So, Angus... do tell. Exactly whose cash is the UK 'begging' for at the moment? And if even the mighty US banking sector is in difficulties, why would any rational observer claim that size offers any protection whatsoever in respect of exposure?
All answers on a set of unionist blinkers please, to the usual address...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Lets be clear about this, if Scotland didn't have the future contributions of English tax payers behind it HBOS and RBS would be out of business today, much like the banks in Iceland.
An independent Scotland's choices would be the same as Iceland's - which country to sell its self to. ( The Icelandics have chosen Russia. )
It is now unlikely that a future English government would be happy to have a large amount of its citizens pension domiciled and administered in a foreign country. The EU has been shown to collapse at the first smell or cordite, and cannot be seen as a guarantor. This means an independent Scotland would lose most of its financial centre. ( Not necessarily a bad thing, the talent could be redeployed, but it does mean that those who wish to dissolve the UK need to work to achieve some of that redeployment before separation. )
I suspect this will put your cause back two decades, the time for a generation of voters who don't remember the next few years to gain the age of majority.
None of this is good, as it provides only economic selfish reason for Scotland to remain in the Union.
Hello there.
Let's indeed be clear. There's a big difference between liquidity and capitalisation. Liquidity requires the intervention of central banks, and is being pumped in globally. Capitalisation, or even nationalisation, is easier for a state to do irrespective as to its size.
It'll be interesting to see on what terms Iceland manages to borrow from Russia, although I note that the approach was made only after their government was turned down by Europe and the US. There's an interesting article on the BBC website here and in yesterdays FT about how Iceland got into its present state and the (surprisingly good) long term prospects which it still has. In terms of borrowing and the UK deficit financing currently being undertaken, while the borrowing may not be from Russia (although it may) - some of it is almost certainly going to come from the Gulf States and China, though.
It puzzles me why so many people seem to think there's virtue in size, or that the problems from financial interconnectivity, which present governmental arrangements did nothing to prevent, can somehow only be resolved by present structures. Given the economic links between Scotland and England, independent or not, there's no way the BoE, as lender of last resort, would have allowed any Scottish based bank to fail as a result of lack of liquidity. English businesses and individuals simply have too much riding on it.
It is now unlikely that a future English government would be happy to have a large amount of its citizens pension domiciled and administered in a foreign country.
Maybe so, but really, the English government can be as happy or as unhappy as it likes about this. Unless an English government were to reintroduce exchange controls [not a good plan], then businesses and consumers will remain free to borrow from and invest with whomsoever they see fit. As such, while it's too early to say what the political implications of this will be for any side of the argument, I think you're wide of the mark as regards your prophesy of doom for the Scottish financial sector.
Regards,
Richard
There seems to be a bizarre narrative being played out here.
Under what scenario would Scotland not have the backing of a Central Bank?
The plan, as I understand it, is to go from the Bank of England being our Central Bank to the ECB. When would we be losing the protection if we went from unionism to independence?
Small European countries with global companies have the backing of the ECB. Scotland would have the same deal so this whole "this proves Scotland can't be independent" nonsense is exactly that.
Richard - you answer requires the EU to continue and England to remain a part of it. That combination is very unlikely to be stable or continue. The ending of the British state would disproportionally remove a large amount of the left-wing, pro-EU opinion from Westminster.
The lesson of the last few weeks has been when it comes down to it its every country for itself.
Which is tough if your Iceland, as the bullying from Gordon Brown showed.
Richard - you answer requires the EU to continue and England to remain a part of it.
I don’t see how it does demand this. Can you elaborate?
That combination is very unlikely to be stable or continue. The ending of the British state would disproportionally remove a large amount of the left-wing, pro-EU opinion from Westminster.
Well, I no longer live in England, and South London may not be particularly representative in any case. However, I can’t say I’ve ever noticed any particular ill-will towards EU membership in England, no matter where I’ve gone.
It may suit some to argue that Scotland is particularly pro-EU and England somehow anti – I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.
Post a Comment