that:
"What you, as the City of London, have achieved for financial services we, as a government, now aspire to achieve for the whole economy."
Or from the same speech:
"Strengthening the competitive environment means attaining the highest standards in the provision of financial services and it is because of the issues raised on auditing, accounting and the regulation of financial services that in February we announced a thorough review of the UK's current regulatory arrangements for financial reporting and auditing which will make its initial report next month, and why - more generally - we have created a new standing committee on financial stability and the financial services authority - and I applaud Sir Howard Davies on the work he has done. "
Perhaps the 2006 version will show he has have learned the need for effective regulation of the financial markets? Or perhaps not:
"To meet the challenge of global markets we created a single unified FSA.
"In 2003, just at the time of a previous Mansion House speech, the Worldcom accounting scandal broke. And I will be honest with you, many who advised me including not a few newspapers, favoured a regulatory crackdown.
"I believe that we were right not to go down that road which in the United States led to Sarbannes-Oxley, and we were right to build upon our light touch system through the leadership of Sir Callum McCarthy - fair, proportionate, predictable and increasingly risk based. I know Sir Callum is committed to reducing regulatory administrative burdens and the National Audit Office will now look at the efficiency and value for money of our system."
That's the same FSA which couldn't even comprehend some of the more innovative financial vehicles, never mind regulate them.
Gordon Brown seems to have a thing about financial regulation. He hates it. Again from his 2006 speech: "Progress if we invest in and nurture the skills of the future, advance with light touch regulation, a competitive tax environment and flexibility."
By 2007 this has become "enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure for a British Sarbannes-Oxley after Enron and Worldcom"
I could go on but I think it is clear that, not only was GB Chancellor for all those years, he was an enthusiastic proponent of precisely the financial practises which caused our current financial and economic meltdown.
Complain about this comment
12. Yes, the months-long bitter onslaught from all nationalist corners because Wendy Alexander didn't properly declare some donations (having been advised it was unnecessary by Holyrood officials, something the ranting nationalist element always forgets to mention) was certainly an example of maturity and pragmatism.
As was the weeks long campaign to 'repatriate' a chess-set of Norwegian origin (not even slightly Scottish!) that was rightfully sold to the British Museum.
As was the much-repeated, headline-hunting pledge (there's that word again) to take back Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Also as mature and pragmatic was a certain SNP MSP's campaign to repatriate the remains of Mary Queen of Scots, despite it being her family's wish that she be buried in Westminster and there being no need or even demand from any quarter for this.
Complain about this comment
#12
The pledges listed at #7 were not hindered by minority government. Student debt pledge, for one, was just a con to gain cheap votes from students, graduates and their parents. That pledge was never affordable and the SNP new it. Please don't continually bore us with the "it wasn't me mister that bad man over there done it" excuses.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
NCA999 - The Edinburgh trams cost £500m, if you think that is trivial amount of money fair enough. Most people would disagree.
Also, I note that you fail to mention Ireland where early intervention prevented a run on their banks. The Irish government has managed to protect six Irish banks and three others which trade heavily in the Republic - no Northern Rocks, no Bradford & Bingleys, no forced nationalisations. In contrast, Brown and Darling dithered. We can see the result.
Complain about this comment
#18: These meaages are usually written in crayon, with green triple underscores on the capitalised words. Frightening or what?
Complain about this comment
Brian, regarding narratives I can think of another party that more urgently needs to reshape theirs. Labour's eternal narrative of "you're useless, vote for us and we'll keep you that way" is no longer working. The miracle is that it ever did.
#20 brigadierjohn: :o) What's "Indepense" anyway?
Complain about this comment
#7 Reluctant-Expat
Good post! The SNP need to be held to account and we are not doing it to them in the Parliament so we need to do it here.
I worry about the Fife bridges tolls; I don't think it made any difference in Glasgow East but it could be spun to SNP advantage in Glenrothes.
Another worry is the Trams in Edinburgh. There is real anger about the works (or not-works); we should try to hold back the General Election till they are running otherwise I fear for Mr Darling's seat.
#10 brigadierjohn
If there was such a thing as a party of today I wouldn't vote for it. All parties need to look ahead as it is what they decided to do yesterday that ensures they are doing the right thing for today
Complain about this comment
Brian
The arguments on both sides are interesting. Brown's argument is that Scotland on its own could not have bailed out the bank's and this undoubtedly is correct. Salmond's response must be that the Scottish banks only got into the mess in the first place as a result of inadequate regulation at a UK level. However, a potential probelm for Salmond in running this argument is the question, if Scotland was independent, would it have regulated the banks any differently? If it had, would the banks have stayed in Scotland? Is the reality not that the Scottish Govt would have fallen for the bank's line - if you give us more freedom we will generate much wealth for Scotland - just as the UK fell for this?
What the current crisis has done is shown that it will be difficult in the future for small currenties to run large banking industries; depositers will worry if the deposit insurance schemes will cover any bank collapse. An indepedent Scotland will therefore have smaller banks which will serve the Scottish economy. There is nothing wrong with this but it does leave a hole in the Scottish economy that will need to be filled.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Crikey!
#13 Your argument is that an independent Scotland would not have avoided the banking crisis. This is true. Like every other country we would have been caught up in it. We will never know whether Salmond would have handled the situation better than Brown. But, as I pointed out at #2, I believe we would have been better off independent.
Also, I disagree with you on the actions of a minority government. No government puts forward legislation it expects to be defeated on. If there was one resoundingly idiotic plan that deserved scrapping it was most certainly the trams, already a curse on Edinburgh they will blight the capital's public transport system for decades.
#16 Glad you're focussing on the issues of the day. Berwick-upon-Tweed, chesspieces, MQOS are just to keep the old Nats happy, don't tell me that Labour or the Tories wouldn't have put through similar daft measures just to keep their own supporters entertained, the socialists and aspiring gentry respectively, in all cases the ones who show up to vote but don't really understand the manifesto. All parties have them. What harm does it do?
Also, Berwick upon Tweed may come back to us in time as the thin end of the wedge. With Scotland independent, England will be unshakeably Tory for a generation. Labour heartlands in the North of England and Wales may soon clamour to switch sides, given the open contempt the South of England shows for the North. That would be interesting.
Finally, the leader of the opposition broke the rules, no matter how small the amount involved, and her position was untenable. At the time of her resignation she was not in office and she was not accountable to anyone. She lost the faith of her party.
#17 As it was when labour did the same thing with tuition fees?
#18 You are so awesome
Complain about this comment
#20 Brigadier ... i suspect 18 is a spoof post to provoke reaction...either a nationalist wanting to provoke you boys or a unionist wishing to make us indy boys look daft. cheers
Complain about this comment
18. Thank you Christine Grahame, for those wise words.
Complain about this comment
*1000 extra police pledge - broken by the SNP but then forced back onto the agenda by the Tories
The SNP were hedged into financial choices, deliberately, by unionist eejits who knew the trams would help scupper such pledges. Fact. Labour are not interested in Scotland. Fact. This impacts everything they do. Fact.
*First-time buyer support pledge - this really tickled me. Who ummmmmm, voted against the support pledge - that is, which body voted against this? Clock is a ticking...
Complain about this comment
Only Liebour can have the arrogance, and exhibit the sheer desperation, of essentially turning their own folly into political attack.
It really beggars belief. The sound of long-suffering unionist drones sensing that this financial tragedy can in fact be turned against the SNP really furthers the very clear point that they are a party NOT to be trusted, a party who like to see Scotland suffer.
What an abhorrent disgrace Scottish Labour are. I hope the people of Glenrothes act with conviction and volley them asunder!
Brown's latest fib is fulling no one. From the [seemingly buried] BBC 'Have you say' before the 'newsnight' special a few days ago.
---
I think Scots are not so myopic that they can't see that Brown is rejuvenated by this crisis. Indeed, Labour posters are positively exuberant. It demonstrates convincingly that Labour are a party that enjoys seeing Scotland in trouble. Trouble that this party created (by adopting and endorsing Thatcherite policies) and then denying Scotland the power to intervene in its own defense through limiting the powers and resources available to our parliament.
We'll see how this plays in Glenrothes.
---
Isn't it curious that the best argument put forward for the Union is via economic collapse! If this a Labour triumph, I'd hate to see a disaster! They want you to forget that Scotland is one of the most natural resource rich countries on the planet and is apparently the ONLY naturally resource rich country completely incapable of using its natural resources for itself. "Only within the union can Scottish resources be used to their full potential."
The great unionist lie. Fearmongers to the end.
---
Let me get this straight. Brown doesn't do his job properly for ten years, then uses mass media to spin the entire debacle to his advantage - as a 'lifesaver' - when his action was, in fact, the ONLY action left next to full economic meltdown. So, Scotland takes a massive blow to it's long serving banking tradition and he uses this as an example of why Scottish nationalism can't work? Eh? I marvel at how unionists can celebrate the humiliation of their own country. Glenrothes, kick them out!
---
Perhaps Gordon Brown should explain why Scotland was left exposed to the credit crunch in the first place, rather than use the very mess HE helped create as a tool to undermine the argument for Independence! I am completely aghast that not one Scottish journalist has even attempted to print anything about his involvement in the whole affair. Personally I believe the people can see the truth for what it is, and hope the people of Glenrothes kick this latest Labour lies/fearmongering into touch.
---
I can only concur with the posters who are boiling mad at the sheer cheek of Gordon Brown!
Let's deregulate the banking system to allow risk motivated by greed to increase unchecked. Then we'll take the only action possible in the resultant crisis, and use this as some kind of support in our argument for the union!!
Alex Salmond has been statesmanlike in comparison. Keep on fighting for our £1B, Alex, in lieu of gaining the grown up economic levers of Independence!
---
I could not believe gordon browns comments yesterday regarding Scotlands inability to handle fiscal affairs without englands help.He just convinced me to vote for independence.what good has labour done for scotlands economy in the last 50 years.We still have temporary traffic lights on the A82(loch lomondside) and i think they have been there for over 40 years!!Is this some kind of world record attempt.
Your not fooling anyone,gordon.We could,nt do any worse than you have.
Complain about this comment
Some more from the BBC 'Have you say':
---
So Brown has 'done whatever it takes'. The glee at the Labour conference showed that Labour politicians care more about power than ordinary folk left struggling with fuel poverty rising food prices and reduced pensions. Brown/Darling have some nerve using this to have a go at the SNP'. Just ignore the fact he was a disaster as chancellor, that he did NOTHING to prevent this situation. Typical Labour arrogance AND fearmongering. We need to GET OUT of this ruinous "Union" as soon as possible.
---
What about banks that belong to the Swiss, Danes, Austrians, Belgians, Swedes, Fins and Kiwis? All small nations? How are their banks fairing? Are they borrowing like Gordon Brown? Big is not always good: Only the US and Japan can be considered prosperous; compare with the far greater number of small prosperous nations. At present the two small NZ banks appear to be doing OK.
Brown has some nerve attacking the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#5. Billy52 wrote:
With regard to HBOS, was it not the case that Halifax TOOK OVER the bank of Scotland? which therefore makes it an English organisation albeit that they have kept a presence up here. It would be easy to shift the power base down south at any time.
No, you silly Billy, Bank of Scotland took over Halifax, and then continued making even more dodgy deals.
Complain about this comment
#18
"....As the OIL price SOARS....."
Errr, oil has come down in price, by over 50%, since last month, and it is still dropping. Don't you read the news?
I see Alex is keeping quiet about that one.
Wasn't he [alex] the one who used to work for one of the major Scottish banks, and reckoned its capital base was in great shape (unlike him)?
Turns out that was a porkie too.
Complain about this comment
Smaller countries are borrowing from larger countries. Example, Norway is borrowing from the U.S. and it will take them 20+ years to re-pay the loan, provided everything goes according to plan; if it doesn't, who knows how long it will take them.
Complain about this comment
#26 rabbiehippo
The latter, I suspect given the mis-spelt "INDEPNEDENT" in its only previous post.
Complain about this comment
I find Gordon Browns comments that his bail of the Scottish banks is an argument to maintain the union as very disturbing.
Gordon Brown and his government are almost without question fully responsible for the demise of these banks, by allowing them to run riot with their lending and letting the City use measures to profit by betting against the banks.
To sit there and try to take credit for this so called solution, and say how this is o so good for Scotland and the union, has resonance of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
I believe this man is clinically insane.
Complain about this comment
#35 A_Scottish_Voice
Perfectly said. My girlfriend asked the same question after seeing Gordy on TV, described as he was as a 'hero'.
The mass media in this country is more American every day.
I mean, read the comments at #29 and #30.
The man is, surely, insane with a capital 'I'.
God, I hope Glenrothes smacks this lot into touch. Everyday it is more a case of 'right' versus 'wrong' - and Labour are soooooooooo wrong.
Complain about this comment
#33.
I was amused by this post. Norway, who has hundreds of billions sitting in the banks doing othing apart from gaining interest are borrowing from the United States of America? The same United States of America, who has been spending more then she earns for several years (Norway at least has a surplus), and who may also already be well past over one trillion dollars in debt (depending who you believe, McCain or Obama)? The same United States of America who is borrowing money from China?
Mate, you have no clue about the international community, what do they teach you in Northern Ireland?
Complain about this comment
29. Gingerbadger may have popped a major vessel going by his posts. I can hear the neighbourhood's dogs responding to his shrill cries even from here.
Salmond's economic plans have been well and truly hoist by his own petard. He tried to use the oil and the banks as principal proof that Scotland would fare better out of the UK.....
Only for oil to plummet faster in price than almost any previous oil price crash....
For total oil production to continue to drop despite new oilfields coming on stream.....
That all tax revenues, both oil and otherwise, continue to be needed just to fund Holyrood's current expenditure, making his surplus-fed oil fund claims utterly nonsensical....
and then for Salmond's two flagship banks to seek billions and billions in UK aid, more than Salmond could ever hope to raise using only Scotland as collateral.
The fact that Salmond continues to sell this sheer folly of an economic plan as his centrepiece, strongly suggests that independence is less a personal goal than his own eternal place in history.
That our young nationalists continue to believe him says something else.
And for future reference, if you are going to compare Scotland to other countries, try and find some that have more in common with us other than 'having a small population'.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter: "Mate, you have no clue about the international community, what do they teach you in Northern Ireland?"
Aaahh, the little know-it-all who even thought Norway was in the European Union.
Check your facts and figures me old matey, coz Norway are defintely borrowing from the U.S. They have a banking crises there too, or didn't you know that either?
Complain about this comment
#38 - LOL! Reluctant-Expat you are a hoot.
Keep you nay-saying and 'canna-dae' attitude for other blogs, other than those which seek to help Scotland.
God, you guys have sociopathic problems, and very deep ones at that, with respect the idea of an SNP-led Scotland.
Scary :o)
Complain about this comment
#39 Jim_Thompson: I've tried looking for news on the Norwegian loan you mention, but can't find anything. Can you post a link or at least tell us the source of your info? I'd be interested to read more about it.
Complain about this comment
Who is this newbie, Gingerbadger?
Has another nationalist decided he needed more than one name to comment under?
In these days of doom and gloom, the hysteria and panic among the nationalists is truly a piercing light in the darkness. Wonderful.
Complain about this comment
forfar_loon
The Norwegian loan news was on the BBC and ITV news channels, on Monday, I think.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat "Who is this newbie, Gingerbadger?"
It could be one or both of these two: Thomas Porter and/or Alex Salmond.
Complain about this comment
Nah lads - us nats are easily in the majority. We don't need multiple names - akin to Ex-spat/AM2/Bring it on etc - ad infinitum.
The darkness? You mean, the one brought about by people like Brown and the Liebour party?
SNP = light in darkness. ;o)
Complain about this comment
As an aside, does anyone else follow the
BBC Global 30 Share Index?
They have selected the largest company within ten industrial sectors in each of Europe, North America and Asia.
The ten sectors are:
- Oil and gas
- Basic materials
- Industrials
- Consumer goods
- Health care
- Consumer services
- Telecommunications
- Utilities
- Financials
- Technology
It turns out that the UK alone accounts for five out of Europe's ten sectors with Vodafone, BP, Glaxo, HSBC and Tesco.
Just thought I'd throw that on the fire.
Complain about this comment
#42 Reluctant-Expat &
#44 Jim_Thompson
Snide as always, though if you look at the user profiles you'll see Gingerbadger is no newbie but first posted on 12 May 2008 exactly 10 days after Reluctant-Expat's first rant (strangely reminiscent of #7 on this thread) on 02 May 2008.
Complain about this comment
#43 Jim_Thompson: Still can't find any reference to this loan you mention. I've tried Google, BBC and ITV news sites. No luck. I've even been on the Norwegian news sites but there's no mention of it there!
What I could find was that the Norwegian government has plans to make available 350 billion Kroner (around 30 billion pounds) of bonds to help any Norwegian banks that should need them. The Norwegian central bank is also providing liquidity loans aimed towards smaller banks. Also, Norway and Denmark have just provided 200 million Euros each to Iceland.
Complain about this comment
47. Ah, that confirms it then. Two posts in May.....then nothing until the swarm of posts over the past few days.
Yep, he's a single-username-nat alright.
Curious. On 12 May, I notice he was using similar language to Master Porter, who was also present during Gingerbadger's previous manifestation.
He also exhibits symptoms of the shrill excitability of the Scotsman site, also frequented by young Porter.
Thomas, do you suffer from a split personality?
Own up.
Complain about this comment
Forfar loon
Like you, I have heard nothing about Norway borrowing money from the US. It's SWF was worth around US$350 bn earlier this year so it seems unlikely. In fact, the bigger problem for the Norwegian (and other) SWFs is that they have invested in US government bonds and it is likely that we will see the value of the dollar fall as investors start to question the ability of the US to repay its quadrillion dollars (I am not joking here) of national debt.
Complain about this comment
#39.
Jim_Thompson.
"Check your facts and figures me old matey, coz Norway are defintely borrowing from the U.S. They have a banking crises there too, or didn't you know that either?"
I am well aware of the Norwegian position. They, alone, have hundreds of billions in the bank who also run a surplus annually. You appear to be lying Jim, perhaps you could provide evidence to support your view?
I also suggest you unwrap yourself from the Union Jack, perhaps then you could realise the world is larger then Britain. My, I never met someone who has an attitude like yours. Why do you find it difficult to swallow that Norway happens to be doing far better then Britain?
Complain about this comment
Swinney being his usual disingenuous self.
He accuses the UK Govt of "taking #249bn in oil revenues" but naturally neglects to mention that it has all been given back as part of the spending block.
Every penny of Scotland's oil revenues has been spent in Scotland.
Not one nationalist has ever been able to prove otherwise.
The SNP, with full access to public accounts, has not proven otherwise.
In the SNP's last accounts, Holyrood was actually shown to need another #3bn, in addition to all oil revenues, just to break even.
If the case for independence is so strong, why is it so hard for the SNP and their supporters to stick to the truth?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
I can see no logic for having two different user accounts. Especailly when those two accounts are Pro-Independence.
However your case appears to be different Expat, I would not be suprised if you were Gingerbadger and Jim_Thompson.
Gingerbadger appears then preforms ill-debating skills. It works in your favour does it not? You then spout on and on about child Nats etc. Then Jimmy appears then the pair of you suggest that Gingerbadger is me... It all sounds like you are benefiting from being able to score cheap points here... why are you benefiting from two terrible debaters?
Complain about this comment
#52.
"If the case for independence is so strong, why is it so hard for the SNP and their supporters to stick to the truth?"
If the case for the Union is so strong, why are Labour afraid of the referendum? Infact, why don't Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England each have a seperate vote on the matter? Instead we are told constantly of the benefits of the Union but neither Labour nor the Tories are willing to test it. Besides I didn't know the Scottish National Party to hide valuable information, or use Government MI5 agents to undermine another parties objectives. Hang on, did past UK Gov not do all those things against Scotland and the Scottish National Party?
Typical of a Unionist to ignore the past when it goes against their view.
Complain about this comment
Another example of the SNP's refusal to stick to the truth:
From a BBC report dated Dec 2006:
Labour said total public spending in Scotland is £47.7bn but total revenue from taxes is only £36.4bn, leaving a deficit of £11.3bn.
That comes down to £6.2bn when oil revenues are taken into account.
But the SNP said the calculations were biased and wrong and Scotland in fact subsidies the rest of the UK to the tune of £2.8bn a year.
Now compare the SNP's statement to their own accounts released a year later (after fuel prices had started to spike):
In 2006-07, the estimated net fiscal balance, in Scotland, that is the estimated current budget balance plus estimated net capital investment, was a deficit of £10.2 billion (9.7 per cent of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue.....or a deficit of £2.7 billion (2.1 per cent of GDP) including an estimated geographical share of North Sea revenue.
Who was telling the truth in 2006 then?
Labour or the SNP?
Complain about this comment
#43 Jim_Thompson
forfar-loon's #48 applies to me too. If you can remember the time, the programme or the reporter, I can try to chase down a transcript through press contacts. The only Norwegian loan story I've found around the right time is variations on Bloomberg's "Norway Offers $55.4 Billion Liquidity Boost to Banks", but that's on the issue of Norwegian government bonds. If there's anything further, please share it.
#49 Reluctant-Expat
Discourteous as always I see in refusing to show user ids in your responses. And economical with the truth too, it would appear.
I wouldn't call Gingerbadger's #7 of 01 Oct 2008 on the "Governing from afar" thread, the past few days and nor would I say the style is remotely similar to Thomas_Porter. Are you looking for someone else to harrass?
#53 Thomas_Porter
They're both obviously unionists and not home rulers of any description, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for now. The views many be the same but the styles are fairly different.
Complain about this comment
#55 Reluctant-Expat
"Who was telling the truth in 2006 then?
Labour or the SNP?"
It's not as simple as that an if you have the experience you claim you should know that.
When it comes to UK financial information, the Westmidden government has access to the facts - unless they're even more incompetent in managing HM Treasury than we all suppose.
Everyone else has access to such information as that government releases.
That's one of the very good reasons why Scotland needs full fiscal autonomy before it can even adequately calculate such matters.
Whether it should go on from there to full independence is a matter for the people to decide when armed with the facts.
Complain about this comment
57. Conspiracy alaaaaaarm!!!
Weak, Brownedov.
Very, very weak.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov,
Do you know where the SNP got its figures from to come up with the £9bn difference between their "£2.8bn surplus" and Labour's "£6.2bn deficit" I mentioned in post 55?
That's the equivalent of 20% of the entire public spending budget, so it's quite significant.
Complain about this comment
An interesting article Brian.
It's interesting to see how even GB resorts to the Unionist's favourite tool, fear.
You are right, I'm sure that this crisis and the ensuing recession that is looming, which were created by successive Westminster governments, will go along way to aiding them in their quest to keep Scotland too afraid to leave their apron strings.
We can only hope that the negative 'politics of fear' is transparent to the Scottish public.
The most appropriate quote I can think of comes from FDR,
"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance". The key being of course, the last 8 words ......
Complain about this comment
61. When there's nothing else, there's always the usual irrelevant nationalist rhetoric, isn't there.
Why do these nats believe that the vast majority of Scotland is "scared"?
This oft-repeated insult of their countrymen aside, the reality is that the vast majority of Scotland just aren't as blindly stupid, immature and gullible as the SNP believes.
However, some people clearly are.....
Complain about this comment
Re: your comment #61 responding to comment # ..... er, 61 .... have you started to argue with yourself ???
You need to re-read my post, and take a moment to think, and perhaps re-read Brian's blog post (have a cup of tea or something, it'll help the process ... )
I didn't say that the 'vast majority of Scotland is scared', but that the unionists would like to keep Scotland in that position. My comment was in response to Brian's comment that '... I also believe that the PM's words will have left at the very least a seed of doubt in the minds of those in Scotland who might be asked to cast a vote in any subsequent referendum on independence'
As usual, in your rush to put people down, you have made a fool of yourself
Complain about this comment
#58 & #59 Reluctant-Expat
Thank you for highlighting your inability to comprehend the difference between statistics and accounts. What you describe and the conclusion of which you link to in your #55 as the SNP's "own accounts" are nothing of the sort but Scottish Government statistics for a period controlled by the NuLab/LibDem coalition.
Had you said that the SNP had some opportunity to manipulate that data, I would agree with you. Whether they did or not, I have no way of knowing.
What that link does tell us is that: "The primary objective is to estimate a detailed set of public sector accounts for Scotland through detailed analysis of official UK and Scottish Government financial statistics."
Thus trying to balance pieces of information coming from Westmidden and Holyrood, controlled by NuLab and the SNP respectively.
Perhaps even more to the point is the Preface of the report, which states: "In the absence of formal intra-UK fiscal accounts, estimating a set of equivalent accounts for Scotland raises two key practical issues:
Firstly, there is no formally agreed set of accounting concepts and definitions for the formulation of UK country or regional fiscal accounts.
Secondly, a number of key elements of underlying data necessary for constructing public sector country or regional fiscal accounts, while available at the UK level, are not available at the UK country or regional level."
So, in essence, the document was Holyrood's guess based on information made available to it by a Westmidden which fails to provide adequate detail by nation.
In the absence of the external auditing which neither government is likely to grant any time soon, we have no way of being sure who is being economical with the truth but can only form our own views.
OTOH, the very process of moving toward the full fiscal autonomy I suggest that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England all need would force the solution of exactly those issues which make the figures guesstimates rather than accounts.
Complain about this comment
LOL. Superb.
63. Right!
You AGAIN desperately resort to using your standard verbose huff and bluster, yet the end result is you AGAIN only manage to look pompous and ridiculous.
And very, very wrong.
In among your predictable cries of "CONSPIRACY!", you are actually trying to explain away a £9bn lie by the SNP as a 'differing interpretation of accounts'. It's 20% of all public spending we are talking about here! How different can the methods be?
And it's not even about differing methods between organisations. We are talking about the same set of accounts (the GERS) by the same organisation (the Scottish Government).
Once again:
Labour's 2005/06 GERS accounts showed a non-oil deficit of £11.3bn and a £6.2bn deficit with oil included. SNP claimed the latter was £9bn out and it was really a £2.8bn surplus (and we all know why).
The SNP's 2006/07 GERS accounts then reported a non-oil deficit of £10.8bn (note the similar amount) and a £2.7bn deficit with oil included (the difference being the rise in oil prices over the preceding year).
There is no other LOGICAL explanation other than the SNP clearly lied about the 2005/06 surplus. That or they have absolutely zero grasp of the economy.
You really are becoming increasingly ridiculous in your desperate attempts to defend the endless stream of lies and spin of a flailing Salmond/SNP and a dead independence campaign (which was barely breathing anyway).
And you are either very, very stupid because you actually believe what you are saying....
Or you know you are writing utter tosh but you post it anyway to try to hide the SNP's lies...which, well, makes you a liar too.
Either way = No credibility. None whatsoever.
I shall now be regularly repeating all this as I thoroughly enjoy the frantic attempts by nats to explain them away.
ps. "NuLab" and "Westmidden"?...keep it up.
Complain about this comment
Hallo Brian
Rebuilding the Arc? Lets start with Joan, she hated the English.
However, I didn't know the SNP's "head-hunting" for new talent would start with Mary queen of Scots.
I am a patriot, but couldn't resist that one!
Complain about this comment
#64 Reluctant-Expat
Your post is the only one on this thread so far using the C word and suggests you might do well to calm down a little.
I am no apologist for anybody but merely point out that you do your case no favour by presenting statistics as accounts and that even those statistics are heavily caveated.
Let others read our respective posts and judge who is credible, who is stupid and who is peddling untruths.
If you read the posts instead of ranting at them, you might even notice that it is not just SNP members who regard full fiscal autonomy as the next necessary step towards home rule.
Let's reserve judgement on what's dead and which arguments are convincing until after the Glenrothes count, shall we?
Complain about this comment
#65 Shortstirling:
"Hallo Brian
Rebuilding the Arc? Lets start with Joan, she hated the English."
I bet you wish you knew how to spell correctly.
Your racist remarks pretty much sums you up; low-life kind of springs to mind.
Complain about this comment
Gentlemen, well, gentlemen and salivating, froth-at-the-mouth, rabid unionists.
A few facts for you all with regards moi.
- 'gingerbadger' has been around waaaaaaaaaay longer than the user profiles you mention. Haven't you lads been paying attention to the BBC beta work etc? I was posting here, frequently, before the magnificent victory in 2007! Ahhh, and what a positive step forward that was for the country :o)
- it seems moronic babies like Reluctant-Expat are as wrong with regards my user name as they are their skewed, depressing, non-progressive, bitterly-unionist-for-the-sake-of-it garbage.
- we all know the likes of AM2 and the other inhabitants of planet Cretin, if not the same person, are of the same ilk. Bitter, fearmongering individuals who show them themselves up for the VAST amounts of energy they waste in telling us all what Scotland CANNOT do rather than what she can.
Keep yourself busy at the marches Ex-Pat/AM2/other dinosaurs, 21st Century Scotland doesn't need you.
Complain about this comment
#64
Reluctant-Expat
That is very impressive work and very true,
it's nice to know that the nats have lost every argument they have ever made.
That evidence on the door-steps of Glenrothes will be very useful indeed.
Complain about this comment
Scottish Labour = cretins of *intense* luminosity.
When oh when will Scotland rid itself of such spineless, defeatist, dual-tongued hypocrites? Little has changed with respect the party's 'plan' since this debacle:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2222834,00.html
Remember simple truths lie behind the failings of a party, that simply CANNOT act in a progressive manner for the country. It's NOT, and never will be, in a position to do so. Amazingly, it really is that simple.
Look at eight years of Lab-lib 'administration'.
Look at the 'balance' of UK politics this last thirty years.
Has a unionist stance ever provided anything like fair and proper representation to the people of these islands? Even know, Brown's knackered political orrery undermines the ENGLISH directly. And I remember Thatcher.
There’s always comic relief I guess?
Lab/Libs/Cons sicken me. Enemies in London, with Scottish Labour staunchly anti-'more powers' in Scotland pre-election.
Now, it seems, all the unionists are chasing 'more powers' - TOGETHER - in a half-hearted bid to upset the Scottish party elected by the nation. This merely underlines to the Scottish voting electorate the duplicity behind the unionist parties - and the Lab/Libs in particular. Calman is a hoot!
In all seriousness, I, like many, voted a nationalist government in.
How about the slightest modicum of sensitivity for the mood of the nation? It's bordering on the offensive...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#68 Gingerbadger
"Haven't you lads been paying attention to the BBC beta work etc? I was posting here, frequently, before the magnificent victory in 2007!"
I didn't for a moment attempt to deny it in my #47 - the new system and hence the user profiles available here only started in the 2nd half of April.
OTOH, one post starting today would suggest a newbie to the blogs although many could well have long been registered for the HYS fora for which the same user ids apply.
Complain about this comment
Hey, no worries Brownedov - wasn't a dig mate. Just trying to reassure the cretins that there's just a few hundred thousand nats out there. Thanks for the support ;o)
Complain about this comment
68 & 70. More wonderful examples of nationalism at its best.
"....in a half-hearted bid to upset the Scottish party elected by the nation."
Really? 32.9% of the vote on a 51% turnout is "elected by the nation"?
"Elected by 17% of the nation" is a little more accurate, methinks.
Complain about this comment
Re 74, The REprehensible One!!
We can all do the sums, but just how many UK elections were concluded on a different basis in the last 50 years??
Tube.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS