Devolution over?
Devolution is over. Says who? The first minister, that's who.
Setting out his new legislative programme, Alex Salmond argued that only independence could now reverse economic decline.
In essence, his case was that such gains as there have been under devolved self-government are at an end.
Mr Salmond did not seem quite at his most forceful best. He appeared troubled by a frog in his throat.
Perhaps, too, there was a lingering effect from another beast: the dog that didn't bark.
Because, as billed, the first minister's legislative programme does not include provision for a referendum on independence.
However, I would not wish to overstate all this. Even a little short of max drive, the first minister is a highly effective politician.
Final session
There was substance, too, to the programme: the measures on Scottish Water, double jeopardy, housing, forced marriages.
None, however, quite provides a defining leitmotif for the final session of this SNP government.
That comes in two forms: the attempt to wrestle with spending cuts via the Budget Bill. And the absent referendum.
In essence, Mr Salmond conjoined the two. His government, he said, would cope as capably as possible with the necessity to produce a balanced spending programme within a fixed budget.
At the same time, they would appeal to the voters for an enhanced mandate in order to enable them to to revive the notion of a referendum, thwarted by opponents.
Pointed attack
It would not be independence for its own sake - but to build the economy. In that sense, the SNP campaign will not be purely about independence - but primarily about the economy and public expenditure.
Also as billed, Mr Salmond's move on the referendum left him open to ridicule from his opponents.
Labour's Iain Gray deployed humour to substantial effect in lampooning the FM. The words were well-chosen, the attack pointed and effective.
Of course, oppositional attack has its limits. Sooner or later, as the budget controversy develops, Labour will come under pressure to declare its own hand with regard to spending plans.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~16~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
" Sooner or later, as the budget controversy develops, Labour will come under pressure to declare its own hand with regard to spending plans."
I suspect that the people of Scotland are wise enough not to consider the party who put us in the financial abyss.
Complain about this comment
Keep this attitude up and Salmond will be handing over the keys to Bute House next year.
10% behind on the polls and Labour haven't even started their campaign warm-up.
Not only is Salmond persisting in banging a nationalist drum that the vast majority of us are sick of hearing, his final legislative programme shows he has little else left to offer.
And as independence is yet again his chosen strategy (does he know anything else?), we can expect many more publicity stunts to promote hatred and resentment of the UK.....Maybe there's the rotting structure of a Viking boat which was wrecked off our coast that needs returning to its 'Scottish home' from some cross-border museum.
If he's so adamant that Scotland will be better off out of the UK, where is his proposal for a tax and spending regime for an independent Scotland? What taxes would he increase, what taxes would he cut, what spending programmes would he introduce etc.? Where's the nationalist economic alternative so we can all compare it to the existing UK structure?
"Oil fund"? We get all the oil revenues as it is. If he wants to move billions into an oil fund, where is he going to take it from?
"Future's Trust"? So flawed, he can't even get one single penny out of it.
"A renewable energy giant"? But who will we sell it to? All our neighbours can be self-sufficient with their own resources.
Does he have anything that isn't a highly-flawed non-starter of an ill-thought-out daydream?
Complain about this comment
'Labour's Iain Gray deployed humour to substantial effect in lampooning the FM. The words were well-chosen, the attack pointed and effective.'
Well, I suppose there had to be some sort of comment to present a bland balance. But I find Gray appallingly dreary and mediocre, and the rest of the Labour MSPs are no better; should Labour form the next Scottish Government, I would be disinclined to admit my Scottish nationality to strangers when abroad, out of sheer embarrassment that I came from a country which could vote their like into office. I don't reckon any are capable of sustaining an intelligent conversation on any topic for very long before it exhausts their knowledge and intellect.
Complain about this comment
Brian it has just been flagged up on the news that David Cameron’s father has just passed away. Can I take this opportunity to offer my condolences to him and his family at their loss?
Complain about this comment
I'm staggered that such a fundamental change to Scottish jurisprudence is even being considered. If the Police lack competence in gathering the evidence needed to secure a prosecution under current laws then what we need is new police officers, not new laws.
Given the distrust many people feel (myself included) towards the Police and their continuing abuses of privilege, how can the SNP possibly consider handing them carte blanche to keep prosecuting someone until the courts hand them the verdict they're looking for? Double jeopardy serves a vital purpose - it stops the police and prosecution deciding unilaterally that someone's a wrong 'un and colluding to destroy their life with repeated prosecutions.
Complain about this comment
firstly condolences to the Cameron family on their loss.
Secondly if Scotland votes for Iain Who grey next year. Then we will get what we deserve. Stagnant non productive confrontational nothingness. I might just take advantage of my wife's US citizenship and move away till the next election.
Complain about this comment
#2 RE ...'10% behind on the polls and Labour haven't even started their campaign warm-up'
They hardly have to bother at all let alone warm up. With the majority of the Scottish media against the SNP and a large majority of Scots who care enough to vote but without actually thinking about why they vote for who they do. It might just take another spell of having Labour in Scotland to change enough attitudes that Labour as they are for the foreseeable future are no better than the tories.
Of course you just sprout the same old stuff without yourself explaining why we would be better off in the UK. Keep voting for the same two parties in the UK and nothing will ever change. This is something that obviously goes over your head.
Complain about this comment
#3 Re Ian Gray... I heard him on the radio and I get angry just listening to him. He is nothing but a puppet...well ok ive mispelled that it should be an M not a P.
Complain about this comment
Although I do find Mr Gray quite rodent like I do feel that "A Parcel of Rogues in a Nation" is more appropriate for him; & buddies.
Also, pointed but not effective, more like affected.
Complain about this comment
Brian do you actually believe what you write, to suggest Ian Gray: deployed humour to substantial effect in lampooning the FM. The words were well-chosen, the attack pointed and effective is a complete fabrication. It was wooden and rehearsed because he cannot do spontaneous, and effective, how so exactly?
Please try to report actual events as they happen not as you would like the public to believe happened, it does the nothing for your credibility as a serious journalist.
Complain about this comment
http://tinyurl.com/the-Megrahi-effect
Complain about this comment
" Declaring, "the first age of devolution is over", he said spending cuts were a key issue, adding: "That is the issue which will transcend politics in Scotland - is this parliament to become a message boy for cuts determined elsewhere, or can we gain the economic powers to change our circumstances?"
It doesn't get much clearer than that! take heed labour, because if you dont recognise that, then the backflash will be overwhelming in a couple of years time.
I would call on all labour MSP's to declare who they have voted for in the leadership election?
Labour has to recognise new labour failed and was replaced! if labour MSP's have voted in favour of David Miliband, then, they have voted for the continuation of new labour and the pending cuts.
Complain about this comment
Another thing that springs to mind was the scene in Young Frankenstien, when Igor picked up the wrong brain; "Abby Someone" :)
Complain about this comment
2. Ex Pat.
1.” 10% behind on the polls and Labour haven't even started their campaign warm-up.”
The YouGov poll for the SNP puts the party on 35% with Labour on 36%.
While the Ipsos Mori poll conducted at the same time showed the SNP on 34% to Labour’s 37%. In all cases the SNP is in a stronger poll position than at this point prior to the 2007 election. The IPSOS MORI poll also shows a positive approval rating for Alex Salmond as Scotland’s First Minister with 53% of Scots endorsing his performance, while only 33% were satisfied with David Cameron.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.” Not only is Salmond persisting in banging a nationalist drum that the vast majority of us are sick of hearing, his final legislative programme shows he has little else left to offer.”
With 10 separate pieces of legislation to be brought forward, Mr Salmond pointed out his programme contained more bills than the previous Scottish Executive had brought forward in its final year.
He commented: "We will be introducing 10 bills to this Parliament - four more, I note, than at the equivalent period in the last Parliament."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. "Oil fund"? We get all the oil revenues as it is. If he wants to move billions into an oil fund, where is he going to take it from?”
First Minister Alex Salmond today stepped up his call for extra cash generated by rising oil prices to be used for Scotland's benefit.
He urged Westminster to use 10% of the £4.4 billion windfall to set up a long term oil fund to benefit Scotland in the years to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. "Future's Trust"? So flawed, he can't even get one single penny out of it.
The SFT’s statement of benefits found its work saved the taxpayer £218 million in 2009-10, with about half attributed to the quango and the other half to its public sector partners. It aims to save between £100 million and £150 million annually in future years.
Its £111 million of savings include more than £70 million from schools projects across Scotland, as well as £2 million from the Borders rail project. The total also takes into account the SFT's £3 million operating costs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5."A renewable energy giant"? But who will we sell it to? All our neighbours can be self-sufficient with their own resources.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammerfest Strom, and ScottishPower Renewables,
The company aims to install 95 turbines in the Ness of Duncansby(Duncan's Bay) by 2017, a plan that would move Scotland closer to its goal of having tidal power account for one-third of the country's green energy and allow it to generate excess electricity to sell to the European market.
Complain about this comment
Expat
"As a Financial Services Industry insider and someone who is more intimately involved with the workings of UKFI than I would like, I will attempt to answer your question at #34 on the previous post.
"
Complain about this comment
"Sooner or later, as the budget controversy develops, Labour will come under pressure to declare its own hand with regard to spending plans."
Of course, they will have to wait until their Westminster bosses tell them where their boundaries are. And there's the small matter of finding out who the boss is first.
Complain about this comment
did any one else count the number of times BBC radio north britain mentioned the word final in reference to the F M 's speech. It is simply appalling how they get away with this innuendo and subliminal suggestion.
Complain about this comment
#17 patchbruce.... I too thought that they were implying that this would be the final one ever as opposed to the final one of this term in office. I also have noticed that the Labour mouths are trying to blame the SNP for not doing things but also saying that we need a government who will listen and do what the people want... i believe they meant themselves without any irony relating to the previous 8 years before the SNP government.
#12 Derek ... jeepers ..did you just wake up. Anyway I'm also sad to hear about your health but glad your still with us ....despite everything :o)}
Complain about this comment
Expat,
As a Financial Services industry insider, and someone who is more intimate with the workings of UKFI than he would like, I will attempt to answer the question implicit in your statement:
in your post #34 in the previous thread.
Firstly, could an independent Scotland have afforded £470bn?
The simple answer is of course, no. That is, not without significantly increasing public borrowing and relying on 'Quantitative Easing' by printing more money (ie, in exactly the same way that the UK government found the money for the bank bailouts.
That said, the real question you should be asking is, would the government of an independent Scotland have needed to find £470bn to bail out'our' banks? The answer to this is more complicated but, put at its simplest, is: probably not.
Why?
Well, let me posit and answer a few more questions.
Q. Did the UK government spend £470bn bailing out Scottish banks?
A. Leaving aside the question of the nationality of multi-national publicly listed companies and were the banks really Scottish (as some posters on here like to argue), the answer is a resounding NO.
Let me run that by you again; the UK government HAS NOT spent £470bn bailing out banks, be they Scottish or otherwise.
Q. How so?
A. Well, Let us first look at who the UK government invested money in.
The UK government wholly nationalised Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.
The UK government took up extensive share holdings in Royal Bank of Scotland (approximately 87%) and Lloyds Banking Group (approximately 43%)
Q. How much did the UK government spend?
A. In acquiring their shareholdings in RBS and LBG, the UK government spent £58bn (£39bn on RBS and £19bn on LBG). LBG has subsequently paid back £4bn, so the net amount spent was £54bn. Source UKFI
So, ok, nowhere near £470bn then. But £58bn still makes the eyes water.
Q. So what is the £470bn that Expat and other doom-sayers like to bang on about.
A. Well, in accounting parlance, it's a provision. The UK goverment has promised to back the liabilities of RBS, LBG, NR and B&B if they turn bad. This has changed as LBG eventually decided not to participate in the Asset Protection Scheme. This money has not actually been spent. The UK government has simply promised that it will cover up to £470bn of the liabilities of the above organisations should the need a arise.
So, having dismissed the £470bn figure that the doom-sayers are so fond of, this still poses other questions.
Q. Could the government of an independent Scotland have afforded even the much lower sum of £58bn?
A. I don't know. Maybes 'Aye', Maybes 'Naw'. In any event, such a government would have recourse to the option of increasing public borrowing.
Q. Would the government of an independent Scotland have needed to stump up that £58bn?
A. No one can really say as there are two many variables, not the least of which is dependent on how long Scotland had been independent. Would RBS and BoS have got themselves in such a mess trying to be global players if they had been firmly rooted in a smaller independent Scottish economy rather than as part of the UK financial machine? I can't say.
RBS might presumably have fallen under the remit of such a Scottish government as it is registered and head-quartered in Scotland (Source: Companies House).
BoS is trickier. Assuming it had still merged with Halifax to form HBoS and then had HBoS still been taken over by Lloyds TSB to form Lloyds Banking Group, you would have had a company that is registered in Scotland (Source: Companies House) but head-quartered in London (Source: Lloyds Banking Group).
So, apologies for the long-winded answer but, as I hope I have demonstrated, it really isn't a question that a simple 'Yes' or 'No' can answer.
Feel free to pick holes. I'm sure you will, but hopefully I've put the £470bn red herring to bed (now there's an unsavoury image).
Complain about this comment
Apologies for my #15. I pressed 'Post' instead of 'Preview'.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps we would have more substance if the unionists hadn't made it clear they would block our democratic referendum. Labour the Lib Dems and Conservatives support a referendum on Wales increasing powers for the Welsh Assembly but have blocked Scotlands combined referendum on increased powers or independence is that fair and democratic? Anyone who votes for these parties should be aware they think the Welsh can have a referendum on an increase on powers Northern Ireland already has more powers than Scotland but we ar not allowed to increase our powers. Vote unionist vote no democracy.
Complain about this comment
Who's Ian Grey?
Complain about this comment
"our" banks Scotland no longer has any Scottish banks they've all been sold off. What are "our" banks? The union has destroyed our banking sector.
Complain about this comment
In any other country in the civilised world the press would go ape with a party or parties who would seem to be blocking freedom of choice for their own selfish political aims. This is what has happened with the unionist Westminster parties at Hollyrood and there's not even a mention of it. What kind of country do we live in when our own journalists turn a blind eye and ear to this blatant blocking of choice for our own people. There articles and comments are only good for one thing...when you run out of toilet paper it has its real use...
Complain about this comment
7. Ubinworryinmasheep
"This is something that obviously goes over your head."
Straight through from one ear to the next, nothing in between to get in the way!
Complain about this comment
#19 Fit Like
A very good synopsis and believe it or not ‘oldnat’ came up with a similar response on the same thread 3 minutes after yours.
But it does illustrate RE’s ‘modus operandi’, similar to the MSM, if they throw enough ‘carp’ about, whether it’s true or not, some of it will stick.
By the way if you click on the time stamp at the head of a post/blog it will give you the link for it.
Complain about this comment
Devolution over? of course Brian the cat's out of the bag as how Scotland has been stitched up by the unionist parties for selfish reasons. When one has a UK government who jumps when the US calls to suit their military interventions its time to get off the sinking USS Westminster to persue a green and pleasant land previously called North Britain by the ex prime minister.
Complain about this comment
Just a question on the banking process guys and galls.
The folklore data that I carry about in my head seems to remind me that any 'Scottish' bank who produced their own bank notes had to deposit an equal amount of UK cash in the Bank of England vaults to allow them to do this. Is this still the case? Was it ever the case?
If it was the case, how much is actually there now. Does it just sit there or is it available to bail out - mmm - let's say English banks, like the NorthernRock one. Is the payment to be allowed to print our own money just an old fable?
No real reason for asking. Just interested and had not heard it mentioned throughout this debate for the past few months.
Complain about this comment
"Iain Gray deployed humour"
Come on Brian. Watching Iain Gray is like watching a plank of wood.
BTW, are you going to do a slot about why the opposition parties are denying the Scottish people a democratic voice?
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor,
You wrote:
"Of course, oppositional attack has its limits. Sooner or later, as the budget controversy develops, Labour will come under pressure to declare its own hand with regard to spending plans."
Who will put Labour under pressure? You? Mr Campbell? Mr Brewer? Anyone?
On Tuesday night Mr Gray was interviewed on Newsnight Scotland. It was a short interview and lacking in cotent. Mr Gray did not impress especially when he was asked what he would do with regards to his spending plans when the budget would be at cut by at least £3bn.
With regards to comments by various posters above re an Independent Scotland being unable to bail out 'our' banks.
Why do people assume that an Independent Scotland would have regulated their banks in the same way as London i.e. Gordon Brown's 'light touch'? Maybe an Independent Scotland, concious of the need for probity and care in managing its economy, would have had a tighter regulation regime similar to Australia which had very little if any problems with its banks during the 'global' banking crisis. Thus trying to use the bailing out of the banks as an argument against Independence is deeply flawed.
Complain about this comment
There is no point in answering RE's posts as he just ignores the facts contained, waits a bit and sends out the same rubbish again.
Complain about this comment
Listening to Paxo tonight I've come to the conclusion that I will no longer be paying the EBC licence fee.
No other people on Earth would pay out their hard earned cash to have their nation lampooned, ridiculed and smeared on the national stage.
Why should the Scots be any different?
Wake up Scotland. The media has shown that they will never stand up for the people of Scotland so why should the Scots stand up for them.
Complain about this comment
#32 Harry Stottle
I read that it is not illegal to install or use a TV to watch old online broadcast TV via internet on sites such as BBC i player demand 5 etc i.e. not as they are broadcast, so if you don't mind watching older stuff, it's usually held back for like 4 - 24 hrs, then a TV licence is not required, could it be true?
Imagine having to say that so gently about alien imposed propoganda in our own back yard, kinda sounds like we need a Mandela type figure around here. Maybe we already have one, maybe the masses just don't see it yet.
Well it comes to say, that if this is true then at the end of broadcast shows, such as newsnight, when they are ordered to troop out the advertisement for the propoganda to be re-inforced later on the i-player, they always neglect to mention that - here - it can be seen for free.
Complain about this comment
PS I was tempted to say
i.e. when it is broadcast 'Not'
but I thought that some of the Labour people might not understand it, so I didn't bother.
Complain about this comment
#33 Rog
I know that it's a legal grey area about the EBC 'demanding' payment when they are obviously breaking the terms of their charter regarding political neutrality amd deliberately transmitting misinformation.
Complain about this comment
The best-laid schemes o' grays an' men eh?
--
Something, Something, Something, Agley.
Something, Something, Something, Pain!
Complain about this comment
Oh that's right was it not;
The best-laid brand migration plans o' grays an' men?
Complain about this comment
I wonder if anyone can name the manufacturer of a good quality wide screen 1080P HD 40" black and white TV?
Such a device could be in demand,
I wonder if you install or use a colour TV to watch B&W TV i.e. turn the colour off, if they would then demand a colour TV license from you.
I would imagine that it is the act of 'installing it' or 'using it' to watch in colour that would be prohibited by any of their authorities.
Complain about this comment
28. highlandarab
"The folklore data that I carry about in my head seems to remind me that any 'Scottish' bank who produced their own bank notes had to deposit an equal amount of UK cash in the Bank of England vaults to allow them to do this."
Your folklore is correct. From Wiki -
"To make it possible for the note-issuing banks to hold equivalent values in Bank of England notes, the Bank of England issues special notes with denominations of one million pounds ("Giants") and one hundred million pounds ("Titans") for internal use by the other banks."
Also, some may remember that there was a fuss over Labour's Banking Act 2009, as its provisions would have penalised Scottish (and NI) banks. Again from Wiki
"It has been suggested that the Banking Act 2009 would restrict the issue of banknotes by commercial banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland by removing many of the provisions of the Acts quoted above. Banks would be forced to lodge sterling funds with the Bank of England to cover private note issue for a full week, rather than over a weekend, thereby losing four days' interest and making banknote production financially unviable. Following negotiations among the UK Treasury, the Bank of England and the Scottish banks, it was agreed that the funds would earn interest, allowing them to continue to issue their own notes."
Complain about this comment
Now that the UK is in the advanced stages of apparently irreversible decline and now that it is clear that the anglo-unionists’ proposed tinkering with devolution can only harm Scotland at a time when its economy is going to be suffering from severe, rapid and repeated Westminster-imposed reductions in public spending resulting from the dangerously dire condition of the UK’s public finances, it is evidently, as the First Minister is indicating, time to move on from devolution, before it is too late.
Accordingly, the case for the proposed legislation for a referendum on Scottish independence is to be put to the electorate at the forthcoming Scottish general election in May of next year, the anglo-unionist parliamentary groups maintaining their implacable resolve to collaborate in voting it down if it were presented to the Scottish Parliament. As is also being argued by independentists in respect of Catalonia in its general-election campaign, which has just got under way, recovery from the great economic crisis of our time is actually impossible for Scotland within the existing constitutional framework, and so Mr Salmond concludes, logically, that Scotland not only should but must escape from it:
"And we will take our case for greater powers to the people. Now that we face an economic hurricane, never was the case for independence and financial responsibility more obvious and true. What Scotland truly needs is not a funding formula, whether Barnett or Calman. Scotland needs control of its own resources and the ability to grow revenue rather than just cut expenditure. We need control over both sides of the Scottish balance sheet."
It is no longer, then, merely a question of whether it would be desirable for Scotland to become independent. We appear to be quite some distance beyond that. The independentist proposition now is, or so it would appear, that, if Scotland is to survive as a country, it simply needs independence. Unfortunately, the electorate may not believe this in sufficient numbers until the very deep cuts that are coming from Westminster are obviously drawing a very great deal of blood, as they will.
Complain about this comment
old nat. :Unfortunately, the electorate may not believe this in sufficient numbers until the very deep cuts that are coming from Westminster are obviously drawing a very great deal of blood, as they will.
-----------------------------
I agree wholeheartedly with your last comments. To make significant inroads at this next election the Nationalists have to start RIGHT NOW highlighting the fact that the coming loss of thousands of Scottish jobs, should be laid firmly at the door of the Corrupt Labour party, for their reckless spending, the greedy Conservatives, for being hell bent on providing a platform to provide tax cuts for the rich, and the fluberils for being their poodles. Labours policies WHATEVER they will be, CAN NEVER, by their unionist nature, do anything about the Scottish economy. They can only throw a few quid here and there (usually in the direction of their own seats .. and pockets) and make a few sound bites. They will lead Scotland into many years of stagnation or even Stagflation. They will be able do do NOTHIG against cameron and his lot. They WILL be voted in for a second term down south as they will by that time be able to spend the Billions they make of the sale of the Banks to provide tax cuts for the rich in middle england. At the same time Scotland will be heading towards the middle ages.
Ex pat can we have your scenario of the next decade?
Complain about this comment
#41 patchbruce ... i would hazard a guess that Labour are confident that a huge backlash against the Tory cuts will lead to them getting back into power in 5 years time. Obviously the fact that it was Labour that pushed the torys towards these cuts has to be shouted from the roof tops.
Complain about this comment
The BBC News headlines are all about the North South divide - and the differential impact of cuts in public spending from the Tory LibDumbs.
Firstly, did the BBC forget about Scotland in its analysis - or perhaps they think that Scotland is already independant - perhaps with its own impartial national broadcaster?
Secondly it is clear from all the evidence that New Labour have simply continued Thatcher's legacy of draining every area of the UK to ensure that London and the Home Counties prosper.
The South East of England prospers at the expense of "Up North".
The solution to Scotland's problems will never be found at Westminster.
"I'm all right Jack" underpins their philosophy.
Time to cut the apron strings.
Slainte Mhor
Complain about this comment
"The words were well-chosen, the attack pointed and effective. "
Even the great Broon himself could come up with humour, pointed and effective given a few months to have his scriptwriters work on it and a week or so practicing it in the office.
Come on Brian, I've seen more life in a dub than in the Greyman !
Bella chortled approvingly on but she looks tired and the daggers being looked at her from behind will soon be turning into real ones.
Tavish Who? has now turned into a pastiche of himself.
Election, anyone ?
Yes please, the sooner the better. One of the many faults with the devolved settlement is fixed-term parliaments. It means that this legislative session will NOT be about the scrutiny and formulation of legislation for the benefit of the People of this Scotland but that the Usual Suspects will be more vociferous than ever in what their spinners and "volunteers" will be advising them as "easy" political points scoring.
That's if the Usual Suspects are there and are not at their "other" duties down in The Mother of All Parliaments.
Complain about this comment
23. At 9:05pm on 08 Sep 2010, Vakov2000 wrote:
The union has destroyed our banking sector.
The union is on an asset stripping mission!
Make sure they have no banks left, that'll stop them going independent
Scrap the Dunfermline and other BS, that'll stop them going independent
Scrap their maritime patrol aircraft, that'll stop them going independent
Scrap their airbases, that'll stop them going independent.
Don't allow them a voice at agriculture and fisheries within EU....
Anybody see a pattern..
Feel free to add to this list I'm sure I've missed a trick or two.
Rgds
Complain about this comment
#41 patchbruce
With reference to my #40, which you refer to in your #41, you appear to be confusing me with oldnat. I don't mind, but he might.
Complain about this comment
"38. At 00:54am on 09 Sep 2010, rog_rocks wrote:
I wonder if you install or use a colour TV to watch B&W TV i.e. turn the colour off, if they would then demand a colour TV license from you."
Simply answer, yes they would. The determination is can it receive colour broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
Politics is sometimes defined as 'the art of the possible'.
So, in this case, rather than 'devolution over', it is more likely to turn out to be a case of 'devolution by increments'.
In his Newsnight interview yesterday evening, Salmond pointed out that the three Unionist Parties were no going to alter their political position on devolution in any significant way and that it was therefore logical to appeal over their heads to the Scottish electorate (next May).
This Englishman considers Alex Salmond to be one of cleverest political operators in these islands and the fact, that he is willing to face aggressive interviewers like Paxman when most of the Westmonster shower are too cowardly to do so, speaks volumes for the man.
Complain about this comment
#48.Wrote: At 11:04am on 09 Sep 2010, JohnConstable wrote:
"This Englishman considers Alex Salmond to be one of cleverest political operators in these islands and the fact, that he is willing to face aggressive interviewers like Paxman when most of the Westmonster shower are too cowardly to do so, speaks volumes for the man."
You could also add in most of Holyrood too - few if any on the opposition benches would go anywhere near an interview with Mr Paxman or any of the other 'heavyweight' interviewers such as Jon Snow etc.
Contrast Mr Salmond being interviewed by Mr Paxman and Mr Gray being interviewed by somebody (sorry do not know his name) on Newsnight Scotland on Tuesday night. No contest. They, the grown-up version of Newsnight, are unlikely to ask Mr Gray for an interview such is their opinion of his place in the grand scheme of things.
You rarely see (or hear?) Mr Gray being interviewed in depth and that may be because he can only speak in (scripted) soundbites.
Complain about this comment
#47 Fit Like
Simply answer, yes they would. The determination is can it receive colour broadcasts.
Well you don't need a TV license to watch old internet TV on a TV, even though it is capable of receiving broadcast TV, even in colour, just as long as it is not installed or used for this purpose.
Are you sure Fit Like? I ain't, some research is required I think, I guess we could ask good old Brian, he should be used to difficult questions.
Complain about this comment
Wasn't it supposed to be introducing independence after demonstrating good goverance?
Well I suppose the debacle over classroom sizes - recruiting new teachers before they worked out the mechanics of the policy - would have dented that aspect. No wonder they moved that minister!
And now strong rumour has it that the Councils are going to do away with Classroom Assistants - be very interesting to see how labour controlled councils explain that one when it comes around..
..they will blame the SG and the SG will blame them and the Condems who will blame Brown who will blame the world economy...and no one will take any responsibility for the educational chaos that will ensue..yawn, yawn, yawn..why would anyone vote for any of them Brian1?!
But what is this I see..
#3
I would be disinclined to admit my Scottish nationality to strangers when abroad, out of sheer embarrassment that I came from a country which could vote their like into office.
#6
Secondly if Scotland votes for Iain Who grey next year. Then we will get what we deserve. Stagnant non productive confrontational nothingness. I might just take advantage of my wife's US citizenship and move away till the next election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My what fairweather friends you both are! In good times and in bad isn't that how it goes..or do you just love your country too much!?!
And Bruce you will have to send #3 your standard post on 'don't be ashamed of your heritage, culture etc'. Well I suppose you could if you weren't thinking of running away yourself!!
Complain about this comment
From Brian "Alex Salmond argued that only independence could now reverse economic decline. "
Actually that is not what he said in the link Brian provides, what he actually stated was "can we gain the economic powers to change our circumstances".
Gain: Ecomomic powers. This is largely covered with Fiscal control, which seems to be the direction Salmond is going in the short term.
Independence is certainly another option, but he did NOT say 'only independence'.
======
Onto Labour - what makes Brian think Labour have to show anything? Labour do not have to show its own hand regarding cuts, it will not have to even try and come up with policies. We can split hairs on the percentages, but Labour remain up there or ahead of the SNP despite having nothing good to offer Scotland, no policies, a weak leadership and a glove puppet leader.
They are there only because of old allegiances that are kept due to the blanket media support and media burial of, and lack of investigation on, corruption. This is backed up by wholescale negative press on any alternative.
R-E states that Labour have not even started their campaign warm up. Warm up what? It will be business as usual: full scale negative attack of Both SNP and Tories, focusing on what these parties do and plan to do. The warm up is nothing other than a media backed campaign of Fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The SNP attack: will focus on what Scots supposedly cannot do or are somehow uncapable of doing. Stating it is much better that is all handled centrally by London. This somehow makes us 'better together' and yet only Labour in Scotland can recover Scotlands economy, but not how or with what (ok maybe they will focus more apprenticeships - what an economy saver). This position will not be challenged by the media in Scotland and the whole thing ignored at UK level.
In parallel The SNP will be sidelined by the media as far as they can get away with - which is pretty far.
The tory attack: Reminders of thatcher, cuts, tory policy attack(since they have some) - much of it true, but shhhh - no mention of Labours financial catastrophe. When put in a corner on the subject it will have been not labour but a World crises. And in th ecuts in Scotland - well it is a Salmond Slump obviously.
On the positive side they will assure us that labour offers more crumbs on the table for the likes of frontline services than the Tories do and promise to keep thousands of jobs because of Trident and Aircraft carriers. (Not focusing on the Billions on trident for only 900 direct jobs. Aircraft carrier manufacture - that do emply many highly skilled people, but are tools designed and built to project power in foreign conflict. They will try to paint the picture that Scotland is not capable somehow to finance and use our highly skilled workforce to manufacture our own Naval defence force. You know to defend us as opposed to project military power.
F U D.
Complain about this comment
#19 Fit Like,
I like the clarity of your post but I think you are seriously downplaying the role of the Asset Protection Scheme in keeping these banks solvent.
For example, RBS placed £325 billion of toxic assets into the scheme in return for UK government cover of 94% (around £300 billion). As you will be aware this underwriting is not given out like sweeties, and it is simply not credible to expect an Independant Scotland to be able to give the same guarantee, which must equate to several times the country's GDP. Without this guarantee, RBS would surely have been insolvent and would not have survived.
The situation regarding LBG is of course different as you indicate. Their exposure to bad debt was around £250 billion, however the majority of this was from HBOS. Again, an independant Scottish Government would have been in no position to offer anywhere near this level of support to HBOS.
RBS remains in the scheme and the UK government remains liable for their bad debt provision. As a UKFI insider you will know how much of the £300 billion exposure remains. For comparison, the grand total of all UK Govenment revenues from UK oil & gas production, from 1968 to the present day, is around £160 billion.
Complain about this comment
Reluctent Ex-pat - ""Oil fund"? We get all the oil revenues as it is. If he wants to move billions into an oil fund, where is he going to take it from?"
Except we don't! We do not get one penny of the, that goes to the UK Treasury. Mind you if you are going to tell a terminological inexactitude then tell a whopper!
Complain about this comment
#53 bingowings87 ,Afternoon, interesting use of stats to fit your position.
Can you tell us how much corporation tax etc that these 2 "British" banks delivered to the treasury in all the "good years" before reverting back to Scottish banks when the bubble burst?
remember BRITISH is good SCOTTISH is bad .
Sid
Complain about this comment
#53
I take your point re APS. However, the question does remain, would an indendent Scotland have felt it necessary to make such gurantees? Also, while the UK government is exposed to those potentially toxic assets and while that guarantee did, without question, improve the banks' situations, the UK goverment still hasn't spent that £470bn and, quite possibly never will. It will only spend to cover loses that actually occur. I don't have figure for how much, if any, has actually been spent to date but I'm sure you'd find it in the UKFI accounts if you really want to go looking for it.
Additionally, RBS has had to pay a fee of approximately £6.5bn to take "advantage" of this protection. Granted this is to be paid in shares, but it is still a potential source of future incume to the UK treasury.
LBG was due to pay a fee of £13.5bn for its participation. This was subsequently negotiated down to around £3bn on the grounds that, although, ultimately, LBG did not participate in the APS, there was a value put on the percieved protection that it obtained during the period where entry was being negotiated.
I'm not asking this as a feeble cop out. I'm asking it because we simply cannot know how these banks would have behaved in an idependent Scotland (as is illustrated very clearly by oldnat by his #37 in the previous thread. Wish I could remember how to link to actual posts within a thread as opposed to just the thread itself).
In any event, the position of BoS/HBos (assuming they never became part of LBG) remains the trickier of the two on account of its position of being an English head-quartered but Scottish registered company (in its HBoS format). I don't know how much of the £250bn you attribute to HBoS can be split down further between the 'H' bit and the 'BoS' bit, but had the two parts never got together, potentially, the only bit that a Scottish government might have felt compelled to gurantee are those associated to the 'BoS' bit.
All in all however, this is all academic. The question of whether Scotland could have supported RBS and BoS is a red herring based entirely on keeping everything else constant except the fact of Scottish independence and that simply, could never be the case. The very fact of Scottish independence would have changed the landscape that these two organisations operated in. How much they would have been affected would be, in part, dependent on when Scottish independence happened.
The question of could Scotland have afforded a £470bn aid package can be answered quite simply. It's a resounding No. The amount of borrowing and quantatative easing required doesn't eaven bear thinking about.
The real question is, would Scotland have needed to have afforded a £470bn aid package? And, for all the reasons that oldnat, myself and others have pointed out, this simply cannot be known.
The whole question of could Scotland have bailed out the banks is nothing more than a bit of hypothetical rhetoric employed by those who want to see Scotland retain its subservient position within the UK; a nation that is maintained and looked after by its benevolent parent. It makes no attempt to determine what state an Scotland would have found itself in as a result of the financial crisis, it just conveniently ignores this and assumes that the situation that applies to the UK as a whole, would equally apply to its hypiothetical independent constituent nations. This premise is so fundementally flawed that it really doesn't need refuting if it wasn't for people like Expat who love to show their ignotrance by continuing to peddle it out at every opportunity.
Complain about this comment
"50. At 11:37am on 09 Sep 2010, rog_rocks wrote:
#47 Fit Like
Simply answer, yes they would. The determination is can it receive colour broadcasts.
Well you don't need a TV license to watch old internet TV on a TV, even though it is capable of receiving broadcast TV, even in colour, just as long as it is not installed or used for this purpose.
Are you sure Fit Like?
I know you don't need a licence to watch TV on a PC or monitor that has no receiving equipment so long as what you are watching is not live. I would have thought that if you were using an actually TV as your display, because it has a receiver, a licence would be required.
I base this on the simple expedient of my family having fallen foul of TV Licencing in a similar (although not identical) situation.
In the days before satelite TV, the terrestial signal (for that was all there was)in that remote island community, about 11 miles west of Mallaig, numbering no more than 70 hardy souls, was poor to completely non-existant. This did not, of course, stop us from renting and watching videos (or getting friends and/or family who lived in less remote parts of the country to tape things and send them to us).
Our video players (not recorders as there was not much point being able to record four channels of snow) were attached to televisions. For years we argued with TV licencing that we should be exempt because we weren't actually watching live TV because we couldn't. Their argument was that we had to because we had installed equipment capable of receiving signals and that the licence was not a guarantee of being able to receive a signal (it actually says as much on the back of said iece of paper).
Eventually, and at great cost to the taxpayer, TV Licencing resorted to the expedient of actually helicoptering in debt collection officials to either enforce collection of unpaid duties or impound said unlicenced receiving equipment.
I'm not sure how many TVs they impounded, or how much money they collected, but it certainly could not have covered the cost of what was one of the most extreme sledge-hammer and walnut situations that I have ever witnessed.
So, based on this experience, I would be very surprised if they wouldn't deem your situation of using a TV (because it can receive, even if it isn't actually doing so) as a PC monitor, of still being liable for a licence fee regardless of whether or not you actually use said equipment to watch live TV.
Complain about this comment
#56 Fit Like
Wish I could remember how to link to actual posts within a thread as opposed to just the thread itself).
Look at last line of this post.
I have even illustrated it for you!
Complain about this comment
~53
Point missed again.
Future Scottish Oil Revenues are the collateral for ALL of UK's debt. That is why Alister Dasrling announced the huge bonanza still to come - to soft-soap the moneylenders.
It goes without saying that an independent Scotland would be very well placed to support Scottish banks (even those like RBS and Halifax(?) which are in total actually less than 13% Scottish).
Complain about this comment
#59 snecked,
If Scotland were to go independent tomorrow, then the £300 billion UK government guarantee for RBS's casino assets would vanish as well. What would an independent Scottish government replace it with?
The grand total of Scottish Oil government revenues TO DATE does not even cover half the amount of bad debt provision required just for RBS and HBOS alone. So it is just not credible to say that future oil revenues are collateral all of the UK's debt. And for the avoidance of doubt, both RBS and HBOS were incorporated in Scotland, which whether you like it or not makes them legally Scottish Companies.
ps how's the meringue knitting coming along? ......
Complain about this comment
#57 Cheers Fit Like , they are at it when they do stuff like that, bullying techniques, the law is quite clear (from wiki);
"According to Act of Parliament, a TV licence must be obtained for any device that is "installed or used" for "receiving a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public""
So if you install or use it for anything else you are ok to do it without the license. It doesn't matter how capable the TV is of receiving the signals, even if it is plugged into the aerial and ready to go, you still have to actually watch it before you need the license.
PS the authority which collects the license fee is merely a private company, Consignia (Customer Management) Ltd the private wing of the post office I believe, and they have no special powers, if you don't want to buy their product, in my view they should go away and leave you alone, anything more, I would be regarded as harassment, probably worthy of notifying proper authorities.
Complain about this comment
Soz, I should say; 'I would regard as harassment' above.
Complain about this comment
#53. At 1:21pm on 09 Sep 2010, bingowings87 wrote:
"RBS remains in the scheme and the UK government remains liable for their bad debt provision. As a UKFI insider you will know how much of the £300 billion exposure remains. For comparison, the grand total of all UK Govenment revenues from UK oil & gas production, from 1968 to the present day, is around £160 billion."
The £160 billion is I presume the literal figure rather than the value in real terms? If so, a bit naughty and misleading of you.
A note for the next unionist who whips him/her/its self into a frenzy over 'Scottish' banks, have a look at the RBS logo plastered on everything from F1 cars to Andy Murray and ask yourself if that institution considers itself primarily Scottish. Spluttering over how an independent Scotland would have dealt with the banking crisis is as meaningless as musing over what the same country would have done with the revenues from these businesses and NS oil during the fat years, revenue that is no longer even a twinkle in a neo-liberal monetarist's eye.
Complain about this comment
#63,
Not misleading at all, ambi. I quite clearly said it was the grand total of revenues received by the UK government, nothing else. If I had given an estimated current value of these revenues taking into account inflation, I would have said so.
Clearly the fact that RBS is legally a Scottish Company sits uncomfortably with you. Who and what they sponsor is totally irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
#63
You've yet to make any comment on the tax revenues during the good years.
Also, legally a 'Scottish' company with head offices in Edinburgh, trading where again, in which country under which legislation?
Complain about this comment
#64
I'd also suggest you read oldnat's post on the "Election anyone?" thread.
Following your logic, either Scotland should receive all tax revenues back dated;
Or, if you suggest we received our 'proportion' throught the block grant I'd suggest we rightly should therefore take our proportionate share of the debt, it's only fair.
The figures change somewhat in that case, hardly a disappearing of the Assets Protection Scheme, more a re-distribution of debt amongst mutually interested parties.
It would however be prudent not to try and re-distribute the responsibility for the present situation i.e. poor decisions made under a poor regulatory system. I do believe Scots and the Scottish Government have always been willing to take on their fair share despite the debacle arising through actions and decisions not of their choosing.
Complain about this comment
64. bingowings87
"Clearly the fact that RBS is legally a Scottish Company sits uncomfortably with you."
Royal Bank of Scotland Headquarters Address:
Gustav Mahlerlaan 10 Postbus 12925
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland 1100 AX
Netherlands
Complain about this comment
#65,
I don't know what the Corporation Tax figures are. However Mr Salmond himself has indicated that the most that RBS has paid in any 1 year out of the last 10 is £4 billion.
The Corporation Tax receipts for the WHOLE of the UK over the last 10 years range from £30 billion to £50 billion per year, so I suspect that the £4 billion was an exceptional figure.
Complain about this comment
#64. At 1:23pm on 10 Sep 2010, bingowings87 wrote:
"Not misleading at all, ambi. I quite clearly said it was the grand total of revenues received by the UK government, nothing else. If I had given an estimated current value of these revenues taking into account inflation, I would have said so."
So the figure of £160 billion in oil revenues is meaningless when compared to the figure for the banking losses? Thanks for confirming that.
"Clearly the fact that RBS is legally a Scottish Company sits uncomfortably with you. Who and what they sponsor is totally irrelevant."
Apologies, I probably didn't make myself very clear; who and what RBS sponsor is totally irrelevant, the fact that the logo they use to promote themselves doing this is based on the union flag is entirely relevant.
Complain about this comment
#60
You appear to travelling under the peculair delusion that the UK Government somehow has the cash tucked away somewhere to pay its massive debt.
It BORROWED the money it put into the banks and the guarantees (not funds) it is extending to the banks is offered against assumed future revenues or potential future borrowings, not any money it presently has.
So UK's position is no better than what you imagine to be Scotland's.
I'LL PUT IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS FOR YOU.
AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WOULD BE IN A FAR BETTER POSITION TO PAY ITS DEBTS THAN THE UK IS
THE UK IS BANKRUPT. WITHOUT SCOTLAND IT HAS VERY LITTLE COLLATERAL.
THAT IS WHY THEY ARE GRIMLY HANGING ONTO US.
TO DO SO IT NEEDS THE SUPPORT OF TIMID AND EASILY CONFUSED SCOTS.
MANY ARE CONFUSED BY THE ABSOLUTE RUBBISH BEING TALKED ABOUT THE BANKS.
We (Scotland) can choose to go down with the sinking ship or we can take control and set about working our way out of the quagmire that the relentless decline of the British State is leading us into.
Complain about this comment
#70 snecked,
What absolute rubbish from start to finish. All that meringue knitting must have scrambled your brains!
Firstly, I have made NO reference to where the UK got it's bail out funds from. Please try reading my posts properly.
Secondly. The UK is not bankrupt. That is your fantasy. It maintains a AAA credit rating. That is FACT.
Thirdly. Grimly hanging on to Scotland. I don't think so. The UK collects about 500 billion in Tax every year, of which less than 2% comes from UK oil & gas production. Are you seriously trying to suggest that this is the UK's collateral? Seriously!
Fourthly. AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND WOULD BE IN A FAR BETTER POSITION TO PAY ITS DEBTS THAN THE UK IS. Evidence Please. And here's a wee hint. Just shouting it doesn't make it true.
Complain about this comment
#69 ambi,
Converting the £160 billion Oil & Gas revenues received over the last 40 years, into today's money brings it to around £280 billion.
Complain about this comment
#67, Electric Hermit,
erm.....isn't that the old headquarters of ABN Amro, the bank they got shot of this year???
Try this from the RBS Group website:
What is the registered address of the RBS group head office?
The registered address is The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, EH2 2YB.
Complain about this comment
#71
Of course the UK is functionally bankrupt. If it was a business carrying debt it does as proportion to its net product and income it would have been wound up.
With just over 8% of UK's population that 2% of tax take you talk of would represent a huge bonus to an independent Scotland and it is revenue on an actual asset not tax take on invented money.
Complain about this comment
#74,
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Keep it up! Is "functionally bankrupt" a recognised accounting term??
UK govenment debt stands at around £927 billion. Around £110 billion of that is due to the interventions to save the banks. As I have mentioned previously, it maintains a AAA credit rating.
The UK collects around £500 billion a year in taxes. By your fanatasy economics logic, anyone with a mortgage would be similarly bankrupt. Rubbish!
Complain about this comment
#72. At 8:10pm on 10 Sep 2010, bingowings87 wrote:
"Converting the £160 billion Oil & Gas revenues received over the last 40 years, into today's money brings it to around £280 billion."
So, in comparing the real value of revenue to a hypothetical debt you were out by £120 billion? Sorry to be a ghastly pedant, but LOL!
We could of course add to that figure if the £280 billion had been invested in a sovereign wealth fund (an example not a million miles away springs to mind) instead of soaking up the side effects of letting free market economics have their way for the last 30 years.
Complain about this comment
bingowings87
In your adamance that an independent Scotland would, right now, be all but lost due to the banks bail out, how about addressing the points made by others before and by myself in #66 and also reading oldnat's #37 post on the "Election anyone?" thread.
You are quite frankly obfuscating and seeking to omit salient points to fit your thesis.
Setting aside the hypotheticals the facts are that if Scotland were to become independent tomorrow the nation as a whole would be quite capable of servicing it's share of the debt.
Complain about this comment
75. bingowings87
"UK govenment debt stands at around £927 billion."
I am unsure of where your fictional numbers are coming from but UK debt is about £1.7 Trillion http://buttonwood.economist.com/content/gdc
Now to say that the UK is not bankrupt is delusional.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20853
Where the US goes UK follows like sacrificial lambs.
And to enlighten yourself read on.
http://franklyfrancophone.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/banking-on-an-independent-scotland/
Complain about this comment
#75
Where did you get that figure of £927billion. LOL
"Government debt". What does that mean exactly? Does that include PFI debt? UK's total indebtedness is around £3 trillion. I have seen estimates that place it higher than that.
The £20billion per year from revenue raised from North Sea Oil would be a massive fiscal benefit to a small country like Scotland. It would equate for instance to a bonanaza of an annual about £220 billion to the UK economy; or in the words of the McCrone report "the Scottish economy with the expected oil production level would be one of the strogest economies in the world" and that "Scotland's real problem would be how to deal with its economic riches"
You'll remember Gavin McCrone. He produced this report for the UK Government who then suppressd it for thirty years. I wonder why(not)
Complain about this comment
#79, snecked
Yet again, total mince.
The £927 billion is the official UK government figure. Where is your £3 trillion figure from? Sources please.
And sources please for your £20 billion "raised from North Sea Oil". The largest amount of revenue from UK Oil & Gas production in 1 year is £12 billion. Unless you and your meringue know better.
Complain about this comment
#78,
My numbers come from the UK government. Where do yours come from.
If the UK is bankrupt, why does it still have a AAA credit rating?
Complain about this comment
#77,
I've read oldnat's post and it is interesting, no contention from me on the content, although I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the Scandinavian banking crisis.
If you're so sure of the facts then why not share them. Today's elephant in the room is the £300 billion UK government guarantee on RBS casino assets, without which RBS would have collapsed. What is it about the Nats that they can't bring themselves to ackowledge that the UK government saved RBS? Please advise me of the salient points you claim I am missing in your #77.
Complain about this comment
#76 ambi,
The £160 billion, even if we had not spent a penny of it over these last 40 years and it had matured into £280 billion, would still not cover the guarantees made by the UK government over the toxic debts of RBS.
re the sovereign wealth fund. The £280 billion is all spent. You may argue the rights and wrongs of this, but more than 98% of the UK's tax income comes from sources other than Oil & Gas production. The UK hardly needs to insure itself against the loss of less than 2% of its revenue, so why should it create a sovereign wealth fund around such a small proportion of its income?
Complain about this comment
81. bingowings87
"
My numbers come from the UK government. Where do yours come from.
If the UK is bankrupt, why does it still have a AAA credit rating?"
You seem confused in the way the gov manipulate the figures to suit there particular agenda by changing the rules like excluding PFI off the books and others.
This link taken from ONS numbers.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=509002&in_page_id=2
Heard of QE i.e prints more money to keep banks lending to each other and allows government to borrow making it look to the outside world that everything is a ok. Who decides the credit ratings? It wouldnt be those nice friendly bankers able to keep there 'assets' in good running order now eh.
Complain about this comment
82. bingowings87
"ackowledge that the UK government saved RBS"
Try following links provided and stop peddling nonsense.
http://franklyfrancophone.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/banking-on-an-independent-scotland/
Complain about this comment
#84,
So its the credit ratings agencies that are wrong? What a joke.
Re your link. Do you understand the difference between borrowing and repayments?
I have a £100k mortgage. I will make repayments of £200k to clear it over its term. I am in debt to the tune of £100k, not £200k.
All your link does is point out future payments the UK will have to make. There is no doubt that these are large sums. However the article neglects to mention that over the period that these sums fall due, the UK will collect many many trillions of tax revenue.
Complain about this comment
#85,
No need to follow your link. If you'd bothered reading this thread you would know a re-hashed version of it can be found at #19.
So if the UK government didn't save RBS, then who did? The fairies at the bottom of your garden?
Complain about this comment
The point is that RBS is also Nat West, Ulster Bank and huge number of other financial institutions in Holland and the USA for instance and is only about 16% Scottish. Why would a Scottish Government have any reason to save such an institution apart for the bits that were actually Scottish.
It was however imperative for the City of London to do so because of its status.
Actually as I've said before I'd have let it go bankrupt as US did with several of its banks. Over 90% of the loss would have been borne by international investers (spivs, gamblers and speculators).
I note they are all getting their money - eventually from us.
The money the Government invented and borrowed to throw into the banks would have been better used supporting business, industry, organisations and indiviuals who were inconvenienced by banking collapse.
Complain about this comment
87. bingowings87
"So if the UK government didn't save RBS, then who did?"
Who said that they have been saved?
Since they have been allowed to hide there extensive losses off the books to give the impression of liquidity so that the bonus culture can continue. ie. our banking is sound!
House prices in general are still 20 - 40% overvalued and when that negative equity happens soup kitchens will be the new town centre revival.
You'll be peddling that the Bank of England is English next.
Complain about this comment
#82 bingowings87
You can't have read the post particularly closely:
"First your £470 bn figure. In reality, "Britain pumped 66 billion pounds into the pair in 2008 and 2009 to hold an 83 percent stake in RBS and 41 percent of Lloyds." (source Reuters) Most of the oft quoted larger figures were, in fact, insurance. None of that was required, so the UK Government made a considerable profit from the premiums, with no payouts required..
So where did the £66 bn come from? The OECD Economic Outlook in 2009 puts it in perspective. In 2007, the UK (like Scotland had a comparatively small fiscal deficit). In 2008 and 2009, the UK borrowed more than anyone else. The banks were bailed out with borrowed money. Even you will understand that the massive reliance on the UK financial sector for raising public revenue, meant that the the UK taxpayer could no longer meet current expenditure - much less the additional costs of the bailout.
So, if we take 2007 as the date of the creation of an independent Scotland, then it would have had to do what the UK did - borrow the money."
You, like the poster oldnat was responding to, continue to quote inflated figures. The £300 billion is part of the..."oft quoted larger figures were, in fact, insurance. None of that was required, so the UK Government made a considerable profit from the premiums, with no payouts required.."
The UK government has guaranteed these assets, they have not had to pay out the money as yet i.e. the insurance policy.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS